[Figlio di Moros]

Co-ops have a major disadvantage aquiring start-up capital. Out-and-out, they can't provide IPO's to raise capital; once you take into consideration ingrained bias, tax and subsidy preferences, etc., you can't claim co-ops are economically ineffecient. In fact, workers would recieve more autonomy and a greater share of income.

[mikema63]

No but really, what do you mean? Environments differ radically across industries. Like I said, monopolistically competitive small businesses do not generally enjoy a large markup.

Shareholders, board of directors. Really its the basic set up of a corporation. Not a difficult concept to grasp.

Will you please answer my question? This is a total non-sequitur. Open source software can be great but I'm not sure what you're trying to say about firm ownership structures here.

Its actually not, my point is that if an open source software operating system could be made that competes with mac and windows, and that many people believe is superior, just by relying on people with complete and total autonomy who are completely unpaid. Why wouldn't a coop that gives the workers a large amount of autonomy be able to build software that can compete with Microsoft?

The existence of Linux suggests that a corporate structure isn't necessary to create really good products.

I agree here. Seriously, wtf I'm glad this thread was made in Gorkiy because I don't want to get in trouble for one-line posts again.

Do you have anything to actually add besides a snide and worthless comment? What is it with you people claiming everything is wrong without actually leveling any criticism whatsoever?

It doesn't matter what he farms, it matters what he owns. You can own land without being a farmer, and you can farm land without being an owner. I don't know about "the end of time" (that land will probably get swallowed by the Sun in 5 billion years), but yes, land is generally owned over long periods of time (not necessarily by descendants). If somebody doesn't see value in land, they'll probably sell it. I don't know what you're asking. This whole line of questions seems tangential to the topic anyway.

What gives someone ownership over something?

[Lagrange]

Shareholders, board of directors. Really its the basic set up of a corporation. Not a difficult concept to grasp.

Like I've said multiple times (each of which you chose to ignore), this is not the organizational structure of most American firms, the majority of which are small businesses. It's like talking to a wall.

[mikema63]

I'ts not, if my point is about large corporations preventing the proliferation of alternative ideas, and those large corporations use this method...

The problem is that you don't actually have any point or actual criticism, your just trying to redirect the argument into something you think you can win. Its a transparent tactic, adds nothing to the debate, and frankly is quite childish.

Please for the love of god explain how large corporations don't artificially tilt the playing field in their favor. Then explain how tilting the field in their favor wouldn't also tilt the field in favor of their organizational structure. Then you can try and give the coup de gras and try and explain why worker owned companies are not only on a level playing field but so vastly inferior that so few exist.

Then while your at it you could try to check that overbearing arrogant attitude of yours that you think wins you debates but in reality just makes everyone automatically hate you, and thus, predispose them to hate your argument as well.

[Rancid]

Under libertarians, worker owned companies can exist if they can compete.

I don't understand why you need to sell anything to them. Their belief is, if it's worthy to compete in the free market, it will exist.

[Nets]

It would be helpful if both sides in the thread could define what they mean by "efficiency". A worker owned company definitely can't optimize on its labor input choice, and therefore cannot be "efficient" if efficient means maximizing social surplus of the endeavor.

[Quantum]

It would be helpful if both sides in the thread could define what they mean by "efficiency". A worker owned company definitely can't optimize on its labor input choice, and therefore cannot be "efficient" if efficient means maximizing social surplus of the endeavor.

Do you mean that a worker-owned company would resist implementing technological changes that would make some workers redundant?

[Schnid]

Like Nets said, it depends on how define efficiency as well as how you view the ideal role of a business. Worker cooperatives have proven to be better equipped to preserve employment in times of economic crises than their capitalist counterparts, primarily because workers tend not to impose unemployment on themselves. They've also been effective in fostering more egalitarian distributions of income within communities, as workers tend not to allocate large portions of a companies profits to a small group of CEO's and shareholders. Workers have also been found to have more job satisfaction and be generally happier inside worker cooperatives, too.

It is probably the case that traditional (stockholder) companies are more effective at accumulating capital, as that is their mandate. Any decision that will increase profits, regardless of its affect on the worker, is viewed as ideal in these institutions. That is simply not the case in worker cooperatives.

[Rothbardian]

I think libertarians can be sold on worker owned companies.

There has been some suggestion that instead of bailing out the banks and auto-industries a better idea would be to nationalize them to prevent moral hazard (an idea test driven by reason magazine). Certainly giving control of the company to the workers would be less radical to them and an easier sell. Certainly reason has also been pushing worker self management as well, and libertarians can be appealed to by the idea of worker autonomy being better.

They also pay lip service to anti-corporate privilege as well. There are several things the LP could likely be convinced to do to support and incentivize worker ownership, such as amending bankruptcy laws to allow workers to buy out companies. (there is another country that does this though the name escapes me)

I think it would certainly make the LP more likable if they made a concentrated effort to support worker run companies in the US.

Worker owned company - good.

Nationalized company - no thanks.

[mikema63]

It was more an argument about if you had to do something then what is the least bad option. Making them worker owned banks wouldn't be so bad really.

[Eran]

mike,
No libertarians object to worker-owned companies. Some may believe them to be less efficient than other forms of corporate organisation, but the market will sort that out.

When a company goes under, there are good legal rules in the common law for how to distribute its assets. First claim, generally, goes to secure (senior) creditors, followed by unsecured creditors and then, if anything is left over, equity holders.

The workers have no claim beyond their contractual rights (e.g. back pay or contractually-guaranteed pensions).


Your use of homesteading shows deep ignorance of the moral and logical underpinnings of the concept. Admittedly, Locke's unfortunate metaphor of "mixing one's labour" is confusing.

In the past, I suggested a formulation of the NAP according to which it is wrong to initiate force against another person or their ongoing (peaceful) projects. Homesteading, the acquisition of legitimate property rights over previously-unowned resources, is a natural consequence of this formulation.

Here is how it works. I incorporate some previously-unused resource into an ongoing project. Because the resource was previously-unused, that project is peaceful. Consequently, others may not initiate force against it.

If the nature of the project reasonably requires an exclusive use of the resource (e.g. a field being cultivated which would lose value if trampled by others), the prohibition on initiation of force against the project becomes equivalent to respect of property rights in the resource.

Ownership of land is generally permanent as long as the land is incorporated into a project, which may include personal use or renting it out to others for use. However, land may be abandoned. This is equivalent to the project of using it having ended. Once abandoned, the land is again open to homesteading.


In the context of companies, the equivalent scenario isn't one in which the company is bankrupt, but rather one in which it is abandoned while still solvent. If the owners of a company simply disappear in ways that suggest abandonment (like the industrialists of Atlas Shrugged), the workers could legitimately claim to homestead the abandoned property.

But only under those circumstances.

[mikema63]

My goal was to satisfy multiple ideological frameworks with the end goal being to see if there was any grounds for a temporary alliance.

Guess not.

(comon, if the companies are worker owned you can deregulate them! )

[Eran]

mike,
I love the idea of finding common ground. And worker-owned companies fall well into that common ground between right- and left-libertarians.

Your only mistake (imo) was to suggest confiscation of property as the means of getting there.

Let's instead suggest that worker-owned companies enjoy exemption from a host of government regulations, from labour to safety to various taxes to zoning and business licenses.

Further promote the idea by exempting funds specialised at funding such enterprises from various financial regulations.

Suggest that, and you'll have the support of all libertarians.

[mikema63]

Well, you won't get all the regulations exempted but certainly a few could probably be done away with.

While were at it, if you guys support emissions and waste taxes then the EPA can be scaled back some as well.

Then replace welfare with a basic income.

We will have to work out education and healthcare.

The greens need to be worked in here too, Getting the green party to work with the LP would be a good boost.

[Lagrange]

A new WSJ article you might find interesting mikema.

(comon, if the companies are worker owned you can deregulate them! )

Why would that follow?

Then replace welfare with a basic income.

Bad idea. Think of the incentives - if you are guaranteed a certain basic income (especially if it suffices for basics like food and utilities) you are much less likely to work. Workfare makes the most sense.

The greens need to be worked in here too, Getting the green party to work with the LP would be a good boost.

"Green on the outside, red on the inside." Not sure why conservatives would want to bring socialists into their coalition.

[mikema63]

1) cool but criticism is hardly unexpected.

2) Mainly bribery but also partly because you don't need regulations to equalize labor when its all owned by the laborers.

3) I don't honestly care if they don't wan't to work.

4)The point is to divorce libertarians from the conservatives to procure more power and better outcomes.

[Eran]

Why would that follow?

The logic is that labour regulations are put in place to protect workers from exploitative employers.

But if the organisation is employee-run, there is no risk of conflict of interest between the two, and thus no need for complicated (and costly) labour regulations.

[Lagrange]

The logic is that labour regulations are put in place to protect workers from exploitative employers.

But if the organisation is employee-run, there is no risk of conflict of interest between the two, and thus no need for complicated (and costly) labour regulations.

I am not sure what fractions of regulations deal with labor vs. the environment and industrial processes. A factory that dumps toxic sludge into a nearby river probably faces a much higher cost complying with environmental rather than labor regulations. Thus it's inaccurate to say that you could "deregulate" worker-owned firms.

[Eran]

Partially de-regulate, then. Get rid of workplace safety, hiring and firing, minimum wage, anti-discrimination and various other labour regulations.

[mikema63]

A direct tax on all waste products released into the environment (each toxin at a different rate depending on the toxins effects) and a tax on developing certain land types that would endanger the local environment would make most if not all environmental regulation removable.

As a general rule socialists would not be as gung ho about regulating a worker owned company anyway.