@jlou Not just the employment contract but the housing rental contract too. Abolish jobs and you still have to abolish rent, else the landowners will eventually own all the resource flows.
Sure, Georgism. But Georgism has its own problems. Namely, it's institutionally regulated and susceptible of regulatory capture.
@magitweeter Landlords violate people’s rights in a different way. Landlords claim ownership of that which isn’t the fruits of anyone’s labor, but the justification for property is getting the positive and negative fruits of your labor. They are essentially appropriating what should be common value.
Your system allows people to just buy voting rights. Georgism, at least, blocks that.
such a contract would be invalid and unenforceable.
@jlou That sounds like a violation of anonymity.
(In the social choice sense: the system does not care who's casting each vote. All voters are treated the same. Shuffle which ballots come from which voters and the outcome remains the same.)
@jlou Because a lack of anonymity entails a power disparity. Power disparity can be abused, which goes against the goal of political equality if there is such a goal. What's the upside for the underweighted individuals to consent to such a vote?
Another concern is that the institution that sets the weights can be captured and thereby distort the vote in favor of private interests.
“Because a lack of anonymity entails a power disparity.”
Not necessarily. Groups that are economically coordinated have power over individuals. This voting system considers economic coordination. Two coordinated agents with shared economic interests voting is morally more like one person voting, unlike two completely atomized agents.
“Another concern is that the institution that sets the weights can be captured.”
Sure, we’d have to have mitigations against this potential attack.
@jlou You're talking about a weighted voting system. When all individuals are not equally weighted, some are weighted lower relative to the others, hence “underweighted”.
That the weights within the voting system are intended to compensate disparities outside the voting system is a separate matter.
@magitweeter it’s not weighting individuals. It’s across pairs of individuals. In quadratic voting this looks like whether the votes across the pair, person a and b, are counted as either
1. sqrt(a) + sqrt(b)
2. sqrt(a + b)
3. something in between
Basically, we down weight pairs that are coordinated. Most people will have roughly equal voting power because most people will only have some assets in common with other people, and there will be people that have no assets in common with.
Having one organization in common wouldn’t cause significant down-weighting. The only way to get significant down-weighting is if the pair has all organizations and assets in common. There would be no such thing as small business owners because the employment contract would be abolished, voting shares would always belong to the workers, and all firms would be structured as democratic worker co-ops. Landlords wouldn’t exist either because land would be commonly-owned.
I thought we agreed on that. I was showing the flaw in the consent-based position by pointing out vote selling.
The claim is that all employment contracts are non-consensual. I gave an example of a well-off software engineer employee. It doesn’t seem non-consensual. If all workers receive a UBI, they have alternatives, so even if we accept the work or starve argument, solving the problem doesn’t mean abolishing capitalism.
You need inalienable rights to rule out capitalism
@jlou In the long run i think we don't have much material disagreement.
Even ethically, my theory of consent may just be equivalent to your theory of inalienable rights. “Rights may be alienated if and only if the holder's consent is not violated” is almost tautological.
Our only real disagreement may be that my notion of consent seems wider and stronger than yours. For example, you neglect the role of specificity and information, and you neglect how democratic institutions require consent.
Inalienable rights, as opposed to alienable rights, are rights that can’t be given up or transferred even with fully-informed consent. Inalienable rights are a subset of rights not just a synonym of human rights just to be clear.
Where did I disagree with democratic institutions requiring consent? Consent is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition for validity of an arrangement.
I didn’t claim non-consensual institutions are democratic as far as I’m aware. Non-democratic institutions like employment contracts can be consensual. Full consent doesn’t mean perfect information. Some information should be private unless it relates to the consent. It seems more straightforward to argue in terms of inalienable rights rather than escalating standards of consent until morally ruled-out institutions are no longer seen as voluntary.
@jlou The gold standard for consent requires perfect information in the game-theoretic sense. You can't consent to playing a game unless you know what game you're playing. In other words, you don't consent to an association unless you can reasonably expect that your counterparts want to cooperate with you, not just abuse your goodwill.
This looks to you like “escalating” standards of consent because your notion of consent was weaker and narrower than mine to begin with.
so no privacy? That seems incompatible with consent for data privacy.
I think you can consent to transactions with parties you don’t trust.
@jlou You can consent, of course, but fraud and obfuscation are violations of consent.
Transparency is already held as a meaningful value at an instutitional level. Conflicts of interest, especially undisclosed ones, are already frowned upon. For some types of transactions, information trumps privacy. I'm not proposing any sort of escalation of consent here.
No fraud obviously can’t be a complete assumption because the inalienable rights argument entails that the employment contract is fraud from a moral standpoint.
Just because you don’t know every detail of your counterparty’s business doesn’t mean you can’t consent to a transaction. I agree transparency is an important value, but it only becomes relevant to consent when the information is relevant to the consent. Obviously, agreed on conflicts of interest being a problem.
@jlou (I'm very confused by the first paragraph.)
Of course we're talking about information relevant to consent. We're not talking about omniscience or anything like that. Conflicts of interest are relevant to consent. Voting manipulation schemes are relevant to consent.
@magitweeter It isn’t vote manipulation if selling your voting rights is allowed. Hostile takeovers are allowed today with alienable voting rights.
The first point is very important. Validity = voluntary and non-fraudulent. Why would non-fraudulent have to be listed separately if it were included in voluntary?
The employment contract treats de facto persons as non-persons. A person can’t fulfill the contractual role of a non-person no matter how much they consent.
@jlou 1a) This has nothing to do with selling your voting rights; 1b) a lot of nonconsensual things are allowed today, so what? Present-day institutions are not, in any meaningful way, founded on consent. That's why i criticize them.
2) That's your framing, not mine. Your question to answer, not mine.
3) Framed differently: a labor contract that doesn't meet a standard of consent is invalid, no matter how much one party claims the other consented to it.
1a. Of course, it does.
1b. I agree that various institutions’ today could be non-consensual. There’s a moral question about that. There’s also a rhetorical question about how to frame these arguments for heavily propagandized people. In both cases, taking the stronger stance that some contracts are invalid even with fully-informed consent is best.
@jlou Nothing to do with selling voting rights. We're talking about arrangements such as the one i described based on option contracts, which i hold to be obviously fraudulent towards other voters, while you said «that would probably be fine».
If someone has been propagandized into not caring about consent, my primary moral and rhetorical goal is to get them to care about consent. Criticism of capitalism and the state can wait until after that.
It’s fine on inalienable rights grounds. Upon reflection, I agree that it’s immoral just not for inalienable rights reasons. I gave my reasoning when I was explaining alternative voting systems that take into account how coordinated agents are.
Fabio G.
J Lou