Moses, the Moses of the Torah, proposed a system which is essentially the same as the one proposed here. The four pillars of the system proposed here are: Democratic Authorities, Democratic Ventures, Democratic Investments and Democratic Demarcations. A democratic government overseeing an economy with resource distribution and laws against private finance (Capitalism). In the Torah it says if a King is what the people want, to elect a King from between the people and to make sure it does not become a despot. In Judaism disputes on the Torah itself are to be resolved by majority, and ``G.d judges the world by majority.'' It says to keep Kings in control. The G.d of Moses is a G.d that can be argued with, and it may change its method on occasion, G.d is not itself a despot. These are clear references to the democratic nature of the Torah and Moses. The system proposed here has many laws concerned with making a Government democratic, different then the laws in the Torah, but the goal of democratic principle is the same. Ultimately it is the principle that inspires, the way it is done depends on circumstance and taste.
The Democratic Ventures part is not as clearly recognizable in Moses' system as the other points. Workers are to be emancipated enough to demand to be payed rather then grovel in the dust for their master. There are numerous references to the use of slaves, however given the time of Moses the extraordinary thing is no doubt not that there are slaves, but the laws that grant them freedom. Some slaves in the world would wish they were governed by ancient Jewish law. Slaves have converted to Judaism taking advantage of Jewish law to get free. The Torah does not seem to like the idea of slavery, it limits slavery extensively for people that subscribe to the Torah. When it comes to company development in a society that is not under Capitalist pressure and that has resource distribution, the playing field is equal between dictatorial and democratic businesses. Therefore the system may not require laws that force companies to become democratic, especially if there are hardly any companies and when those that exist are tiny. The laws proposed here only force a company to become a democracy when it has 10 persons or more when the starter quits. This handles the problem of today's large and complicated companies, which were probably not as common in the distant past, in a rural and technological relatively primitive economy. There would have been craftsmen, there would have been farms and sheppards, armies and courts. Today larger companies are the norm, then this was not the case. Even so, the system as proposed here could work without a force for democratization because the economic game has been made fair between democracies and dictatorships, though I think it would be detrimental and useless to remove it.
Democratic Investments. The system Moses proposed followed the opinion that lending for profit should be removed. This conforms to what the laws here attempt to do. However, the laws here do not make all lending for usury illegal, it only tries to make the larger lending illegal, erects a number of barriers that make larger lending unattractive. Lending for usury is allowed for small sums, sums that normal people might lend to each other, sums that most people would be capable of lending. The system proposed here relies primarily not on eliminating lending, but to replace it with a not harmful form of lending: non-profit lending by the democratic Government. The idea is that private finance would find its place occupied. Such as where a weed grows, you can cut it out with root and all, or you can cut it away and plant a new tree in its place, depriving the weed a place to exist. This will play a soft game against lending, not putting the economy and society into a straight-jacket, while at the same time rooting out private finance to a greater extend in a positive way.
Democratic Demarcations. Moses had the ancient land divided between the tribes and men, if I understand correctly each received a portion through lottery. This was an inalienable land ownership right, which could not be sold in perpetuity. In each 50th year, the land would return to its original owner if it had been sold. The sale of land would therefore take the form of a temporary land lease. This is quite precisely the system proposed here as well, though managed differently. Moses had land assigned to persons, who could then rent it out up to the 50th year, or perhaps rent it out for shorter periods also, while the ultimate ownership remains with the original owner. The system proposed here is the same, and people can swap natural resources back into the pool and swap a new resource right out. This swapping may have been possible in Moses' system, there seems to be no reason for why it shouldn't be possible, between consenting people. In this system there are some provisions to protect the user who rents the land from the resource right holder (`owner'), which are in spirit no different from the demands in the Torah that say the user and owner should strive to behave equitable toward each other. This is the goal of the laws here as well, to protect a user from unfair behavior by an owner, and vice versa.
Because both systems are so extensively similar, I'm confident in saying that those who believe in Moses system, would at least subscribe to the basic elements of the system proposed here, since they appear to be exactly the same: for profit private finance does not belong to the market economy, resources are not normal products to be traded but they are to be distributed and can be rented out, government - which can in principle extend to company government - is to be democratic. If you believe in Moses, you would likely more or less subscribe to the system proposed here; if you subscribe to the essentials of the system proposed here, you would likely give credit to Moses for proposing the essentials of it millennia ago. It is a rational system, it makes sense and can be logically defended, it seems only natural to come up with it and rediscover it. To reject elements will lead to bad things, history submits proof enough. The surprising issue is not the similarity, but that it is not in opperation already, that it is not proposed more often.
To implement these essentials in a simple rural setting, one can come up with many different designs. The 50th year land return rule is one method of resetting ownership to its equally distributed state. Another method would be to prohibit permanent sale and only allow rent contracts up to 5 years. Or to prohibit anyone using someone else's patch, which would be detrimental to labor specialization though, not the best idea. Each method may have its advantages and disadvantages. The 50th year rule neatly resets the entire resource ownership issue at one moment, on the other hand it may produce a level of economic discontinuity in that 50th year. Benefits and costs. In a way it is like a sport, making up rules that make a sport interesting. Sports rules strife for a balance of power: the goal not too large and not too small. The economy is like a sport, if one group or tactic always wins, it gets boring an unfair: time to change the rules.