Corporations are important to the economy of a Nation. But, we must never forget that they are legally considered as "fictions that exist only in contemplation of law". Why and what does that mean? Well,human beings in a democracy are not fictions, they're as real as you can get. They 'live' they suffer and they die. Hence, side by side, a human being should be more important to a democracy than a "fiction". That does not mean that we discriminate against corporations, only that we distinguish between an economic principle and a political principle. Not only do we make a distinction between them but we do not co-mingle them. OK, so what does that mean? It means that the goal and purpose of having a healthy economy should not be the sole criteria of a democracy. To be sure, its very important, but never at the risk of relaxing democratic principles. We do not switch from democratic principles to economic principles. Democracy must remain democracy, it never changes. Thats why we have the First Amendment. The economy must continue to grow within the context of the democracy within which it is realizing its full potential. When economic principles begin to effect democratic principles, that means that the 'motor'and goal(profits)begins to replace the Freedom and Equality of a true democracy.That means that instead of freedom and equality as a 'motor' for democracy, that money,the medium of exchange that must circulate, becomes a 'value'. That means money replaces freedom and equality as the 'motor' of the Nation.When money replaces freedom and equality, we go from Democracy to Plutocracy; We go from a 'freedom and equality' to a 1%. When the 1% rules, we create a Country with 'riches',instead of a country with freedom and equality of those who, in the first place, created it. Come-on guys, money is necessary;like you,I like it too, but don't let it replace democracy, especially when the main culprit is a "legal fiction". You know, legal fictions can't function on their own, they are 'run' by real people, so who is benefiting? We're back to the 1%.

Remember when you were in the military? Among many other things ,they issued you an M1 and a bayonet, also a whole slew of magazines with 30 caliber rounds. Heavens, do they still issue bayonets? I know they don't issue M1's. I guess killing has become more efficient. We now have "weapons of mass- destruction". Its no longer a one on one situation. The more we can kill with just one 'weapon' the better. That means automatic weapons with as many bullets as you can carry. Well, if your in a war situation, I guess that makes some sense( not addressing the sense-lessness of war). The Second Amendment also allows the people "to bear arms". When was that Amendment passed? Oh, 1791. Hell those were wild times. The American Revolution was just over, the Constituion was just 'approved', and maybe there were even indians and wild animals all over the place. But, I betcha they didn't have assault weapons. At that time, it was also necessary that a State have a "well regulated Militia" to prevent enchroachment into the State. For sure, everyone was entitled to protect his family and his home. And, face it, everyone is still entitled to self-protection, so having a weapon for that purpose is as Constitutional as you can get. But, a "well regulated Militia" to the security of the State? Thats the States business! And for self-defense, hunting, or collecting, do we need "weapons of mass destruction"? Some will say ,"you exaggerate". OK,lets just say automatic weapons with many magazines for killing dozens of individuals who are attacking your family or home? As unlikely as that scenario is, its not unlikely that some 'crazy' will do just that in a crowded auditorium or a school building. Isn't that whats happening? Well, those victims were someone's family. Your family is your family whether your at home or going about your business. They need protection just as you and your home need protection. So, lets control the availability and misuse of these automatic weapons. We don't need them for self-defense at home and we don't need them for hunting and we don't have to collect them. If you do collect them, then just remove the firing pins on those suckers. I guess we no longer issue bayonets but we do issue automatic weapons because unfortunately they have become necessary in war. Production and manufacture of weapons for war is still necessary. But that is unrelated to running a business designed to make the availability of these weapons to just anyone. Sell to the government, or is there a 'profit' issue lurking in the background? We need to keep the Second Amendment but lets not use it to justify the taking of innocent lives. People govern themselves so how can people allow the taking of innocent lives. Some control is imperative.

All human beings are 'unique' expressions of life. Regardless of the color of their skin, gender,place of birth,life style or belief system. Human life is sacred. No political entity can claim to have 'given'or 'issued' that life and no political entity has 'control' of the sacred. A political entity is merely a 'coming together' to form a general organization designed to better protect, the uniqueness of that life. Some called it a "Divine Right", others 'took it' by conquest or force. It can be called a 'State', a 'Nation' or a 'Country'. Its a political entity and as such does not come into existence in the same manner as human beings. It has a purpose and a goal and that goal is predominant and sovereign and each political entity has to establish the form and structure by which it will govern those lives. In a democracy, the people themselves organize the form and structure by which one or several of them will govern the rest. This method of forming a political entity does not claim to select the 'governors' that are superior in any respect. Interested individuals campaign to be elected into offices.(who knows if they're being honest?) The people do their best to choose a candidate that will respect the sanctity of life. The 'chosen' have a political 'job' to perform. That job is to protect and defend the general welfare of those who have placed him or her in a position of 'political' power. The so-called 'Top of power' is a political power and never an individual power. So-called 'power' can come wrapped in many 'social wrappings'. Some individuals are strong, some are rich, some are poor, some are smart, some are dumb, and some of these can get elected to serve at the Top, but regardless, what has been conferred is political power,not individual power. No one individual in office can claim to have given life or claim to have a right to manipulate the life of any 'Other' individual. An individual in office can only claim the right to better the general welfare of those whom he or she governs. There is no other purpose for government. I know about the tensions between States and Nations but that's another matter. Thats about Nations relating to each other not people dealing with the form and structure of their own particular government. Every human being has a right to his or her life and to demand that 'the general welfare' of the people be addressed by those in power. The Top has no other function. The 'Bottom' of government must be conceived 'quantitatively', if one is to judge, whether democracy is true Democracy or whether only a few are benefiting from the organization into a political entity. Why should only 1% benefit from politics? Why do you think the First Amendment was passed? Thats a Right to your religion, to 'free' speech, and the right to 'revolution'.

Democracy is about the freedom and equality of human beings: the economy is about making a profit. Have you ever seen a business, whether incorporated or not, that is not making a profit, remain in business? Or for that matter, an individual that works for a living, continue to work if s/he will not get paid? The economy functions on a principle of 'monetary growth'. Of course, the economy of a Country must be stable and must show signs of growth. However, Democracy will continue to be a democracy and the only 'growth' it will experience is where the parts of the social that were previously left out, can now be included. Government is a democratic arrangement into three parts of the social that will hold the underlying form in a true 'democratic' reciprocity. Democracy will always be democracy; the only question that arises is, "is it a true democracy?" If not, then that's the direction of change. Democracy does not grow, it just finds its true center. That is why democratic principles of government cannot, and should not, be co-mingled with economic principles of growth. Sure, they're related. However, the individual is the very basis of democracy. If any individual or class of individuals is left out of the 'reckoning' of a democratic policy or law, we have failed. Democracy will never change; it is to be achieved. To the contrary, the economy is based on the profit motive which can very easily become motored by greed. Therein lies its problematic. Individual greed may be morally wrong(maybe not), but, in the political sphere, it's clearly wrong. If the medium of exchange is 'hogged' by the 1%,a very important part(that should circulate) of the economy is being held hostage in a democracy based on freedom and equality. The 'top' of the social is not the same as the Top of government. The two are different and must remain separate in a democratic government. Why change the principle of democracy to a principle of the economy? Thats not democracy, thats Plutocracy. Why do 'democrats' who have used the principles of democracy to get to the 'top' of the economic ladder, all of a sudden, want to be Plutocrats? You know the answer to that.

Democracy is about human beings. Although a democratic government functions democratically, true democracy is at the bottom where all the people reside in a condition of togetherness. The Top, or the government is able to function because it has Constitutional power. The power at the Top comes from the Constitution. The Top is not per se a democratic form. It is a triadic nature that allows the people at the bottom to elect someone to sit in the 'seats of power' situated at the Top. The Top cannot demand anything as a democratic right. The only right it has is to act according to the delineation of power granted in the Constitution and to act for the general welfare and that must pass scrutiny by the Supreme Court. The point is that all power and law comes from the Constitution and the Constitution comes from the People. The people are at the bottom. The previledge of governing extends only for a few years. So, unquestionably we live in a Country where the people rule. True, they rule indirectly but, without people there would be no need for government. The point is that one duty of government is to serve the general welfare. So, how on earth can we have a classification of peoples called "homeless"? Is the government doing its job? Recently, one State introduced the "Homeless Person's Bill of Rights and Fairness Act.( California). Assemblyman Tom Ammiano is right. There are just as many reasons for being 'unfortunate' or 'unlucky' as there are for being 'fortunate' or 'lucky'. The homeless can only go around in circles and never be able to ascend up the scale to the level of the 'fortunate'. Where is democracy in all this? Why can't government help them? The economy is not going to help. In spite of their conditions, they are human beings and they ,admit it or not, have human dignity. Why is that sector of the social completely ignored. Could it be that they are just to poor and unfortunate to be helped by democracy? Its true, in a democracy people have to do their share and they do; they work, earn money, pay taxes own homes and property, serve their Country, and sometimes many die for their Country. Could it be that democracy has no place for the poor, unfortunate, or homeless, only because they don't pay taxes, etc.. What kind of democracy is that?

People are entitled to own and possess any thing they wish, so long as its not against the law. Of course, I refer to gun control. The second Amendment protects that right. But, we must also consider when the Amendment was passed and when it was ratified; 1791. This occurred a few years after the end of the American Revolution and after the drafting of the Constitution. Certainly, conditions of daily existence have changed tremendously from the conditions existing at that time. Of course, the Amendment was passed at that time for a reason and a purpose. Hence, I say lets not tamper with the Amendment and lets keep it. But,that Amendment does not have anything to do with the right to easily acquire automatic weapons, normally used in war-like situations, for use by 'crazies' to kill innocent children. Sure, we can't control the 'crazies'. Sure, people have a right to own a gun and to use it to protect their homes and families, but what does that have to do with making them available to anyone who wants an automatic weapon to just slaughter other human beings? That doesn't make any sense. The issue is availability and the potential for mis-use. I'm sure that people who do not want gun control are not saying, "Well, let them get those guns 'over-the-counter' and slaughter whomever they want"; At least I hope not. But, thats the effect of not controlling availability of war-like weapons. Sure, the bad guys will always be able to get them, but is that a reason for just neglecting the problem. We're not talking about normal people were talking about a few crazies who have no respect for the human condition. Easy availability! Some amount of control has become necessary! Don't eliminate guns in homes used for self-defense, defense of property, guns used for hunting and target practice, but please get them out of the hands of the crazies! It used to be that a man could walk down main street with his pistol wrapped around his waist, but you can't do that anymore: those days are over. Some clear thinking must be done and some degree of control must be implemented. We cannot ignore the problem! To ignore the problem is to not care about innocent lives.

The novelty of the problem on the International community is caused by the revolution in the communication media. The internet has brought a spread-out collection of different peoples in different Countries a lot closer together.Its easy to reach out from ones living room into another living room separated by many miles and Political boundaries. The world has shrunk and the "togetherness" of peoples of all races and belief systems is now possible. Of course, there will always be the insistense of the superiority of one Nation over the other. Maybe, that's necessary for political purposes, but its not necessary for human reasons. I understand the philosophic perspective which states that there is no such thing as a Human Nature which binds all humans together. The problematic that arises from that concept is the issue of equality. The argument seems to be that we are all more different than we are alike; that there is no such thing as human equality. In other words, some of us are superior to others. But, that argument falls when we consider that we all need to live together in order to be individually and politically free. If we live in isolation and don't live together, after awhile, each individual will be pitted against the other individual. Unfortunately, thats just the way people live, always anxious to assert their individual superiority. Thats why all individuals need to be controlled politically. Not in the sense of controlling everyday activities, but in the sense of a 'political togetherness' with a National identity that protects its citizens and, not only that, but also governs the general welfare of the constituted political entity. If we do not have political equality, we will never have human equality. Although, human equality gives rise to political equality, the polity, in return, protects everyone's human equality by legislating laws of order. The people need government, but government also needs the people. In a democracy of people, by people, and for people, the government depends on all its people; not on just 1% nor on some preferred political party.

The 'International Community' has created a novel problem. First; can there be a 'community' on the International sphere? Well, much like a 'National community' cuts through States' lines to form a more National Community of people, maybe a political National community can also cut across other National lines to form a more global community where the different peoples of the world are sovereign. They would be sovereign as a 'formed unit of humanity' as contrasted and differentiated from the organized political entities they inhabit. Stated differently, the 'peoples of the world' would be a democracy. Each Political entity has its people who are 'together or united' and who live and communicate with each other on a daily basis. In todays world, the Internet and Media companies have brought together Nations as well as the individuals in the different Nations. The new communication medias have made the world more 'neighborly'. An International 'unity' of Nations has become possible as has the individual 'unity' of the human race. If Nations can and should communicate with each other to better 'unify' different Nations, why can't individuals from the different nations also attempt to unify the mass of humanity in the world? Now, more specifically, if individuals attempt to 'unify' the peoples into a democracy, they will have to cross National markers. But, thats not a reason to stop communication. If some individual from the Arab 'world', or any other 'world', is trying to get a foothold into a different media, National market, why shouldn't that be allowed? The same legal constraints for the local media world would, of course, be applicable to the 'outside' medias trying to enter. Of course, many issues on Freedom of Speech and ,of course, ideology come into play. But, we've dealt with those issues before. Not only do real humans have a freedom of speech, we have even extended that freedom to legal fictions. Of course, a real human can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre, (we don't have to worry about Corporations yelling 'fire', since they don't talk, but then again, they can support their favorite candidate) but you can express differences of opinion. Every human being should have a freedom of speech; a freedom to express themselves, regardless the ideology. But, how about through the media of TV? Why not?, we allow violence, sex, mayhem, etc. on TV. How about different ideologies? Well,we already have access to them in our libraries and University courses. Within a well-regulated legal presentation, anything should be allowed expression via the media. There will always be 'abusers', but we should be able to handle that. The interesting thing about the new media and the Internet is that I can always pull the plug. Democracy is about people; its about human beings being entitled to their life. Whether you know where life comes from or whether you can explain it to yourself, or whether it remains a mystery to you, for sure, we know it doesn't come from the State, the Nation, nor any other form of political entity. Every individual is entitled to his/her life and to express their thoughts and feelings. Otherwise, how can we claim to live in a democracy? Language cannot be a taboo.

The biggest problem with established governments is the distribution of power. The act of coming together into a huge 'togetherness' and assuming an identity as a Nation or Country is an act of conferring 'political power' to the Top of the political entity. There is no 'natural power' that inures to the Top just by virtue of being on Top of any political entity. The power at the Top that the entity posseses is a 'conferred power'. Historically, it was by 'divine right' or 'inheritance', in others, a position taken by force. In a democracy of people, by people, and for people, that conferring of power comes from the bottom where all the people reside. By virtue of 'placing' one of their own at the Top of government for a period of time, grants the authority and power to govern 'for the general welfare',each and every person within the 'togetherness', and also to relate to other global political entities. The issue of political power is not simple. There is a clear distinction between political power and personal power and never shall the two meet. The political and the personal must be kept at a respectable distance. The Top has political power, but only by virtue of office. The Bottom(the people) have personal power, or better yet, they have strength in Numbers. Yet, there comes a time when political issues mix with personal issues. Gun control is such an issue. Obviously, we cannot control the individuals who periodically go crazy and massacre others. Of course, we have to try. However,we can control( to some degree) the availability of guns particularly so-called combat weapons. Of course we have an Amendment that protects the right of people to protect themselves and their homes. The gun issue is not about the Amendment, which was passed for a different reason and at a different time, and which should remain intact; its about personally having 'weapons of mass destruction'. (sounds familiar?) If we can justify begining a war by creating a wrong impression about the 'potential' possession of weapons of mass destruction(a political issue that involved killing women and children)surely we can instigate some form of actual gun control, particularly when it involves 'helpless' children( a personal issue). We can't control the 'crazies', but we can control the availability of guns. Maybe we should be glad to have a statesman at the Top who really cares about the Bottom; particularly, the helpless children and the families being effected.

As governments become 'larger', more 'expansive',it would seem that governing would become more efficient and the 'condition' of people in the Nation and the world would improve. After all, the Top of every government has, or should have, the general welfare of its people as its primary concern. Then, why is it that as soon as a government acquires more strength, individual human emotions about killing, conquering and overcoming other governments, come to the fore? Those emotions are 'individual' emotions, not 'governmental emotions'. Government is an 'arrangement' of people in a manner best suited to govern many individuals. Its independent of the people it governs. Its completely separate from human individuality and the 'emotional tenor' of any government should be the 'general welfare' of its people, not the welfare of any one individual at the Top, or of any group of individuals within the governmental structure. Why else become established as a government? Understandably, a government, as an individual, must protect itself. A government can become 'stronger', but that 'governmental strength' does not transfer to any individual within the political entity. The same is true of human emotions; human emotions remain individual emotions and its a mistake to transfer any one individual emotion 'into' the 'emotional tenor' of any 'act of governing'. How ridiculous; we form governments to keep millions of individuals within a structure of 'law and order'( which keeps them from 'killing' each other) and then,once we form into such governmental structures, 'governments' insist on 'killing' each other (on the National as well as on the International sphere).Wow. Even a child could see how ridiculous that is. I guess, that would be a job for the United Nations or similar groupings(whatever). A Nation must govern itself with 'governmental emotion', not the human emotion of the individual at the Top of power. I understand the difficulty of defining any such emotion, but governing means governing the Nation, not any other governmental system on the International sphere. So lets keep human emotions where they belong and lets govern with the 'broader emotional tenor' of a statesman and not the 'misplaced' individual emotions of a politician.

Government cannot measure success or failure because words and language are to unmanageable. Semantics and multiplicity of meanings renders language duplicitous. That is not the fault of language, its the fault of government. Government needs to organize along the lines of the triadic nature crafted in the Constitution. Certainly a government of people, by people and for people can be structured along quantifiable lines. (Separate Parties are OK, if both are democratic.) In that way, policy and legal mandates can be measured for accomplishment. Otherwise,we are left with sweeping generalities completely unfounded on the bottom of the triad or the people. The economy is totally quantified because it uses money as its measureing stick. Government can use each individual as a measure of democracy. If it just uses semantics, the results can be chaotic. If, when policy or law declares, "everyone is free and equal" it's actually meant, the solution is simple. Everyone means everyone. Where's the problem? Instead, when we use language or semantics , we begin to make distinctions like, "Oh,I'm free to do anything I please". Well yes, but, of course, you have to stay within the law. And don't step on your neighbors toes, cause he's not going to like it. Remember, he's free also. My favorite,of course, is "what are we doing in Afghanistan?" Ans: " we're bringing them democracy". Right. The other is equality. It's the popular belief that someone is unequal if s/he is not white or belongs to a different race, or, s/he is poor, or is on welfare, or is to old to be useful,etc. Has anyone heard of the human race? Being human is all thats required to be equal. There's no other measure. Government Office is a priviledge that should not be abused. Don't forget, your up there only for a short while. Democratic rule is the only form of government that can be imposed on a human being. Thats why all people have the Constitutional right to revolution. The human condition has a right to protect itself, even against government.

The economy must help fortify the Nation, but the Nation does not have to fortify the economy at the expense of democracy. Don't get me wrong.Government needs to help create a 'healthy, strong, National economy', but it does not have to sacrifice democratic principles. In no case do democratic principles take second chair to economic principles. Government is operated on democratic principles, not economic ones. Just making profits is never a democratic principle. However, economic considerations should not exclude democratic considerations. Although the two principles function by means of separate paradigms and, of course, for separate purposes, yet they can and should support each other. The problematics with a so-called 'Market' economy is that the sole engine is to make a profit and not to promote democracy. Little, if any, consideration goes into the realization that the so-called Market is constituted by the same people that constitute the democracy. Of course, thats why some "out-source". ( Thats another story) Democracy is governed by the basic principle of "free and equal", whereas the 'market' is founded on making a profit. Consequently, government could well contribute to a stable market by establishing programs that create a 'value' that helps circulation of money within the market and hence, the economy. However, under no circumstances is government entitled to step outside the political principles of democratic government. Government has many duties to its citizens as citizens have duties to their government. The cry for stopping entitlements is ridiculous. Helping the poor; the 'needy', senior citizens, the retired,etc with Social security, medicare, welfare, is not an entitlement,its a duty and they better well provide it. ( Who fights their wars, if not the people at the bottom)The only entitlement in a democracy is the priviledge and entitlements attributed to those normal human beings who were lifted into offices-of-power by the people at the bottom. Once out of office, the top is free to join us at the bottom. I dare say, without the 'power of office', they seem pretty normal.

The economy has a standard of value that measures its success or failure.Democracy can also have a standard of value with which to measures its success or failure. The value standard of the economy is money which is a medium of exchange. Of course money must circulate in order to accomplish its 'exchange function'. Since that medium is a quantification, it can be changed, modified, or accumulated as number does in mathmatics. If, at present, that medium is accumulated in the top 1%, and if it is not circulating or exchanging, something is very wrong with an economy designed to circulate. But, the value system of a democracy is different from that of the economy and must be kept separate. The value system of government relates to the freedom and equality of each individual in the polity. If the freedom and equality are important, the form of government has to be democratic, or stated differently, a government "of people", "by people" and "for people". But, our democracy relies on constitutional interpretive practices and hence is subject to many linguistic variables. Of course, that's necessary and there's nothing wrong with that. But, if these practices were to include 'quantification', the efficiency or effect of any policy or law could be more easily measured. Otherwise, unfounded generalizations will 'free-float' in abstract space completely unfounded on anything real. By 'quantification' we mean to 'extend' our discourse into the geometric and mathmatical field. Of course, I don't refer to a geometry and math that follows the basic paradigm of those disciplines. But, I do mean that we switch to those disciplines when the results of some political concept involves some degree of measurement. After all, math and geometry are languages also and more precise. They also 'move' or 'communicate' from 'here' to 'there'; they 'include' and 'exclude'; and 'Number' never changes; in its quantified state, its always the same. So is the individual in a democracy. In quantification we can more easily measure the 'democratic tenor' of any policy or law. Hence its need. The relation between the One and the Many at the bottom is real and that relation can change the applicability of the 'discourse' from one replete with variables to one more certain and quantifiable. Power in its descend from the Top to the Bottom must be applied democratically.It must be tempered quantifiably.

Why has the Linguistic Turn disorganized and unsettled language-usage? Well, language was already subject to many variables in meaning, which led to many disagreements and arguments but, the Turn completely destroyed the effectiveness of language by claiming that no 'word' corresponded to the thing it referred too, or more generally, the 'Map does not correspond to reality". Since language is always about something other than itself, it inhabits two different domains. Grammatical usage is one domain and that to which it refers is the other. Nevertheless, and in spite of its limitations, language is essential to the human condition. But, the Turn has caused a restructuring of many linguistic disciplines and thats why the Constitution must be perceived in its underlying form. That form has to be geometric and mathmatical. Those two disciplines have not been confused or disorganized. Why not? Because they deal with 'direction' and quantities and not meaning. Why should democracy be quantitative? Because each individual in a democracy is important as a living human being and democracy refers to each and every individual at the Bottom. A triadic government best protects the sanctity of each individual. It has three different sides with three different functions to 'hold' the integrity of the triad and the integrity of democracy. Also math and geometry,being quantitative,are 'what they are' and cannot be otherwise. Language, to the contrary, has many meanings and can be interpreted in many different ways. Hence, government must have form and structure. The structure is in the language of the Constitution and the form underlies it. The structure may be arguable, but the form is not. The form is a government 'of people','by people', and 'for people'. That speaks for itself and that is as quantitative as can be. Otherwise,how can One or a few govern a multitude without the multitude's decision in the matter? Its impossible.The problematics with language arises when terms like,'all', 'everyone', 'free','equal',and many other general terms, remain on an abstract level and never really sink down to the real human beings to whom they apply. Abstraction can lead to political double talk and heaven only knows we hear it daily. The essense of the democratic spirit must be quantified. No one says its easy, only that it's a must. Where are our statesmen?