Every Government needs an economy. Every economy needs a government. But, the economy is dependent on the form of government within which it evolved. An organized economy cannot exist without an already existing government. A form of government can 'hold' an economy together, while an economy cannot hold a form of government together. For example; a democratic Government has a Constitutional right to "peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances". Obviously, an economy cannot do that because it functions on the basis of "profits", which is not a democratic activity. Competition is democratic, whenever possible by real individuals, but profits are not democratic. The reason being that without profits there would be no competition; besides, competition between individuals has now become impossible with the creation of artificial human beings, to wit; "legal fictions". Hence,an economy needs a democratic government, but a democratic government does not need a capitalistic economy. So, what can be done with an already established, and effective capitalism that has encased itself within the democratic aspects of government. This requires an extended consideration. Generally, if government 'helped' create the natural evolution of economic entities that eventually led to undemocratic conditions, government must also correct them. Government created them; government fixes them. But how? The corporate entity owes its 'life' to government. Just as government allowed these "fictional entities" to function and amasss huge profits, it can assume more control over the entities. Of course, not complete control, but why allow corporate efficiency to be founded on a fiction called "the market"? Surely, the government is entitled to some leverage with respect to the so-called 'market', other than being totally at its mercy. Government could 'help' create 'markets' as well as 'help' create circulation of the medium of exchange that determines markets. In other words, government could help the economy to function in a more balanced manner by off-setting the tremendous advantage it gave to "legal fictions". All these economic changes to occur within a "soft" capitalism in the direction of a democracy of free and equal, competing individuals. Government must become more involved in economic matters as well as on the freedom and equality of its people.

Economic values have replaced democratic values. Democracy is about the Freedom and Equality of each individual. The economy is about making profits. The acquisition of money and possessions has become the goal of many individuals. There is no harm, per-se, in persuing the holy-dollar, so long as there is healthy democratic competition between individuals. That would be a matter of choice. But, that can no longer be the case. The economy has removed itself from government control by creating a fiction called "the Market". In a Capitalistic economy; one which hampers competition by individuals by creating "legal fictions", there can no longer be any democratic competition. Legal fictions don't really exist, yet they have been given a massive grasp over economic activity. The political problem arises when democratic values become dependent on economic values, or simply put, when money permeates every level of the governing process. Today, even the corporation( the richest, non-human, legal fiction ) has a grip on the political process. This "fiction" can now contribute to its favorite candidate. But how? The 'learned members' of the Supreme Court say, "because, although a fiction, it 'speaks'. Wow, democracy is rapidly becoming an "Alice-in-Wonderland" affair. Real humans are being ruled by artificial "persons" and "legal fictions". At the top of the economy are a few huge corporations. Its no longer a democracy, its an Oligarchy; or maybe a Plutocracy. Whats the difference? Well, it all revolves around money. A few corporations at the top of the social get together with a few rich individuals and together form a moneyed elite. Whatever the difference, if there is one, its not a government based on the freedom and equality of all real human beings. I keep using the word "real" because corporations are unreal; they're fictions; they don't exist. Yet, they are created by government. The real individual is replaced by a "fiction"; the economy distances itself from government control by another fiction called "the Market"; and polititians, including the Supreme Court, 'respond' to organized lobbyists or money. Does democracy have a chance in this political Alice-in-Wonderland? The Founding Fathers foresaw 'similar conditions' at the Top and crafted the First Amendment. The People have a Constitutional Right to "...peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances". Its time for real people to stand up.

Democracy was born from struggle, hardship, and sacrifice: the assurance of the Freedom and Equality of each human being was a revolutionary form of government. The digitalized world of the computer is also a revolution. Constitutional government is Triadic and insures the freedom and equality of each and every individual. Up to now, we have struggled with political language to clearly delineate the parameters of a true democracy. Needless to add, that the struggle still persists. The linguistic generalities of policy that apply to the governing process has not met with much success. Governing takes place within a social split into antagonistic political Parties that push-pull in different directions. Of course, much has been accomplished, but the complete assurances in the Constitution that refer to a government "for the people" still lacks direction. Economic principles and corporations have become too powerful. They have usurped democractic principles. But, the digital revolution has opened a means to combat the problematics of political language and the Linguistic Turn. The Triadic form of government places emphasis on the Bottom, where all "the people" reside. "We The people" is not a generalized abstraction that lacks bone and blood; the Constitutional phrase refers to each and every individual alluded to within the phrase, as a real, individual, human being. If we begin to refer to the social as Number, we can learn to 'include' each individual in a real way because every number counts in an equation. There are no 'general' human beings; they're individual and they're real. This fact immediately distinguishes them from the legal fiction(corporations). Corporations may be called "persons", but they don't bleed. The requirement that policy and law must become 'more algorithmic', can begin to include each and every individual within the class of the applicable policy or law. In this manner the 'digital' revolution can assist the 'democratic' revolution. In government, nothing is more important than the Freedom and Equality of each, real individual. In the digital revolution nothing is more important than quantification. The bottom of 'governing' must become quantified.

Democracy is a 'form' of government, while Capitalism is a form of economic activity established and protected by the structure of the government. An economy cannot hold together without government. An econony needs government. Of course, a government needs an economy also, but it does not necessarilly need a capitalistic economy. At one time, our economy was agrarian. The point being that Capitalism is by nature anti-democratic because government is about freedom and equality of all the individuals being governed, while Capitalism is a form of economic activity originally founded on competition between individuals. The freedom to compete automatically creates imbalances in economic activity because one competes by means of the medium of exchange to acquire profits and possessions. There is no other reason for a competitive economy. Hence, economic activity is not based on the same freedom and equality of the governing process. Certainly, competition between individuals is healthy, and in the early years one individual could compete with another,if he or she so desired. That is no longer the case. Its impossible for individuals to compete with the economic monsters created and protected by government. The corporate monster becomes the focal point of economic activity. Not only is it futile to compete with a corporate structure but the law even states that a corporation is a "legal fiction". How can a real person compete economically with a fiction? No way! The bottom line is s/he can't! But, keep in mind that economic principles are separate from governing principles. We are not governed by economic principles, we are governed by democratic principles. Hence, the government created its own monsters and now has become the victim of another fiction called "the Market". Wow, thats surreal! Complete control has been transfered to the economy. What happened to democratic values? The government needs to become more involved in economic matters. I hear someone in the background hollering, "Socialist". But, its not a case of socialism, its a case of having permitted legal fictions to interfere with the right of individuals to compete in the economy. Government created the barriers, now government must attenuate them. There is nothing wrong with governmental control of the corporate structure. Of course, I'm not saying complete control, but the imposition of democratic functions would not harm the social nor the corporation. Of course, those who have benefited the most from the corporate structure have done so because they live and work in a democracy. Government already complies( to some extent) with its Constitutional duties to the people, so why not include a few duties in the corporate charter. If they don't comply, dissolve them.

People must have a Democratic government. Every democracy must have an economy. In spite of the intricate relation between the two principles underlying those two facets of the social, the democratic principle of government is completely different and separate from the principle underlying the economy. Democracy functions because each individual is free and equal, while the economy functions under a capitalistic system where everyone is free to compete and engage in economic activity using a medium of exchange to earn money and acquire property. The freedom and equality of each individual holds a democratic social together, while competition in the economy allows individuals to earn money and acquire property. Obviously and historically some individuals got a head start in the amassing of monies and properties and will protect and increase said possessions with all their might. Once at the top of the economy, they will never relinquish their position of being in the Top Ten. While the Darwinian impulse of the survival of the fitest might apply to economic Capitalism, it does not apply to Democratic principles. Freedom and equality are the motors of Democratic government, while profits and possessions are the motors of economic capitalism. The new Information society has helped an economy that functions on a quantitative basis, while a democracy and the assured Freedom and Equality of each individual does not benefit from a computerized, digitalized social. Why not? Because those qualities cannot be measured. That is why the Bottom of Constitutional Government must be quantified. The Top of Government governs the Bottom, viz. the social where all the people work and live. The bottom of any democracy must be conceived as Number because attributing the characeteristics of Number to the bottom allows for quantification of the democratic process and eschews the confusions of political language. Capitalism has flurished in our democracy not because some individuals worked harder, longer hours,or better quality of work, but because of the creation of the corporate structure, which is one, great, big, Legal Fiction. It then got Constituional protection as a "person" and recently has been allowed to contribute to politics. How on earth did we let an economic principle override a democratic principle? Its not that corporations are not necessary, they are, but they cannot usurp a democratic principle. Once they do, we're headed towards a Plutocracy. Computers function because they work with digits and quantifications. Once democracy, which is at the bottom of government, becomes quantified as Number, maybe we can establish some sort of algorithm for democratic principles. Where are our statesmen?

Democracy is not a theory, its a life-style. Each and every human being has a life and is entitled to establish his or her life-style. This implies a freedom and an equality to choose the many different forms of life-style available within the culture. This life is expressed within a context described and protected by the Constitution. There is no compulsion to conform to ways of living set up by someone in authority. Of course, compliance with law and order is essential but if law is wrong,oppressive,or disorderly, it must be changed. The Top of a democratic form of government governs, the 'sides'(judicial) defines the parameters of the system and the people at the Bottom live their lives under the protection of the Top and the definitions of the 'sides'. The function of the Executive is to enforce the Constitution; the function of the Judiciary is to be objective about its interpretive practices and the 'function' of the people is to be law abiding. Up to this point, democracy is theoretical. But, democracy is more than just a theory. The democratic form works if all the parts of the triad are constantly in motion and in harmony with its triadic nature. The most important part of a democracy are the people at the Bottom. The reason for that is that the peoples lives are what is being governed. Without people, there is no need for government. The economy is also essential to a smooth running social but so are the freedoms and equality of the individuals in the social. Law created corporations and its no secret that the corporate form is an accepted 'legal fiction'. You can never shake-hands with a corporation. They exist only in "contemplation of law" and only for the purpose of increasing their huge 'economic grasp'. That's precisely why an individual is never in a position to compete with a corporation. And that's exactly why an individual is more important than a corporate structure. Now, democracy is a government "of people", "by people", "and for... people". Democracy is an equation. The unique-ness of human individuality is at the Bottom of the theoretical democratic structure and those individuals are real, not theoretical nor abstract. Each individual has a particular life style. Each is sacred. The importance of each individual life is why the bottom of theoretical democracy must be conceived as Number. Each number stands on its own integrity. Each is valuable as an individual number. Each is independent. Equations can be configured from individual quantities, but in an equation each number must retain its quantitative variable and must participate in the equation. In other words each number is important to the equation. Theoretical democracy is an equation and each individual life is vital to its success. Democracy is a life style. You choose your life style, but stay within theoretical democracy. Number never 'discriminates' against another number, they work with each other to configure the equation. In a similar manner, each individual must configure himself, herself, into the democratic equation.

Every government 'nudges' an economy and a social but, we must understand how they differ and in what way they are the same. Obviously, in a democracy, the government governs the people democratically and the economy attempts to stabilize itself by allowing for a healthy competition among individuals. Of course, to facilitate competition, a medium of exchange becomes necessary. Money is that medium of exchange. Without money we could not have exchange of goods and labor. Hence, in a healthy economy, money must circulate among the people at the Bottom, not at the top 1%. We know this, but there is no way to compete against the corporate structure. Hence, we are left at the mercy of corporate competition. But now, lets look at the conditions in the social. The social is also undergoing many changes. Great changes have been brought about by the information revolution and by computers. There appears to be a similarity in the attempt to control the circulation of money in the economy, to wit; the 1%; and the attempt to control the circulation of information; to wit; the recent prosecutorial zeal and subsequent suicide caused by 'info-leaks'. Could it be that the 1% want all the money at the Top and the government ( maybe we should say the Justice Department) wants to keep all the new information for itself. It seems that the same principle applies to both situations, viz. money must circulate in the economy at the bottom and information must also circulate in the social. I can understand real secret info being published but I understand that, in one case,what was leaked was not even "1% of the 92 million items the government classified last year". Wow, thats a lot of secrets. Maybe we should take another look at classification and the zeal with which we persue these matters. Democracy is about real individuals at the Bottom; the economy is about the circulation of money at the Bottom; the social is about the circulation of information among the individuals at the Bottom. Sure, the people need some form of government, but government needs people to even exist. People are never dependent on government, but government is entirely dependent on people. People are just trying to live their daily lives, its the government that places arbitrary limitations on the 'condition of togetherness' of the social. Democracy can work if its practiced.

Democracy follows the underlying form of the Constitution. The linguistic structure encapsulating the underlying form is the best that could have been done with language. Regardless its many limitations, it is amazingly clear that its a Peoples Constitution. The very begining states "We the People"; how can that be misunderstood? The current debate about gun control is an example of how interpretation can go wrong (especially from the point of view of so-called Party loyalty). One politicion compares a freedom with respect to the press(books) within the context of the First Amendment with the context of the Second Amendment dealing with the so-called freedom "to bear arms". It's a ridiculous comparison.( thank heavens there was an intelligent polititian responding to that suggestion. Lets hope people were listening) One needs only to read the Second Amendment within the context of when it was ratified (1791) to catch a glimpse of why it was necessary at the time. The Declaration of Independence was in 1776 and the Constitution drafted in 1787, the Bill of Rights was added in 1791. Those were 'wild days'. The debate between States Rights and Federal Rights was at its height. The Country was agrarian. Sure, the people needed weapons for self-protection. They still do! But, automatic weapons! Before long we're going to have one individual declaring war against his neighbor because he's amassing weapons of 'mass destruction'. Hey, don't laugh, one politician in office started a war with that same accusation. Lets engage in a little fantasy(the Supreme Court does). Imagine the 1% collecting weapons like they collect money and 'legal fictions'; now imagine that some twisted individual decides to produce and hoard automatic weapons and weapons of 'mass destruction'. Now, suppose that the 1% decides to fight the 99% ( sort of like South and North in the old days) with automatic weapons instead of with money and 'legal fictions'. You say, why, thats ludicrous and impossible! Is it? Comparing books to automatic weapons is also ludicrous. Oh well, enough imagination. Lets get real. Respect the Second Amendment, but view it withing the context of why and when it was ratified and what were the conditions existing at the time. Everyone wants to protect the Constitution, but don't use it to justify ridiculous outcomes. We should support the Second Amendment, but lets get real and forget so-called Party loyalty. We are a Country of Peoples; we are a democracy; everyone counts; we are Number; so don't let the children go unprotected. We can't keep the 'crazies' out, but we can keep weapons that mutilate and dismember out.

Democracy respects the uniqueness and integrity of each individual. Yet, individuals in a condition of togetherness,form a larger political entity called a "State" or a "government",or a "Nation". These larger entities are necessary because no individual lives alone; hence the need for government or a larger political entity like "State" or "Nation". Of course, historically the term "State" was considered a fiction by Rousseau. I'm sure, other thinkers, even contemporary ones, don't hesitate to consider it a fiction, but they are not going to make that particular thought a commonly used every-day term. Obviously, in some peoples minds, that would demoralize the binding nature of law and hence, would not be a very 'safe' way to conceptualize and govern the Nation through its laws. Our condition of togetherness is a large condition and hence must be referred too in very 'large' concepts. This is where the generality of linguistic terms (of necessity) comes into the picture. Of course, not far behind, lurked the so-called Linguistic Turn. The Linguistic Turn was a necessary stage in the evolution of the use of linguistic terms to relate to particular activities or particular phenomena. The Turn seemed to attack language from the 'top'(generalization) while computer science began its attack from the bottom( 'below' the individual); namely, bits, digitalization etc. Hell, we can't relate to either the 'top' of language or the 'bottom'! Language and science forgot about us and just left us to hobble in the middle. Well, the best way to talk about democracy and government is to look at the Constitution and study how the Founding Fathers constituted us. We are a 'condition of togetherness' that,(historically) has gradually formed, and is still forming, and which is constituted of individuals and every individual has a unique human integrity. Thats why politics can sometimes seem to be a lot of empty talk. Of course, the Top of government is entitled to 'talk politics' but the effect of the talk must relate to each individual in a real way. The only way to do that is to relate to the Bottom as Number; each individual is real and stands out as clear and as unconfused as a number. Democracy is an equation. Maybe what we need is an algorithm for democracy. The people at the Bottom of government are real; they are not just general concepts. Government is real power and that power effects real people in a real way; not just linguistically. Recently, a new Pope was selected. He's practicing humility, a characteristic of individuals who, as human beings, are 'free' of 'institutional glory'. With all the problems in the Church, he has a lot of work ahead of him. The same applies to politicians, practice democracy,( thats how you got 'up there' in the first place) but don't deny it to the people. Stop glorifying corporations and 'accumulated money'. Of course, humility has no place in politics, but the 'democratic spirit' does. If you want to govern, do so democratically and don't usurp the integrity and sanctity of the individual human condition.