Neither, money or Capitalism, is harmful, per se, to democracy

An oxymoron? No! the headnote may sound contradictory to the previous one, but its not. Let me explain. Money is just a medium of exchange and Capitalism is a 'profit venture'. Neither demands a monopolizing or hoarding of activity and money. Of course, at one time some of this activity was against the law, until legislators and Supreme Court decisions attenuated that. Hoarding money and property is a human activity; its not a necessary corporate activity. However, the real' humans behind it use the corporate structure to centralize activity and 'monopolize' it. As we have said, a corporation is a legal fiction and doesn't 'really' exist. However, behind every "legal fiction" there are a few 'real' human beings. They will say that the Board and the stockholders ( if its public ) rule the structure, but ask yourself, is the legal fiction operated democratically, where each real individual is 'free' and 'equal' within the corporate power structure? Of course not, most are concerned with struggles underscored by money and corporate power issues. The point is the corporate structure does, in fact, monopolize the economy. Have you ever heard of a 'real' individual, at the Bottom of government, competing with a corporation in the economic field? Never happen. We create our own 'economic monsters'. That wouldn't be so bad, if the government, who helps create them, would keep 'some' sense of control. State governments may issue corporate charters, but Constitutional government can control issues of interstate commerce, monopoly, and 'economic illegality'( not to mention taxation). Why is a legal fiction such a 'strong fiction'? Corporations may be necessary, but they don't govern the People. The People never granted any 'political power' to them; only the Top of democratic government has political power, and that's because its a 'democratic' ( comes from the Bottom) grant of power.

Why is money harmful to democracy?

Its not the money per-se that is harmful, its the 'possessiveness' of some human beings. Money is a medium of exchange that was 'designed' to allow for 'barter' and 'exchanges' and ,of course, profits, in the economy. It is a 'quantifiable' medium, and hence has 'monitory' value, the end result of all economic activity. In the political field, the 'value' in a democracy is the absolute respect and retention of every human individual, his/her dignity, and her/his integrity. Since politics is about governing, and governing is about the relation of the Top to the Bottom, the preservation of the human condition is vital to a democratic government. Hence, the importance of the 'value' of democratic principles. However, a capitalistic economy cannot function without a 'profit' engine. No one goes into business with the intent of 'not making a profit'. Hence, the initial making of profits leads to further efforts to generate more profits. Its a 'constitutive' aspect of working in the economy and it's cumulative and, we could even call it, 'contagious'. The problem arises when the 'profit motive' dominates the functioning and the thinking of the representatives of government or when the 'rich' want to get involved in government for the sole purpose of protecting or generating more 'profits'. The freedom and equality of every individual are the only values of a functioning democracy. Government should not concern itself with anything else. The two value systems must be kept separate from each other. Government will never function with profits as its engine; and the economy will never function with the principles of freedom and equality as it's engine. This division of 'labor' is easily perceived, so why is it so entangled with the activities of government? Obviously, and unfortunately, its the 'greedy' and 'possessive' nature of the human condition. We always seem to think that 'anything' and 'everything' can be accomplished if we only had lots of money. We should try living in an Autocracy, a Plutocracy, or an Oligarchy.

The biggest threats to a genuine democracy are economic in nature.

The biggest threat to basic democratic principles, i.e. Freedom and Equality, are economic principles. That may sound strange, because economies are necessary to democracies, but economic principles have nothing to do with democratic principles. Unfortunately, individuals become too attached to money and possessions. In and of itself, that is not so bad as is the greed that overwhelms them. Greed then becomes the underlying basis for living, working, and being influential in the democratic social. Of course, we know that the basic political principles of a democracy are the freedom and equality of each individual situated at the Bottom of government. We also know that our economy would not be functional without profits. Profits drive the economy; freedom and equality drives a democracy. There has never been a democratic principle that the Top of government must be occupied by the rich, the wealthy, or the top 1%. Most people at the Bottom are not rich. Yet, their freedom and equality is as sacred to them, as it might be to the 1%. I say, "might be to the 1%", because, for all we know, the money and possessions of the 1% might be the only thing important to them. Nevertheless, most of them would not have accumulated those amounts of money and possessions, if they had lived in an autocracy, or even in a Plutocracy. Its strange that the richest people should be the most thankful that they live in a democracy but, instead, try to influence government in such a way as too accumulate even more money. That's the threat to democracy; the substitution of an economic principle for the democratic principles of freedom and equality. The largest culprit in that 're-evaluation' of democratic principles is the corporation; and to boot, its not even a real individual; its a legal fiction.

Three branch Government must stay constantly in motion

A characteristic of Three Branch Government is that it must always be in motion. Autocracies have a definite 'form', but the activity of the Top and the Bottom is 'somewhat' fixed. The only 'activity' that must be kept in check is the activity at the Bottom. The 'form' of a Triadic Democracy is never fixated; it should be a constantly 'moving' organism. The big issue in democracies is the direction of the movement and the objective participation of the Representatives at the Top. All or most movements must contribute towards the 'organic' establishment of a democratic 'organism'. This political organism is an ever growing entity because the Peoples at the Bottom, as well as the Peoples at the Top, are constantly being 'shuffled' about. Hence, it's always 'struggling' to a better democracy. That's why its important for each individual at the Bottom of Democracy to be Free and Equal. Free and Equal to live democratically and Free and Equal to participate in the political entity. If the Top is ever limited to a select few, for whatever reasons, it would not be a democracy, for the simple reason that the Bottom of government is not allowed to participate if self-government. The main obstacle in a democracy is to be able to allow the 'institutions', the 'policies' and the 'law', instituted at the Top, as a category of democratic activity, to actually make contact with each individual at the Bottom. If this contact is not taking place, there is no Democracy at the Bottom. Its merely 'talk', to be sure, its democratic talk, but the 'talk' is not being implemented in a 'real' way. It's vacuous, empty, political jargon,(yes, politics has a jargon), used to confuse and mislead the Peoples at the Bottom, and too usurp the power at the Top. Unfortunately, the term, 'politically correct' has 'two prongs'; one may be correct, while the other is destructive of democracy. Nevertheless, both are just 'talk'. The important 'aspects' of a Democracy is not the 'talk'; its the 'walk'.

In a Democracy, the 'quality' of the Top is dependant on the 'quality' of the Bottom.

The functioning of the Top of a Democracy has 'many' variables. Similarly, the functioning of the Top of an Autocracy, has 'many' variables. However, the functioning of the Top of an Autocracy is more 'predictable' than that of a Democracy. The reason being that an Autocracy has less 'variables' to decide between than a Democracy. The Autocracy is 'more' concerned with the International picture than the local, obviously, because the 'ways' of the local is 'firmly' established. The only local occurrences it might be concerned with might be not to do anything, locally, that might cause a revolution. While a Democracy is also concerned with the International picture but must also concern itself with the duration s/he will be in Office as well as the 'exercise' of the vote. The 'quality' of the Bottom, in a Democracy, is related to the 'quality' of the Representatives that are available and those that are eventually selected, for a period of time, to sit at the Top. The individual at the Bottom is concerned with the 'quality' of his/her life and must be concerned with the 'quality' of the Representatives at the Top. Its not easy to live in a Democracy. But, personally, its more fulfilling. The Bottom has to know what the Top is doing. The Bottom must be 'well informed' in all aspects of life at the Bottom, in order to make well-founded judgments with respect to the Representatives at the Top and the 'direction' of the Nation on the International sphere. Of course, but somewhat unfortunately, this is where Political Parties come-in. If both Parties were truly democratic, Parties wouldn't be a problem. But, some Parties follow the 'money' and the corporate 'persons', instead of the 'real' democratic values of Freedom and Equality of each and every real individual.

In a Democracy, the People must live democratically

In a Democracy the essence of government is functionally at the Bottom. Why? Because the People at the Bottom are the ones who situate Representatives at the Top. However, once a representative, having ascended to the Top, the Bottom loses 'control' of the Representative. The individual who has ascended is now, for a particular period of time, in a position of power, but that individual is, in the first place, a human being who comes from the Bottom. Hence, the requirement that the people at the Bottom elect the 'best' representative to govern them. Its at this point that a democracy is faced with the problematic of Political Parties. Party ideologies differ, but its up to the individual who votes for them to determine which ideology is democratic. The extension of the Rights of the corporate "fiction" is not democratic. The economy and the corporations are not 'motored' by a democratic ideology. Their motivation is 'profits', not 'democracy'. Their goal is to provide a 'healthy economy' not a democratic social. Hence, the natural conflict between economies and governments. In democratic governments, the 'motor' is 'freedom' and 'equality' of each individual. In corporate economies, the motor is profits. If a real person values his/her freedom and equality, s/he must respect those values in the Other. Hence, the need to distinguish the difference between a real person and a 'Constitutional person'. Even though the Court saw a need for creating a "legal person", its not a requirement that the "persons" rights be extended. Enough is enough. This way of 'looking' at this matter would certainly weaken the influence of the 1%. If a person lived democratically, s/he would not discriminate against the human condition.

The Top of government is an essential part of a democracy.

The Top of government is essential to any form of government. Of course, that also applies to a democracy. Otherwise, the Bottom would be without any form of government. However, the relation between the Top of an Autocracy, and the Top of a Democracy, functions differently in relation to the Bottom. Obviously, the Top of an Autocracy 'says' how the Bottom is to live, behave, act, or whatnot. In such cases, the Bottom is not as "free" as should be the case in a democracy. However, in a Constitutional Democracy, the functions or duties of the Top are set forth in the Constitution and the "interpretive practices" of the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the Court is not always in accord with any one way of resolving an issue. That discord arises from 'forms of reasoning' supported by different Party ideologies. How, any Party ideology, can be so different from each other, is beyond comprehension. In a democratic Nation, the Parties should both be democratic. Hence, regardless the 'route' of the reasoning process, the end result may be different, but it should always be democratic. In other words, the end result should be 'favorable' to the Bottom of the Democracy. The Bottom, " We the People...", the governed, the human beings at the Bottom, the real individual, should be the beneficiary of Constitutional adjudication. Of course, there'll be intermediary issues to be resolved, but the essential Constitutional issues should benefit the real individual at the Bottom or should improve the implementation of the democratic structure issuing from the Top. The Top can only do what the Constitution and the People allows them to do. Their power is given by the Peoples; not even the Constitution gives power, it only gives the form of government. " We the People..." place these representatives, 'up' there. A Democracy is a "Peoples" government.

Living 'intelligently' does not only mean a 'school intelligence'.

Our use of the word "intelligently" does not only mean the abstract intelligence taught in our school systems. We have to be very careful with this 'label'. Within a democratic social, the word intelligent means a fully functioning "freedom and equality" by each individual: and that means an individual who respects his own 'equality', as well as, the 'equality' of the Other'; and his own 'freedom', as well as, the 'freedom' of the Other. In other words, a real, concrete freedom and equality, not some theoretical composition. Life is real, not abstract and a democratic social can only survive if the 'living' is intelligent. Of course, the 'abstract intelligence' taught in the educational systems is also good, but for another purpose. The intelligence I speak of is the intelligence of the 'human condition' in a 'condition of togetherness'. The simplicity of life; the simplicity of enjoying one's human freedom and equality which allows us to respect the freedom and equality of the Other. The real individual has a 'simplicity' that seeps through the human condition into his/her relations with Others. In a democracy no one can be left outside of the equation of democracy. In a democracy, everyone, the educated, the uneducated, the rich, the poor, the healthy, the unhealthy, the white, the red, the black, the brown, must live in freedom and as an equal. The intelligence of a democracy is the intelligence of a human condition living in a 'condition of togetherness'. Every individual is free to live as s/he wishes, but s/he can never compromise the Freedom and Equality of Others. We can live 'democratically', only if, we can live with the Others.

Democracy at the Bottom can only be 'lived' intelligently.

The essence of Democracy is the Bottom of the structure of Three Branch government. Although the Top of democracy is organized according to the Constitutional requirements, the organization of the Top is mostly theoretical; it still needs to be implemented, it needs to become practical, or stated differently, it needs to become a fully functioning democratic social. In order for the 'fully functioning social' to hold together the theoretical aspects of democracy, it must act democratically i.e. each individual must exercise his/her "Freedom and Equality" in an intelligent manner. The exercise of freedom by 'equals'( the Many) will result in a society 'saturated' by 'equal' individuals who are exercising their "freedom" among themselves. This requirement, of exercising their freedom among themselves, requires individual judgment that allows the Many to live in a 'condition of togetherness'. Living in a 'condition of togetherness' is not easy because it requires activity that is not individually 'selfish'. The life of an individual is a 'given', but the life of an individual 'in a condition of togetherness', requires some selfless activity. Why? Simply, because we have to live with each other. There is no other way. This selfless activity demands some concern with the manner in which we exercise our "freedom and equality" amongst ourselves. In every life, there is the freedom and equality demanded by the individual organism, as well as the organizational demands of a democratic government. These blended activities are what I call an "intelligent life"; a life that protects its own self as well as the existence of the democratic form of government within which s/he lives. If democracy is not lived intelligently, it will self-destruct. If Party-loyalty encourages democracy for the few, it is not a democracy; it already begins to self-destruct.

language 'suffices' for the Top, but accountability is necessary at the Bottom

Any form of government can be described and 'structured' as an ideological political entity. But, the Bottom is 'where' the individuals are situated, regardless the form. In earlier forms of government, one can say the Top is the One and the Bottom is the Many. All government structures have this same arrangement, but the ideologies are different. The general reason for that difference, in a democratic form of government, is that in a democracy the People, while still at the Bottom, nevertheless, are the ones who establish the ideology and the attribute of power. In other words, the People are the source of both, the ideology and the power attributed to the Top of the structure. The power at the Top is an attribution of Office which originates at the Bottom. In other words, in a democracy the People 'rule'. But, how can so many People rule? Simply by making the Offices at the Top, elected offices, that can only be occupied for a certain period of time, by Officials who have been elected by the Bottom, i.e. the People. All officials, in a democratic form of government, act as Representatives of the People. Representatives can 'act' in two different ways. They can act in their 'Representative' capacity or as ordinary people. They have been given power to act in a representative way but, in ordinary life, for all we know, they may not even have authority over their spouses. But, the point is that, in a democracy, the policies enacted must be democratic. If democratic, that means, that they apply to everyone within the selected category, on an equal basis. How can we be sure every intended individual is included or excluded? The best way is to consider the Bottom in a quantitative manner, or as Number. Then, it becomes a question of 'counting', instead of using the variability of definitions. That makes accountability easier.

All forms of government need an economy.

The economy is a vital aspect of the social within any form of governmental structure. An economy is also needed in a democratic structure of government. However, there is a great difference in the economies of autocracies and those of democracies. A democratic form of government encourages competition in the economy because the People at the Bottom constitute the essence of the democratic form. Everyone at the Bottom is free and equal in his/her striving for economic security. Hence, everyone is free and equal to compete with each other. The progress of technology contributed to the nature of competition and to the amount of accumulation of profits. This new technology and its 'enlargement' within the context of factories, businesses, etc. made possible a new class of 'worker'; s/he was called an 'employee'. Employers, with sufficient capital, continued to expand and employees continued to aid that expansion in exchange for a 'living wage'. Competition, at this stage, becomes less possible, but, nevertheless, still remained open to new technological advances and the establishment of small businesses within the economy. As businesses grew larger, the same 'freedom and equality' applied to the employer and the employee relationship. Of course, this required some 'control' by government to avoid abuses of the relationship. Hence, 'minimum wage scales', 'healthy' and 'safe' work conditions, etc. But, the rapid growth of the corporate structure into 'economic walruses' and the Constitutional protection afforded it, as a 'person', which is actually recognized by law as a legal fiction, completely quashed any possibility of competition by real persons. That, in and of itself, may be fair, so long as the relationship is monitored and regulated by law. So, where are the laws prohibiting the ascendancy of the 1%? Hey, we're protecting a fiction at the expense of a real human being. Our 'Alice in Wonderland' government needs to wake up. Life begins with 'needing to work' and now life is 'having more money than the Other'. Well, that's not too bad; until government invented "legal fictions".

The Linguistic Turn and Number

The best way to circumvent the harmful effects of the Linguistic Turn in government is to view Constitutional government in triadic form and the Bottom of government as Number. This new manner of referencing Constitutional government does not take away anything from the Constitutional description of Three Branch government. It merely allows us to have a different perception of government, viz. in quantifiable terms. Its still the same government. Since language, even democratic language, can be 'twisted' to the point of absurdity, its best to quantify our already existing terms. Linguistically, when we say everyone is free and equal, in politically correct language, the terms used are hollow; do not require 'application'; and can be easily circumvented. Politicians say, "of course everyone is free and equal" and then proceed to follow their own 'selfish' and 'party-politics' agendas. All politics is a 'representational' activity. It should not be selfish and it should not be a 'party politics'. In a democracy, it should be democratic. Using the language of Number, allows all numerical 'references' to actually be counted. Since democratic government is a 'real' relation between the Top and the Bottom of the government triad, a quantifiable equation is possible to determine the effectiveness of government policy and Law. Obviously, its not, and can never be perfect. But, its more manageable. The reason for that is that the convolutions of the Linguistic Turn do not apply to Number. Number is also a 'language'; its a quantifiable language that can not be distorted, or 'confused', as can, language terms intended to convey only 'meaning'. Of course, political language will continue to be used, but when it comes to 'installing' a democratic policy, the 'language' of Numbers do not lie. "Look at the Numbers stupid."

The Bottom of a democracy is 'Number'

Although the Bottom of a democracy is to be considered as Number, the Bottom never loses its 'humanity'. This means that each and every individual at the Bottom, regardless his/her race ,color, creed or economic conditions, never loses his/her 'humanity'. The individual is sacred in a democracy and must be included or excluded in all democratic laws and policies emanating from the Top of government. Categorizing the Bottom as Number merely provides a tool for the enumeration of 'inclusions' or 'exclusions' of democratic policy or law. In this manner, the effectiveness of a law or policy can be established by merely counting the number of individuals to whom the policy applies. If any one individual is left out of the computation of a democratic policy, for whatever reasons, that individual is being discriminated against by government. Democracy applies to each and every human individual within the social. This automatically excludes corporations because they are not natural 'persons'. Even though the Judicial Branch treats them as 'persons' within the Constitutional framework of the social, there 'personhood' does not extend to the natural rights of the human condition protected by the Constitution. The corporate structure is a creature of the economy, not of the social and hence the protection it enjoys is merely economic, not natural. The consolidation of economic activity is protected because it gives strength to the economy by protecting the artificial nature of the corporation and by increasing and consolidating its productivity. But, the corporation was never meant to be anything more than an economic institution. It is not a 'political person' and was never intended to be considered as a 'real' human being, so why expand its Constitutional rights. The human individual is sacred and deserves Constitutional protection, but the corporation is not sacred; its a "legal fiction" and deserves to be treated as a fiction necessary to consolidate economic activity; but not to participate in politics; that's surrealist.

The human condition is sacred: Institutions of all types are necessary.

The only thing sacred in a civilization is the human condition. Institutions of all types become necessary because of the number of human beings that have to live side-by-side, next-to-each-other. Governments, economies, societies, religions, etc. all become necessary institutions because they help 'weld together' the humans who house them. None of these institutions created the human condition: to the contrary, the 'human condition' created the institutions. Hence, no institution can be more important than the human condition. Nevertheless, institutions become necessary because of the complexities that arise from the necessity of humans having to live 'in a condition of togetherness'. Fortunately or unfortunately, the People need government, as they also need institutions that address their physical, economic, social and spiritual needs. But, the most necessary of institutions is that of government. The reason for that is that the 'condition of togetherness' requires governing. 'Isolated' individuals may be able to live alone, but individuals in a 'condition of togetherness' cannot. Any 'condition of togetherness' must have government, and government cannot govern without Law. 'Governing' and 'Law' are basically the same thing. You can't have one without the other. In spite of the absolute necessity of government and Law, the human condition remains 'sacred'. Since government is required to govern a 'condition' it did not create, it must govern democratically. No one individual is more important than the other and governing requires that the Freedom and Equality of each individual, at the Bottom of government, be respected and protected. The One ( at the Top) must respect, protect, and help those( at the Bottom) who have basic needs, in order to survive, in their 'condition of togetherness'. That makes a Nation strong.

Capitalism could work; if the playing field was not so lop-sided.

The problem with capitalism is the lop-sidedness of the 'field'. Early in 'capitalism', the Judiciary saw fit to Constitutionally protect corporations by considering them as 'persons' within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment. That may have been necessary and inevitable at the time. However, to continue to add more advantages, like including them under the Speech provisions of the Constitution, is a little too extreme. A corporation is a legal fiction and as such should be treated as a fiction; it cannot have a freedom of speech because it does not speak and because its a 'Legal fiction'. It has been given certain advantages by giving the corporate structure a 'center of gravity' for economic activity to help create a great economy, but how much further can the fictional aspects be taken? To be sure, it effected the concept of competition by individuals. But, to give them the power of contributing to political candidates is absurd. That seems carrying the 'personal fiction' a little too far. Those 'fictions' apply to the abstracted, artificial, fictional entity as a whole, as contrasted to the real individual. The fictions should not be considered as the 'intended' creation of some huge 'real' individual. That's why they are referred too as 'legal fictions'. Of course, the effect has been to solidify their 'huge' economic status and at the same time 'help' their own selves within the 'political field'. That can only result in a 'lopsided activity' that concentrates money among the politicians or Parties who support those new 'creations'. The real individual has a freedom and equality within the National sphere that recognizes the integrity, the dignity, and the uniqueness of the individual human condition. A real individual can incorporate his/her business, but s/he cannot create another human 'person'. What has been created remains an economic "legal fiction". Corporations are economic fictions ( government issue) but, real human beings are not government issue. Humans are real and no one can create another human being by some 'governmental activity'. Only real humans have a Constitutional Freedom and Equality. Corporations acquired protection under the Constitution: now, they should do their part by helping to implement the Freedom and Equality of the individuals at the Bottom. They could help keep jobs local, pay just wages, pay their fair portion of taxes, and never usurp the dignity or the integrity of the human condition.

What's a "strike"?

A "strike" is the legal 'togetherness' allowed by law for the purpose of pointing out some 'inadequacy' to the top of the employer-employee relation. Its really a 'mini-revolution'. It follows the same principle that the Bottom of government follows pursuant to the First Amendment viz. the right to "peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievance". However, in the case of a strike, the reason usually deals with wages, while in a revolution the reason deals with a 'lack' of democracy. In either case, the Constitution recognizes the Freedom and Equality of the individual to 'assemble' and assert their strength in Numbers. The Bottom of government does not have any power, in the political sense, but it has strength in its 'condition of togetherness'. The Constitution recognizes this and respects the superiority of the Bottom to the Top. The Top of any corporation is the arrangement of a business with a duty to implement a 'structure' that relates to the Bottom of the relation. However, the Top cannot function without a Bottom, viz. the individual that carries out the instructions coming from the Top. The Top reaps 'great rewards' ( money) from its Constitutional status as a 'person', so why deny a fair wage to the individuals who make it possible? On a much larger scale, the strike is a small exemplar of the need to consider the Bottom of government as a Numerical component of the social. There is strength in Numbers, but People need to stop 'talking' and start 'doing'. A strike is a 'doing' and the whole issue becomes, "how many strikers"?, "how many employees are involved"?, " what is their strength"; how will it effect the Top. A 'strike' is a Constitutional Right of employees, as a revolution is a Constitutional Right of the Peoples of a democracy.

Why does democracy work?

The only reason democracy works is the fact that the entire 'form' is dependent on the individual at the Bottom. Without the individual, democracy could not work. The reason for that is that any governmental form, other than a democracy, that originates at the Top and exercises power towards the Bottom, has to, eventually, justify the source of that power. The Divine Right of Kings had a theory about the "Kings two bodies". One body was 'Divine', the other was 'mundane'. The 'mundane' body allowed the King to be just one of the guys; while the 'Divine body' was used to justified the divine source of his power. In other words, he was half human and half Divinity. Furthermore, his 'power' and his 'political position' was inherited. In todays world, the Divine source of power doesn't work. Leaders assume their positions at the Top through inheritance, accident, force, fraud or the ballot box. In a democracy, its the ballot box. The Peoples at the Bottom vote the leaders in. Its not near perfect, but it works and, of course, also gives rise to political shenanigans by opposing political ideologues(Parties). But, the entire process is dependent on the individual, and hence, the vote. Even though imperfect, consider the 'form' of government as a 'whole', i.e. as a political entity. What, or who, is more important in the 'whole'; the political entity or the Individual? The former is abstract; the latter is 'real'. The latter does not have any 'attributed' power like the 'former'. But the individual in a relation of the Top and the Bottom, has his/her dignity and integrity as a human being and has 'strength' in the 'essential condition of togetherness' that they find themselves in. As individuals they, each, is an expression of 'Life', whereas the political entity is an abstraction, malleable, and can be changed; circumstances requiring such. Consider the following; " political entities don't create individuals, individuals create political entities". Democracy, although not perfect, is the most intelligent manner of arranging the relation of the Top and the Bottom.

Democracy is a 'triangle'.

Democracy is triangular in nature. It has three sides, or better yet, Three Branches. The executive is the Branch that governs. The Judicial is the Branch that helps resolve cases and controversies and generally, defines the 'triangular' form of government as 'constituted' in the Constitution. The Legislative is the Branch that 'houses' all the People; its at the Bottom of government and constitutes the essence of democracy. Its the Peoples government; they 'build' it; they elected the office holders; they are the underlying support of the Top. If their was no Bottom, there would be no need for a government or a Top. That's why, its absolutely insane for any political Party to take the political perspective that 'we do not need Central government'. Government is an essential aspect of the 'condition of togetherness' and 'democratic' government is a Constitutional government that has been arranged in the 'form' of Three branches. Of course, most people know this and most people 'talk' democratically, i.e. 'politically correct'. But, 'talk' of democracy is different from 'doing' democracy. Talk is abstract and deals with generalities. Sometimes it deals with 'specifics', but when it does, they are also abstract. Unfortunately, talk can be 'empty' and 'political talk' usually is. But, 'real' democratic talk 'embraces' the activity talked about in an established policy or law, i.e. democratic policy and democratic law. A complexity of 'democratic talk' is the reduction of the policy to the 'level' of the activity at the Bottom. It has to be more than mere talk. it has to be 'real'; it has to function; and it has to 'embrace' the individual at the Bottom in a 'real', concrete manner. That's the only reason to have a government at the Top. And that's the reason why we need more government, not less. Its time to revamp government to include all the People at the Bottom and not just the 1%.

Party loyalty can sink democracy

Party 'stances' can be harmful to real democracy. Although both Parties purport to be democracies, that does not mean that they actually are democratic; that still remains to be demonstrated. But, any Party that is against the involvement of government is 'automatically' non-democratic. The political stance, "the less government the better", can't possibly be based on the Constitution. The political stance, "People are lazy, they need to get out and work" has to be a 'view' "from the top of the Corporate ladder or the 1%". If the government is not involved in 'governing', who will govern us; the 1%, or a 'corporate society? But, of course, this does not mean that the 'opposition Party' is automatically democratic. It too has to demonstrate that it's democratic. But, back to the previous statements. If government is not to be involved in governing, who will serve as 'governor'. Someone has to do it; the millions cannot govern themselves, and that is not a reflection of their 'laziness' or their 'wanting hand-outs'. Its a reflection of their wanting to be properly 'represented' by those in office and who ask only that those in office follow the Constitution. Its also a reflection of the 'dilemma' of the One and the Many. No one individual, and no 'group' of individuals, is a 'superior' human being who has been 'granted' the political authority to govern millions of 'Free and Equal' People( The 'king is dead, long live democracy) Its impossible, we need government, but we need democratic government, and the attitude about "less" government is the same as the 'attitude', "your biting the hand that fed you, remember?". No, democracy is essential and Party leaders need to remember what they learned about democracy in high school. Its not a difficult concept; just, for a bit, forget greed, power, and selfishness. We 'live' in a 'condition of togetherness'.

Competition between the economy and government will never work

Competition between the economy and democratic government is not functional. All democratic governments are structured as a triad and hence require objectivity in all three Branches in order to function as a democracy. The duty of democratic government is laid on each of the three branches and on their proper function in 'political objectivity'. The objective functions of a democracy is proper Representation of all the People; proper 'execution' of the laws by the Executive Branch; proper 'interpretive practices' by the judicial Branch. All three are necessary and no one Branch can do without the other two Branches. However, a successful economy needs only a dialectic i.e. two factors, an investment and a profit. Its purpose and its end result is profits; and no business entity functions for long, when there are no profits. Businesses last only as long as their profits last; whereas democratic government 'lasts' as long as their is 'democracy' i.e. Freedom and Equality of each and every individual.( This excludes corporations because they are not real 'persons'.) Hence, its easy to see where profits can never 'motor' a democracy. A democracy needs Three Branches and furthermore, each of the branches must remain politically 'objective'. By political objectivity, I mean each branch must fully function in a truly 'representative' manner and must perform the duties of the political office. The economy does not need, nor does it want, Objectivity, Justice, Freedom or Equality. It wouldn't be able to function; it needs profits. Whereas, a democracy requires Freedom, Equality, Justice and Objectivity. Democracy can function without profits, but the economy cannot function without profits. Hence, we must find a way not to co-mingle the two principles.

The lopsidedness of our economy was created by government

The present economic 'lopsidedness' cannot be corrected, because those in positions of 'economic advantage' will not give up their 'advantage'. Nevertheless, the economy exists within the 'political parameters' of an acknowledged democracy. Although the economic advantage 'taken' by the few may have been 'unfair' and not 'competitively assumed', the individuals who benefited from the advantage still live within the parameters of a democracy that afforded them the "freedom" and "equality" allowing those fictional entities to increase their profits a thousand fold. But, keep in mind that it was never a real individual who made those profits; it was a "legal fiction". The legal fiction was 'given' certain human attributes that every real human individual knows that it has never possessed. That sole legal move rendered competition between humans in a democracy impossible. The 'lopsidedness' of the economy arises from two factors; the 'profiteers' are fictions, and the real individual can no longer compete against them. Hence, the 'greatest lopsidedness' of the economy was created by law. Since law is established by the government, it can also establish conditions in which 'real individuals' within a democracy can be allowed to actually 'compete', or they can be allowed by law to function as "free" and "equal" individuals, by changing the law, in the economy, to that effect. The Top 1% did not get there by their 'democratic' ingenuity. It was through 'economic ingenuity'; after they received 'help' from the legal system. Sometimes democracy 'hangs' itself by not distinguishing a real human being from a fictional person, or by being influenced by economic "greed". Is it not strange that we can have laws against usury by individuals, and not have laws that can 'balance-out' the unfair economic advantages of the "legal fictions".

Economies began as agrarian, 'crafts', steam, electrical, then computers

All economies began as agrarian; then crafts; then machines( steam, electrical)then assembly lines, and eventually a computerized economy. The early forms of the economy all contributed to the well-being of the Peoples by creating jobs and sustenance. Of course, money was involved then also. But, today the focus has shifted from the saturation of products in the economy to the amount of money that the product can create for its owners. The idea of a 'well balanced' economy changed to how much money any one entrepreneur could acquire. The 'value' system of the economy shifted from the democratic values that allowed it to flourish to the money created by the economy. After that, the economy created 'useless' products only for the sake of profits; money was then hoarded, and hence the economy created tremendous imbalances of economic value. Jobs became unimportant. Notice, none of the preceding effects the political values of democracy. Those values are still intact. But, the mixture and substitution of economic values created a 'class' society of 'haves' and 'have nots'; in other words, a 'non-democratic' society. Corporations and their 'economic grasp' nullified 'healthy' competition in the economy and in some cases, corporations even have more money than government; hence, the contamination of democratic values by economy values, or just plain money. Originally, corporations were protected by government and now they 'run' government. How can a value system of an economy usurp the democratic value system that allowed it to flourish? We still live in a democratic society. Why is the 1% trying to take over the government? The problem is that the individuals that hold public offices are as much enamored with money as are the corporations and their owners. Hence, the corruption of democracy. To be sure, the 'haves' cannot be voted out. But, the individuals in office can. Also, the laws establishing the required by-laws of the corporate charter and the 'term' of its existence should be modified. We pass new laws 'everyday', so lets pass some that require the corporation to be 'more democratic' by requiring them, in exchange for the 'personhood' they get from government, to pay their fair share of all the benefits they reap from being allowed to 'exist' in a democratic society.

Governmental indifference leads to economic inequality

Democratic government is 'motored' by democratic values. The economy is 'motored' by profits. The Top of government is an essential part of a democracy because it provides the 'form' of government. However, the Bottom of democratic government is the essence of democracy. An economy is essential to every political entity, even if its not a democracy. Of course, the reason for that is that each and every human being has to live in the world. That is the case, regardless the ideology, or the political system. However, in a democracy the Top of government sets the parameters of the democratic value system. I refer to political values. Political values are not dependent on economic values, although economic values are dependent on democratic values. Nevertheless, the economy of every Nation is important because it 'provides' sustenance, and a 'life-style', for the Bottom. The 'well-being' of the Peoples of a democracy is greatly determined by the government's attitude to its economy. As a general formulation, the term "the economy" is a general abstraction that refers to a 'level of efficiency, distribution, and accumulation' of 'economic value'. Every government should 'want' to establish a 'well-ordered' economic system. So, why does democratic government remain 'aloof' of the inequalities established by its economic system. Its insane to show that the top 1% 'holds' the majority of the money acquired by 'successful' entrepreneurs. Economies were never intended to be politically 'transformed' into 'Plutocracy' or any other form of government. Economies are not governments; they function within governments, but are not intended to change the nature of the government within which they flourished. That's greed at its worse. A big culprit in the economic imbalances that exist are caused by corporations. Democratic government should have more 'control' over its corporations.

The Triadic form of democracy is delineated at the Top.

The Top of government furnishes the form of democracy while the Bottom of democracy 'lives' and nourishes the spirit of democracy. One cannot exist without the other. Nevertheless, the Bottom is the essence of democracy because it is constituted of millions of individuals who 'grant' the political power of Office. The Top cannot exist without a Bottom and the Bottom cannot exist without government. However, a Top without a correlative Bottom cannot exist as a government of the People. The reason for that is that although a Top may have power, if it does not get it from the Bottom, its not governmental power; it's illegal, unjustifiable power. There can be no justifiable power at the Top, if it does not originate from the entire Bottom. That would not be a government; it would be an 'illegal' usurpation of the Top, taken by force, fraud, or the substitution of some 'economic value' in lieu of a 'democratic value'. That may happen, if the 1% takes over government. Government by a 'few' over the Many at the Bottom based on an 'economic value' would not be a democracy. A plutocratic government is not a government that implements democratic values. That might be an oxymoron, or it's just a plain subjugation of the 'less fortunate' by the 'more fortunate'. The problematic is that democratic government is rule by democratic values not economic values. Once, 'governing' loses its direct connection to all the People at the Bottom, it loses its 'democratic form'. Once the democratic form is lost at the Top, the Bottom will lose its 'democratic spirit'. The end result of that could well lead to plain revolution, and I don't mean, 'justifiable assembly'. "Justifiable assembly" is democratic but in an illegally established government, it can serve as a 'strong' antidote to Plutocracy.

Democracy begins at the Top

Democracy begins at the Top of triadic government. The reason for that is that the theory of democracy provides the framework for the exercise of democracy and a government needs a framework before it can judge 'activity' at the Bottom. The Constitution, which 'constitutes' the Nation, does that. The actual practice of democracy is at the Bottom of government. That is why we have said the essence of democracy is at the Bottom where all the People 'live'. It is just as important that the framework of democratic government, as a constant triadic movement, be retained as is the actual practice, by the People, of 'real' democracy. Both, the 'implementation' and the 'practice' must complement and support each other. The Top is duty bound to implement the basic structure; the Bottom to 'live' it. If the Top fails to implement the basic structure, the Bottom has a Constitutional right to invoke the 'strength' of the First Amendment, to wit; " peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Notice, I state the 'strength' of the First Amendment. The reason for that is that the Amendment does not grant 'power'. Only the Top has been granted the power of Office. The Bottom has the 'strength' that comes with the right to 'assemble'. The strength of Numbers. The Top enforces its 'power' through law; the Bottom its strength through 'assembly'. That is a Right, in a proper case, to revolution. That's why law must be Constitutional and 'assembly' peaceful. However, the Judiciary has established a distinction between 'Public' and 'private'. The public sphere is governed by law, hence the government 'controls' assembly and, by that means, can curtail the Constitutional exercise of 'assembly'. No law should curtail the proper exercise of a Constitutional Right.

International problems are many times more complex than National problems.

The International sphere is more complex than the National sphere. Of course, everyone says, "we know that!". But has the issue really been considered. The National involves differences between the political Ideology of the Nation( lets say democracy) and its People. Some differences are resolved with Legislation; new laws, and some with the expression of different opinions, decisions to run for Office, support for those who run for office, and stated more generally, the expression of the Freedom and Equality everyone enjoys. All the 'internal' differences within a democracy and all the attempts to 'right' the 'wrongs' in the political structure can be resolve with a properly functioning Triadic government and a proper expression of real political freedom and real political equality. The former is political and the latter is personal. This is not to say that's easy. However, on the International scene, the differences that exist are both Ideological and Personal. Each Nation has its own ideology. Some are purportedly democratic some are not and, unfortunately, never shall the ideological 'differences' meet. But, the human condition in both spheres is the same. The 'human-ness' in the human condition is the same within an Autocratic government as it is within a Democratic government. The 'Peoples' of all the different ideologies have the same 'humanity'. Human beings are all the 'same'. The 'human condition' can be a unifying force to 'respect' the dignity of all other human conditions on the planet. Humanity is the same and should serve as a 'unifying' medium. Political Ideology separates us and does not treat the 'human condition' as it should. International politics is too busy fighting for advantage on the International sphere too really 'understand' and 'appreciate' the human dignity that exists within its own borders and which it purports to Represent. Truly, human beings that serve in political Offices must not lose sight of their own humanity and the humanity they Represent.

The problematic of democracy is People.

Democracy as a form of government is not perfect, but its the best we can have. The political problems of democracy have to be laid at the feet of the People. The form of government; its triadic nature; the functions of government; are ideally structured and arranged to create a 'real' democracy. However, the People who implement it fall short of fulfilling the expectations of the triadic form; viz. the proper functioning of the Three separate Branches of government. But, all the blame cannot be laid at the feet of the different branches. The People at the bottom who should be reaping the benefits of democracy and who should be 'practicing it' also fall short of 'living' a democratic life. Although individuals are considered free and Equal, many individuals do not actually consider the Other as an equal. In other words, there is too much racial discrimination; economic discrimination; 'class' solidarity, and 'class' discrimination. The individuals who engage in these practices align themselves with the political Party that supports their personal viewpoint. Some, if economically able, even run for Office. The Bottom of government contaminates the Top of government. After all, the People at the Top come from the Bottom. Nevertheless, the Top has a function and anyone occupying a political office is duty bound to carry out those duties. There is absolutely no other reason for occupying a political office. However,the only duty required at the Bottom is to live within the boundaries of law. Of course, that makes racial and economic discrimination easy because it becomes a personal thing. Hence, not all individuals at the Bottom practice the Equality guaranteed and protected by the Constitution. How can People be made to understand that without the 'condition of togetherness', we cannot be expected to survive. We can only survive in a 'condition of togetherness' if we consider each individual forming the condition, an Equal. We have to be better human beings.

All secular governmental structures take the form of a Top and a Bottom.

All secular forms of government have a Top and a Bottom. The Top always governs the Bottom. Religion has a similar structure, but is different because the Top relied on the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings. The 'Top' is never really defined in any fixed form. However, in secular government, the form is always fixed, even though there are many different ways to 'assume' the position of the Top. In olden days, the 'strongest' ruled; then the 'wise', then the 'King", then the 'inherited throne', etc.. Today, the 'elected' rules. Some forms took the 'Top' by force and ruled or governed by force. Even the elected form can take the Top by fraud. But, the Top only has a 'limited' power and authority. It can govern 'well' or it can govern 'poorly'. The last sentence means with the approval or the disapproval of the Bottom. However, the 'majority' at the Bottom is never the 'entire' Bottom. Too many individuals are left out of the 'democratic equation'. Hence, majority rule can be pretty lop-sided and undemocratic. Its the entire Bottom that must elect and tolerate efficiency or inefficiency. If 'inefficiency; then the Bottom waits till the next election. However, in a real democracy, if the inefficiency is 'severe', or 'egregious', a properly worded Constitution would provide for the 'Right to assemble' and "petition the government for redress of grievances". That is the Constitutional right to revolution and 'covers' the 'egregious misuse' of government power. Only a real democracy has such a provision. Of course, the Top can 'carve' a controlling element on the 'Right to assemble' by dividing the social into the 'Public sphere' and the 'Private sphere'. Laws cover the Public sphere and they can be used as a deterrent to 'assembly'. Nevertheless, a Right, in conformity with the Constitution, should prevail over a State law or a Federal law that is not in conformity with the Constitution.

The political "Top" is different from the religious "Top"

The political 'Top' is a place of honor and respect for the People because it has a 'conferred' power and a 'conferred' authority. But, it gets the power and authority from the political Bottom and that power is Constitutional and secular. Recent issues concerning the place of religion in Constitutional government are being re-visited by the Supreme Court. That's an issue that was properly handled when the First Amendment was passed. Of course, the Amendment confers only a 'freedom of religion' and specific issues will arise and must be resolved as they arise. The basic problematic is that religion, like secular government, is also a relation of the Top and the Bottom. But, there are great differences. The most obvious is the fact that a government "of people", "by People" and "for People", is a "People" government. There is no question as to where the political power to govern is coming from and who is conferring it. In religion, the One, 'at the Top', is a 'Divinity', in whatever form the individual chooses to believe in. In such a case, the One is a 'mystery' or an undefinable source of spiritual power. In such a situation, the One, or the 'Divinity', is never clearly defined. That's why, there are many different religious belief systems; however, the property they all have in common is that they apply to the 'spiritual realm', not the secular realm. Hence, no religious belief system could possibly govern the secular part of life; because the source of spiritual power is never clearly defined. The Middle Ages tried it with the Divine Right of Kings theory of government and they resolved the issue by saying that "the King had two bodies", one was 'secular'; the other 'ecclesiastical'. That didn't work for long. Religious issues belong in the spiritual realm; not the secular realm; even though religious 'warfare' is similar to so-called "class-warfare". Interestingly enough, religious 'warfare' has the same 'form' in religion as "class warfare" has in the secular, or political. In each case, its a 'selected few' telling 'everyone' how to 'believe'; and in the other, telling 'everyone' how to 'live'; one is religious, while the other is secular, but that 'value' system in the secular, is economic, not democratic. Religious values and economic values must not be co-mingled with democratic values.

The political 'responsibility' of the Top is selflessness.

The political responsibility of the Top of government is 'selflessness'. The political responsibility of the Bottom is 'equality'. Since the Top acts in a 'representative' capacity, it must act for the benefit of the Bottom. It should not act otherwise, because the Top has only the power it was given to it by the Bottom, i.e. to act in a representative manner. It cannot, or should not, act selfishly. Unfortunately, policy and law that benefits the Top and the corporate structures are not designed to benefit the Bottom. That would be an 'installation' of an 'economic' value, in lieu of a democratic one. Now, that would be a 'selfish' act that inures to the benefit of selected 'individuals' and the 'political organization' of the Top. The 'individuals', I refer too in the preceding sentence are the 'officials' at the Top and the "fictitious persons" or corporations. The Bottom also has a responsibility and that is to realize that every individual at the Bottom is equal to every other individual at the Bottom, as well as to those who act in a Representative capacity. This 'realization' helps to understand that the 'condition of togetherness' is a 'collective' activity, not an isolated personal one. Although each individual at the Bottom is free and equal and can act and live any way they please, they must also understand they must act within the parameters of law. A 'selfish life' causes a limitation of the democratic spirit and the Bottom is the essence of democracy. The Bottom cannot exist without laws. By the same token, the laws must not dampen the democratic spirit. Laws that 'dampen' the democratic spirit are not 'Just' laws. Unjust laws are laws passed by the Top that impair the 'Freedom' and 'Equality' of the Bottom guaranteed by the Constitution.

The need for 'real' Democratic 'Ideology'.

The heading sounds like an oxymoron. But, that's the only way to 'talk' about 'real' democracy and at the same time, try to 'do' real democracy. The difference between a verbal statement (talking democracy) and a 'doing'( doing democracy) is an 'activity' that actually carries out the verbal generalization into a 'real' specific, program, policy, or law that can be 'counted' or 'measured'. Democratic talk cannot remain 'just talk'. The Bottom does more than 'talk', it actually 'lives' and it should live democratically. The Top does a lot of 'talking', but it should also carry out 'real' programs. Of course, everyone knows that, or at least, everyone says they do. Surely all politicians and statesmen know that. But, why do they continue to 'hide' behind political gibberish. For example; The Top, wanting to correct a mistake created by the complexity of rendering something theoretical into something practical(over which the Top has no control) is excoriated for 'changing his mind' to better achieve the ideal of providing medical care for everyone. The political result is that now the Parties argue over Party members going to the 'other' Party, etc. thereby causing a shift in Party 'loyalty', or 'damaging' Party lines. Why is the political 'concern' focused on the Top instead of the Bottom? I thought democracy was about People solidarity, not about Party solidarity. Do you think the 'warring' Parties are not aware of this distinction. Of course, they are, but they are so concerned with their own personal welfare and political reputations that the People become the 'forgotten' of political 'gibberish'; political 'posturing'; and political 'hypocrisy'. 'Hiding' behind Party lines gives to so-called Party-Politics a certain 'fixity' that it cannot have, if it claims to be a 'real' democratic Party. The complexity of keeping a straight, real, line from the Top to the Bottom is not as easy as some would have it. But, it should not be used by politicians for advantage. If both Parties are 'democratic', why can't they work it out to the benefit of the People.

How to form a 'real' democracy

We have said democracy is theoretical. But we have also said democracy is 'real'. Real democracy applies to you and me, i.e. to every individual at the Bottom of triadic government. Of course, so does theoretical democracy. But, we, as individuals, can do 'both', we can 'talk' democracy, but we can also 'live' a democratic life. The Top of government needs theory in order to 'structure' the direct application of a democratic structure to the Many by an act of 'governing', viz. a real application of the freedom and equality of every individual. Of course, the Top has the power and authority given it, by virtue of being elected to the position. Nevertheless, the Top of government is mostly abstract ( in order to be inclusive) and hence linguistic and theoretical. Of course, it can always apply 'real' democracy by transforming theory into reality. However, the nature and the essence of the Bottom of government is that it is mostly 'real', although it can also 'talk' democracy. 'Politics', is a term that applies to the Top as well as the Bottom of government. But, the 'structure' and strength of the Bottom is not in its 'talk', it's in its Numbers. Every individual can come together and assert his/her individuality in a 'collective strength' of 'togetherness'. "Occupy" was doing that. To be sure it was effective. Keep in mind that each and every individual is an 'element' of a 'real' democracy. It is easy to 'talk' about abstract democracy and the abstract 'Rights' of the individual, but in such cases, its just 'talk' and theory. Too often, its just plain Party ideology. The Bottom has enormous strength in its 'condition of togetherness', but that strength lies in its numbers. Small groupings can be effective, but the 'whole group' or the Bottom, can be enormously effective. Keep in mind, the goal of a 'condition of togetherness' is to implement 'real' democracy, not to undermine it. Hence, 'politics' should implement 'democratic values', not 'economic values'.

Democracy, at the Top, may be abstract; at the Bottom, it's a life-style

Democracy at the Top may be abstract, but at the Bottom, it becomes a life-style. That is absolutely necessary when a government has a huge collection of individuals at the Bottom. In a way, the Top is not any different from the Bottom, except that the Top has a duty to govern those at the Bottom. But, the Top is held to certain democratic principles. That's the only way to 'enclose' a government with authority to govern others like themselves, and who also ascended from the very same Bottom. In a way, the Top is fortunate because it has a duty too keep the Bottom democratic. However, one cannot forget that the authority to govern is given by the Bottom. There is no 'superiority' in the mere activity of governing; only different duties. The Top has duties; the Bottom has duties. However, the Top is in a position to change the way of governing. That's unfortunate, because the only reason there can be for that, is greed. Government is about People, real People and 'greed' is about one individual self who has elevated' him/her-self to an 'unjustifiable' position of authority. The human condition cannot monopolize some of the 'good' that has been created by the institution of government. That's greed at its worst; and when the motive to monopolize relates to money and possessions, its a form of disrespect for the Others like him/her self. Money and possessions is not a measurement of the 'human' aspects of the human condition in a 'condition of togetherness'. That's our dilemma folks. We have to live together; there's no other way. So lets follow the Constitution and implore our Representatives to do the same. Abstract democracy can be rendered measureable if we can 'see' the individual at the Bottom. The only way to do that is Number, not just abstractions. A Number will always be what it is; so is an individual.

Government is 'motored' by democracy: the economy by 'profits' and competittion

The 'motor' for a Democracy is democratic principles; the motor for a successful economy is profits and competition. Although, both institutions are essential to a strong Nation, its a mistake to substitute economic principles in place of democratic principles. The end result of that would be Plutocracy or Oligarchy. Democracy cannot be 'motored' by profits or competition. That would destroy both the freedom and equality of the individual. The freedom and equality of the individual hold together a social motored by democratic principles; while the individuals who have succeeded in the economy can be thankful for the democratic principles that allowed them to function in the economy. It was democratic principles that lead to economic success. Without those principles, the economic activity would have been hampered because even the economy cannot operate at full steam without the principles of democracy. A successful economy can follow from democratic principles, but democracy cannot follow from economic principles of profits and competition. Its obvious, that Plutocratic or oligarchic principles would effect the freedom and equality of every individual, except those who were fortunate enough to be at the Top 1%. That would not last long because the 99% would not tolerate a plutocratic or oligarchic government. The best defense against Plutocracy is the First Amendment of the Constitution. The right to "assemble" is a Constitutional right. That was the very First Amendment because it protected the freedom and equality of the individual; not the economy. To substitute economic principles for democratic principles would undermine the freedom and equality guaranteed by democracy, hence the importance of having democratic principles in the social. The 'initial' democratic right to compete in the economy was devastated by the creation of corporations. No one can compete against a corporation, except another corporation. That pretty much leaves competition too corporations, not individuals.

'Language' at the Top is different from 'language ' at the Bottom.

The Top 'speaks' the language of democracy, while the Bottom, 'speaks' the language of everyday life. The language of the Top is general and abstract so as to include everyone to whom any one policy, law or practice applies. Of course, the Bottom also speaks abstractly, but their 'abstractions' apply to specifics. Nevertheless, the individual at the Bottom 'lives' and 'has a life' in the 'specifics' of the democratic social. The actual 'living', or 'having a life', in a democracy is never an abstraction. Unfortunately, that is the place where the 'clash' between a theory and a practice takes place. Theory always remains abstract; 'practice' requires some form of 'communion' or direct connection with everyday life. But, don't kid yourself, 'everyday life' can be as 'distant' from the real thing as is pure theory. Why is that? Simply because every individual has a different definition of what to him/her is 'every-day life'. A living, breathing, human being always participates, in a 'full sense', in his 'conditions' of life. The above distinctions are what requires, that the relation between the Top and the Bottom, be a real relation, not an abstract one. Democracy must relate, in a real way, with the individuals at the Bottom. If we look at the relation we are speaking about, we notice this is the ancient relation of the One and the Many. It seems that the ancients considered the One and the Many as a 'real' One and a 'real' Many. Of course, that makes the dilemmas of government that arises therefrom unsolvable. From the view of a democracy, it has no solution. Hence, the necessity that the Top be an abstract entity called the "State"( even though a fiction) or "government", and the necessity that the relation between the Top and the bottom be a real relation that transforms democratic abstractions into a real 'democratic life' of individual freedom and equality.

The transition from abstract democracy to actual democracy is complex

The transition from abstract democracy to actual democracy takes place within the individual. This includes the individuals who govern as well as those who are governed. This is not to say that the Top of democratic government has nothing to do with real democracy. The Top of government is institutionalized. It's a 'large' abstract, general, linguistic entity that includes all the specifics of a 'generalized' Bottom. As such, it governs 'itself' by structuring its functions, as a government, in the manner set out in the Constitution. But, it also 'governs' along those same lines i.e. in a triadic fashion. Democratic government is from the Top to the Bottom. Nevertheless, the relation from the Top to the Bottom is a real relation and must seep down to the Bottom as a genuine democratic experience; not as abstractions only. Only the individual, any and all, can experience real democracy or real freedom and equality. Try explaining that experience to some individual or class of individuals who are not free and equal and see what happens. They will never believe it. Why? Because the explanation is purely linguistic and they, as individuals, have never 'experienced' freedom and equality. The transition from abstract knowledge to actual experience of that knowledge is absolutely necessary. And the only way to do that is to actually 'engage' the fully functioning individual, in the only way he functions in everyday life, i.e. as an individual. In this way democracy must be experienced within the individual. Democracy can only be lived.

Democracy is a theoretical construct

Democracy is a theoretical construct, but so is autocracy, dictatorship and Kingship. But, if democracy 'goes' from the theoretical to the practical or actual, it must translate the theoretical into the 'real' or into actual activity. Therein enters many of the problems of democracy. The 'trip' from the Top to the Bottom is not always 'straight-forward' or 'straight down'. That is to say, the 'talk' is simple enough, but the implementation or the 'walk' is not so simple. Let me say it this way; it is simple enough, but 'political language' and demagoguery intentionally confuse the simple application of "Freedom" and "Equality" that grounds democracy. That's what happens when we allow Parties to form, some of which, are 'economic' instead of truly 'democratic'. Of course, Autocracies of every form, do not have this same problem. In Autocracy, the Top is 'law' and the Bottom better well go-with-it, or get 'straightened-out'. In democracy, the old conflict of 'States Rights" and 'Federal Rights' keep getting in the way. Although the Constitution formulated a Republic, it also begins with "We the People"... because its a Peoples Constitution. In other words, its a Constitution of the Bottom or "of the People", even though the Founding Fathers respected the existing integrity of already established Colonies. The People govern themselves by means of Constitutional Government. This included the Peoples already living within established States. While in Autocracies, the Top, governs the Bottom; end of story. But, the Republics division into existing local governments does not change the fact that it's still a Peoples Constitution. Hence, it becomes important that each and every individual, in a democracy, be included in Law, Policy and social practices. Number, is the only way democracy can work;.in other words, each and every individual is "Free" and "Equal" and each and every individual 'counts' within democratic laws, policies, and practices.

How can democratic principles become 'more real'?

Democratic principles are abstract principles that apply to the Bottom of triadic government. Understandably, they must be abstract to 'contain' all the individuals (when we 'talk' democracy) at the Bottom. However, the 'application' of an abstract principle must actually take place. Its necessary to render abstract 'talk' into actual 'doing'. That requires an actual application of an abstract principle to an actual 'happening'. The simplistic way of saying that is to say "you talk democracy" now implement it, by 'doing' it, in an actual occurrence. Damn, its still too abstract. The only way to 'capture' true democracy, i.e. "freedom" and "equality" of the individual human being, is by 'living it'. But, that requires that the Top of government ,as well as the Bottom of government, actually 'live' democratically. If the Top begins to understand that the political positions they hold are 'temporary' and merely 'functional' in a democratic form, or arrangement, of the so-called 'the One and the Many' i.e. the Top and the Bottom, maybe the Top will be more inclined to 'apply' Constitutional mandates 'justly', and the Judicial Branch will be inclined to be more objective in its interpretive practices. Oops, forgot the Legislative branch. They should respect the fact that they merely serve in a 'representative' capacity of all the people who has elected them, as well as those who have not elected them, and maybe the laws they pass will be more just. Oh well, there's still to much abstraction in the above. Lets face it, democracy is a 'way of life'. The 'freedom' and 'equality' of each and every human being has to be respected and protected. (That's the key). Why? Because the Top would not exist without a Bottom. It's dependent on the Bottom and both the Top and the Bottom must 'live' democratically. The Top has a 'function' to play and the Bottom has a 'life' to live. Please, help our leaders to understand that.

"Class" warfare is an oxymoron.

Its ridiculous to talk about "class warfare" because classes do not exist; although "warfare" can certainly be said to exist. Another, softer, term for "warfare" could well be called "competition". That's the case in the economic domain. But 'classes' of human beings do not exist. One human is just as human as another. Why classify those who have acquired more property and possessions, or even intelligence, into a 'higher' class. ( and these acquisitions are only possible because we are a democracy) The division onto higher classes has always existed. In the days of 'Kingship', the distinction was called 'bluebloods'. Well, they soon discovered that blood always flows red. As incorrect as that classification was, at least it referred to something all humans had, viz. blood. But, today it usually refers to possessions, money, or having previously held public office, or having being a 'driver' of a legal fiction; none of which has anything to do with the human condition. A human is a human, is a human. Wow, we create artificial lines of demarcation and then engage in 'everyday-life' with an economic principle and then call competition between People, 'warfare'. We create our own illusions and then we 'compete' with them. Well, the result of one illusion competing with another illusion is so far from actual 'life', that it can really be said that we 'live in illusion'. The end result of two illusions clashing with each other is just a 'further' illusion-far removed from actual life. I guess the sad part is that we not only 'talk' this way, we actually live this way. We fight non-winnable battles. Worst yet, is the fact that many political battles are on the level of the illusory. The battles are at the Top, on the level of language, but they 'hurt' the individual because they usually relate to policy, law, and the establishment of every-day practices. These practices need to relate to something 'real' in the human condition; they need to be less illusory and a bit more real.

Triadic government is a geometric configuration of Three Branch government.

The term "Triadic government" is not a substitute for Three Branch Government. It's a geometric configuration of the same Three Branch government elaborated in the Constitution. It's actually an attempt to simplify Three Branch government down to its geometric form for the purpose of better understanding the underlying forces at work in Constitutional government. You can even call it a "quantification" of governmental structure. Once we get under the verbal descriptions of what constitutes Three Branch government, we can better understand the relative importance of its underlying geometric form. We can actually 'see' why democracy is a form of government that emphasizes the importance of the People. Obviously, Democratic government is a government "of People","by People", and "for People". Verbally, we can appreciate the above description, but geometrically, we can 'see' how a triadic form cannot exist without a Bottom. The Bottom is the People, and the Bottom must be included in all democratic laws, policy, and practices. It cannot be selective about these institutions at the Bottom, because if it only includes the top 1%, the 'capitalist' people, the rich, and excludes common, everyday folk, the Bottom cracks or is not sufficient to support the Top of government. A democratic society can support the Top of government; but, a non-democratic society cannot support the Top because the divisions in the social, into classes, will cause the Bottom to crack and not be a good support for the Top. The Top of a 'democratic' government cannot exist without a democratic bottom. It's ridiculous to suppose that, if the 1% gets power, they can rule over the 99% at the Bottom. That's not going to work; if the top 1% gets power, it will foment a revolution and I don't mean a 'democratic' revolution like the one supported by the Constitution.

The Top of government is more subject to 'illusions of power' and feelings of 'self-importance' than the Bottom.

The Bottom of government has less illusions than the Top. Whatever illusions the Bottom has usually relates to illusions and misunderstandings of 'freedom and equality'. No one is free and equal in some kind of 'measurable way'. The parameters of 'Equality' is 'set' by Number; not language. The parameters of 'freedom' are circumscribed by law. Law circumscribes the parameters of non-acceptable behavior; it does not tell you how to 'behave'; it tells you how 'not to behave'. If you behave in that way, you violate the law and are punished. The term 'Equality' cannot be sufficiently described with words. 'Equality' of what; of possessions, money, physical strength, moral 'strength', 'health'( what is health?),etc. We go around in semantic circles, never reaching a precise description. That's why we have to use Number to determine the applicability of laws, policy, and 'political power'. Equality applies to the human condition; not the 'race' or the 'property or money owned' by an individual. Then we can include, exclude, and determine if the law and the policy is being applied 'equally' and 'fairly', because we can 'count'. Its the numbers stupid. The Top too easily is mesmerized by 'political power' and the function of the Office. The Top is more prone to make mistakes than the Bottom. The Top should function from democratic principles, not egotistical, selfish, or economic principles. Its easier for the Top to be in 'illusion' than for the Bottom to be in illusion. When the Bottom is not treated Equally or Freely, they get 'hurt' and they 'feel' the hurt; when the Top doesn't do its job, it misunderstands power, is under illusions of superiority, or principles of economics, or is being 'party-loyal' and is not applying democratic principles. When the Bottom doesn't act democratically, they get put in jail; when the Top doesn't function democratically, do they go to jail? what happens to them? Nothing! They just say, that's our Party-ideology. Who has misunderstood power and who is under illusion?

Another misused word in real democracy is "entitlements".

An 'entitlement" is not an entitlement, it's a direct result of the essence of democracy. You can call it that if you want, but it reflects a lack of knowledge of real democracy. The essence of real democracy is at the Bottom of triadic government; that's where all the People are. The representatives at the Top are merely carrying out their proper duties- in the case of Social Security- by returning to individuals what the individual has already paid out to the government in the form of withholding taxes.( But where are the jobs?) In the case of the 'poverty stricken', the government is merely carrying out its responsibilities to the less fortunate. Is the latter, a case of what is usually called a 'handout'? Hell No! Why do we have government, if not to 'govern' the 'condition of togetherness' at the Bottom of democratic structures? The form of democratic Government is not a 'structure' formed for the purpose of individuals' to ascend the ladder of opportunity and then abuse the 'office' and the political power that the Bottom has entrusted to them. The Top has democratic duties just as the Judiciary and the Bottom of democracy has democratic duties. Equally so, the Top, the judicial, and the Bottom get compensated for their contributions to a functional, democratic form of government. So why reduce the so-called 'entitlements' that only go to the Bottom of democracy, like Social Security, food Stamps, Welfare, etc.? If those are entitlements, in the sense used by politicians today, so is the salary, retirement, and other 'perks' enjoyed by the officeholders at the Top of government. Hey, I have an idea, why not reduce the 'entitlements' of the office holders? They get 'benefits' from the government for carrying out their duties. Corporations pay the same percentage of taxes as 'rich' Americans, and they're not even real. People are real, and their 'compensation' for existing and contributing to the 'condition of togetherness' should not be tampered with. Tamper with the Top; the economy: and the top 1%.

The distortions in language and democracy are not 'inherent' in language or democracy.

Language cannot function without generalities and specifics. It's within the nature of language to be able to refer to the 'specifics' of experience as well as to the huge, generalities of experience. In the 'politics' of democracy, this fact reduces to 'talking democracy' on very high levels of abstraction and sometimes, unfortunately, never reducing general principles 'down' to 'specific', 'real' facts. Law, policy, and 'social' programs are defined and established on very high levels of abstraction, because they apply to the Many individuals at the Bottom. Of course, they have to be reduced to specific, qualified cases of application, to be rendered efficient. This necessity calls for establishing 'byways', methods, and a 'structural relation' down the 'real' relation that connects the Top to the Bottom of government. Otherwise, we are stuck with the 'talk' of democracy and never get down to the 'walk' of democracy. Hence, the 'distortions' that arise in some political discourse are not necessarily inherent in language nor in democracy. Truly, many of the distortions inhere in the human condition of some politicians. Government is an absolute necessity; the use of language is also and absolute necessity; but the distorted, ambiguous, ranting's of some politicians is not necessary. To be sure, with some politicians, the distortions are intentional, but fortunately, not all human conditions are motivated by the same moral values. The substitution of economic values in lieu of democratic values in the 'governing process' is the most 'demoralizing' move that can be imposed on the human condition. We are all in a 'human condition' and we all need government, but, I assume, some of us don't have to be 'greedy for money or political power'. God help the 'conditions of togetherness'. Where are the Statesmen?

In a democracy, the People at the Bottom need to organize

The Bottom in a democracy 'houses' millions of People. But, each is an individual and has the right and privilege to live his/her life anyway s/he pleases; of course, according to his/her needs and within the parameters of law. The Top of a democratic form of government already has a structure; is very well organized; and its offices are occupied by representatives from the different Parties. The Top doesn't have to organize; it already is. Neither do the Party-politicians. The problem with the Party-politicians is that they constitute only a select few individuals from the Bottom who espouse some Party ideology and who want to participate in politics( for whatever reasons). Of course, they're supposed to be 'representatives', but that's another issue. However, not everyone wants to be a politician. That, in itself, already limits the playing field. Nevertheless, the Bottom of politics also needs to organize. The reason for that is, simply, to be heard. Each and every individual that is 'offended' by government structures is actually harmed, in a real way, and hence needs to make himself/herself heard. However, there are no 'connections' in the relation of the Top to the Bottom, that 'run' upwards. The government relation only runs from the Top to the Bottom; 'nothing' goes up the relation, except, maybe, the right to vote, but that is spread out over the tenure of office. But, in the meantime, what do we do? But, if the Bottom organizes into a 'substantial' group, it can be noticed. Being noticed means having some kind of 'influence' on the policies that emanate from the Top, at the time of the installation of the policy. Why wait till the next election. The First Amendment does not call for the 'right to assemble' only on election years. Its an ever-present right. However, that raises great issues. How do we control such organizations? So, why can't we just pass laws that compel the already existing Parties to be democratic in a 'real' way? That would compel every politician to respect the "freedom" and "equality" of each real individual and it would place corporations in their 'proper' place.

Language is essential to theoretical democracy, but DOING is essential to real democracy.

Language is essential to democracy. We cannot do without the language of democracy. Nevertheless, we have to remember that democracy is not just about 'talking' democracy. Democracy has its language, but it also has its practices. If democracy is just 'talk', its not real democracy; at best its theoretical democracy. Anyone can do that. As a matter of fact, many Nations already do that; they do the 'talk' but not the 'walk'. The Top of any government is always 'linguistic' and theoretical. However, every government has a direct line from the Top of government to the bottom of government. The Top, of necessity, must remain abstract. The direct line to the Bottom must be a line that extends from the abstract Top down to the concrete situation,( in a real way) or to the Bottom where each and every individual lives on a daily basis in a 'condition of togetherness'. Why?, because that closes the theoretical gap that exists between the One and the Many. The purpose of governing is to render the abstract concrete. Otherwise, the Top is not doing its job and the Bottom is without government. The Top can 'talk' democracy, but that is not sufficient; it must DO democracy. That's the purpose of policy, government programs, and laws. If anyone in politics wants "less government", they are making a big mistake. We have to ask ourselves, "then, who will govern us?" That would just place us at the mercy of the 'value system' and the 'moral system' of the leaders at the Top. That'll never work; it won't work, even for those who espouse such a position. Governing the 'condition of togetherness' requires a direct line to the Bottom where the essence of democracy is situated. Once, that relation is established in a 'real way', the Constitution becomes the Law of the land. The direct connection has to be kept or the Top will lose its connection to real democracy. The Top must listen to the Bottom; that's where life is lived; where people are hungry; where people need jobs; where suffering takes place; and those are the people who will serve in 'your military' when you declare war.

Language can be used to distort democracy

Probably, the most misused words in democracy are the words "Equal" and "Free". Truly, every individual in a democracy is "free" and "equal". Many people claim that we are not free because we cannot do whatever we please and because some have more than others. Hey, yes we can do whatever we please, but the requirement that we remain within the parameters of law are properly placed lines of allowable behavior designed to allow full interaction among millions of other human beings with the same rights and the same dignity. True, sometimes laws are unfair. In that case we have to change that particular law, but continue to live within a democratic framework delineated by just laws. With respect to the word "equal", some people say we are not equal because the Other has more money or owns more property and hence has more 'power'.("Power" is another word misused in democratic government). Well, 'equality' in a democratic context means equally human. The human condition identifies each and every individual living on the planet. In a real democracy that humanity and dignity is respected. "Equality" has nothing to do with the amount of money one has or the amount of property one owns. Of course, that has many advantages, but that's mostly because we have co-mingled economic values with democratic values. Everyone born is born into existing 'conditions of togetherness'. Although the 'condition of togetherness' we all find ourselves in is not of our choosing, in a democracy, government must 'protect' that 'condition of togetherness'. It must treat each and every individual as a 'dignified human being', hence every individual is equal to the Other individual. There are no distinctions in the human condition and the government should not make any. Now, why should government treat each individual as "Equal" and "Free"? Because government is the Top of an 'artificial body' created to govern the Many at the Bottom. (The "State" was called a fiction many years ago). The essence of democracy are the People at the Bottom and their "freedom", "Equality" and humanity must be protected. The "power" at the Top is a given of the structure; the individual who governs does not have more "power" than you or I, only his/her office has the power to govern. That power is accompanied by a job s/he has to perform. Failing that, in a democracy, s/he incurs the 'Constitutional wrath' of all the People at the Bottom.

Number is not Utopian nor a panacea

Number is not a panacea nor Utopian, but it sure helps to measure whether the beneficiaries of any policy, law, or other government activity or program is democratic or not. We already resort to 'counting' and 'Number' in Taxation, home ownership, jobs, employment, percentages, racial distributions, gender distributions, etc., so why not extend those practices to judge whether any governmental policy, program, or law, includes or excludes everyone who is supposed to be included or excluded? For example: A family man living in a small home earns $30,000 a year and pays taxes on that amount. Another, earns $200,000 a year and pays taxes on that amount. A corporation earns $500 million a year and pays taxes on that amount. Do all three pay the same percentage of taxes a year? Should the tax be equal or should it be increased among the more fortunate? Is it possible for a corporation not to pay any taxes at all. It sure is possible and to add salt to the wound, a corporation is a "legal fiction", which means its not human, not real, ( like Alice in Wonderland, its not real) and the law recognizes that fiction, and further treats it as a "person" under the Constitution. This 'legal move' increases a corporations 'economic grasp' tremendously. That, in of itself, should be considered a 'great gift' of government, so why increase the advantages of a corporate "fiction" to further create tax loop holes in the law that allows it not to pay taxes? Is that a 'fair playing field'? Do you see the advantage of quantifying democracy by using Number to balance "freedom" and "equality" of every individual(real ones)in a real way. If the essence of democracy is the real individual at the Bottom of government, why give tax advantages to 'fictional persons' and not to real persons. The same rules could apply to the availability of jobs, employment and home ownership. Democracy does not require that everyone earn the same amount of money, or that everyone own the same amount of property, but it does demand a 'fair playing field'.

Can democracy be quantified?

Is Number a language and is it possible to communicate with Number as can be done with language? The answer is No! Such communication is possible only with language. Although mathematics is a 'form' of language, it does not have the same function as communication with words. Communication with words deals with semantics or meaning. To be sure, mathematics does not deal with 'meaning' but, nevertheless, is a 'quantification' that gives to each number or concept a fixed quantity. We can add, subtract, and perform many complex transactions with these numerals and algebras. Similarly, science also functions with 'quantifications', except that science is based on the 'experimental' method. Of course, government and politics is not experimental. While number always remains the same, "words" carry meanings and the same word can mean many different things depending on the context and whether it is used metaphorically or not. But, we have said that Three Branch Constitutional government can be 'reduced' to a more simple triadic form of government to help us to better conceive the underlying basis of governmental power. We have concluded that the Bottom of the triad supports the Top of the triad and that the Top would not exist if it were not for the Bottom. There can be no Top without a Bottom. Hence, the Top is the Administration and the bottom are the millions of individuals who constitute the democracy. Democratic government must include each and every individual within its settings of policy and law or be judged not to be democratic. The best measure of that inclusion or exclusion is Number. Democracy must be subjected to an enumeration process that verifies the inclusion or exclusion of every individual within the stated category of governance. For example, the very general proposition, "every individual is free and equal", means Every Individual. No exceptions and no discriminatory classifications relating to gender, race, rich or poor. "Every" means every human being is "free", and "equal" means every human being is 'equally human'.

The only path to real democracy is Number.

Language is not working; by that, I mean political language suffices as a descriptive formulation of democracy as set out in the Three Branch structure of the Constitution and subsequent interpretations by the Supreme Court. Constitutional language is absolutely necessary. But, many of those formulations were all prior to the so-called Linguistic Turn. This is not to say that language was not problematic prior to the Linguistic Turn, but the Turn received its 'collective impetus' from Richard Rorty,s book, "The Linguistic Turn". Language as 'non-correspondence' with reality creates many gaps with respect to 'practical application' of democracy and democratic values. Of course, politicians were already adept at twisting language without the support and encouragement of the Turn. But, it may be useful for us to consider why in the economic sphere, language is not as important as it is in the political sphere. Basically, the reason is because 'language' as a medium of communication, does not refer, so much, to the 'organizational aspects' of the economy as it does to the 'end result' of economic activity, or medium of exchange of economic activity, which is money. (Of course, there is one case where it does refer to the 'organizational aspects' of the economy; i.e. "legal fictions"). Nevertheless, the economy is about profits and that means money and property. My point is that money is a quantification that can be counted. The 'counting' is important because it determines your 'class status' within a society. The 'status' of the individual is based on how much money or property s/he has. My point; why can't the Bottom of Constitutional government, which is "We the People...," also be quantified so as to determine whether any law or policy is sufficiently democratic to be Constitutional? I'm sure you heard the somewhat recent statement of an "ex-politician" say, (I paraphrase) " Look at the numbers". A good beginning point.

Well, the shut-down is almost over; or is it?

A government shut-down is the most ridiculous result that can be intentionally perpetuated by politicians against the People. It's not a 'political move' against the other Party; its a political move to get concessions at the expense of the People. But,that's a direct result of so-called Party loyalty; or just plain 'dirty politics'. The People always have to pay the price. Its such a basic realization; a shut-down does not harm the Parties, it harms the People. So, why do some politicians use the people as leverage and as a means of getting concessions. They should be proposing alternative solutions to problems of democracy; not 'damaging' the 'little democracy' that the Bottom enjoys. Both Parties should be democratic, only the means of 'practicing' democracy should be different. Obviously, one of the Parties is following an economic or 'money agenda'. When I say that we should not mix economic principles with democratic principles, I do not mean that the economy, as an important part of any Nation, is not important; I mean, the economy is 'driven' by 'profits' while democracy is 'driven' with "freedom and equality". There is no freedom and equality in economics. If there was, we wouldn't have a great economy; in the same manner, there is no 'profit' in democracy. If there was, we would be a Plutocracy. Oh, Oh, I just painted myself against the wall. Are we a Plutocracy? Well, we're not supposed to be. The Constitution says we are a democracy, " We the People...,. Then, why is there such a thing as the 1%? Were the 1% just more 'human' than any other 'human being'? No! They were more grasping and more greedy and they tapered laws to fit an economic agenda by requiring less duties from the 1% and corporations. They even fought against 'laborers' forming into Labor Unions and yet, protected corporations by creating a "fictional" entity and legally calling it a "legal fiction", which sounds more acceptable, but, in spite of all the trickery, remains 'mythological'. Our democratic values have become dislocated from their Constitutional base and, unfortunately, some Party loyalists love it. So much for Parties!

Democracy has been 'embarrassed' by power

The best government in the world has been 'embarrassed' by political power. To be sure, political offices are characterized by the exercise of power but, the most embarrassing aspect of its use is for so-called political leaders, divided by Party lines, to use it against each other as if it was some sort of 'game'. The undemocratic spirit of the 'Party mentality' that divides politicians is partly to blame (The autocracies are laughing at us). Another reason is the reduction of the 'democratic spirit', down to the level of a 'baseball game mentality'. Politics is serious business and anyone with a 'game' orientation should not be allowed to hold political office. Democratic politics is about People and about governing. Where did democracy go wrong? It was in assuming that only serious individuals that actually had a democratic spirit would want to hold political office. It certainly is not the compensation for holding office, but it was probably the opportunity of functioning on a level of power where self-aggrandizement could be better 'realized' by political maneuvering and by 'sleeping' with the lobbyists and the corporations. In actually, its the 1% shooting itself in the foot. Government is "for the People"; and maybe its time that the People begin to "assemble" and show their 'strength' in Numbers. After all, that was the reason for the First Amendment. The government belongs to the People, not the politicians. Any direct or indirect self-aggrandizement while in office should be prohibited by law and that law should be a standing law with 'teeth'. That Law should emanate directly from the Constitution. A government shut-down in a democracy is humiliating and should not be tolerated. The 1% has shot itself in the foot; it has demonstrated that 'politics' is more important than People. Since, government is about People, their politics is about creating shut-downs to get concessions that further work against the people.