You may want to notice that one of them gets to use a quarter or so of the income generated by the other side's work, and among other things they use it to buil

You may want to notice that one of them gets to use a quarter or so of the income generated by the other side's work, and among other things they use it to build a police and a military that can then be used to force the people on the other side to do pretty much anything. You may want to consider that this asymmetry in power possibly should be balanced somwhere. Your argument really essentially calls for a monarchy. The deal in a democracy by definition is that the population at large is in charge: Everyone pays for public infrastructure, and everyone gets a say in how exactly the money is spent. If those people who are hired by the public for executing their wishes are allowed to work in secret, the democratic process can not work, as without any feedback as to whether your actuator is doing what it has been ordered to do, a control loop can not function. That is why people in particularly powerful official positions should not get any privacy with regards to their jobs. Their sex lives and medical records (etc.) still should be their private matter as everyone else's, obviously, and noone in the "privacy movement" says otherwise.