Capitalism doesn’t qualify as free market activity then. Capitalism inherently involves treating persons as things. In the firm, the workers are jointly de facto responsible (DFR) for production, but the employer gets sole legal responsibility for the positive and negative results of production. This violates the principle of legal and de facto responsibility matching. DFR isn’t de facto transferred, but legal responsibility is. Morally, this is an institutional fraud @memes
Capitalism inherently involves treating persons as things
In what sense, that other economic systems don’t?
This violates the principle of legal and de facto responsibility matching.
Not sure what such a principle would mean.
The different levels of involvement in an enterprise reflect the fact that each person is free to enter a variety of types of economic cooperation. When people get choice, diversity of behavior is the result.
What you’re seeing in different people having different levels of risk taking, responsibility, involvement, is evidence that those people entered the contract willingly.
It treats persons like things by not holding them responsible for the results of their actions.
That principle would mean that workers should jointly own the produced outputs and jointly owe the liabilities for the used-up inputs as in a worker cooperative.
An intuition pump for the tenet would be situations where the law doesn’t fail to apply the principle. Consider an employer and employee committing a crime together.
Capitalism doesn’t qualify as free market activity then. Capitalism inherently involves treating persons as things. In the firm, the workers are jointly de facto responsible (DFR) for production, but the employer gets sole legal responsibility for the positive and negative results of production. This violates the principle of legal and de facto responsibility matching. DFR isn’t de facto transferred, but legal responsibility is. Morally, this is an institutional fraud
@memes
In what sense, that other economic systems don’t?
Not sure what such a principle would mean.
The different levels of involvement in an enterprise reflect the fact that each person is free to enter a variety of types of economic cooperation. When people get choice, diversity of behavior is the result.
What you’re seeing in different people having different levels of risk taking, responsibility, involvement, is evidence that those people entered the contract willingly.
It treats persons like things by not holding them responsible for the results of their actions.
That principle would mean that workers should jointly own the produced outputs and jointly owe the liabilities for the used-up inputs as in a worker cooperative.
An intuition pump for the tenet would be situations where the law doesn’t fail to apply the principle. Consider an employer and employee committing a crime together.
Consent doesn’t transfer responsibility.
@memes