Competition between the economy and government will never work

Competition between the economy and democratic government is not functional. All democratic governments are structured as a triad and hence require objectivity in all three Branches in order to function as a democracy. The duty of democratic government is laid on each of the three branches and on their proper function in 'political objectivity'. The objective functions of a democracy is proper Representation of all the People; proper 'execution' of the laws by the Executive Branch; proper 'interpretive practices' by the judicial Branch. All three are necessary and no one Branch can do without the other two Branches. However, a successful economy needs only a dialectic i.e. two factors, an investment and a profit. Its purpose and its end result is profits; and no business entity functions for long, when there are no profits. Businesses last only as long as their profits last; whereas democratic government 'lasts' as long as their is 'democracy' i.e. Freedom and Equality of each and every individual.( This excludes corporations because they are not real 'persons'.) Hence, its easy to see where profits can never 'motor' a democracy. A democracy needs Three Branches and furthermore, each of the branches must remain politically 'objective'. By political objectivity, I mean each branch must fully function in a truly 'representative' manner and must perform the duties of the political office. The economy does not need, nor does it want, Objectivity, Justice, Freedom or Equality. It wouldn't be able to function; it needs profits. Whereas, a democracy requires Freedom, Equality, Justice and Objectivity. Democracy can function without profits, but the economy cannot function without profits. Hence, we must find a way not to co-mingle the two principles.

The lopsidedness of our economy was created by government

The present economic 'lopsidedness' cannot be corrected, because those in positions of 'economic advantage' will not give up their 'advantage'. Nevertheless, the economy exists within the 'political parameters' of an acknowledged democracy. Although the economic advantage 'taken' by the few may have been 'unfair' and not 'competitively assumed', the individuals who benefited from the advantage still live within the parameters of a democracy that afforded them the "freedom" and "equality" allowing those fictional entities to increase their profits a thousand fold. But, keep in mind that it was never a real individual who made those profits; it was a "legal fiction". The legal fiction was 'given' certain human attributes that every real human individual knows that it has never possessed. That sole legal move rendered competition between humans in a democracy impossible. The 'lopsidedness' of the economy arises from two factors; the 'profiteers' are fictions, and the real individual can no longer compete against them. Hence, the 'greatest lopsidedness' of the economy was created by law. Since law is established by the government, it can also establish conditions in which 'real individuals' within a democracy can be allowed to actually 'compete', or they can be allowed by law to function as "free" and "equal" individuals, by changing the law, in the economy, to that effect. The Top 1% did not get there by their 'democratic' ingenuity. It was through 'economic ingenuity'; after they received 'help' from the legal system. Sometimes democracy 'hangs' itself by not distinguishing a real human being from a fictional person, or by being influenced by economic "greed". Is it not strange that we can have laws against usury by individuals, and not have laws that can 'balance-out' the unfair economic advantages of the "legal fictions".

Economies began as agrarian, 'crafts', steam, electrical, then computers

All economies began as agrarian; then crafts; then machines( steam, electrical)then assembly lines, and eventually a computerized economy. The early forms of the economy all contributed to the well-being of the Peoples by creating jobs and sustenance. Of course, money was involved then also. But, today the focus has shifted from the saturation of products in the economy to the amount of money that the product can create for its owners. The idea of a 'well balanced' economy changed to how much money any one entrepreneur could acquire. The 'value' system of the economy shifted from the democratic values that allowed it to flourish to the money created by the economy. After that, the economy created 'useless' products only for the sake of profits; money was then hoarded, and hence the economy created tremendous imbalances of economic value. Jobs became unimportant. Notice, none of the preceding effects the political values of democracy. Those values are still intact. But, the mixture and substitution of economic values created a 'class' society of 'haves' and 'have nots'; in other words, a 'non-democratic' society. Corporations and their 'economic grasp' nullified 'healthy' competition in the economy and in some cases, corporations even have more money than government; hence, the contamination of democratic values by economy values, or just plain money. Originally, corporations were protected by government and now they 'run' government. How can a value system of an economy usurp the democratic value system that allowed it to flourish? We still live in a democratic society. Why is the 1% trying to take over the government? The problem is that the individuals that hold public offices are as much enamored with money as are the corporations and their owners. Hence, the corruption of democracy. To be sure, the 'haves' cannot be voted out. But, the individuals in office can. Also, the laws establishing the required by-laws of the corporate charter and the 'term' of its existence should be modified. We pass new laws 'everyday', so lets pass some that require the corporation to be 'more democratic' by requiring them, in exchange for the 'personhood' they get from government, to pay their fair share of all the benefits they reap from being allowed to 'exist' in a democratic society.

Governmental indifference leads to economic inequality

Democratic government is 'motored' by democratic values. The economy is 'motored' by profits. The Top of government is an essential part of a democracy because it provides the 'form' of government. However, the Bottom of democratic government is the essence of democracy. An economy is essential to every political entity, even if its not a democracy. Of course, the reason for that is that each and every human being has to live in the world. That is the case, regardless the ideology, or the political system. However, in a democracy the Top of government sets the parameters of the democratic value system. I refer to political values. Political values are not dependent on economic values, although economic values are dependent on democratic values. Nevertheless, the economy of every Nation is important because it 'provides' sustenance, and a 'life-style', for the Bottom. The 'well-being' of the Peoples of a democracy is greatly determined by the government's attitude to its economy. As a general formulation, the term "the economy" is a general abstraction that refers to a 'level of efficiency, distribution, and accumulation' of 'economic value'. Every government should 'want' to establish a 'well-ordered' economic system. So, why does democratic government remain 'aloof' of the inequalities established by its economic system. Its insane to show that the top 1% 'holds' the majority of the money acquired by 'successful' entrepreneurs. Economies were never intended to be politically 'transformed' into 'Plutocracy' or any other form of government. Economies are not governments; they function within governments, but are not intended to change the nature of the government within which they flourished. That's greed at its worse. A big culprit in the economic imbalances that exist are caused by corporations. Democratic government should have more 'control' over its corporations.

The Triadic form of democracy is delineated at the Top.

The Top of government furnishes the form of democracy while the Bottom of democracy 'lives' and nourishes the spirit of democracy. One cannot exist without the other. Nevertheless, the Bottom is the essence of democracy because it is constituted of millions of individuals who 'grant' the political power of Office. The Top cannot exist without a Bottom and the Bottom cannot exist without government. However, a Top without a correlative Bottom cannot exist as a government of the People. The reason for that is that although a Top may have power, if it does not get it from the Bottom, its not governmental power; it's illegal, unjustifiable power. There can be no justifiable power at the Top, if it does not originate from the entire Bottom. That would not be a government; it would be an 'illegal' usurpation of the Top, taken by force, fraud, or the substitution of some 'economic value' in lieu of a 'democratic value'. That may happen, if the 1% takes over government. Government by a 'few' over the Many at the Bottom based on an 'economic value' would not be a democracy. A plutocratic government is not a government that implements democratic values. That might be an oxymoron, or it's just a plain subjugation of the 'less fortunate' by the 'more fortunate'. The problematic is that democratic government is rule by democratic values not economic values. Once, 'governing' loses its direct connection to all the People at the Bottom, it loses its 'democratic form'. Once the democratic form is lost at the Top, the Bottom will lose its 'democratic spirit'. The end result of that could well lead to plain revolution, and I don't mean, 'justifiable assembly'. "Justifiable assembly" is democratic but in an illegally established government, it can serve as a 'strong' antidote to Plutocracy.

Democracy begins at the Top

Democracy begins at the Top of triadic government. The reason for that is that the theory of democracy provides the framework for the exercise of democracy and a government needs a framework before it can judge 'activity' at the Bottom. The Constitution, which 'constitutes' the Nation, does that. The actual practice of democracy is at the Bottom of government. That is why we have said the essence of democracy is at the Bottom where all the People 'live'. It is just as important that the framework of democratic government, as a constant triadic movement, be retained as is the actual practice, by the People, of 'real' democracy. Both, the 'implementation' and the 'practice' must complement and support each other. The Top is duty bound to implement the basic structure; the Bottom to 'live' it. If the Top fails to implement the basic structure, the Bottom has a Constitutional right to invoke the 'strength' of the First Amendment, to wit; " peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Notice, I state the 'strength' of the First Amendment. The reason for that is that the Amendment does not grant 'power'. Only the Top has been granted the power of Office. The Bottom has the 'strength' that comes with the right to 'assemble'. The strength of Numbers. The Top enforces its 'power' through law; the Bottom its strength through 'assembly'. That is a Right, in a proper case, to revolution. That's why law must be Constitutional and 'assembly' peaceful. However, the Judiciary has established a distinction between 'Public' and 'private'. The public sphere is governed by law, hence the government 'controls' assembly and, by that means, can curtail the Constitutional exercise of 'assembly'. No law should curtail the proper exercise of a Constitutional Right.

International problems are many times more complex than National problems.

The International sphere is more complex than the National sphere. Of course, everyone says, "we know that!". But has the issue really been considered. The National involves differences between the political Ideology of the Nation( lets say democracy) and its People. Some differences are resolved with Legislation; new laws, and some with the expression of different opinions, decisions to run for Office, support for those who run for office, and stated more generally, the expression of the Freedom and Equality everyone enjoys. All the 'internal' differences within a democracy and all the attempts to 'right' the 'wrongs' in the political structure can be resolve with a properly functioning Triadic government and a proper expression of real political freedom and real political equality. The former is political and the latter is personal. This is not to say that's easy. However, on the International scene, the differences that exist are both Ideological and Personal. Each Nation has its own ideology. Some are purportedly democratic some are not and, unfortunately, never shall the ideological 'differences' meet. But, the human condition in both spheres is the same. The 'human-ness' in the human condition is the same within an Autocratic government as it is within a Democratic government. The 'Peoples' of all the different ideologies have the same 'humanity'. Human beings are all the 'same'. The 'human condition' can be a unifying force to 'respect' the dignity of all other human conditions on the planet. Humanity is the same and should serve as a 'unifying' medium. Political Ideology separates us and does not treat the 'human condition' as it should. International politics is too busy fighting for advantage on the International sphere too really 'understand' and 'appreciate' the human dignity that exists within its own borders and which it purports to Represent. Truly, human beings that serve in political Offices must not lose sight of their own humanity and the humanity they Represent.

The problematic of democracy is People.

Democracy as a form of government is not perfect, but its the best we can have. The political problems of democracy have to be laid at the feet of the People. The form of government; its triadic nature; the functions of government; are ideally structured and arranged to create a 'real' democracy. However, the People who implement it fall short of fulfilling the expectations of the triadic form; viz. the proper functioning of the Three separate Branches of government. But, all the blame cannot be laid at the feet of the different branches. The People at the bottom who should be reaping the benefits of democracy and who should be 'practicing it' also fall short of 'living' a democratic life. Although individuals are considered free and Equal, many individuals do not actually consider the Other as an equal. In other words, there is too much racial discrimination; economic discrimination; 'class' solidarity, and 'class' discrimination. The individuals who engage in these practices align themselves with the political Party that supports their personal viewpoint. Some, if economically able, even run for Office. The Bottom of government contaminates the Top of government. After all, the People at the Top come from the Bottom. Nevertheless, the Top has a function and anyone occupying a political office is duty bound to carry out those duties. There is absolutely no other reason for occupying a political office. However,the only duty required at the Bottom is to live within the boundaries of law. Of course, that makes racial and economic discrimination easy because it becomes a personal thing. Hence, not all individuals at the Bottom practice the Equality guaranteed and protected by the Constitution. How can People be made to understand that without the 'condition of togetherness', we cannot be expected to survive. We can only survive in a 'condition of togetherness' if we consider each individual forming the condition, an Equal. We have to be better human beings.

All secular governmental structures take the form of a Top and a Bottom.

All secular forms of government have a Top and a Bottom. The Top always governs the Bottom. Religion has a similar structure, but is different because the Top relied on the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings. The 'Top' is never really defined in any fixed form. However, in secular government, the form is always fixed, even though there are many different ways to 'assume' the position of the Top. In olden days, the 'strongest' ruled; then the 'wise', then the 'King", then the 'inherited throne', etc.. Today, the 'elected' rules. Some forms took the 'Top' by force and ruled or governed by force. Even the elected form can take the Top by fraud. But, the Top only has a 'limited' power and authority. It can govern 'well' or it can govern 'poorly'. The last sentence means with the approval or the disapproval of the Bottom. However, the 'majority' at the Bottom is never the 'entire' Bottom. Too many individuals are left out of the 'democratic equation'. Hence, majority rule can be pretty lop-sided and undemocratic. Its the entire Bottom that must elect and tolerate efficiency or inefficiency. If 'inefficiency; then the Bottom waits till the next election. However, in a real democracy, if the inefficiency is 'severe', or 'egregious', a properly worded Constitution would provide for the 'Right to assemble' and "petition the government for redress of grievances". That is the Constitutional right to revolution and 'covers' the 'egregious misuse' of government power. Only a real democracy has such a provision. Of course, the Top can 'carve' a controlling element on the 'Right to assemble' by dividing the social into the 'Public sphere' and the 'Private sphere'. Laws cover the Public sphere and they can be used as a deterrent to 'assembly'. Nevertheless, a Right, in conformity with the Constitution, should prevail over a State law or a Federal law that is not in conformity with the Constitution.

The political "Top" is different from the religious "Top"

The political 'Top' is a place of honor and respect for the People because it has a 'conferred' power and a 'conferred' authority. But, it gets the power and authority from the political Bottom and that power is Constitutional and secular. Recent issues concerning the place of religion in Constitutional government are being re-visited by the Supreme Court. That's an issue that was properly handled when the First Amendment was passed. Of course, the Amendment confers only a 'freedom of religion' and specific issues will arise and must be resolved as they arise. The basic problematic is that religion, like secular government, is also a relation of the Top and the Bottom. But, there are great differences. The most obvious is the fact that a government "of people", "by People" and "for People", is a "People" government. There is no question as to where the political power to govern is coming from and who is conferring it. In religion, the One, 'at the Top', is a 'Divinity', in whatever form the individual chooses to believe in. In such a case, the One is a 'mystery' or an undefinable source of spiritual power. In such a situation, the One, or the 'Divinity', is never clearly defined. That's why, there are many different religious belief systems; however, the property they all have in common is that they apply to the 'spiritual realm', not the secular realm. Hence, no religious belief system could possibly govern the secular part of life; because the source of spiritual power is never clearly defined. The Middle Ages tried it with the Divine Right of Kings theory of government and they resolved the issue by saying that "the King had two bodies", one was 'secular'; the other 'ecclesiastical'. That didn't work for long. Religious issues belong in the spiritual realm; not the secular realm; even though religious 'warfare' is similar to so-called "class-warfare". Interestingly enough, religious 'warfare' has the same 'form' in religion as "class warfare" has in the secular, or political. In each case, its a 'selected few' telling 'everyone' how to 'believe'; and in the other, telling 'everyone' how to 'live'; one is religious, while the other is secular, but that 'value' system in the secular, is economic, not democratic. Religious values and economic values must not be co-mingled with democratic values.

The political 'responsibility' of the Top is selflessness.

The political responsibility of the Top of government is 'selflessness'. The political responsibility of the Bottom is 'equality'. Since the Top acts in a 'representative' capacity, it must act for the benefit of the Bottom. It should not act otherwise, because the Top has only the power it was given to it by the Bottom, i.e. to act in a representative manner. It cannot, or should not, act selfishly. Unfortunately, policy and law that benefits the Top and the corporate structures are not designed to benefit the Bottom. That would be an 'installation' of an 'economic' value, in lieu of a democratic one. Now, that would be a 'selfish' act that inures to the benefit of selected 'individuals' and the 'political organization' of the Top. The 'individuals', I refer too in the preceding sentence are the 'officials' at the Top and the "fictitious persons" or corporations. The Bottom also has a responsibility and that is to realize that every individual at the Bottom is equal to every other individual at the Bottom, as well as to those who act in a Representative capacity. This 'realization' helps to understand that the 'condition of togetherness' is a 'collective' activity, not an isolated personal one. Although each individual at the Bottom is free and equal and can act and live any way they please, they must also understand they must act within the parameters of law. A 'selfish life' causes a limitation of the democratic spirit and the Bottom is the essence of democracy. The Bottom cannot exist without laws. By the same token, the laws must not dampen the democratic spirit. Laws that 'dampen' the democratic spirit are not 'Just' laws. Unjust laws are laws passed by the Top that impair the 'Freedom' and 'Equality' of the Bottom guaranteed by the Constitution.

The need for 'real' Democratic 'Ideology'.

The heading sounds like an oxymoron. But, that's the only way to 'talk' about 'real' democracy and at the same time, try to 'do' real democracy. The difference between a verbal statement (talking democracy) and a 'doing'( doing democracy) is an 'activity' that actually carries out the verbal generalization into a 'real' specific, program, policy, or law that can be 'counted' or 'measured'. Democratic talk cannot remain 'just talk'. The Bottom does more than 'talk', it actually 'lives' and it should live democratically. The Top does a lot of 'talking', but it should also carry out 'real' programs. Of course, everyone knows that, or at least, everyone says they do. Surely all politicians and statesmen know that. But, why do they continue to 'hide' behind political gibberish. For example; The Top, wanting to correct a mistake created by the complexity of rendering something theoretical into something practical(over which the Top has no control) is excoriated for 'changing his mind' to better achieve the ideal of providing medical care for everyone. The political result is that now the Parties argue over Party members going to the 'other' Party, etc. thereby causing a shift in Party 'loyalty', or 'damaging' Party lines. Why is the political 'concern' focused on the Top instead of the Bottom? I thought democracy was about People solidarity, not about Party solidarity. Do you think the 'warring' Parties are not aware of this distinction. Of course, they are, but they are so concerned with their own personal welfare and political reputations that the People become the 'forgotten' of political 'gibberish'; political 'posturing'; and political 'hypocrisy'. 'Hiding' behind Party lines gives to so-called Party-Politics a certain 'fixity' that it cannot have, if it claims to be a 'real' democratic Party. The complexity of keeping a straight, real, line from the Top to the Bottom is not as easy as some would have it. But, it should not be used by politicians for advantage. If both Parties are 'democratic', why can't they work it out to the benefit of the People.

How to form a 'real' democracy

We have said democracy is theoretical. But we have also said democracy is 'real'. Real democracy applies to you and me, i.e. to every individual at the Bottom of triadic government. Of course, so does theoretical democracy. But, we, as individuals, can do 'both', we can 'talk' democracy, but we can also 'live' a democratic life. The Top of government needs theory in order to 'structure' the direct application of a democratic structure to the Many by an act of 'governing', viz. a real application of the freedom and equality of every individual. Of course, the Top has the power and authority given it, by virtue of being elected to the position. Nevertheless, the Top of government is mostly abstract ( in order to be inclusive) and hence linguistic and theoretical. Of course, it can always apply 'real' democracy by transforming theory into reality. However, the nature and the essence of the Bottom of government is that it is mostly 'real', although it can also 'talk' democracy. 'Politics', is a term that applies to the Top as well as the Bottom of government. But, the 'structure' and strength of the Bottom is not in its 'talk', it's in its Numbers. Every individual can come together and assert his/her individuality in a 'collective strength' of 'togetherness'. "Occupy" was doing that. To be sure it was effective. Keep in mind that each and every individual is an 'element' of a 'real' democracy. It is easy to 'talk' about abstract democracy and the abstract 'Rights' of the individual, but in such cases, its just 'talk' and theory. Too often, its just plain Party ideology. The Bottom has enormous strength in its 'condition of togetherness', but that strength lies in its numbers. Small groupings can be effective, but the 'whole group' or the Bottom, can be enormously effective. Keep in mind, the goal of a 'condition of togetherness' is to implement 'real' democracy, not to undermine it. Hence, 'politics' should implement 'democratic values', not 'economic values'.

Democracy, at the Top, may be abstract; at the Bottom, it's a life-style

Democracy at the Top may be abstract, but at the Bottom, it becomes a life-style. That is absolutely necessary when a government has a huge collection of individuals at the Bottom. In a way, the Top is not any different from the Bottom, except that the Top has a duty to govern those at the Bottom. But, the Top is held to certain democratic principles. That's the only way to 'enclose' a government with authority to govern others like themselves, and who also ascended from the very same Bottom. In a way, the Top is fortunate because it has a duty too keep the Bottom democratic. However, one cannot forget that the authority to govern is given by the Bottom. There is no 'superiority' in the mere activity of governing; only different duties. The Top has duties; the Bottom has duties. However, the Top is in a position to change the way of governing. That's unfortunate, because the only reason there can be for that, is greed. Government is about People, real People and 'greed' is about one individual self who has elevated' him/her-self to an 'unjustifiable' position of authority. The human condition cannot monopolize some of the 'good' that has been created by the institution of government. That's greed at its worst; and when the motive to monopolize relates to money and possessions, its a form of disrespect for the Others like him/her self. Money and possessions is not a measurement of the 'human' aspects of the human condition in a 'condition of togetherness'. That's our dilemma folks. We have to live together; there's no other way. So lets follow the Constitution and implore our Representatives to do the same. Abstract democracy can be rendered measureable if we can 'see' the individual at the Bottom. The only way to do that is Number, not just abstractions. A Number will always be what it is; so is an individual.

Government is 'motored' by democracy: the economy by 'profits' and competittion

The 'motor' for a Democracy is democratic principles; the motor for a successful economy is profits and competition. Although, both institutions are essential to a strong Nation, its a mistake to substitute economic principles in place of democratic principles. The end result of that would be Plutocracy or Oligarchy. Democracy cannot be 'motored' by profits or competition. That would destroy both the freedom and equality of the individual. The freedom and equality of the individual hold together a social motored by democratic principles; while the individuals who have succeeded in the economy can be thankful for the democratic principles that allowed them to function in the economy. It was democratic principles that lead to economic success. Without those principles, the economic activity would have been hampered because even the economy cannot operate at full steam without the principles of democracy. A successful economy can follow from democratic principles, but democracy cannot follow from economic principles of profits and competition. Its obvious, that Plutocratic or oligarchic principles would effect the freedom and equality of every individual, except those who were fortunate enough to be at the Top 1%. That would not last long because the 99% would not tolerate a plutocratic or oligarchic government. The best defense against Plutocracy is the First Amendment of the Constitution. The right to "assemble" is a Constitutional right. That was the very First Amendment because it protected the freedom and equality of the individual; not the economy. To substitute economic principles for democratic principles would undermine the freedom and equality guaranteed by democracy, hence the importance of having democratic principles in the social. The 'initial' democratic right to compete in the economy was devastated by the creation of corporations. No one can compete against a corporation, except another corporation. That pretty much leaves competition too corporations, not individuals.

'Language' at the Top is different from 'language ' at the Bottom.

The Top 'speaks' the language of democracy, while the Bottom, 'speaks' the language of everyday life. The language of the Top is general and abstract so as to include everyone to whom any one policy, law or practice applies. Of course, the Bottom also speaks abstractly, but their 'abstractions' apply to specifics. Nevertheless, the individual at the Bottom 'lives' and 'has a life' in the 'specifics' of the democratic social. The actual 'living', or 'having a life', in a democracy is never an abstraction. Unfortunately, that is the place where the 'clash' between a theory and a practice takes place. Theory always remains abstract; 'practice' requires some form of 'communion' or direct connection with everyday life. But, don't kid yourself, 'everyday life' can be as 'distant' from the real thing as is pure theory. Why is that? Simply because every individual has a different definition of what to him/her is 'every-day life'. A living, breathing, human being always participates, in a 'full sense', in his 'conditions' of life. The above distinctions are what requires, that the relation between the Top and the Bottom, be a real relation, not an abstract one. Democracy must relate, in a real way, with the individuals at the Bottom. If we look at the relation we are speaking about, we notice this is the ancient relation of the One and the Many. It seems that the ancients considered the One and the Many as a 'real' One and a 'real' Many. Of course, that makes the dilemmas of government that arises therefrom unsolvable. From the view of a democracy, it has no solution. Hence, the necessity that the Top be an abstract entity called the "State"( even though a fiction) or "government", and the necessity that the relation between the Top and the bottom be a real relation that transforms democratic abstractions into a real 'democratic life' of individual freedom and equality.

The transition from abstract democracy to actual democracy is complex

The transition from abstract democracy to actual democracy takes place within the individual. This includes the individuals who govern as well as those who are governed. This is not to say that the Top of democratic government has nothing to do with real democracy. The Top of government is institutionalized. It's a 'large' abstract, general, linguistic entity that includes all the specifics of a 'generalized' Bottom. As such, it governs 'itself' by structuring its functions, as a government, in the manner set out in the Constitution. But, it also 'governs' along those same lines i.e. in a triadic fashion. Democratic government is from the Top to the Bottom. Nevertheless, the relation from the Top to the Bottom is a real relation and must seep down to the Bottom as a genuine democratic experience; not as abstractions only. Only the individual, any and all, can experience real democracy or real freedom and equality. Try explaining that experience to some individual or class of individuals who are not free and equal and see what happens. They will never believe it. Why? Because the explanation is purely linguistic and they, as individuals, have never 'experienced' freedom and equality. The transition from abstract knowledge to actual experience of that knowledge is absolutely necessary. And the only way to do that is to actually 'engage' the fully functioning individual, in the only way he functions in everyday life, i.e. as an individual. In this way democracy must be experienced within the individual. Democracy can only be lived.

Democracy is a theoretical construct

Democracy is a theoretical construct, but so is autocracy, dictatorship and Kingship. But, if democracy 'goes' from the theoretical to the practical or actual, it must translate the theoretical into the 'real' or into actual activity. Therein enters many of the problems of democracy. The 'trip' from the Top to the Bottom is not always 'straight-forward' or 'straight down'. That is to say, the 'talk' is simple enough, but the implementation or the 'walk' is not so simple. Let me say it this way; it is simple enough, but 'political language' and demagoguery intentionally confuse the simple application of "Freedom" and "Equality" that grounds democracy. That's what happens when we allow Parties to form, some of which, are 'economic' instead of truly 'democratic'. Of course, Autocracies of every form, do not have this same problem. In Autocracy, the Top is 'law' and the Bottom better well go-with-it, or get 'straightened-out'. In democracy, the old conflict of 'States Rights" and 'Federal Rights' keep getting in the way. Although the Constitution formulated a Republic, it also begins with "We the People"... because its a Peoples Constitution. In other words, its a Constitution of the Bottom or "of the People", even though the Founding Fathers respected the existing integrity of already established Colonies. The People govern themselves by means of Constitutional Government. This included the Peoples already living within established States. While in Autocracies, the Top, governs the Bottom; end of story. But, the Republics division into existing local governments does not change the fact that it's still a Peoples Constitution. Hence, it becomes important that each and every individual, in a democracy, be included in Law, Policy and social practices. Number, is the only way democracy can work;.in other words, each and every individual is "Free" and "Equal" and each and every individual 'counts' within democratic laws, policies, and practices.

How can democratic principles become 'more real'?

Democratic principles are abstract principles that apply to the Bottom of triadic government. Understandably, they must be abstract to 'contain' all the individuals (when we 'talk' democracy) at the Bottom. However, the 'application' of an abstract principle must actually take place. Its necessary to render abstract 'talk' into actual 'doing'. That requires an actual application of an abstract principle to an actual 'happening'. The simplistic way of saying that is to say "you talk democracy" now implement it, by 'doing' it, in an actual occurrence. Damn, its still too abstract. The only way to 'capture' true democracy, i.e. "freedom" and "equality" of the individual human being, is by 'living it'. But, that requires that the Top of government ,as well as the Bottom of government, actually 'live' democratically. If the Top begins to understand that the political positions they hold are 'temporary' and merely 'functional' in a democratic form, or arrangement, of the so-called 'the One and the Many' i.e. the Top and the Bottom, maybe the Top will be more inclined to 'apply' Constitutional mandates 'justly', and the Judicial Branch will be inclined to be more objective in its interpretive practices. Oops, forgot the Legislative branch. They should respect the fact that they merely serve in a 'representative' capacity of all the people who has elected them, as well as those who have not elected them, and maybe the laws they pass will be more just. Oh well, there's still to much abstraction in the above. Lets face it, democracy is a 'way of life'. The 'freedom' and 'equality' of each and every human being has to be respected and protected. (That's the key). Why? Because the Top would not exist without a Bottom. It's dependent on the Bottom and both the Top and the Bottom must 'live' democratically. The Top has a 'function' to play and the Bottom has a 'life' to live. Please, help our leaders to understand that.

"Class" warfare is an oxymoron.

Its ridiculous to talk about "class warfare" because classes do not exist; although "warfare" can certainly be said to exist. Another, softer, term for "warfare" could well be called "competition". That's the case in the economic domain. But 'classes' of human beings do not exist. One human is just as human as another. Why classify those who have acquired more property and possessions, or even intelligence, into a 'higher' class. ( and these acquisitions are only possible because we are a democracy) The division onto higher classes has always existed. In the days of 'Kingship', the distinction was called 'bluebloods'. Well, they soon discovered that blood always flows red. As incorrect as that classification was, at least it referred to something all humans had, viz. blood. But, today it usually refers to possessions, money, or having previously held public office, or having being a 'driver' of a legal fiction; none of which has anything to do with the human condition. A human is a human, is a human. Wow, we create artificial lines of demarcation and then engage in 'everyday-life' with an economic principle and then call competition between People, 'warfare'. We create our own illusions and then we 'compete' with them. Well, the result of one illusion competing with another illusion is so far from actual 'life', that it can really be said that we 'live in illusion'. The end result of two illusions clashing with each other is just a 'further' illusion-far removed from actual life. I guess the sad part is that we not only 'talk' this way, we actually live this way. We fight non-winnable battles. Worst yet, is the fact that many political battles are on the level of the illusory. The battles are at the Top, on the level of language, but they 'hurt' the individual because they usually relate to policy, law, and the establishment of every-day practices. These practices need to relate to something 'real' in the human condition; they need to be less illusory and a bit more real.

Triadic government is a geometric configuration of Three Branch government.

The term "Triadic government" is not a substitute for Three Branch Government. It's a geometric configuration of the same Three Branch government elaborated in the Constitution. It's actually an attempt to simplify Three Branch government down to its geometric form for the purpose of better understanding the underlying forces at work in Constitutional government. You can even call it a "quantification" of governmental structure. Once we get under the verbal descriptions of what constitutes Three Branch government, we can better understand the relative importance of its underlying geometric form. We can actually 'see' why democracy is a form of government that emphasizes the importance of the People. Obviously, Democratic government is a government "of People","by People", and "for People". Verbally, we can appreciate the above description, but geometrically, we can 'see' how a triadic form cannot exist without a Bottom. The Bottom is the People, and the Bottom must be included in all democratic laws, policy, and practices. It cannot be selective about these institutions at the Bottom, because if it only includes the top 1%, the 'capitalist' people, the rich, and excludes common, everyday folk, the Bottom cracks or is not sufficient to support the Top of government. A democratic society can support the Top of government; but, a non-democratic society cannot support the Top because the divisions in the social, into classes, will cause the Bottom to crack and not be a good support for the Top. The Top of a 'democratic' government cannot exist without a democratic bottom. It's ridiculous to suppose that, if the 1% gets power, they can rule over the 99% at the Bottom. That's not going to work; if the top 1% gets power, it will foment a revolution and I don't mean a 'democratic' revolution like the one supported by the Constitution.