It's not the gun lobby thats strong, its the money thats involved. Without money no lobby would have an influence. Kinda sad, isn't it, that the real value behind political decisions and political positions is the amount of money generated in favor of a sector of the social. There are political, democratic values and there are social, economic values and never shall the two meet. Economic values relate to making money. Political values relate to Freedom and equality. Nevertheless, the two can be combined effectively within a democratic politics. The issue is not to exclude one by the other, its to include one within the other.In other words, we can and must protect the Second Amendment, but; that can be accomplished while regulating the easy, unquestioning, availability of automatic weapons that are usually used in conditions of war and assault for the illegal purpose of terroristic killing. I'm sure no one wants to limit the effectiveness of the Second Amendment,only the easy availability by individuals not entitled to that availability and who have an intent to mis-use them. Sure, making money is involved but look at the other side of that issue and consider the lives of children or other human beings. Don't stop the production of weapons, but stop the killings. Thats the issue. There has to be a medium somewhere. The shame seems to be that its become a money issue; not a human issue. The usual position is that if one limits the availability, that means less production,(and that means less money)but, if we examine the question carefully, we can see that it would have no effect on the production, only on the control of the means used by some to make these weapons available to anyone seeking them.(no questions asked) Maybe we should control the lobby. The lobby should insure that these weapons are only for a certain use and should justify that use as a legally accepted use. Why should producers make weapons that have no 'democratic' utility? After all, we produced "nerve gas" for use during war; are we going to allow that to 'go public' also? We need to get our values straightened out.

Q. What's a lobbyist? A.It's a 'non-office-holding politician' in 'economic garb'. Its not sufficient that corporations have a tremendous advantage over individuals, but some individuals give them the benefit of a 'lobby'. Again, its not for 'qualitative' reasons that lobbyists function within society, its simply for money. Many are ex-politicians. I guess, once money creeps into a life-style, it's difficult to let-go. Lets hope thats not always the case. The silicon 'Geeks' are rapidly replacing the corporate moguls in suits, so maybe there's a chance for the less-fortunate to help establish a real democracy.(maybe not) Time will tell. It would be nice to have someone from the bottom strata of society elevate themselves by the 'collar' to an influential position in the social and not forget from where he or she came. But, also try to consider the fact that 'computerization of the social' means basically, more quantitative control over activities and products of the people. Just as activity and products becomes 'more algorithmic', maybe the movement will expand to considering each individual in a democracy as Number; this would be a 'political algorithm' that includes the unique individuality of each person within any particular policy or law. Democracy is an equation with a Top and a Bottom. 'Quantification' of the social does not have to be harmful; on the contrary, it can insure that each individual is counted, included or excluded, within any particular policy or law. That way a government of the people, by the people, and for the people can have a 'flourishing individuality' as opposed to 'haves' vs have-nots'. Non-discriminating quantification or less Party-politics can be a good insurance policy against 'democratic' exclusion.

"Power" at the Top is a given in a properly organized democracy. It issues from the Bottom. "Strength" in a democracy is the result of a properly organized Bottom; that's what the phrase, "Strength in Numbers" means. That is also one reason for having a First Amendment which guarantes the "right...to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". That is a Right of revolution. The only reason for such a 'Right' is the fact that a democracy is a government "of people", 'by people" and "for people". The word 'people' does not include a corporation. Thats a separate entity; its a "legal fiction". A corporation does not have 'political power', it has economic value. But, corporations should function within the economy and not interfere with the 'political'. Of course, government is 'run or 'operated' by people and corporate 'fictions' are also run and 'operated' by people. Thats an inherant weakness of democracy. Unfortunately, people are anxious to increase their 'holdings' and hence succumb to the value systenm of the economy. There's nothing 'wrong' with that; but don't 'run' for office. 'Polititians' and 'statesman' that run for office should understand that they are 'running' for a noble position of authority; one that 'grants' political power. There is no other source for 'power'. Power is an endowment; it could even be said that its an entitlement. If one occupies a political office, one is 'entitled' to the power of that office( for a limited time). What is faciciously referred to as "entitlements" by some polititians ( Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,etc) is a terrible, political mis-use of language. Government only has 'duties' to the People; it doesn't grant 'handouts' to the people; government is just doing its job. Polititians and statesmen who 'run' for office are 'asking' to be placed in a position of power; hence they have a job to do. Whats so difficult with that? Its only for a limited period of time. Once 'you' leave office you won't have power. (Are examples necessary?) The problem is not with democracy; the problem is with the people who 'run' it. The circulation of money in a democracy is essential, but not its greedy hoarding by a mere 1%. We have too many polititians; where are the "statesmen"?

The 'haves' and the 'have nots'; how often do we read about this social phenomena and what does it mean? Of course, everyone knows that it refers to a 'level' of 'living' and 'owning' that reflects all the economic benefits reaped within a democratic social. The 'haves' even have a publication that lists the top 10, or whatever; while the 'have nots' aren't even mentioned. But, the real issue is why should a democratic social be measured by an economic principle? Democracy must be measured by political principles while the economy can be measured by economic principles. Economic principles cannot and should not invade the domain of democratic principles. Success in a Democracy must be measured by democratic principles. The basic principle being the Freedom and Equality of everyone. But, we all know that the economy is not a level playing field because it has 'legal fictions'(corporations) that are not human and that are protected by democratic principles. They have been created to increase the economic grasp of the human condition. That move did away with competition. The only competition a corporate economy has is among themselves. The individual is completely out of the economic-competition game. The only competition for humans is on a much more smaller scale. The economy functions with 'profits' not Freedon and Equality. Hence, the economy does not have a duty to the individual. But,if government indirectly created the un-level playing field, why doesn't it have more control over the 'fiction'? The imbalances in an economy are created by corporations. And if the 'power' of government issues from the Bottom of democracy, why doesn't government create a more balanced economy? Of course, we all know that such programs are called "Entitlements"-which is an intentional 'political' mis-use of the word- but doesn't government have a duty to the people? The economy surely doesn't, but if government gets the only "entitlement' in the world called 'political power' from the People, why not try to balance the economic conditions of the Nation? Please, I don't mean 'hand-outs'( no one wants a hand out); I mean a 'fair' amount of Social Security and other earned social benefits. Surely the People have to learn to live within a democracy, but government has a duty to implement democracy. Maybe, its time for government to do its share!

One of the reasons for conceiving the Bottom of democracy as Number is the pejorative connotation of the term "socialism". The term is usually mis-used and done so in a highly inflamatory manner. Properly used the term refers to the Bottom of democracy, but the bottom of democracy in a triadic, Constitutional government is conceived differently and refers to each and every individual,living with others in a 'condition of togetherness' viz. each individual is bound with the other individuals into a 'condition of togetherness'. Law is one aspect of that binding. In this way,they form a "more perfect Union", i.e. a more perfect Union of individuals. The Union is of individuals,(We the People) not States. Its the real individual who is important in a democracy, not the abstraction "the social". Of course, the term can also be used abstractly, but the implication is that the "social", as a whole, is a form of government. It's not! The social, as a whole, cannot govern. Only the Top of government can govern because only the Top has power. The Bottom is the essence of government and the Top must govern according to the Constitution for the benefit of the individuals at the Bottom. Of course, the term, "socialism", is always used in a pejorative manner as when one Party refers to the policies of the other party. Its usually an allusion to the term "Communism". That is unfortunate but it just points to the huge difference of opinion within our Union of individuals; its called Party politics. All political Parties should be for democracy, not some self-serving Party ideology. However, the term "social" or the term "society" are valid ways to refer to the individuals at the Bottom of a democracy. Thats why we should conceive the bottom of democracy as Number. Number is a quantification and can be used to delineate exclusion and inclusion. 'Keeping score' of democracy becomes a lot easier and it avoids the inflamtory term "socialism". Its the Bottom of democracy that grants power to the Top of government. It does this by means of the electoral process. The problem with the electoral process is that it functions by 'representation' and that requires a choice to be made by the representative; a choice between the 'personal' and the 'political'. The good news is they serve only for a short time.

Power is a 'social' given; it arises from the 'togetherness' conditions of existence. It applies only to large social entities and not to particular individuals. Hence, it applies to the Nation. That makes power applicable to the political because the political applies to the Nation or the society as a whole. There is no political power on the individual 'level'. No political leader can apply the force of power acquired from the Constitution to any one human organism. Humans are Free and Equal and hence are their own 'governors', which ,of course, places a responsibility on the individual to stay within the parameters of Just law. But, the Nation or the social or sub-categories of the social, as political entities, are subject to the power of law and political policy. Hence, a democracy "of people","by people" and "for people" is governed as a Nation, which includes 'a social', or a sub-category of the social. Government is for the Many and the application of policy and law to the Many at the Bottom must be objectively consistent with the Form of the Constitution. This objectivity should be Numerical and should apply to individuals as Number. With Number, one can compute inclusion and exclusion properly. General laws and policy should be subject to reduction to Number which can render inclusion and exclusion more exact, more practical, and less confusing. If quantification is a tool available to science and renders science accurate, why not use that to better achieve democracy. There is no other way to 'balance' a democracy for the 'General Good' at the Top as well as the Freedom and Equality of the individual at the Bottom. Maybe this approach can really help us to try to make politics into a science. We already use the term, "political science", but if anything is remote from the appellation "science", it's politics. The reason for that seems to be that polititians are more concerned with their own welfare instead of the General Welfare propounded by their disipline. We cannot exist as a Nation when selfish welfare creeps into our political decisions.

Power is political. Influence, by whatever means, is personal. Personal influence extends to other individuals as individuals within the social. One friend can have influence over another friend. An individual can also have influence as a leader within the limited structure of a social institution. However, power being political extends to the governing of all the individuals in the social or as a 'limited' group. Of course, referring to the social merely by a linguistic concept can be very nebulous, because the social 'group' may include different races or individuals. This was the case with slavery. Humans who were slaves were not included in many Constitutional and legal categories. Thats why it's best to refer to the individual within the social as number. All I mean to convey by that statement is that each human being is included within the category being referred too. If the Constitution states, or is interpreted as stating, that every individual is Free and Equal,that means 'everyone'. If we use a 'quantified' term, the individuals to which it refers, cannot be mis-understood. Governing individuals is governing human beings in a 'condition of togetherness'; everyone must be included. Inclusion and exclusion can be better calculated with quantities than with 'meanings'. Meanings change, numbers are always the same. Of course, language is essential, but when it comes to the application of a Constitutional or legal right,the quantification of the part of the social to which the Constitution or law relates too, is better understood as a quantity than as a 'meaning'. Number cannot be mistaken and is less confusing. Why should we require more accuracy with the application of Constitutional and legal rights? Because the Constitution constitutes us and is formed in such a way as to protect each and every human being under its 'roof'. Government exists because the People created and formulated the Constitution. All government must comply with the Constitution. In any government, its the People who are important.

Of course,there are many institutional 'offices'or positions that are said to be 'powerful'. But, that is not what I mean when I say the only power in the world is a political power. Certainly, teachers, coaches, policemen, preachers, priests, Popes, presidents of organizations, CEO's of corporations, and many government officials are said to be 'powerful'. A better word to describe that kind of authority would be influencial. Certainly, the above and many other positions have authority and can 'influence' the members of the related social organization. But, none of the above have the power to establish Law and to enforce it. The policeman, at whatever level, can enforce it because thats his/her job. Law and Order is a parameter imposed on all social activity. Only a government can pass these laws and try to establish order in the social. The very basis of social order are the laws designed to delineate and contain that order. In a democracy, Constitutional Law is what holds the Nation together and gives it it's integrity. Without this power the One could not govern the Many. This is real power and its a political power. If one violates a law, s/he compromises her/his Freedom ( not the Equality)and is punished. Hence, political power exists on the National and State level and attempts are being made to apply it on the International level (but thats another story). Why should a Nation or government wield such power? Thats a power over human life! Because, no One or few individuals could possibly govern the Many at the bottom of government. Power is essential at the Top of government but it must follow the parameters established by the Constitution. Anything outside the Constitutional arrangement, especially in a democracy, that has power or influence over the offices of government is a danger to a democratically 'arranged' social. That,s precisely where money comes in. When money influences political office, we're in trouble. Money belongs in the economy, not in politics. If money influences politics and politics is the originating source of real power, we no longer have a democracy based on the Freedom and Equality of the individual. We have changed our democratic values and replaced them with an economic value system. We then live in a society where money is 'King'; in a society of the 1%.

The only source of power in the world is a political power. Individuals, per se, don't have power. Nevertheless, it is the individual that wields the political power of the Nation. The issue becomes an individual matter from this perspective. We are as 'safe' as the leader of any Nation wields his/her political power. At this point, we are concerned with democratic forms of government, not autocratic forms. So, how are leaders chosen and what motivates leaders. The 'how' of choosing a leader is a political problem. The 'motivation' of chosen leaders is a more personal issue. What motivates a politician to 'run' for office? Of course, that's a very personal isssue and a very complex one, even for the person seeking office. But, we can delineate a few general parameters of any 'seeker' of political power. S/He chooses to spend her/his life in office. S/He has a life and a duty. As everyone else, even a politician has a right to a 'life'. But, unlike everyone else, s/he has duties to a government. In a democracy, those political duties should gravitate toward the people at the Bottom. Increasing the freedom and equality of the individual and protecting those Rights, at home and on the International sphere, is the sole purpose of government. Why else organize the One and the Many in a democratic form? Of course, there are many other collateral and sub-issues that tie-in to the major one, but we're right back to the question of why 'run' for office, but this time we're on a more personal scale. Why 'run'? The political reasons have been sketched above, the personal reasons have to relate to the personal welfare of the individual. Of course, his/her lifestyle changes for the duration in office. How about his/her personal wishes after s/he leaves office? Most have a different life-style from the one they had before and they are in high demand for 'social and political' functions. But, were decisions made, while in office, to bolster and help personal priveledges after leaving office? In different words, were decisions based on economic reasons designed to increase a personal economic value as oppossed to a political value? If so, the decision was not a political decision based on democratic values. At every step, an office holder is faced with the welfare to 'himself/herself' and the public duty to the welfare of the individual in a democracy. Public office reaps many benefits, but it is also the most arduous office in the world. A real 'States-Person' has 'the general welfare' of the individuals at the front of all his political decisions; s/he already has a confortable personal life. The distinction between a 'States-Person' and a politician is sometimes based on which of the two is sacrificed, the personal or the public.

Power is a much mis-understood term. There is no such thing within the personal, individual sphere. A political leader acquires the power of political office by virtue of the structure of government. Outside that office,( it can be said) s/he is powerless. Its only the political previledge that bestows such immense power. And,(it must be said) only a democratic form of governement can bestow such power, because it emmanates from the People in a condition of 'togetherness'. Persons cannot have power, they have different strengths and they also exert different influences. But, personal strength and influence is just personal strength and influence. Nothing is acquired from the 'social at large' because each individual in the social has the same 'freedom' and 'equality'. Money does not confer power, only the ability to purchase. However, a functionary of a democratic governmnt, regardless his strengths and personal influence, gets his/her political power by virtue of political office. There are no superior human beings in the world. Everyone on the planet is in the same 'boat'. Our only hope is that those in power will reflect wisely and try to continue the existence of the human race. Of course, every human being has an obligation to his/her own self; but, every politician has an obligation to our 'condition of togetherness'. Power only exists on the political sphere and International power only exists between Nations as Nations and only within an Internationally organized government. But International Government and power must seek equilibration between Nations just as National power must seek equilibration of the freedom and equality of each individual. Only the people can 'confer' power. There is no other way to acquire power in this world. The other ways are illusory and depend on guns, weapons, and money.

There comes a time when the inner workings of a democratic Nation must assemble behind their leaders. Such is the case today. Sometimes the International sphere gets out of balance and belligerent words begin to dominate the International rhetoric. Of course, the International sphere has more variables than any one National sphere. In a democracy, each Nation has an obligation to its People, but it also has an obligation to the International sphere. However, some Nations are not concerned with the first obligation and instead think about ways to acquire control and rule other Nations. The only possible reason for that attitude has to be because of the need for more egoistic,personal Power over the International sphere, or more weapons of mass-destruction with which to acquire more personal power over the International sphere. But, this attitude pre-supposses that the peoples of the Nation are totally behind their leader. There are two reasons underlying that National attitude. Either all the people support their leader or they become the victims of their leader's whims. I doubt very seriously that every man, woman, and child,including young people, who are in the military and those who are not, prefer a condition of war instead of some peaceable solution.( especially in the International sphere) So,the issue is how does one get some control over such a dangerous condition? Unfortunately, the problem reduces itself to a personal problem. If the leader had weapons of mass destruction, he would have already started something besides just talking. Hence, the problem gets very personal; one that requires a better relationship between the leader and his People. Of course, Revolution within the Country is the answer. However, it's an over-simplification to state that that solution is easy. The reason being that they don't have a First amendment, viz. the right to assemble. The Peoples of a dictatorship are compelled to follow their leader. Hence, either the leader 'changes' his mind or the People revolt. Revolution is difficult in a dictator-ship; the former can only be viable in a leader that understands his primary obligation to his own people. Surely, there's enough work to be done within the Country, than to extend the limits of personal power outside its boundaries into the International sphere. This attitude calls for a re-focus of personal power within its proper political domain (where it belongs) and not Internationally. There are many Countries that in their 'togetherness' can organize for the purpose of imposing International stability. Lets hope the leader re-evaluates his decision. Sometimes 'power-hunger' is 'allowed' within a Country, but extending it Internationally is not allowed.

Democracy is not without its problems. A government "of people", "by people", and "for people", is not 'home free' simply because it's democratic. Unfortunately, the first thing that millions of free and independent people do is divide themselves into political Parties. Political parties are usually at loggerheads. These differences can become politically vicious. Can anything be done about the Party-system of democracy. Yes and No. Of course strict compliance with Constitutional government as set out in the Constitution may help attenuate the antagonism. In other words, a Triadic government whose Branches are always in motion viz. one Executes, one Interprets, and one Legislates,( according to democratic values) may off-set some of the antagonistic elements in Party politics, but that pre-supposes that each Branch is functioning according to democratic values. By that I mean that each Branch emphasizes and implements the Freedom and Equality of the individual, which are political values of a democracy, and no Branch is being influenced in their political decisions by other value systems. What other value systems? Well, try economic values. Economic values are not values that can be 'used' in governing. Democracy is about People, people need to be governed; economics is about profits, both people and huge corporations want to make big profits. The goal of each institution is not the same. A democracy requires governing and that means Constitutional democratic values; not economic values. I think most people can 'see' that, but greed overcomes the best of intentions and some of them want to ascend to levels of power from where they can increase their booty. Enter the Party system. I don't mean that any one Party is solely motivated by economic values, but democratic values ( the motor of democracy) are being overcome by economic values( money). Its getting to where people would rather have lots of money than being free and equal. Unfortunately, all political Parties are influenced by the 'holy dollar' and the big corporation. Competition between individuals is not 'bad' per se, but who can compete against the big corporation? No one! And its the government that creates the corporate monster. The economy then divides the economy into Big business and Little business. More divisions! Why? well, it allows the little guys to feel like they are functioning in a free society, while the Big corporations assume control of government. Little business meeks-out a living while Big business acquires political punch and ascends to the top 1%. Democracy falls and Plutocracy ascends. Where are the people? They are in a state of acquiescence. They witness the battles between political parties and the corporate behemoths and the best they can hope for is that something will fall to the bottom. After all, democracy is about the People.

The term "revolution" has acquired a bad connotation. Just like the terms,"riot", "demonstration", "uprising", and even the limited term "strike", are perceived as harmful to organized government and organized work. Of course, using these language terms in isolation is usually perceived in a negative manner. But, we must place these terms and other similar terms withing the context of the organized structure of government and of organized work. There is only one structure of government and that is the Constitutional structure, or stated differently, the triadic form of government. Any organized activity falling outside the triadic form of government is usually interpreted as being harmfull to the inner workings of organized government. But, that is not always the case. Sure, democratic government must follow the Constitutional structure and if it doesn't, then its not Constitutional. But, the nature of democratic government is founded on the freedom and equality of the people that inhabit triadic government. It is the People who help establish the government and who elect the representatives into the triadic form( A few exceptions, like appointing Supreme Court Justices). Once the government is established it continues to function from election to election in a 'Representative' manner. The term 'Representative' is also a term with many 'faces'. Thats a problem that exists in a democracy. The Founding Fathers knew that not all Representatives( in whatever office) were going to be faithful to their elected duties. Hence, the First Amendment; the freedom to assemble and petition for redress of grieviances. That is a right to revolution! Hence, the term "revolution" is Constitutional and a legitimate way for the People to bring about changes in a government that is going in the wrong direction. The term provides for action ( in the proper circumstances)within the structure of democratic government. The other terms have a similar denotation. The more limited term, "strike", allows workers to petition the corporate structure for better work 'conditions'. These terms allows People outside the 'structure' to petition for better conditions and for changes within the structure. Thats the only manner that a democracy can function. Otherwise, we are victims of the system. In the right circumstances, all these terms are democratic.

A democracy must function only with democratic principles. Of course, that's obvious, but what is not so obvious is the easy manner in which democratic principles co-mingle with economic principles. A well established democracy may have a capitalistic economy, but the principles or goals of capitalism can not be co-mingled with the basic principles of a democracy. Of course, profits and money are as essential to a well balanced economy as they are to a democracy. However, profits and money cannot be the 'motor' behind a democracy. Of course, they are the 'motor' of a capitalistic economy, but the 'motors' of democracy are the freedom and equality of the individuals. Government must protect and defend the freedom and equality of all individuals, while capitalism must circulate the medium of exchange, make profits, and encourage competition. Capitalism is about profits and money; democracy is about freedom and equality. One big problematic in politics arises when big corporations or very rich individuals begin to acquire control over government or government agencies and try to gain advantages over the democratic form. The result is government of the wealthy, by the wealthy, for the wealthy. That's what is happening with the so-called 1%. If the trend continues, the freedom and equality of all individuals will not 'motor' the democratic process. In such a case, the value system of the democracy is replaced with the value system of the economy. These value systems must be kept separate. Democracy will not work in a Nation where only the wealthy have a say-so in the governing process. Democracy will not work in a Nation ruled by the 1%. As soon as the People learn that democracy is about freedom and equality (not money), and as soon as they learn that the Constitution protects their right to 'assemble' and petition for redress of grievievances, they will 'assemble'. In the right circumstances, the people have a Constitutional Right to revolution.