Neither, money or Capitalism, is harmful, per se, to democracy

An oxymoron? No! the headnote may sound contradictory to the previous one, but its not. Let me explain. Money is just a medium of exchange and Capitalism is a 'profit venture'. Neither demands a monopolizing or hoarding of activity and money. Of course, at one time some of this activity was against the law, until legislators and Supreme Court decisions attenuated that. Hoarding money and property is a human activity; its not a necessary corporate activity. However, the real' humans behind it use the corporate structure to centralize activity and 'monopolize' it. As we have said, a corporation is a legal fiction and doesn't 'really' exist. However, behind every "legal fiction" there are a few 'real' human beings. They will say that the Board and the stockholders ( if its public ) rule the structure, but ask yourself, is the legal fiction operated democratically, where each real individual is 'free' and 'equal' within the corporate power structure? Of course not, most are concerned with struggles underscored by money and corporate power issues. The point is the corporate structure does, in fact, monopolize the economy. Have you ever heard of a 'real' individual, at the Bottom of government, competing with a corporation in the economic field? Never happen. We create our own 'economic monsters'. That wouldn't be so bad, if the government, who helps create them, would keep 'some' sense of control. State governments may issue corporate charters, but Constitutional government can control issues of interstate commerce, monopoly, and 'economic illegality'( not to mention taxation). Why is a legal fiction such a 'strong fiction'? Corporations may be necessary, but they don't govern the People. The People never granted any 'political power' to them; only the Top of democratic government has political power, and that's because its a 'democratic' ( comes from the Bottom) grant of power.

Why is money harmful to democracy?

Its not the money per-se that is harmful, its the 'possessiveness' of some human beings. Money is a medium of exchange that was 'designed' to allow for 'barter' and 'exchanges' and ,of course, profits, in the economy. It is a 'quantifiable' medium, and hence has 'monitory' value, the end result of all economic activity. In the political field, the 'value' in a democracy is the absolute respect and retention of every human individual, his/her dignity, and her/his integrity. Since politics is about governing, and governing is about the relation of the Top to the Bottom, the preservation of the human condition is vital to a democratic government. Hence, the importance of the 'value' of democratic principles. However, a capitalistic economy cannot function without a 'profit' engine. No one goes into business with the intent of 'not making a profit'. Hence, the initial making of profits leads to further efforts to generate more profits. Its a 'constitutive' aspect of working in the economy and it's cumulative and, we could even call it, 'contagious'. The problem arises when the 'profit motive' dominates the functioning and the thinking of the representatives of government or when the 'rich' want to get involved in government for the sole purpose of protecting or generating more 'profits'. The freedom and equality of every individual are the only values of a functioning democracy. Government should not concern itself with anything else. The two value systems must be kept separate from each other. Government will never function with profits as its engine; and the economy will never function with the principles of freedom and equality as it's engine. This division of 'labor' is easily perceived, so why is it so entangled with the activities of government? Obviously, and unfortunately, its the 'greedy' and 'possessive' nature of the human condition. We always seem to think that 'anything' and 'everything' can be accomplished if we only had lots of money. We should try living in an Autocracy, a Plutocracy, or an Oligarchy.

The biggest threats to a genuine democracy are economic in nature.

The biggest threat to basic democratic principles, i.e. Freedom and Equality, are economic principles. That may sound strange, because economies are necessary to democracies, but economic principles have nothing to do with democratic principles. Unfortunately, individuals become too attached to money and possessions. In and of itself, that is not so bad as is the greed that overwhelms them. Greed then becomes the underlying basis for living, working, and being influential in the democratic social. Of course, we know that the basic political principles of a democracy are the freedom and equality of each individual situated at the Bottom of government. We also know that our economy would not be functional without profits. Profits drive the economy; freedom and equality drives a democracy. There has never been a democratic principle that the Top of government must be occupied by the rich, the wealthy, or the top 1%. Most people at the Bottom are not rich. Yet, their freedom and equality is as sacred to them, as it might be to the 1%. I say, "might be to the 1%", because, for all we know, the money and possessions of the 1% might be the only thing important to them. Nevertheless, most of them would not have accumulated those amounts of money and possessions, if they had lived in an autocracy, or even in a Plutocracy. Its strange that the richest people should be the most thankful that they live in a democracy but, instead, try to influence government in such a way as too accumulate even more money. That's the threat to democracy; the substitution of an economic principle for the democratic principles of freedom and equality. The largest culprit in that 're-evaluation' of democratic principles is the corporation; and to boot, its not even a real individual; its a legal fiction.

Three branch Government must stay constantly in motion

A characteristic of Three Branch Government is that it must always be in motion. Autocracies have a definite 'form', but the activity of the Top and the Bottom is 'somewhat' fixed. The only 'activity' that must be kept in check is the activity at the Bottom. The 'form' of a Triadic Democracy is never fixated; it should be a constantly 'moving' organism. The big issue in democracies is the direction of the movement and the objective participation of the Representatives at the Top. All or most movements must contribute towards the 'organic' establishment of a democratic 'organism'. This political organism is an ever growing entity because the Peoples at the Bottom, as well as the Peoples at the Top, are constantly being 'shuffled' about. Hence, it's always 'struggling' to a better democracy. That's why its important for each individual at the Bottom of Democracy to be Free and Equal. Free and Equal to live democratically and Free and Equal to participate in the political entity. If the Top is ever limited to a select few, for whatever reasons, it would not be a democracy, for the simple reason that the Bottom of government is not allowed to participate if self-government. The main obstacle in a democracy is to be able to allow the 'institutions', the 'policies' and the 'law', instituted at the Top, as a category of democratic activity, to actually make contact with each individual at the Bottom. If this contact is not taking place, there is no Democracy at the Bottom. Its merely 'talk', to be sure, its democratic talk, but the 'talk' is not being implemented in a 'real' way. It's vacuous, empty, political jargon,(yes, politics has a jargon), used to confuse and mislead the Peoples at the Bottom, and too usurp the power at the Top. Unfortunately, the term, 'politically correct' has 'two prongs'; one may be correct, while the other is destructive of democracy. Nevertheless, both are just 'talk'. The important 'aspects' of a Democracy is not the 'talk'; its the 'walk'.

In a Democracy, the 'quality' of the Top is dependant on the 'quality' of the Bottom.

The functioning of the Top of a Democracy has 'many' variables. Similarly, the functioning of the Top of an Autocracy, has 'many' variables. However, the functioning of the Top of an Autocracy is more 'predictable' than that of a Democracy. The reason being that an Autocracy has less 'variables' to decide between than a Democracy. The Autocracy is 'more' concerned with the International picture than the local, obviously, because the 'ways' of the local is 'firmly' established. The only local occurrences it might be concerned with might be not to do anything, locally, that might cause a revolution. While a Democracy is also concerned with the International picture but must also concern itself with the duration s/he will be in Office as well as the 'exercise' of the vote. The 'quality' of the Bottom, in a Democracy, is related to the 'quality' of the Representatives that are available and those that are eventually selected, for a period of time, to sit at the Top. The individual at the Bottom is concerned with the 'quality' of his/her life and must be concerned with the 'quality' of the Representatives at the Top. Its not easy to live in a Democracy. But, personally, its more fulfilling. The Bottom has to know what the Top is doing. The Bottom must be 'well informed' in all aspects of life at the Bottom, in order to make well-founded judgments with respect to the Representatives at the Top and the 'direction' of the Nation on the International sphere. Of course, but somewhat unfortunately, this is where Political Parties come-in. If both Parties were truly democratic, Parties wouldn't be a problem. But, some Parties follow the 'money' and the corporate 'persons', instead of the 'real' democratic values of Freedom and Equality of each and every real individual.

In a Democracy, the People must live democratically

In a Democracy the essence of government is functionally at the Bottom. Why? Because the People at the Bottom are the ones who situate Representatives at the Top. However, once a representative, having ascended to the Top, the Bottom loses 'control' of the Representative. The individual who has ascended is now, for a particular period of time, in a position of power, but that individual is, in the first place, a human being who comes from the Bottom. Hence, the requirement that the people at the Bottom elect the 'best' representative to govern them. Its at this point that a democracy is faced with the problematic of Political Parties. Party ideologies differ, but its up to the individual who votes for them to determine which ideology is democratic. The extension of the Rights of the corporate "fiction" is not democratic. The economy and the corporations are not 'motored' by a democratic ideology. Their motivation is 'profits', not 'democracy'. Their goal is to provide a 'healthy economy' not a democratic social. Hence, the natural conflict between economies and governments. In democratic governments, the 'motor' is 'freedom' and 'equality' of each individual. In corporate economies, the motor is profits. If a real person values his/her freedom and equality, s/he must respect those values in the Other. Hence, the need to distinguish the difference between a real person and a 'Constitutional person'. Even though the Court saw a need for creating a "legal person", its not a requirement that the "persons" rights be extended. Enough is enough. This way of 'looking' at this matter would certainly weaken the influence of the 1%. If a person lived democratically, s/he would not discriminate against the human condition.

The Top of government is an essential part of a democracy.

The Top of government is essential to any form of government. Of course, that also applies to a democracy. Otherwise, the Bottom would be without any form of government. However, the relation between the Top of an Autocracy, and the Top of a Democracy, functions differently in relation to the Bottom. Obviously, the Top of an Autocracy 'says' how the Bottom is to live, behave, act, or whatnot. In such cases, the Bottom is not as "free" as should be the case in a democracy. However, in a Constitutional Democracy, the functions or duties of the Top are set forth in the Constitution and the "interpretive practices" of the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the Court is not always in accord with any one way of resolving an issue. That discord arises from 'forms of reasoning' supported by different Party ideologies. How, any Party ideology, can be so different from each other, is beyond comprehension. In a democratic Nation, the Parties should both be democratic. Hence, regardless the 'route' of the reasoning process, the end result may be different, but it should always be democratic. In other words, the end result should be 'favorable' to the Bottom of the Democracy. The Bottom, " We the People...", the governed, the human beings at the Bottom, the real individual, should be the beneficiary of Constitutional adjudication. Of course, there'll be intermediary issues to be resolved, but the essential Constitutional issues should benefit the real individual at the Bottom or should improve the implementation of the democratic structure issuing from the Top. The Top can only do what the Constitution and the People allows them to do. Their power is given by the Peoples; not even the Constitution gives power, it only gives the form of government. " We the People..." place these representatives, 'up' there. A Democracy is a "Peoples" government.

Living 'intelligently' does not only mean a 'school intelligence'.

Our use of the word "intelligently" does not only mean the abstract intelligence taught in our school systems. We have to be very careful with this 'label'. Within a democratic social, the word intelligent means a fully functioning "freedom and equality" by each individual: and that means an individual who respects his own 'equality', as well as, the 'equality' of the Other'; and his own 'freedom', as well as, the 'freedom' of the Other. In other words, a real, concrete freedom and equality, not some theoretical composition. Life is real, not abstract and a democratic social can only survive if the 'living' is intelligent. Of course, the 'abstract intelligence' taught in the educational systems is also good, but for another purpose. The intelligence I speak of is the intelligence of the 'human condition' in a 'condition of togetherness'. The simplicity of life; the simplicity of enjoying one's human freedom and equality which allows us to respect the freedom and equality of the Other. The real individual has a 'simplicity' that seeps through the human condition into his/her relations with Others. In a democracy no one can be left outside of the equation of democracy. In a democracy, everyone, the educated, the uneducated, the rich, the poor, the healthy, the unhealthy, the white, the red, the black, the brown, must live in freedom and as an equal. The intelligence of a democracy is the intelligence of a human condition living in a 'condition of togetherness'. Every individual is free to live as s/he wishes, but s/he can never compromise the Freedom and Equality of Others. We can live 'democratically', only if, we can live with the Others.

Democracy at the Bottom can only be 'lived' intelligently.

The essence of Democracy is the Bottom of the structure of Three Branch government. Although the Top of democracy is organized according to the Constitutional requirements, the organization of the Top is mostly theoretical; it still needs to be implemented, it needs to become practical, or stated differently, it needs to become a fully functioning democratic social. In order for the 'fully functioning social' to hold together the theoretical aspects of democracy, it must act democratically i.e. each individual must exercise his/her "Freedom and Equality" in an intelligent manner. The exercise of freedom by 'equals'( the Many) will result in a society 'saturated' by 'equal' individuals who are exercising their "freedom" among themselves. This requirement, of exercising their freedom among themselves, requires individual judgment that allows the Many to live in a 'condition of togetherness'. Living in a 'condition of togetherness' is not easy because it requires activity that is not individually 'selfish'. The life of an individual is a 'given', but the life of an individual 'in a condition of togetherness', requires some selfless activity. Why? Simply, because we have to live with each other. There is no other way. This selfless activity demands some concern with the manner in which we exercise our "freedom and equality" amongst ourselves. In every life, there is the freedom and equality demanded by the individual organism, as well as the organizational demands of a democratic government. These blended activities are what I call an "intelligent life"; a life that protects its own self as well as the existence of the democratic form of government within which s/he lives. If democracy is not lived intelligently, it will self-destruct. If Party-loyalty encourages democracy for the few, it is not a democracy; it already begins to self-destruct.

language 'suffices' for the Top, but accountability is necessary at the Bottom

Any form of government can be described and 'structured' as an ideological political entity. But, the Bottom is 'where' the individuals are situated, regardless the form. In earlier forms of government, one can say the Top is the One and the Bottom is the Many. All government structures have this same arrangement, but the ideologies are different. The general reason for that difference, in a democratic form of government, is that in a democracy the People, while still at the Bottom, nevertheless, are the ones who establish the ideology and the attribute of power. In other words, the People are the source of both, the ideology and the power attributed to the Top of the structure. The power at the Top is an attribution of Office which originates at the Bottom. In other words, in a democracy the People 'rule'. But, how can so many People rule? Simply by making the Offices at the Top, elected offices, that can only be occupied for a certain period of time, by Officials who have been elected by the Bottom, i.e. the People. All officials, in a democratic form of government, act as Representatives of the People. Representatives can 'act' in two different ways. They can act in their 'Representative' capacity or as ordinary people. They have been given power to act in a representative way but, in ordinary life, for all we know, they may not even have authority over their spouses. But, the point is that, in a democracy, the policies enacted must be democratic. If democratic, that means, that they apply to everyone within the selected category, on an equal basis. How can we be sure every intended individual is included or excluded? The best way is to consider the Bottom in a quantitative manner, or as Number. Then, it becomes a question of 'counting', instead of using the variability of definitions. That makes accountability easier.

All forms of government need an economy.

The economy is a vital aspect of the social within any form of governmental structure. An economy is also needed in a democratic structure of government. However, there is a great difference in the economies of autocracies and those of democracies. A democratic form of government encourages competition in the economy because the People at the Bottom constitute the essence of the democratic form. Everyone at the Bottom is free and equal in his/her striving for economic security. Hence, everyone is free and equal to compete with each other. The progress of technology contributed to the nature of competition and to the amount of accumulation of profits. This new technology and its 'enlargement' within the context of factories, businesses, etc. made possible a new class of 'worker'; s/he was called an 'employee'. Employers, with sufficient capital, continued to expand and employees continued to aid that expansion in exchange for a 'living wage'. Competition, at this stage, becomes less possible, but, nevertheless, still remained open to new technological advances and the establishment of small businesses within the economy. As businesses grew larger, the same 'freedom and equality' applied to the employer and the employee relationship. Of course, this required some 'control' by government to avoid abuses of the relationship. Hence, 'minimum wage scales', 'healthy' and 'safe' work conditions, etc. But, the rapid growth of the corporate structure into 'economic walruses' and the Constitutional protection afforded it, as a 'person', which is actually recognized by law as a legal fiction, completely quashed any possibility of competition by real persons. That, in and of itself, may be fair, so long as the relationship is monitored and regulated by law. So, where are the laws prohibiting the ascendancy of the 1%? Hey, we're protecting a fiction at the expense of a real human being. Our 'Alice in Wonderland' government needs to wake up. Life begins with 'needing to work' and now life is 'having more money than the Other'. Well, that's not too bad; until government invented "legal fictions".

The Linguistic Turn and Number

The best way to circumvent the harmful effects of the Linguistic Turn in government is to view Constitutional government in triadic form and the Bottom of government as Number. This new manner of referencing Constitutional government does not take away anything from the Constitutional description of Three Branch government. It merely allows us to have a different perception of government, viz. in quantifiable terms. Its still the same government. Since language, even democratic language, can be 'twisted' to the point of absurdity, its best to quantify our already existing terms. Linguistically, when we say everyone is free and equal, in politically correct language, the terms used are hollow; do not require 'application'; and can be easily circumvented. Politicians say, "of course everyone is free and equal" and then proceed to follow their own 'selfish' and 'party-politics' agendas. All politics is a 'representational' activity. It should not be selfish and it should not be a 'party politics'. In a democracy, it should be democratic. Using the language of Number, allows all numerical 'references' to actually be counted. Since democratic government is a 'real' relation between the Top and the Bottom of the government triad, a quantifiable equation is possible to determine the effectiveness of government policy and Law. Obviously, its not, and can never be perfect. But, its more manageable. The reason for that is that the convolutions of the Linguistic Turn do not apply to Number. Number is also a 'language'; its a quantifiable language that can not be distorted, or 'confused', as can, language terms intended to convey only 'meaning'. Of course, political language will continue to be used, but when it comes to 'installing' a democratic policy, the 'language' of Numbers do not lie. "Look at the Numbers stupid."

The Bottom of a democracy is 'Number'

Although the Bottom of a democracy is to be considered as Number, the Bottom never loses its 'humanity'. This means that each and every individual at the Bottom, regardless his/her race ,color, creed or economic conditions, never loses his/her 'humanity'. The individual is sacred in a democracy and must be included or excluded in all democratic laws and policies emanating from the Top of government. Categorizing the Bottom as Number merely provides a tool for the enumeration of 'inclusions' or 'exclusions' of democratic policy or law. In this manner, the effectiveness of a law or policy can be established by merely counting the number of individuals to whom the policy applies. If any one individual is left out of the computation of a democratic policy, for whatever reasons, that individual is being discriminated against by government. Democracy applies to each and every human individual within the social. This automatically excludes corporations because they are not natural 'persons'. Even though the Judicial Branch treats them as 'persons' within the Constitutional framework of the social, there 'personhood' does not extend to the natural rights of the human condition protected by the Constitution. The corporate structure is a creature of the economy, not of the social and hence the protection it enjoys is merely economic, not natural. The consolidation of economic activity is protected because it gives strength to the economy by protecting the artificial nature of the corporation and by increasing and consolidating its productivity. But, the corporation was never meant to be anything more than an economic institution. It is not a 'political person' and was never intended to be considered as a 'real' human being, so why expand its Constitutional rights. The human individual is sacred and deserves Constitutional protection, but the corporation is not sacred; its a "legal fiction" and deserves to be treated as a fiction necessary to consolidate economic activity; but not to participate in politics; that's surrealist.

The human condition is sacred: Institutions of all types are necessary.

The only thing sacred in a civilization is the human condition. Institutions of all types become necessary because of the number of human beings that have to live side-by-side, next-to-each-other. Governments, economies, societies, religions, etc. all become necessary institutions because they help 'weld together' the humans who house them. None of these institutions created the human condition: to the contrary, the 'human condition' created the institutions. Hence, no institution can be more important than the human condition. Nevertheless, institutions become necessary because of the complexities that arise from the necessity of humans having to live 'in a condition of togetherness'. Fortunately or unfortunately, the People need government, as they also need institutions that address their physical, economic, social and spiritual needs. But, the most necessary of institutions is that of government. The reason for that is that the 'condition of togetherness' requires governing. 'Isolated' individuals may be able to live alone, but individuals in a 'condition of togetherness' cannot. Any 'condition of togetherness' must have government, and government cannot govern without Law. 'Governing' and 'Law' are basically the same thing. You can't have one without the other. In spite of the absolute necessity of government and Law, the human condition remains 'sacred'. Since government is required to govern a 'condition' it did not create, it must govern democratically. No one individual is more important than the other and governing requires that the Freedom and Equality of each individual, at the Bottom of government, be respected and protected. The One ( at the Top) must respect, protect, and help those( at the Bottom) who have basic needs, in order to survive, in their 'condition of togetherness'. That makes a Nation strong.

Capitalism could work; if the playing field was not so lop-sided.

The problem with capitalism is the lop-sidedness of the 'field'. Early in 'capitalism', the Judiciary saw fit to Constitutionally protect corporations by considering them as 'persons' within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment. That may have been necessary and inevitable at the time. However, to continue to add more advantages, like including them under the Speech provisions of the Constitution, is a little too extreme. A corporation is a legal fiction and as such should be treated as a fiction; it cannot have a freedom of speech because it does not speak and because its a 'Legal fiction'. It has been given certain advantages by giving the corporate structure a 'center of gravity' for economic activity to help create a great economy, but how much further can the fictional aspects be taken? To be sure, it effected the concept of competition by individuals. But, to give them the power of contributing to political candidates is absurd. That seems carrying the 'personal fiction' a little too far. Those 'fictions' apply to the abstracted, artificial, fictional entity as a whole, as contrasted to the real individual. The fictions should not be considered as the 'intended' creation of some huge 'real' individual. That's why they are referred too as 'legal fictions'. Of course, the effect has been to solidify their 'huge' economic status and at the same time 'help' their own selves within the 'political field'. That can only result in a 'lopsided activity' that concentrates money among the politicians or Parties who support those new 'creations'. The real individual has a freedom and equality within the National sphere that recognizes the integrity, the dignity, and the uniqueness of the individual human condition. A real individual can incorporate his/her business, but s/he cannot create another human 'person'. What has been created remains an economic "legal fiction". Corporations are economic fictions ( government issue) but, real human beings are not government issue. Humans are real and no one can create another human being by some 'governmental activity'. Only real humans have a Constitutional Freedom and Equality. Corporations acquired protection under the Constitution: now, they should do their part by helping to implement the Freedom and Equality of the individuals at the Bottom. They could help keep jobs local, pay just wages, pay their fair portion of taxes, and never usurp the dignity or the integrity of the human condition.

What's a "strike"?

A "strike" is the legal 'togetherness' allowed by law for the purpose of pointing out some 'inadequacy' to the top of the employer-employee relation. Its really a 'mini-revolution'. It follows the same principle that the Bottom of government follows pursuant to the First Amendment viz. the right to "peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievance". However, in the case of a strike, the reason usually deals with wages, while in a revolution the reason deals with a 'lack' of democracy. In either case, the Constitution recognizes the Freedom and Equality of the individual to 'assemble' and assert their strength in Numbers. The Bottom of government does not have any power, in the political sense, but it has strength in its 'condition of togetherness'. The Constitution recognizes this and respects the superiority of the Bottom to the Top. The Top of any corporation is the arrangement of a business with a duty to implement a 'structure' that relates to the Bottom of the relation. However, the Top cannot function without a Bottom, viz. the individual that carries out the instructions coming from the Top. The Top reaps 'great rewards' ( money) from its Constitutional status as a 'person', so why deny a fair wage to the individuals who make it possible? On a much larger scale, the strike is a small exemplar of the need to consider the Bottom of government as a Numerical component of the social. There is strength in Numbers, but People need to stop 'talking' and start 'doing'. A strike is a 'doing' and the whole issue becomes, "how many strikers"?, "how many employees are involved"?, " what is their strength"; how will it effect the Top. A 'strike' is a Constitutional Right of employees, as a revolution is a Constitutional Right of the Peoples of a democracy.

Why does democracy work?

The only reason democracy works is the fact that the entire 'form' is dependent on the individual at the Bottom. Without the individual, democracy could not work. The reason for that is that any governmental form, other than a democracy, that originates at the Top and exercises power towards the Bottom, has to, eventually, justify the source of that power. The Divine Right of Kings had a theory about the "Kings two bodies". One body was 'Divine', the other was 'mundane'. The 'mundane' body allowed the King to be just one of the guys; while the 'Divine body' was used to justified the divine source of his power. In other words, he was half human and half Divinity. Furthermore, his 'power' and his 'political position' was inherited. In todays world, the Divine source of power doesn't work. Leaders assume their positions at the Top through inheritance, accident, force, fraud or the ballot box. In a democracy, its the ballot box. The Peoples at the Bottom vote the leaders in. Its not near perfect, but it works and, of course, also gives rise to political shenanigans by opposing political ideologues(Parties). But, the entire process is dependent on the individual, and hence, the vote. Even though imperfect, consider the 'form' of government as a 'whole', i.e. as a political entity. What, or who, is more important in the 'whole'; the political entity or the Individual? The former is abstract; the latter is 'real'. The latter does not have any 'attributed' power like the 'former'. But the individual in a relation of the Top and the Bottom, has his/her dignity and integrity as a human being and has 'strength' in the 'essential condition of togetherness' that they find themselves in. As individuals they, each, is an expression of 'Life', whereas the political entity is an abstraction, malleable, and can be changed; circumstances requiring such. Consider the following; " political entities don't create individuals, individuals create political entities". Democracy, although not perfect, is the most intelligent manner of arranging the relation of the Top and the Bottom.

Democracy is a 'triangle'.

Democracy is triangular in nature. It has three sides, or better yet, Three Branches. The executive is the Branch that governs. The Judicial is the Branch that helps resolve cases and controversies and generally, defines the 'triangular' form of government as 'constituted' in the Constitution. The Legislative is the Branch that 'houses' all the People; its at the Bottom of government and constitutes the essence of democracy. Its the Peoples government; they 'build' it; they elected the office holders; they are the underlying support of the Top. If their was no Bottom, there would be no need for a government or a Top. That's why, its absolutely insane for any political Party to take the political perspective that 'we do not need Central government'. Government is an essential aspect of the 'condition of togetherness' and 'democratic' government is a Constitutional government that has been arranged in the 'form' of Three branches. Of course, most people know this and most people 'talk' democratically, i.e. 'politically correct'. But, 'talk' of democracy is different from 'doing' democracy. Talk is abstract and deals with generalities. Sometimes it deals with 'specifics', but when it does, they are also abstract. Unfortunately, talk can be 'empty' and 'political talk' usually is. But, 'real' democratic talk 'embraces' the activity talked about in an established policy or law, i.e. democratic policy and democratic law. A complexity of 'democratic talk' is the reduction of the policy to the 'level' of the activity at the Bottom. It has to be more than mere talk. it has to be 'real'; it has to function; and it has to 'embrace' the individual at the Bottom in a 'real', concrete manner. That's the only reason to have a government at the Top. And that's the reason why we need more government, not less. Its time to revamp government to include all the People at the Bottom and not just the 1%.

Party loyalty can sink democracy

Party 'stances' can be harmful to real democracy. Although both Parties purport to be democracies, that does not mean that they actually are democratic; that still remains to be demonstrated. But, any Party that is against the involvement of government is 'automatically' non-democratic. The political stance, "the less government the better", can't possibly be based on the Constitution. The political stance, "People are lazy, they need to get out and work" has to be a 'view' "from the top of the Corporate ladder or the 1%". If the government is not involved in 'governing', who will govern us; the 1%, or a 'corporate society? But, of course, this does not mean that the 'opposition Party' is automatically democratic. It too has to demonstrate that it's democratic. But, back to the previous statements. If government is not to be involved in governing, who will serve as 'governor'. Someone has to do it; the millions cannot govern themselves, and that is not a reflection of their 'laziness' or their 'wanting hand-outs'. Its a reflection of their wanting to be properly 'represented' by those in office and who ask only that those in office follow the Constitution. Its also a reflection of the 'dilemma' of the One and the Many. No one individual, and no 'group' of individuals, is a 'superior' human being who has been 'granted' the political authority to govern millions of 'Free and Equal' People( The 'king is dead, long live democracy) Its impossible, we need government, but we need democratic government, and the attitude about "less" government is the same as the 'attitude', "your biting the hand that fed you, remember?". No, democracy is essential and Party leaders need to remember what they learned about democracy in high school. Its not a difficult concept; just, for a bit, forget greed, power, and selfishness. We 'live' in a 'condition of togetherness'.