Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   J Lou (jlou@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 13-Jul-2024 20:46:15 JST J Lou

   Does classical liberalism imply democracy?

   https://www.ellerman.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Reprint-EGP-Classical-Liberalism-Democracy.pdf

   "There is a fault line running through classical liberalism as to whether or not democratic self-governance is a necessary part of a liberal social order. The democratic and non-democratic strains of classical liberalism are both present today particularly in the United States. Many contemporary libertarians ... represent the non-democratic strain in their promotion of non-democratic sovereign city-states."

   @humanities

   • Embed this notice
     J Lou (jlou@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 13-Jul-2024 20:46:07 JST J Lou

     in reply to

     • sofia ☮️🏴

     @sofia Here is a short video of David Ellerman presenting the argument for abolishing wage labor :)

     https://youtu.be/c2UCqzH5wAQ

     In a healthy work organization, temporary workers should be a minority, so there isn't any practical problem in giving them voting rights. The logic of collaborating in an organization is one of commitment, so the majority of workers should have some commitment to the success of the organization. Regardless, Ellerman's argument entirely rules out the wage labor contract

   • Embed this notice
     sofia ☮️🏴 (sofia@chaos.social)'s status on Saturday, 13-Jul-2024 20:46:07 JST sofia ☮️🏴

     in reply to

     @jlou he does make quike a compelling case with the respsonsibility thing, i like it! i'm not quote sure yet how much that really gets you. but i'll have to think about that more.

     one thing it seems that i disagree with Ellerman (and most ancaps) is the whole "labour theory of property" thing, which i came up myself as a derogatory term.

     basically what you do to an unowned thing has subjective value, and there can be legitimate disagreement on whether you "mixed in your labour" or ruined it.

     lainy likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     J Lou (jlou@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 13-Jul-2024 20:46:08 JST J Lou

     in reply to

     • sofia ☮️🏴

     @sofia No modern democratic state has a basis in consent obviously. It's good point that considering the power imbalance implicit threats it isn't clear how you could genuinely consent to the state.

     Have you read the article I linked? You would find it interesting. Like philosophical anarchist critiques question legitimacy of state power, it demolishes the legitimacy of employer authority and invalidates the promises/contracts associated with wage labor/employer-employee relationships.

   • Embed this notice
     sofia ☮️🏴 (sofia@chaos.social)'s status on Saturday, 13-Jul-2024 20:46:08 JST sofia ☮️🏴

     in reply to

     @jlou ah, it seems like we agree on quite a bit already 😃.

     i haven't really read it yet. such large texts are pretty overwhelming to me. i hope soon i can just throw all those PDFs into an audio converter…

     as for wage labour, i think horizontal, cooperative arrangements are preferable bosses and would probably be predominant in a free society. but i do think there are valid reasons to not co-own things you are involved with, especially for temporary involvements.

     also: https://chaos.social/@sofia/110007231571662583

   • Embed this notice
     sofia ☮️🏴 (sofia@chaos.social)'s status on Saturday, 13-Jul-2024 20:46:11 JST sofia ☮️🏴

     in reply to

     @jlou i also like the point that Crispin Sartwell makes here: https://soundcloud.com/nonserviammedia/non-serviam-podcast-11-crispin

     given how powerful the state is, it is not clear that people could meaningfully consent to it. if group of highly armed mercenaries asks if they can come in your house to have tea, can we know you genuinely consented to their visit? now multiply the lethal force commanded by 10000, and assume the group also has taken over key social institutions like the legal and monetary system.

   • Embed this notice
     sofia ☮️🏴 (sofia@chaos.social)'s status on Saturday, 13-Jul-2024 20:46:12 JST sofia ☮️🏴

     in reply to

     @jlou but do you think any modern democratic states have a basis in consent?

     it seems that people are given no choice to reject being a subject of the state they are in.

     elections don't give you that choice either. and they don't let you choose who sits at the top of the ruling class, either. you only get a minuscule nudge into the mechanism that decides it.

     having a vote is not the same as having a choice.

   • Embed this notice
     J Lou (jlou@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 13-Jul-2024 20:46:13 JST J Lou

     in reply to

     • sofia ☮️🏴

     @sofia A necessary condition is consent yes.

     As far as I can tell, Ellerman is not an anarchist, but his democratic theory is still useful to anarchists and I would recommend reading it. Ellerman's notion of democracy isn't something that just applies to the state. For anarchists, democracy is the only legitmate way to make collective decisions when people have to come together in organizations and communities.

     It does makes more sense to consider anarchy the sovereignty of none.

   • Embed this notice
     sofia ☮️🏴 (sofia@chaos.social)'s status on Saturday, 13-Jul-2024 20:46:15 JST sofia ☮️🏴

     in reply to

     @jlou does he assume that democracy is automatically consensual?

     some, like David Graeber, seem to like to redefine democracy to basically mean anarchy, and that James Buchanan quote on the beginning seems to suggest a similar thining.

     though i think it makes more sense to characterize anarchy by the autonomy of all and souvereignty of none, rather than the souvereignty of all. there'd be noone to to be reigned over, after all.

   • Embed this notice
     lainy (lain@lain.com)'s status on Saturday, 13-Jul-2024 21:06:49 JST lainy

     in reply to

     • sofia ☮️🏴
     @sofia @jlou i don't find it that compelling. Rothbard also thinks that slavery contracts are invalid (because of the inalienability of conscience) and forced labor of any kind (even if you have a contract) is a rights violation. But he would say that it is valid to have a contract that provides for damages that you are liable for if you don't deliver on your side of the deal (i.e. don't show up for work). It also makes sense given that ellerman's system seems to have a huge disparity between me making a chair and then selling it to you vs you hiring me to build a chair, even when the result is the same and the only difference is time (plus interest).
   • Embed this notice
     lainy (lain@lain.com)'s status on Saturday, 13-Jul-2024 21:14:59 JST lainy

     in reply to

     • sofia ☮️🏴
     @sofia @jlou this does happen in IRL law, i.e. someone accidentally paints your house.
   • Embed this notice
     sofia ☮️🏴 (sofia@chaos.social)'s status on Saturday, 13-Jul-2024 21:15:01 JST sofia ☮️🏴

     in reply to

     @jlou it seems another case against "labour theory of property" is just that it's arbitrary to limit it to unowned thing. surely i could "mix my labour" in other people's property and spread my owner-juice in it. what labour metaphysics would prevent that? all i can think of is that it's inconvenient and magnifies the "labour is subjective" problem.

   • Embed this notice
     sofia ☮️🏴 (sofia@chaos.social)'s status on Saturday, 13-Jul-2024 21:15:02 JST sofia ☮️🏴

     in reply to

     @jlou putting bodily autonomy over property seems to address the encirclement problem of strong propertarianism (when the people owning the land around yours would decide not to let you leave anymore). but i think it would also prevent excesses of propertylessness. like if someone steals a wheelchair, i think that can be considered a violation of bodily autonomy, not just theft.

     of course in the middle there is still a lot of ambiguity and room for negotiation.

   • Embed this notice
     sofia ☮️🏴 (sofia@chaos.social)'s status on Saturday, 13-Jul-2024 21:15:04 JST sofia ☮️🏴

     in reply to

     @jlou i think, actually, property law should be based on contract. and the basic principle is just "i respect yours because you respect mine". so it is not an extension of "self-ownership" and instead bodily autonomy is basic right while property just a collective arrangement. that seems to mesh with Ellerman's points somehow.

   • Embed this notice
     lainy (lain@lain.com)'s status on Saturday, 13-Jul-2024 21:19:12 JST lainy

     in reply to

     • sofia ☮️🏴
     @sofia @jlou it does in most countries, usually not on the house but on some kind of restitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restitution_and_unjust_enrichment
   • Embed this notice
     sofia ☮️🏴 (sofia@chaos.social)'s status on Saturday, 13-Jul-2024 21:19:13 JST sofia ☮️🏴

     in reply to

     • lainy

     @lain @jlou but that doesn't give him any property claim over the house, does it?

   • Embed this notice
     sofia ☮️🏴 (sofia@chaos.social)'s status on Saturday, 13-Jul-2024 21:34:50 JST sofia ☮️🏴

     in reply to

     • lainy

     @lain @jlou yeah that's why i said it's not sure how much you can really infer from from "people cannot be rented". he says he's fine with people acting as if they were slaves, as long as there is no legal basis behind it. i'm not sure that any benign wage labour situation would need to legally treat people as rented.

     the chair example is interesting. i guess you could argue that the result isn't actually the same, but i can't really see the harm.

     lainy likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     sofia ☮️🏴 (sofia@chaos.social)'s status on Saturday, 13-Jul-2024 21:39:09 JST sofia ☮️🏴

     in reply to

     • lainy

     @lain @jlou okay, that's kinda fucked up. paying restitution for things done to my property that i haven't asked for.

     that doesn't sound like something Rothbardians/neo-Lockeans would support, but i guess i'm quite sure if Ellerman would 🤔.

     lainy likes this.