Our Federal Government's 'Commission of Audit' appears to be suggesting (or recommending) the privatization of various government (public) assets - Medibank, Australia Post, some rail transport services, and others.
And, in the past, quite a few other public assets were 'sold' (or partially sold) - Commonwealth Bank, various airports including Sydney's Kingsford Smith, Telstra and various electricity generators.
(And our major miners and manufacturers appear to be owned largely by foreign internationals or multinationals, and with ever-increasing traffic in that same direction.)

My point? The more essential services are 'privatized', the less say ordinary voters and consumers have over their lives and their future (ie, over 'their' government).

Such 'sales' may ultimately ('probably') mean our selling-out to, and giving power over to, the very global forces which are causing such havoc and mayhem around the world by directly controlling and manipulating governments, manufacturing, financial and capital markets, and militarization.

Perhaps therefore, one answer to restoring power to the people would be to 'nationalize' all essential, industrial and financial services. IE, to reverse at least one part of the process which has led the world to its current top-heavy and precarious situation (as far as 'ordinary' thinking people is concerned).

On the separate topic, my view on the failure of human intelligence and 'drive' is that 'we' have been unable to see the fault of unbridled propagation of the species, and have been unable, and unwilling, to do anything constructive about limiting human population to a manageable and sustainable level.
(China had a go for a while, but now appears to be back on the 'growth' model. Couldn't be to compensate for losses to be incurred in Nhoj's upcoming global nuclear holocaust, I don't suppose?)

So, the major fault in humanity is ego; the unwillingness to die without propagating one's 'genes' (for better, or, for worse), and the more widely spread, the more 'successful' one deludes oneself into 'feeling' - perhaps the most unreliable, unpredictable and 'uncontrollable' of human emotions.
(But not to worry; chances are a 'super-virus' will correct the imbalance - before a nuclear holocaust becomes the only remedy.)

Over the past decades, global spending for military purposes
has consumed in the trillions of dollars. This represents
a colossal diversion of funds from socially useful goals.
For example, a single hour's worth of these expenditures
would suffice to save through immunisation, hundreds of
thousands of children around the world who die each day
from preventable diseases.

If more and more nuclear weapons are built, and if
more sophisticated means of delivering them are devised,
and if more and more nations get control of these vile
devices, then surely we risk our own destruction.

Yet if ways are found to reverse that process, then we can
divert unprecedented energy and resources to the real
problems that face us.

However, as long as profit and greed rules, I don't like
our chances of turning things around. All we need to do is
take a look at what's happening in our own backyard with
the current government. I worry that we're no longer
investing in science, research and devlopment, that cuts
are being proposed to institutions like the CSIRO - whose
science is world class. And Australia has always been one
of the standout countries in terms of human development
status in the past. It is not corrupt. Yet when ignorance
and vested interests are concerned - greed will always win
out it seems. New ideas instead of being welcome for the
opportunites they open up for the improvement of the
human lot, are seen as threats to those who are comfortable
in their ideologies.

So we have"wedge politics," as being the name of the game.
In which self-interest groups and antagonism between
citizens permeates policy-making. The much-touted notion
in liberal democracies that governments govern for all,
is no longer believed by significant numbers of voters.
It is all too obvious that governments actually don't
do this. This destroys social capital, that is, trust,
togetherness and the tender feelings of a caring society.

There is "them" and "us" rather than simply "us" and much
effort is employed in partisan politics which could be
much better utilised in positive pursuits.

Saltpetre, I agree in principle with nationalization of resources and infrastructure, there are two main difficulties though...if a country just takes them from whoever owns them, and it's likely some foreign companies have interests, it's against international law, and could well provoke war from the countries where those interests are based. The second alternative is to buy them back from the current owners, which is perfectly legal in all aspects, but extremely unlikely since we'd be paying top dollar, and would require government will and commitment to do so. We've sold so much that it would be a near Herculean task as well as expensive. But I would still support it, since in time, we would recoup the expense and derive income.

Pertaining to population, I think you're correct with ego, but I would add the basic fact that many people don't like to use contraceptions, or passion preceding planning...the heat of the moment can be a powerful thing. :)

Cheers.

Foxy, you've nailed it. The only point I would add is that both sides of the political spectrum serve the same masters. It's not just the Liberals, since Hawke and Keating enacted more conservative policies than social ones, and were softened-up by big business. Howard made promises that were the most left-wing since Whitlam to gain office, and broke them all, but my point is that they serve the same masters.

The Military Industrial Complex (MIC) of the US spends more on military than the rest of the world combined. It's little wonder America can't afford a national health scheme like we have. I remember when Obama first articulated his plan, that for the next few weeks he received death threats. Death threats for wanting to introduce public health!! Only in America! I found it bizarre, to say the least. But point being, they (the MIC) have a lot of influence in government policy due to the magnitude of funding, and so America is only too happy to impose its political will via the military. And it's that political will to control resources in foreign countries through force, while proffering their propaganda of being the "good guys" that is most hypocritical and annoying...anyone that self-appoints themselves to be "police" more often than not are the exact opposite.

Cheers.

Dear DD,

When my husband graduated from Melbourne Uni (Architecture
and Town Planning) we travelled to the US (Los
Angeles) and although we only meant to stay for a year of so
we ended up living and working for ten years. We experienced
the "Good Guy," mentality first hand. Many Americans truly
believed they were the "Saviours" of the world and that
America was the best country to live in. Even little
pre-schoolers began their classes with the "Pledge of
Allegiance," by putting one hand on their heart and raising
the other to proclaim, "I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America, and to the Republic for
which it stands..."
For us, it was quite an education. And of course we did enjoy
and benefit from the experience in so many ways. It was a
time that neither of us regret. We got so much out of that
experience. And we learned to question everything.

Dick said;
Bazz, and BTW, you were in boots and all about "Inside Job",

The difference is there was a US Senate enquirey into the shenanigans
in the US financial system and it exposed the fraudulent activities of
the big US banks and the ratings companies. A very few were actually
procecuted and many are actually being sued by Australian councils
together with many other organisations around the world.

That there was a conspiracy is clear but the CIA flying the planes
into the NYC Trade Centre is in another league altogether.