MikeDunnAuthorOct 11
Show threadJ LouOct 11

@MikeDunnAuthor

The anti-capitalist argument ought to be to draw a distinction between consent to delegate and consent to alienate. The latter is invalid as David Ellerman argues. The usual leftist argument that capitalist employment is coercive just isn’t persuasive.

Show threadFerret
@J Lou Can you describe the distinction?
Oct 11 at 5:08pmWeb
Show threadJ LouOct 11

@ferret

Examples of consent to delegate include a lawyer representing you and democratic worker cooperatives, while consent to alienate could be an employer-employee contract, slavery, and non-democratic governance.

The distinction lies in whether governing institutions or organizations are accountable to those governed and whether the governed can revoke and recall the governors/managers as their delegates. This comes from David Ellerman’s work on inalienable rights.

https://www.ellerman.org/inalienable-rights-part-i-the-basic-argument/

Inalienable Rights: Part I The Basic Argument

What is the inalienable rights theory that descends from the Reformation through the Enlightenment and that answers the classical apologies for slavery and autocracy based on implicit or explicit voluntary contracts?

DAVID ELLERMAN
Show threadCyOct 11
What I argue is that consent doesn't matter. If someone fleeces you and leaves you begging in the street, I'm not going to say "Well you chose your fate, filthy beggar." I don't care if you signed the contract with a smile from ear to ear, thinking you were going to make it big. You're still being oppressed, and the wealthy fuck still needs to be taken down before he hurts someone else in another "consensual" deal.

CC: @[email protected]