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

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

Workers should be able to realize the value of what they produce in basically getting the pure profits of the firm.

Value doesn’t get to the heart of the matter. Property rights to positive and negative fruits of labor do. When you consider what taking on the risk and initiative means in this context, it is really taking on the negative fruits of labor (liabilities for used-up inputs). Workers should get both the positive and negative fruits of their labor, and take the initiative

That is strange to me as well. He normally talks about abolishing the employer-employee relationship in favor of democratic worker membership in the firm. I speculate that it has to do with trying to explain it to a more general audience

ESOPs in the US by default work something like that. The author is definitely not advocating that. He has a similar critique of American ESOPs in this work: https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/102452

The author advocates 1 worker 1 vote (or equal voice if we are talking more sophisticated voting systems like quadratic voting). He is definitely speaking from a more democratic tradition

It wasn’t even the case in the 50s. Giving workers what they are responsible for producing would require changing the structure of property relations. An employer cannot do it without abolishing their own role

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

Would it be possible to allow exit nodes to blacklist specific kinds of traffic and somehow privately verify that the traffic is not one of the blacklisted kinds (zero knowledge proof perhaps sorry not a CS person)?