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'.