Capitalism’s defining institutions are

1. The employer-employee contract
2. Private ownership of the means of production
3. Private property in land

The alternative to capitalism I propose, Georgist economic democracy, abolishes 1 and 3. 2 continues formally but there is widespread collective ownership of the means of production. Markets continue to exist to help coordinate production and allocate resources. Many defenders of capitalism incorrectly conflate capitalism with markets @general

What do you mean by capitalism? @general

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

Perhaps, but there isn’t a good reason to place such a restriction on worker co-ops. Worker co-ops shouldn’t be forced to buy the entire thing when a segment of its services would do.

Liberals as a group tend to support capitalism. Liberalism as a political philosophy can have implications that claimed adherents don’t endorse. After mapping out all the logical implications of liberal principles, it becomes clear that coherent liberalism is anti-capitalist @asklemmy

deleted by creator

Worker co-ops don’t necessarily have full worker ownership of the means of production because a worker coop can lease means of production from a third party. It is not socialist. Nor do I mean to suggest it is capitalist. It can’t be capitalism as it has no capitalists as you correctly point out. Since you recognize that it is technically correct to say a worker co-op market economy has private property, you recognize

Capitalism ≠ private property @asklemmy

When I said capitalists there I meant liberal defenders of capitalism.

A market economy of worker coops has private property, so can’t be socialist. Market socialism is a misnomer and unnecessarily associates with a label people already have preconceived notions about @asklemmy

The normative basis of private property, which capitalists claim to adhere to, is people’s inalienable right to appropriate the positive and negative fruits of their labor. Capitalism routinely violates this principle in the employment contract. Satisfying the principles of private property would require that all firms be worker cooperatives. The principles of liberalism imply anti-capitalism. It is entirely compatible to be a liberal and an anti-capitalist @asklemmy

deleted by creator

Many liberals are anti-worker, but the political philosophy of liberalism is not inherently anti-worker. Liberal anti-capitalists like David Ellerman illustrate this using liberal principles of justice to argue for a universal inalienable right to workers’ self-management and abolition of the employer-employee relationship @asklemmy

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

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

Being anti-capitalist doesn’t immediately imply being a communist. There are other alternatives to capitalism such as Economic Democracy.

This is also a straw man fallacy

I disagree. There are plenty of examples of liberal anti-capitalists such as David Ellerman

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