Party loyalty!? Parties separate or divide-up the essence of democracy i.e. they fracture the Bottom of a triadic form of government which is the essential support of the Top of a democratic form of government. The Bottom may have parties but that's only to gather the individuals around the voting booths to support any one candidate. If an individual is a good worker, a good father, mother, a good tax payer, a good supporter of his, her, family, what difference does belonging to one Party or another make? Parties would be ok if they both supported democratic values. Unfortunately, Parties do not support the Constitution as written. In our form of government only the candidates for the Supreme Court are asked if they will support the Constitution before they are selected. This is supposedly to insure objectivity in implementing interpretive practices. (so much for that) Party has no place in Constitutional adjudication. Party loyalty only weakens the underlying form of a democratic government i.e. it weakens a government "for the people". Parties that say "less government" don't know what they are talking about. Equally the case, Parties that say "more government" is not the answer either. Real "less" invites anarchy while real "more" invites autocracy. Surely, power is necessary at the Top of government, but just plain "less" or "more" government is not going to work. Power must be exercised "for the People", if its a democratic form of government. Parties just 'fracture' the unity of the Bottom of government into factions that acquire an "imaginary" feeling of being in control of the political aspects of the social. "Party" divides the People. Democracy unifies the People at the bottom into a "strength" that emphasizes the Freedom and Equality of each individual. The strength of the Bottom is in Numbers. "Strength", in the social and in politics, comes from a political beginning point that celebrates the Freedom and Equality of each individual.

How can political power be confined to the political sphere. A democratic government gets its power from the Bottom or the People. There is no other source for political power. Autocrats don't have power, they use fear and violence to govern. The economy does not house power, it only houses 'buying power', which is not political power. 'Buying power' is merely a medium of exchange that allows for the purchase and ownership of whatever one wants. Buying power is economic power and that is separate from political power. Economic buying power should not be co-mingled with political power. Political power arises from the masses at the bottom, while economic power relates to the profit engine. No amount of economic power should be allowed to 'buy' or contaminate democratic political values. The economy is not democratic and the values of democracy have nothing to do with profits. One way of keeping political power and economic power within their respective domains is to eliminate all economic conditions from the exercise of democratic values required to run for office. The economic status of the individual running for office is not important in a democracy. No individual seeking political office should be hampered by economic demands. Hence, the process by which any individual can participate in a democracy must be purified. Another way to keep the democratic values pure is to eliminate all corporate influences from the political structure. Corporations are legal fictions and as such are not 'persons' nor 'citizens'. They may need protection within the economy but they have no business in the democratic process. Politics needs to purge itself from the 'corporate economy'. This does not mean that politics would be against all matters corporate, only that the corporate economy should not intervene within the democratic value system. One can visualize a healthier economic system without the interference of democratic values and a healthier democratic system without the interference of economic values.

Please understand, the democratic form of government is not a panacea; its not some universal cure-all. The problematic with government, all governments, is that they are 'arrangements' where-by a Top(the locus of power) purports to govern the millions of People at the Bottom. In order for the arrangement to function, the Top must house power. Of course, the Top, in all cases, is also constituted by one or several individuals that are exercising the power. Of course, it can be said that a government is probably as 'good' and 'effective' as the individual at the Top that wields the power. But this, should we make it a requirement, only changes the locus of power from the structure or form of government to the 'nature' of the individual at the Top. This does not work! Consider the Kingdom and autocratic forms. The problematic in the relation of the Power of One over the Many arises from the fact that the One ( at the Top )that rules the Many( at the Bottom) is always equal in his 'humanness' to each of the individuals constituting the Many(at the Bottom). There is never any superior human quality in the One. Nevertheless, it's also true that power can corrupt and absolute power can corrupt absolutely. Unfortunately, the human condition seems unable to wield 'power' in a 'healthy' manner. Hence the necessity, at the time that government is being formed, for the establishment of basic laws to form and structure the government. These laws should define the parameters and limit the exercise of political power. Political power should always take the form of a government of three Branches. One Branch exercises power, the other defines it, and the millions of people legislate the laws through their representatives. These basic laws delineate the parameters of political power. Of course, its at this point that we can renew our statement that democracy is not a panacea, (the fact should be obvious) viz. each of the Branches is occupied by some individual that is equal in his or her humanity as those s/he purports to govern. But, remember, power corrupts.... How can we attenuate this conundrum?

Any form of government can be changed or modified except the democratic form. A government that is established or determined by the Top i.e. from the place that houses power, is instantiated at the Top, defined by the Top and governed by the Top. Hence the source of power determines the forms power will take and the means by which it will enforce its laws or policies. Not so with a democratic form. A democratic form originates at the Bottom where the people reside. It is a government "of People" ( of course, other forms are also governments of People, but in those cases some group or individual acquires power, whether through conquest, fear, or violence, except, maybe, the so-called Divine Right of Kings.) A democracy is also a government "by the People" i.e. by the same People who are going to be governed. All elements in a democracy are important, but the most important is the third element: a government "for the People". Hence, a democracy is a government "of People", "by People" and "for the People". If a government " of People" and "by People" is formed but, if it is not "for the People", it is not a democracy. Even a government that purports to be a democracy; i.e. a government "for the People", but, in fact, is not, that government is a purported democracy, but not a real democracy. A real democracy also has political power at the Top, but its a granted power; a power granted by the electoral process exercised by the People at the Bottom of Triadic government. The Constitution describes a Three Branch form of government. That's a triadic form of government. The essence of any triad is the bottom of the triad because the Bottom supports the Top. Without a bottom there is no need for a Top. Furthermore, the Top does not create its own self and it sure can't create the Bottom. No government ever created you or I.( that's another subject matter) A democratic Government is created by the People and the bottom line is it is created "for the People". A real democracy "of the People" can never be changed. A non-democratic government that does not 'help' its People should be dismantled.

How can a democratic Country be changed? The truth is that it can't. A democratic Country cannot change itself from the Top of government, nor by means of the 'interpretive practices' implemented by the Judicial branch. Neither the Top, nor the Sides of Triadic government can change the nature of democratic government. Why? Its obvious that a government "of People", " by People", and "for People", can only be changed by the People at the Bottom. Hence, any real change in government must originate at the Bottom where the voters are. Of course, the Bottom is constituted by voters who are Constitutionally considered Free and Equal and hence are not about to impose limitations on their Freedom and Equality. Democracy is about the sanctity of the individual and hence voters will not limit access to the polls. Any statement about changes at the Bottom that are made by the Top or the sides of triadic government are at best vacuous. A democracy does not change except by force or political chicanery. Any attempt to change a law with respect to voting rights is an example of political chicanery and only the Top, and/or, the Sides can seek to implement that. The Bottom will never limit its own Right to the polls. Its impossible. To attack a law because 'the Country has changed' is to misunderstand the very basis of democracy. An Autocracy, a Dictatorship, or a Kingship, can make such a statement because in those forms of government, the Top defines the nature of the Country. Not so in a democracy. The Bottom defines the nature of the Country. The laws with respect to voting rights are good descriptions of the history of a Country's past practices. Those practices may be cultural aspects of a Country, but they are not legal aspects. The legal aspects are simply a Country "of People", "by People" and "for People". Hence, a law that reflects a cultural aspect must be kept intact, because it reflects historical practices and sets the foundation of present practices. To remove those laws is to remove the very foundations of the particular law and to open the door to future undemocratic practices. It's a move backwards instead of forward.

If 'conditions of Justice' on the National level are to escalate into the International level, they must be well established on the National level. Otherwise, the escalation into other Nations is not acceptable. It would not be acceptable because it would be more of an encroachment than an escalation of the dignity of the human condition. It is very important that the origins of the escalation into other levels have a method by which to objectively judge the success of the 'conditions of Justice'. Lets face it, economics has no place in this determination. Nor does political ideology, if the ideology is founded solely on linguistic definitions. That's what makes it a different ideology. Never shall the twain meet. When referencing 'the People' in a democracy, we must be very careful how we categorize the particular class of individuals referenced. Of course, the class "all" should not be problematic. Hence, we have to be careful not to 'carve' out certain individuals from the class because that would not be inclusive enough to be democratic. In other words, we must use Number in our category and not a nebulous verbal definition. "All" is all. If we use Number its signification does not change. It's application remains fixed for all time( no pun intended). Of course, other categories are not as easy as the category "all". But, the essential characteristics of a democracy is that it's a Peoples government and that means a government "by" and "for all" the People. The two essential ingredients of a democracy are the Freedom and Equality of each individual. That's one hell of a good beginning point for crafting a viable democracy. Sub-classes may be problematic, but if the two essential aspects of a democracy are kept in mind, the solutions are less problematic than if we use verbal definitions. Hence, we have to configure a methodology for applying democracy by using some kind of algorithm for democracy. Where are the Statesmen?

The sanctity of the human condition has always been the primary reason for forming governments. If it was not for the fact that millions exist in the world, there would be no necessity for governments. It was the People who created government and it was because they saw the need for Law and Order among the millions of People. Truly, we cannot live without government, nor without Law and Order. It was necessary that government be granted the power to govern. This became political power. If it was not for that particular grant of power, no one individual would have political power and everyone would be Free and Equal. The Freedom and Equality of all individuals is a condition of the Natural world. No one human being can be, nor should s/he be, superior to another. The only power in the world is that granted by the people of a political system. Hence, political leaders should govern by Law and Order and should not abuse the power that has been granted to them by the system. Political power is not greater than the Freedom and equality of the individual; the sanctity of the human condition is the paramount consideration. Of course, historically there have been different kinds of government. For example, there was The Divine Right of Kings; there were those who took power by force or conquest; or, those who just rule by brute force or fear. That is not political power; that's plain and arbitrary 'rule'. Government today is government "of People", "by People" and "for people". The most important part is the latter; "for the People". Government is no good, if it does not serve the People. The People are the sole beneficiaries of government, not the 'governors'; they are just doing their 'jobs' and usually only for a short time. The human condition can only survive if it's justly governed on a National level and ,eventually, one hopes, on an International level. Truly, Justice can escalate into the International Sphere, but it must first exist on the National sphere.

Values of Land, Gold, and Oil unified the 'old world' into one vast planetary world. Now, the electro-magnetic spectrum has made the planet more 'intact' and has connected everything closer together. Now, we can communicate on a personal level as well as on a political level. The political level is ideologically different. Can there be consensus and agreement across National political boundaries even if it's just to live together peaceably? Individual political difference and cultural difference can and should be protected even while there is some agreement on some aspects of 'peaceably living together' on the same planet. Its only right that any and all Nations should insist on their individual political and cultural differences and identities. Where, then do we go for some common element to help bring different peoples, different cultures, and different political identities together? It certainly cannot be an economic value. Economic value or capitalism is motored by profits and the struggle to upstage the Other. Capitalism is adversarial from its inception. There can be no economy and no capitalism without competition and competition is just another word for deconstruction. Call it what you like, but competition is just deconstruction on the level of the adversary and the level of the economy. So, is that bad? Absolutely not! Not for the economy. We need healthy competition. But can an individual compete with a huge corporation. Hell no! So, the smaller parts of our economy may still have a healthy competition, but the big corporations, at the top, still control the 'small' at the bottom. Hence we cannot look at the economy to furnish us with some binding values for the unification of the peoples of the world. The problem has to be perceived from the individual perspective. What does the individual human condition possess that is common to it, regardless a Nations political identity and its cultural difference? We have to look for a political system that incorporates into its structure the common values of the human condition. The answer is the democratic form. A government "of People", "by People" and "for People". People are people. Their Freedom and Equality is a universal quality of life that brings together every living human being within all political systems. The Freedom and Equality of each individual is what can unify us into a human race. we cannot be 'governed' by economic values; only by democratic values.

Today, there is less concern with land, gold or oil (although oil its still there and gold has been reduced to a 'collectible') than with the 'digital'. Computers, the Internet, the digital world has shown us that we no longer have our feet on the ground and that our concepts free-float across National boundaries on any one day. ( of course, we have to learn how to 'feet-float' instead of 'free-float) The land areas of the world expanded and connected with other areas and cultures. They made connections where there hadn't been any connections before. The world became larger so that it could later become 'smaller'. We now live in a 'smaller' world; a world connected by the electro-magnetic spectrum. Anyone can now communicate across National boundaries. Before the revolution with the electro-magnetic spectrum, the great motivators were land, gold and oil. From the Westward expansion, to the 'gold rush', then to the 'oil rush', those were reasons to go 'elsewhere'; even to go International. Now, the conditions and reasons for 'expanding' have greatly changed. The 'digital' moves in the 'opposite' direction. It moves to the 'integrity of the human condition'. At the same time it 'opens the door' to communicating with other human conditions. Of course, it also allows for just eliminating the 'Other' by focusing on the creation of weapons of mass-destruction. But, think of the possibility! If we could succeed in communicating the value system of a democracy i.e. the values of Freedom and Equality, how much 'better' we could form (across National boundaries) a "more perfect Union" of People. Of course, its not that simple! I know that! But the digital revolution has opened the door to 'expand' the lives of all human beings. And this process is not limited to politicians and Statesmen. No, all of us can play a part in the process because now, all of us can cross National boundaries with our 'talk'. Now, we can improve our own lives as well as the lives of 'Others'.

First, there was the 'land rush', then there was the 'gold rush', then there was the 'oil rush'; now, the oil rush spills over into the International scene. When the oil rush spilled into the International scene, the persuit of oil became an International issue. No longer did an individual or a Country have to be the 'owners' of the land to justify it's acquisition. Economic 'Value' immediately trumps democracy; the 'desire' for economic 'value' goes outside the National boundaries. In some cases, it lead to war. In contrast, Democratic values are personal values that are inherent in each and every individual. They never 'leave' the individual. The individual can interact with other individuals, even across National boundaries, but the individual always retains his personal integrity and dignity. That dignity is what the Constitution protects and that dignity resides at the Bottom of the democratic structure of government. Equally dignified and sacred, are all the individuals across all National boundaries. Where did it go wrong? Where and when did economic value foreground democratic values. Governments are upside-down. They emphasize economics over personal freedoms and equalities. Governments are more concerned with economic values(money and possessions) and 'weapons of mass destruction' than with democratic values. Yet, its democratic values that 'holds' a Nation together, The Nation also has a dignity and an integrity( or should have)and that integrity is determined by the cohesiveness of its people; not by economic values under the soil. Any government that does not respect, protect, and support the integrity and sacredness of its individuals is slowly, but surely, self-destructing. Lets remember that 'life' and human dignity does not come from government. Government merely has a duty to organize, respect, protect, and support the cohesiveness of human dignity. Otherwise, there would be no need for government.

There is something inherently wrong when a medium of exchange is not used as such. Money is a medium of exchange and if it is to function as it should within a capitalistic economy, it should circulate. The goal of such an economy is to make a "profit" and to provide the essentials for the People at the same time. But, what happens when money is hoarded or kept in the hands of just a few people? Money can be hoarded, in which case, it is kept from circulating. How does this phenomena compare with democracy? Democracy is a government "of People", "by People" and "for People". If money does not circulate, profits suffer and so does providing jobs, wages, homes, etc. "for the People". How can such an economy be brought under some control to insure the 'up-keep' of the social? Well, controlling a Mom & Pop business will not help, but controlling a huge corporate giant will. Mom & Pop businesses are 'people business'. They are run by actual people, whereas a corporate business is a collection of real people operating behind a fictitious entity. The sole purpose for organizing a corporate structure is to increase its 'economic grasp' and to protect the real people behind it. Well, if the structure is a fiction, it obviously cannot reap the rewards awarded by the fiction. But, the real people behind the fiction can reap the rewards. So who, then, benefits? of course, the 'owners' do. If there is to be any control exerted by government, to provide for the social, it seems that government should control corporations and not 'Mom and Pop stores". The 'economy' is using fictions to amass huge profits and either hoarding the profits or keeping profits 'centralized' to increase its size and strive for even greater profits and greater 'hoarding'. For a democracy, its a no-win situation. Its understandable why corporations are said to be 'to big to fail'. But, the dilemma is they are not providing for the 'social'. Why? Is it because they are hoarding all the benefits derived from the corporate structure? If capitalism is about profits, maybe its time to control the use of some of those profits. Example; Corporate tax rates used to be 90%, then reduced to 70%, and now 35%! Why? Its a case of the rich taking care of the rich and the government isn't helping when it changes from the value system of democracy to the value system of profits.

The power that exists at the Top of the triadic structure of government can never give-in to other value systems. The economy exists to create profits, it can never be a substitute for governing in a triadic fashion. Economics is not about governing and hence its value system can never replace government. Government can only be replaced by other governmental forms and that is not going to happen in a governmental form where the people have had a taste of Freedom and Equality. That's why Plutocracy doesn't have a chance in a democracy and that's why other forms are also at a loss. The only way that a 'Plutocracy' can govern is for some individual to hold all the cards(money) of a government. Of course, that assumes that economic values have been substituted for democratic values. In this way, that individual would have all the power. But, If that should happen or if 1% of the populace is hoarding most of the money, it wouldn't be long before the 1% begins to fight against the others within the remaining 1%. Lets face it, the motor for profits 'gone wild' is greed and if greed characterizes the top 1%, it wouldn't be long before the 1% is at war with itself. The same holds for other forms of Autocratic rule. Change from democracy to Plutocracy or Autocracy is not possible. Democratic rule is people rule and the people at the Bottom of triadic government are too many and too strong; especially in a democracy where it is Constitutional to rebel against a 'dis-functional' government. The First Amendment has given the people an 'insight' into their importance in the governmental structure of a real democracy. Consider it carefully; why should the governed have a Constitutional right to revolution? All the People have this Right because it was 'they' who granted the power to exist at the Top of government. 'They' select who 'sits with power' at the Top. Democracy will reign supreme so long as there are a few People at the Bottom. People with money do not have political power; they just have lots of money! ( thanks to democracy).

If the economy, capitalism, corporations and money are becoming the new value system of the social to the extent that government is influenced by it, maybe its time for government to get more involved in the economy, in capitalism, and in re-defining the proper place that money has in politics. By this, I mean its time to redefine the part that the economy, especially corporations, play in the governing process. Corporations are "fictions", yet, they are the largest most efficient producers of profits. At the same time, there are real human beings behind the 'corporate veil'. Corporations were created by government; they were defined by the Supreme Court; and they were afforded protection under the Constitution. Yet, corporations are not real human beings. How can they deserve better treatment than a real human being or how can they work to the detriment of real people? How can government protect the real human beings that lurk behind the corporate veil? How can the Courts continue to enlarge the corporate power base? If Government can pass law that protects it, government can require that they participate in the democratic process. Why not? It was democracy that set them up, why can't they be more democratic? Corporations are 'centers' of economic power while government is the center of political power and political structure. Hence, government encompasses an 'area' larger than the economy. The economy would be meaningless without government. In all probably, it could not exist. Whereas, government could exist with or without the economy. Just because the economy is important to the Nation as a whole, does not mean that the economy can upend the government. The economy must 'contain' its economy and that means some measure of democratic control. If there is no control over certain economic activity, its time we got some. Originally, some measures were enacted into law, but they have since been diffused or 'thinned out'. Laws designed to control corporations have no 'teeth'. Its time for government to get its 'bite' back.