The 'power' of government is at the Top, but the 'condition of togetherness' is at the Bottom. It becomes necessary to clarify the 'condition of togetherness'. It seems that most of what we read about in newspaper articles relates to the power of government and politics. Of course, that is important because it creates a record of the powerful forces at work within the social. Nevertheless, the essence of government are the People in a 'condition of togetherness', and who are situated at the Bottom of the structure of government. Is there a difference between being in a 'condition of togetherness' and living side by side, next to each other. Absolutely, the former term 'captures' the spirit or 'glue' of 'the condition', while the latter 'captures' the individuality of each individual living in the 'condition'. Both terms are important and both signify an important aspect of political and social power. The 'condition of togetherness' could not exist without the emphasis that creates the very condition, viz. the unique, human condition of the individual. Both are essential to the structure of government and both must exist in the structural configuration of the One and the Many into the form of a democratic government. Its at this point where language can be manipulated by politicians. Political language is usually about governing, but running for office is about promises made while at the Bottom, about what s/he will do, once at the Top. The politician relates specifically to the 'vote' while the power at the Top is exercised in 'generality' and is usually justified by statements such as; " political power is not about 'specifics' but about everyone". The problematic, at this point, relates too, how can power be exercised in general and yet remain democratic within the specific area covered. Laws and policy are tapered to fit certain parts of the social. Except for general laws or policies like, "everyone is free and equal" that apply to everyone, some laws apply to only a part of the public. The bottom line is the individual is the spirit of democracy and is always entitled to be counted, excluded or included, in all law and policy.

In Government and politics, the human condition at the bottom of Government is the most important factor. We've visited the Top and we've visited the 'sides' of Triadic Government and we've said the 'essence' of Government is the part that's being governed and that's at the Bottom. I don't think its very novel, nor original to say that human beings are the most important part of life on this planet. That should be obvious to everyone. Yet, we need to examine why the human condition is more important than either, Governments or the so-called concept of the 'State'. I don't think that the issue needs a lot of attention, because I believe that it's obvious. Nevertheless, it would not hurt to amplify a little. No human being can live alone. Of course, we don't have to test that because the degree of multiplication of the human condition very soon took over. Because we are Many, we must live in a 'condition of togetherness' or we perish. That applies to every Nation in the world. As individuals we must live together, and Nations must also learn to live together. No exceptions. An individual needs Government because s/he is not One. S/he is Many. Also, a Nation needs other Nations because it is not only One. But, lets stick to human beings. Human beings existed before Nations or before the 'condition of togetherness'. Once 'together', the Many individuals needed Government. The issue was how are we to govern the 'condition of togetherness' without discriminating against any one, Free and Equal, human being. The 'togetherness' is a necessary, secondary condition to being born alone. In the U.S., that's what the Founding Fathers were faced with. They came up with the Constitution, which was a triadic form of government that used every part of the triad. But, it was a People's Constitution, not some sort of fixed institution that could never be Amended or changed. The People were and still are, the most important part of the Constitution. Any form of government that institutionalizes the Top and trivializes the Bottom is wrong because it is a man-made institution that has merely delineated the parameters of governmental power. That institution is wrong because the people have no say-so in the Government. That's what happened to The Divine Right of Kings; to Dictatorships, and to the Autocratic form. In a democracy, each human being is important. That's why 'history' has called it a 'living Constitution'.

Political language is general, nebulous, and very unreliable. Of course, that's the case with language in general. All language is abstract, both the general terms as well as the specific terms. Each 'language discipline' has its own paradigm. If you want to do "science", you have to stay within the scientific paradigm, otherwise you are not doing science. However, politics does not have a paradigm. It is a special case of generality, confusion and unreliability. The reason being that government and hence politics deals with that ancient problematic called the 'One and the Many'. The relation between the One and the Many is a governmental or political relation. All government is about governing or ruling and all governing is about One or a few governing the Many or the People. The Top of any government must allude to the Bottom( the people)in a general way because there are many people at the bottom and the Many are those being governed. When 'governing', the Top must govern all the people. Of course, there are many different types of government, but democracy presents a novel language problem. The problematic is precisely that of 'abstract language' and generality. Of course, language should not be a problem in government, but because it purports to govern the relation between the One and the Many, it becomes problematic. The government relation is a problematic relation. Can that issue be remedied? I think it can, but it requires that we look at the relation in a fresh way. The Top of any government must relate to the Bottom in a realistic manner. In an Autocracy or Dictatorship, that's not a problem. What the Top says is what must be done. In a democracy, the Top must carefully categorize the individuals referenced in policy or law so as to include or exclude those referenced. In a general reference like "all people are Free and Equal", the term "all" must be 'real'. No reduction of the term must take place. "All" means all human beings. No 'reduction' to male, female, lesbian, gay, black, white, brown, red, homeless, etc.. unless the policy or law properly applies to a certain part of the population, e.g. employees, drivers, etc.. Categorizing is quantitative and quantity deals with numbers, not abstractions. Human beings within categories can be counted. Democracy is an equation and in an equation all numbers must be considered. If not, its not democracy.

'Top/Bottom' language is political language that originates at the Top of government and refers to the organization at the Bottom of government viz. where millions of people reside. Obviously, that makes political language very abstract and very general. When a politician runs for office, s/he is speaking from the Bottom and referring to what s/he will do when s/he gets to the Top. Obviously, the politician is making specific promises to the people at the Bottom that s/he claims s/he will keep when s/he gets to the Top. Therein lies one dilemma. The keeping of the promises from the Top will always be deficient, although honest in execution. There is always improper inclusion or exclusion. The general always includes the particular in some logical manner, but that is not necessarilly the reality. The reality in a 'condition of togetherness' does not necessarilly submit to the meaning and the logic of the spoken word. Each individual is real and each must be included in an 'equation of democracy'. An equation of democracy has a real relation between the Top of government and the Bottom. There has to be a real connection between the two and not just a free-floating verbal formulation. Of course, its not easy to do, but there is no other way the Top of government can claim to the power, Right, and authority to govern the Bottom. The positions of power at the Top are not for some sort of self-gratification or self-importance. Its a heavy responsibility and the Bottom (People) must be grateful to those who are properly placed in those positions of power. But, the positions cannot be abused. They cannot be used for the purpose of self-aggrandizement. The Many at the Bottom of government need someone to govern them. But, they do not need someone at the Top who abuses his/her elected position of power for selfish reasons. The Founding Fathers gave us the First Amendment so the People could "peaceably...assemble, and ...petition the Government for a redress of grievances". That is the Constitutional Right to revolution. Make no mistake, a democracy is a government "of the people", "by the People" and, the most important, "for the People.

All 'Top /Bottom' words are 'dirty words' in the sense that they are generalizations. When they refer to a political stance, they can be manipulated to the ultimate degree. Take for example, the term "Socialism". "Socialism" means, I guess, the 'social' or society as a whole. Well, everyone knows the 'whole social' cannot act as an entity. Only an individual or some individuals can act, and there are millions of individuals at the Bottom of government. No one individual can act on behalf of the 'social' in some totalizing way. Then why do we label some real individuals political activity as 'Socialistic'? There are no 'social acts'in the sense of some 'totalizing' political activity attribited to the entire Bottom of government. The term "socialism" is a bad selection of political terms. Come to think of it, so are many other political terms. So we have to ask, what in the hell are we? The answer is we are " individuals in a condition of togetherness", just trying to get along under government. We are a society and a government "of People", "by People" and "for People", and we were that, before we divided up into antagonistic factions using warped generalizations that capitalize on empty political 'talk', instead of learning to 'do' politics. To be sure, the term "democracy" has a real meaning, but the only way to keep track of it is to quantify it; (get out of empty abstractions) and form into a real 'condition of togetherness', formed by each and every individual at the bottom of government. The only way to keep track of "democracy" is to count each individual covered by any one policy or law which either 'includes' or 'excludes' certain individuals. For example, the democratic phrase, "everyone is Free and Equal". In a democracy, Freedom and Equality 'includes' everyone. We must include everyone. If we want to 'talk' we can use abstractions, but, if we want to 'do', lets use real democracy.

Every democracy has political problems. The reason being that if every individual is Free and Equal, s/he feels that these factors guarantee that they can do whatever they wish. That is not necessarily the case. Social activity must be kept within the parameters of the Law and the Social institutions of the democracy. But even then, lots of acceptable activities within these structural pararmeters can still be harmful to a democratic spirit. For example; the economy can flourish and the medium of exchange can be so productive that an individual or a corporation can amass great amounts of wealth and money. Thats fine, there's nothing wrong with that. However, when that individual begins to consider the accumulation of money and wealth as his/her sole social goal, that individual begins to confuse the principles of democracy with the principles of capitalism. Its at this point where an individual must realize that s/he also has duties and responsibilities to his democratic Nation. Democracy places a great weight on the shoulders of an individual. The individual must learn to sacrifice personal self-gain and egoistic inclinations in exchange for the opportunity of living in a 'condition of togetherness' with others, which is afforded him by the principles of democracy. The principles of Freedom and Equality from the Top down are generalizations that must be fitted to the individual responsibility from the Bottom up. The Freedom and Equality are still there but the duty and responsibility of the individual at the Bottom is also there. The problematic arises when the individual at the bottom substitutes capitalistic principles in place of democratic principles, in other words, Greed. When individual greed becomes institutional greed, we have money as the motive force of the democratic social. Then money becomes 'political'; legal fictions are allowed to participate in politics, and Party -loyalty begins to amass more wealth and money at the top 1% of the social. The process is self-destructive for the individual and de-constructive for the democratic social.

The economy of a Nation is a very important part of the Nation. But, its never more important than the government. If the government is a democracy; then its a government, "of people", " by People" and "for People". If the economy is considered primary, the government will be in the 'background' and will be 'motored' by economic principles instead of political principles. If that happens you might as well be considered a Plutocracy. Once money becomes more important than Freedom and Equality, the government "of the People" will be relegated to an almost 'non-existent' social level. Then you can depend on the fact that most, if not all, legislation will be for the benefit and the furthur enrichment of the already rich and the corporations. Even the so-called objective Supreme court, will render decisions like "Citizens", which is the most ludicrous decision ever decided. How can a "legal fiction" participate in politics and how can the decision be justified under the Freedom of Speech Clause in the Constitution? The economy is important and money is essential in a capitalistic economy, but economic principles cannot 'drive' a democracy. Economic principles are based on competition while democratic principles are based on the Freedom and Equality of the individual human condition. These are basic and different principles of organization. Democratic principles are about the political organization of the government and the social. They are about the Freedom and Equality of every individual within the social. No individual has to compete for his Freedom and Equality; its a given in a democratic social. The economy, to the contrary, requires competition among individuals and the Freedom and Equality of the individual plays no part in the scenario. Of course, even competition among individuals has been compromised, because no individual can compete with a corporation. The point is that economic principles and democratic principles of government are different. A democracy should be governed by democratic principles; an economy by economic principles.

One of the problems with a Democracy is that every individual is considered Free and Equal. Of course, this statement seems shocking. Why should that be a problem? Because Freedom and equality of the individual is the essence of a democracy. But, consider this. Some of the beneficiaries of the essence of democracy form into groups, or incorporate their business, or form into opposing Parties. Well, you say, that is democratic and has to be ok. But, the problem is that the motivation behind such 'formations' is not a democratic motivation. Its an economic motivation, or, more to the point, its for the purpose of concentrating the results of economic activity which is money or the medium of exchange. In other words, they use democratic principles to form autocratic organizations that impair circulation of money and concentrate it in a few individuals or corporations. This effects the economy, in general, of a free country. It creates an economy of the 1%. The 1% remains at the top while only a portion of the money circulates at the bottom and that portion is under the complete control of the rich and the same corporations. They establish 'autocratic groups' by means of 'democratic principles' and then destroy the very principles that got them to the Top. The economy is destrying democracy. Democracy is established by the Constitution and founds the government. Hence, Government should have more control over economic activity as well as corporations. Government creates corporations, why can't it have more control over them. Of course, not in any autocratic manner but, government should establish some 'balances' in the economy and corporations should be required to contribute to democracy. Democracy is the glue of a 'condition of togetherness'. Why should we let "fictions" use the principles of democracy to destroy democracy? If the 'human condition' of a few people cannot control its own greediness, then government must control it.

The decision to be constituted as a democracy was a "Big","Great", "Huge", "Enormous" personal decision. Anyway you conceive it, the Founding Fathers had to have 'sacrificed' a lot of 'ego' and 'self-interest' formulations. Imagine being in a position, where you could have retained just a little bit of 'egoistic or self-interest power'. How many of us would have done just that. They didn't do that! Instead, it became a government "of the people", "by the people" and "for the people". That move installed an 'ever circulating form of government', 'of the People', that places primary attention on all the people in the Nation. It unites the Top and the Bottom of government into 'a more perfect Union' of People. "We the People...", is the engine of the Constitution. The 'motor' of democracy becomes the individual in his 'condition of togetherness'. The individual, any individual, becomes eligible to ascend to the Top of government. But, it has to be a government that follows the 'interpretation' of the Constitution. That places a great responsibility on the Third Branch. That responsibility is one of 'objectivity' in interpretive practices. So why is the Supreme Court divided into 'conservative' and 'liberal' which just happens to be Democrat and Republican? Why is appointment to the Court related to the Party affilliation of the President, and most important, why are Justices Party affiliated? Why can't they just be objective? Democracy is democracy, its not Democrat or Republican. The Constitution does not belong to either Party. The Constitution 'constitutes' the People into a self-government; no preferrential treatment for anyone nor for any Party. Of course, Party members tend to stick together. Certainly each is entitled to its point of view. But, both Partys exist within a democracy. So,in the case of a democracic issue, why doesn't a Party see the issue as being a democratic issue and not as a Party-loyalty issue?

Politicians play with words; office holders use words to attempt to comply with Constitutional interpretations. Supreme Court jurists reason with them in order to twist meaning to comply with a 'Party-politics' view of the Constitution. I guess, the saddest thing in the world is the 'unreliable' use of language in a democracy. What can we depend on? Politicians use vacuous words to promise everything and when in office, do the contrary. Agencies stay within policy requirements of their agency and seek to enforce an ever-changing, nebulous Constitutional interpretation. Ah, but the Learned Brethern, the 'protectors' of our Constitution', use their great learning to 'create a hiatus' in the 'political winds' so that "legal fictions" can begin to usurp the "general welfare" of real individuals by giving then 'license' to be involved in the political process. How on earth did we get so stupid? Or maybe, its that the value of an economic system has replaced the value of a real democracy. The basis of the economy is a medium of exchange called "money". The basis of a democracy is the Freedom and Equality of each individual. Money is an economic value; a "medium of exchange", not a democratic value. Money is a medium of exchange, and as such, should circulate. Thats what its for! Of course, some 'hoarding' is necessary to prepare for the individuals future, but not in only 1% of the population. I'll bet that the 1% are either corporations, owners of corporations, or directly, or indirectly, related to corporations. The Court already protects these "fictions" and now, thanks to "Citizens", it has allowed one 'fiction' to support and buttress another fiction called "money" by allowing corporations to participate in a democracy under the guise of a 'freedom of speech'; "fictions" among millions of real individuals. What direction will the Nation take? "Alice in Wonderland" is a fiction, but there's more substance in it than our 'politics'. We have to learn to 'do' politics instead of just talking politics. We need to 'sink'our words on something solid or on the 'Bottom' of our triadic form of government.

What's an "entitlement"? What's a hand-out? Well, a hand-out is when a complete stranger gives to another complete stranger something or other. Once in a while, one reads where someone drives up to a street-corner and tenders a few bucks to someone completely unknown to them. Not many of those around and never done in a consistent or regular manner. An "entitlement" is not a handout, it's, as the word denotes, something someone is entitled too and is usually done in a systematic and consistent manner. Individuals are not necessarilly obligated to other individuals. Some people do become obligated to others and extend that obligation within the parameters of the obligation; like employers to employees, as well as employees to employers. (Works both ways) An "entitlement" also works both ways. Government is the only agency that can have a duty to grant so-called "entitlements" because it has a duty to the "condition of togetherness". Government has political power, because the Bottom of government(the People) has entitled those in power to occupy that political position. Without that position, no power. Political power is the only mandatory entitlement in a condition of togetherness. Outside of politics, power does not exist; only individuals with a political Right to Freedom and Equality. 'Might' might exist(no pun intended)but only if we equate it with guns and weapons of mass dstruction. But, might applies to 'things', not people. People have no power, only Freedom and Equality.( at least in a democracy) So, Social security, food stamps, Welfare, etc. are only duties or obligations the government has to the 'condition of togethernes' which grants office-holders the only entitlement in the world, namely, political power. The People owe government only the right to be law abiding and to remain within the confines of the Constitution; to the contrary, Government has a duty to the People under the Constitution, or to every individual within its jurisdiction. The word "entitlement" should be replaced with the word "Constitutional Right".

Democracy requires good laws; otherwise, the Freedom and Equality of a democratic government would create a chaotic condition. Of course, Law applies to every individual within the Nation and each individual lives under law as does the Social, its institutions, as well as the Top of government. Great care must be taken to insure that law is applied justly and equally because the individual that lives at the Bottom of triadic government is the essence of democracy. Everyone and everything exists under the 'roof' of the Constitution. If law applies to 'activity' that has the potential to create disorder within a democracy,it has the right to regulate the distribution of certain weapons within the social. That will not effect the Second Amendment. Not everyone is going to use weapons to kill innocent people and children but, unfortunately, some individuals, for whatever reason, will do just that. Hence, some control is essential. Will that control resolve the issue? Of course not! But, its a step in the right direction. Killing, murder, and mayhem will continue, but at least the easy availability of automatic weapons will have been made illegal. There is no such thing as an absolute solution. But, we cannot stand by and see atrocious acts against children being perpetrated in schools and not do anything about it. That would truly be a neglect of duty. The issue is not to control the mentally unstable because many mentally unstable don't kill children with weapons. No one can foretell when someone is going to lose their sanity and commit such atrocious acts. The best way is to control the easy availability of automatic weapons. How can anyone be against such laws?

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Wrong! People with guns kill people and people with automatic weapons kill many people. Thats why guns and democracy are not a good combination. What I mean by that last statement is that a democracy must have some law or control over the use of guns. Guns can be used for shooting targets, 'game', or for self-defense and protection of property. However, its unbelievable that some individuals think that some control of firearms is considered an attack on the Second Amendment. That's ridiculous. There is a proper use of firearms, but there is no right to take innocent lives of adults or children. Since deranged people can easily get firearms, why not control the EASY AVAILABILITY of automatic weapons. What is sought to be controled is the easy availability of automatic weapons, not the production of weapons nor the right of self-defense nor is it an evisceration of the 2nd Amendment. The proper use of weapons is not being controled, its the improper use of automatic weapons that is being controled. Too often, some 'nut' gets the urge to commit mayhem and takes the lives of innocents. Since weapons for that purpose are easy to get, he gets a weapon that will do the most damage. The saying, "guns don't kill people, people kill people" may be partially true, but why make it easy for the demented to kill many people. In the hands of some 'nut' guns do kill people, sometimes many people; sometimes children. That should be obvious, even to a lobbyist. Some control is essential. The easy availability of automatic weapons can be controled; the foretelling of a deviant personality that will go bonkers cannot be predicted. So, control the easy AVAILABILITY of automatic weapons. Keep in mind that a law cannot be ex-post-facto, and hence cannot deprive the present holders of weapons. But, future transactions can be controled and should be.

The fuel for a capitalistic economy is profits. The fuel for a democracy is Freedom and Equality. A Capitalist cannot survive under a non-democratic government. In the same way, a democratic government cannot survive within a 'capitalistic government'. The two value systems are different and must be kept separate. Once the fuel of capitalism begins to influence the Freedom and Equality of democracy, we're in trouble. Why? Because the value system of 'big money' has been substituted for the value system of democracy. Once that takes place, its no longer a question of freedom and Equality. It becomes a question of who 'holds' all the wealth or who is wealthy enough to govern. The strange thing is that most wealthy individuals are dependent on the Freedom and Equality afforded them under a democracy. Without that Freedom and Equality, they could never have accumulated that wealth. Yet, once wealth is acquired, greed sets in. Why should they try to dismantle a system that gave them that wealth? Why can't the two systems work together in a democratic fashion? Why can't economics and capitalism work within the structure of democracy without the need to dismantle democratic principles? The only way a capitalist can keep the wealth he or she has acquired is to keep government democratic. Therein lies the mistake of trying to establish a government by 'capitalism' or the 1%. If we get government by the 1%, its not going to be democratic. Its going to be 'capitalistic' and that means that profits will become the Ideal and that means competition by whatever means, which can only be to topple as many of the 1% as possible because 'greed' and being number 1 will be the goal. A Plutacracy cannot endure in a Nation that has the First Amendment and that has had a taste of Freedom and Equality.

The term "democracy" is a high level linguistic abstraction and is too general and hence allows for language manipulation and obfuscation at the more specific level. That's 'political language' for you. But, language just 'free floats' abstractly and never settles to the individual level in a 'real manner'. Of course, in all political activity, it becomes necessary to 'talk' democratically. But, we shouldn't ignore the fact that language can be useful for talking, but not for 'doing'. 'Doing democracy' is a different game. 'Doing democracy' involves the real individual referred to by the language of the policy or law. I have previously said that an 'algorithm of democracy' may be possible. In such a case, we can include and exclude each and every individual referred too by the policy or law. The importance of that is that everyone is counted and accounted for in policy or law. In other words no one is excluded from the accurate democratic policy or law being allude too. In such an algorithm, the individual is retained as a number which demands accountability within the equation called 'democracy'. The individual is not further reduced to the digital language of the computer. The individual is considered a number and is counted as an individual with all the mysterious qualities of the human condition. The reduced digitalization of computer language is just as unattainable as the generality of high level political abstractions. The real individual 'resides' somewhere between these two extremes. Democratic government is government of the real individual, not high level abstract ideals or low-level digitalizations. A government "of the People", "by the People" and "for the People" is a government by individuals, not computers. Turning government over to computers is as dangerous as turning government over to the 1%. Its not democratic and its not 'Freedom and Equality.