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

Canada

7185 readers
643 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
59
Canada’s ‘New Red Scare’ is profoundly undemocratic (canadiandimension.com)
submitted 1 week ago by NightOwl@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
59 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DarthJon@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] jlou@mastodon.social 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)
[–] DarthJon@lemmy.world 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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 6 days ago (1 children)

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 6 days ago (1 children)

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 6 days ago (1 children)

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 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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 6 days 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