Solarpunk

TLDR: When you commit a crime for an employer, you and the employer are responsible and must both receive the consequences. Even if you signed a contract saying you're not liable -- doesn't matter; you can't choose to be "not liable". When you commit not-crime for an employer, the consequences (the payment/income from that work) are given entirely to the employer; they are treated as if they were 100% responsible/liable. Somehow, this time, you can separate yourself from liability with a contract.

The argument is: Either liability is totally inseparable from a person or it is totally separable. We can't have "its inseparable but only if the person is committing a crime".

I'm usually the one person in the Solarpunk who debates "capitalism==bad" titles. This was a solid video; I don't think I have any critiques of the arguments. It gives me a lot to think about. The speaker does a good job at not being polarizing or sensationaliazing the topic; he simply presents the information without getting emotionally charged.

That's in contrast to the Lemmy title, which I think is senasionalized/polarizing and a bit of an insult to the listener; telling them the conclusion they should have instead of assuming they're smart enough to understand the consequences themselves. "Why workplace democracy is an inalienable right, and its incompatibility with capitalism" would be more appropriate title IMO.

Either way I'm glad this was posted.

I thought the "inalienability" history lesson (~9min in) was interesting: that it began under the idea that you are responsible for your own beliefs, and cannot blame the priests who gave them to you ("inalienability of conscience").

Simple != 35 minute video.

I've seen great arguments done in a 4 panel comic here on Lemmy.