'Gains in Technology' should never 'create losses' in human values.

Governing a 'People' is different from 'governing' a Nation. Of course, the International sphere relates to government of Many Nations. When a government governs Many People, it governs human beings. When an International Government governs many Nations, it governs 'established political entities' that are Equal in Power. One large political entity governing Many other political entities, must achieve a political 'balance' between Political entities of Equal Power. There is no such thing as a Nation, or a United Nations, governing the 'Peoples' of another Nation, or even, having an 'influence' on the 'individuals' living in another Nation? How then can 'drone attacks' that injure and kill civilians, women, and children, be justified, especially in cases where War has not been officially declared? The truth of the matter is, it can't. Individuals killing other individuals, for whatever reasons, cannot justify, so-called, 'collateral damage'. When any individual perpetuates 'damage or injury' on another individual, that act is punished by law. If,in that process, s/he injures someone else, someone just 'standing around', s/he is also punished for that injury; by the same law that punishes the 'damage or injury', to the first victim. That's common-sense. So how can so-called, 'collateral damage', be justified in a situation where War has not been declared. The problematic is one of values; values that apply to Individuals, are different, from values that apply to Nations. If Nations are not at War, why should innocents suffer? The advances of technology now 'permit' the killing of innocents. How sad. We gain in 'technology' and lose in 'humanity'.

Freedom and Equality drive Democracy, while profits drive Capitalism.

Freedom and Equality 'drive' Democracy; and profits drive Capitalism. The value system of a democracy is a political constant, i.e. always remains the same. The People, at the Bottom, in a democracy are always Free and Equal, and if there are changes in a Democracy, its always towards the realization of more Freedom and Equality. In Capitalism, the 'profits motor' is always in motion and 'changes' are always towards the realization of more and more profits. Of course, a 'stable economy' always contributes towards a 'successful' Democracy. Obviously, the goals of the two systems are different. Nevertheless, the two systems must keep their 'political distance'. If the economy gets too close to the political system, it could transform into a Plutocracy. If that happens, it transforms government of the People, into a government by the rich, and for the rich. That would be a Plutocracy. Capitalism can survive in a Democracy, but it cannot survive in an Autocratic form of Government. Why? because all natural resources and profit making ventures, are State owned. Hence, the best 'soil' for the flourishing of Capitalism is always a Democratic form of Government. However, that, in itself, does not solve all 'democratic problems'. In a Democracy, the medium of exchange should circulate among all the 'real People'. I say real People because the Corporation is not a 'real person', and yet, it is the greatest 'profit making' motor in Capitalism. That's why, Corporations need to 'contribute more' to the very governmental structure that creates them and allows them to exist, that facilitates, and increases, its 'economic grasp' and 'productivity'. A corporation is just an economic 'institution' that exists in the Social, as does, marriage, family, and Freedom and Equality of the Individual. Its time for the corporation to become 'more democratic' and 'less autocratic', and 'give back', or, as they say now-days "pay it forward".

The 'Linguistic Turn' has caused much political mischief.

The term, "The Linguistic Turn" is mostly a literary term. Its not a simple term, and there is much dispute about its application, use, and accuracy. However, and generally, it mostly refers to the fact that a linguistic term or "word", does not encapsulate the phenomena that it 'refers' too. In different words, the 'map' is never the 'territory', or 'that' to which the map refers too. Hence, terms tend to 'float in air' and are not necessarily 'grounded' in 'real phenomena'. Generally, it refers to the fact that the 'word' does not correspond to the 'reality'. That may be the case, when the 'word' or term refers to a 'natural phenomena'. However, I wish to make a distinction between the "Natural" and the "social, or political". Why is this distinction necessary? because it answers too the fact that the Top and the Bottom of the relation between the One and the Many, is a social or political phenomena and not a Natural one. That's why many Nations have become organized around different 'Governmental structures' for the 'sole purpose' of 'governing' the Bottom. That's why we have, or have had, Kingdoms, Autocracies, Plutocracies, Oligarchies, Democracies, or even different 'tribal' arrangements. My point is that the Top of any Government is a 'Governor' of the 'Governed'. Its a 'political arrangement' and hence not Natural; its 'artificial'; a political entity. Therefore, the Linguistic Turn notwithstanding, 'political language' does refer to 'real' political phenomena and is well grounded in the 'established relation' of the One and the Many. Of course, much political language is intentionally convoluted; that's 'politics', but the so-called Turn, does not apply to our political structures. Furthermore, and more important, every human being, every Individual, who lives within a political entity, any political entity, has his/her Freedom and Equality,( as a real, living, human Individual), and that's a 'qualitative political variable' that should never be abused or compromised by Government.

Can the computer help "voter apathy"? How 'modern' is Democracy?

Computers have changed the 'face' of the world. Today, we speak of 'voter apathy' in Democratic societies. One of the key considerations in elections, is always, "will this issue bring the voters out"? Of course, the populace is already 'divided' by vying 'Party ideologies'; add to that; Gerrymandering, weather conditions, distance, means of transportation, expenses, etc. to get to the Polls, stand in line for long hours, and eventually, getting back home. I believe, that this year, in some States, the people have been asked to Vote in 8 different elections already. ( and its not Election Year) Is it any wonder that the People are apathetic? Of course, in a Democratic society, its only proper to ask the populace for their vote. Nevertheless, in a technologically advanced, Democratic society, a society that can get a man on the moon, etc., it becomes imperative that the Government establish more modern means of 'recording the Vote'. I speak about computerizing the voting process, to avoid the political 'gerrymandering' of vying political Parties; not to mention the other inconveniences. Lets change the political slogans of, "a car in every garage": to "a computer in every registered voters home", or, You can 'exercise' your Right to vote, by means of the computer. In our technologically advanced society, the Individual should not be required to be a victim of 'gerrymandering'; of having to avoid all the obstacles 'stacked' against the exercise of the Right to Vote, or, even of having to stand in long lines. The Executive, the Senators, the Representatives, and the Judiciary, do not have to, 'stand in line'; why should the People that put them in Office. No, a "computer in every registered voters home"; even if, the computer has to be returned, after the vote. Of course, as usual, there will be many 'kinks' that need to be worked out, but, at least, 'modern voters' will not be 'Gerrymandered about' by politicians; or be required to stand in long lines, and if some Rich Citizens get to take a vacation on the Moon, why can't the "Voters" vote by computer?

'Orderliness' must permeate every aspect of society, except for the Freedom and Equality of the Individual.

Orderliness is the key to Legality. It must permeate every aspect of the Social and the Economy, except, the Freedom and Equality of every Individual. Freedom and Equality in the Individual cannot be 'ordered'. The Freedom and the Equality of each Individual remains the essence of a Democratic society. That freedom and that Equality must not be interfered with. Why? because, an Individual must always be free to choose his 'activities' and 'behaviors', while existing within the 'condition of togetherness'. Another way of saying that, is, s/he must act within the confines of a democratic, structured, Legal System; or, the orderly arrangement of a democratic, 'condition of togetherness'. Democracy is more than just a belief system. Its an 'implemented orderliness'. Religion is also a belief system, but the goal of its way of life applies to another world. That's why it cannot work in this world. Religious beliefs cannot be 'imposed' on every Individual. Whereas, Freedom and Equality in a polity is 'imposed' and must be exercised by each and every individual within a 'condition of togetherness'. An Individual in a Democratic society must 'choose'. That choice must be in accordance with the Freedom and Equality of the guy next to you. If you step on his toes, s/he will not like it. Such is the methodic arrangement of a just legal system in a democratic, 'condition of togetherness'. Man is Free, is free to 'choose', and to act, but, s/he must respect the Freedom and Equality of the 'guy next to you'. Being 'Free and Equal' within a political entity is no 'small thing'. In a Democracy, all the Individuals at the Bottom of Government, have a tremendous duty.

Law is essential to Democratic government, but it is also essential to Capitalism.

Law 'binds' a Democracy at the Top, as well as at the Bottom. The Top is the Government and the Bottom are the People. But the Bottom, where all the individuals in their 'condition of togetherness', are situated is also referred to as the 'social' and the economic. Of course, the 'social' includes every 'individual' at the Bottom and cannot be 'separated' from their 'condition of togetherness', nor can any particular 'race' or 'nationality' be favored or excluded. In the same way, neither can any accepted democratic institution. In other words, the social, the economic, ( Capitalism) and the democratic institutions, are all under Law. Of course, the 'essential' and 'central' impulse in a democracy, is the Freedom and Equality of every Individual in the social, the economy, the institutions, and the Government. Democracy is a Peoples Government, not a Capitalistic Government. That is the primary reason why Capitalism, with all its economic values, can not get involved in the governing of the People. The People must be governed by principles of Freedom and Equality and not by the 'profit principles' of a successful economy. Economic values, money, profits, cannot govern a People. To be sure, the economy is important, but it cannot govern. To the contrary, Government must pass Laws that insure that a successful economy has to contribute to the 'democratic' values of the Peoples at the Bottom of Government. After all, its the People who work, buy, and produce in the economy. Hence, government must acquire more control over economic institutions, primarily, the corporate structure, and the 'false attribution' of 'personhood'. If the Government 'creates' corporations, it can have more control over them.

Law is essential to every Political entity.

Law is essential to every Political entity. Regardless, the nature of the entity, Law becomes essential. Why?, because every political entity 'houses' the Many, or many human individuals. To be sure, all human interactions, whether between Individuals, or between Nations, must be 'governed'. That's why we need Nations,( to govern the individual) as well as, a "United Nations"(to govern the separate Nations). Both, Nations and a United Nations, are Political Entities, and as such, houses Many Individuals, all of whom need to be Governed. But, Law is more essential in a Democracy, than an Autocracy. Of course, the reason is obvious. The only Law in an Autocracy, is that of the Autocrat. In a Democracy, the Law must be arranged in such form as to apply to each and every Individual in an Equal manner. Look, Law is just Order, and Order is essential to the 'condition of togetherness' of the People at the Bottom of Democratic Government. But, that is not the end of the story. The Order 'required' is the 'Free and Equal' order of 'each and every' Individual at the Bottom of Government. Someone has to legislate Law, someone has to enforce Law, and someone has to adjudicate Law. That's why, the Triadic Form is the only form for a Democracy. If no-one Legislates the 'right kind' of Law, democracy will not work; if no-one enforces 'all' of the right-kind of law, democracy will not work; If the Supreme Court does not 'adjudicate' the Law according to Constitutional Values of the Top, as well as Constitutional Values, of the Bottom, democracy will not work. So, it becomes obvious, that some Democracies enforce the Law, in a 'preferential' manner. It is also obvious, that the 'interpretive practices' of the Supreme Court, are 'divided' by party-loyalty, and hence do not serve an 'integrated' unity, of Free and Equal, that should characterize the Bottom of Democratic Government. In other words, being Democratic is not the political end of things; we have to work at it on a daily basis. Supreme Court Justices who assert their power, based on a divided political ideology, are no different than Policemen who assert their 'power' of enforcement, with clubs, guns, gases, and tanks. Neither is Democratic.

Computers have 'punctured' National Boundaries, but, that's only 'Linguistic'.

The Internet has facilitated the 'penetration' of National boundaries, but, the penetration is purely Linguistic. Communication can now take place between Individuals in different Nations. Sure, it makes the exchange of knowledge possible; an exchange between many different cultures. But, each Nation has its own Identification; an identification that has definite geographical parameters. Each Nation has its Boundaries, and each has an 'equal amount' of 'political integrity' and hence, political Power. Hence, the penetration of communication between individuals in different Nations, does not really serve any political advantage. To be sure, it helps in clearing up many 'distinctions' in the way of life of different peoples. But, each Nation being its own Political Entity, must be respected as an equal Political entity. A 'physically', or 'geographically' small, Nation, has the same Power and Integrity as a 'Nation, with its own Identity', as the Largest Nation in the world. Just as there are no 'superior human beings', in the world, there are no superior National organizations in the World. All human beings are Free and Equal, i.e., each is, or should be, 'politically free', and 'equally human'. In the same manner, each Nation is Free, as a Nation, and each Nation, as a political entity, houses Equal Power, within the International sphere. Individuals must learn to get along with the 'guy next door', as Nations must learn to get along with other Political entities in the World. Political 'history, or Politics, has reached the point where all the 'space' and 'territory' in the world has been 'taken up', or occupied, and now, we just have to learn to 'get along'. There is no fear of 'falling off' the Planet; only the fear of 'blowing' it up.

The 'issue' of the One and the Many is a 'political' issue.

The 'issue' of the One and the Many is a 'political issue'. However, the problematic is not one of contraries, or, opposites, or some 'dualism'. For Government purposes, the problematic can be further described as a relation between a Top and a Bottom. The Top is Linguistic, or abstract, or a 'Map, the Bottom is 'real'. Whether, a Democracy, an Autocracy, a Dictatorship, or a Divine Right of Kings, form of Government, the real issue is always from where does the Top get its authority to 'govern'. 'To Govern', is a 'Power', that must exist at the Top, or be granted, to the Top. But, from where does the Top get the Power? In the Divine Right of Kings, the Power came from God. In an Autocracy or a Dictatorship, the Top is 'assumed' by some Individual, or Individuals. In some cases, the 'assumption' is by force, fear, or some 'continuing line' of authority. Of course, in a real Democracy, the authority comes from the Bottom, or, stated differently, it comes from the 'Governed'; it is they who grant to the Top the 'Institutional', or, 'political', Power to 'govern'. Power cannot exist in the Individual, whether the Individual is at the Bottom, or the Top. Power, 'emanates' from the 'condition of togetherness', that characterizes the Bottom. That's the only Power that can exist in a Political entity. Once, vested, no matter how, the Power is an 'equal characteristic' of each and every 'Nation' in the World. That's why, the United Nations 'government' works, and that's why, the Internet, which crosses political boundaries, and goes into every individuals 'living room', cannot 'organize' or 'effect' the International community. The National autonomy of every Nation, must be recognized and respected. Only a World Government, or a United Nations, can govern the International scene. Of course, Individuals can bring about Revolutions, but only within their own Nation. If they bring about changes in their own Nation, it might be possible, for that Nation to effect another Nation, but only through the United Nations, never through the Internet. The Internet may facilitate International Communication between 'Individuals', but it does not 'house Power'.

A 'Capitalocracy' is a Capitalism with democratic goals.

A 'Capital-ocracy' is a form of Capitalism with some Democratic goals. Its can be called an "oxymoron", but only if we limit the reference of the term to the purely abstract level. Obviously, each word is a separate political term, but we have already clarified the fact that neither term replaces the other in a Democratic Government or a Democratic society. They both function separately, though jointly, in 'independent' political terrains, hence, their separate nature is appreciated and respected. Nevertheless, Democracy must govern and Capitalism must 'produce profits'. Together, they can probably, accomplish more, but, only if they work together. If Capitalism infiltrates Government and becomes self-serving, we will have a Plutocracy. But, its clear that the job and engine of Capitalism is not to govern, but to produce Profits . The 'motor' of the economy is separate from the Democratic spirit. In the same way, Democracy must govern, and it must 'Govern democratically', and hence, 'profits' is not a 'motor' in the governing. Profits belong in the 'economy', and the Freedom and Equality of each individual, belong in a 'Democratic Social'. Never should the two principles be confused. Obviously, and by definition, Democracy cannot thrive in a Plutocracy, and a Plutocracy cannot 'govern' Democratically. The essence of Democratic Government is the Freedom and Equality of the People, and that principle of governing, cannot be replaced by anything else. However, it is possible to require, re-define, and establish, new 'democratic ideals', in the economy, so that Capitalism can become more 'Democratic' and less 'Plutocratic'. Those new Ideals could 'help' combat, Greed, monopoly, and a 'corporate society', and it can help to 'de-centralize' the 1%. Government needs to become more involved in the establishment of 'democratic' economic ideals. If not, the 1% will continue to grow stronger, and eventually, divide, split up, and self-destruct Democracy. The result wouldn't even be a Plutocracy; it would be 'something' like a 'Dictatorship by Wealth'.

Democratic government needs more 'control' over its 'legal fictions'.

Democratic government needs more control over the Legal Fictions it has created. Of course, I speak about the 'Corporations'. Corporations do not 'exist', except as 'entities' in the 'Universe of Legal Discourse'. They are pure abstractions, and as such, have been 'given' an economic 'grasp', that is 'incomparable'. I do not mean that government needs to 'control' its 'profits engine', but it does need some kind of 'management' over the 'results' of a successful Capitalistic economy; viz., the management of the 'medium of exchange'( money) that needs to be kept in circulation. Money is a 'medium of exchange', and as such, it needs to circulate among the Many Peoples at the Bottom. Look, there is no excuse for a 'hoarding' of the medium of exchange by only the Top 1% of the Population. (Remember, corporations are now 'persons' within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.) Real Individuals have many 'duties' in a Democracy, so, why not impose more democratic duties on these 'surrealistic economic entities' called corporations. When a successful economy 'runs' a Government, we call it a Plutocracy. We don't need that! When the real People at the Bottom, runs a Government, we call it a Democracy. That's what we need; a Peoples democracy. In such a case, the people need to keep the 'medium of exchange' in 'circulation', and if 'Legal Fictions' exist in 'contemplation of Law', they must also have legal duties, as 'real People' do. They must also help the 'medium of exchange' to 'circulate' among the 'real individuals' at the Bottom; provide a 'fair wage'; help the 'poor'; the needy; the sick; the elderly; who have already contributed to the economy. In other words, the corporations must become 'democratic'. The fact, that they are Legal Fictions, should not 'shield' them from having 'democratic ideals', as all other real human beings are expected to have. Sure, they can benefit from their economic success, but, not to the point of 'Greed' and 'hoarding' by a mere 1%. In the case of 'legal Fictions', if the Government 'gives'; the Government can also 'take away'.

Every Government deserves a successful economy; every economy deserves a Democratic Government.

Every Democratic Government deserves a 'successful economy'; every 'economy' deserves a Democratic Government. Every Government, regardless the type of government, must have a means of existence, and that means, some 'economic system' by which it furnishes or supplies, the 'means of subsistence' to its People. Obviously, a Government, or the Top, governs the 'Many' People, situated at the Bottom of the structure of the Government. The Bottom is always the 'population', in its totality. The Bottom is also the 'governed' and hence, subject to the 'exercises of power' by the Top. A Government needs an economy to survive; but, an economy also needs a Government to monitor the 'progress' of the economy. The two systems work in tandem. Nevertheless, the Freedom and Equality of each Individual at the Bottom, is the 'motor' of a Democracy; while the 'profits motive' is the 'motor' of the economy. The two motors must be kept separate. If we mingle one with the other, we may still get a 'well functioning economy', but we will lose the Democratic spirit, or stated differently, the 'motor' that drives our Democracy. Freedom and Equality has no chance of surviving in a Government driven by the 'Profits' motor. Why not? because, the 'profits' motor is 'completely unrelated', to Freedom and Equality of each Individual. Economic competition is dead. Competition between real Individuals may have, once, been a 'good motor', but today, there is no way a real Individual can 'compete', in the business world, with the 'surreal', Legal Fiction, created by Government. Obviously, a balance between the two systems must be struck. But, the 'initiation' of the 'balance' cannot be from the economy, because that would destroy Democracy. It must arise from a Governmental control of the economy. Stated differently, Government needs 'more control' over the surreal, 'legal Fictions', it has created.

The benefits of Government Office is Power and influence; the benefits of 'economic activity' is money.

The only benefit for Individuals that run for political Office is the exercise of Power during the time spent in Office. The benefits that accrue to someone well situated in the 'Corporate World', or the economy, is money, and possessions. The retired politician enjoys his/her 'reputation', 'fame', and a comfortable existence. But, he/she loses his/her power. The 'retired' businessman never 'loses' the benefits of his/her labor, and gets to enjoy being on the Forbes list. The 'retired', corporate businessman is 'never really' retired, because she/he has full ownership of whatever 'benefits' or values accrued to him/her, while in business. Of course, the imbalances that has resulted between 'politics' and the 'economy' is the difference in the end-results of the 'corporate world', and the end-results of the political world. The unfortunate aspect of this whole scenario is that the 'corporation' is a 'legal fiction', its not a real individual, and has a tremendous advantage, in economic competition, between 'real Individuals' and 'corporate fictions'. It was created by Government, to protect the economy, and the end result, is that the economy has assumed a very powerful position in 'social life'. Everyone wants money; Politicians, Corporations, and citizens, all want more money. In other words, the 'value system' of a viable democracy, i.e., the Freedom and Equality of the Individual, has been replaced by the value system of a viable economy, (of course, helped by the 'legal fiction'), or simply, money. If Government creates Corporations, why can't it have more control over them? Why do successful corporations,( that have been given a 'greater economic grasp') not pay any taxes?

There is no 'perfect' Government; only the 'best form' of Government.

When it comes to Government, 'perfection' is out of the question. The best, that 'Government' can strive for, is to be the 'best form' of Government. Why should that be the case? Obviously, we are talking about the 'act of governing', 'Many' 'Individuals', and that means that only a 'few', or 'One', can assume the 'institutional position' of 'Governor'. Its obvious that a 'multitude' of Individuals cannot be governed by the Multitude. Why is that?, because the result would be chaotic. Some critics of Democracy, wrongfully call democracy, 'mob Rule'. But, that's an oxymoron; there is no such thing as 'Mob Rule'. A Mob cannot be 'ruled', because it has no 'Ruler'. The ancient problematic of the 'One and the Many', is the problematic of 'Government'. History is replete with instances of Rule by the One; viz., when the One was considered of 'Divine' origin; or Rule by the 'strongest'; or Rule by the 'smartest'; or Rule by the 'most influential'; or Rule by the 'richest'; or simply, Rule by force, cruelty and mayhem. All these examples give sufficient validity, to the fact, that 'whosoever' purports to Rule or Govern, must have 'Power'. 'Power' is essential to both, 'arbitrary Rule', or 'Government'. But, be assured, there's a difference in the two. The former is truly 'arbitrary', and does not consider the Many at the Bottom; the latter is 'Representative' and only gets 'Power' from the Bottom; i.e., a Government, "of the people", "by the People", and "for the People". The ancient problematic of the One and the Many has gone 'full circle'. The 'One' truly has 'Power', but its Institutional, and is 'granted' by the very People who are the Governed. The 'Top' is different from the 'Bottom'; the Top is Institutional, linguistic, and abstract; the Bottom is not 'an abstract generality' nor, a 'Mob', not even an 'abstract specificity'; its REAL. You and I are real, I know that, and you know that; and neither of us wants to be 'Ruled', we want to be 'Governed'. Of course, the unfortunate part of all this, is that 'neither' of us is 'perfect', but we can hope for the 'best'.

"Veterans Day" is the 'starkest' declaration against War.

Veterans Day is the starkest Declaration against War. Its a Day when Nations 'celebrate' their warriors. Regardless the Nation, and regardless the nature of the Government, whether Democratic, Autocratic, Dictatorship, or whatever form of Government, Nations should become acutely aware of the 'loss' of their People. Some are mutilated for life; some are crippled, some cannot go on living, and some are dead. Real human beings fighting for a 'political entity', an abstraction, an intangible, an unreal entity. And yet, we say "what a great service" they rendered. Why is reality upside down? Its the Nations that should be 'fighting' for their People. Human life is sacred; its more sacred than National Identity. No Nation can 'fight' another Nation. But, they get their People to fight each other. What a cheap way to justify 'National strength". Nations cannot exist without People, and Nations should protect their People, and not put them in harms way. Of course, we all know that crime, violence, and mayhem on a National, domestic level is somewhat inevitable. Its in every Nation. So, we conclude that War is the fault of the human condition. But, that's not true. If our Leaders represent all their People, why should Leaders act on an International scale, in the same manner as the Individuals act on a domestic scale? International 'disagreements' are 'abstract disagreements' on an International scale. Usually, no real Individual, other than the Leaders, are involved in an International dispute; the disagreement is usually between Two Nations, with equal Power, that are disagreeing about some International issue. The problematic is, that an argument between two real individuals, results in a fight of some sort between the same two Individuals. Whereas, a disagreement between two Nations, with equal political power, results in War. But, the two Nations don't fight each other, they send their People. Its the People who are maimed, crippled, and who lose their lives. We call them Veterans. If 'Nations and Leaders' could learn to get along, 'Veterans' wouldn't have to fight. How sad; the World is upside-down.

The 'Legal fiction' is the source of much abuse.

The corporation is legally held to be a 'legal fiction'. As such, it has 'gained' protection as a 'person' under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. A 'human being' can only be 'real'. Can you name or 'point' to a human being that is 'unreal'. If s/he is a human being, regardless of sex, color, race, or creed, s/he is 'real'. Only the "corporation" has the distinction of being a "legal fiction", hence, admittedly 'unreal'. The 'legal fiction', apparently, has a right to exist, even though it can't be put in jail, can't be 'touched', doesn't get 'sick', doesn't have to 'eat', and if you ask someone to point out the so-called, "person", they can't do that either. Its a Fiction. Of course, some say there's a whole set of laws that governs their existence. But, that's not so. The Law describes how they function, i.e., the Board of Directors, the shareholders, their capitalization, etc., but the law does not say how long, or, how they are to 'exist', only, how they are to function as Legal Fictions. Of course, they must be 'law abiding' and not 'violate any laws'. But, corporations, that don't exist can't 'violate any Laws', because they don't exist. They can't be put in jail, as real people who violate laws. They even have immortality, i.e., they have a "perpetual existence". If they are shut-down, for some reason or another, the owners, just 'create' a new "legal fiction" with the same perpetual existence. In other words, they don't really die, they just 'change names'. The only way the Law can punish a corporation, is by "involuntary dissolution". But, that's temporary, and in order to do that, the Law has to 'pierce the corporate veil', to get to the 'owner' wrongdoers. I don't have to tell you how difficult that is. How sad; Government 'creates' corporations, and then, loses control over them. Corporations are great economic institutions, but Government needs more control over them.

Democracy was not 'born' overnight.

Democracy was not 'born' overnight. To be sure, it went through many stages of 'political integrity', i.e., 'Individuals Integrating', before it became the best possible 'form of government'. Ancient people did not have 'Government' per se, but they had Myths. Of course, the modern tendency is to hold those belief systems as 'imaginary', 'superstitious', or 'Religious'. To be sure, they were religious in nature, but they 'helped' to keep the People together. That's why, Myths were about 'Gods' and that's why those beliefs held the Peoples in a 'condition of togetherness'. From Myths, the People went to Kingships, i.e., the Divine Right of Kings. Obviously, that system was 'part' Divine, and 'part' secular. That's why the concept of The Divine Right of Kings eventually came up with the concept of the Two Bodies of the King; which, of course led to the statement, "The King is dead, long live the King". From the times of 'Kingship', we slowly went through the Middle Ages, wherein, the 'center of gravity' at the Top, i.e. the authority of the King, slowly began to disintegrate. He could not control all those People. At that point, the concept of the 'Many', and the problematic of the One and the Many, was born. Nevertheless, Authority and Power were conceived as attributes of the Top. The Bottom, or, the Many, at that time, played no part in the act of Governing. Of course, that's how Autocracies were 'born'. There have been many different types of Autocracies. But, slowly, the 'absolute power' at the top also began to disintegrate, and the Individuals, at the Bottom, became more 'vociferous'. Many Centuries passed. Eventually, the People 'realized' that it was 'they', who created Governments, and not Governments who created 'them'. Of course, that constitutes the 'Separation of Church and State'. Democracy, in its present form, was born when the Many, understood, that they 'needed Governing'. But, it had to be a 'Peoples Government'; a Government "of the People", "by the People", and most importantly, "for the People". We cannot live in the Past, we must live in the Present, and we must prepare for the Future.

Clear distinctions between Democracy and Capitalism need to be made.

Clear distinctions between Democracy and Capitalism need to be made. The reason for that is that each system is different and functions with a different 'motor'. Of course, all Democracies need an 'economy'. But, all economies, don't necessarily have to be Democratic. Why is that? Autocracies also need an economy. Both, Democracies and Autocracies, are 'forms' of Government, and Capitalism, is an economic form that is 'motored' by the 'profit motive'. Capitalism can survive, and thrive, in a Democracy, but not necessarily in an Autocracy. In an Autocracy, the Government is Top-heavy and may not tolerate freedom of movement within the economy. All Governments are 'motored' by the Top, but Autocracies don't insure the Freedom and Equality of all Individuals at the Bottom and Autocracies 'own' or 'control' the Top as well as the Bottom. Democracy insures the Freedom and Equality at the Bottom. The Individual at the Bottom is Free and Equal to pursue economic activity. But, one of the biggest problems with Democracies, is that the Individuals at the Bottom, are 'free' to Incorporate a business. By so doing, they, whether directly or indirectly, create a 'large entity' that can do business. Of course, it wasn't long before the Supreme Court considered the 'corporate structure' as a 'person' within the protection of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Hence, now we have "legal fictions", recognized by Law, who are protected, 'as if', they were 'real persons'. In the 'economy' no human being can compete with a corporation. Now, they can even contribute to a Political Campaign. Is it any wonder that the 1% is trying to get more 'control'? I wonder if 'corporations' are counted as 'individuals' in the census? Some say, they are to 'Big' to fail. 'Democracy' doesn't want them to 'fail'; but, now that Government has created these "fictions", Government needs to get more CONTROL. Children always play with 'toys', but the 'toys' never take control of the children.

The 'inherent tension' between the Top and the Bottom, is different from the unnecessary 'tensions', created by Political Parties.

The inherent tension between the Top and the Bottom of Government is an 'institutional tension', created by the difference in the 'nature' of the Top and the Bottom of Government. The tensions and oppositions created by the 'ideologically' different, Political Parties, are tensions that have their arising from the different perspectives about 'Governing'. Of course, the Parties vie for Office, and hence will try to prevail, by anything they can get away with. The proposals about the so-called 'best policy' for the Bottom, are easily forgotten in the skirmish. Politics, unfortunately, is all about winning Office. How sad. Even if the differences were actual differences in implementing Democratic Policy ( which they seldom are)the welfare of the Nation, or the People at the Bottom, is soon forgotten, in the 'struggle' for political victory. It would seem that in a Democratic society, the differences in implementing 'democracy' should not vary that much. There could well be some disagreement on how to implement a Policy, but a complete disagreement, with the Democratic value of the Policy, is absurd. The purpose of all Democratic policies is the 'freedom and equality' of the individuals, or, it could be, the more 'smooth functioning' of the 'machinery' of Democracy. Political Office, has no other function. Its only a 'Representative' position. Politicians should have political goals, not personal goals. Of course, its a well known fact that 'power' corrupts many politicians by transforming political, Representative, aspirations into greedy pursuits for 'more' power, and for a place on the Forbes list. How unfortunate. Democracy 'gives' them a job to perform, and their greed takes over, and they puff-up, with self-importance.

All Governments, or Nations, have an inherent tension between their Top and their Bottom.

All Nations have an inherent tension between the Top and the Bottom of Government. The 'necessary relation' of Government, the relation that must exist, is always a relation between a Top and a Bottom. The Top is a 'linguistic generality', that must house political power; by that, I mean, a Nation has Power at the Top and that power must be used for the process of 'governing' and for no other reason. Of course, that power is an attribute of all existing Nations, but that power must also have a 'source'. It cannot be said, that, 'political power', ipso facto, comes into existence, by the simple act of some sort of 'self-declaration' as a 'relatively new' Political Institution. Political Institutions must be 'created', and 'organized', and since their only purpose for existing is 'to govern'; they must be 'created' and 'organized' by the very people, who are in need of Governing. One of the biggest problems of Governments, is that the Top, is always 'described and organized' in linguistic terms, because language can have a 'generality of description' that includes all the 'Individuals' at the Bottom. Of course, language can also be used in direct 'specific' terms, but, it still remains 'abstract', because language is always about 'something else'; language has a referential power that refers to 'something', 'other than itself'. Consequently, political language is a 'type of Map', whose sole function is to 'reference' a 'territory'; the territory being 'very real', because, You and I, know that we are 'equally real'; hence, 'every individual', at the Bottom, is also 'equally real'. That dichotomy; language at the Top, reality at the Bottom, renders politics into an 'art-form' that must bridge the gap, between the Word and the Territory. Unfortunately, this is the place where political 'double-talk' is born.

A 'concept' of Statehood is composed, by each and every 'Real Individual' at the Bottom of Government.

The concept of Statehood, is composed by each and every Real Individual, at the Bottom of Government. Its needless to add that the State cannot exist without its People. A State or a Government entity needs someone to govern; or its very existence is compromised. States cannot exist in a vacuum. States cannot exist without people, but People can exist without States. Hence, the implication is that the State is a necessary creation by the same People who 'seek' 'Statehood', and 'wish' to be governed. States are important and States are essential for the sole purpose of governing. If a State is said to exist, but does not govern, it can be said, that particular State is not an actual State. Why? The reason being that, the sole reason for a State to exist is to govern. The political issue becomes, "is it possible for non-democratic States to exist? Does the establishment of any type of government, meet the requirements of a 'properly established Top of Government', or is that, just another 'democratic delusion'? Does any Government, even the non-democratic ones, still meet the requirements of a necessary government for the Many. Obviously, the need for Government arises from the fact that the One is essential to Govern the Many. Hence, the problematic of the One and the Many is very 'abstract'. The 'abstract answer' is, every Individual, who lives in a 'condition of togetherness' needs Government. The less abstract, more practical answer, is that the Top of government gets its power to govern from the Bottom i.e., from the very people who will constitute the 'Governed'. Hence, every Form of Government, is essential; but, nevertheless, Democracy is the best form, and the more streamlined, and if properly 'conducted', can avoid many 'social problems'. The other forms, create dichotomies that cannot be resolved, except by Revolutions.

A 'concept' of Statehood is essential; in a Democracy, such a concept is 'real'.

A concept of 'Statehood' is essential for the sole purpose of 'governing'. A Democratic concept of the State is entirely dependent on the People at the Bottom of the governmental Structure, or Form. In an Autocratic concept, the Top of Government or the Form of the government, is not dependent on its People. Evidently, it is assumed, or presumed, to have 'existed' before the People enter the concept of, what 'constitutes Government'. In other words, the existence of the concept seems to be separate from the People it governs, and hence, may have had an 'existence', even before, the existence of any particular Autocratic government. Hence, in an Autocracy, the Government, or concept of the State, is more important than the People. In a Democratic form of Government, it cannot be said, that a Democratic form of Government can exist, separate from the People it Governs. If there are no People, who needs Government, and how can a Democratic form of Government, be said to exist, as a 'self sustained' form of Government, when there are no People to Govern. The people are essential to Democracy and the Democratic form of Government is essential to the People. One cannot have a 'chicken without an egg', or, an 'egg without a chicken'. The issue is from where does an Autocracy gets its 'authority' to Govern. Historically, the 'Divine Right of Kings' form of rule, purportedly, got its authority to govern from some Divine source. But, that theory doesn't work anymore. That failing, how can we justify the existence of the Autocratic Form of Government, and from where does it get its authority to Govern? Can it be, that it doesn't have the authority because the People have not given it? 'Real Government' needs permission, from its People, to be 'Governed'. That failing; we're right back to Government by the 'strongest'; and that's not Government, that's 'Rule'; that's 'Autocratic Rule'.

How can a Democracy become 'more democratic'?

How can a Democratic Form of Government, become more democratic? The answer is multifarious. Obviously, in the question, the Form of Government is already assumed to have been established. Some of the required Institutions are already in place in the social. Maybe, not all Institutions are in place, but the essential ones are properly established. The minute a Democratic form of government is established, the 'concerned Individuals' start to 'wrest' for advantage. Why? Well, when one realizes, that a Government that insures the Freedom and Equality of everyone, 'everyone' is in a 'political position', to become 'part' of the Institutional Structures that will be set-up. Hence, the instinct of 'self-preservation' in nature transfers to the social and becomes a 'competitive spirit'. The 'race' to occupy these Governmental positions, of course, is based on the fact that these political positions 'house political power'. ( Of course, there are altruistic motives also) Question? Is there any way to compete for these positions, without violating democratic principles? Well, maybe 'yes' and maybe 'no'. Nevertheless, the first thing the Individuals interested in these positions do, is that, they form into small groups of 'like-minded' individuals, or, in more political language, they form into 'Parties'. This immediately creates a dichotomy of 'us', and 'them'. Then, the 'competition' begins; needless to add, that not all political statements with regard to 'policy', 'programs', 'law', and, I must add, 'objectivity', are 'necessarily democratic'. Division into Parties creates an 'antagonism', somewhat 'mild', that mandates a decision; a decision that is 'required', if the individual wants to remain in that particular Party. Hence, divisions into Political parties, creates an antagonism, ( no longer 'mild') that easily becomes, what we call 'vicious political practices'. In other words, Individuals 'interested' in politics, usually forget their 'humanity'. How sad. We live in the best form of government there is, and yet, we 'lose' our humanity, when we 'vie' for political power. Can this be a 'real democracy'?

Nations and Governments have Power, but they are mainly Instituions of 'Servive'. They should 'serve' Humanity.

The biggest problematic on the Planet is the relation between the One and the Many. Allow me to reduce the issue to simple language. I am One, I am real, I am a Human Being You are One, you are Real, you are a Human Being We are all One, We are all Real, We are all Human Beings We are the Many, We are Real, We are all real Human Beings. But, The Many need Government The Many need to build Nations The Many need a Nation A Nation is not 'real', in the same way as You, and I A Nation is an Institution and it needs Power It needs Power to govern the Many. There is no other need for 'Power'. The 'Many' were here first. Don't get me wrong, at this point in history, we are all born into an existing Nation. But, a Political Institution should have a Government, of People, by People, and for People, because without People, or, the Many, there is no need for Nations. Nations need Power, so the issue is always ,from where does a Nation gets its Power, and why does it 'need' Power, if not to govern, the Many? Keep in mind, the human condition does not change, its always a 'chunk of Humanity'. Humans are 'born' and they 'die'. But, Nations arise as political Institutions; they don't die, they are eternal. So, why can't Nations use the Power they have to create a more peaceful and harmonious social? Sure, they are Institutions of Power, but also institutions of 'Service'. All Nations and all Governments are 'man-made Institutions'. The 'human condition' is always superior to the Political Identity. So, please do your Job.

Democracy, as a form of Governement, can be misunderstood.

Democracy as a form of Government can be misunderstood. Often, the concept is interpreted as allowing an Individual to do whatever s/he pleases and, also, as 'individually Equal' in the 'business world', the 'political world' and the 'social world'. From this negative posture, there follows the 'rationalization' that Individuals, in fact, are not equal in possessions, nor in wielding Power, nor in economic holdings, nor in having the same amount of money. In other words, we do not live in a Democracy, because we are not Free to do as we please, and we don't have the same 'power' or 'position' or 'influence' that some Individuals have. Actually, some of us 'don't want' all those things. The truth of the matter is that Democracy, as a form of Government, can not guarantee that we can have those things, only' that we are 'free' to pursue those 'goals', if we wish. Democracy does not 'automatically grant' or 'issue' anything; it only guarantees that we are free to pursue whatever goal we want within the confines of Law and Order, and assures us that we, all, are 'Equally human beings'. Our humanity is Equal, no one human being is 'superior', as a human being, than any Other human being. The social, 'playing field', must become 'well-balanced' in both, 'institutional structures', and legal boundaries, to 'insure' that our Freedom and Equality is not compromised. A democracy must protect and insure the Freedom and Equality of each Individual in the social. If that fails, we are free to "assemble and petition for redress of grievances" and that means, 'revolution'. "Occupy" is a revolution, but its 'limited' because of the divisions into 'private property' and 'public property'. The 'occupation' is 'real', but the occupation must 'take form' in our 'working knowledge' of a 'real democratic society', not a social, 'motored' by the economy, but, a social 'motored' by 'Freedom and Equality' of 'every individual'.

Government by a 'United Nations', must 'treat' or 'govern' all 'Nations' equally.

Government by a United Nations must treat or 'govern' all Nations equally. Each Nation, regardless its size, population, or the geographical area it covers, is 'equally' a Nation. As a Nation, it has the same 'political power', as a much 'larger' Nation. Geographical size or population has absolutely nothing to do with sovereignty of a Nation, or pure power of a Nation, on the International sphere. On the International sphere, each Nation has the same power as any other Nation. On the International sphere, every political entity, or Nation, has pure power, and there is no distinction between the 'pure power' of a small Nation, and the pure power of a larger Nation. A United Nations is a 'Government' of equals. But, the 'equals' are all 'sovereign entities', hence have equal 'political pure power'. No United Nations Government can usurp or abuse the 'sovereignty' of any individual Nation nor can it interfere with the Domestic Government of any Nation. Of course, it can resolve disputes between Nations and hence can impose Law and Order between Nations. Every Nation in a United Nations is Free and Equal, i.e., free to do as it pleases within the confines of International Law, and within the confines of 'Humanitarian rules'; and, is an Equal in Sovereign power.

'Democracy' does not change; but, 'Capitalism' is constantly changing.

The Democratic landscape does not change; but, the Capitalistic landscape is constantly changing. The two institutions are essential to a 'viable democracy' and a 'successful economy'. When I say Democracy does not change, I do not mean that it does not 'evolve'. Certain aspects of democracy are always evolving, because new Individuals are born into it, some die in it, some move into it ( immigration), and some even move away from it. Of course, there's also the changes in Laws and social institutions that must accommodate these changes in the social. Nevertheless, the Freedom and Equality of the Individual, always remains in place, through all these transitions. The economy functions on different principles. There is nothing permanent about Capitalism, except that its a form of competition that must always be in 'motion'. Sure, the Corporations are always there, as are the factories, and the technology. But the whole economy is driven by 'profits' and hence must always remain 'profitable'. Hence, the 'economic motions' are always there, viz., production, development; amounts, or size; manufacturing; distribution, and the most important, Profits. Without profits, the economy loses its motor and becomes static or dead. However, the essence of Democracy is always the same and remains the same through all changes within the social. The Freedom and Equality of the Individual always remains viable, regardless the changes in the social, or the economy. However, both, the act of Governing, and economic activity, must be kept separate. Failure to distinguish between the two can lead to a Plutocracy or an Oligarchy.

The 'concept' of the 'State' is not a fiction.

J.J. Rousseau said the State is a Fiction. The State or the concept of the State is not a fiction. For sure, the concept is a 'general concept' that applies to each and every individual that resides under the auspices of the State. Hence, the concept is a general concept that houses political Power, otherwise it cannot function. The generality' of the concept arises from the need of the concept to be 'inclusive'. Of course, there is no question that 'anything' or 'anyone' who purports to Govern millions must have Power. Without Power the concept would not be functional or efficient. But, the fact remains that the concept, in a Democracy, has Power at the Top because all the Peoples that constitute its very 'nature' have 'institutionally' granted it Power. That is not a fictional process; its a reality. Without People the concept has no need for existing. For example; If a couple lives on an Island all by themselves, i.e. without any other individuals; they do not need a Government or a State on the Island. If the couple was to have a 'child', is that child born 'into' a concept of the State? No! Why?, because, on that Island, there is no need for such a 'concept' or for such an 'Institutional political entity'. However, its a fact that all of us are born into some particular State or 'political Institution'. Of course, in the latter situation, there exists millions of Individuals within any particular geographical area. Hence, the necessity of a concept of the State. But, that does not make the concept a 'fiction'. Its a necessity and its 'real', i.e., a 'political institution' that arises from the Many People that exist at the Bottom of Government.

Capitalism should be gratefull for Democracy.

Capitalism should be grateful for Democracy, but Democracy does not necessarily have to be grateful for Capitalism. Of course, if both systems work together, then both systems can be grateful for each other. Capitalism can only flourish in a Democratic society. But, a Democratic system should be able to flourish where there is Freedom and Equality in the Social. In a Top heavy system of Government, the power is allocated at the Top and the Bottom becomes somewhat inconsequential. Of course, there are many gradations of political organization, where the Power at the Top is variously allocated. However, in a Democracy the Power is also at the Top of Government, but it is 'granted' to the Top by the Bottom, or, stated differently, by the 'Many individuals' at the Bottom. Power is flexible in a Democracy, whereas; in an Autocracy, the Power is all at the Top, and remains at the Top, until, and if there is ever, a change in the form of Government. Many gradations of Autocracy exist; just as there are many gradations of Democracy. Nevertheless, Democracy is a Government "of the People", "by the People", and "for the People". In a Democracy, Power for the use of Government is an Institutional 'grant' to the Office-holders, and only for a duration. Capitalism can only flourish in a Democracy. Democracy could never flourish in a Capitalistic form of Government, or, stated differently, in a Plutocracy.

A Democratic Government and a Capitalistic economy are usually at odds with each other.

Democracy can sometimes conflict with Capitalism. That's because each institution is driven by a different motor. The Freedom and Equality of the Individual, drives Democracy and the profit motive drives Capitalism. That's pretty obvious. Each institution must function within its particular domain. That's not as obvious. The two systems interact on a daily basis and both contribute to the success of the other. Nevertheless, the major problem in Democracy is that the Representatives in Government Offices do not properly represent the people within their particular areas, and instead have individual, selfish motives, for being in Office. Since Political Office 'holds' political power, many individuals compete for Office. While, the Capitalistic economy does not, in fact, have political power, it has great influence. That's why the rich and well-heeled seek political positions. In Office, they have power to try to help or structure the manner in which profits can be increased, guaranteed, or protected. They can pass laws that benefit the economy at the expense of the Freedom and Equality, of the individual. Profits are not a democratic value, and Freedom and Equality are not economic values. That's why most of the monies are held by the 1%. However, their comes a time when the social is confronted with a problem that does not respect 'democratic values' nor 'economic values'. That would be Ebola. Disease does not respect political or economic Institutions. That's the time when, all successful Governments, and all successful economies, can join hands to eradicate such a disease. If, before these events, the Country of origin was not helped to fight, its causes and its spread, its time that successful Nations and successful economies, come to the aid of that Nation. Disease is not a political Institution, nor an economic institution, and it does not respect any political Ideology. Its time that all successful Nations, and all successful economies, come together to fight a 'highly contagious enemy'; and, its time that everyone have more respect for the individuals who are on the 'front lines' trying to help those who have this disease.

The 'People' in their 'condition of togetherness' are 'stronger' than any type of Government.

A People, in a 'condition of togetherness' can be 'stronger' than any form of Government. How can that be, if power exists only at the Top of Government? Simply, Government has Power at the Top, because it is essential, that the Top properly Govern the Bottom. Hence, political Power is an 'institutional power', not a natural power. The People at the Bottom don't have an institutional power, but they have 'strength in Numbers', particularly, in the 'condition of togetherness'. That is a lot closer to a 'natural' source of strength in the 'condition of togetherness'. All the People at the Bottom of any Government constitute the Governed. As such, they exist in a 'condition of togetherness'. If the People in their 'condition of togetherness', peaceably assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances, they can effect 'Governmental power', which exists at the Top, but it must be a justifiable 'assembly'. Of course, that Right to 'assemble, is limited in both an Autocracy, and a Democracy. However, in an Autocracy, an 'assembly' for that purpose would not be tolerated. In a Democracy, if it is a 'peaceable assembly', it must legally be tolerated. Of course, the issue is always the 'peaceable' nature of the assembly. In either case, an 'assembly' of millions of People, at the Bottom of Government, can be a powerful reminder to the Top, that 'all is not well' with the Governing process. People at the Bottom of Government are "not institutions". They are real, and they are human, and they deserve to be Governed in 'political Freedom, and political Equality'. The power at the Top of Government would not exist, if it didn't have People to Govern. If Governments take care of their People, the people will take care of their Governments.

The 'essence' of Democracy is with the People; but Government has a duty to 'institutionally' implement it.

The essence of democracy is at the Bottom of Government, i.e., with the People. However, the duty to implement it is at the Top, with the Three Branches of Government. Obviously democracy cannot be viable if the Top of Government does not 'implement' democracy, or, if the 'branches' of the Executive Branch, like the Police Departments, themselves, violate the cannons of Democracy. The Top and all its Agencies are duty bound to implement democracy. That's their Job, and they have no other job to perform, in the line of their duties. In other words, democracy can go wrong ,both, at the Top and at the Bottom. But, the Top only has a 'Duty' to the Bottom; it does not have a right to 'exercise' some 'preferential agenda'. We have already stated, that in a justifiable Revolution, or 'demonstration', its already time for the Top, to begin to 'listen' to the Bottom. Pure 'adversarial actions', or violence, toward the Bottom is not the answer. That only increases the 'tension' between the Top and the Bottom. The 'incidents' that gave rise to the 'tensions' must be addressed. There has to be a democratic solution, and if 'one' has been suggested, then the problem must be transferred to the 'democratic institution' that exists for the resolution of these types of problems; of course, that would be the Judicial Branch. In a Democracy, all problems of a governmental nature, whether the problem arises at the Bottom, or at the Top, must be 'properly' resolved, i.e., democratically, viz., by the Judicial Branch. Then the Judiciary is duty bound to resolve the issues by the proper 'interpretive practices', i.e., no 'Party loyalty'; no 'ideological differences'; no racial discrimination; or, simply, "no hanky-panky".

Governments may have political power, but the "People" have strength in Numbers.

Governments may have political power, but the people have strength in Numbers. All Governments exist for the purpose of governing their People. That should be obvious, but, unfortunately, some Governments think they have a right to exist as a separate political entity, without any concern or obligation to their people. In other words, some Governments believe they have a right to exist as a separate, independent political entity, with, or, without People. But, how can that be? A Government that has no People to Govern cannot exist. Regardless, the type of Government, People are essential to Government. That's why, a Terroristic Group, without a political agenda, cannot become a legitimate Nation or Government. Of course, the reason for that is that without a political agenda, their can be no 'intent' to set up a government. What, or, who, are they going to govern? 'Justifiable Revolutions' have a purpose and a political agenda, viz., to replace the existing Government, that is not perceived, as functioning properly. A 'Justifiable Revolution' has strength in Numbers, because it 'organizes' and 'animates' all the People at the Bottom of Government. Properly organized, a 'condition of togetherness' at the Bottom of Government, can reestablish a properly functioning Government; one that has the Welfare and the Well Being of all its People, as the primary reason, for existing.

A Government that purports to govern People, must be Triadic.

Any Government that purports to govern 'a People', must be Triadic. Why is that? because the triadic form allows for the interaction of all levels of the governing process. The Top must interact with the Bottom and the sides must 'interpret' that interaction. The Top can be called the "Executive"; the Bottom can be called, "the People" or the "Legislative", and the sides, can be called the Third branch, or the Judiciary. Of course, all Three Branches of Government must function properly. Any 'One' particular Branch, can 'upset the cart' or cause it not to function smoothly. For example; the Executive can abuse its political power; or the Legislative can abuse its 'law making' power, or the Judicial can abuse its 'interpretive function', or abuse its 'interpretive practices' by unjustly adhering to Party Ideology. All Branches are Representative in nature and hence exist only for the purpose of Representing all the People, at the Bottom, as well as the Top. The Executive can abuse its power, by 'causing a War'; 'leading' the Country, 'needlessly', into War; or being 'uninformed' about the International situation, which leads to War. The Legislature can get so involved in the economic situation, or 'money', that it does not consider the 'welfare of the people', and hence is not truly 'representative' in nature. The Judiciary can misuse its interpretive practices, for 'political', or 'Party ideology', purposes, instead of, Objectively interpreting the Constitution. So, the basic organization of Government into Three Branches, is only the 'beginning' of a viable Democracy. But,a Three Branch Government, can be caused to function properly by the very People who constitute it. A Good Government must function representatively, smoothly, and Democratically.

'Law and Order' underlie all Political Systems.

Law and Order underlies all political systems. Whether Autocratic or Democratic, Law and Order is a prerequisite to all Governments. However, the type, structure, or kind of Law is different in the different Governmental systems. In a Democracy the Laws are passed by the People in their Representative capacity and rendered into Statutes. That would be Statutory Law. There is also a Common Law which is something akin to 'common sense'. Law 'regulates' the interactions of the People with themselves and with their social Institutions. The bottom line in all legislative enactments is the Freedom and Equality assured each and every Individual. The Freedom and Equality of the individual cannot be usurped. To be sure, any Law that usurps the Freedom and Equality of the Individual can be challenged as being Unconstitutional. Of course, Law becomes a 'malleable concept' that is attuned to the evolving social. Law is an extension of the Power to govern. It is a necessity to the Top, because the Power, situated at the Top, must reach all the way down to the Individuals at the Bottom. At that point, Law becomes Order. The two terms are pretty much interchangeable. In an Autocratic form, there is a big difference in the source and application of Law. The People themselves do not pass law, but are subject to Law. Law emanates from the Top and its purpose is to protect the Power at the Top. All law comes from the Top and the People have very little say-so. Of course, they also require some kind of Order at the Bottom, but the purpose is to insure that the Power stays at the Top.

The Bottom of all Governments are real people. There is no real power at the Bottom, only influence.

The Bottom of all Governments are real People, but there is no 'real power' at the Bottom, only 'influence'. However, in a Democratic form of Government, the People at the Bottom, can ascend the 'ladder' of 'political influence', and acquire 'real Power'. Real Power exists only as a result of an Institutional grant of Power. The Top of all Governments have real Power; the Top of Democratic Government, acquires Power from its 'political Institutions'. Without political Institutions there wouldn't be any 'real Power' in the World. In a Democracy the People at the Bottom have varying degrees of political 'influence', but no individual has real power, unless s/he has assumed 'political Office', and then, only temporarily. Whereas, Autocratic forms of Government, have also, acquired political power at the Top, but, from, "I don't know where"? In Autocracies, People at the Top can have Institutional 'real Power', but, the Bottom doesn't have Power, or, for that matter, Influence, hence, the Bottom is relatively, helpless and at the mercy of the Top. Whereas, in a Democracy, the people can elect different Peoples to the Top. Usually, and unfortunately, influence is a concept 'tied' to the economic area of society, or, more plainly, "money". Money may have an influence in a Democracy, but its not Power; which explains why wealthy People compete for Political Office, and why money keeps making 'inroads' into Politics.

There is no Power in the human condition; there is only Freedom and Equality.

There is no Power in the human condition; there is only Freedom and Equality. Freedom and Equality means 'political freedom' and 'political equality'; and that, arises from the fact that the Bottom lives in a 'condition of togetherness' and the Top needs Power in order to govern, and its the Bottom that grants it political power, but it must do so, by respecting and protecting the Freedom and Equality of all Individuals. The Power of Government is a 'democratic grant' to the political organization, but the Freedom and Equality of the Individual, is inherent in the human condition. The human condition, or Life is the 'sacred possession' of each and every Individual that constitutes the Governed. One individual, may be different from another, but be assured, all are equally human and all are politically free. The political grant of power to the Top is an Institutional grant so long as the Government protects and respects the sacredness of the human condition. Without People to Govern, the Top would not exist. If there is no Top, there is no Government, and hence, no Political Power. But, since we must live in a 'condition of togetherness', the People need Government, and that Government, must be Democratic, and it must protect and respect the human condition, because its the 'condition of togetherness', that makes Government 'necessary', and its the Bottom, in a democracy, that grants the Top the power to Govern. Without Political Power, the Individual at the 'Top', is just another 'free and equal' human being.

In a World of human beings, 'Power', as such, does not exist.

In a World of human beings, Power, as such, does not exist. By this statement, I mean that power is not an attribute of the Human Condition. For example; The statement, "some humans are born with Power, and some are not", is not a valid statement. All humans are equal, regardless their Race, Color, or creed. Some, may be physically 'stronger', than Others, or, 'smarter', than others, or have more 'possessions' or 'money', than Others, but no human being is born with 'Power', or 'more Power', than another. Power is an attribute of the 'Polity', called "Nation"; its a political attribute, because political Power, is necessary in order to have some 'control' of the Many at the 'Bottom'. The need for a 'Top' is essential to all Governments. A 'Top' and a 'Bottom', is the only way to establish Government, by One, or a few, of the Many, at the Bottom. Of course, the Bottom is the Governed and the Top are the 'Governors'. In a Democracy the Bottom 'fills in' the Top. Nevertheless, all Governments, whether Democracies or not, should look out for the 'welfare of their own People'. Government has no other reason for existing. Its interesting to note, that on the International sphere, more and more Governments, are trying to become Democracies. That's commendable, but its no use trying to limit the political expression, of Democratic Government; your either a Democracy, or your not. The World belongs to all the People in the World.

No system of Government is perfect; even Democracy has many problems.

To be sure, Democracy has many problems, but those problems can be 'corrected'. They can be corrected because democracy is a government of the People, and hence the People are in a position to re-structure their social institutions, and pass laws, as the political need arises. Whereas, Autocratic forms are less susceptible to change, whether at the Top or the Bottom. Obviously, Autocracies will not tolerate 'free expression' or 'unregulated activity' as would a Democracy, and they do not tolerate, a change in the form of the Government. An Autocratic form is very 'fixed' and since it always acts from the Top, the Peoples at the Bottom are left 'unattended', whereas, in a Democracy, although the Top is also 'fixed', the Top 'governs' the Freedom and Equality of the Individual, at the Bottom. Hence, the welfare of the Individual is a big part of Government policy, in the Democratic form. Of course, there are still many problems, but the important thing is that once the problems are 'perceived', the Representatives are in a position to correct the problems. No system of Government is perfect. But, a Democracy is flexible enough to correct undemocratic practices, and to realign the 'institutions and laws' at the Bottom. Democracy is very flexible. Theoretically, Democracy cannot be improved, because its a Government, of the People, by the People, and for the same People who constitute it; nevertheless, its 'institutional and legal' implementation, can be 'smoothed out' considerably.

Can Democracy be 'limited' in its 'political expression'?

Can a Democratic form of government be limited? No, any 'limitation' placed on democracy would render the Government not truly democratic. Can an Autocracy, or Dictatorship, or Plutocracy, or Oligarchy, be limited? Its unlikely because the Top of Government has already established the 'parameters' of its Political power. However, since the power resides at the Top, the Top is certainly free to make whatever changes it wishes. But, the reason I said it was unlikely, is because the locus of power has already been institutionally situated, and hence a change of mind by the Top is not very likely. However, Democracy cannot be restricted or limited because in a Democracy the power is 'granted' to the Top, but its a 'political grant' that emanates from the Bottom. A Government is either a Democracy or its not. There can be no dilution of democratic power, nor of the Freedom and Equality of the Individual at the Bottom. Power emanates from the Bottom and the Individual is assured his/her Freedom and Equality, and that, cannot be encroached upon. Of course, there is always the necessity of compliance with Law, and Law must contour the manner by which the Freedom and Equality is expressed. Law and Order are necessary because you cannot have one without the other. My point is autocracies can be modified to allow more freedoms, because all the power is at the Top, and hence the Top can change, if it so wishes, nevertheless, its very unlikely. Whereas, in a Democracy, the power emanates from the Bottom, and is transferred to the Top, and the Top must insure the Freedom and Equality of all the Individuals at the Bottom. In other words, democracies are governments of the People, by the People, and for the People.

Is Terrorism the same as a Revolution?

Although, the word "terror" has been around for a long time, and purportedly arose during the French Revolution, the word, "Terrorism", became 'common coinage' around the time of 9-11. It was first recorded in English, in 1866, as 'extreme radical and revolutionary groups' in Russia. However, its somewhat unimaginable, how an "extreme Radical" and Revolutionary groups", can be equated with Terrorism. Of course, I speak about a Democracy. In an established Democracy a "Revolution" is recognized as a "peaceable assembly". Of course, there are exceptions and many 'demonstrations' and 'revolutionary activities' can become 'extreme', and be less then peaceable. Nevertheless, they never reach a point where the term "Terrorism" is applied. Why is that? In Revolutions, the purpose is always to bring about a 'change in the Government', or, the "policies of the Government", or to establish a 'new Government'. What is the purpose of terrorism, and what does it hope to 'change' or to 'accomplish'? Terrorism seems to be for the sole purpose of 'terror'. It does not seem to have a 'political program'; nor an established political ideology, its pure unadulterated terror. Although its a prime example, of what 'many individuals' or 'Number' can accomplish, it has no goal and, hence, eventually, will 'self-destruct'. Every Individual is free to complain about his/her government, but to 'demonstrate' by causing 'terror' is not the answer. Every Government is composed of Leaders at the Top, and the Many, or Individuals, at the Bottom. The Top is what has to change in a Revolution, not the 'elimination' of the Many or the human race at the Bottom. It may be true, that without human beings, there is no need of Government, but that, would only mean that the 'goal of terrorism' is to eliminate the human race. How can it not self-destruct?

Democracy can sometimes be 'unwieldly'.

Democracy, as a form of Government, can sometimes be 'unwieldy'. The reason being that Democratic Institutions can sometimes impede an immediate 'response', or a total 'inclusions' or 'exclusion' of democratic values, by the Bottom of Government, or by the People, at the Bottom. The 'immediate response' applies more on the International level than on a National level. The 'need' for an 'immediate response' applies to the International Level; while a less immediate, and more inclusive or exclusive consideration, applies to the National Level. In either case, a consideration of the people's welfare should always be the primary consideration, in all Government policy. Of course, on the International sphere, it sometimes becomes necessary to act with immediacy; that means by 'pure power'. Nevertheless, in a Democracy, the consideration of the welfare of the Nations People should always be a primary motive. Hence, Internationally, a Democracy should not act from 'selfish motives' of the Top, but from 'democratically', or, 'representational' motives. The primary concern in all democracies are the People at the Bottom of Government, who have 'granted' the power of 'representation' to the Top. Of course, an Autocracy, that does not care about its People, doesn't worry about those principles. But, Autocracies are 'weak' at the Top, because they may not have the support of the Bottom, in their decision process. But, Democracies are always stronger, because the Peoples welfare, is always a consideration in their governments activity of 'pure power'. In a Democracy, the Bottom always supports the Top, and the Top, always Represents, the Bottom. Democracies, do not, or, should not, act impetuously or hastily, because, they know that they will always have the support of the People, in a proper 'representational activity'.

Can a Revolution be a 'means' to establish a new form of Government?

Can a Revolution be a 'means' to establish a 'new form' of Government? Yes and No. Yes, if the purpose of the Revolution is justifiable. What can that mean? Well, if the Revolution is 'founded' on the fact that the Government is 'abusing', 'not respecting', or, 'not recognizing' the 'political Rights' of the Individuals being Governed. If such is the case and the Revolutionaries intend to set up a different government; one that respects the freedom and Equality of the Peoples who are the governed, possibly the Revolution is justified. In different words, a Revolution is for the purpose of correcting a "political wrong". That way of looking at the Revolutionary spirit may be correct, but its also important to 'delineate' or 'declare' the 'political wrong' that is being corrected. There are many reasons to be dissatisfied with a form of Government. Its important to remember that the wrong to be 'corrected' be a 'political wrong'. A 'political wrong' arises from the act of governing a 'condition of togetherness'. There are political wrongs and there are 'human Rights' and 'human wrongs'. For example; a human being is born with human dignity and is 'equally human'. There are no distinctions in human life. Government does not 'grant' that privilege. Government only insures that each and every Individual under its care, will respect and recognize, 'that natural Right' in the Other humans among which S/he lives in 'togetherness'. Government only 'governs', and should do so, in Equality and Justice. It has no other purpose for existing. If Government is abusing the human Rights of the Individuals, the Revolution is justified. However, the purpose of the Revolution must be to establish a 'more just Government'. It cannot be for the sole purpose of replacing the Top with someone else who is equally unjust. That would be a mere 'power struggle'.

On the International sphere, Nations are not equal; nevertheless, all Nations are 'equal in power'.

A Democracy can assume many distorted forms. A Democracy is usually described as a Government, "of the People", "by the People", and "for the People". Of course, the terms, "of", "by", and "for", have very specific meanings. The term, "of" means of the People who are the subjects of the Government. The term, "by" means, by the same People, who are to be Governed; and the term, "for" means for the 'benefit' of the People who are to be governed. All Governments are 'of People', and all governments are by, 'some kind' of people; there are no Governments that have a 'Top' that is 'not human'. Hence, the requirements that democracy be "of People" and "by People", is not problematic, so long as those Representatives come from the same group to be governed. The largest area of problems in democracies is the requirement that 'governing' be "for the People". What constitutes Government "for the People". Obviously, that implies a strong connection to the 'direction' required of the act of governing. Those issues apply on a National basis. However, on the International sphere, Democratic Government can very easily deviate from the 'direction' suggested by democratic principles. The reason being that Internationally, a Democratic Nation interacts with other Nations, that may be Democratic, or, may not be democratic. Nations, as between themselves, are not equal. Nevertheless, all Nations are 'equal in power'. If there is to be an International Government, all Nations must have 'Equal power'. That's 'pure power', and the People of a Nation, do not have to be 'directly privy' to the 'relations' taking place on the International sphere. Nevertheless, a Democratic Nation must take into account the fact that any problematic on the International sphere, may lead to War, and hence, involve its People. On the International sphere, Power is a 'given' and must be exercised very carefully. Failure to resolve International government issues on the International sphere can lead to War. Failure to resolve National Issues leads to 're-shuffling' of elected officials.

When 'justifiable' Revolutions take place, its time to listen.

When 'justifiable Revolutions' take place, its time for the leaders of a Nation to listen. The Leaders of Nations are primarily obligated to the 'People' of the Nation. In other words, 'all is not well' within the Nation. The problematic could be a National issue or it could be an International issue. Of course, the People, or, the Bottom of Government, are not authorized to legislate or take 'personal part' in the many issues on the International sphere, but they are surely entitled to their opinion, and to express that opinion. Its time for leaders to listen and seriously consider the 'promptings' that lead to a Revolution. A Nations People, regardless of the form of government, are the 'constituents' of that Nation. No Nation can exist without a People, and the primary obligation of a Nation is to its People. A political entity, viz. a Nation, cannot exist without its People. Since, its always the People who express the strength of a Nation, and, on the International sphere, the power of a Nation, is always 'expressed' by the People who help defend it, and by those who give their Life for it. All 'Forms of Governments' are abstractions and completely dependent on their People. Without People, a Nation or a Government would be an empty political entity. No Nation has power because its an abstract Nation; it has power because it has a People. Of course, a Nation can marshal all its institutional force against its own People, but that has a 'deconstructive effect'. It cannot last long without the strength of its People. Its better, to listen, to reconsider, modify, or attenuate, or, to cancel its International activities, or, its National activities. On the International sphere, a Nation cannot be stronger than other Nations, all have equal power, and that 'pure power', will always be there, no matter how large, or how small, the Nation might be. On the National sphere, keep your 'People together', you might need them.

The only way for Individuals to influence International Politics, is to influence National Politics.

Obviously, Individuals at the Bottom of government, cannot influence International politics. Equally obvious, is the fact that the International situation is being 'motored' by 'pure power'. But, the Individual does have an influence on the National sphere, and hence, must relate to the International by 'means' of the National. Since, most Individuals who wish to influence the International, do not act in a Representative way, their only recourse, is to influence the National sphere to the extent that they demonstrates their displeasure of the International situation. Of course, that means 'Demonstrations' or 'Revolution'. There are no Other ways. The International functions with "Pure Power", and the National functions with "Representational Power". However, the loss of 'human life' in the National sphere, is grounds for intervention, in the only manner possible, on the International sphere, viz., people must act against the conduct of their Representatives on the International sphere. Of course, this 'apparent rule' of conduct in Politics, does not apply to purported 'acts of terrorism'. Terrorism is not a 'Political entity' and its not a 'National' entity; its an act by 'human beings' against 'human beings'. There are no 'boundaries' to 'terrorism'. But, the International sphere, which functions with pure power, must learn to get along with other Nations, or possibly face, 'Demonstrations or Revolutions', at 'home'. Many 'demonstrations' and some 'Revolutions' are justifiable.

'National Politics' can bring about a 'Revolution'; 'International Politics', can bring about 'War'.

The term "politics" covers a wide area of activity; politics on the National sphere is different from politics on the International sphere. Nationally, it concerns the exercise of 'power' between a 'Top' and a 'Bottom'. On a National sphere, this relation involves the 'inner organization' of a National political entity, and the relation between the Top of the entity and the Bottom of the entity, where its People reside. Every Nation has a National 'politics', or, a Government that 'governs its People', and a Bottom, or, all its People, 'living in a condition of togetherness'. Of course, many issues can arise between a Government and its own People. However, on the International sphere, the political situation is entirely different. Nations, as in the case of individuals, do not, and cannot, live in 'isolation'. Even Nations must exist in a 'condition of togetherness'. But the relationship between Nations is different from the relationship between a Nation and its People. In the relationship between a Nation and its People, one finds many different 'forms' of government; e.g., Dictatorships, Autocracy, Aristocracy, Plutocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy,'enclaves', and even, in the 'so-called', less civilized parts of the World, tribes, and small 'groups' of human beings. This 'relationship' can be called a 'National' type of relationship, or a 'manner of relating' between the Top of 'government' and the Bottom. However, on the International sphere, 'each Nation' is already an 'established political entity', regardless its type of National organization, and is entitled to an 'equal political posture' in its relations with other Nations. The 'relation' is one of 'pure power'. So how does one Nation get along with other Nations - that are 'political equals'- within the International sphere? That's a problematic. A Nation may not be as 'powerful' on the home front as it sets itself up on the International sphere, where 'all' are equals in power. Nevertheless, all Nations, in the exercise of pure power, must also learn to live in a 'condition of togetherness'. An uprising, on the National sphere is called a "Revolution"; an uprising, between Nations, on the International sphere, is called "War". While neither is 'good', "Wars" are worse, and 'more contagious', than "Revolutions". Why can't human beings get along?

Power is an attribute of Governmenmt; and Law 'contours' that power.

Power is an attribute of Government; and the Law is the means by which it 'contours' that power. Of course, Law is a very broad discipline, but a few conjectures can be made about it. Law, in a broad sense, 'regulates' governing and it also regulates the 'behavior' of the Governed. Hence, it permeates the entire 'social' and 'economic' Institutions therein. It regulates the relations between individuals, and between, the individual and the economic and social Institutions in the social; e.g., it sets forth the 'necessary conditions' for 'creating' a corporation ( more on that later), Hence, Law helps the 'governing process', but it does not limit the 'expression of life' by any one human being. There's more to 'living' in a democracy, than being 'law-abiding'. Nevertheless, Law is essential to a proper 'governing' and a proper regulating of the Many Individuals at the Bottom of Government, and at the same time, is only applied in the 'proper place' and at the 'proper Time'. A Social, cannot survive and live in harmony, without 'governing' and Law. The 'ultimate expression' or, 'primary expression' of our legal system, of course, is found in "The Constitution". The Constitution, and its mandates and descriptions, governs all Laws; that's why the Judicial Branch of the Government should be, and must be, objective. But, is the Judiciary objective? Of course not. One reason for that, is the division into Party Systems i.e., 'preferential politics'. All Branches of Government are 'peopled' by Representatives who must 'stay' within the 'confines' of law, but there are also 'moral standards'. Law does not mandate 'morals', and a clear distinction, between Law and Morality must be made. An Individual can be 'perfectly' moral, and quite 'illegal'; or perfectly 'legal', and quite 'immoral'. The Legal aspect is mandatory in the social; the moral, while 'polite, prudent', and wise', is not mandatory. Hence, again, the problematic of the human condition. We need 'Statesmen', who follow the Constitution; not 'politicians', who follow Party politics; and 'Statesmen', or 'states-persons', are hard to find.

Only Government has power; not the economy, not the private sector, and not the Individual.

Only government can house power, because 'governing' is in the nature of Government. Obviously, the economy cannot govern, because its 'nature' is to make 'profits'. The economy knows how to make profits; it does 'not know how to govern'. Of course, that does not mean that a 'good' candidate from the economy, would not make a good political 'Office Holder'. Nevertheless, the goal of political office is to govern and that can only be accomplished by Government, regardless of the economic institutions that are beneficial to the People. Democratic Government governs with Freedom and Equality of the individual, or, its not 'governing', or its not Democratic. Freedom and Equality has absolutely no connection to making profits by means of the competitive spirit; its the reverse, the competitive spirit is only possible where there is 'governing' in 'Freedom and Equality' of the individual, which would include Freedom and Equality in the economy. Try 'economic aggressiveness', 'economic vision', 'economic competition', in an Autocracy or even a Plutocracy, and I assure you, that cannot be done. An Autocracy and a Plutocracy also have power. That's because they are forms of Government and its only Government that has power. The economy cannot have power, but the Plutocracy or Autocracy will protect its Governmental arrangement by eliminating the competition in the economy. Hence, the economy does not house power, neither does the individual, based on his/her economic accomplishments; the only source of Power is in a political arrangement; and in a Democratic arrangement, only the Democratic form of Government has Power. Plutocracy has two 'faces'; it will create 'more profits', than it already has, or, it will 'defend' the profits it already has. It does not care for Freedom and Equality of the individual, or, Freedom and Equality in the economy.

'Terrorism' is not a Revolution; 'Terrorism' does not have a political agenda; 'Terrorism' does not have a Country.

Terrorism is not a Revolution, which occurs within any one Country, nor is it an act of War by one Country against another. In actually, it does not have a political agenda. If it claims to be political, it must describe and define its political goals. Violence, for the sake of violence, is unidirectional, in the sense that it will be perpetrated on 'anyone', or 'everyone'. The goal of terror is simply the destruction of human life. How can a few, or even Many, individuals act violently against other human beings, without political reasons for the act, other than the destruction of human life. Without a political agenda, it will self-destruct. Ask yourself, who is the Leader? Who will protect the Leader, from someone else who wants to be Leader. What is the hierarchy in a terroristic 'organization', if it can be said that it is an 'organization'? What are its goals, or since we've said that it has no political goals, who are its friends, or who are its next victims? Will the next victim be someone from within the group, or from, without the Group. Terrorism cannot end with the establishment of a new Country or Nation, because that is not its goal. It will continue to implement Terror, until it implements 'itself' out of existence. Terrorism is anti-democratic; its anti- autocratic; Its anti- Plutocratic; its anti-Oligarchic; its anti-Government; its anti-Nation; its anti-'Top'; its the 'human condition', at the Bottom, 'gone wrong'. How sad.

The Top of all Governments have 'power'; the Bottom of all Governments are constituted of 'real People'.

The Top of all Governments have 'Political Power'; but the Bottom of all Governments have 'strength in Numbers'. That's a fact. No one can deny the existence of those 'conditions' within a Nation. The dichotomy between a Top and a Bottom in the arrangement of every Government is 'basic and fundamental'. But, that fact does not mean the 'tension' between the Top and the Bottom must be 'antagonistic'. To the contrary, there must be a harmony between the two Institutions and all 'internal struggles' should be to attain that 'degree of harmony', and the Freedom and Equality, promised by the form of government. The Form of Government, or, the Top, is without power unless it supports the Freedom and Equality of its People. The Government, as some 'isolated function of power' cannot exist. It has no necessity to exist, but for the purpose of governing 'a People'. The State, Government, and political power, does not exist ipso facto. It needs People. The State, Government, political Power, needs 'a People', in order to exist; but, the People of a Nation needs Governing because of the Many, or, its 'condition of togetherness'. Hence, there should be no opposition between the Top and the Bottom, only cooperation, working together, and mutual effort to insure the Freedom and Equality of the Individual. Every Nation, Country, Leader of a Nation, that thinks its necessary to precipitate War, should be required to ask each and ever individual within its borders, if s/he is willing to die for his/her Nation, in pursuit of the 'political agenda' that its pursuing. The Top never fights, it just demands or gives orders; its the People that pay the price for a 'political agenda'. That's what makes politics such a 'dirty game'; a real human life can be 'extinguished' as a result of some 'abstract political gain'. 'Politics' is abstract and 'non-sense'; the State is 'abstract and a fiction', 'political power' does 'not exist', but for 'the People' that 'give it'. But, the People that die are very 'real'. What then is "War" between Nations?

No Nation is perfect; some Nations are 'badly' organized into political Institutions.

No Nation is perfect; some are badly organized into political Institutions. Being badly organized, is already a 'bad place' to start, but then again, the 'human condition' is itself, not perfect either. Of course, this brings us back to the constitution of a Democracy. But, I don't want to emphasize that too strongly,( just now) at the very beginning of an analysis of our political Institutions. Examine the nature of political Institutions and we find that Individual, or Individuals, first initiated or organized themselves into a political Institution. Of course, the Family was the first 'human Institution', but as humans began to multiply, humans began to organize into small groups, which grew larger and larger. Eventually, the groups in a particular geographical area organized themselves into tribes, etc. with an Identity that applied to the particular area. These Families and 'small groups', or tribes, can be called 'political institutions', but they are held together by 'blood', not the political Institution. All political Institutions are held together by 'Law', 'social mores', political power, or, something similar, but that only means that Individuals within the Nation can do things, this way, and not the other way. So where and when did Nations begin to form an Identity, and set boundaries to a geographical area that attributes an identity, to that area, and establishes a Political Identity? Of course, this is the point where, the history of the 'peopling' of the area, and the 'forms of Governments', begin to be institutionalized. Where do Nations get their Power? Well, we know that its always the People in a 'condition of togetherness' that is basic to the 'forms' of the first Governments. Its their Government, its the Peoples government. Here, enters democracy. So what are the problems of a Democracy? The big answer, is the 'imperfect Individuals' that are 'necessary' to the democracy, and that are, themselves 'imperfect'. 'God' help the Planet; 'God' help the human condition. How can People begin to 'see' that every Individual is the same, no matter the geographic area, or, the political Institution? Democratic, or not, a Political Institution, should mean, 'living together' in the best way possible.

Can Democracy 'go wrong'; Can Revolutions 'go wrong'?

Can Democracy 'go wrong'? Absolutely. It could very well turn into the exercise of pure 'political power' without the inclusion of the Freedom and Equality of the human being. The goal of democratic government is to insure and protect the Freedom and Equality of the Individual. Can a Revolution go wrong? Absolutely. It could easily go from a focused revolution against a particular form of Government that does not protect the Freedom and Equality of the Individual, and 'transforms' into a mere exercise of 'violence' against the 'human condition'. That 'type of Revolution' transforms into a 'political activity' that has International implications because all governments are constituted, at the Bottom, of the Many, or, the 'Peoples of the World'. In other words, a Revolution that occurs within a Nation, but does not remain in the Nation, is not really a Revolution. In general, its an exercise of 'violence' against the human condition, regardless of the Nations, 'wherein' the humans live. In different words, both sides of the 'stick' can be manipulated for the benefit of the 'Autocratic impulse' or 'attitude' towards the 'human condition'. In a Democracy, it effects the Government; in a Revolution, it effects the 'human condition' on an International scale. The Right to 'peaceably assemble' that every human being has, must remain within the Nation, where the Right is being exercised. If it 'seeps out' or is 'directed' into the International scale, it is no longer a Revolution. Of course, we now have a new 'term' for that phenomena, its called 'Terroristic' activity. If a Nation fights against another 'Nation', as a 'Nation', its called "War"; if 'People' have legitimately 'assembled for redress of grievances', within a Nation, it can be called a 'Demonstration' or, if 'sufficiently strong', a Revolution, but, if a few or many Individuals organize themselves to destroy the 'human condition', regardless of where its 'found', and, 'except for themselves', its called "terrorism". Eventually, 'terrorism' will 'self-destruct', 'within itself' because, it will 'turn against' its 'own self'. A Democracy, 'gone wrong', can be 're-defined' and re-arranged; A 'real Revolution', gone wrong, will eventually, 'find' its democratic basis; Terrorism, will eventually self-destruct from 'within', because its based on 'destruction'.

The 'Tops' of all Governments, house 'political power'; but 'political power' is a 'fiction'.

The Top of Democratic Government, 'houses' power. Of course, the Top of 'every form' of Government also 'houses power'. That's the only place in the World with Power. Power is an 'attribute' of the 'State' and the State has been called a 'fiction'. Other than in a political organization, there is no such thing as 'power' in the World. An 'attribute' of the State, or Government, is as 'fictitious' as is the 'State' or 'Government'. The only 'real thing' that exists in the World is the 'human world' and the 'animal world'. Of course, there's also the 'plant' world, but its not necessary to go into that. Fortunately or unfortunately, the Human World fell into 'geographical patterns', called 'different Nations'. Each Nation, organized itself into a political and governmental entity. Power became essential, so that the Top of the organization could govern the Bottom of the organization. Nevertheless, the 'power' is also a 'fictitious thing'. If the State itself is a fiction, so is the power it wields. It cannot be said that, since the State or government is absolutely necessary in the 'condition of togetherness', we must make the 'power of the State into a 'real' power. Its still unreal, surreal, or whatever you like, but the fact is that power does not exist in the World. To say that 'Power' is politically essential, is not to say, that its 'real'. The only thing that exists in the World, is the 'human condition', and its 'integrity', 'uniqueness', and 'self-government'. If we cannot 'Govern Ourselves', how can we govern the Other? That's the aspect of every Government( the People) that must learn, how to live in Freedom and Equality. The Goal, or duty, of every Government, should be to allow the People, at the Bottom, to attain to the highest degree of Freedom and Equality. There is no other reason for having Government.