I would probably say it's inevitable to some extent, as the "public interests" are always being managed by the individuals. However, the degree of that extent makes all the difference. I think there is a certain critical point at which people totally lose faith in existence of their interests as part of the public interests, and everyone would openly throw the "public" consideration down the drain so as pursue his own short-term interests. In my opinion, that process was largely responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union. So, what mechanism could be effective to tame that process? The mere presence of the governing laws is not enough, as you said. (And as many in Russia would assert, I believe.) Perhaps, the only reliable way is to assume the plutocrats are rational players and offer them something they would appreciate, but that would also serve the public interest. That might encourage the plutocrats to invest into the public interests. I think things like innovation and development of the new markets can do some of the work. After all, the plutocrats like the big screens TVs and perhaps a private space shuttle as much as everybody else, but at the same time the investing into such innovations could help the plutocrats make more relative (=money) value. So, even if the relative income gap is getting wider, the absolute value of the public markets is still growing making the public richer. So, the fiat currency makes that happen faster than the backed currency. What do you think of that?