: More or less, yes, except in socialism everyone would be a property holder, and would have an equal say in how 'their' property is run, or, more specifically, those in contact with a specific peice of property would manage it on behalf of all its owners (the entire world).
This comes bakc to what we have agreed upon before, the requirement for a massive change in the way people interact with their abilities and interests.
: But its their field to vote with, and the agent over the field is not farmer Jones, but the democratic collective.
Farmer Jones might think "why do I bother feeding this lot?"
: he has a plan, its rejected. tough, we'll try and reach a comprimise, but he recognises its in his self interest to abide by democratic decisions against him, because sometimes he will expect others to do the same when votes go for him.
Thats how interest groups and govts deal with one another, forgetting some human rights violation by one country because some other compromise is 'needed'. Compromise is dangerous. Evil can onlt win whilst compromising with good, ie being sanctioned.
: I doubt it, I'm sure people could always increase the size of the vote, and determine matters by appeal to the wider community....
Im sure you would also agree that I doubt private law would lead to armed confrontration.