Perhaps, but there isn’t a good reason to place such a restriction on worker co-ops. Worker co-ops shouldn’t be forced to buy the entire thing when a segment of its services would do.

Liberals as a group tend to support capitalism. Liberalism as a political philosophy can have implications that claimed adherents don’t endorse. After mapping out all the logical implications of liberal principles, it becomes clear that coherent liberalism is anti-capitalist @asklemmy

deleted by creator

Worker co-ops don’t necessarily have full worker ownership of the means of production because a worker coop can lease means of production from a third party. It is not socialist. Nor do I mean to suggest it is capitalist. It can’t be capitalism as it has no capitalists as you correctly point out. Since you recognize that it is technically correct to say a worker co-op market economy has private property, you recognize

Capitalism ≠ private property @asklemmy

When I said capitalists there I meant liberal defenders of capitalism.

A market economy of worker coops has private property, so can’t be socialist. Market socialism is a misnomer and unnecessarily associates with a label people already have preconceived notions about @asklemmy

The normative basis of private property, which capitalists claim to adhere to, is people’s inalienable right to appropriate the positive and negative fruits of their labor. Capitalism routinely violates this principle in the employment contract. Satisfying the principles of private property would require that all firms be worker cooperatives. The principles of liberalism imply anti-capitalism. It is entirely compatible to be a liberal and an anti-capitalist @asklemmy

deleted by creator

Many liberals are anti-worker, but the political philosophy of liberalism is not inherently anti-worker. Liberal anti-capitalists like David Ellerman illustrate this using liberal principles of justice to argue for a universal inalienable right to workers’ self-management and abolition of the employer-employee relationship @asklemmy

The workers are factually responsible for using up the inputs to produce the output. Imputing the positive and negative product, which together make up the whole product, to the employer is a denial of that basic fact. The whole product’s value is the profit.

It is possible to have investment in capital and getting return on investment in an economy consisting exclusively of worker coops.

Not all anti-capitalists are communists

Capitalism violates the workers’ inalienable rights and actually it violates property rights’ moral basis, getting the fruits of your labor. The typical firm’s employer appropriates 100% of the positive and negative fruits of the workers’ joint labor while the workers as employees receive 0% of the property rights (not talking about value) to the whole product. The basis I mentioned is based on a basic principle of justice of legal and de facto responsibility matching

I agree with most of your points except the points about worker democracy. Being able to exit is not the same as having voice and exit, which is what worker democracy involves. The employer is not a workers’ delegate. Their managers manage the firm in the employer’s name. The employer appropriates 100% of the positive and negative product of the firm. The workers are de facto responsible for creating the product. This violates the principle that legal and de facto responsibility match

What you are looking for is some sort of variant of quadratic funding. It is a mechanism that is specifically designed to overcome the free rider problem that public goods like FOSS suffer from. It solves it by matching private contributions to these public goods using a special formula that aligns incentives, so that everyone that knowingly benefits from a public good has an economic incentive to contribute to it because more contributors leads to a higher level of matching

I disagree that the 2 options are the only ones available. We could have a funding system with aspects of quadratic funding and artistic freedom vouchers, which allows the organizations developing the software to remain private organizations. Quadratic funding is basically a public matching fund for contributions to public goods such as OSS with a special matching formula that matches small contributions from many sponsors at a higher rater than more concentrated ones

The author in another article does recommend GrapheneOS.

https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/android.html

“The best option for privacy and security on Android is to get a Pixel 4 or greater and flash GrapheneOS. GrapheneOS does not contain any tracking unlike the stock OS on most devices. Additionally, GrapheneOS retains the baseline security model whilst improving upon it with substantial hardening enhancements … includ[ing] a hardened memory allocator, hardened C library, [and] hardened kernel”

GrapheneOS is more secure than linux: https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/linux.html

1. A FairPhone that can run GrapheneOS.

2. Dual screen phone (separate screens not foldable) with that can run GrapheneOS

3. Tablet with keyboard case that runs GrapheneOS and has support for Linux apps, so I can replace my PC with something more private and secure

4. Don’t know if this is possible but a keyboard where each key can show different icons depending on if the shift or control key is pressed to make keyboard shortcuts easier to learn, but still possible to type without looking

If given a choice between democratically elected politicians and unaccountable dictators and autocrats, I would choose politicians.

By capitalism, I mean specific institutions. I have specific solutions in mind such as recognizing the inalienable right to workplace democracy, and common ownership of land, natural resources, and the means of production.

Land’s inelastic supply, which can only be solved by socializing it, plays a role in housing costs.

Work issues remain unsolved by those two

Shitty bosses are probably less likely if your boss is ultimately democratically accountable to you and not to the some alien legal party that is your employer

As an anti-capitalist, I disagree. He conflated the role of the employer with the owner of the means of production, which led him to the mistaken conclusion that rejecting capitalist appropriation requires rejecting private property per se. It’s really the employment contract that enables capitalist appropriation and exploitative property relations. There are other reasons to oppose private ownership, but that is another story. The classical laborists’ criticisms are spot on not Marx’s

The trick is to edit out the mention of the lemmy community before you add the hashtags then lemmy doesn’t see the updated version of the post with the hash tags, but people on mastodon see the hash tags

What I meant was blacklisting certain destinations. It obviously wouldn’t prevent all malicious traffic