3 ms·

> The issue with "one worker one vote" is that it assumes an egalitarian world that couldn't be further from reality. That egalitarianism already exists in eve

> The issue with "one worker one vote" is that it assumes an egalitarian world that couldn't be further from reality. That egalitarianism already exists in every democracy in the world, and everyone just accepts it. The guy working the McDonald's counter gets the same vote as the PhD in Public Policy. It's a feature of democracy and people, historically, will sometimes complain about it but generally accept it as a necessary feature of democracy. I see no reason that, after a transition period, people wouldn't accept it as a necessary feature of democracy in the economic realm as well. Indeed, people working at existing worker cooperatives or employee owned businesses tend to laud and speak very highly of this feature of them. > How do you expect to prevent someone from starting a private business and structuring it in a non co-op manner? Ultimately, this can only be enforced with violence or the threat of violence, right? So now how do you convince people used to freedom to accept widescale authoritarian violence as being "worth it"? You are already limited in how you structure businesses and what sort of employment relationships you are legally allowed to enter in to. These are already enforced by law, which is - as you point out - already enforced by violence. Your choices for business structure (in the US) are sole prioritorship, partnership, LLC, S-corp, or C-corp. You may not hire an employee to work more than 40 hours with out paying them overtime. You may not ask your employees to put themselves in danger in violation of OSHA. You may not enter into an indentured servitude arrangement with someone. The types of employment contracts you are allowed to enter into, and the ways you are allowed to structure your holdings, are limited and structured by law. People already accept this arrangement as normal and acceptable. And they've already accepted changes in that arrangement as normal and acceptable. I see no reason that they could - again with a transition period - come to accept a new arrangement as normal and acceptable. Especially if it's one that's viewed as more fair, egalitarian, and beneficial to society as a whole. Most employees are already working in authoritarian contexts with a threat of violence hanging over them For many, many working people - losing their job comes with the threat of serious economic instability - including possible homelessness, hunger, or death. This system has the potential to drastically reduce that. It would limit the freedom of business owners and founders to drastically increase the freedom of the average worker. Seems like a net gain in freedom to me!

yucky 4y ago
> The guy working the McDonald's counter gets the same vote as the PhD in Public Policy. That is a very naive view of how elections work, wouldn't you say? > Your choices for business structure (in the US) are sole prioritorship, partnership, LLC, S-corp, or C-corp. You missed some. And really you can structure a business however you want as long as taxes get paid. > You may not hire an employee to work more than 40 hours with out paying them overtime. Salary workers everywhere are laughing. > Seems like a net gain in freedom to me! Forcing everyone at the point of a gun to give up any interests in starting a private enterprise putting their own talents to work - sounds like freedom to you? That explains a lot.
- dbingham 4y ago
  > That is a very naive view of how elections work, wouldn't you say? Pardon me, but I'm going to make a mild appeal to authority for a moment. I have run for office, served on a mayoral transition committee, worked closely with elected officials on a range of policy issues (many of which got implemented), and my family are professors in public administration at the top public affairs school in the US (specializing in mediation, dispute resolution, and collaborative democracy). So... uh... I feel pretty confident I know what I'm talking about when I say, that's not naive... that's exactly how elections work. > You missed some. Fair enough, B-corp, and Co-op are formal structures in other states. The ones I listed are the ones available in my state, but the point stands. I wasn't counting non-profit, since it's somewhat of a different thing. > And really you can structure a business however you want as long as taxes get paid. The LLC is an enormously flexible structure, but there are still limits. Either way, the point stands. There's no reason we couldn't change those limits. > Salary workers everywhere are laughing. Agreed, and that's a failure of our labor laws. But again, the point stands. There are structures, laws, and limits. The fact that capitalist businesses are constantly trying to find ways around them isn't an argue in favor of capitalism. > Forcing everyone at the point of a gun to give up any interests in starting a private enterprise putting their own talents to work - sounds like freedom to you? That explains a lot. It's not forcing them to give up any interest in starting a private enterprise. They're still perfectly free to start a private enterprise. The difference is that once they hire someone, they have to give that person an equal voice in the enterprise. And yes, that increases freedom. If you don't want to live in an authoritarian society, you have to give up the freedom to become a dictator. The dictator loses a freedom, but everyone else gains a lot more.

yucky 4y ago

> The guy working the McDonald's counter gets the same vote as the PhD in Public Policy. That is a very naive view of how elections work, wouldn't you say? > Your choices for business structure (in the US) are sole prioritorship, partnership, LLC, S-corp, or C-corp. You missed some. And really you can structure a business however you want as long as taxes get paid. > You may not hire an employee to work more than 40 hours with out paying them overtime. Salary workers everywhere are laughing. > Seems like a net gain in freedom to me! Forcing everyone at the point of a gun to give up any interests in starting a private enterprise putting their own talents to work - sounds like freedom to you? That explains a lot.

dbingham 4y ago
> That is a very naive view of how elections work, wouldn't you say? Pardon me, but I'm going to make a mild appeal to authority for a moment. I have run for office, served on a mayoral transition committee, worked closely with elected officials on a range of policy issues (many of which got implemented), and my family are professors in public administration at the top public affairs school in the US (specializing in mediation, dispute resolution, and collaborative democracy). So... uh... I feel pretty confident I know what I'm talking about when I say, that's not naive... that's exactly how elections work. > You missed some. Fair enough, B-corp, and Co-op are formal structures in other states. The ones I listed are the ones available in my state, but the point stands. I wasn't counting non-profit, since it's somewhat of a different thing. > And really you can structure a business however you want as long as taxes get paid. The LLC is an enormously flexible structure, but there are still limits. Either way, the point stands. There's no reason we couldn't change those limits. > Salary workers everywhere are laughing. Agreed, and that's a failure of our labor laws. But again, the point stands. There are structures, laws, and limits. The fact that capitalist businesses are constantly trying to find ways around them isn't an argue in favor of capitalism. > Forcing everyone at the point of a gun to give up any interests in starting a private enterprise putting their own talents to work - sounds like freedom to you? That explains a lot. It's not forcing them to give up any interest in starting a private enterprise. They're still perfectly free to start a private enterprise. The difference is that once they hire someone, they have to give that person an equal voice in the enterprise. And yes, that increases freedom. If you don't want to live in an authoritarian society, you have to give up the freedom to become a dictator. The dictator loses a freedom, but everyone else gains a lot more.