jlou
Article: https://www.ellerman.org/inalienable-rights-part-i-the-basic-argument/
Video: https://youtu.be/c2UCqzH5wAQ
Either one introduces the argument against capitalism based on the liberal principle of imputation.
Economic democracy, a market economy where worker coop is the only firm legal structure, maximizes liberty much better than capitalism
Capitalism is indefensible from a libertarian perspective. A central libertarian tenet is that legal and de facto responsibility should match. However, the capitalist employer-employee contract inherently involves a violation of this tenet. The employer gets 100% of the legal responsibility for the positive and negative results of the enterprise. Despite workers' joint de facto responsibility for using up inputs to produce outputs, workers as employees get 0%
There is information in it. Namely, that it itself is false. It is fully grammatical. Similar sentence are obviously valid such as:
This sentence has five words.
That is a true valid grammatical sentence.
I didn't invent the paradox. Philosophers have been contemplating this paradox for a long time.
The problem it gestures at is very deep and similar paradoxes showed up in the foundations of mathematics in the 20th century. It can't be dismissed easily.
The arguments for worker coops are based on liberal economics (https://www.ellerman.org/inalienable-rights-part-i-the-basic-argument/). To summarize, the workers are jointly de facto responsible for using up inputs to produce outputs, so by the norm that legal and de facto responsibility should match, they should be assigned the whole product of the firm. Anything else would be unjust.
Equal votes doesn't mean equal pay. Workers can divide the pie however they prefer. In existing worker coops, not everyone gets paid the same.
The problem with capitalism is the non-cooperative firms that exist. A democratic economy is an economy where all firms are mandated to be worker cooperatives
Democracy is the idea that positive control rights over an organization should be assigned to the party governed in or by that organization. This concept is applicable in an economic context. For example, the workers in a firm are governed by management, so democracy implies that the managers be ultimately accountable to the entire body of workers in that firm making the firm a worker co-op.
Capitalism has workers do 100% of the work, but employers receive 100% of the whole product
There are other alternatives like economic democracy. Capitalism vs socialism is a false dichotomy
That sentence has a presupposition. The sentence I used can be fully formalized in a logic with predicates for knowledge of an entity and truth
Being logical doesn't imply knowing every true sentence.
Also, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knower_paradox
Marxism is not the only anti-capitalist critique. There are more modern non-Marxist critiques of capitalism such as the theory of inalienable rights. See: https://www.ellerman.org/inalienable-rights-part-i-the-basic-argument/
The statement is only generates a contradiction if there is an omniscient being. If there are no omniscient beings, it is consistent.
The idea is that it is impossible for a being to both know and not know something. Knowable is not the same as known to a particular being
@atheistmemes