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.

kulu,

You are right that words alone are not enough and that action is required - but that is what participation is about. Protest is about opposing. Participation is about cooperating.

We are not being ignored - we have not had a voice. As a species we are limited by our biology to a few personal interactions with which we can cope. It is not physically possible for our politicians to communicate with all their electorate and so they have to filters through which to work. This means we have many lobby groups trying to get the ear of the "filters".

This form of hierarchical organisation is no longer the only way we have of communicating. The electronic and communications revolution now means you and I can communicate directly - and that changes everything.

The so called six degrees of network connection comes into effect. You and I are only six connections from Obama or Rudd and there are many routes for the message to get through.

I have been promoting a couple of simple changes to the way we organise our economic system to permit more economic cooperation at the individual level. It also turns out that it is likely to solve the ghg issue, the financial crisis without going into debt.

This is such an outlandish notion that most - quite rightly - ignore it as too good to be true. However, a few will not and they will pass on the word. Have a look at http://stableproductivemoney.wordpress.com/2009/05/18/amasset-an-economic-tool-for-managing-economies/ and if you think the idea is worth passing on then do it.

Good ideas will get through the network. If this is a good idea then it will get through to Rudd and he will pass it on to Obama.

I think the idea is a good one and will survive the network filter so I communicate the idea to as many as I can with the knowledge that if it is 'worthy' and explained well enough it will get through.

That is just one of the ways networks are changing the world.

some very insitefull posts are here, im not sure about protesting either, i did it for 10 years,and protests often are only an outlet[set up by the exploiters to control the affect of those who become aware of and sek to resist thier vile practices]

if media does come it will not ask you..[but the organiser,who presents the groups public face according to their own adgenda[or for their master[but usually that camera filming the protest..is owned and controlled by the group being protested against]..

yes there are many good ideas out there,but by and large govts are powerless,so easilly controled by the need to get re-elected and the adgenda of those who run the systems[media,law,medicine,education,industry,who run everything,including the unions,protests,security agencies and law enforcement, who cleverly vet out any real change,as well as any real change agents

Democracy, along with all other current political systems don't work, every one is designed to support elitists and suppress the people. Most of the comments here are spot on and no amount of discussion or involvement will change anything, we need a completely new system of government.

The only form of government which is fair, is where the people have a direct optional say in every major policy decision and people are elected to operate certain portfolio's for which they have applied and submitted a legally binding business plan for that department. Our countries leaders of both business and government should be paid on actual results which help the entire population and not for just being there and supporting their vested interests.

We need to ban political parties, introduce optional referendum style voting for elections, policies and decisions. To be elected it should be first past the post and not the current preferential voting which always results in the major parties getting your vote. Until we change or entire system, we are doomed to the same failing methodologies and disenfranchising outcomes we are suffering now

Dear Adam,
With regard, your reasoned paper, your summary
I agree with what you say however cannot begin to understand how something can be reclaimed from ‘sheepish group conformity’ since clearly, as well as being sheep, most of this population revels in having the wool pulled over its eyes.

Without entirely resorting to ‘Animal Farm’ tactics it is quite difficult to illustrate some of the characteristics of peer group conduct in Australia.

A fair indication might be some of the wolf pack tactics used in these forums.

The falsely created barriers you mention cannot be dismantled since there are too many amoral ‘maintenance personnel’ insinuated throughout our society able, prepared and equipped well enough not only to rapidly repair any breach, but also to exterminate any rodent silly enough to try undermining the edifice.

It is the shame of this ‘democracy’ that not only do those temporarily elevated (see, difficult to avoid speaking from an apparently inferior position) by their winning a popularity raffle soon begin believing themselves superior but also their attributes mirroring those of the peer groups who chose them.

A great excuse – “The people deserve the government they choose.”
Or – “It may not be perfect but it’s the only government we have.”
These and a few trite others are pinned for easy reference on every bureaucrat’s office wall.

I would expect if something drastic enough happened warranting them being reprinted in another language – that once the new regime was ‘stabilised’ nothing much would be different for the peasant.
Mind you, it would for the oligarchy.
And there’s the rub. History proves the old guard would either be liquidated or be left to live in terror.
Its time the tontine worked out that if they want someone to do their fighting they need provide an excuse to do that fighting.
Surely that would be at least some ‘excuse of a nation’ worth fighting for?

Fickle, Stormbay

But even if citizen 'engagement' were increased to its maximum, what difference would it make? How would we be better off?

Try this thought experiment. Each citizen has the right to vote on each proposed law and policy, by a secure online connection. No need for parliament any more, whose original excuse – to send people to a central place to ‘represent’ the views of the people – is now gone. People can represent themselves directly – online. Once a proposed law gets 50 percent of the possible votes, it becomes law. Any citizen can propose, amend or vote on any law or policy. The executive and judicial arms of government remain, but the legislative function returns to its origin in the people.

Probably a lot fewer laws would ever get passed, but this would only prove that the bulk of laws that are now being passed do not *in fact* represent the will of the people.

But what would stop the oppression of minorities? What would stop people from using their votes for mutual plunder?

Nothing. But the problem is, there is nothing stopping that now!

Therefore increasing representation will not solve the problem, because even if it were increased to its maximum, we would not be better off.

The problem is not that government is unrepresentative, it is that, whether representative or not, there is nothing to stop its being abusive by legalising theft.

Dear Wing Ah Ling,
“There are two things in life that are certain; death and taxes” – Wellington, I believe.
He caused quite some of the former, abhorred the latter, yet as Prime Minister had to allow the latter in order to pay for the former.

Yes. Income tax had to be levied to pay for the Napoleonic wars.

On line mass legislature – a fine ideal.
Would, unfortunately be easier to corrupt even than the present shabby turnout.
Of course we could all mass vote the day we all do our dole form; Nyet?

If it were possible to cut the Gordian Knot contained within your scenario would it not be best to look at what is the thinnest part of the societal rope?

You ask – “But what would stop the oppression of minorities? What would stop people from using their votes for mutual plunder?”
Well, Wellington couldn’t answer that because he was a mortal soul and a man of his times.
Myself, I’d go for the managed redistribution of wealth and maybe an assured roof over each little Aussie head.
Once that’s achieved we can get into the incidentals health, the arts, entertainment, etc. with infinitely more vigour.

What? The finance sector, lawyers, judges and their ilk?

I’m open to suggestions.

Actually there are three perennial problems or realities.

The third is, what to do with pooh---you know that brown smelly stuff.