this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2024

1306 points (99.5% liked)

Technology

59317 readers

4562 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

1306

Bethesda Game Studios workers have unionized (www.theverge.com)

submitted 3 months ago by some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org to c/technology@lemmy.world

93 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Consent doesn’t transfer responsibility.

I agree.

Ancaps see the logic of exit, but ignore the dual logic of commitment and voice e.g. democracy and social property

Ancaps delegate this to free will.

Including

... but non-market mechanisms and mutual aid should flourish within groups.

Only how do you form a group with its resources without property of individuals as its components?

[–] jlou@mastodon.social 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

So you agree that the employer-employee contract must be abolished due to it violating workers' inalienable right to workplace democracy?

The way collective property works is that each group member that possesses collective property self-assess and declares the price they would be willing to turn over the possession to another group member. Then, they pay a percentage fee on this self-assessed price to the group. Groups democratically decide what to do with the collective funds @technology

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

So you agree that the employer-employee contract must be abolished due to it violating workers’ inalienable right to workplace democracy?

No, just that you can't offload responsibility via contract. I agree though that contract under clear pressure is negligible.

The way collective property works is that each group member that possesses collective property self-assess and declares the price they would be willing to turn over the possession to another group member. Then, they pay a percentage fee on this self-assessed price to the group. Groups democratically decide what to do with the collective funds

So a group can make the fee zero and thus have a usual ancap community?

[–] jlou@mastodon.social 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The employment contract is such a contract. It involves a legal transfer of legal responsibility for the positive and negative results of production from the employees to the solely the employer. However, there is no corresponding de facto transfer of de facto responsibility. The contract is unfulfillable.

Groups set exit fees for transferring out community value. They can lower the exit fees for mutually-recognized groups, and exclude "groups" with no public goods funding
@technology

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The employment contract is such a contract. It involves a legal transfer of legal responsibility for the positive and negative results of production from the employees to the solely the employer. However, there is no corresponding de facto transfer of de facto responsibility. The contract is unfulfillable.

Funny that I have never looked at it from this particular point.

Groups set exit fees for transferring out community value. They can lower the exit fees for mutually-recognized groups, and exclude “groups” with no public goods funding

Can one person be a group?

[–] jlou@mastodon.social 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

1 individual can be a part of many groups. Being a part of zero groups would make people pay steep exit fees for every economic transaction with you and you wouldn't be able to access any group collective property, group currencies or receive mutual aid that these groups provide. There would be strong economic incentives to participate in these groups. Since all firms would be mandated to be worker coops, these groups would be a new way to provide startup capital to new firms

@technology

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

OK, the economical parts have more constraints than ancap, but the whole idea is similar and understandable.

What about violence? If a person commits murder or theft, how do the rest deal with it?

If there's an argument over something, how does it get resolved?

Same question as "how do law enforcement and courts work in ancap", only not for ancap.

[–] jlou@mastodon.social 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Abolishing the employment contract isn't more constraints than ancap. It is part of legitimate contracts' non-fraudulent nature.

Groups enable the large-scale cooperation needed for an ordered stateless society.

Groups could have judicial systems. Judicial agreements could exist between groups. Thieves would pay damages to the victim. For serious crimes, there could be expulsion from group(s) and blocklists

For arguments, groups could subsidize agreement across social distance

@technology

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Abolishing the employment contract isn’t more constraints than ancap. It is part of legitimate contracts’ non-fraudulent nature.

I meant in general - two sides in ancap may voluntarily decide whatever concerns them both via any mechanism they come up with, but if that violates the rights of others, the others of course are not obligated by it in any way, or if it transfers responsibility in this case, others are not obligated to follow that transfer.

Here we have something less relative and more static.

Groups could have judicial systems. Judicial agreements could exist between groups. Thieves would pay damages to the victim. For serious crimes, there could be expulsion from group(s) and blocklists

OK. This is as bad or as good an answer as for ancap, because it's the same answer.

In general what you describe is technically a subset of ancap+panarchy, which is what I meant by more constraints.

[–] jlou@mastodon.social 1 points 3 months ago

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