On the subject of bribery, there are bribes being given not just to those "in government", but the "voters" themselves are being bribed all the time. Most of the big parties buy their "voters" - in the form of "policies" that offer the most, and "tax" the least! (Which are typically realised in the form of lies - but they usually get away with it just long enough to get "voted in" for the term - which may be all they really care about.)
On the subject of the AEC ("Australian Electoral Commission") which Chris mentioned, the AEC bureaucrats claim to be "independent" - but how is this so? They are entirely dependent upon "taxpayers" who are forced to fund them! If the AEC were truly independent, then they would operate as a self-funding or profitable business - and one of the few ways they can legitimately do that, is by offering a product and/or service which people want/need and are willing to voluntarily pay for. An alternative would be a partly or completely volunteer organisation (people giving up their time to run it, printers printing the vote-sheets, etc. at no charge, TV-Stations giving free air-time to announce "elections", or people donating money, etc.)
But none of this is how the AEC bureaucrats operate - as people have to be forced to participate in this losing bureaucratical shenanigan, as well as being forced to pay "tax", to pay for the AEC's pretended "products" and "services" (they operate in basically the same mode as pretended "government" does).
According to the AEC, the 1996 "Federal Election" cost over AU$57million. (These figures are for a "country" with an approximate population of 18 million.) Then there are the "State" and local "elections" - all held regularly. Guess who funds them all! And what do they achieve? The parties that end up "winning" (alternating regularly) are basically the same! Most, if not all "countries", suffer from this same stagnating "system". There is no real use for all these parasites - they add nothing of value to our lives, in fact they destroy value.
Some readers may ask: "Are you suggesting that the whole thing should be abolished?"
Well, that's one possibility; but what I and many others do, in the case of coercive bureaucrats and their pretended "systems" which we disapprove of, is to just withdraw our support from them - both financially ("taxes") and whatever else. I have no control over what bureaucrats do, so I don't waste my time with them, nor do I try to "fight the system" to change or abolish "it" - as "it" ends up becoming largely irrelevant to me. (For those interested in this approach, these points are briefly mentioned later, and extensively detailed in other reports, articles, etc. - including how to legally and safely go about it.)
Some people may reply: "But if we didn't have a government that we vote for, then we'd have a dictatorship!"
I find statements such as these extremely ironic, because the way I see it, we already have a "dictatorship"! One way to look at it, is that in each "election", "dictators" let you "vote" for which "dictator" you'd prefer (or least despise) to have "dictating" to you. I give some examples of why, in the "government" bureaucrats own words, in a later section.
Furthermore, this is typical of what "government" bureaucrats and political brainwashers would tell people. They don't want "citizens" to see these coercive "political systems" for what they really are! - so they tell them it's something else, such as a "democracy" - whatever that's supposed to be.
It's a pity that so many people think in a dichotomy of false dilemma's such as: "But if we didn't have this (whatever), then we'd have that (whatever)!" The "dictatorship" scenario is only one of infinite possibilities. With no pretended "government" (i.e. with no individuals masquerading as "government" who coerce others), there'd be no "dictatorship".
Some people are probably exclaiming: "But we must have government!" "We need representatives!" "We must vote for them!"
Well, with the current "system" that is perpetuated, this may appear to be the case, and these "representatives" (and the so-called "House of Representatives", "Senate", etc.) want to protect their "jobs", so they'll always agree... But really, the whole notion that they are or could be "representatives" is absurd! I don't know how many people might agree with their "representative" and thus feel "represented", but for every potential one of them, there are probably countless others whose views on the subject differ from one extreme to the other, such as: one person might dislike them, another might hate them, another might think they're all idiots, one won't care, one would rather keep his "tax"-money in his own pocket - than pay for a useless pretended "representative", one might only agree with his or her "representative" on some things, one might completely disagree, one might think the "representative" is criminal, one might not be sure, one will be a baby and couldn't have a say in the matter anyway, one will be a child who knows no better (but may be "educated" by bureaucrats to automatically agree), one will be disabled beyond anyone else knowing what they want, one won't want a "representative", one will refuse to be "represented" and would only be heard in person, etc., etc., etc. And what about all the people who "voted" to be "represented" by someone other than the person who was "elected"? - did they ever agree to be "represented" even if the person they chose didn't "win"?
In his book: A Personal Declaration Of Independence; To Complete the American Revolution (Zeno Press, Box 170, Sedalia, CO 80135), "Paine's Torch" wrote (slightly edited):
"Grievance #13 - Congress
"13. This government has promoted itself as a true, legitimate and representative agent of all the people, which is an inherent contradiction and unattainable goal. Special interest politics and the fraudulent charades called elections have allowed this government to pretend it has a moral right to control the lives of those who have not consented to be governed by it. Reform of this coercive system of government is hopeless, as naive voters continue to be misled by promises of more benefits without apparent cost."
...Let's see how ludicrous this concept [of "representatives"] really is. Most people seem to think that congressmen represent everyone in their districts. Represent everyone? How does your congressman represent you when (s)he raises your taxes against your will? Are you the property of the State? How does (s)he represent you when (s)he passes a "law" that requires you to pay for something that you find appalling or immoral? Does (s)he represent you when (s)he votes to restrict your non-aggressive activities that (s)he finds distasteful? Why should those who disagree with their Congressmen be subject to the "laws" passed by Congress? Because we've always done it that way? Because the "Constitution" says so? Because that's what everybody else accepts? These are some of the worst reasons for accepting the [pretended "authority"] of someone you never chose as your representative!
Members of voluntary organizations have to make a conscious choice to join and accept the rules of those organizations, which might include majority, minority, or authoritarian rule. However, the U.S. Congress and the coercive government it represents assert their [pretended "authority"] without this choice or other adequate means for citizens to express actual consent. Tradition, inertia and the popular acceptance of false ideas contribute more to the appearance of legitimacy of such coercive institutions than any real representation or consent.
Robert LeFevre, in his book, The Power of Congress (as Congress Sees It) [Los Angeles: Pine Tree Press, 1976.], illustrates the confused, contradictory views of Congressmen and their perceived relationship with their constituents. Based on an assertive letter-writing campaign in 1972 to ask congressmen why they think they represent the people in their districts, LeFevre received some interesting correspondence. The following are excerpts from this correspondence:
"I do not now, nor have I at any time, represented myself as anyone's agent. ...Frankly, I do not know of any congressman who designates himself as anyone's agent."
Congressman Wilbur Mills
"Any system of government is going to involve persons acting as the agents of other persons."
Congressman Fletcher Thompson
"...Since an agent cannot act on behalf of conflicting interests, it would be impossible to have any form of representative government based on such a concept."
Senator Edmund Muskie
"It is impossible to represent all the people of my district all the time. Nevertheless, I must constantly bear in mind the collective interests of all the people. I am an agent, if you will, of the majority of the people of the district I represent."
Congressman Phillips Ruppe
"No one can represent all the views of everyone who lives in his congressional district. Nor can he claim to represent the views of a majority on most issues. ...if we are to assume that congressional representation is a form of agency, then the whole system is inherently wrong and must break down."
Congressman W.R. Poage
"Obviously, the concept of representative government must, in the long run, mean that representatives are chosen by the majority.... No one individual or body of individuals can fully and accurately represent every single person in the U.S. at all times."
Senator Edmund Muskie
"...it is really impossible to represent the desires of all the people of my state. That is probably true of every congressman or senator. Simply because there are so many different people with many different ideas I could not possibly represent them all in the Senate."
Senator Mike Gravel
"...A member of Congress cannot represent the opinions of all constituents on all issues, however it is important that he try to represent the people who elected him to office... ."
Congressman Frank Denholm
"...I don't claim to represent the views of all my constituents."
Congressman John Dow
"I can assure you that Senator Humphrey is a representative of all the people of Minnesota."
Kenneth Gray, administrative
assistant to Senator Hubert H. Humphrey
It is inherently impossible for one person to "represent" all the different and opposing views - perhaps from a few thousand to millions of different views, since not everyone thinks identically to anyone else - in just one single view that ends up being presented by the "representative" him/herself - which will probably be altered through each "representative's" biases too (and to make things worse, the "representatives" could also be bribed)! It is likely that many of them are no-one's "representatives" - though they pretend to be "representatives", but are really only there for themselves!
Another problem here is that these pretended "representatives" act as though they have been granted Power Of Attorney for all of those they claim to be "representing" - but I don't know of anyone who has ever granted them such power, so is this not fraud? (Would an appropriate name for the falsely-called "House Of Representatives" be: House Of Impostors?)
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question." - Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address.(Note: Thomas Jefferson was one of the signers of the Declaration Of Independence - in which some of the evils of the falsely-called "king", who tried to oppress and exploit Americans, are described.)
"No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent." - Abraham Lincoln
Read what Lysander Spooner had to say about pretended "representatives", and the consequences, in the Appendix of his Trial By Jury essay.
Some people may still exclaim: "But we need government!" "We must vote for them! How else could we do it?"
My answer to these people is: OK, how about this: If you believe you need "representatives" and "government", then you're welcome to them, so long as you pay for them yourself! How about you getting together with everyone else who wants what you want, and funding all the "elections", all the "campaigns", all the "vote counting", all the bureaucracy, etc., and stop coercing others, through "taxes", for something that you want and they don't want! While you're at it, how about leaving those who don't want your pretended "government" in peace - as they'd do for you.
"A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away." - Barry Goldwater
"Voting", coercive "government", etc. is just one way of infinite possibilities for doing things - there's no evidence to prove that the current method is best (It has actually been demonstrated to be one of the worst! Many examples are given in materials elsewhere.). Those who rely on and benefit most from the current method, are the least willing to consider any other way but their way.
What most people think of as "government", is infact an illegitimate and highly inefficient type of bureaucratical business - since even after all their value-destroying activities, "government" bureaucrats do provide some "products" and "services" (so-called "police", "national defense", post-offices, roads, coercive organisational models in the form of "regulations" and "laws", etc. are "products" and "services" - the issue of whether or not people need/want them, or whether they're good or bad, isn't the point here).
There is not, never has been, and never will be any real need whatsoever for "government" - because people who operate legitimate businesses can take over the functions which people need and want. If we took away "government", then we'd also be taking away all of the coercion (terrorism and crime) that results from "it".
Before continuing further into this booklet, you need to read the article: On Government, for a better understanding of what the things most people think of as "government" actually are - and answers to the most common objections raised to suggestions such as the above.
On the subject of coercion, it is no excuse or justification, such as in the case of "compulsory voting", to say that: "OK, so it's using coercion - but it's only a tiny bit of coercion! Why make such a big fuss over it? They're only demanding that people show up at the polling place or post in their vote - they don't drag people out of their homes to make them vote!"
Indeed they don't, it's much easier to control people with words! Consider "taxes" - these are collected using coercion - and "tax" started out as "only a tiny bit of coercion" (about 1% and only on people who had large incomes) - now practically everything is "taxed" in some way, and at rates up to 100% or more!
I advise extreme caution towards any suggestion of institutionalising any form or amount of coercion! Just say No! (But the pretended "representatives" have voted "yes" all this time - thus the reasons for a lot of the coercion going on already. "Compulsory voting" and "taxes" are only a few of the multitude of coercive practices.) If you do allow some coercion, then just how far are you willing to let it go? Where do you draw the line? If you don't choose this for yourself, then will you let someone else (a pretended "representative") choose it for you? How would you like it if some people decided that it's "OK" if they coerce you, but not for you to coerce them!? (Isn't that what happens now?) If you are willing to accept any coercion, especially where someone else chooses how much for you, then you will inevitably have to accept all of it! (Up to and including murdering or being murdered in their "wars") Choose wisely!
"For the sake of the achievement of a specific political goal, it is possible to sacrifice half mankind." - Mao Tse-Tung, November 1957