Some say the term "democracy" is meaningless. Thanks to the so-called Linguistic turn, even that important term has been compromised. There is much argument about the term. Most critiques go back to the origin of the term and try to evaluate the semantics and the historical evolution of the term. But, hey listen, thats the kind of confusions brought about by the Linguistic Turn. But,why go back an evaluate the historical progress of the term? Analysing Language has become a favorite pastime but, why not take a closer look at how the term came about and what it is suppossed to do. Just looking at 'word' changes doesn't change anything. That process just keeps going in circles. Language is always changing, even without the novel changes of the Linguistic turn. Terms and words will change meaning but that doesn't mean the actual activity changes. We need to go to basics i.e. the underlying forms of the term. Our organized existence and our governmental structure are entirely dependent on the Constitution. The Founding Fathers organized it for us. Stop quibbling over linguistic meaning and try to understand what they did. The Constitution houses the form and the structure of a real democracy. Why is that? Because it establishes a triadic form of representative government that is functional on all sides of the triad. But, make no mistake, all the sides must function properly and towards the goal of democratic government,i.e. a government "of people", "by people" and "for people". Does that ever take place? Not often enough! But, the true underlying form are "The People". Its not about "central control" or about "State control". Its about People control; thats why elections are necessary. One big problem underlying politics, which is out of hand and which is probably irremediable, is that after the Constitution was approved, the People immediately divided themselves into Partys. Our whole Congress is a herd of differing representatives with Party loyalties. Look at whats happening with the so-called "Fiscal Cliff". Different Partys create different views and that creates antagonisms which one hopes can be settled. Look, the only entitlements in this world are the ones we give to the representatives at the Top. Other than those, there are no entitlements. What the people get as a result of living in a condition of togetherness is what they disserve in exchange for giving entitlements of power to the Top. Sure, we need to be governed, but it must be democratic because no individual at the Top is superior to any other human being at the Bottom. No, we're all the same. Those that speak about inequality being pervasive in our society will have to show me how their being human differs from me and you being human. Its not about economics, its not about 'social class', its not about possessions, its not about money,its not about education, its about human beings living in a condition of togetherness. The bottom does not owe the Top anything but the Top owes the bottom everything. Don't you think the Founding Fathers knew that? Thats why they passed the First Amendment; if all is not right at the Top, the people have the right "peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances". The people have a right to 'revolution'. Forget language, look at the underlying form. When I 'see' the form of democratic government, I see the 'Bottom' at the 'Top'.

There is much talk about gun control and there is always someone who says, "what good will that do, the bad guys will always know how to get them". Of course, there's some truth in that. But lets apply that same principle or way of thinking to politics. If our Nation is a recognized Democracy where the people govern, and some office holder decides to pass laws and policy that will benefit only one segment of the social or, lets say, will benefit corporations, which are artificial entities, what can we do? Of course, nothing until the next election comes along in four long years and that may be too late. By then, the 'evils' contemplated may have already congealed. Promises were made at election time but evidently were not kept. Can we say that every politician has democratic principles in mind when he suggests laws and policies? Very unlikely. So,there is as much need for controlling the bad guys with guns as there is in controlling the bad guys in politics that are interested in some form of preferential treatment that excludes democratic principles or excludes the people. How else can you explain the 1%? Do you dare say, as some people do, that they're actually very hard workers and that they are not lazy? Thats ridiculous! They will find a way to make money generate more money without any effort on their part other then knowing how to 'play' with economic principles. Of course, there's also talk about psychological studies of unsocial behavior,crimes of violence, etc. with respect to gun control. Without a doubt,we need those studies, but that does not exclude gun control nor controlling the availability of 'weapons of war'. Wow,that sound so much like "weapons of mass destruction". Well, looks like we need people who really know when and how to use a weapon for self-defense only and God only knows, we also need a real Statesman at the helm.

If all the money circulates at the Top only and if government is run on economic principles and if corporations continue to get 'extensions' of Constitutional rights that real human beings are entitled too, we will soon become a plutocracy.Of course, government has to know how to operate with economic principles in order to stabilize the economy, but government,as such, is operated on democratic principles. Governing is not about making a profit, its about governing and protecting the people that established Constitutional government, in the first place, and that means governing democratically. Governing democratically also means that the benefits, direct and indirect, of economic activity inures to the benefit of all the people. It is imperative that we clarify the relationshps between the two disiplines and that we not conflate them. The economy and money is essential to any Nation, particularlly on the international sphere, but the economy operates on separate and different principles. We cannot confuse the two; if we do we're headed towards a Plutocracy. On a practical level, that means the 1% will govern the people. Economic principles are essential to the economy, but if we apply economic principles to governing we are creating a government that favors the 1% and before long, the bottom might as well be called, as in the Middle Ages, subjects and serfs. Economic principles conflated with government is the most undemocratic manner of government. It takes us back to the 'elastic' and historical transition between Kingdoms and the Middle Ages; when the Authority of the Top began to loosen and the rights of the individual began to take root. In government, there is no higher source of authority for 'whatever' than the People. Stop talking about entitlements. The only entitlements that exist are those the people give to those they select to govern. But, they have those entitlements only for a limited number of years. But when that time is up, they must join all of us human beings at the bottom of government and they better hope its democratic.

The relation between the Top and the Bottom could function algorithmically. Policy and law at the Top must reach the real individuals at the Bottom in a real way and the best way to do that is algorithmically. Since the top is linguistic in nature, it must bridge the 'middle ground' to relate to the the proper real area at the Bottom. It must do so in a more 'mathmatical manner', which is less abstract and more realistic. The top may be linguistic and hence subject to manipulation as is apparent with the so-called "fiscal cliff", but since the bottom is number, policy and laws have to fit into the democratic equation to make it real. If all the data is collected, an algorithmic approach can apply to the particular logical class that is being controlled or governed. It may not be a panacea, but it makes the results a lot more controllable. Certainly, corporations are out of the picture as 'real' human beings. They're fictions and hence can be 'manipulated' or "involuntarilly dissolved". If they do not want to pay their fair share of taxes, why give them more economic advantages. The same approach would seem to apply to the gun issue. Certainly every homeowner should have a means to protect his home,but s/he doesn't need an arsenal for that purpose. A hunter has a right to a 'gun' that corresponds to the kind of game he hunts. If he hunts elephants, he'd better have a big gun. But, neither is the hunter entitled to an arsenal. Weapons for war are not an issue, only a Constitutional right to 'bear arms' for self-defense. The gun lobby will probably want their own tanks and artillary pieces, but that is not the issue nor is the issue one of a right to accumulate. Every Constitutional right has its sphere of application. The Constitutional rights of 'freedom' and 'equality' are universal within the polity and hence apply to each and every human being in the Nation. Of course, corporations, are not human and while they are entitled to protection, they don't have the rights of humans. The rights that apply to humans have their particular logical class and hence can be identified more easily within a 'logorithmic model'. Of course, I speak of logical classes not economic classes. As real as 'economic classes' are, they are part of the economy and play no part in the governing process. Their only duty is the part they play in the payment of taxes within a governmental system that gave corporations their right to exist as a legal and economic entity. Actually, its not the corporations that seek all these unfair economic advantages( because they're fictions), its the people who run them. Its the 1%.

Democratic principles and economic principles must be kept separate. Both are important to any Nation, but democratic principles apply to the governmental form and to all the people. Economic principles apply to the economy, capitalization, production and consumption. No corporation or industry follows democratic principles in its operational mode, i.e. in its goal to make a profit. Corporations and small and large business entities follow economic principles dealing with their own organization, capitalization, production, consumption, etc.. Democracy has no meaning in economic sustainability and economics should have no meaning in democratic governing. Of course the two theories overlap because its human beings who are engaged in economic activity and it is they who are governed. So, questions of fairnes, wages, work hours, job availability, etc arise. Nevertheless, each discipline functions within its own paradigm and should remain there. That's why no one agrees with the Citizens United decision. The entanglement between government and economics was already complex without the extension of individual Constitutional freedoms into the economic sphere. Corporations were already protected under the 14th Amendment and they were already involved in political matters without any further unnecessary injection into the political framework by attributing to them Constitutional freedoms that only real individuals enjoy. A corporate freedom of speech is completely unjustifiable. Any move in that direction has to be perceived as a move by the rich to solidify their economic position. The final note is that corporations are recognized by law as being "legal fictions". They are not real and hence cannot possibly have a Constitutional freedom of speech. When the Courts start to play party-politics we're in trouble.

The relation between the One and the Many is an insidious relation. As simple as it looks, it can create many confusions. Most, if not all , are linguistic. Once we enter the linguistic domain we enter the linguistic, orderly and logical, albeit, insidous domain of abstraction. The insidious aspect of abstraction is its 'removal' from the real or concrete. Of course,abstraction is an important aspect of the thinking brain. We cannot survive without it, but it should not remove us from reality. How do we struggle against this? It must be done on an individual basis. If not, we fall into linguistic generalities that free-float in the social and the body politic. Of course, for organizational purposes these generalities are necessary. Nevertheless, they should not transport us into a 'social imaginary' that produces social inertia. We all recognize the tendency to 'live' removed from reality. But, we cannot fall victims to abstract and definitional 'party politics'. You and I are real. The 'social and polity' are high level abstractions. The 'word play' between the Top and the Bottom is tremendous. It becomes important to 'look for' a candidate for the Top rung of the political that is the most 'sincere'.A careful analysis of the terms used by politicions can help us determine the 'sincerity' of a candidate or the democratic nature of a Party position. We are at the Bottom of the 'ship of state' but that doesn't mean we can't keep a critical eye on the navigators. We put them there, and we can remove them. Thats democracy. Its important that the Third Branch of government use 'interpretive practices' that are impartial. Thats not a frivolous suggestion. The 'interpretive' branch must become more exacting in their interpretation of the relation between the Top and the Bottom. Surely, they understand the insiduous nature of linguistic abstractions. Surely, they understand the triadic nature of government. Surely they understand that the Top is dependent on the Bottom. The Bottom is not only 'real' ,it is constituted by millions of 'real' people. In their condition of togethernes, not a single one losses or compromises his/her 'life' or integrity as a human being. Its time the Top begins to understand that its the Bottom that matters. And it's time the Third Branch begins to see that they must be impartial. Don't get me wrong, linguistic abstractions are necessary and very important but no human being can 'live' in them. Sh/he can only formulate them. Lets use them in our condition of togetherness, but 'lets get a life'.

The structure of a governmental system or the so-called relation of the One and the Many presents many problems. The Founding fathers had to face some of those problems. Although they attempted to resolve some of the issues that arises from that ancient relation, they were not concerned with a simple relation of the One and the Many. Instead, they had to weld together thirteen colonies, each already exercizing power and having a separate 'identity' from each other. The Confederation was not working. Hence, their greatest problem was the States determination to retain their independence and their power. Of course, no one wanted to relinquish their power as independent States. Hence, the central problematic was between a centralized source of power versus the separate power of each State. Neither prevailed. Instead the result was a Republic, where 'power' was held by the 'Representatives of the People'. Hence, the Constitution recognized a "Union of people" not States and organized the Government as a three branch government. However, language at the time of crafting was not problematic. Today, language is problematic and the Constitution is entirely written. It becomes imperative to conceive the Constitution in an accurate manner yet, differently. Its easy to see it as written because we understand its language.( which is not to under-rate the importance of interpretive practices) But, there is an underlying form that exists before it was given its linguistic structure. That's the underlying form. That form is geometric and mathmatical and that gives it its underlying geometric and mathmatical conception as Triadic. A government of Three Branches is triadic. A triadic government is dependent on the people at the bottom of the triad. In a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, the people are sovereign. Hence, problems of democracy can be approached mathmatically. Of course, we will always be dependent on language, but, in evaluating democratic policy we cannor discard the mathmatics of the problem. Language must conform to mathmatics and mathmatics must conform to the language.

The ancient problematic of the relation of the One to the Many can be resolved. In order to do so, we must discard the abstraction in which the problem is formulated. The question arises, "why are we so concerned with such an ancient problem?". The short answer is because that formulation reflects the essential problematics of government. The statement "the One" is a linguistic abstraction and the statement "the Many" is also linguistic. Hence, the relation between the One and the Many must also be linguistic. These abstractions create many linguistic confusions. But, the confusions are linguistic and hence confusions of logic. But, logic and mathmatics are related and if we switch to the 'language' of "Number", the One is a Number and the Many are also Number(many numbers). However, in mathmatics, One is just One and can never be anything else. Likewise, the Many are number but each and every one in the collectivity called Many is an integrity unto itself and together with the other 'integritys', they constitute the inclusive abstraction "Many". If we are talking about individuals, this phenomena does not threaten or encroach into the integrity of any One individual in their condition of "togetherness", which identifies their abstract collective existence. It merely sets out the problematics of authority and political power. If the One or one of the Many is going to assume the political position at the Top, s/he must have a source from which to claim it. Most Ancient 'governments' claimed authority and power to be at the Top from sources outside themselves. In the Kingship form, the source was 'Divine',the so-called, Divine Right of Kings. In Dictatorships and forms of Autocracy, the source was usually force or strength. There's many different forms of government, but they can be reduced to variations of this form. Now, we can deal with the problematics of Democracy. Democracy, as we have said, is government "of the people", "by the people" and "for the people". In other words, democracy is "the people" governing themselves. No power or authority or superiority of any individual is required. The sole source of power and authority is the Constitution of the United States. A proper interpretation being required, the Judicial Branch must be impartial, free from Party loyalty,and must use "interpretive practices" that follow the structure of the Constitution. That structure is a Triadic structure: the Legislative being at the bottom, the Executive at the Top and the Judicial at the sides of the Triad of government. Any deviation from this form would be unconstitutional. The millions of people at the Bottom remain sovereign. That's recognized in the First Amendment which states that the people have a right to "peaceably... assemble and to petition the Government for redress of grievances". That!,is the Constitutional Right to revolution.

Certainly, the power to tax the people is necessary to operate a democratic government an democratic society. The whole issue reduces itself to "how much" and since we've divided humanity and society into 'classes', based on an economic principle,the question is which class gets to pay. The poor or lower class - well they don't even have a job, decent wages or medical care, but they still pay. Middle class, well they should pay taxes also if they could get a job. Even college graduates can't find a job. How about upper class and corporations? Well, upper class has gotten lots of tax advantages lately, like the death of the so-called 'death tax',( no pun intended) but,in all fairness, they also pay taxes. Hey! how about corporations? They can't 'hurt' from an increase because they are " legal fictions" and hence only exist "in contemplation of law". They're 'economic paper monsters'. They used to pay 70%. Now,I believe,they only pay 35%. Wow, thats a big reduction. Well, since they're not real and since the Courts protect them maybe they could be convinced to be a little more democratic. Since they owe their existence to the law, why not persuade them to give their "fair share" of taxes in exchange for having been given their fictional existence.(not to mention, bail-outs) If they don't want to cooporate, "involuntarily terminate" their corporate charter. Since they're fictions, how can that effect their "personal" existence? Just consider the "termination" as an economic manoeuvre to balance the economy. In fact, they're "money making machines". There is nothing wrong with making governments own economic creations more democratic. Government has lost control of its own creations. It's time government gets more control over what corporations do. Corporations should share in the equilibration of the economy by making a fair and just payment of taxes, and also, by helping to create jobs, fair wages, benefits for their employees, and other democratic necessities. Why pick on small businesses? Lets get the big "fictions". All government has to do is make the democratic spirit an essential part of their Articles of Incorporation. If they fail to comply, terminate them.

Its ridiculous to state or imply that individuals are not created equal and hence government must protect the equality of all individuals within the jurisdiction of the State or Nation. I'll bet you a dollar that every human being is just as human as the other. Fancy housing, fancy clothing, more'talent',fancy cars, big boats, more money, all the so-called benefits of society amount too just more 'toys' to play with. What does any of that have to do with being human. Take another look, everyone is equally human. Those individuals that hold offices at the top of government are not superior than those who are governed. They are up there because the bottom voted for them and only for a short period of time. Take away their office, their money, their cars, their boats, etc. and whats left. In some cases, very,very, nasty human beings. Wow, "I'm better than you because I have more toys than you"; its not the 'toys', its the human condition stupid! Government exists because millions of people living together cannot and will not get along otherwise. Thats sad, but true. Individuals will always look for ways to find 'weaknesses' in the Other and power in themselves. Hence, democratic government is the fairest arrangement of power because its 'open' to everyone. Unfortunately, the end result is that humans divide themselves into opposing Parties and try to find weaknesses in the Other Party and power in themselves. Everyone wants to be superior and have power. Admittedly, we're in a mess. So, what do we do? The only thing we can do is try to form a democratic Party that will represent all the individuals at the bottom. If a democracy has two Parties, then both must be democratic, no matter what they call themselves. Surely, there's different ways of doing things, but none can be un-democratic. It's really very simple. If a politician is not going to represent "the people", he or she has no business being in office. All governments were created by people; government has never created any "people". Thats ridiculous! Who created the people? Regardless your answer, you can see that all human beings are equally human. People do not need government to give them equality: they are already equal, besides they were the ones who created government. Government, all Office holders and politicians should be grateful that "the people" has given them a job. Human beings are equally human and that equality is protected by the Constitution; thats why the First Amendment gives the people the right to peaceably assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances. That, my friend, is the right to revolution.

Apply democratic principles to the present 'fiscal cliff' debate instead of economic principles and what do you get? Well, it seems that the hold-up (literally) are the 'haves' refusal to pay their just amount of taxes. 'Corporate America', capitalism, millionaires and billionaires refuse to pay a tax that is even lower than what they previously paid. Corporate taxes were lots higher, before, than what they presently are. Estate taxes no longer apply to the wealthy. The so-called 'haves' accepted a 'bail out' which is just a different word than the word applied to the needy and to those who paid the government from their hard earned wages. Of course, the so-called needy get'entitlements' but rich corporations that are 'too big to fail' get bailouts.I swear that seems like the same thing. What is 'too big to fail'? Is it more important to help a legal fiction than a real human being? Not if you are applying democratic principles instead of economic ones. You see, democratic principles apply to real human beings and economic principles apply to 'legal fictions'.Those who are fortunate got that way because of democratic principles. Now they want more and more instead of protecting the very principles that helped them out when they were 'needy' and needed protection and a bailout. The human condition is more important than 'fictional persons'. What could possibly be the motivation for the 'haves' to want more? Everyone knows( and they also know) that its greed. Plain economic greed. The engine for corporations is the profit motive which, in some cases, leads to greed. The profit motive is not so bad, but greed? Come-on, whats fair is fair. Its really simple. But those who benefited from democratic principles are now wanting to apply economic principles and want an 'equal' situation after they used democratic principles and acquired a tremendous amount of economic 'inequality'. The 1% wants to remain 1%. The convolutions of language usage in the present situation is a glaring case of 'word prostitution'. What better case for the inadequacy of language and the need to perceive government in triadic form. Its really simple democracy and simple math.

We should not conflate political theory and economic theory. Even though both are necessary, they should be kept separate. Political theory relates to the form and structure of a government and the means by which political power is exercized. In a democracy, the form and structure of government is that of "a people" governing themselves viz. a government "of the people", "by the people", and "for the people". Of course, "the people" need housing, work, food, clothing, etc. to subsist on a day to day basis. Both these needs are provided by the form of the social and that of the economy. Its at this point where the two disciplines can be easily conflated. Politics relates to governing by means of the Constitutional form and structure of government. The economy and capitalism relates to the circulation of money in such manner that the economic and social institutions are made more and more productive and efficient. The economy can evolve and become more 'modernistic', but government is stable and is not subject to evolution like other social and economic institutions. If government 'changes'it must be towards better democracy.It cannot change form, it can only improve the structure by which it implements its democratic form. Democracy is forever. An economy needs a medium of exchange that circulates among the busineses and the people,viz.money. Of course, all the people and the busineses are at the bottom of triadic government( Constitutional Government). Hence, circulation has to be kept at the bottom. If the money stays at the top, it will not circulate at the bottom.If thats the case, there will not be sufficient circulation to keep the social institutions viable. Work will break down, wages will break down, and so will home ownership, medical care, and social security, etc.. As important as money is in our social and our economy, it cannot serve as a political value. Political principles are the engines of a democracy. Money cannot and should not drive democracy. The constitution and a political theory that conforms to the principles of a democracy are the sole criteria for political theory. Human history has not come to the end and it never will, nor will the need for government, nor will the need of an economy. Todays' democracy, todays' economy, and todays life, will be tommorrows, next months, and next years history. Capitalism should feed the people, not rule; capitalism is not government. Capitalism is driven by the profit motive and, unfortunately, greed. Democracy is driven "by the people" and more importantly, "for the people". Capitalism needs democracy; democracy does not need capitalism. Lets keep both of them, but lets keep them separate.

The need for the Top to establish a real relation to the Bottom of government i.e. where the people live their lifes, is not an easy matter. What makes it difficult is the need to bridge the 'meaning dimension' of language usage. Those different meanings inherent in usage is what allows 'political language' to have a multiplicity of meaning-variables. Those variables are what allows language to 'play games' on a multiplicity of levels of abstraction. Add to that,the many convolutions of the 'Linguistic Turn' and that renders language into a vacuous exercise. Together, a certain 'word magic' becomes possible, which can become a political tool for misleading the people at the Bottom. Ask any politician. In order to avoid the free-floating nature of language, the Top must use quantitative terms that are more exact than the linguistic terms. Of course, mathmatical and geometric terms are also 'language'. However, they are not concerned with 'meaning' as such as with the postulation of a quantity and a sense of direction. Of course, we all know those disciplines use 'number' and we all know number is always what it is and nothing else. You can't play around with numbers like you can with words. A real relation between the Top and the Bottom must, of necessity, use both languages.I repeat: that is not an easy matter. Nevertheless, if democracy is going to work, we are going to need such a language. Another difficulty, are the individuals who occupy the offices at the Top and their serious attempt to do democracy. Plain Governing is easy. Its like ruling by Kings or dictators,if anyone gets in the way,just eliminate them. Thats not the kind of governing we are talking about. No! Governing in a democratic manner requires establishing that real relation between the Top and the Bottom. It also stops the empty talk and gets things done. Recently, an ex-President said , and I paraphrase and elaborate a little, "do the math"; "Its simple arithmetic"; "Its number stupid". Number does not lie, it doesnt play politics either. We need creative, sincere people in office to establish a real bridge between the Top and the Bottom. Democracy is an equation.

People living in a 'condition of togetherness' need government. Human beings are first then arises the need for government. Historically, it took a long time for the different forms of government to evolve. A good history book can survey the many transitions. But,its unquestionable that a true democratic form of government came to be the best.Of course, the only way to achieve a true democratic government is with a three-prong approach to governing. And that further assumes that the Top will do its job and that the sides will be impartial in its "interpretive practices" and that the people at the bottom will stay within the confines of law. But, if the Top does not implement Constitutional government and if the sides refuse to interpret the Constitution impartially, why not just turn it over to the people? Hey,its their government. Of course, the Bottom could just invoke their right to "assemble" but, better yet ( since their just too many of them) why not provide them with jobs, just wages, medical care, Social Security, opportunities to own their own home, acquire a savings account,and opportunities to raise a healthy family. And the most important part, stop organizing the economy on the backs of "legal fictions". Those 'fictional persons' are immortal besides they are very stupid, because they can't do anything of themselves. They need a few real human beings at the helm. The only problem is that the human beings 'driving' these "fictions' have to be greedy. (I'm sure, thats a prerequisite.) These 'mythological' fictions don't eat; if it does something illegal, it doesn't go to jail; if it gets economically 'sick', its just dissolved and then immediately enjoys a 'resurrection' of course, with a different name but, (listen carefully) with the same drivers. The economy is a very important part of any Nation and corporations are important parts of the economy. But, if the whole well being of any democratic Nation is built on 'the backs of fictions', what happens to the real basis of government and the economy? That approch alienates the people and keeps the money that should circulate at the bottom, at the top 1%. Why not build an economy on the backs of real human beings, they could use the work and I'm positive that they and their families would be grateful. Anyway, we always select someone from the Bottom to occupy the Executive, Judicial and Legislative Offices of government. Maybe we can be lucky and get a real worker,a real family person, who loves the human condition more than some effete fictional 'person' with a huge economic grasp and who only produces money. We may have such a person. Time will tell. Of course, the Bottom can always exercise its right to 'assemble' and petition the government... .

Why was government established in triadic form? What other forms of government are possible? Well, historically we know about the Divine route, but that didn't work. We also know about the dictator route and that doesn't work either. Why don't these forms work? Thats simple:because there's no divine guidance involved in one and there's no superior human condition to govern in the other. Variations of these two characteristics of superiority also failed. The truth is that the One can never govern the Many. Every human being is free and equal. The only way around that problematic is a three-pronged approach to government. That is why the Constitution of the United States and similar governments in all other parts of the world have proven to be the ideal form. Its simple, those forms just cover all the bases. One branch rules; a representative branch represents all the people; and the third branch uses "interpretive practices" to implement a democratic government 'of people', 'by people' and 'for people'. So, why do we have problems in government? Thats simple also! Because of the unhealthy persuit of political power and the greedy accumulation of money. Power is necessary, but the improper exercise of it, is not. Money also is necessary ,but thats an economic principle, not a political one and money is a medium of exchange and needs to circulate among all the people at the bottom. The greedy accumulation of money is never a political goal. The powerfull in government must be kept within the perimeters of the Constitution. The interpreters of the Constitution must be impartial. The representatives of the people must represent the people and not themselves or lobbyists. So how can we correct all that is wrong with government. The only way is to point out the problem area and to "be heard". Government belongs to the people, nobody else! The First Amendment gives the people the right "peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grieviances". Thats the Constitutional right to revolution. The people at the bottom have the strength of 'numbers'. In a condition of togetherness, the bottom is stronger than all the power at the Top. But, that right must also be excercized properly. Any Constitution that does not have a First Amendment should get one and then should learn to use it.

The structure of government should be a relatively stable structure. I say "relatively stable" because government is an ever-moving process. Its never inert. It must always be in motion and functioning. Sometime it comes close to stability and sometimes its just moving in the direction of the latest National or International 'crises'. The point is that it always seeks stability. "Unstable times" compel stablization of whatever the crises might be. The question that arises is, "how can a real democratic government achieve stability"? It cannot be stable in the same sense as a dictatorship or Kingdom. Those 'governments' were fixated and the stability was only at the Top. Those 'governments' don't care about the people at the bottom. Stability in a democracy is an achievable state that requires the top to respect the real individuality of the bottom i.e.the people at the bottom. There is no preferential categorizing-in general linguistic terms- when 'applying' democracy. Democracy must have a foundation and that foundation is the real individual at the bottom. Many factors enter the governing of the Many by the One. But, the main criteria is that the language used in governing does not "free-float" at such a high level of abstraction, that it denotes nothing at the concrete bottom. For example: "Why are we in Iraq?" The ans;"we're bringing them democracy". The answer must be a real answer; one that makes contact with the appropriate parts of the bottom. If government is to be democratic, it must include the real people in the act of governing. The Top relates to the Bottom in a real way. No 'free-floating' politicians allowed. It's OK for conversational and didactic purposes, but not for governing. Academically,it can be taught abstractly, but in the real world, governing has to be real.The only way of achieving this is to keep the triadic nature of governing ever in motion. The Top governs; the sides apply "interpretive practices" impartially and constitutionally; and the Bottom obeys the law. In this manner, the One relates efficientlly to the Many at the bottom without encroacing on the freedom and equality of each and every individual that has 'entitled' the Top to the right of exercizing power. The only entitlement in this world is the right of the Top to exercize power. The only reason there's power at the Top is because the law compels it. If law didn't exist, we would all just be free and equal human beings.

Democratic government is a government "of people","by people",and "for people". There is no other form of government that can approach democracy as a functional concept. The triadic form(a reduction of the Constitutional form) is potentially the most democratic form that can exist, provided that the three sides of the triad are constantly kept in a motion that preserves its triadic nature. Any other form would have to assume that the human condition of one or a few individuals, viz. the rulers at the top, are superior to that of the others at the bottom or the sides. That cannot be the case. In a government of humans, all humans are free and equal; unlike the antiquated "Divine Right of Kings", dictatorships, or any government established by force. These latter will never achieve democracy. People must govern themselves, and the only way to posit anyone of its members at the Top, is by a process of election. Of course, many things can go wrong in the electoral process. These problems must be studied, monitored and corrected, but we cannot neglect their different natures. The only way that the Many or millions of people can be governed is where they themselves set out the structure of government and that can only be done with language and in writing. Of course, that can be problematic, but that was what was accomplished at the Constitutional Convention. Nevertheless,that fact does not mean that the Many or "the People" will always be contained or 'captured' in a general linguistic formulation. No, the nature of the top and that of the bottom must always be respected. Instead of just using words to describe democratic activity, we must use something more stable and fixed. This step is required because the bottom is a 'community' of real indidviduals, each having its own individuality and sanctity. Hence, we must use a different language viz. the language of Number. Each is different and hence 'number' and must be included in any 'democratic formulation'. The different nature of the top and the bottom compels a real approach to governing, i.e. it cannot be just 'empty talk'. The bottom 'wants and likes' to hear democratic talk, but it wants real contact; real inclusion and exclusion. Bridging the gap between the One and the Many is not easy, but every 'social' is entitled to it. It has a Right to it. If our leaders are as brilliant as they claim to be, they must figure it out. After all they want power.( which, of course, they are entitled too) But, the top must never forget the people who put them in that position. Difficulties abound,but surely, we, the people, have evolved in our 'democratic thinking' and 'democratic doing' to a level easilly distinguished from a stupid 1% at the top and a 99% at the bottom 'way of thinking'. Also, from an equally stupid position of allowing fictitous entities to participate in elections. That is not democracy, thats pure 'egoism' ( a false center of self-importance that blocks out everyone else). Egoism is very 'undemocratic'.

There are advantages to percieving government as triadic-in-form. One of the advantages is that it helps to accent the relation between the top and the bottom. The relation is real and must be bridged in a real manner. The top is a focal point of power and the bottom is the source of the power attributed to the top. The top houses "power" and that can be described with language, while the nature of the bottom must be expressed in a quantitative manner in order to 'preserve' its democratic nature. Each individual at the bottom is unique and important in the equation called "democracy". Although the term "democracy" is a general linguistic term that can be applied in multi-farious ways, the term is subject to quantification. This quantification allows for a better determination of the democratic nature of the activities being propounded by the top. In other words, the relation between the top and the bottom is real and must be bridged both, linguistically and mathmatically. This more skeletal relation allows the top to 'talk' democratically, but it also compels a real connection between the top and the bottom. The triadic form helps to accentuate the geometric and mathmatical nature of the relation. That is the only way the relation between power and democracy can be maintained. Since each end of the relation, i.e. the Top and the Bottom, is real and must connect with each other, each end of the relation must respect the nature of the 'Other' end. The top must always use language, but it must also relate to the bottom in a real manner, viz. mathmatically. If governing is to be real governing; so must the geometric relation from the top to the people. The top and its attendant power is there only because the bottom established it when it constituted the Nation. The Constitution adds an interpretive function to the relation of the top and the bottom and that helps to describe the connecting relation; i.e. it describes the duties of government and the Rights of the people. That interpretive function, of course, is the Judicial Branch. The Judiciary has a duty to pass judgement on political issues but, it must be impartial to Party politics. Without impartiality in the application of interpretive practices, the Nation is doomed to go round in circles. There is no 'moving forward' in a circle. We must apply the triad to the nature of government.

A triadic form of government that works on a National scale can also work on the International scale. To be sure, there are different physical characteristics, languages, and cultures of the peoples within each separate National government but, the triadic form and structure applied on an international scale would respect each National 'difference' as defining characteristics of each separate Nation. There would be no colonizing nor imposition of value systems by one Nation into the 'other' Nation. Each nation would retain its own identity, its own language and its own culture. The difference in the application of triadic government on the International scale is that International Government would be a government "of Nations", "by Nations" but, "for all the People in the world"; regardless of physical or cultural differences. The same respect that allows for cultural or social difference in the "human condition", within the National government, allows cultural or social 'difference' within the International scale. In such a case, International government would be "of Nations", "by Nations", but, "for all the people". On the International scale, people in the world also need some authority to govern each separate Nation, but on the International scale, government would be "of Nations", "by Nations", however, it would have to be "for the people of the world" or, it wouldn't constitute an International government. The 'democratic' move into the international community compells each Nation to have its own democratic government and, being such, would be free to join the International democratic community. Each Nation in the International democratic community would be governed by its own triadic government and the International government, being triadic also, would hold together the Nations which would, in turn, hold together its own people within the National scale, which also allows them to fit into the democratic International scale. This molds the "peoples" of the world into the bottom of an International triadic government. As we've said,its the bottom which makes triadic government functional and its the bottom of triadic government which gives "strength to "the peoples of the world". The people of the world have a right to form governments and to gather into communities and to be treated with respect by those who are allowed to govern them. There are no superior human beings at the top of any government; there's only public servants. Each separate human being is sacred, whether he or she lives in a Nation or is just "in the world". Every human being ,whether on the National or on the International scale, has a right to his or her life, language,and culture. Each is a free and equal human being within the 'human' community. If government, whether National or International, is not 'serving the people', its time for the people to 'flex their muscles'.

The term "Democracy"is a number word. It is a term that linguistically refers to a form of government, "of people", "by people", and "for people". All the three terms used to describe the form of government are important, because it excludes "the Divine Right of kings" and any "off-shoots" and dictatorships of whatever form. However, the term that stands out in a Democratic form is the term,"for the people". Whatever direction the government takes, it will always be "of people", and "by people". In such a limited application, no further distinction is necessary. But,if the governing is a democratic form of government, and if it's not "for the people", it is not a democracy. Since, the term democracy is a number word, it includes "of people", "by people" and "for people". Democracy refers to the number of individuals at the bottom of tradic government. Triadic government takes the relation of the One and the Many and gives it another relation which forms the triad. That third relation is, in linguistic terms, the Judicial Branch, a branch that must be necessarilly impartial if it is to be a part of government. The Constitution spells out a triadic form of government. The bottom part of triadic government is where the people are. They are the governed in the relation of the One and the Many. But, we said the term "democracy " is a number word, hence the term must include the whole of the bottom in triadic government. This renders any governing that takes place into an equation called "democracy". There is no governing if the equation is not completely present. If the top of government legislates for the benefit and control of the top of government only, it is not governing the bottom, i. e. the people. In such a case, its government taking care of its own self and ignoring the people it should be governing. That is not democratic government because the equation is not even engaged. This can be expressed in many ways; its the top taking care of the top; its the "haves" ignoring the "have-nots"; its the 1% ignoring the 99%; its the 1% creating "fictional persons" to help concentrate all the money at the top; its the substitution of a value system that belongs in the economy into the political system of democracy; Its functionaly and fundamentally, the deconstruction of democracy. Thats why Constituional government must begin to utilize "interpretive practices" that penetrate to the underlying triadic form of democratic government. Words can be multi-ordinal; Numbers cannot. To paraphrase "President" Clinton, " Its mathmatics stupid".

Party loyalty in any branch of government enfeebles the democratic spirit. Democracy is people government, i.e. "of people", "by people", and "for people". which includes everyone. That should mean that if we have two separate parties in a democracy, each with its own separate ideology, then each of the Parties should be persuing different programs but, the separate outcomes would still be democratic. If both programs are democratic,i.e. are "for the people", then what difference would the implementation of either program make? Very little or none, but, does that ever happen? Of course not, the adherence to party loyalty limits the application of the suggested proposal; it limits the application of the democratic spirit. Party loyalty in a democracy should not compromise democracy. But, unfortunately that is not the case. Fidelity to Party weakens the democratic spirit. This applies in all three branches of government. But, if we focus on the Judicial Branch ; a branch that has a Constitutional duty to be impartial; which succumbs to Party ideology, what chance do the people have of getting an impartial decision? Absolutely none. Not only is democracy being enfeebled by Party loyalty, but now even the branch of government which is duty bound to be impartial, has given-in to Party ideology. The judicial branch has facilitated the congestion of money in the top 1%, by allowing "legal fictions" to participate in electoral politics. Money, a medium of exchange that allows for exchanges in the economy, has replaced the democratic spirit. Its sad, but not surprising, that both the Executive and Legislative branches are sometimes overcome by greed and party politics,but when a branch that is chosen on a statement under oath that they will follow Constituional law, plays politics, then our safeguard against abuses of democracy, has been severely compromised. If the Judiciary doesn't adjudicate democracy, there is nothing else in government that can hold the other branches in check. It is necessary to legislate control of the Judicial Branch. The other Branches can engage in politics, but not the Judiciary. If the Judiciary is going to play politics, maybe its time to "occupy" the marble halls of Justice.

Party loyalty in the Judicial Branch is criminal. Its not surprising that the Executive Branch is loyal to Party ideology, but malfeasance can be corrected at the end of the term. The Legislative Branch, instead of representing the People, engages in the same warped sense of loyalty, but that can also be corrected. In spite of the lack of control over human greed and an individuals panting for political power, these malfeasance's can be corrected even though the correction may occur after-the-fact. But, there is no such democratic control over the Judiciary. What happened? Why isn't there some kind of control of the Judicial branch? Could the Founding fathers have assumed that the Courts would always be objective in their interpretive practices? If they did, they were poor judges of human character. Our political history is peppered with unjust, sometimes ridiculous decisions by the so-called Learned Brethern on the Court. There has to be some control over the duty to be impartial in adjudicating Constitutional issues. Thats the only duty they have. They have no other function. They should be required to be impartial and that impartiality should be subject to some kind of oversight every so-many years. Surely, there are some standards by which objectivity can be quantified and measured. Government is "of people", "by people" and "for people". That doesn't seem to be very difficult. There is no room for Party-politics in the Judicial Branch. If there is no democratic control over the Judicial Branch, these "life-long", Party-decisions become fixed and cemented into the political fabric. If a Justice is not being impartial, he or she has to be removed. If not, democracy will deconstruct. No Justice and no Chief Justice has a right to a life-long tenure when he or she is playing politics. All this at the expense of the people for whom the Founding Fathers crafted the Constitution. I've said, the Bottom is Number. Every-one has to be included in the equation we call "democracy". We do not live in a Plutocracy; we live in a Democracy. The bottom of triadic government is necessary for a democracy. If the Judicial Branch is not doing its job, its time for the people at the bottom to " peaceably... assemble...and petition...for a redress of grievances".

Democracy is about people. People; every kind, male, female,young, old, type,race, or color. There are no distinctions in the human condition. Government is about governing Many people. Government is the One and the people are the Many. If a government is purportedly democratic, it should be about the people, not about power, possesions or self-importance. Every Leader of a government, regardless its type, is an individual. How can it be otherwise? There are no superior 'human conditions'. If you're a human being, your like every other human being, whether your at the top or at the bottom. Every one is equally human. Many polititians immediately make distinctions between 'intelligence', 'social wealth', 'culture', physiology, etc. to make the furthur political distinction that we are not the same; that we are different. We are not talking about difference, we are talking about political equality. They do not understand the term "equality" nor the term "political equality". The Many at the bottom of triadic government is the so-called Many. The 'Many' is as much a numerical term as is the term 'equals'. Thats why in triadic government, the Top is the One and the Bottom is the Many. The Bottom is Number, and each number has within itself everything it needs to be that number. Number doesn't need anything from outside itself to be what it is. So is each and every human being in the governments of the world. Democracy is a social equation where every individual is equal and every number most be included in the equation called 'democracy' in order for the equation to be correct; otherwise its not democracy. Democracy must include every individual in the Nation; the World Government for that matter. The Top of every government is a social construct an is filled with someone from the bottom. Although, the Top of government is equally human, it has been given power by the bottom; otherwise he or she could not rule. Thats the only "entitlement " in the world; it goes from the bottom to the top. What comes from the top to the bottom should be democracy and that includes, "human rights", privileges, benefits of government, opportunities and a sufficient circulation of a 'medium of economic exchange' that creates, jobs, ownership of homes, wages, and other economic benefits. Otherwise, why have government?

Triadic government is Three Branch government; is Constitutional government. What I am suggesting is no different from Constitutional government, as we know it. The suggested new perception of a Triadic nature merely helps everyone see more clearly the underlying geometric form of Constitutional government. In its triadic form, we can see how the bottom of the triad viz. the people, supports the top and the sides. The bottom is the 'Many' and they understand that they need a 'One' or top to govern them. But, the 'Many' create the political position that exist at the top. The Founding Fathers created the Constitutional parameters of the bottom, the top and the judicial. The top has power, the sides have judgement and the bottom has strength in numbers. The bottom is Number. The top of government has power because the bottom has given it power. There is no other reason for the existence of political power. Without a bottom,i.e. without people, there is no need for a top. Any individual elevated to the political position of the Top is no more human or superior than any one else at the bottom. Every individual at the top comes from the bottom. In a democracy everyone is Free and Equal. In a democracy everyone has duties and obligations. No exceptions. Every government should function as a triad. Power,Judgement and Strength working harmoniously determine the solidarity of a Nation. Money does not determine political power. Money should circulate in the economy and has no place in government. Power can only be excercised Constitutionally, Judgement can only be impartial and strength is in Number. The bottom has strength in numbers because if the top is not Constitutional, and the sides are not being impartial, millions and millions of people have the right to "peaceably assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances". That, is the right to revolution.

If we lived in a Plutocracy, our leader would probably be thinking, " Democracy is dead, long live greedy accumulation"; an exclamation that reveals the 'spirit' of that which has come to rule our lives. Its personally disabling to realize,that such an artificial means established to make possible the exchange of commodities, rules our diurnal existence; but to have allowed it to dominate the political field and to overthrow the principles of democracy constitutes absolute negligence.Of course, we have been neglegent in other respects also; like creating "legal fictions" to monopolize the creation of 'money as a social value'. In spite of the social necessity for such a creation, there should have evolved commensurate levels of control. Of course, we are all aware of the antitrust laws that were passed to control potential abuse by our "legal fictions", but we are also aware that they are being 'Powellized'. Slowly, the holy dollar ascends to the pinnacle of power. The statutory control to prevent abuse by corporations, which obviously hasn't worked, could also be applied by regulating the provisions in the Articles of Incorporation of economic corporations. Corporations don't have to be immortal! Since they're legal fictions, their existence can be controlled by limiting their existence in the same way that human existence is limited. Why should a legal fiction have a "perpetual" existence when a real human being doesn't. Maybe, a requirement that follows the statistics of the Life Expectancy tables? For example, a requirement to renew corporate charters, every so often, could require a 'history ' of compliance with the antitrust provisions, as well as some contribution to the democratic spirit of society. The latter is the most important aspect because if human beings are expected to 'behave' democratically, why not also a legal fiction? The only reason for such a provision is the failure of the Courts to be impartial.The so-called Party loyalty enshrined in Court decisions by Judges is harmful to the democratic spirit. Neither Party has a right to enshrine Party ideology into Court decisions. That is not the function of a Judiciary. That deconstructs democracy. Court decisions should not be 'politically devious': they should impartially interpret the Constitution persuant to the underlying triadic form of a democracy, a government "of people", "by people" and "for people".

Its not the Social Contract, per se, that is in danger, its democratic government and the principles underlying the concept of democracy. In a democracy every individual is politically free and equal. Those two universal human qualities refer to the sanctity of the human condition. That's what is in danger: and the underlying sadness is that it is being overthrown by an economic principle; not even a better human principle nor a superior political principle. That economic principle is the medium of exchange used in the social. Obviously, money is a medium of exchange that must circulate within a wholesome political body. If we contain this circulation, the political body can become stagnant. The social will deconstruct. When the circulation of money in the form of personal income, personal ownership of property or, corporate income and corporate ownership of property, is restricted to the top 1%, there is no circulation of money in the form of jobs, wages, benefits or,generally speaking, as social and economic opportunities among the 99% at the bottom. Economic greed usurps democracy. Keep in mind, economic greed is the results of an economic principle gone oppressive. Its not even a political principle, much less a democratic principle. Economics must be kept out of politics. The greatest beneficiary of the economy are the corporations and they are not even human. They are legal fictions. How do we know that? Because the so-called 'learned Justices of the Supreme Court' said so! Ha! we've gone full circle to the so-called just, impartial arbitrars of democracy. If we can't get impartiality from the Court, from where are we going to get it? The Executive can be fair and democratic if, he or she chooses to be, if not, we have to live with him or her for at least 4 years. The legislatures function in a representative capacity but more often 'represent' their own self-interests or some lobbyists. The Judiciary is the only branch of government that has a duty to be impartial. They must develope interpretive practices that protect the democratic principles of a democracy as set out in the Constitution: "We the People...". That first phrase in the Constitution already excludes corporate fictions. Corporations are not counted in the census because they are fictions. The last place for Party politics in our democratic government is in the Judiciary. The Courts are not the place for political games. If they want to play politics they should run for office, not the Judiciary.

Instead of relying on a Social Contract to connect the top and the bottom, its best to interpret the Constitution as formulating a Triadic form of government. Of course, it literally creates a government of three branches, but we don't perceive its underlying form as a triad. We immediately go to the the language in the Constitution and purport to interpret its provisions. There's nothing wrong with that approach: it has to be interpreted but, my point is that we cannot rely solely on its linguistic structure. We have to find the underlying form that led the Founding Fathers to craft a government of three branches. The reason for going under the language is to attenuate the deconstructive effects of the Linguistic turn. Political language is already intentionaly convoluted and if we add to that the deconstructive effects of the Turn, we're in serious trouble. The Turn just provides additional clutter. However, if we perceive the underlying form or the triadic nature of its linguistic structure, as being what the Founding Fathers were aiming at, we begin to see the reasons for a government with three Branches. In any democratic government, three branches are absolutely necessary and thats geometric. One branch governs, one determines the democratic manner of governing and the legislative branch passes laws to regulate the government and the people. Of course, the top must govern democratically and the Judiciary must be impartial. But,it's the bottom that creates the form of government, not the Top. If we assume that the Top created government, it must have also created the bottom, i.e. the People, and that's ridiculous. We are NOT a Kingdom nor a Dictatorship. In Constitutional government, its the People that are important. Democracy is government "of people", "by people", and-the most important part-"for the people". People are the essence of a democracy, not the government. Government owes its prestigious offices to the people. Government owes its very existence to the people. People were here first, they created government. From where did government gets its power to govern? From the bottom. No-where else.The only "entitlement" in this world is the prestige the people grant to office holders involved in the difficult work of governing. That 'difficult work' is the duty of the Top to govern in a democratic manner. Any benefits derived from government or the established economy should inure to the benefit of the people, not the government nor the top 1%. Otherwise, why create democratic government in the first place? We cannot depend on the Social Contract any longer. We have a triadic government where the people create the Top and the sides of that same government described in the Constitution. Triadic, geometric government, does not lie. Neither does mathmatics, nor number and the bottom of triadic government are the people; the bottom is Number.

The Social Contract was a useful fiction, but it only created a linguistic relation between the Top and the Bottom. In other words there were only two parties to the contract and everyone knows that a contract is dependent on the interpretation of the language. At one time that contractual relation may have worked, but today, in face of all the political, and linguistic convolutions-not to mention the effects of the so-called Linguistic Turn and the lack of impartiality in the Judiciary-it's not going to work. Why not? Because, the relation created by a contract depends on the understanding of the linguistic terms used by an impartial judiciary. We have already pointed out that the relation between the Top and the Bottom is not only abstract, its real, and hence cannot be completely linguistic. Each and every individual at the bottom is real and must be related too in a real way and not just abstractly with general linguistic terms. Thats why the bottom is perceived as 'number' and hence can be quantified depending on the reach and the parameters of the statement.Its one thing to say "everyone is free" its another to really include every individual at the bottom referenced in the statement. The relation in the statement is abstract and hence applies to the entire bottom only in an abstract way. It leaves too much wiggle room for linguistic confusion by politicians. Need I add, they take advantage of all the wiggle room they can create with their words. However, the triadic form of government, which is the same as the Constitutional form, includes all the Top, the bottom and the sides of government. The bottom is the most important part of government and, if viewed in the triadic form, everyone can actually see that without the people at the bottom, you can't have a top or sides. The triadic form simplifies the structure of the Constitution and allows everyone to see the form behind the language of the Constitution. It allows for a more simplified perception of government. The essence of democracy is community at the bottom. If the top is not governing according to the triadic nature of government as set out in the Constitution and if the Judiciary is not being impartial, the bottom does not need them. Thats probably why the Founding fathers passed the First Amendment.

The Social Contract may have provided the 'glue' for democracy in the past. But today, its an effete concept because of the Linguistic Turn and the many linguistic problematics that flowed from it; not to mention the already existing convolutions found in political language. Democratic concepts are verbal and hence problematic. Its one thing to make a democratic statement, its another to carry out the performance of the concept. Real democracy can only exist at the bottom of triadic government. The bottom houses real people, and just making a verbal reference to people at the bottom will not suffice. A verbal statement may suggest some intention to perform,but its not the actual performance. How can we insure the actual implementation of political promises? It must be recognized that the the top of government needs language to communicate policy to the bottom. Thats essential, but it must also be recognized that the bottom is where democracy actually takes place. Democracy is not at the top. The top carries-out or implements democracy but, the bottom is where it takes place. If there is no democracy at the bottom, you can't have it at the top. Its impossible. Democracy is "for the people" and the people are at the bottom of triadic government. The Occupy Wall Street movement was effective because those were real people out there. What is needed is a theoretical framework that justifies the 'occupiers' right to peaceably assemble in whatever sector is conducting itself undemocratically. At present there are diverse groups of people 'occupying' different areas of the social and of government, but they are too spread-out and attennuated. There is no theoretical framework holding them together. Every individual at the bottom can be an 'occupier'; under the proper circumstances. That is the bottoms right. The bottom of triadic government exists in a condition of togetherness or community. That 'condition' is capable of 'assembling' peaceably to petition government. That is its Constitutional right. Unlike the top, the bottom is not given any political power, but it has strength in 'numbers'; strength in the 'condition of collectivity' is the essence of democracy. Real democracy must include every 'number' in the equation we call 'democratic government'. Real government is Constitutional and geometric; its triadic. Real democracy is mathmatical. "We the People" is number. Everyone necessary to the equation must be included. If any proper number is left out of the equation, its not democracy.

Its been said that the Social Contract is in danger. That's probably correct, but its a mistake to think that its preservation will keep us safe. Even if its preserved, the concept no longer does the job of connecting the bottom with the top and the top with the bottom. Notice that I emphasize the top-down relation and also the bottom-up relation, because it should relate in both directions. But, the Social Contract is outmoded, and add to that, the problematics of the Linguistic Turn, and the concept no longer serve as an efficient means for connecting the top with the bottom. The Social Contract cannot save us from the deceptions of political language, nor deceptions from the top. It presupposses a 'contract' entered into by a top and a bottom. Of course, it was called a "fiction" and everyone knows it is, in fact, a fiction. Its a fictional linguistic construct that only refers to the multitudinous people at the bottom in an abstract form that does not reach each and every individual at the bottom in any real way. Needless to add, its not a 'binding' concept; its an unreliable concept, and many people don't even know there is such a 'contract'. Stated more accurately,if Constitutional government is perceived as triadic, it can be conceived in a triadic form. The perception compels a necessary realization that the bottom is the most important part of the triad. That part constitutes the begining of the Constitution, viz."We the People". Then, possibly, the importance of the bottom will stand out-accentuated-and be perceived correctly, viz. that the individual at the bottom is what's important in Constitutional democratic government. Without a bottom there is no need for a top or the sides of the triad. Government is about people and, more importantly, for people. Nothing else. To the contrary, if the top is perceived as democratic, it will automatically be assumed that the bottom and the sides are also democratic, because "we live in a democracy". That,of course, is not necessarilly the case. Democracy comes from the bottom and is at the bottom. No-where else. The democratic bottom is where the election of the top and the sides of triadic government are chosen. Without a democratic bottom there can be no form of government at the top. One can linguistically call the top democratic, but that, obviously, is not the deciding factor. How many governments call themselves democratic and actually are not? No, democracy is determined by the conditions existing at the bottom. Thats the proper way to perceive and then conceive democratic government. We cannot allow the abstract words of politicians to get in the way of a real democracy.Democracy is not just an abstract linguistic term, it's real. A government "for" the people is real.

Party ideologies are OK, but don't be mislead by them. Of course, there are different approaches to governing democratically. Nevertheless, Party-ideology fixates one approach and does not deviate from it.If an ideologue deviates from the dictates of his/er Party, he/she is considered a turncoat. Of course, there are subtle differences within this deviation. Example, The decision approving Obamacare appears as a deviation from Party principles but, the dictum in the decision weakens several Constitutional approaches to federal soveriegnty. Future decisions can now use it to cause lots of damage to the people at the bottom. So, one Party subtly lays ground-work for future Constitutional connections that furthur weakens the bottom of government,viz. democracy. Remember, the Constitution crafts a triadic form of government; not a dualistic form. The problematic of a dualistic Party system is that ideologues hang on to their beliefs as if gospel-truth. Any Party loyalty in a dichotomous set-up, will just go from one side to the other and vice-versa; there are no alternatives. Thats why government must be perceived as a triadic form that is always in motion and seeks only to harmonise the whole triad. When government has a dichotomous party-system, it automatically endangers democracy. Why? Because a democracy is "of the people", "by the people" and "for the people". Once polititians divide themselves into a dualistic system, they can no longer relate to the third aspect of government, which is the most important and the fundamental part of a democracy, viz. the bottom. Of course, a Two-Party system can function properly if it adheres to the Constitution. But, that requires an honest and sincere flexibility between ideologies and not insiduous groundwork for future party-ideologies. The reason any Party-system can function properly, if it really wants too, is that the Constitution crafts a triadic form of government; not a dualistic form. The only requirement is adherence to the Constitution. Of course, this furthur requires an impartial Judiciary; and where are we going to find that? The Judiciary is a very important aspect of government because it defines the lines of a democracy. The Judicial branch must stop playing politics. Regardless their ideologies, they must be impartial in order to be Constitutional. If they can't be impartial, what good are their marble halls?

In a democracy the Executive Branch and the people need each other. The Judiciary's sole obligation is to be impartial and to apply democratic interpretive practices. The form underlying all the words in the Constitution is triadic in nature and allows for the simultaneous functioning of all three sides of the triad of government. All three sides must be functional at the same time as each monitors the others. The bottom is the base of the triad and the place occupied by the people. The Judiciary's function is to use interpretive practices to interpret the Constitution. But, the Judiciary must be impartial. It cannot play Party-politics. That option is only open to the bottom or the People. The Judiciary cannot favor corporations, nor play Party-politics. To favor a political ideology over the rights of the people is not democratic. To favor a "legal fiction" over the rights of the bottom is to dismantle democracy. Neither "legal fictions" nor Party-ideology are a part of the structure of government. "Legal fictions" may have a place in the economy, but not in the structure of government. They should stay in the economy and out of politics and they should be rigorously regulated just like everyone else. Party-ideology belongs at the bottom, not at the top nor in the Supreme Court. If corporations can receive Welfare or be bailed out so should the poor,the needy, the unfortunate, and those who have worked for it and earned it. The people are at the bottom; at the base or essence of government. Government exists for the people. The judiciary's sole function is to be impartial. If it wants to play politics it's members should run for political office and not sit on the Bench. Their official position is not a political office, its a judicial office. I know all of this is already obvious to everyone, but if we cannot find fair-play in the judicial branch, we will never find fair-play and thats the only factor that can hold this Country together. A devious, obstructive, "Party-ing" Judiciary is the worst thing that can happen to a democracy. A Judiciary that engages in interpretive practices designed to establish or extend some Party platform or, to favor "fictional persons" over real people, or to concentrate money at the top 1% of the social, is not practicing true democracy nor it it being a democratic institution. A devious, obstructive Executive can be replaced, an obstructive bottom or people can be handled by the law. But, an obstructive Judiciary is there for life and they know it. Democracy is doomed unless the Judiciary becomes impartial. Maybe its time for the people to Occupy the Halls of Justice. If the Judiciary refuses to be impartial, its time for the bottom to flex its muscle. If the people follow the terms of the First Amendment, the people have every Right to Revolution.

Originally, the functions of corporations in the market-place were controlled by Anti-Trust laws. Those laws still exist, but interpretive practices have Powell-ized them into effete statutes. Today, the sides of the government triad, i.e. our 'impartial-arbitrar', has been bought by the new value-system of governing, viz. money. The freedom and equality of each and every individual in the bottom of Democratic government has been replaced by the new value-system. Corporations are abstract economic-monsters and have an abstract economic grasp that is incomparable. No real human being and no small business can compete with a big corporation. The soverignty of the human condition lies in its unique independence. Fictional humans don't exist, except in fairy-tales and Constituional interpretive-practices. Certainly, the economic engine of the corporation should have some Constitutional protection, but to extend the fictional nature into a freedom of speech deserving protection is to extend Constitutional protection into the fictional sphere, which just mobilizes the profit motive into the sphere of greed, where money, without any work-effort, breeds more money. The end result; money buys government. Of course, the Court readilly admits the fictional nature of the corporation. But, its unbelievable that the Court cannot see that its replacing a democracy of real individuals i.e. unique independent individuals, by an economic principle that has no place in the operation of a government,of people,by people,and for people. The economy is separate from the government; the economy can be changed, but the democratic nature of the government cannot.Economic greed has no place in the functional aspects of a democracy. The economy needs an engine and that engine is profits, government also needs an engine and that engine is "We the People", the first three words of the Constitution. The value-system of the economy should not spill-over into the value system of democracy. It has to be controlled by the Courts and by the 99%. The Courts can properly interpret Anti-Trust laws and the 99% can hold a revolution.

The Constitution creates a Nation of people. When it refers to "people", it means each and every human individual in the Nation. Most "work-places" are corporations. As we have said, corporations are "legal fictions". Corporations are not people; at best, they are abstract entities that have been collapsed into something called "an employer". The law foresaw the inequalities that could flow from a huge abstraction called "employer" and the many real individuals performing the work. Hence, the law provided for employees to organize into Unions. These unions were free to organize and demand changes in the work place. These unions were all about the work place and the inequalities and abuses that could arise from the 8 to 5. Of course, we all know their rights are being slowly diluted. Thats another story. My point is the Preamble of the Constitution begins with "We the People".That refers to each and every individual in the Nation. Of course, it also includes every individual living within State lines. The Constitution does not stop at State lines. The Constitution constitutes a Nation of every individual living within its geographical boundaries, connected or disconnected. The important fact is that each and every individual in the Nation constitutes a democracy of "We the People". Now consider the following; If the Supreme Court, in a moment of lucidity, foresaw the abuses to freedom in the corporate workplace and upheld laws for unionization of employees, how can it not foresee the abuses to freedom that could be caused by political-miscontents in the Nation. After all, the Constitution states "We the People ...in Order to form a more perfect Union". So, you see, the Founding fathers did craft a Nation of a "Union of people". Citizens do have a right to "unionize".Now, where is that protection for the people in the Nation? In the workplace, the individual employees can form into a union and strike. In the Nation,the individuals are protected by the First Amendment. The right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grieveances. The employee has a right to strike. The citizen has a right to revolution. The Constitution created a Union of people. The Judicial Branch needs to do its job; it needs to be impartial and persue real democracy and it needs to stop persuing money.

Whats the difference between "trickle down" economics and "trickle up" economics. Well, trickle down, whether beneficial or not, seems to occur naturally; probably because downhill is easier than uphill. Uphill takes dedication, stamina, and lots more effort. In democratic government, uphill has to be insidious and underhanded. Actually, in a capitalistic economic system, it requires a revamping of the proper structure of democratic government. The proper function of the Judicial Branch is to be impartial and police the system to insure that the people at the bottom get the benefits of the economic system in the form of jobs, wages, pensions, opportunities, medical assistance, etc.. Otherwise, why have a democracy? Some benefits should trickle down. Instead, the Judicial Branch has become a Party- institution that modifies interpretive-practices to follow Party-lines and favors big-money. Its unbelieveable, that such a "learned" Branch can be so perfidious, and underhanded. Of course, favoring big-money is favoring corporations. Favoring corporations is favoring "legal fictions that exist only in contemplation of law". How can a Supreme Court interpret law in favor of a fictional entity that, everyone knows,is not anything like a real person at the bottom of triadic government. Of course, its one thing to protect corporations, its quite another to continue giving them more fictional attributes. Or, is it about the corporate structure or is it about money? The Judicial Branch wants to keep the money at the top with the 1%. What kind of Alice-in-Wonderland scheme is being practiced by our "learned" branch? Political position has always meant "power". Authority also means power; now, money, instead of being a medium of exchange,means power. A Government of substance is being taken over by an economy dominated by fictions. Money in the hands of individuals, and money produced and manufactured by corporations has become power. Money has replaced the numbers in a real democracy. In a democracy, power is at the top, but its a power given from the bottom. Without the bottom, there is no need for a top or power. In a democratic society, the bottom still retains its strength in numbers. The bottom is number and number must be included in the equation called "democracy". The strength of the bottom is in its condition of "togetherness". The Constitutional right of a peaceable assembly is the Constitutional right to revolution.

The Founding fathers crafted a government of people, not corporations. Government is about people. Corporations are about profits. Money replaces democracy in a government dominated by corporations. Money is primarily a medium of exchange, not something to be accumulated in vast amounts. Huge accumulations of money impairs circulation. If money does not circulate at the bottom of a democracy of people, by people, and for people, the bottom is undermined. The bottom of a democracy should be the strongest part of triadic government because it supports the top. A judiciary which methodically and insidiously rules in favor of corporate structures undermines democracy because its ruling in favor of a fiction. Everyone knows corporations are not people. How do we know this? Because the Supreme Court, itself, said so. So how can the Court create a "legal fiction", give it Constitutional rights held by real people, and after Citizens, allow it to 'finance' the persuit of political offices.The so-called "learned Judges" justify their stance by saying, "its not the identity of the speaker" thats important, its the "speech itself" thats important. Hell, corporations don't speak and since when has money become speech? What they really meant to say is, "its the money stupid". Government is becoming an Alice in Wonderland story. The Judiciarys sole purpose for existing in the governmental framework is its duty to interpret the Constitution. It has no other function. It does not govern. It is a useless appendage of government, were it not for its duty to be impartial. How sad that implementing interpretive practices can be so isidiously biased and un-democratic. How strange; the other branches of government are not expected to be as "learned" as the judicial branches, yet, its the judiciary that is undermining democracy. The less functional aspect of government has become responsible for the ascendacy of the 1%. Money has been substituted for democracy. Most individuals are proud to be Americans because they think they live in a free democratic Country. Well, its becoming more difficult to feel that way and that's becoming a serious problem. When a "legal fiction' can buy and steal an election from real people, we have to be thankful that the First amendmant permits citizens peaceably to assemble and petition the govermnment for redress of grievances. That the 99% right to revolution.

A capitalistic approach to the economy complements a democratic approach to a form of government. But, keep in mind, they are essentially different. Capitalism is about competition in the market place, which requires money and democratic government is about the uniqueness of each and every human being situated at the bottom which requires the freedom and equality of everyone. Democracy is about togetherness and capitalism is about competition. They are contraries, but both should be able to function in a healthy manner without endangering each other. Capitalism must discard the greedy and unfair persuit of money and democracy must stop considering those at the top as if they were superior human beings. Everyone is free and equal and everyone is just a human being. Except for specific genetic qualities, the human condition is the same. Democracy is about the humanity in all human beings. Success in everyday life is about healthy economic competition between individuals. Some will get ahead, some will stay behind and some will be needing help from the others, or from government. Without government, people lose control and begin to form separate groupings based on social values as oppossed to democratic values. That is wrong; a social value can never be stronger than a democratic value. I will give one example of a great division created within our economy. One word! corporations. There is nothing wrong with the corporate structure,as such, but if you add to the competitive nature the element of greed, they destroy the competitive edge in a democracy. Greed and unfair accumulation 'stops the engine' of a capitalistic economy. How can an individual compete with a corporation? Its absurd; they tilt the boat in favor of the corporate structure. I'm not saying we must go back to a Mom and Pop economy, but consider the following. The Law considers a corporation as "a legal fiction that only exists in contemplation of law". Yet, the Courts give them the protection they give to real individuals. Not only is the individual unable to compete with a corporation, but the dam thing is " a fiction" and only exists because the law allowed it to exist. Where are we going? into a corporate society? We are already there. And now the Citizens United decision allows these fictions to participate in the electoral process. The irony of this whole mess is that government created the corporate structure and it still creates them. All you have to do is file a proper application and you are a corporation. Now, money,in the hands of the 1%,the medium of exchange of a capitalistic economy, is trying to undermine democratic government. Maybe government should change our corporate laws? If it creates them why doesn't it control them? How can a fiction be stronger than a democracy of real individuals?

The biggest problem with Capitalism is that it has exceeded itself. Generally, the'economic engine'in capitalism is the profit motive. Nobody becomes a capitalist because he intends to lose money. Everyone wants a profit. And certainly everyone who goes into business is entitled to make it big. But, at what point, does the question become, " when does making a profit become greed"? When does making a profit, an economic value, cross over to the greedy persuit and hoarding of money. At what point does an economic standard cross over into a moral standard. The effects of greed on capitalism are self-defeating because it deconstructs the economic engine. Greed and accumulation keeps money from circulating. Money is a medium of exchange and is relatively useless for anything else. If its not used in a capitalistic manner, it cannot circulate. Circulation must occur among all the people at the bottom in the form of wages, work, homesteads,and other every-day necessities. The bottom is where millions of people are situated. Greedy accumulation of money is not a plus-factor for a capitalistic economy. Economic value is about exchange and circulation. But, is the issue really capitalism or is it the people or individuals who participate in it? Is the problem with capitalism resolvable by changing the type of economy or by changing the way government works? I hate to say this, but your not going to change everyone. So, does government have a function in a democracy of people, by people, and for people. Or, does government just stand by and see people destroying themselves? Some political parties call,"helping the people", entitlements, others call it socialism. But, in both cases, thats a misuse of the word because those who receive entitlements are actually those in power at the top. In a democracy, no one is entitled to the respect accorded to a president or leader but for the fact that the people at the bottom elevated him or her to the top of government. The top is not entitled to that kind of respect because of some superior human quality. They are entitled to the emoluments of office only because the bottom put them there and only for a short period of time. But, the bottom remains democratic and each and everyone at the bottom is entitled to live in a dignified manner in a condition of togetherness. When money circulates at the bottom in a capitalistic economy, the 'economy' circulates among all the people at the bottom, in the form of wages, home ownership, work, medical services, educational opportunities and all the emenities of life. Lets stop being greedy and lets be more democratic. If government has to step in, let it. It would be nice if governments weren' t necessary, but lets face it, without government the people would self-destruct.

The problematic of the 1% and the 99% is basically the same problematic as the One and the Many. I say "basically" because the relation of the One and the Many in government is a relation between people. In triadic government there is no 1% and no 99%. The bottom is always 100% and the top is elected from the bottom, while the relation of the 1% and the 99% is based on the social value of a medium of exchange viz. money. Democratic government is not about money, its about the freedom and equality of all the people at the bottom. I have already described, in another blog, how a social value,viz. money, is begining to replace the basic political values of freedom and equality, which are the basis of democracy. The possibility of such a replacement has existed for awhile,but was recently jump-started by the Supreme Court decision in Citizens. Everyone seems aware that there is no relation between a real democratic value and a fictional social value. Yet, money, a fictional and social value, is usurping real democratic values. The values of freedom and equality are being replaced by the greedy persuit of money. The decision in Citizens, justified on the basis of freedom of speech,is hilarious, but it has allowed rich corporations that only exist "in contemplation of law" to finance the rich individuals in political campaigns. Since corporations cannot run for office, the rich individuals connected to the corporate world run for office. Politics has become a contest of money. Money should circulate at the bottom, since it is a medium of exchange. The greedy persuit and hoarding of money at the top effects its circulation among the people at the bottom. Stated differently, restricting the circulation of money to the 1% is anti-democratic. A Constitutional government cannot survive under those conditions.

The essential structure and the rationale behind the concept of democracy at the bottom is that it attempts to resolve an age old problem. That age old problem was the so-called relation of the One and the many. The One could never be reconciled to the Many. Historically, governmental systems followed this structure and posited a One at the top and the Many at the bottom. For example,the Chief was ruler of the many in the tribe; the King was the ruler of the subjects at the bottom; the dictator, ruled the people at the bottom, by force. Obviously, these systems worked for awhile, but, I imagine, the people began to notice that the individual at the top was the same as those at the bottom. It seemed that only the top mattered, the bottom was invisible. Of course, each system rationalized its form. Examples; Kingship; it was said the King had two bodies. One ruled by authority from God, the other was human. All the other relations of the top to the bottom were based on force,strength,conquest or blood-line. But, as people became more aware that 'all human beings are in the same boat', the otherwise irreconcilable relation of the top to the bottom began to fall apart. That may have given rise to the justifiable concept of Revolution. It may have also given rise to the First Amendment of the Constitution. People have always wondered, how on earth is any other equal human being entitled to be at the Top? The essential problematic is language and the so-called Linguistic Turn has not made it any easier to formulate. The 'generality' of governing many individuals calls for the use of general linguistic terms. The top cannot be reconciled to the boom except by general linguistic terms. ( Now, here's the problematic) The individuals living at the bottom are each as real and important as any Other individual, including the individual at the top who purports to govern. In other words, the top uses and governs with language, but each individual at the bottom does not correspond to the generalality or specificity of linguistic terms because each individual is real and must be included in any general or specific formulation. Each must be included in a real way. Consequently, the bottom must be alluded to as Number because number includes everything it needs to be itself. Each number is real and must be figured into the computation. That computation figures in the equation called "democracy". Democracy at the bottom includes every individual in a real sense. Hence, the bottom of a triadic form of government is the essential feature of a democratic government. Without a bottom we cannot have a top; hell, without a bottom who needs a top.

Triadic government is the same as three-branch government. Its the same as Constitutional government,but the term triadic is a more 'geometric' formulation that allows a better perception of the necessary connections between the parts of its triadic nature. Basically, its a perception of the underlying form of Constitutional government. If Constitutional government is perceived as triadic, every part of the triad must function in order to hold and retain its nature. In such a perception, it is obvious that the bottom is the most important part of the triad. Without a bottom, the other parts of the triad cannot retain or support its geometric nature. Its the bottom, not the top,that makes government democratic. The bottom is where the people reside.The top can be called 'democratic', but the bottom constitutes the real democracy. A top without a bottom would be similar to a dictatorship or a kingdom. In those forms the bottom i.e. the people, don't have a say-so in the government. In a democracy, the bottom determines the character of the government. The underlying form of democratic government is set forth in a Constitution. The Top is the Executive Branch, the Bottom should be represented by the Legislative Branch and the sides are the Judicial branch. The sides should interpret the Constitution in an objective manner i.e. free from Party -loyalty. The Legislative should represent the people, not the Party. Although different parties have different views; they all claim to be democratic. So why are the end results of the alleged differences so un-democratic? The answer is the multi-ordinality and variability of language and the greedy persuit of political power. Of course, language is essential and it has its problems, but politicians take advantage of the variability of meaning to befuddle the bottom; and this is done intentionally. If we view the underlying form as triadic, we can see that its not a question of Party-loyalty but a question of people-loyalty. Neither is it a question of the 1%, its a question of the 100%. People matter.Each individual human being constitutes the bottom and each must be considered in the equation called "democracy". If one individual is left out, the equation fails. That's not good mathmatics and that's not good democratic government. If we view all governments as triadic, we may be able to circumvent some of the inaccracies and mis-uses of language by politics. If the top doesn't do its job; if the sides don't do their job; and if the legislators don't do their job, the bottom ,by far, outnumbers the others and are under the Constitutional protection of the First Amendment.