Till now, none explained Australian “market-based reforms” practice upon which richer citizens factually pay less than pure consumers for common services acquired.

To move forward, the understanding of state’s obligations as the structure existing to unify and serve all democratic nation’s constituents, not privileged and bureaucracy only, would eventuate a great appreciation.

"Rather than devolve more power from the state, we should be drumming into the next generation of the duty they owe the state, of their duty to respects its authority, and abide by its customs. Law should then be aimed towards enoforcing standards and civilising, even when it destroys "choice"."

DF, sorry but the days of tyranny are over! We are not slaves of the state. What history has taught us is not to trust leaders, not to trust the clergy, for they will misuse their power for self interest. History has taught us that heads need to roll, people power needs to happen, to keep the leaders in line.

Luckily the information genie is now out of the bottle (internet) The find information genie is out of the bottle too (google) People will be better informed as to what their leaders are up to, so it will be more difficult to hoodwink them then in the past.

Your opinions sound like you are more in favour of a dictatorship then a secular democracy. Sorry, those days are over!

Yabbi,

You are simply either naïve or playing a naïve, or both: “DF, sorry but the days of tyranny are over! We are not slaves of the state. What history has taught us is not to trust leaders”.

Eventually, you are privileged enough to never hear a crap pressed in heads by case managers of so-called Job Network, and trainers at English courses for migrants.

It is different Australia – a real one.

Yes Yabby, information access has vastly improved, as has our ability to communicate with our elected reps (or at least their staff). If we put our minds to it, this could lead to greatly improved accountability of our decision-makers and greatly improved understanding of their actions by the general public (or at least the very small fraction who give a damn). And it could empower a much greater portion of the populace to get involved.

In short, it should serve to greatly strengthen our whole system of governance.

One of the major problems is that the public is apathetic, until they have a particular cause not to be, which is usually triggered by some political actions that adversely affect them pretty directly. For most of us, we only really get to know anything about particular politicians or levels of government over things that we disagree with. This promulgates an overriding bad impression of our pollies and festers away in mistrust if not outright hatred of our leaders.

So maybe it is not democracy itself that is the problem, but the lack of involvement of the populace.

Now I don’t know if this is at all what Tom Balen means by contractual deficit (I think not actually), but I think that the voter should be required to hold a high level of knowledge about our political system, policies, elected reps, etc. This should be strongly enforced by the state.

It is not a matter of divulging more power back to various sections of society that don’t have a holistic view of the world, it is a matter of strengthening government and keeping it accountable. And this means empowering, coercing or even bribing (with tax incentives, etc), the whole community to be involved.

The notion that most of us can only be involved in government during elections or the very rare referendum is fundamentally flawed, as is the notion that governments have a mandate to do things that they espoused before being elected, simply because they were elected.

It is true that the populace gets the government it deserves.

"Eventually, you are privileged enough to never hear a crap pressed in heads by case managers of so-called Job Network, and trainers at English courses for migrants."

Michael, I think thats a bit of a different issue, to what I was
on about. On the adminstrative side of govt, I too have met "little
Hitler beaurocrats", trying to throw their weight around. Those types seem to exist all through the population. As principles matter to me, I've challenged them, gone over their heads, usually to Canberra and I have to say that every single time, when I have presented a reasoned argument in Canberra, I've been heard and usually action was taken to change things. Once even the law was changed Australia wide.

What I was on about to DF, was regarding people who write policy etc. There is a certain upper crust who think that they can dictate to the public as they please. Religious agendas, you name it, their little view of the world. Lets say tomorrow they tried to take the right to an abortion away. There would be riots in the streets, heads would role!

Ludwig you are correct, but things are improving. The most politically informed people I have come across are the Swiss.
As they vote on just about everything, the level of political discussion amongst the community is at a far higher level then
anywhere else I have come across

Reality does bit, Yabby: “What I was on about to DF, was regarding people who write policy etc. There is a certain upper crust who think that they can dictate to the public as they please.”

This exsert, to my understanding, practically reflects very particular personal interests-related deeds, and a path from one-man-possibility of changing a law to a rule adopted by national representatives inspired with a national interest is definitely still long in a non-sovereign state adjusted to some democratic requirements.