How can Capitalism help Democracy?

Capitalism received lots of help from government when it allowed businesses to incorporate. Business, in a Democracy, has always been a competitive affair. However, the freedom of citizens to compete with each other was rendered futile.( Although competition can still function on a smaller scale). The same can be said of the political concept of Equality. Once the corporate structure surfaced, equality between 'persons' in the economy, went out the window. Of course, any person who wishes, and has the 'where-with all', can form a corporation, but it has to have certain features, like a Board of Directors, a certain amount of capital, Articles of Incorporation, etc.. And even some individuals who use the corporate structure are not in the same 'economic boat'. There are small corporations that remain small. But, the problematic arises with huge corporations. The big corporation are 'small governments' within a larger National Government. But 'corporation-persons' only govern the functioning of the corporation within the economy. Nevertheless, because of the 'substitution' of money in place of the political values of 'freedom and equality', they have a large influence in the political aspects of the Nation. Since government, wittingly or unwittingly, helped create corporate structures, and by doing so, rendered freedom to compete and equality of 'personhood', relatively useless, why not impose a heavier tax-burden on them. ( originally, the Tax burden on profits was 90%, then 70%, and now is equal to that of the 'real individuals' in the social.) Also, couldn't they be required to contribute to so-called charitable work, as do 'real' persons who participate in 'social work'. The 'poorer' sections of cities could also stand some help. Whatever they do to contribute to real democracy could be a deductible item. They have to keep 'books' and 'records' of all activities they engage in, so keep track, get a deduction, etc., and contribute towards real democracy. It seems 'obscene' for a huge 'person' only to want to be 'more huge'.( in another 'language' that's called 'greed'. Corporations could play an 'equitable' and a 'balancing' role in society. They are the ones driving the government towards 'socialism'.

Party loyalty can 'limit' democracy

All Party ideology within a Democratic Nation should be 'designed' to benefit the People at the Bottom of Democratic Government. There're no such thing as a 'self-serving' party, nor any other politically, selfish factors, within a democratically structured government. The recent tensions between Democrats and Republicans seem to be ideological tensions, as distinguished from 'democratic tensions'. All tensions within a competing Party-system in a democratic government should be resolvable to the 'benefit' of the People. However, if either of the two parties is more concerned with Party ideology than with the millions of people in a democracy, its not a 'democratic' Party. It becomes a Party that was organized to benefit the political power within the structure of the Party-system, which can then be used as a means for self-aggrandizement. This is not the fault of the structure of government, but the 'failing' of the 'intent' of the individual within the Party system. If any Party is more concerned with perpetuating its position within the power structure of a democracy, it does not have the People 'at heart'. All 'political issues' or differences between Parties should be resolvable to the benefit of the People. That's what we are; we are a Democracy; a government of the People, by the People, and for the People; not a government of the 'rich'( Plutocracy), nor a government of a 'select few'( Oligarchy). Hence, the issues between most 'political antagonisms', can be resolved by asking oneself, " How can the people better benefit from a resolution of this antagonism". If the answer is, Well, "it will benefit me", or, "it will benefit corporations" or, "it will benefit the ideology within my Party", then the effort is not 'democratic'; it becomes a 'wasted effort' that could have benefited the People. If a sitting President says,"I'll by-pass Congress, if I have to, and benefit the People 'directly',(to avoid political maneuvering); that would be real democracy.

What party-loyalty 'brings forth'.

We have already mentioned the harmful effects of so-called Party loyalty. Party-loyalty by any name could be properly based on differing versions of what is good for Democracy. Of course, in a Democracy, no political party should be against Democracy, since that is the underlying political principle that permits, in the first place, those 'differing' Parties to exist. That's only common sense. The subtle injection of economic values into the political sphere is very easy, but that is not democratic, and can result in a common, but harmful mistake. Basically, the harmful result is a re-valuation of basic democratic values. Money and economic values do not constitute a 'democratic principle'. Although this is sometimes difficult to see, the substitution of economic values for Democratic values can result in the eventual transformation of Democracy into a Plutocracy. Money and economic success has no bearing on the basis of democratic values, viz. the Freedom and Equality of every individual. Democracy does not, and cannot, function on an economic or profit motive. The subtle substitution that only permits the wealthy or well-to-do to participate in political activity is harmful to democratic values. Freedom and equality are the only fundamental values of a democracy, otherwise we place money and possessions as a condition for being involved in politics. The economy in a democracy is important, but it can never be the driving force behind the political values of Freedom and Equality. The economy does not function on the basis of Freedom and Equality and Democracy does not function on the basis of profits and possessions. The principles underlying participation in political activity must recognize the Freedom and Equality of every individual, otherwise, we are just giving lip-service to Democracy, and practicing Plutocracy. That is not a 'democratic result'.

In Democracy, the Top comes from the Bottom

In a real democracy the Top of governing comes from the Bottom, or from the People. In other forms, the Top functions by a different principle. Of course, the other forms of government, are also 'run' by 'individuals from the bottom', but the 'claim' to power is different from that of Democracy. In the Divine Right of Kings form, the Top claims 'Divine guidance' in the establishment of 'Rule' or 'Government'. In Dictatorship, the 'Top' is 'assumed' or 'taken' by force. In Plutocracy, Government is rule by the 1%. In Oligarchy, Rule is by the 'select few' who are, apparently, guided by power( not necessarily money). In any case, in non-democratic forms of government, the People have, little to no, influence. But, in a democracy, the People are the very source of political power. In a real democracy, the People at the Bottom are considered the essence of government. It is they, by way of the Constitution, who confer power to Political Office. Elections are the means of selecting those who will assume the positions of power. But, unfortunately, even elections are subject to tampering. (Leave it to the ingenuity of human kind to find ways around anything, even elections.) For example, stuffing ballot boxes; tampering with voting machines; erroneous counting methods; requiring I.D.'s for voting; and the favorite , Gerrymandering; and, I'm sure, many other ways. The question, I have relates to the use of the computer to implement the voting process. Computers and science, both, have 'quantified' a 'language' that has led us into 'Quantum mechanics' and the 'Quantum Universe', but we still live in the 'everyday world'. We are told that we live in a 'quantum world', and we can't count 'votes' properly in a Democracy? How can our technology be used to properly count votes in the everyday world in which we live? We count the People( Census), why can't we count their votes without having to 'go to the polls'? In a Democracy the Top comes from the Bottom. Are the 'Polls' outdated?

Are 'demonstrations' democratic?

Yes, they are 'presumed' democratic because they are 'organized' and designed to bring about change. Is it the right kind of change? That will have to remain a 'presumption' until the reasons for the demonstration have been 'aired' and set out. If they have already been 'set out', and they relate to the freedom and equality of the individuals at the Bottom of government, the demonstration is democratic. The words 'is democratic', 'means' the right to "peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances". The People in every type of government, regardless the type, have an inherent right to demonstrate. If Government abuses its power to govern all the People under its jurisdiction, in an equal manner, 'demonstrations' are the only way to make known the 'wishes' of the Bottom. Of course, this presupposes that the 'demonstration' began as a 'request' and that, having failed, resort to Numbers becomes a necessity. The 'strength' of the 'condition of togetherness' of the People must be respected. Government can never be more important than the People it purports to 'govern'. A demonstration is not an election; but is the only way to let the Top know what has become necessary. The only solution for the Top is to 'listen', but if its not doing that, it is creating a tension between the Top and the Bottom. "Petitioning for Redress of grievances" becomes a necessity. 'Demonstration' is a tool of democracy, but demonstrations can be used within any form of government. The People cannot be ignored, its their world. The 'strength' is with Numbers and the Numbers are at the Bottom of government. Even so-called, Power at the Top or the One, has to listen to the Bottom. The people are the Many and its their world.

What should be the motive for becoming a States-Person?

Do individuals who seek political office have a reason or motive for seeking Office? Obviously, they must; but, what should that motive be? Of course, all Politicians and States-Persons come from the People who constitute that particular Nation. The individual at the Top is always a 'member' of the populace. But, what political values should such an individual 'possess' or what political values can justify the assumption of the political position? Of course, any 'political position' is a position of Power, because it purports to Rule, Govern, or Dictate. If the Top of government dictates, it's a Dictatorship and it dictates, period. No other considerations need to be addressed. If the Top rules, it Rules, period. But, if the Top Governs, it must have a 'platform' and a general idea of what it means 'to govern'. In a Democracy, the individual who ascends to the Top must do so to govern the People at the Bottom. There should not be any other motive for purporting to govern. The only reason or motive for 'running' for Office in a Democratic government should be to implement, or better perfect, democracy. This already requires the individual to be less selfish and to act in a 'representative' manner; in a selfless manner. This necessity should compel the candidate to embrace democratic, political values and to distance him/herself from economic values; simply put, from money as a motive or reason for seeking political Office. How is that to be done? By implementing policies and Laws that protect the Freedom and Equality of the individual at the Bottom of Government. A States-person protects the Freedoms and Equalities that allowed him/her to ascend to the position of power. This is already selfless. But, some of the policies and Laws already on the books have been changed and attenuated, in a manner designed to substitute economic values; i.e. , money, in place of political values, viz. Freedom and Equality. Democratic values must be strengthened, even if it means to change the 'changed' Law and Policies back to what they were and to do away with Citizens United. Where are our States-Persons?

"Government" is not necessary for one individual on an island.

If there's one individual stranded on an Island, all by him/her self, s/he would not need the institution of Government. It seems that the need for government arises when the Island gradually becomes more populated. Maybe ,even two individuals would not need Government, but as the number of individuals increases, the need arises. Why? Sadly, because people would not be able to get along, if there was no 'requirement' or 'institution' compelling them to live in a 'condition of togetherness' under Law. Idealism, or Utopianism, or Anarchy, is for daydreamers, they are not functional. Law must enter the picture in the establishment of Government. Of course, Dictatorships don't need Law, because they have 'force'. But, Democracy must have Law. Plutocracy or Oligarchy would also use Law, but it would always favor the established structure of the Government or the Social. Not so, with Democracy. The freedom and equality of each individual in a Democracy is held together by Law. Law is the integument of the Government and the Social in a Democracy. Without Law, no Nation is in a position to protect the Freedom and Equality of the Individual. Its sad to say that People would not know how to survive in any large 'grouping' of individuals. Sooner or later, there would occur the injection of 'personal points of view' into the 'grouping' or the 'condition of togetherness'. That's why Law is necessary to the individual, the government, and the Social. Law regulates the Bottom of Democracy, but it also regulates the Top of Government. Law applies to the One as well as to the Many. In todays world, we not only need Democratic Government, but we also need Law. That's the only way to protect the humanity, dignity and integrity of the human condition.

Is the "State" a "persona ficta"?

J.J. Rousseau said that "the State is a 'Persona Ficta', but, is that really the case? Well, the State is certainly not a "Persona", but it certainly is a fiction. Why is it a fiction, simply because it is a linguistic fiction or a high level abstraction that encompasses and includes all the real individuals under its jurisdiction. But that does not make it a Persona. Of course, the term "Persona' is also being used as a high level abstraction implying that its a Person. That's what happens when we reason from the Top to the Bottom. That's probably also the source of the so-called Linguistic Turn. But, the real people are at the Bottom of government and certainly not at the Top. In government, or the "State", the real people are at the Bottom and were there before the Top even came into existence. In formulating concepts of government, we usually address the structure of the Top first. That's what the 'generality' of abstractions do to us. But all that was before Triadic government or Three Branch Government. In todays concept, the Many at the Bottom ( the essence )are essential to the formation of government and to the function of government. The people at the Bottom are the individuals that 'confer' power to the functional Top. We would not have a Top if it were not for the People at the Bottom. Truly the concept of the State is a general, high level abstraction and in that sense is an abstraction, and hence, a Fiction, but it cannot be a "Persona". Persona implies 'person' and 'person' 'implies' real individuals. That's probably also why the 'corporation' is considered a 'person' or "legal fiction". Twisted reasoning. To be sure, Rousseau's concept of the State is a fiction, not a "persona"; that's also the way the status of the corporation was conceived. Neither, of these two 'misplaced fictions' can be more important than the real People at the Bottom of Democratic Government.

People need government, but government is only the 'form' required to govern.

People need Government, but Government is only the necessary form that 'governing' must take. The 'necessary' form I refer too is the Democratic form. Its a 'necessary form' because the structure gives all the People their rightful place in the governing process. The People constitute the essence of governing. Other forms of 'governing' do not consider the people as important to the form. In those forms, the people are there to be told what to do. Their views are unimportant and they do not participate in the process of governing; much like 'subjects' in the old Divine Right of Kings type of rule, or, like the absolute type of rule in Dictatorship. People do not select the type of 'governing' they wish to come under. Through no choice of their own, they're born into a form of government. ( "there, but for the Grace of God, go I" ) No One individual or, individuals, has a Right or the 'power' to govern 'others',much less, the Many at the Bottom of the relation of, the Top and the Bottom, of Government. Yes, People need Government; Government does not 'need' People; hell, government wouldn't even exist, if it were not for People. People are 'more' the products of an 'act of Divinity'(assuming there are such) than Government ever will. Governments are 'arbitrary set-ups' of certain individuals. ( 'Democracy' is fortunate in having had the 'right' Founding Fathers) All People need Government. Unfortunately, not all forms of government are democratic. But, we seem to be going in the right direction. Of course, this last statement takes us out into the International spheres of Government. Of course, and without a doubt, they are also 'Peoples', and they deserve Democratic governments, also. How is the United Nations handling democracy? People are important, Nationally, and equally important, Internationally.

The institution of 'governing' or Government has always been with us.

The institution of 'governing' has always been with us. It probably began with small groupings or 'tribes'. Of course, they had a 'chief' or leader. But, the individuals in the 'groupings' or tribes were also 'families', and may have been 'families', before they became tribes. Family, as a unit, was not problematic, because the 'relationship' between them was a 'blood' relationship. However, the 'social' or 'political' relation was another thing. As the number of individuals grew, the 'social unit' became larger. It's said that, in the Middle Ages, one of the Kings problems was the inability to exert individual control over a large populace. Authority had to be 'divided' up over areas which were governed by appointed 'leaders' within the area. After a while, those 'leaders' took over areas in competition with the Kings authority. Power at the Top was diluted and eventually dismantled. Early America and State entities had Governors ( still has them) until a Constitutional Federal authority was set up, which was called "President". But, States were, and are, governed by Governors; kind of similar to the 'problems' of the King in antiquity, but now that 'friction' is called "States Rights". To some extent, we still have that old problematic, now called Federal and local (State) authority. Well, the Constitution should have resolved that issue when it states, "We the People...". We have Federal and State jurisdictions, but we are a 'People government', "of People", "by People", and "for, the same 'of' and 'by', People". The 'People' referred too in the Constitution includes 'all' the People, including the People within the States. We are a 'People' government and the power to govern comes from all the People, at the Bottom of the 'relation' of governing.

In governing, the One and the Many became the Top and the Bottom of today

In governing, the One and the Many became the Top and the Bottom. The Bottom is where the People are, and the previous concepts about the One and the Many have been 'clarified' or at least, we have re-situated the 'essence' of the 'condition of togetherness'. Obviously, its not at the Top; its at the Bottom. The essence of 'governing' is not in the same place as in Dictatorship, or in Theocracy. Plutocracy, and Oligarchy are less 'individualized' or 'focused', at the Top, but they are not democratic. But, for some years now, we have had a new 'player' in the neighborhood, and that would be "Information". The Information Society has turned the relation between the Top and the Bottom topsy-turvy. Todays advances are in the 'information sphere' instead of the 'social' or technological spheres. Technology has brought us a long way, but our trajectory, in the direction of knowledge, now goes from manipulations within the 'sphere' of "knowing more and more about less and less", to an incrementally even 'lesser' sphere; that would be 'Information'. What happens to Freedom and Equality? Well, freedom and equality still remain freedom and equality. Within our Constitutional, political system, that will never change. Of course, the system has carved out a category to try to deal with this phenomena; its called the "public sphere" and the "private sphere". The relation of 'governing' is not effected by the information society. That relation is essential to governing and hence the Constitution preserves that relation along with the Freedom and Equality of every individual at the Bottom. The Constitution ensures that we have a democratic structure that governs Free and Equal individuals and is not concerned with 'governing' on an 'information level'. Individuals at the Bottom 'created' an information society, so that's just another thing that has to stay clear of the political structure designed to preserve Democracy. Human beings can never 'work' themselves 'free' of the Constitutional form that 'constitutes' us. Freedom and Equality has Dignity, Integrity, and Divinity.

Democracy works, if the Bottom actively persues Freedom and Equality

Democracy will work, but only if the Bottom actively pursues the Freedom and Equality protected by the Constitution. It's the Freedom and Equality at the Bottom that establishes the nature of real democracy. Truly, the Top of government is Democratic, but the essence of democracy is at the Bottom with the People. Without a democratic Bottom, the Top would only be a 'paper democracy'. The Top of a Democratic government is obliged to govern pursuant to the Constitutional requirements as set forth in the Constitution. In the same manner, the Bottom must exercise their Right to Freedom and Equality in a real way. This right demands that individuals participate in their government by becoming 'democratic' individuals that help consolidate the Bottom in a democratic fashion and to insure that the elected officials are performing their duties as true Representatives of the People. Representatives have a delegated duty to carry out the duties of their office; the Individual, a duty to live 'freely and equally' and to support the governmental structure that protects those Rights. Here we have a dilemma; government creates 'economic persons' called "legal fictions", viz. corporations, and then protects them as 'real people' under the Fourteenth Amendment. Its obvious that the corporate structure has been given an 'economic grasp' that no real individual can compete with.( There goes competition) Now, the social or the Bottom, has 'real' People and 'economic persons' living alongside each other. Well, we live in a 'real society', and don't have to live in a 'corporate society'. Don't get me wrong; Corporations per se are not 'bad', 'evil', or 'unnecessary', but the government that creates them should impose some duty that off-sets the advantage they have been given. For example; Why should they pay the same amount of taxes that real people do? They are not real, hence they should pay taxes like a "legal fiction", that has been given a larger economic grasp. Once upon a time, they paid 90%, then 70%, now the same as real human beings. The system is 'loaded' against real people. Where are our Economists and Statesmen?

They say, Democracy is the best form of Government; can that be demonstrated?

Everyone has heard that Democracy is the best form of government; can that fact be demonstrated? Well, lets try. Democracy is established and described in the Constitution as a Three Branch Government. The Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial. Of course, the Legislative is mentioned first, because its the most important Branch and because it has a method of selecting Representatives, for the people at the Bottom. The Representatives of the People are elevated to the Top, in a 'Representative capacity', and only in a Representative capacity. They legislate laws and policies. That pretty much situates power and authority at the Bottom with the People. At any point in time and under 'certain circumstances', the Bottom,(not the Representatives),can "peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances". Who can assemble? Everyone at the Bottom!; that's pretty much a Constitutional Right to revolution. Of course, the term "revolution" has acquired a bad connotation and is usually bantered about as a 'bad move', whether the assembly is 'peaceable, or not'. If the assembly happens to be 'peaceable', the authorities have many ways to make it appear 'un-peaceable', and hence, quash it. Autocracy, Plutocracy, and Oligarchy, are pretty much the same, they have their power at the Top; Autocracy, is rule by 'the One', Plutocracy is rule by 'the so-called 1 %', Oligarchy is rule by a 'select few'. And what about the millions at the Bottom? Well, they don't have much of a say-so. The government is pretty-much fixated at the Top and can't be changed. Democracy is not perfect; but, it's always in motion; Power and authority may be 'fixed' at the Top, but, only for a period of time, and, 'strength in numbers' and 'the authority of the vote' circulates at the Bottom, among all the People; ready to change and improve the government, if necessary. How can Democracy, not be the best form?

The People are at the Bottom; the Bottom is also called, the 'social'.

Today, the 'essence' of 'governing' is also known as the 'social'. That's where all the People are situated, in the ancient relation of the 'One' and the 'Many', or, to put it in more contemporary 'terms', that's where the People are situated in the relation of the Top and the Bottom of government. The ancients used to refer to this linguistic relation as the One and the Many. The two polies could not be reconciled because the 'linguistic source' of the terms was the same. The 'One' was at the Top and the 'Many' was at the Bottom of the governing relation. But, the power to govern had to come from somewhere, and I imagine they sought that 'power' somewhere 'above' the tern called 'the One'. Probably, that's why they came up with the concept of the "king" and eventually justified the concept with the 'quasi-religious' concept of the "Kings Two Bodies". One was Divine, the other was Mundane. That doesn't work anymore. They never went to the term, 'the Many' for the inspiration of government. In todays governing, the inspiration for the power of governing comes from the Bottom, viz. the social, all the individuals in their 'condition of togetherness'. If there is any divine components to todays government its the 'divinity' of each and every human being at the Bottom. But, we no longer need a 'divine concept' to govern the Many. The recognized concepts of the Freedom and Equality of each individual works perfectly. Today, we don't have those ancient problems, but, we do have problems. Contemporary problems deals with the many 'twisted versions' of what the term, "the social" means. The term 'social' has acquired an "ism", and just as the term "commune" ( which is a Biblical term) acquired an "ism' and became a much detested term, "communism", the term "social" has become "socialism", a much detested term. The essence of government i.e. the Bottom has become 'contaminated' by linguistic shenanigans.

The economy is important to Democracy; but Freedom and Equality is more important.

Don't get me wrong; the economy is a very important part of the 'condition of togetherness'. When I say, don't mix the value system of the economy with the value system of democracy, I do not mean that the economy is not an important part of democracy. My only contention is that the two value systems are 'motored' by different values. Democracy and democratic government is 'motored' by the freedom and equality of the individual, while the economy is 'motored' by profits. Democratic government cannot be 'motored' by means of the profit motive and the economy cannot be 'motored' by means of the freedom and equality of each individual. The two value systems apply to their respective domains within the social and its obvious that the two should be kept separate. Corporations are "legal fictions" and they are creatures of the economy and their activity must remain within economic activity. They should not get involved in political activity. Say good-by to Citizens United. There has to be a way to monitor the costs and expenditures of political campaigns in a manner that prevents the rich or the 'well heeled' from having an advantage over someone less fortunate. The Freedom and Equality of every individual should inspire individuals to run for public office, not profits. If we allow only the 'well-heeled' to run for public office we run the danger that those in office will solidify their advantage and favor policy that conserves that advantage. That's the royal-road to Plutocracy. No, politics must continue to be motored by the freedom and equality of every individual within the social. Although money plays an important part in politics, we cannot allow the 'profit motive' to be the 'motor' of our democracy. That would destroy democracy and without democracy, we run the risk of a 'fixed' form of government; one that favors the Top instead of the Bottom. If that does not result in a Plutocracy; it will result in an Oligarchy.

Democracy is a basic political concept

Of course, everyone will say, "that's not novel, we all know that". But, what I wish to emphasize is that when we think about political values, we must entertain them within a political context or schema. We cannot mix them with psychological concepts, which are individual, or economic concepts, which relates to a different paradigm; viz. 'profits'. The reason for that is that its the relation of the One and the Many and the 'condition of togetherness' that gives rise to political concepts of democracy. Although the economy and the individual are 'housed' within the 'condition of togetherness', the concepts are different and should not become mixed. The Bottom of government or the 'social' are held together by the political values of "freedom" and "equality". Of course, there's much individual and social interaction within this 'value arrangement', but, without 'individual freedom' and 'individual equality', the Bottom of democracy will not 'hold' together. Of course, both, the individual and the economy are necessary to the 'condition of togetherness', nevertheless, mixing psychological and economic concepts with the basic orienting concepts of government, or politics, is a mistake. It has to be the "freedom and equality" of each and every individual, that holds the political concept together. Otherwise, we will emphasize 'personal', 'individual', or 'economic' values, no matter how skewed, into the 'condition of togetherness'. That's exactly what happens when we hear 'political talk' about "the 1%", "the corporate society", "plutocracy", "Autocracy", Citizens United, etc.. We're mixing, in the political domain, where the integrity and dignity of each individual should be the 'cement' that holds together the concept of democracy. Of course, we can 'talk' and discuss those concepts, but they don't mix with the 'cement' of Freedom and Equality.

The main problem with all forms of government is human beings

Democracy is the best form of government; the main reason being that 'governmental power' arises from the People by means of the vote, and is vested in the Administration at the Top. Nevertheless, democracy, like all other forms of government, has its problems. In general, it can be said that the main problem with any and all forms of government is the human condition. How unfortunate. We can change governments, but we cannot change the human condition. What do we do? As a beginning, the best thing to do is to develop and retain the best form of government available( that would be democracy ) and try to become more familiar with the way the human condition functions in its 'condition of togetherness'. I understand the almost utter impossibility of that quest. Nevertheless, if humans want 'government', they can only get it in a 'condition of togetherness'; there are no options. The unfortunate aspect of the human condition is that our 'humanity' is too often a 'humanity lite'. What does that mean? Well, generally, "I'm human and I'm free and equal, so I can do what I want within the confines of law and a political structure, I work hard, and I have lots of property and money, but I don't give a damn about the 'neighbor', or anyone else". 'Humanity lite' leads to 'political lite' ( which is 'lite democracy') in a 'condition of togetherness', which leads to social isolation. Can anyone imagine 'being isolated in a condition of togetherness'? Well, that's difficult, but not for long; it then leads to divisions into Parties and then a substitution of other values( economic values which only require 'possession') instead of real democratic values, of freedom and equality, within the 'condition of togetherness'. Wow, we have gone from real 'freedom and equality' in a democracy that requires respect for the 'dignity and integrity' of the Other, to a possessive 'economic-ism', that only requires possessiveness; sometimes referred too as 'greed'. Well, no one is perfect, but since we have to live in 'togetherness', we should at least try.

The term, socialism, is an oxymoron.

In Triadic government, the Bottom is the Many and the Top is the One. In the Democratic form of government, the essence of democracy is at the Bottom of the Triad. That's where millions of individuals are situated in the triad of government. In other words, that's where the social or society is situated. In a democracy, all governing is about governing the social or society. Unfortunately, any Party program designed to organize, help, or assist the Bottom of government is usually referred to as "socialism", but only by the opposing Party. The term is designed and used in a way that gives democracy a bad name. The term has no place in a real democracy. If the Top of government cannot be about 'helping' the Bottom of government, who is the Top supposed to govern? Democratic government is about the Bottom. The Bottom needs government and the Top is elected to provide that government. Obviously, if the Top doesn't govern the Bottom, the Top is just not doing its job. Yet, the opposing Party always hollers "socialism" as if, it was wrong or bad to organize a government of the Bottom by the Top. That's an oxymoron. If the Top legislates for the benefit of the Bottom, the opposition hollers "socialism" instead of "democracy". If the Top is not helping the Bottom, who is the Top supposed to help? What the opposition is actually saying is, "if the Top does its job, it must not help the social". If your confused, so am I. Now, that's an oxymoron. The term is designed to 'confuse'; that's not democracy; that's the kind of confusion introduced by so-called Party loyalty and skewed concepts of government. That's Party rigidity and linguistic ambiguity, used by Party members to 'blacken' democracy. If any policy or law is undemocratic, why not just point it out. Surely, that can be done. "Socialism" is an oxymoron, because government is for the Bottom and the Bottom is the social.

Democracy must 'establish' and 'retain' its democratic balance at all times.

Democracy, being essentially a 'Bottom' type of government, must work tirelessly to retain its democratic balance. Democracy 'comes' from the Bottom, i.e. from the exercise of the 'will' of the many individuals at the Bottom, through an act of voting. Autocracy, Plutocracy, and Oligarchy are not dependent on the People at all. In those forms of government, governing is what the Top declares; end of story. While the democratic form of government is always Legislating, Adjudicating, and Executing the many laws and policies designed to keep a Democracy; a democracy. There is always a continuous 'search' for qualified Statesmen. Actually, there is no 'search', the candidates arise from the democratic Bottom which allows all qualified individuals to participate in government. Anyone and everyone, that's qualified, can participate. After a brief campaign, submission to the 'voters', anyone can ascend the ladder of political power. Promises are made; promises must be kept; the voters are watching. Then the candidate assumes the most honorable of professions, an Office holder in a democratic form of government. But, that's not the end of the story. Those assuming positions in the Executive Branch, must execute the democratic policies and laws as stated in the Constitution. Those in the Legislative Branch, must act as representatives of the People, who elected them. Those appointed( some are elected) to the Judicial branch must interpret the Constitution in an Objective manner. All, must continue to perpetuate the 'ever-shifting' structure of a democracy at the Bottom; where the freedom and equality of the individual is always protected, and where the 'needy' and the 'less fortunate' can 'live in democracy'; a place where 'work', 'health', 'homestead', and 'help' are available and easily acquired. Like a ship at sea, everyone must do their part to stay 'afloat'.

This blog is about democracy, but the issue of money must be addressed.

Although this blog is about democracy, the issue of the economy, money, and capitalism, must also be addressed. Why?, when most political 'works' stick to the political aspects of government. The economy is an inseparable aspect of the 'condition of togetherness', which is a 'political entity', and cannot be separated from the 'condition', because the 'freedom and equality' of a democracy must be exercised within that same 'condition'. Neither issue can be treated in isolation. To do so is to ignore many factors that, directly and indirectly, influence the 'condition of togetherness' and hence, the 'political' aspects of democracy. Although, inextricably intertwined, the principles underlying the 'political' must be kept separate from the 'principles' underlying the economic. In the economy, 'profits' are cumulative and can be 'monopolized', and they can grow to enormous levels. There's even a form of government characterized by the excessive accumulation and hoarding of profits. Its called Plutocracy, Government by the 1%. Oligarchy only refers to government by a 'few'; no reference to money. Autocracy or Dictatorship also refers to government by the 'One' or the Top, again, no references to money. Democracy refers to government by the Bottom, i.e. "We the People...", no references to money. Only a Plutocrat is so close to his money, that s/he can never espouse a democratic form of government. Plutocracy, as well as the other forms of government, can never be democratic. The danger arises when the value system of the economy usurps the value system of democracy, which is the freedom and equality of every individual. Hence, Citizens United and 'cumulative' economic values cannot be headed in a 'democratic direction'. Its ok to make lots of money, but we must 're-orient' ourselves to the democracy we live in. Make your money, but lets retain our democratic government.

Political power and the influence of money must be kept separate.

If political power is the only real power in government, and hence within the Nation, why is having lots of money the ultimate goal for some people? Keep in mind, I'm not saying that only power or money should be the ultimate goals in a democracy, nor the only ones. However, its pretty obvious that these two goals seem to be dominant in the social. Of course, there are many other goals that can be achieved, such as an art form, a profession, a small business, a 'position' in the social, a writer, etc. But, the highly acclaimed goals seem to be political power, or money, or both. Of course, the above different positions or professions all earn 'good' money, not to mention, sports, entertainers, and God help us, lobbyists. And we can't forget the 'common folk' ( I hate that term ) who wish to eek out a 'living wage'. In other words, everyone is dependent on some amount of income. Its understandable, that in a 'commodity' culture, money becomes necessary to have a decent 'life'. But, the point is that money is a medium of exchange. This must be viewed very carefully because it allows us to 'exchange' economic values. We don't have to exchange apples for oranges; all we have to do is use the monetary 'exchange value' to acquire either. This cannot be done with political power. Political power cannot be 'exchanged' or 'given' to another politician or to anyone or 'anything' else. It comes from the People; its a vested power, and can only be exercised within the 'domain' and 'purpose' of Office. Money, being a medium of exchange, can be accumulated, hoarded, or used to monopolize 'production' or some such activity. Money is 'flexible', cumulative, 'expansive' and 'exchangeable'. But, its not 'power', its an abstract 'possession' with an 'attributive value'. And that's the problematic. Any hoarding, monopolizing, or accumulation of money to 'influence' political power is undemocratic. That influence must be kept out of government and politics and a good starting point is to reverse Citizens United. Money is not a democratic value.

Political Office is power

Political Office has political power. But, political power is a conferred power. In a democracy, it's conferred by the Bottom of government, viz. by the People who exercise their right to vote; and then only for a period of time. There is no other source of power within our political organization or our society. Our society is not organized in a fashion that grants power to any one individual or any one 'social class' of individuals. If, in a democracy, every individual is free and equal, there can be no 'preferential class' of individuals. The freedom and equality of each individual refers to his/her human dignity and integrity. It does not refer to possessions, money, or 'social class' or position in society. Of course, there are positions in the social that have 'authority', e.g. policemen, judges, teachers, presidents of organizations, leaders of groups, etc., but this is not power, its authority over certain individuals falling within a circumscribed area of activity. That activity only applies to certain areas within society, like; policeman( law violators); judges (accused violators), teachers(students), organizations(members of the organization) etc. That is authority, not power. This distinction helps people to separate 'influence' within the political and the economic fields. Notice, power does not extend to individuals that earn or have millions of dollars and lots of properties. The rich may have 'authority' or influence within a particular area of activity but, certainly not because of the amount of possessions or money they have. Money does not confer power. The fact that People consider someone with lots of money or possessions as being 'powerful', is a mistake. Those individuals may have lots of money, but they do not have power. Power is political and is conferred. Only a democratically conferred power is 'real power'.

The Third branch of government is very important

The Judicial Branch hears and resolves all cases involving the Constitution. It interprets the Constitution and resolves all cases and controversies in Law and Equity. In triadic government, the Judiciary is the 'sides' of the Triad. The Top is the Executive and the Bottom is the essence of the democracy, viz. the People. All three parts of the Triad must be continually active and all are important but, the Top of government would not exist, but for the Bottom. But, one cannot help but to notice the importance of the Supreme Court in determining the outcome of many Constitutional controversies. Who determines the different 'interpretive practices' of the Court and how are they arrived at? Well, a lot depends on Party-loyalty, and do the different Parties have different views of 'democracy'? Unfortunately, yes. The names of the Parties does not matter; its the dependence on the rigidity of the Party ideologies that can create problems. But, listen to this, the Executive and the members of Congress are all elected by the People and serve for a specific period of time, after which, elections are held again and so-forth. In other words, they are accountable to the People. But the members of the Judicial Branch are appointed by the Executive Branch. What is the standard of conduct that the appointee is held to? Article III states they shall "hold their Office during good Behavior". Wow, what is that? They hold Office for the rest of their lives, so long as they 'behave'? What kind of Constitutional standard is that? That's why Presidents "pack the Courts" etc. Party Loyalty creeps in and the Executive appoints a member of the ruling Party. There should be better ways to determine if an appointed Judge is interpreting the Constitution properly or injecting Party ideology and preferences. Constitutional Objectivity has no Party. Maybe, Supreme Court judges should also be made accountable to the People, just like the Executive and Legislative Branches. Where are our Statesmen?

The Constitution measures our trajectory around the Three Branches

Time, Number, and calendar 'measures' our trajectory around the sun;( Happy new year!), the Constitution and our institutions 'measures' our trajectory around the Triadic nature of our government. The ironic distinction is that the passage of time may make us 'wiser', but always makes us older and weaker. In government, the proper application of the Constitution can only improve our democracy, even if its for future generations. That should be the case; the problematic is that if we substitute, money or some other economic or even religious value, in place of democracy, the government system can become fixed into a different form of government. Stagnation of the democratic principals of government can only lead to Autocracy, Plutocracy, or Oligarchy. These are relatively fixed forms of government where the government is at the Top and the people are sometimes referred too as 'subjects'. In democracy, the 'government' is "We the People...", and the People are at the Bottom. The Top exists 'by the grace of the Bottom'. Governing is difficult and governing a democracy is probably the most difficult form of governing in the world. The rules and laws are relatively simple and are contained in the Constitution. The problem is the human condition and the usurpation of democratic values by economic values or other non-democratic values. We cannot live in a 'condition of togetherness' without respect for the freedom and equality of the Other. The guy or gal next to you is your 'Brother' or 'sister', like it or not. 'Togetherness' is a blessing and all real humans are free and equal. I say 'real', which does not include legal fictions. There are many 'kinks', 'gaps', and 'empty places' in our society and much dis-function in our government, hopefully our Statesmen will find them, plug them up, and improve our democracy this year. Happy New year.