Worker co-ops don’t necessarily involve the workers owning the means of production as worker cooperatives can lease means of production from third parties. Who owns the means of production doesn’t determine which legal party is the firm. The firm is a contractual role determined by the direction of the hiring contracts.
A market economy where all firms are legally mandated to be worker co-ops is not capitalism
A country where worker coops aren’t legally mandated is illiberal because it violates workers’ inalienable rights. It denies workers’ private property rights over the positive and negative fruits of their labor.
The government is already involved in the legal structure of firms, so I don’t see how a worker co-op mandate could be considered as more government involvement. It seems to me like different government involvement
A country where worker coops aren’t legally mandated is illiberal because it violates workers’ inalienable rights. It denies workers’ private property rights over the positive and negative fruits of their labor.
That’s not true. Workers also have a right to exchange their labor for a paycheck. That’s what employment is, you exchange your rights to the fruits of your labor for a steady paycheck. That way you don’t have to worry if the fruits of your labor becomes less valuable, you only have to worry about the paycheck.
If workers truly want to own the entirety of the fruits of their labor, they can start their own business. That they don’t want that level of risk is why we have a separation between owners and employees.
An inalienable right is one that can’t be given up or transferred even with consent. This is because the right is tied to the person’s de facto personhood. Like political voting rights, workers’ right to appropriate the fruits of their labor is inalienable. Workers can’t exchange their labor for a paycheck because, at a non-institutional level, labor is de facto non-transferable even with consent. What really happens is that inputs are transferred to workers
If workers change their mind about the arrangement, they can break their contract w/ no repercussions. The employer only has a right to the fruit of the labor they paid for, nothing more. Since the agreement is always revokable, there’s no violation here.
It’s the same idea as w/ slavery. You can’t sell yourself (or anyone else) into slavery, but you can agree to unfair labor terms, but you can always break your end of the contract w/o repercussions.
If the employer has the legal right to appropriate the positive and negative fruits of their labor, then the workers have legally alienated their right to appropriate the positive and negative fruits of their labor to the employer violating their inalienable rights. The workers have to first jointly appropriate the positive and negative fruits of their labor. This appropriation essentially implies a worker co-op mandate
Worker co-ops don’t necessarily involve the workers owning the means of production as worker cooperatives can lease means of production from third parties. Who owns the means of production doesn’t determine which legal party is the firm. The firm is a contractual role determined by the direction of the hiring contracts.
A market economy where all firms are legally mandated to be worker co-ops is not capitalism
@noncredibledefense
Sure, but one where all firms happen to be worker co-ops is. The difference is how much the government gets involved.
A country where worker coops aren’t legally mandated is illiberal because it violates workers’ inalienable rights. It denies workers’ private property rights over the positive and negative fruits of their labor.
The government is already involved in the legal structure of firms, so I don’t see how a worker co-op mandate could be considered as more government involvement. It seems to me like different government involvement
@noncredibledefense
That’s not true. Workers also have a right to exchange their labor for a paycheck. That’s what employment is, you exchange your rights to the fruits of your labor for a steady paycheck. That way you don’t have to worry if the fruits of your labor becomes less valuable, you only have to worry about the paycheck.
If workers truly want to own the entirety of the fruits of their labor, they can start their own business. That they don’t want that level of risk is why we have a separation between owners and employees.
An inalienable right is one that can’t be given up or transferred even with consent. This is because the right is tied to the person’s de facto personhood. Like political voting rights, workers’ right to appropriate the fruits of their labor is inalienable. Workers can’t exchange their labor for a paycheck because, at a non-institutional level, labor is de facto non-transferable even with consent. What really happens is that inputs are transferred to workers
@noncredibledefense
If workers change their mind about the arrangement, they can break their contract w/ no repercussions. The employer only has a right to the fruit of the labor they paid for, nothing more. Since the agreement is always revokable, there’s no violation here.
It’s the same idea as w/ slavery. You can’t sell yourself (or anyone else) into slavery, but you can agree to unfair labor terms, but you can always break your end of the contract w/o repercussions.
If the employer has the legal right to appropriate the positive and negative fruits of their labor, then the workers have legally alienated their right to appropriate the positive and negative fruits of their labor to the employer violating their inalienable rights. The workers have to first jointly appropriate the positive and negative fruits of their labor. This appropriation essentially implies a worker co-op mandate
@noncredibledefense