What do you mean by work in the statement, “Capitalism can work?”

EDIT: Just to be clear, I am asking what normative criteria you are using to assess the system. There is no non-moral objective notion of a system working without some ethical goal in mind

The path to a solution for journalism is a funding mechanism that is a mixture of quadratic funding by Zoë Hitzig, Glen Weyl and Vitalik Buterin and artistic freedom vouchers that Dean Baker proposed. These are mechanisms where the public directly decides what news sources receive public funding.

Quadratic funding: https://youtu.be/xwY0UAk14Rk

Artistic Freedom Vouchers: https://cepr.net/report/the-artistic-freedom-voucher-internet-age-alternative-to-copyrights/

“Now it is time to state the conditions under which private property and free contract will lead to an optimal allocation of resources… The institution of private property and free contract as we know it is modified to permit individuals to sell or mortgage their persons in return for present and/or future benefits” – Economist Carl Christ in US congressional testimony

“whether a free system will allow him to sell himself into slavery. I believe that it would” – Robert Nozick

@socialism

Dialetheism is the view that some contradictions (i.e. p and not-p) are true. The argument for this is based on the liar’s paradox:

This sentence is false.

If you follow the logic through, you get the conclusion that it is both true and false. It requires some changes to Frege-Russell-style classical logic to be coherent, but it allows one to solve almost all paradoxes in one philosophical move. For example, you can have naive set comprehension principles

This is not true. Workers are de facto responsible for using up the inputs to produce the outputs in the firm. By the tenet that legal and de facto responsibility should match, the workers should jointly get the positive and negative product of the firm (i.e. the property rights to the produced outputs and liabilities for the used-up inputs). Yet, the employer is who gets 100% of this whole product and workers as employees receive 0% @workreform

I am not redefining Capitalism. I am defining it the way capitalists do. Even in the idealized economic models of fully free market capitalism, capitalism is still wrong. Fully free market capitalism would still inherently violates workers’ inalienable rights.

Depends on what is meant by a free market.

Marx’s communism is not the only alternative to capitalism. There are market-based alternatives to capitalism as well

Vetting new workers can occur during the interview process.

It would depend on the particulars of your membership contract. The law would mandate loss of voting rights for fired and leaving workers.

Each worker coop would have a system of internal capital accounts giving each worker a recoupable claim on their investments into the firm. Workers can invest different amounts.

1 worker 1 vote is the principle. Non-voting preferred stock can be free floating property rights as is the case today

It depends on how the misinformation relates to the act. There can be cases where such an act is intentional

That sounds like a conspiracy. There are cases where the DFR party isn’t imputed legal responsibility because there isn’t enough evidence to determine who is DFR. It means we don’t know not that there isn’t a fact of the matter.

Natural resources are not fruits of labor. They should be socially owned. Each worker coop DFR for greenhouse gases would be liable to society

Markets ≠ capitalism

Even an idealized capitalist market economy found in economic models violates workers’ inalienable rights. The only way to fix that problem is Economic Democracy where all firms are structured as democratic worker coops @lemmyshitpost

What do you mean?

There is de facto responsibility (DFR) associated with any intentional action.

The mob boss situation is different from the car situation I was presenting The mob boss and his crony are both jointly DFR. The mob boss participated in the planning of the crime. Furthermore, the situation is a conspiracy.

Each party is DFR for their contribution to the tragedy of the commons at a bare minimum. DFR doesn’t subsume other notions of culpability

Not necessarily that you should get all the profit. You should get the whole (positive and negative) product. The workers would have to jointly buy or lease the equipment as they’re responsible for using up its services in production.

Banks should be structured as democratic worker coops.

The workers are jointly de facto responsible, the “who did the deed” sense of responsibility, for the output. The pure application of the tenet I mentioned is to purposeful results of deliberate actions

The smoker is de facto responsible. Other kinds of responsibility could extend some blame to the manufacturers etc. Those are not responsibility in the de facto sense.

For example, someone sells a car to a person that commits a crime using it; the car seller is not involved in the planning or execution of the crime. The car purchaser is solely de facto responsible for the crime. I am using responsibility in the narrow de facto sense.

The tragedy of the commons is not a purposeful result

Who is responsible for smoking remains the same. It is just the legal consequences associated with that action that change.

The kind of responsibility being discussed when someone neglects their duties is different from what is being discussed when we are talking about de facto responsibility.

A group of people is de facto responsible for a result if it is a purposeful result of their joint intentional actions. Production is a planned and deliberate process. Workers are de facto responsible

To adhere to this tenet, all firms would have to be structured as democratic worker coops. This would benefit society by making it more just. The basic idea of a miscarriage of justice is when someone else is held legally responsible for the deeds of another party such as when one party cooperates to commit a crime and another innocent party is held guilty of it. The employer-employee contract varies in degree, but it is also a miscarriage of justice.

What do you mean by benefit?

“Responsibility” has different senses. One must be clear which sense is being discussed. Who is legally culpable for an action is what I am talking about with “legal responsibility.” De facto responsibility is a descriptive concept independent of whether there even is a legal system to impute legal responsibility. Property and contract determine the legal consequence of being held culpable. De facto responsibility is about purposeful results of deliberate actions. Morals have an objective part

The negative product isn’t the employees’ problem. That is part of the problem. The workers are jointly de facto responsible for using up the inputs. By the tenet that legal and de facto responsibility should match, they should jointly appropriate the negative product and be the party that makes the contracts with the input suppliers. The workers are jointly de facto responsible for producing the output, so should jointly own 100% of the output. Workers have a right to the fruits of their labor

After capitalism,

1. All firms should be democratic worker coops. The legal system would recognize the inalienable right to workers’ control.
2. Land and natural resources should be collectively owned with revenue from private use of this collective property going out as a UBI. The atmosphere is included and any carbon fees are included.
3. Pools of collectivized capital democratically controlled by workers in member worker coops. Each worker coop leases all its capital from the pool

Common ownership of the means of production would provide a lot of revenue that could be used for healthcare. Therefore, without capitalism, this would be easier @news

That argument doesn’t work. It is harmful to the cause to make arguments that initially resonate but fall apart if you think about them.

Did you read my other comments in this thread? Still working on how to best present this idea. Feedback is helpful. The idea is that consent is not sufficient to transfer responsibility. No amount of consent can make someone else solely responsible for the workers’ actions (labor). An argument on that basis can show why a voluntary contract is wrong

In what I described, the differences are:

1. Buyers can compel current holders to transfer the asset to them if they pay enough. This reduces the power of capital holders.
2. All self-assessed prices of all capital are public
3. A large portion of the value of capital flows into a collective fund

@microblogmemes