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.

When is a Presidential debate not a debate? Answer: When there is a Commission on Presidential Debates. How on earth can two people debate when they are given guidelines within which they must stay and the subject matters to be debated? Thats not a debate; thats a show! Debates have become institutionalized to the point that they have lost their connecton to the real parties engaging in the debate. They have become fabrications. This is one of the problems that arise when I say the Top must use language to communicate with the real people at the bottom. Political language has been taken over by advertising language. Clinton rightly said in measuring the success of his particular policy, " its arithmetic"; its "mathmatics"- Excellent. I say it differently, I say the whole bottom is number. I say it in that manner, so the reference is inclusive with the particular verbal category being referred too. Number has everything it needs to be number. Nothing is lacking and nothing needs to be added to it. Democracy at the bottom of triadic government is number and every individual must be included. Hence, verbal policy at the Top, to be democratic, must actually reach all the individuals said to be the recipients of the policy. If the verbal formulation is "freedom", the formulation must reach and include each and every number at the bottom in a real way; if, its "equality", that formulation must also reach every individual at the bottom in a real way. Both "freedom" and "equality" are universal human values and hence must reach everyone in a democracy. If the verbal formulation is "jobs", the term must reach each and every individual capable of working at the bottom. Thats arithmetic, thats numbers. The bottom of democracy is number, and number doesn't lie. The only way to measure success in a democracy is when the verbal formulation at the top, reaches all the numbers, or individuals, included in that formulation. When a formulation reaches a measure of 1% at the top and 99% at the bottom, something is terribly wrong. If the top can establish guidelines by a commission, not provided for in the Constitution, for debates, the bottom can invoke the 1st Amendment of the Constitution and " peaceably assemble" for "redress of grieviences", or stated differently, the bottom can invoke the Constitutional right to revolution.

Triadic government is not without its problems. The greatest problem is conceiving the form in a manner that relates to all the 'sides' of the triad. The bottom must relate to the top and the top must relate to the bottom and the sides must monitor these relations in a real manner.It is there, where the relations to the complete figure, gives rise to one of the more important problems. The problem is that the top can only relate to the many at the bottom linguistically. To do this, as well as to interpret the Constitution, requires the generality of language-use. That generality 'lumps' the individual into categorical 'exclusion' as a real individual, or at least, to eliminate the individual from a sincere referencial relation.Thats a problem. The individual, as individual, is real, which is not the case when language 'lumps' everyone together into a language-term. No, the individial is not just a linguistic term, he's real and his diurnal life is 'specific', not a generality. A real, concrete individual at the bottom of government, is best referred too as number. Why number and not language? Number and geometry are languages and best encapsulate the unquestionable integrity of its contents. A number is all it can be. It doesn't need anything from outside itself to be itself. What does number mean is never an issue. When you place each individual,in his or her integrity, together in community, you have a democracy. Democracy includes 'everyone', and no individual can be excluded. Like I said in the previous blog, " Its the people stupid". Of course, the problem with journalistic and book references to 'the people' is the simplicity of the formula and the usual responses of the publishing world. In the publishing world, if you are not 'grammatically correct' you cannot be 'politically correct'. Hence, the requirement that you stick to grammatical correctness or not get published. The bottom is not a general term, its a geometric or mathmatical term that includes every individual in his or her complete integrity. The 'top' is language ,the bottom is 'number'.

Obviously, millions of people in a condition of togetherness need something to govern themselves, otherwise chaos would be the rule. That "something" is a Constitution that 'constitutes' all the people or stated differently,a form of government.The Constitution is the written structure of the government,while the form is the underlying spirit of the structure elaborated in the Preamble of the Constitution. If one relies entirely on the linguistic structure of the Constitution, that 'reliance' becomes subject to all the problems of language and the so-called Linguistic turn. Of course, to some extent,that is inevitable, and maybe even necessary. However, that does not mean that we should ignore the underlying spirit of the instrument. To ignore the spirit is to ignore the problems the Founding Fathers had to overcome. The only place where this 'form' could have been expressed in language would be the Preamble. The 'body' contains the structure, the Preamble the purpose of the arrangement. The stated purpose in the Preamble, in contrast with the existing governments of the then existing colonies or states, immediately caused a division into Parties. We still have those divisions and some individuals are still attempting to create 'new' parties. People are still disatisfied with the purpose of the Constitution, which is the union of people. They still harp on 'State power' as constrasted with a 'centralized' power. The problem is that both Parties are wrong. Its not about power, its about people, a'union of people' governed by a triadic form of government. A triadic form of government is a 'union' of people, 'self' organized to function 'by the people' and 'for the people'. It is a government 'of people', not a government of power. Please don't get me wrong, power is necessary to govern. But, that power is given by the Constitution. The greatest 'entitlement' of Constitutional government is the power that the people 'grant' to those who purport to be our leaders. Power, government, duty, service, in a political entity, all comes from the 'bottom'; the union of people. Democracy is 'people rule', not 'power rule' and not 'money rule'. We are fond of saying, "its the economy stupid", I prefer, "its the people stupid". But, the sad fact is we are becoming a 'digital world' where the real human condition is being 'forgotten'. Once we forget ourselves,i.e. our real human condition, we forget democracy. After democracy, God only knows what will become of the real individual. In our condition of togetherness, we can at least live in conditions of well-being, maybe even, happy lives. Individual 'unhappiness' is not good for community. Leaders beware! Some 'individual unhappiness', can lead to individuals asserting their strength in their condition of togetherness. After all, that right is protected by the First Amendment;the right to 'assemble' at the bottom and holler, " Hey!, whats going-on up there?".

There is a great difference between the structure of the Constitution and the form of the Constitution. The structure must be rendered in language to be understood. Structure is an expression of an underlying form that exists in the mind before it is expressed in language. Possibly, one could characterize the term "form" as the spirit of the Constitution. The spirit of the Constitution is better expressed in the Preamble as the stated purpose of the Constitution. Why was it written? The end-goal had to have been each and every individual who was to be a participant of the Top as well as the Bottom of a triadic form of government,namely a government of people, by people, and for people. A form of voluntary self-government where there are no "superiors' but, only participants at the top and the bottom of the triad. Of course, the form must be made 'perceptible', so language becomes necessary. Of course, the problem with language is that one language can differ from another and, either language can be confounded by the writer or the speaker. But, the form or the spirit cannot. If different ideological parties start to bicker about governing,we create our own linguistic problems. Government is for people, by people, not some manufactured ideology. Liberal and conservative are just ideological postures that attempts to regidify governing into some fixed institution. Sometimes , its just an excuse to do what you want to do, thats all. Governing involves all the people,not just 'certain' people. When we favor riches, money, Party-loyalty or so-called social status, we are abandoning the bottom, the individual, and when we abandon the bottom, we abandon democracy. Self-government, properly organized, is possible. But, if we abandon democracy, government will self-distruct, because government can only be supported by the bottom. Without a bottom you cannot have a top.

Read an interesting book entitled Occupy the Economy:Challenging Capitalism by Richard Wolff in which a statement is made that "the Occupy Movement has allowed the people to see what the system would rather not want us to see...". That is also the advantage of perceiving Constitutional government as a Triad. We can "see" behind the structure into the underlying form of the Constitution exactly what "the system would rather not want us to see". That simple "seeing" penetrates to the basic triadic nature that underlies the constitution. The distinction between a triadic form of government that requires all sides of the triad to exist in a harmonious manner is preferable to seeing it as an easily confused, linguistic explanation of a government with three branches. Of course, the linguistic structure is important and this statement is not to be interpreted as suggesting that the Constitution needs to be replaced or changed. But, if it is ever changed, the triadic form must be kept intact. The Constitution was crafted in the right manner and it literally constitutes us. I'm only suggesting a manner of perception that tries to circumvent the harmfull effects of "political language" as well as the effects of the Linguistic Turn. Too often, politicians hide behind the variability of meanings in language. By perceiving the triad of government directly in the underlying form that gave rise to its linguistic structure, in which it was crafted, the importance of all the sides of the triad become apparent and we begin to see that the bottom of the triad is the most important part of government because that is what holds up the sides and the top. That is the form implemented by the Founding Fathers. We need to "see" beyond the written structure, which is important, to perceive the underlying form of democratic government; then we can "see" a government of people,by people,and more important,For People. Politically, we are all in this together and no one can be left out of the equation called "democracy". leaders are never entitled to more power than that which is granted by the Constitution and they must understand that they are at the top because of the bottom and not because of some superior human quality. The candidates sometimes speak badly about "entitlements" for the needy and for education, but it is the top that is not entitled to any political power except by virtue of the bottom and the Constitution. The leaders and office holders are not entitled to the respect and courtesy of the bottom because they posses some superior human quality. They are merely elected to do a job and to serve the people. They "work" at the top and they should provide "work" for the bottom. They only have political power for the duration in office. Once out of office ,they can be respected as plain human beings. The bottom keeps triadic nature in motion, the top and the sides merely monitor the structure and are duty-bound to keep it intact. Once we stray from the democratic "motor" at the bottom and switch to a value system of "money", fixated by the 1%, and not being circulated, we're in trouble.