59
submitted 4 weeks ago by NightOwl@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] jlou@mastodon.social 4 points 4 weeks ago

Capitalism is indefensible from a libertarian perspective. A central libertarian tenet is that legal and de facto responsibility should match. However, the capitalist employer-employee contract inherently involves a violation of this tenet. The employer gets 100% of the legal responsibility for the positive and negative results of the enterprise. Despite workers' joint de facto responsibility for using up inputs to produce outputs, workers as employees get 0%

@canada

[-] DarthJon@lemmy.world -1 points 4 weeks ago

It's been a long time since I've read any of this stuff - do you have a reference for the claim about legal and de facto responsibility?

That being said, I would argue that they are not incompatible but rather that capitalism acts as a constraint on liberty. That being said, it is the economic system in which liberty is maximized relative to any other system. No doubt that's why it has persisted.

[-] Cruxifux@feddit.nl 1 points 4 weeks ago

Liberty and longevity are not directly related. History has in fact shown the opposite. Like… capitalism is only a few hundred years old at most, and has only existed in its current form since the 18th century. Compare that to systems of fuedalism, monarchism, places that have had oppressive regimes since conception like Saudi Arabia. Also look at how our current form of capitalism has subsisted largely on the backs of usee countries being bled and made to kneel by usar countries, which is arguably the largest contributor to its perceived longevity.

[-] DarthJon@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago

Sorry, by "persisted" I didn't mean to imply that it's the oldest. More that it is surviving where other systems have failed.

[-] jlou@mastodon.social 0 points 3 weeks ago

Article: https://www.ellerman.org/inalienable-rights-part-i-the-basic-argument/

Video: https://youtu.be/c2UCqzH5wAQ

Either one introduces the argument against capitalism based on the liberal principle of imputation.

Economic democracy, a market economy where worker coop is the only firm legal structure, maximizes liberty much better than capitalism

@canada

[-] DarthJon@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago

Interesting theory. Does this exist on any large scale anywhere in the world?

[-] jlou@mastodon.social 1 points 3 weeks ago
[-] DarthJon@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago

I understand that employee-owned companies exist (though I think it's rather telling that I haven't heard of any of them) but I thought this was a model for economic policy at the societal level. Those companies all exist within a capitalist economy.

[-] jlou@mastodon.social 0 points 3 weeks ago

The idea is to mandate worker coop structure on all firms.

It's not that telling. Without a worker coop mandate, there are collective action problems and market failures. It's harder for all the workers to cooperate to form a worker coop than an employer to hire up all the workers.

No society has a full worker coop mandate because the modern arguments for it were published in the 90s. Some countries do mandate some worker board representation and codetermination though
@canada

[-] DarthJon@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago

Mandating it doesn't seem to be consistent with individual liberty, though.

Forgive me for being pragmatic about this, but if this was such a good idea and consistent with the interests of the people, you wouldn't have to mandate it. This is how things would be done.

[-] jlou@mastodon.social 1 points 3 weeks ago

Political democracy also mandates legal non-transferability for voting rights. Would you allow people to sell or transfer their voting rights?

People prefer democratic firms: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/what-do-americans-want-from-private-government-experimental-evidence-demonstrates-that-americans-want-workplace-democracy/D9C1DBB6F95D9EEA35A34ABF016511F4

A mandate doesn't restrict any non-institutionally-described action as labor is de facto non-transferable. It only prevents fraudulently treating de facto responsible persons as legal non-responsible things.

Are we free when we can sell our freedom or when we can't even if we want to?

@canada

[-] DarthJon@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago

The only system compatible with full liberty is anarchy. But you stated that economic democracy is libertarian, and then proceeded to call for it to be mandated. Mandates are authoritarian, not libertarian.

[-] jlou@mastodon.social 1 points 3 weeks ago

Today's legal systems mandate that legal responsibility be non-transferable for crimes. The economic democracy position argues that legal responsibility should be generally non-transferable matching general non-transferability of de facto responsibility due to the principle of justice that legal and de facto responsibility should match. Not all mandates are authoritarian (e.g. a mandate that one must respect others' personal property). Employment violates workers' property rights

@canada

this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2024
59 points (83.9% liked)

Canada

7224 readers
567 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS