Thanks for the feedback. Will try to keep that in mind when coming up with post titles

@solarpunk

I have never found a meme that suitably emphasizes the responsibility aspect. Responsibility plays an essential role in the underlying argument due to the peculiarity that responsibility can’t be transferred from person to person even with consent. You find memes about workers deserving the entire value of their labor, but none that emphasize responsibility and workers’ property rights to the literal produced outputs and liabilities for the used-up inputs rather than just their value

@solarpunk

The entire video isn’t required to understand the argument. The first 15 minutes are sufficient

This argument probably can be explained in a 4 panel comic.

Probably, something like:
1 side: an employer and employee cooperating to commit a crime, which results in both of them going to jail.
Other side: an employer and employee cooperating to produce a widget resulting in the employer solely appropriating 100% of the property rights to the widget and liabilities for used-up inputs

@solarpunk

Instead of a single currency, we should have many with each currency belonging to a democratic venture commune, an association of worker coops that manages a pool of commonly-owned capital. This currency would get its value by being used to purchase access to the commune’s commonly-owned means of production. It would also have built in transfer and exit fees for extracting value outside of the commune. The value of these fees could be spent by the commune on public goods
@asksolarpunk

The root of the loss of community that everyone feels is capitalism’s total emphasis on institutional logics of exit that make everything extremely transactional while completely ignoring the dual institutional logic of commitment, cooperation and voice. Community emphasizes the latter. We need communities based around shared property, mutual aid and collective action. Incidentally, having such communities could help solve some public goods problems in a non-state manner and be more egalitarian

A worker coop is a firm. A pure market is trade between people that have no direct social ties prior.

Weyl’s mechanisms become relevant in larger communities where Elinor Ostrom’s method doesn’t work as well. Currencies can be community oriented by having build in fees that go into the community fund that scale with social distance. They can emphasize a logic of commitment

Capitalism emphasizes the logic of exit to the exclusion of the logic of commitment. This is dehumanizing

Yeah, we are using “community” differently. I agree that with strong ties this would be irrelevant. There are degrees of how coordinated actors can be. Capitalism misses that with its false dichotomy of total economic planning as in the firm, and full autonomous action as in the market. What we want is a gradient

The spectrum is:

pure market → large-scale communities with collective ownership using PCO → Ostrom-style CPR → firms

Here is the voucher stuff:

https://www.radicalxchange.org/media/blog/plural-money-socially-provided-goods-and-the-principal-agent-problem/

@anarchism

I guess that’s fair for the situations where she says conventional models aren’t useful.

We don’t have to treat the described institutions in the article I linked as one-size fits all model, but rather as an example of solutions that make sense under a certain set of conditions for large-scale communities.

Glen Weyl is aware of Elinor Ostrom’s work:
https://www.radicalxchange.org/media/blog/2019-01-14-j73qnz/

@anarchism

It’s all good. You sent me a great article that reignited my desire to a deep dive on Elinor Ostrom and raised good points

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

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

@anarchism

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

https://slrpnk.net/post/11712599