A 'form' of Government is the 'highest' most abstract entity of the human race.

Government is a creation of 'Peoples'. All governments have an origin, and as such, an institutional 'beginning point', where the government set out to 'govern' the Peoples within its geographical area. The Peoples, in their 'condition of togetherness' acquire an identity and hence become a Nation. So we have to ask, what of 'groups' of people that did not seem to have a 'government', in the way we use the term now. Well, we're going back a long way, but that has never been the case. Even as early as institutions of the 'family', there was always a 'head of the family', or, as we say 'politically', a 'leader'. Todays families have 'governments' in the sense that the parents always help the new born to establish themselves in a healthy way within the social. Parents always care for the young, and stick together as a family, when they're old. The same should apply to governments as institutions of the Many. There is no difference, except for the concept of the Many, or millions of people who are 'the governed'. Sure, families are small and governments are huge. But, the relation that runs from the Top to the Bottom is the same. So, why can't human beings 'live' in a 'condition of togetherness' within any one Nation, as a family lives in a 'condition of togetherness'? Well, unfortunately, the two situations are different. Blood holds the family together, whereas 'political ideology' holds the Nation together. We can reduce the relation between the Top and the Bottom, or, the One and the Many, in each case, but besides the 'numbers involved', at the Bottom, there is no 'blood relation' in the Nation. Political ideology is a different, abstract, 'cohesion' that has many ramifications, and the worst of these is the human tendency to 'divide up', or to divide into 'competing' political Parties. That, in itself, would not be so bad, if the Parties were both 'democratic' in their ideologies. But, unfortunately, in both Parties, the 'democratic spirit' has gone into hiding, and 'economic principles' are having a 'heyday' in politics. The Top of government is not just for the 'rich'. What does money have to do with governing in the 'democratic spirit' of Freedom and Equality for all Peoples. Yet, it seems that government is now available only to those individuals who have 'lots of money'. Where has democracy gone? The 'democratic spirit' exists in each and every human being within a Nation and each individual can 'craft' a life with these principles. Whereas, money, the 'medium of exchange' in capitalism, 'requires circulation' in the economy, and it is being held 'hostage' by the 1% at the Top of the economy. And now, it seems, even our Leaders 'compete' to be at the Top of the economy instead of the Top of a democratic government, or, at the Top of government, but with 'lots of money'. We need a 'huge' re-orientation of democratic principles.

Governments are necessary institutions, but they are also 'empty Institutional vessels' of necessary power.

Government is a necessary institution, but it does not have to 'revolve' around any one Leader or any one Nation. Sure, there are many Nations in the world and the International sphere has its own governing body or 'United Nations'. But, is every Nation a member? If not, why not? Governing on the level of a United Nations or a 'world' is not an easy matter. Governing on a National level stresses the importance of the People within any one Nation; but, governing on the International sphere is a different ball game. The focus is on the different Nations and each one is different, and each one is sovereign, within its own sphere. The same respect for the Freedom and Equality of the people within any Nation must be extended to the Freedom and Equality of each sovereign Nation within the United Nations. It would seem, that on the International sphere, 'governing' the relations between individual Nations is vastly different, than any one Nation governing its own People. The reason, is that each Nation is a 'political power' and sovereign within its National boundaries. So, Internationally, power governs the relations between Nations of equal individual power. Whereas, Nationally, through institutional power, the Nation governs the freedom and equality of the human condition. Nationally, and in a Democracy, power exists only at the Top of government; at the Bottom, the People have inalienable Rights and the 'condition of togetherness' insures their strength in Numbers. The Right to " peaceably assemble and Petition the government for redress of grievances" is a Constitutionally protected Right. Individual people never have power; only an Institution can grant 'institutional power'. The relation is between an institution and the human condition. While, on the International sphere the relation is between equally powerful Nations. Governments, of whatever form, i.e. whether Democracies or not, are merely institutions of power. As such, their major concern should be their own people. When governments respect the integrity and dignity of their own People, there should be no reason for being aggressive within the International sphere. Large Nations should not bully smaller Nations. Each Nation is equally sovereign and each Nation has a right to its own 'culture', way of life, dignity and respect as an equal Nation among other Nations, but each Nation should respect the human condition, in the same way, as all other Free People within any other Nation are respected. Leaders with 'power' should never flex their muscles against other leaders with equal power. Sure, Governments are necessary, but they are also 'empty Institutional vessels' of necessary power; and their sole purpose is to govern millions of people. There's no other purpose for the existence of Nations, and Governments. Human beings have dignity and integrity; not governments, they are 'empty, hollow, Institutional vessels' of necessary power.

The problem with governments is 'government'.

A big problem with governments is 'governing' itself. Some government were established by 'force', 'fraud', 'conquest' or 'heredity', or by some other means; other than by being 'selected', or 'elected' by the People. Of course, some were 'instituted' by the People, and some were 'elected' by the people. In any case, and regardless the 'form' of government, all governments are for the purpose of governing 'their' People. This, I'm sure, is obvious to everyone. So, why do governments 'fail' their People? Why can't government, in general, govern properly? Why do 'personal issues' or 'considerations' enter the problem of governing, and why do these 'considerations' not include the 'welfare' and 'well being' of their own People? The answer is simple. For some reason or other, Rulers, Leaders, Dictators, Presidents, Administrators, or whatever they call themselves, are not 'doing' their Job. They're too busy trying to become more powerful; to acquire more land, or to 'expand their influence' beyond the boundaries of their own Nation, and into the International sphere'. That, instead of trying to improve the general welfare and the well being of their own People. Maybe I should change my premise; maybe the problems of governments are the Individuals who do the 'governing'. After all, a government has a 'structure' that it follows, or should follow, when it governs. All governments govern from the Top of their 'structure'. But, some governments acquired the 'right' to govern by 'force', 'fraud', 'conquest', 'heredity' or some other method, and consequently, that is not a 'real' method of acquiring the 'right to govern'. Why not? Because no 'human being' is 'superior' than some Other human being. There is no such thing as being born with some 'inherent power' to govern. Power, in government comes from the People that are the 'governed'. There is no other source, of political power, and 'power' is power. By that last statement, I mean there is no such thing as being a 'weak' governor, dictator, President, or Administrator; in other words; there is no 'leader' that 'lacks' some 'imagined degree' of political power. Power is power. He or she has it, period. Now, understand me correctly, a leader may make decisions or 'act' in ways that disagree with some other course of action, but that is never a sign of 'weakness', only a way of 'perceiving the situation'. All governing is done by human beings and if some government acts antagonistically, you can bet your last dollar, that its the 'Leaders' fault; not the 'governments'. Its simple; People, all People, like to be treated like 'Leaders' like to be treated. So, 'Leaders', leave your personal idiosyncrasies aside, and do your duty as a 'governor' of the Many.

Government is important; the economy is important; but, the People are more important.

The government is important; the economy is important; but, the People are the 'essence' of government. Obviously, a government without a People cannot exist. An economy without People is ludicrous. But, a People need a government and an economy, and both, will benefit from the Peoples contribution towards both institutions. Governments and economies are 'useless' without People. Hence, the essence of a Democracy that has a Capitalistic economy are the People who constitute it. Why can't governments see that and why can't government see that a Democracy can only function and 'run' on democratic principles and not economic principles. Of course, Capitalism and money are important but, they cannot successfully operate a democracy. Lets face it, the economy and Capitalism are motored by profits; and profits and making lots of money is the goal of all capitalistic ventures. Its a 'dog eat dog' economy. Sure, the economy provides lots of work and 'income' for the People, but the already established big corporations and big business always controls the outcome of 'incomes'. Where is the 'work'?, where are the 'opportunities?, why does the 1% hold most of the income? And we have to ask, what is government doing about this sad state of economic affairs? Maybe it should get involved in the 'fray'. Why not? Oh. of course, it will be called 'socialistic'. The top 1% will always find some ideological label to place on any government contributions towards creating jobs, employment, medical help, or providing for the homeless and the needy. If it were not for the People, Governments would not be necessary; and if it were not for the People, the economy could not exist. Our institutions need to understand that's its a government, of People, by People, and the most important one is "for the People". People are the essence of government and the economy.

Government is a 'mere function', and it needs People, otherwise, who needs government?

Government is a mere function of the 'organization' of all the People within any particular Nation. This is true, regardless the 'form' of a government. It could be in the 'form' of a Democracy; an Autocracy; an Oligarchy; a Plutocracy; or an outright Dictatorship. The point is that its a mere function of the organization of the millions of People who constitute the Nation and who are situated at the Bottom. In an Autocracy, or a Dictatorship, or a Plutocracy, or an Oligarchy, the Top of government is not dependent on the People at the Bottom of government. Of course, that doesn't sound right, and, of course, there are many gradations in the relation between the Top and the Bottom. But, that relation is what 'binds' the Top to the Bottom and determines the dependence of the Top to the people it governs. In government forms, other than democracies, the People are out of the picture. The Top rules and that's the end of it. Notice, that all forms of government, have to 'govern', and they do so, in any way they please. The Sanctity or the Freedom and Equality of the 'individual' is not a consideration. That's the quagmire, that a Democracy finds itself in, when other Nations are being 'abusive' of their own citizens. Does 'democracy' have a right to intervene in the domestic matters of another Nation? Of course, that would be a 'long discourse', but the issue becomes, how does this effect the other Nations. In most cases, it doesn't effect other Nations. Yet, the human condition in all the above listed Forms of government, is the same human condition as in a Democracy. How does 'humanity', as a 'condition of togetherness' tolerate the 'imbalances', the 'destruction', and the abuses of the human condition. Democracy is not perfect; but neither, is any other form of government. Yet, the human beings are all the same. Governments never create People, People created the Governments. It's sad, that we cannot govern ourselves.

Democracy is not a panacea.

As the saying goes, "democracy is not perfect, but its the best government around". How true. The reason it's true, is the fact that it's a government "of People", "by People", and "for People": and, if it's not perfect, the blame has to be placed "on the People". Its their government. Of course, the imperfections arise, not from the institution of government itself, but from the human beings that assume the Offices of power and, in a democracy, the ones who elect them. In Autocratic forms of government, the imperfections arise from those in power, period. In democratic forms, or some 'hybrid' of the form, the imperfections arise from the People who elect the representatives. The reason I say, 'hybrid' of the form, is because many 'purported democracies' are, at best, 'attenuated' democracies. Its unfortunate that so-called 'Political Science' has assumed some 'gamesmanship' aspects. In the Olympics, the games take the form of 'sports' or physical competition by individuals from different Nations. Well, that's interesting and friendly enough, and the opening ceremony that celebrates the beginning with, "let the games begin" is appropriate. If one thinks about that and transfers ones thoughts to the political arena, and ponders, the so-called 'competition', between Nations, in the present; the 'grasping for more land' in the International sphere, one could also begin the process with "let the political games begin". The problem is that its not on the level of 'games' anymore, because it could lead to war. Initially, in America, 'expansion' depended on the "land rush", "go west young man", then on the "gold Rush", then on the "Oil rush"; and now on the International sphere, 'politics' is still on the "land rush", and "the oil rush", but with the added consequences, that we could cause a War between Nations. That's not a 'game'! Its not or should not be, a disaster between Nations; unfortunately, its a disaster of the human condition. How sad.

Party loyalty and economic principles undermine democratic principles

Its not simply the 'representative' nature of democracy that sometimes hurts democracy; its also the 'rigid' lines of Party loyalty, money, and the misuse of economic principles within the political domain. Economic principles should not drive the Freedom and Equality of democratic principles. Its close to election time and we already hear of millions being spent on advertising and support of candidates that will hopefully upset the balance in the 'Representative chambers' of the Top. For what? Of course, to favor and pass legislation beneficial to The Party that will then be able to further entrench Party power over policy, programs and laws that favor economic principles over democratic principles. How can democratic government prevail, if elections are being driven by economic principles, or, simply put, money? The economy is a 'profit venture', democracy is about the freedom and equality of each individual. Government cannot function on the basis of 'making a profit', and the economy cannot function on 'freedom' and 'equality'. So why are elections being driven by, 'who can spend the most money on advertising'? Advertising? That's an economic principles that 'says', 'just sell the product by stuffing it down the consumers throat; they'll never know the difference'. Economic principles cannot drive democracy; democracy is about human beings and both Parties know that; but, they still talk about 'who can spend the most'. Unfortunately, both Parties have become dependent on money, but we know there's one Party that relishes it and cannot wait till the next 'profits roll in'. That's the source of antagonism between the two Parties. Democracy and Capitalism is an oxymoron. Why can't they be kept separate? They actually can, but that is to 'demanding' on the integrity of our politicians.

'Representation' should exist in all governments.

All governments exist as 'representatives' of their Country. Since, no 'Country' can exist as a mere 'political entity' without any People, it cannot merely act as a political entity on behalf of itself. It took a 'People' to form the Country and it should act on behalf of its People. This immediately places the Governing Body of the Country in a 'representative' state. The government represents the People in its domestic affairs and in its International affairs. The domestic affairs covers the direct relation between the Top of government and the Bottom of government, or the People. Its in the domestic area that anyone can ascertain whether a Country is acting in a 'representative' manner or not, simply because its the area where the direct relation between the Top and the Bottom can be perceived more clearly. Countries that do not respect the integrity and the uniqueness of the human condition, are not 'representative' in nature. In other words, the Leaders of those Countries are acting on behalf of themselves and not on behalf of the People it governs. In actuality, there cannot be any 'activity' that comes from the Top of government, that excludes the Peoples within that government. A Nation or a Country cannot act, of itself, by itself, and for itself, as a 'pure' political entity; that is to say, without Peoples. Its always an act on behalf of the Peoples or as representative of the People. Since a Top cannot exist without a Bottom to support it, a Top cannot exist without Peoples; millions of People. Hence, the 'representative' nature of all governments. Even Autocracies should be representative in nature. Otherwise, they could not exist. That being said; nevertheless, Autocratic governments do exist and Autocratic governments act as if they owned the world. 'Power' is a strange creature; but so are 'Peoples' in a 'condition of togetherness'.

A huge problem in a democracy is its 'representative' nature.

"Representation" is a term that can mean 'great' things, or 'not so great' things. The fact that democratic governments are "of People","by People", and "for People", is a linguistic generalization that must be 'made real'. Its an abstract rendition of a goal to be achieved. But, the only way to achieve that goal is through the concept of "representation"; that is to say, without representation, there is no way to 'connect' the Top of government with the Bottom of government. That is the case with Autocracies. But, then the 'representative' mode of connecting the Bottom with the Top and the Top with the Bottom does not always function correctly. For sure, it gave birth to the concept "politics", as early as the 15th century. The connection between the Top and the Bottom is abstract and linguistic; hence, there 'arose', the term 'politics'. Heaven help us. But, the connection between the Bottom and the Top, is, or should be, real. We all know that politics at the Top functions more easily, than politics at the Bottom. The politics at the Bottom functions mainly in getting the 'vote' out. There are no 'original' ideas at the Bottom; those ideas should emanate from the Top. But, do they? The Top is 'fractured' along Party lines, and hence there is no solidarity in any one position. A 'fractured', Party loyal, Bottom, cannot give 'solid' results either. Obviously, that represents only a part of the Bottom, not the entire whole. Is it possible to be 'lots closer' to the whole than just 'majority' rule in a democratic government. Yes it is, but not with a party loyalty that is heavily 'driven' by economic concepts of money, profits, possessions, and 'economic classes'. The inextricable merging of money and profits with democratic principles of governing, has taken over the principles of 'Freedom and Equality'. Democracy is driven by democratic principles, not economic principles. We have become victims of the 'land rush', the 'gold rush', and the 'oil rush'. Now, even the 1% want to govern. But, people want 'homes', not palaces.

No 'government form' can be more important than the human beings it governs.

Governments being 'artificial' arrangements of power can never be more important than the human beings they govern. Obviously, the 'State', the 'Nation', and the 'functional' part of the 'condition of togetherness', namely; the Government, in their 'linguistic ascriptions' have to be linguistic fictions. It can't be otherwise, because the 'name' and the 'power' ascribed to it, is at the very Top, or at the 'highest part' of the 'condition of togetherness'. Of course, this 'form' gives the structure of a triangle or, a Three Branch government. The Top is recognized as the 'governing' part of the triad, and the Bottom is accepted as the place where millions of individuals live their individual lives. Language is 'fictional' because it always 'refers' or 'alludes' to 'something' other than itself. It is never isomorphic. Hence, it becomes necessary that, when governments govern, that they never 'incorporate' the Bottom, into the linguistic labels of politicians and leaders who govern from the Top by means of these abstract 'labels'. The Bottom must 'remain real' because the Bottom 'is' real. The Bottom is 'numerically real', i.e. each individual is important and 'counts'. Politics, like governing, is a relation between a Top of power and a Bottom of individual 'strength'. The Bottom never has 'ascribed power' as the Top, but it always has 'strength in numbers' at the Bottom. All the People in a 'condition of togetherness' have more strength than the 'abstract linguistic power' ascribed to the Top. That's why revolution is a Constitutional privilege! Why would that be the case? Simply, because you and I are real; we're not fictions, and how dare they refer to us as less important than their political manipulations at the Top. But, hold on! Please, don't get me wrong. Leaders are very important and they have a 'tremendous duty' to represent the People in domestic matters as well as International matters. Governments must have the 'right kind' of Leaders.

In all forms of government, the people are supreme.

Government is about governing; and one has to ask; 'what' or 'who' is governing; and 'what' or 'who' is governed? Of course, there are many different forms of government, but in all cases, the essential 'tension' in all governments is the tension that arises from the relationship of the One to the Many or, stated differently, the relationship of the Top of government to the Bottom of government. Hence, the Top, or the governments, are all conceived as 'abstractions' simply because they are all situated at the very Top of the multitude in a position of 'power'. That being the case, all governments can also be labeled as 'fictions', in the same manner as Rousseau's concept of the State, and in the same manner, as corporations. The 'State' and the corporation are both accepted as necessary 'fictional configurations'. Hence, government must also be a necessary 'fictional configuration'. Since, all government institutions are situated at the Top of the multitudes as necessary fictions that always deal with 'power' and its exercise, and the Bottom is always about the 'Many' or the Multitudes, it must be understood that the Top is abstract and the Bottom is real. Stated differently; the Top is an abstract necessity but the Bottom is composed of real individuals. Human beings are real, not abstractions and they can never be conceived as less important then the 'fictional configurations' that become necessary to the governing process. Each individual is free and equal as is the Other, and all government is a fictional configuration. In democratic forms of government, this arrangement is recognized and respected. In other forms of government, the government is more important than the People. But in all forms of government, the People are real and hence supreme. Governing is basically a relation between a Top and a Bottom and the big issue within any Nation is always the relation between the Top and the Bottom of government. In a democracy, the Bottom is supreme. That should be the case in all forms of government.

In 'real' democracy, the 'People' rule.

The essence of democracy is the People. The function of the Executive,the Legislative,and the Judicial branches, is to perform their functions as set out in the Constitution. The function of the People is to 'live' democratically; i.e. in Freedom and equality; to obey the laws; and to keep 'score' on how their government is functioning. If the Three Branches always performed their jobs properly, there would be no need for keeping score. But, since we have a Party System, you can forget about that. The essence of government is in the People, because only the People can change what 'goes on' in government. The Party can change nothing. No branch can change another Branch. Can the Executive do whatever it pleases? Can the Legislative legislate whatever it pleases? Can the Judiciary decide whatever it wants? Of course, the answer is a resounding, No! First; there are Constitutional requirements; then there's the needs of the Nation; then there are proper 'interpretive practices' to be followed. No Office holder can do other than what his office demands in a democratic form of government. They must do their job or 'suffer the consequences'. They'll be out of work in the following Session. So, in the meantime, what does the Bottom do while all this is going on? Well, they should be 'keeping score'. There is nothing stronger and more 'powerful' than a 'condition of togetherness' at the Bottom of government. That's why democracy is a 'Peoples' government. Don't 'kid' yourself; if you let it, the 'government' will take advantage. Look around at what's going on in the world. Revolutions are becoming necessary. Hence, its important that 'we all' hold together as human beings; not as political Parties, nor to seek preferential treatment, but to protect our Freedom and equality. It's up to the 'People'.

Democracy can be problematic.

Obviously, democratic forms of government can be problematic. We have referred to several problems, if not many, in previous blogs. Of course, the reason I call Three Branch Government,as spelled out in the Constitution, Triadic government, is that a triangle is easily pictured and the 'manner' of its formation, and its 'continuation' as the same 'form', i.e. in the same 'relations' of the 'parts' to each other, is 'seen' more clearly. Of course, the same principles apply to Three Branch government, except that each of the 'Branches' has to be legally 'understood' in the way the Constitution sets it out; if that 'understanding' is not so simple or obvious, then, its understood in the manner interpreted by the Supreme Court. Of course, this depends on the 'interpretive practices' of the Court, at any particular time. But, notice the importance of that Third Branch; and notice that the Court is, exactly, one of those described Three Branches. So we actually have a situation where a Third Branch determines how the other Two Branches are to function; not how the Three Branches( inclusively) are to function. So, it appears that 'Three Branch government' is actually 'Two Branch government'. Not so in Triadic government. In Triadic government, the Bottom is the essence. The Top is the Executive, the 'sides' are the Judicial. But, its easy to notice that without a Bottom, we cannot have a Top ( the Top of what?) and certainly the Judicial 'helps' to support that Top by its interpretive practices. But, its 'interpretive practices' must be based on a democratic form or, a form of government "of People", "by People", and "for People". The "People" are the essence of government. All government, including the Judicial, is a government " for the People". If there were 'no People', who needs government?

The harmful effect of Party ideologies.

The most harmful effect of so-called 'Party Ideology' is their 'rigidity'. Its already harmful that a Party is based and formed on a division of the Peoples. The People divide-up according to differing 'opinions', or, differences in political ideology. This 'move' causes divisiveness on the basic, underlying, 'condition of togetherness' that characterizes a democracy. The essence of democracy is at the Bottom of the structure of Democracy, viz. where all the People are situated in the structure. One can have differences of opinion and still have a 'democratic Bottom'; one that is not 'fractured' by opposing Parties or, one that does not damage the 'condition of togetherness'. The strength of a Democracy is in the 'real' relation between the Top and the Bottom of government; not between the Left and the Right of the Bottom. The Bottom should never be divided. Nevertheless, people will differ, and unfortunately, form into opposing Parties. But, Parties in a democracy should not be un-democratic. And furthermore, under no circumstances must a Party 'weaken' the integrity of the Bottom. The Bottom must hold together into a Nation that functions as a democratic political entity with a government, "of People", "by People", and "for People". This is where so-called Party devotion and Party affiliation can be dangerous. If the 'devotion' or 'affiliation' to a Party is mandatory or 'compelling' to being a Party member, and hence 'compels' the 'vote' along Party lines, then, Party affiliation is too rigid. The fight within a Democracy is not between 'Left' ideology and 'Right' ideology, its between a government at the Top and the Freedom and Equality of the people at the Bottom. The Freedom and Equality of every individual at the Bottom must be respected and protected by government. The 1% cannot govern in this manner; nor can 'money'; nor can the 'economy'; only a real democratic government can govern in this manner.

Democracy from Three perspectives.

Democracy has more than one perspective. It has a perspective from the Top(Executive); from the Bottom(the People, through their representatives); from the Judicial(the Constitution). All Branches of Government should be democratic, but are they? A Democracy is a government of the People. Hence, the essence of democratic forms originate from the People. The Executive or the Top is the 'determinative' factor of the form of government and the 'object' of government, or the 'purpose' of the Executive, is to govern all the People at the Bottom, and to do so in a 'democratic way'. The Judicial is on the side-lines of government, but plays a very important part in the democratic process, because it interprets the Constitution. But, how does it interpret the Constitution? Well, that means it should interpret the Constitution, 'democratically' and since the essence of governing comes from the Bottom, it's 'interpretive practices' must favor the 'real' People at the Bottom. But does it? Well, one has to ask, "why does it favor corporations"? Corporations are fictions, unreal. They themselves, created the "legal Fiction", so why prefer corporations over real people? And why 'extend' the fictional nature into the areas of "free speech" and hence, politics? The high Court opened the 'door' for 'economic principles' to enter into the political arena of democratic principles. Money, or 'a medium of exchange' cannot usurp democratic principles in a Democracy. Government is about 'governing', not about money. Well, that leaves the Bottom? What's their obligation in a democracy. The essence of governing is that the People are governed by 'law and order' without imposing on the Freedom and Equality of any human being's Right to live a life of integrity and dignity within the parameters of Law. The Integrity and Dignity of the human condition is a 'democratic principle'.

Should Law govern disputes between Nations?

If there is to be an International Law, there has to be an International 'domain'. Law governs relations between individuals within a Democratic Nation. That law must be Equitable and Just. By that I mean, the individual's Freedom and Equality should never be compromised. However, on the International 'Domain', the issue is different. The International Domain must be constituted as a 'Collection of separate organizations' of different Nations, and each Nation is different, and that difference must be respected. The question immediately arises, are all the Nations in the world, members of the United Nations? Has 'someone' been left out; were they recognized as a 'constituted' Nation and refused entry; if refused entry, on what was the refusal based; is 'membership' still a viable option? If International Law applies to every Nation in the World, then every Nation in the world must become a member. If a Nation is left out, how can it be subject to International law? It can't. But, there are other problems within the concept of International Law. Each nation must be respected with respect to its form of government. Why? Because each Nation has a responsibility to its People and they are governed according to their own National policies and Laws. So how can a United Nations interfere with a Nation, who is not a member, and legally compel it to adhere to International standards. Well, it can't. That raises an interesting question, can 'democracy', within any one Nation, be compelled? Should democracy be a condition for joining an International organization of Nations? Is there such a thing as crossing a 'red line', where one Nation should not be tolerant of the conduct of another Nation's conduct toward its own People? If the sanctity (freedom and Equality)of the human condition exists within a National sphere, it should exists within an International sphere.

In a dispute between Nations, do individuals need to be 'represented'?

"Representation" is not an easy term to define. In a Democracy, it depends on the actual 'representation' of the People, by the elected Representatives, and by the Top of government. Generally, the Constitutionally 'constituted' Top, 'represents' all the people at the Bottom; but, it can represent the People in Domestic matters, or, on International matters. The two situations are different and call for a different approach. Nevertheless, 'representation' always remains an issue when any political entity purports to act. To be sure, that issue depends on the form of government that is acting. Autocratic forms, by definition, need not represent 'the people' and certainly, not 'all the People'. Of course, Autocracies always claim to represent the Nation as a whole, which is understandable, because the Nation is a political entity and, as such, is a source of power on the International scene. A Democracy also represents the Nation as a whole in an International situation, but the obligation to 'represent' can still be an issue. For example; the People may not want War, or may not want the effects of a large mobilization, because of its economic effects. Nevertheless, in a Democracy, 'Representation' of the Bottom by the 'Representatives of the Bottom', is always a critical issue. Do these Representatives act on behalf "of the People"; or, "for the People"; or, on behalf of 'democratic issues'; or, have issues of 'political power' become inextricably intertwined with issues of 'personal power', 'personal importance', or 'purely individual preferences'? If the issues are 'personal', as previously described, they cannot be 'representative' of the People. Don't get me wrong, there will be times when action is immediately required. But, for now, I speak of the theory of 'representation' in a Democratic form of government. Issues of 'political power' and issues of 'personal power', and 'personal importance', need to be distinguished.

Political power cannot exist, except in a properly established government.

Political power cannot exist except in a properly established government. A properly established government can only be established by the People who are to be 'governed'. No 'Other' People can create a governing body outside themselves; and no 'Other' governing body can assume the government of an 'Other', already established, government; not by conquest; nor by defeat, military or otherwise; nor by any other forceful means. Only the 'governed' can create their own government, and the result of doing so, creates the establishment of 'power' at the Top of government. Only real human beings can create positions that can 'house' power. Even corporate institutions cannot create other corporate institutions. They can expand their size, and set up departments, but the original corporate structure must always be dependent on its Articles of Incorporation. It can grow, and it can voluntarily or involuntarily be dissolved, but it cannot 'create'. A corporation is a "legal fiction". A "State" or a government may be a 'fiction' but, its a properly established institution that has been 'constituted' by a People who draw up a Constitution that will determine its 'ongoing' structure. 'Outside' of these forms of organizations, there is no structure or individual that possesses power. "Power" is an elusive term and is much misunderstood. Individuals may have 'influence', may get 'respect', or be elevated to 'high' positions within society, but they cannot and do not have 'power'. Power is an attribute of a 'governing body', and that means a properly 'organized' governing body. Absent that, an all individuals, regardless their social position, are 'free and equal' human beings. Free and equal human beings alludes to their humanity, not their possessions, money, or holdings. Some social positions may have 'authority', but none has power. Power only belongs in a properly organized political Office. Its essential because 'governing' requires it.

'Forgotten' terms.

Sometimes, we can become 'more clear' about something, when we resurrect 'forgotten' terms like, 'revolution'. Its a known fact that America was established on the 'results' of a Revolution. The way we got to that 'position' was by way of 'founding' a 'New' Country in a 'new' Land.. Of course, some will say, the Indian already had possession of the 'New Land'. That's true, in a way, yet, I very much wish there was better historical data to clearly delineate the establishment of government in this new continent. It seems that the 'white settlers' were as 'heinous' towards the Indian as the Indian was to the 'white settlers'. Yet, the revolution was against the King, who was in Europe, and who wanted to govern the Colonies, not the Indian. America was a new Land; there was not an 'already established' government in the Land. It, the whole Land, was only occupied in part, but it was not governed as a whole. The early colonists wanted to establish a 'government' to govern the 'whole Land', and when the Articles failed because of quibbling between the States, they convened the Constitutional Convention. Once 'free' of the control of the King, America was free to establish Constitutional government over the 'whole' of the land;(at that time and after the Civil war), namely, a government "of People", "by People", and "for People". And here is the distinction that needs to be drawn; in todays world, there are no longer any 'ungoverned Lands'. Hence, the term "revolution" becomes problematic. But, the Constitutional Right of 'assembly' is allowed in a democracy. And, 'properly applied', this is just a rejuvenation of that 'forgotten' term, "revolution". The question is always, in those Countries where revolutions flourish, did they start as "assemblies"; if they did, they're legitimate.

If power, in a Democracy, comes from the Bottom, from where do Autocrats get power?

If the power in democratic government comes from the many People at the Bottom, where does the Power in an Autocracy come from? Or, to put it more directly, how do Autocratic 'leaders' acquire the power of the political institution they purport to govern? In the Divine Right of Kings form of 'governing', it was never a secret. In dictatorial forms, power was wrested from the Top, conquered, or taken by force. They have no secrets either. But, consider how some Autocratic, Oligarchic, or Plutocratic forms of government acquire power and one has to consider the part played by the People. Why is that?; because these other forms of government 'purportedly' get their power from the People. Does that make the acquisition of power in these latter governments legitimate? Not necessarily! Every political entity has a Government, a social, an economy, a judiciary, a military, a geographical area, and many other institutions. These institutions all lie between the Top of government and the Bottom, where the people live. As an institutional way of doing things, they can be arranged and designed to 'reflect' the 'will' of the People in diverse ways. For example; In a Plutocratic form of government, its well known that the power comes from the Plutocrats. Period. So, if they are in power, how can they arrange the 'institutions' to reflect the 'will' of the People? That's the goal. Hence, even if the institutions are so arranged to reflect votes by the populace, in actual fact, its the Plutocrats who will design it that way, because, simply, they have the power. That's changing the terrain of the political to reflect a 'democratic' form of government, when in fact, democracy has nothing to do with the process. Plutocrats are not dumb, they're smart, but they are 'motored' by the medium of exchange, or stated differently, by 'money', not democracy.

Resolving the problematic of the One and the Many raises many other issues.

One of the issues, in resolving the problematic of the One and the Many, is the relationship between 'political Power' at the Top and 'democratic Strength' at the Bottom. Both 'ends' must be kept viable. Yet, some sort of 'harmonic' blend of 'power' and 'strength' must result from their working together. On the International sphere, a 'harmonically blended' People within a Nation, is a strong Nation. Although the function of a Nation on the International sphere is different from its function on the National sphere, all Nations need to function as a 'political whole'. But, sometimes the 'voice of the People' is different from the 'voice of the Nation'. 'Animosities' within a Nation can lead to revolution; 'animosities' among Nations on the International sphere can lead to war. What's the difference? No difference, except the geographical area within which each takes place; the availability of arms; and the nature of the 'motivations' that leads to the confrontation. The reasons on the National sphere that lead to revolution are different from the reasons that lead to war. The International sphere functions and 'interacts' on the level of 'Nations', and hence, on the 'established' level of power, political power, and each is ready to assert its superiority. While, the motivations that lead to revolution within the Nation, are the 'freedom' and 'equality' of the individuals. In the 'long run', its the real individuals that live and die from either activity. That's why, the sanctity and the integrity of the human individual should be the paramount consideration in either activity. However, a Nation, any Nation, should first resolve its domestic problems before it tackles International problems; and here, we find one problematic, among many, on the International sphere as we have on the National sphere; the relationship we have towards 'legal fictions'( the 'State' and corporations) and 'International fictions'( 'States', a la Rousseau). 'Fictions' asserting power, and real individuals, who 'live and die'.

Governments are powerful institutions.

Governments may be 'dead letters' but, they are powerful institutions. They constitute the 'last stop' of the 'natural inclination' to form into groups. When a Nation forms into a 'condition of togetherness' and assumes political power over a particular geographical area, they will do what they consider necessary to control and protect the geographical area against all 'comers'. As we said earlier, the requirements of an International Political Organization should be no different than the requirements of any other 'condition of togetherness', except for one very important factor, the International scene must be organized in the same manner as the National scene. That's the problematic. The 'National' is autonomous; the International should be autonomous; that means each 'National' within the 'International' should function under the same respect for the 'integrity' and 'dignity' of the human condition. Is that the case? Of course, the answer is No. On the National scene, any member of any Nation has a Right to "assemble and petition their government for redress of grievances"; the basis of that Right is that a Nation should be the 'political end-results' of all its 'People' within its jurisdiction. In other words a democratic 'People" government has a Right to 'assemble'. Does any 'other form' of government have the same right and ,more important, does a democracy have a Right to use force or threats against a non-democracy on the International scene? Can Democracy be 'compelled'? If there's an answer to this question, it must be sought within the Nation that instigates the International dilemma by asserting power over other Nations. The power of a Nation is in the real individuals that govern that Nation. Those are the Individuals that must be very careful of the 'political moves' they make on the International scene. We can't allow negative 'human motives' to get entangled with International 'political motives'. 'You' are 'free' and 'equal'; allow the Other to be the same. God help us.