Democracy, by giving each person one vote, thereby gives an entitlement to vote oneself a benefit paid for from the public treasury.

This means that if people don't try to recoup their losses paid in tax, by begging politicians for handouts and favours, they will only be net losers. So they try to be exploiters as well as exploited.

Since taxation is a compulsory exaction, and since one has to spend time working to get the money that the state takes in taxation, the effect of taxation is the same as forced labour for the proportion of one's time and life that it takes to earn the money thus confiscated.

This is the political background against which corporate interests become relevant.

In this circumstance, from the state's point of view, there is no boundary between private and public interest. The state takes as much as they think they can get away with to pay for bribes for votes. No matter how anti-social their purpose, they always call it ‘the public interest’, the ‘national interest’ and so on – like Australia’s current aggressive occupation of Iraq for non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

In the scramble for mutual plunder, concentrated groups are at an advantage over the dispersed individuals. For example 10,000 sugar producers might succeed in getting politicians to pass a sugar subsidy. 20,000,000 people as consumers are forced to pay, say, $10 a year. Each producer gets $20,000 from it, thanks very much.

No individual has a sufficient interest to spend time fighting this parasitism. The state refers to it in language as ‘the public interest’ to protect ‘our’ farmers

The political process becomes merely the forum, or battleground of this utterly unprincipled anti-social force-based grasping and fraud. It produces a welter and thornbush of these handouts, all at cross-purposes with each other, all actively impoverishing and destroying society based on self-ownership, consensual relations, productive activity, and voluntary exchange.

Thus democratic politics enables corporations to profit from the force and fraud that, in the absence of democratic redistributionism, would and should be illegal.

If, or since, we are unable to distinguish between taxation and forced labour, apart from in its legality, the time will come when we question and condemn taxation, and call for its abolition, just as we have now done with slavery.

Thus there is no conflict between private and public interest: the basis of both is the rejection of aggressive force and fraud, the rejection of forced subjugation, the rejection of the privilege of ruler as against ruled.

Coercion is no more a basis for “co-operation” in social relations than it is in sexual relations.

I find that these two related references address this question with unique clarity.

http://www.dabase.org/p8realpolitik.htm

http://www.dabase.org/coopdoub.htm

Pericles is not going to be happy, again. I am still saying democracy is not only the right to vote, but the right to participate in the grass roots political meetings, that lawyers in Parliament have abolished since 1949.

When lawyers were first readmitted to Parliament in the United Kingdom in 1870, they immediately set about creating an environment where their big corporate clients could enslave the individual members of society, and to that end made the government of Parliament subject to Party rule.

In 1372, the Parliament was still a Holy Place, and the gospel of Luke, 12 verses 10-12, was enacted into a Statute, to ban lawyers from participation in the House of Commons. Lawyers and Sheriffs were Esquires, not commoners, and the English rightly considered their proper place was in the House of Lords. BTW this Act was not repealed for Australia, only the United Kingdom, so technically lawyers are still banned. S 44 Constitution was enacted to keep them out, but any attempt to do so is blocked by the lawyers monopoly on the Judges and Magistrates jobs, they have given themselves through their members in Parliament. They also get munificent salaries compared to an average worker, in the case of a Federal Court Judge, five or six times as much for life.

The warning of Jesus Christ, Woe unto ye ye lawyers, for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and you touch not the burdens with one of your fingers, is as true today as 2000 years ago.

One of the burdens unknown at common law was a costs order. It could never be imposed since 1640 by reference to the Habeas Corpus Act 1640 16 Charles 1 Ch X. That Act says: That neither his Majesty or his privy council, have or ought to have any jurisdiction, power or authority by English bill, petition, or any other arbitrary way whatsoever, any property of a subject, but that the same ought to be tried and determined in the ordinary courts of justice, and by the ordinary course of law. Democratically of course

There are some encouraging signs that things are changing. Take a look at what Senator Faulkner is trying to do with his various portfolios in the area of "open government" and ideas on consultation and engagement with the electorate.

We have to build into our political, economic and social structures the ability for people to engage so that engagement is the norm not the exception.

I believe this is happening with groups like getup and with forums like online opinion and with new initiatives like abc pool system.

I encourage people to go visit Senator Lundy website and see what she is doing.
http://www.katelundy.com.au/

Visit Faulkner's website and read his speeches on accountability in government
http://www.smos.gov.au/

Go look at the abc pool system
http://www.pool.org.au/

Visit getup http://www.getup.org.au/

or join one of the many discussion groups, blogs, etc that you find in places like facebook, linkedin and even twitter.

There has never been a better time for citizens to be involved in the political process than there has been today and I believe we are increasingly seeing people taking advantage of the opportunity.

Fickle,

Being involved is one thing being effective is another. OLO and other fora are handy for expressing opinions protesting against the system and governments etc. But what exactly does all that achieve. Precious little I would suggest. Ditto street protests, petitions and letters to politicians and the media.

Words and even good intentions are not enough. Action is what is needed. If for instance 85% of Australians are opposed to logging of old growth forests and a large majority of voters are against privatization of public assets such as water, airports, roads etc, why do governments not comply with the wishes of the people?

As Dimitry Orlov puts it... totalitarian governments crush protest while the so-called democratic governments simply ignore them. We are being ignored like never before.