I am generally impressed by OrganicSu's post, as to me, it illustrates the limits of deductive logic, and how using such logic one can reach any conclusion one wants to reach. In a political thread, like this one, Bernie supports can present leftist populist logic, Trump aficionados can present alt-right pseudo-populist logic, and establishment supporters (Obama/Clinton/etc) can present globalist logic.
As I have recently posted criticizing alt-right pseudo-populist logic; and a number of other people have criticized the establishment/globalist logic; I think that it is only fair to offer some criticisms of leftist populist (small is beautiful [I. e.: principle of subsidiarity]) logic; which I offer as follows:
(1) Scientific climate change planners indicate that the most effective tool in their toolbox is concentrating the coming 10-billion world population (circa 2050) in mega-cities, as any small is beautiful calls for everyone to grow their own food would either result the destruction of most of nature (turned into gardens), or the death of hundreds of millions to billions of people due to crop failures from poorly qualified people's inability to cope with an increasingly variable climate.
(2) Populism typically results in a power vacuum that invites corruption and/or authoritarianism. This is because populism often argue that they need to break down government, including checks and balances that get in their way of making change.
(3) Small is beautiful requires people to be willing to be accountable for their actions/decisions; which requires more information management; a which is more difficult to achieve as the world population approaches 10 billion people, many of whom think that greed is good.
(4) Human beings decisions becoming increasingly dominated by emotions/passion as systemic pressure increases, and as we are already in 'overshoot' systemic pressure will only increase with time.
See the linked article entitled: “Big is Beautiful”
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/10/31/big-is-beautifulExtract: “We may spend our dollars at Walmart and ikea, but in our hearts we have a soft spot for the corner store .
…
And state and federal fair-trade laws allowed manufacturers to set a minimum resale price for their goods and to legally prohibit retailers from discounting them.
The odd thing is that although these laws stemmed from a populist movement, they actually resulted in price increases for the public at large. In other words, it wasn’t consumers the government was trying to protect from big business—it was small business.
…
Small may be beautiful. It’s just not all that prosperous. “
See also the linked article entitled: “Small is not beautiful
http://www.economist.com/node/21548945Extract: “PEOPLE find it hard to like businesses once they grow beyond a certain size. Banks that were “too big to fail” sparked a global economic crisis and burned bundles of taxpayers' cash.
…
It is shrewd politics to champion the little guy. But the popular fetish for small business is at odds with economic reality. Big firms are generally more productive, offer higher wages and pay more taxes than small ones. Economies dominated by small firms are often sluggish.”
Don't get me wrong, I love sustainable thinking & I love empowerment of individuals; however, such thinking must come with individual, business and governmental accountability; which includes admitting that globally our social and environmental systems are currently degrading and that wishful (Pollyanna) thinking will not make real world problems disappear.