Ok I read the article you linked I agree it is a good article, but it isn't really saying that it is a full alternative to what is proposed in the article I linked. It specifically notes in the end that:
"She highlights how conventional models may be useful for predicting behaviour of large scale CPRs."
I was aware of Elinor Ostrom's work before. I'm definitely excited to do a deep dive into it.
The model described in the article I linked could be very useful in those cases @anarchism
If you read their work, they emphasize that the residual rights should belong to a democratic community. The whole idea is to share wealth with communities that help generate it and collectivize property at the community level rather than capitalists owning it. The funds are for facilitating cooperation.
Ancaps are opposed to common ownership.
What does AI have to do with ancap.
Your statement is a genetic logical fallacy.
Describe why you disagree with the proposed structure
While there should be highly coordinated groups like organizations, I think there should be something in between an organization and completely uncoordinated atomized autonomous action. These in-between groups should subsidize cooperation across social distance and difference to make people cooperate and keep the group from disintegrating.
With respect to managing collective property, I have made a post linking an article that I think would be of interest
The ideology is often implicit in how the model is explained. For example, 2 simple facts that go unmentioned.
I would recommend checking out David Ellerman. He shows that workers get 0% the property rights to what they produce positive and negative violating the principle that legal and de facto responsibility should match @sciencememes
Marx ≠ anti-capitalism
There are other modern anti-capitalist argument derived from the classical laborists such as Proudhon.
Markets ≠ capitalism
In postcapitalism, we can use markets where appropriate. We have practical examples of non-capitalist firms with worker coops and 100% ESOPs.
There are theoretical mechanisms for collective ownership that can be shown to be efficient like COST.
There are theoretical non-market democratic public goods funding mechanisms
The ancap vision lacks necessities for stable stateless societies besides the dual logics of exit and commitment. By having some rights be non-transferable, it prevents them from accumulating and concentrating maintaining decentralization and preventing collusion to form a state. There is no middle ground, in the ancap vision, between full economic planning of the firm and completely uncoordinated atomized individuals in the market. The groups I describe provide that.
@technology
Economics treats metaphors as deep truths while treating simple facts as superficial. An example of this is in presentations of MP theory where the pie metaphor is emphasized while the actual structure of property rights and liabilities is ignored and obfuscated @science_memes
Sure, in theory, that is what it should be about. In practice, many economists bias the theories they develop to make sure the conclude in favor of their own ideological biases. Often, metaphors are treated as deep truths while simple facts are treated as superficial and ignored or even obfuscated due to their ideological implications if they were plainly stated @science_memes
Capitalism is a system of property relations and labor relations. It is conceivable to not have those property relations and labor relations in a firm. However, a corporation doesn't do that as the employer solely appropriates the entire positive and negative result of production i.e. the property rights to the produced outputs and liabilities for the used-up inputs. In a worker coop, the workers jointly appropriate the fruits of their labor. Capitalist property relations aren't present @memes
Huh, there are worker coops and 100% ESOPs as alternatives to capitalism that can exist within capitalism @memes
As I mentioned in my other comment, there are situations that Ostrom acknowledges where conventional models make sense. We can just take the proposal to be addressing those sorts of larger-scale low interaction communities where agents are relatively autonomous
Your second objection is acknowledged in the article, and the authors actually address it in another article. A solution is not to use money, but rather non-trasnsferable vouchers
@anarchism