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.