Hmmm... An interesting proposition, but I think I have a few questions before I consider this counter.

... Why would the horse unions be in charge of the auto union? The horse union would, I imagine, be part of the agricultural sector? And personal vehicles would be part of the transportation sector?

I think you raise interesting questions about what goes where -- and the thing is, that's kind of why there's also a legislative system. We already use our government to control our economic sectors, only in this ideal future we would be directly voting on it instead of having representatives of private businesses do it for us. The specific organization of a free society depends on how people choose to organize it. This worldview still sees the people having a government, and the ability to control industry using the government... It's just that they actually vote, and smaller less-legal decisions are still made by people in that industry. You're trying to imagine that unions control the entirety of society, but they only control the economy and labor.

To clarify, this system isn't some chaotic free-for-all where every little decision is up for debate, but rather a structured system where people vote on the big-picture direction of the economy while industry professionals still handle the day-to-day details.

I don't understand how it would be less possible to breed innovation if the people studying a specific field are the ones trying to innovate it; not orders coming from the top down because at that moment it will be profitable if they innovated it.

The union workers wouldn't vote to replace their jobs...? So you're saying it's a bad thing that people are in control of whether or not their livelihoods are stripped away? It would be better if they could just be fired randomly and lose their insurance and paycheck immediately? I don't really understand that.

I mentioned this in the article -- I feel like even if everybody votes to make the complete wrong decision, I would be more happy with that than if one person forced them all to make the correct decision. Because I think those people should have a say in the things they are working on, I think that individuals should have rights and control over their labor -- and prosperity and human happiness should be prioritized above economic production or prosperity? Point being, if they vote against something that might be viewed as technological innovation then it kind of means that most people don't want the technological innovation in the first place. So then why create it? Because it makes us money? If it was worth having, I am sure the people that care most passionately about the subject would vote to build it. For instance, I am a software developer -- I certainly would have voted to build C and Unix systems.

If innovation only happens in a system that threatens workers' livelihoods, then why do we have countless examples of workers pioneering advancements? The internet, Unix systems, open-source software, and countless medical and scientific breakthroughs have all come from cooperative, non-profit-driven research. The Soviet Union, flawed as it was, still developed cars, rockets, and computers.

I don't think innovation is in anyway tied to the profit motivation or your ability to slave-drive. I think that innovations come directly from workers who are passionate about what they do.

Let me know what you think of this. I think you have valid concerns, but I also think that they are well-accounted for if you consider the details more thoroughly. I think it is pretty hard to argue against giving every person a stake in what they spend ONE THIRD of their human lives doing.