You called centrists framing the debate about capitalism as one of consent vs. coercion a strawman then accepted the framing. Democratic theory requires consent. It just also requires consent to delegate ruling out consent to alienate management/governenance rights justified by inalienable rights.

Stable employee-owned firms:
https://www.nceo.org/articles/employee-ownership-100

A country that lets people sell voting rights wouldn’t be democratic for long. Does democracy not work? Is it undesirable?

@progressivepolitics

Not a strawman. There are tons of examples of framing the capitalism issue in terms of consent vs coercion. Nozick talks about capitalist acts between consenting adults etc.

Many worker coops and majority employee-owned ESOPs exist today. It works.

Democratic theory argues that contracts based on consent to alienate are inherently invalid. Since the employment system is on the “wrong” side, the original theory invalidating these contracts is ignored and forgotten

@progressivepolitics

Alienist vs inalienist refers to whether voting/control rights are transferable (alienable).

Better to say institutions based on consent to alienate vs delegate

Voting rights’ transferability with alienist systems implies inequality, but the core point is consent to alienate vs. delegate.

The employment contract is inherently an alienation contract. The workers give up and transfer the management rights to the employer and the employer manages in their own name

@progressivepolitics

Alienist refers to alienation of rights.

Alienist = completely give up and transfer control rights with the recipient ruling in their own name and not in the name of the people governed

Inalienist = revocable delegation where the people retain control rights with the delegates governing in the name of the people governed

Democratic theory draws a distinction between these 2 types of contracts, and invalidates the former

The diagram should say alienation vs. delegation

@progressivepolitics

Things are even more complicated than that due to the existence of liberal anti-capitalists that interpret the liberal theory of inalienable rights, which originated in the abolitionist, democratic and feminist movements, as also invalidating the employer-employee contract.

In other words, there is overlap between liberals and leftists as well

@progressivepolitics

I have a specific theory of rights in mind. This theory of rights proposes worker coops as the only rights respecting way of organizing labor relations based on the inalienability of responsibility. I’m not using rights in a general vague sense to refer to harm.

Worker coops view workers differently than capitalist firms. They see labor as a fixed factor e.g. worker coops cut wages not jobs during economic, downturns.

The theory of rights I have in mind can fit in a license @programming

Far left as in explicit restrictions on capitalist firms using the software without paying for it while still allowing full software freedom for worker coops, which don’t violate workers’ rights.

Copyfarleft should set up a whole family of licenses of varying strengths and its own alternative ideology from the FSF. The first principle is an almost complete rejection of permissive open source licenses as enabling capitalist free riding @programming

I wouldn’t say FSF is too ideological. They just don’t have a political strategy for how they will bring about the changes they desire. To really change things towards a new mode of production, you need a way for people in the new mode of production to earn a living. Also, their ideology is wrong in its lack of emphasis on software workers’ rights and the relations of production

If you look at property rights, the contrast is even stronger. The employer owns 100% of the property rights to the produced outputs and owes 100% of the liabilities for the used-up inputs. Meanwhile, workers qua employee receive 0% of both. This is despite their joint de facto responsibility for producing those results violating the basic principle of justice.

We need to move towards a copyfarleft model that considers the rights of both software users and developers unlike copyleft

Not all anti-capitalist ideologies are like that. Some of them have a clear vision of what to build: workplace democracy, social ownership of the means of production and common ownership of land and natural resources

Capitalism violates the workers’ inalienable rights and actually it violates property rights’ moral basis, getting the fruits of your labor. The typical firm’s employer appropriates 100% of the positive and negative fruits of the workers’ joint labor while the workers as employees receive 0% of the property rights (not talking about value) to the whole product. The basis I mentioned is based on a basic principle of justice of legal and de facto responsibility matching

What you are looking for is some sort of variant of quadratic funding. It is a mechanism that is specifically designed to overcome the free rider problem that public goods like FOSS suffer from. It solves it by matching private contributions to these public goods using a special formula that aligns incentives, so that everyone that knowingly benefits from a public good has an economic incentive to contribute to it because more contributors leads to a higher level of matching

I disagree that the 2 options are the only ones available. We could have a funding system with aspects of quadratic funding and artistic freedom vouchers, which allows the organizations developing the software to remain private organizations. Quadratic funding is basically a public matching fund for contributions to public goods such as OSS with a special matching formula that matches small contributions from many sponsors at a higher rater than more concentrated ones

As an anti-capitalist, I disagree. He conflated the role of the employer with the owner of the means of production, which led him to the mistaken conclusion that rejecting capitalist appropriation requires rejecting private property per se. It’s really the employment contract that enables capitalist appropriation and exploitative property relations. There are other reasons to oppose private ownership, but that is another story. The classical laborists’ criticisms are spot on not Marx’s

The trick is to edit out the mention of the lemmy community before you add the hashtags then lemmy doesn’t see the updated version of the post with the hash tags, but people on mastodon see the hash tags

What I meant was blacklisting certain destinations. It obviously wouldn’t prevent all malicious traffic

Would it be possible to allow exit nodes to blacklist specific kinds of traffic and somehow privately verify that the traffic is not one of the blacklisted kinds (zero knowledge proof perhaps sorry not a CS person)?