The coin flip is inherently part of policy, and it is bad policy to decide on policies with a coin flip

Inalienable rights are moral rights that can’t be given up or transferred. It doesn’t mean that the legal system can’t fail to enforce the right such as by legally treating it as alienable like capitalism does in the employment contract. If the legal system doesn’t grant it, that’s a bad legal system.

Moral concepts have an objective sense that is unknowable.

@politicalmemes

You can’t get good policy without democracy because democracy is part of all good policy. Non-democracy violates inalienable rights, which makes it inherently bad policy

@politicalmemes

2/2

If a worker voluntarily commits a crime for their employer, that is still inalienably their decision. Yes, the employer told them to do it, and that gave them a reason to do it, but having a reason doesn’t absolve them of guilt or responsibility for their actions

@technology

1/2

A group of people is de facto responsible for a result if it is a purposeful result of their intentional joint actions. The pure application of the norm that legal and de facto responsibility match is to deliberate actions. The workers joint actions that use up inputs to produce outputs are planned and deliberate. They meet the criteria for being premeditated. The workers are not under duress in normal work, and consent to the employer-employee contract.

@technology

I’m not a socialist because I think markets are useful and haven’t seen a planned economy proposal that seemed plausible. Worker co-ops and unions aren’t socialism in 20th century sense because they are technically compatible with markets and private property.

An economic democracy is a market economy where all firms are worker co-ops, so I was speaking about managers in a worker co-op

@technology

I did my part in trying to elect Harris.

What is the point in moderating if even after moderating Democrats are perceived as too left-wing?

@politicalmemes

*Perceived* leftward shift. The Democrats aren’t that left wing in the first place. If democrats are going to be perceived as too left wing regardless of reality, they might as well take on some left-wing policies, so they can at least bribe voters with stuff that obviously and immediately makes things better for them like UBI.

If you’re suggesting throw LGBTQ people under the bus, that is just wrong. What would we be fighting for at that point?

@politicalmemes

Is there any evidence to support the claim that ultra-progressives caused Harris to lose?

@politicalmemes

5/5

Creating or joining a worker coop is a much more actionable political step that someone could take then completely transforming the government. If the worker coop movement grows big enough, it could acquire the economic power to purchase it own lobbyists to influence the political process to hopefully pass those reforms

4/5

It is irrelevant that some workers don’t want to be held responsible for the positive and negative results of their actions (the whole result of production). Responsibility can’t be transferred even with consent. If an employer-employee cooperate to commit a crime, both are responsible. This argument is establishes an inalienable right i.e. a right that can’t be given up or transferred even with consent like political voting rights today

3/5
The idea that the employer is production’s whole result’s just appropriator due to the risk they bear is tautological and circular reasoning. Risk, in this case, refers to bearing the liabilities for used-up inputs, which is production’s whole result’s negative component. It ignores the joint de facto responsibility of workers in the firm for using up inputs to produce. By the norm of legal and de facto responsibility matching, workers should get the whole result of production

2/5

The empirical evidence I have seen on worker coops and employee-owned companies seems to suggest that worker-run companies are slightly more productive.

I oppose socialism as I think markets are useful. I advocate economic democracy

In an economic democracy, the employer-employee contract is abolished, so workers automatically legally get voting rights over management upon joining a firm.

1/5

Worker coops can have managers. Managers’ interests can be aligned with the long term interests of the firm by giving them non-voting preferred shares as part of their compensation. Managers will make sure workers they are managing perform. The difference is that these managers are ultimately accountable to the entire body of workers and are thus their delegates.

Profits/wages don’t have to be divided equally among workers.

I’m going to use multiple toots since I’m on Mastodon

Your reforms sound good, but aren’t pragmatic. Today’s system requires you to have lobbyists to push an agenda through. Who is going to fund the lobbyists to make these reforms happen.

Also, even in an ideal capitalism, there is still an injustice at the heart of the system. The employer-employee contract violates the tenet of legal and de facto responsibility matching. The workers are jointly de facto responsible for production, but employer is held solely legally responsible.

@technology

Any company that receives government subsidies or is bailed out because it’s too big too fail or whatever the reason should be mandated to become a worker coop

@politics

The founders can hold more or all non-voting preferred stock in the worker coop to represent their larger stake and investment. They can also use a separate corporation, which only the founders own, with no employees to hold their capital and then lease it the worker coop

@politics

It would definitely be easier in an economy where this was the only way of doing things.

I am not a lawyer.

Based on the underlying economic theory and ethical arguments for worker coops/employee-owned companies, what you could do in such a situation is make a separate legal entity for the worker coop, and then lease the assets of the current legal entity to the worker coop. You and your partner maintain exclusive ownership of the original legal entity

@politics

The statement being false implies that it is true, which is why this statement is contradictory if there are any omniscient beings

@atheistmemes

The statement is only generates a contradiction if there is an omniscient being. If there are no omniscient beings, it is consistent.

The idea is that it is impossible for a being to both know and not know something. Knowable is not the same as known to a particular being

@atheistmemes

https://www.usworker.coop/en/

@politicalmemes