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.