Libertarian Socialism

[The Grand Nudger]

Obviously you won't put a fishermen voting on agriculture legislation, but you still don't really lose "democratic aspects" if you just allow fishermen to vote on fishing and farmers to vote on agriculture.

-That- would be oligarchy -if I'm getting your drift- (and a hell of a complicated one at that - are we going to assign a committee of knitting and a committee of dough kneading, to go with our committees on farming and fishing?). Any given oligarchy -may have - "democratic aspects" but that doesn't change the fact that it is an oligarchy (and just as a minor addendum - the sort of system I'd like to see -somebody- try at some point is often described as oligarchy with "democratic aspects" - I don't want you to get the idea that I'm poo-pooing any system that isn't a representative republic, with psuedo-capitalism shoring up the economy, like our own). I want to mention here, that under such a system (as you proposed), farmers -which make up less than 1% of our population in the US - would have sole jurisdiction over policies that affect 100% of our population. Not a situation I;d like to be in. By farmers, of course, I mean the dept heads of billion dollar multi-nationals....not mom and pops. Those guys are only slightly less mythical than unicorns. All the while, perhaps counter-intuitively.....farmers aren't necessarily good at what they do by virtue of being farmers. We're in a load of shit right now on that count - mostly because in many important ways - they aren't...or have no impetus -to be- even if they -could be-. A system in which "farmers" made those policies decisions would be one in which we were hostages to Monsanto, Con-Ag, etc......and they don't exactly have our interests in mind (even though they catch alot of unwarranted flak).

I mean, we could mix and match - blending different systems together and we'd probably end up with a wonderful (if bloated) system. The upper threshold for how bloated a system of government can be has increased dramatically since we left the days of sending notes on ponies between officials, so If governments problems are big - I see no reason that government should be of a size proportionate to the problem - but there does come a point... Would be a balancing act but we've been doing it for a long while. You won't find any glowing defense of or argument for capitalism either as an economic system or as a system of government from my corner. I think money is rationing by another name. I just want to make it very clear, in all of the above - that I'm not taking a black and white stance, or arguing for a pure form of -anything- as intrinsically superior to any other system in each and every circumstance. I would argue the exact opposite.