jlou

The statement is only generates a contradiction if there is an omniscient being. If there are no omniscient beings, it is consistent.

The idea is that it is impossible for a being to both know and not know something. Knowable is not the same as known to a particular being

@atheistmemes

https://www.usworker.coop/en/

@politicalmemes

Article: https://www.ellerman.org/inalienable-rights-part-i-the-basic-argument/

Video: https://youtu.be/c2UCqzH5wAQ

Either one introduces the argument against capitalism based on the liberal principle of imputation.

Economic democracy, a market economy where worker coop is the only firm legal structure, maximizes liberty much better than capitalism

@canada

Capitalism is indefensible from a libertarian perspective. A central libertarian tenet is that legal and de facto responsibility should match. However, the capitalist employer-employee contract inherently involves a violation of this tenet. The employer gets 100% of the legal responsibility for the positive and negative results of the enterprise. Despite workers' joint de facto responsibility for using up inputs to produce outputs, workers as employees get 0%

@canada

There is information in it. Namely, that it itself is false. It is fully grammatical. Similar sentence are obviously valid such as:

This sentence has five words.

That is a true valid grammatical sentence.

I didn't invent the paradox. Philosophers have been contemplating this paradox for a long time.

The problem it gestures at is very deep and similar paradoxes showed up in the foundations of mathematics in the 20th century. It can't be dismissed easily.

@general

Classical laborists and mutualists were anti-capitalists. Some of whom predated Marx.
As I said, a mutualist economy or economic democracy has never existed. The modern arguments for economic democracy were first published in a book released in the 1990s. However, we have plenty of examples of worker coops and employee-owned corporations working well under capitalism. An economic democracy or mutualism differs from capitalism in that all firms are mandated to be worker coops

@whitepeopletwitter

I know what capitalism is. My analysis of capitalism comes from a mutualist perspective and is inspired by the classical laborists rather than Marx

@whitepeopletwitter

There has never been a worker-cooperative-dominated market economy, but actually existing worker coops and employee-owned corporations don't seem to create billionaires, and have more equitable distribution of wages.

Why does mandating all firms to be worker coops not abolish capitalism in your view?

@whitepeopletwitter

https://www.nceo.org/articles/employee-ownership-100

@whitepeopletwitter

It seems to me that they're hinting at abolishing capitalism.

One way to do that would be to

1. Mandate worker coop structure on all businesses

2. Institute a 100% land value tax

Taxing the rich doesn't really solve the root of the problem. Abolishing capitalism pre-distributes wealth so that people don't become billionaires in the first place. 100% land value tax encourages efficient use of land.

@whitepeopletwitter

That sentence has a presupposition. The sentence I used can be fully formalized in a logic with predicates for knowledge of an entity and truth

@science_memes

Being logical doesn't imply knowing every true sentence.

Also, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knower_paradox

@science_memes