Democracy and Capitalism are essential to the Nation.

Both Institutions are necessary to a strong Nation. However, we cannot change Democracy. Why not? Because Democracy is the best form of government there is, simply because its a form where the People govern themselves. This cannot be changed into a better form, it can only be 'perfected'. However, its possible to modify Capitalism to better fit the democratic scheme of things. How? Simply by moving the end-game of 'profits', the motor, behind the institution, into a more 'comprehensive' reach; one that will benefit the democratic institutions. As it exists today, Capitalism is all about profits and the problematic is that profits can be hoarded and converted into assets or acquisitions. This causes a fixation of a medium of exchange that should circulate. That, in itself, wouldn't be too bad, if greed did not take over, and if Capitalists were not trying to 'invade' the democratic underpinnings of the best form of government. That there is such a move is obvious from the recent Supreme Court decisions that allow 'legal fictions' to participate in politics and allows for a concentration of money within the political playing field. These political moves weaken the democratic value system and strengthens the influence of money within the political playing field. That can only lead to a Plutocracy or Oligarchy and I don't have to elaborate on that. Democracy is about fairness, about Freedom and Equality, and a better form of life for everyone. We may not be there yet, but that's the direction of change. Capitalism, is about profits, accretion, greed, and 'self-inflation'. It must be improved before it destroys the very democratic institution that allowed it to flourish. It has no sense of 'direction of change', it only wants more and more of the same; profits. It 'stops' at 'accumulation' and that becomes the sole end-game of capitalistic endeavors. Hence; democracy cannot be changed, only improved into more and more freedoms and equality; and more viable democratic institutions, supported by its economy. I call it a Capitalocracy, because it merges the 'best' of Capitalism with the 'best' in Democracy. Its somewhat of an 'unmanageable term' but the effects of these changes can establish, a better, stronger, Democracy; one 'unified front' moving in the right direction, instead of two institutions competing against each other. Money can never be more valuable, then Freedom and Equality. Freedom and Equality is how we got here.

Democratic Government may be an abstraction, but the real test of real Democracy is the 'condition' of the People.

As we all know, one can call a 'government' by any abstract term, and then claim to 'be' that System of government. But, as we also know, that's not the 'true' test. The 'true' test is the 'condition' of the People and the freedoms and liberties they enjoy as well as the fact that all human beings are equal human beings; i.e. they are politically Free and Equal. The test of Equality is often a clear gauge of the real attitude of the 'governing power' as well as the 'Other people' living in a condition of togetherness. Freedom means freedom from any 'imposed limitation', but for, the compliance with Constitutional Laws, and institutions, and Equality means, equal human beings. Equality has nothing to do with money, possessions, 'net value', or any social or political position. In other words equality means equal human beings. Discrimination by Race, Color, Creed, or economic situation, has nothing to do with equality, nor, the 'unfair' levy of taxation, which raises the issue of taxation of corporations, (recognized legal fictions) and taxation of real Individuals. Hence, we can call ourselves, a "Democracy", an "Autocracy", or a "Plutocracy", or an "Oligarchy", or even by this new neologism, "Capitalocracy", or, "Capitalocrats". All these are abstractions that serve a merely 'descriptive' function; they still have to be analyzed by the actual 'effect' they each have at the Bottom of government, where all the people live, and have their Freedom and Equality. If a Democracy does in fact respect and protects the Freedom and Equality of the Individual, it is, in fact, a Democracy. However, the fact that the value system of the economy, to wit; "money", a medium of exchange, has 'taken over' the value system of democracy, which is the Freedom and equality of the Individual, makes it necessary to better describe, the requirements of a real democracy. Money and possessions have no place in determining 'freedom' and 'equality' in a Democracy. Hence, in a Democracy, the economy must be organized in such a way that the Democratic value system 'balances out' the invasive Capitalistic value system of 'profits'( the motor of the economy). This balancing can only be accomplished by organizing the governmental structure in a way that compels obligatory institutions within the economy, to contribute to the democratic institutions already established. In other words, the economic value system does not stop with profits, but continues as a 'support and aid' to Democratic institutions. No government can accomplish all that is necessary in a democracy, solely by the levy of taxes; especially when the Tax system favors the rich and oppresses the poor. Hence the necessity of re-describing the Capitalistic system driven by profits, into a system that compels contribution, to the democratic institutions within which it thrives. We need more Capitalocrats; i.e, more 'Democratic involvement' 'by' the economy,'within' the economy. Democratic government 'needs' Capitalism, but Capitalism can not exist in a Non-Democratic Nation. Its 'pay-back' time.

The term, "Capitalocracy" is an abstract neologism but, like abstract Democracy and abstract Capitalism, must be implemented in the Real World.

Neologisms are everywhere; so there is nothing new in using a new configuration to further define and clarify the necessary relation between "Democracy" and "Capitalism". In this new usage one can better 'see' how Capitalistic activity can be arranged in such fashion that the term can have 'practical' applications within a 'Democratic society'. Of course, that means a Capitalocracy. Though the term itself is unwieldy, the activity appears more focused; more defined; and more manageable. The political effect of such a term is that the 'end-game' for economic activity does not 'stop' at "making a profit", but continues with an 'impetus' towards Democratic values, and consequently, places a sort of 'barrier' on the 'inclination' to hoard 'profits'. Hoarding profits keeps a 'medium of circulation' from circulating. 'Profits' become invested in 'personal' acquisitions and 'properties', which in turn constitutes a 'hoarding' of sorts, all of which inures to the benefit of some Corporation, or, some individual at the top 1%. In a Capitalocracy, the profits from economic activity, are 'further circulated', among the People at the Bottom, by improving institutions, creating jobs, work, just wages, health care and benefits, proper compensation for veterans, homes, and taking care of the 'homeless', etc. Of course, some will say, that's the job of the government, but is it? Then, People would cry, "socialism". No, the purpose of such institutions is not to make the Bottom wealthy, but to insure a better life-style for each and every individual at the Bottom of a 'real democracy'. Of course its not that simple. Programs, practices, and new investment opportunities would have to be established within the economy. The Ideal, being laid out, there should still be enough remaining for the Top 1% to still remain at a 'wealthier level' than anyone at the Bottom, but possibly, not constitute a 1% at the top. Hoarding hurts democracy; it increases egotistical inclinations in some individuals to try to get 'more of the same' and, who knows, possibly to be at the top of the Forbes list. The individuals in a Capitalocracy who contribute towards a democratic social, should be recognized for the personal 'sacrifices' they make. There are many 'millionaires' who contribute to schools, the needy, the sick, and the unfortunate, and who go unrecognized. That's a shame. That's as 'bad' as having 'homeless' in a wealthy Nation; a Nation that functions as a democracy. In a real democracy, those who help Democracy should not go unrecognized, and its time that Capitalism understands its proper function in a Democracy, i.e. as a Capitalocracy. If we didn't have Democracy, there wouldn't be any Capitalism. If it wasn't for People, there would be no need for 'products'.

The two words, "Democracy" and "Capitalism" are theoretical terms.

The two terms, being theoretical, must be implemented in a practical manner. The implementation of Democracy into a practical arrangement is the establishment of a government, of People, by People, and for People, wherein the term, 'for People', refers back to the 'same people' referred too in the originating term, 'of people'. Hence, it is a cycle of 'self-government'. The term Capitalism refers to an economy where the 'motor' for economic activity is 'profits'. Hence, it can be said that Government is 'constructive', and Capitalism is 'productive'. The productive aspects of Capitalism can be anything that makes a profit, e.g. hula-hoops. While the 'constructive' nature of democracy must refer to the people it governs, and the 'ideal' of 'construction' would be 'inclusive', i.e. it would include each and every individual situated at the Bottom of government. Hence, government has nowhere to go, except towards 'perfection'. While the ideal of Capitalism is only to make a profit, and unfortunately, the making of profits, not being sufficient, it (money) is hoarded and 'hoarding money' is 'applying the brakes' to a medium that must circulate. Hoarding money can only be 'motored' by greed, otherwise it would not be 'limited' to the top 1%. There lies its problematic. Consequently, it would be better to refer to economic activity as 'Capitalocracy'or Capitalocratic i.e. an activity that benefits the People and the social institutions at the Bottom of government and consequently, 'contains' the profits within the 'institutional' and 'social structures' of a Nation. In this way economic activity becomes a 'function of a democracy' where institutional activities benefit the economic and social structures of a Nation. This arrangement would not be antithetical, and furthermore, the term 'Capitalism" could shed the suffix "ism" which did a lot of damage to the originating term of 'commune'(a Biblical term)to the later use of the term 'Communism'. ( please don't get me wrong, I don't support communism, its just an example to show how some "isms" acquired a bad name.) Hence, Capitalocracy could benefit a Democratic Social and might 'put the brakes' on 'hoarding, a medium of exchange', that must circulate to the benefit of the social structure, that gave it its arising. Again, don't get me wrong, there would still be plenty of profits for the Capitalists, but the 'hoarding' would be less justifiable by words as "I did it on my own", "its my money", "I am a hard worker and you are lazy". The truth is that none of the above statements justify 'success in the economy'. The only justification is that those individuals live in a democracy where Capitalism, or better yet, Capital-ocratic activity can be pursued. Try it in an Autocratic government.

Democracy and Capitalism may be antithetical in principle, but they can function together.

Democracy and Capitalism may be antithetical in principle, but they can be made to function more harmoniously. Of course, the initiating principles must be kept separately, but the end-result can become more democratic. Capitalism, in such a case, would function in a manner that would promote democratic institutions. If that should occur, it could even be described as Capital-ocracy. Capitalocracy would insure that the 'end results' of Capitalistic activity would inure to the benefit of 'Freedom and Equality', in such a way, as to benefit, in a more 'economic manner', the Bottom of government. This 'move' would indirectly limit the amounts of money that are usually taken out of circulation and would allow democratic institutions to flourish. Of course, this approach to better merging the results of economic activity at the Bottom, within the Nation that gave rise to it, would depend on the individuals initiative. Unfortunately, that impacts on the 1% and that may not be a very welcome move. Nevertheless, it leads to less greed by the individuals at the Top 1%, and many others, and more Democracy for the individuals at the Bottom. 'Capitalism' within a Democracy would not be an 'ism'; it would be a Capitalocracy. That would not be a 'trickle down' economy, instead its practice would strengthen the social institutions at the Bottom; the institutions that help integrate the 'condition of togetherness' which constitute the essence of Democracy. Those 'institutions' would be, jobs, health benefits, food, fair wages, veterans benefits, homes, and other democratic opportunities. A democracy should not have 'homeless' people. Some of these 'moves' would effect 'outsourcing' to other Nations and the avoidance of taxation by off-shore banking, etc.. The goal of a Capitalocracy would be to keep as much economic activity within the Nation, as is possible, and to stop outsourcing for the sole benefit of a larger profit, and to keep the economic benefits within the Nation that gave rise to those profits. Capitalism flourished in a democratic economy; now its time to pay back. We need a Capitalocracy.

Its not Democracy vs. Capitalism; its Democracy and Capitalism

We have also said that the two principles must be kept separate. Capitalism should not 'mingle' in the democratic principles or get involved in politics, for the 'sole purpose', of augmenting profits. It must be kept separate, but that is not to say that the People cannot benefit from the 'results' of Capitalism. A capitalistic principle creates profits for the Individuals who own or share in the instruments, or the owners of the instruments, of the activity; usually a corporate structure. However, it could become possible that the 'profit venture' should benefit those who will buy or use the product, and that, the activity can be organized, to benefit the Bottom of government. 'Profits' or simply money, should benefit those who help the venture by buying and using the products and by creating jobs, income, wages, and homes for the People in the Nation first, and then, the International sphere. This is not a 'hand-out' scheme; its a balancing scheme where the Triad of government benefits by having economic activity contributing towards a 'balanced triad', viz. a well, economically, balanced, Bottom, strongly supporting a Democratic Top by means of its economic activity. All nations have and need an economic activity. The problematic arises when an individual is overcome with personal 'greed' instead of allowing a medium of exchange, money, to circulate as it was meant to do, and as it must. Instead the 'few', hoard the 'money part' of the capitalistic activity, for the 'simple reasons', of having more of the same, and possibly, to make the top of the Forbes list. How ironic, Government is designed to govern the 'condition of togetherness', in a 'condition of togetherness', and Capitalism 'degenerates' from the 'condition' into an individual emphasis against the 'condition' and basically, 'gives birth' to economic greed. An individual can have as much money as s/he pleases, as long as its not at the expense of the democratic principles, of Freedom and Equality. The oft repeated and sometimes 'ridiculed' phrase of "trickle-down economics" is more real than appears. That is to say, the abstract term sounds silly, but the reality has never really taken place. Actually, money always seems to 'trickle up'. If the principle of 'Capitalism' was properly generated and used, nothing would have to 'trickle'; it would be a 'whole' effect. Unfortunately, that takes individual effort, and the 'haves' are not about to help the 'have-not'. That seems to be the 'crime' of humanity; to aspire to be on the Forbes list instead of the 'Freedom and Equality' of the human condition. Truly, Democracy is the best government around; and its certainly, not perfect; but it must do better. Democracy should not be overcome by Capitalism. Democracy 'helps' Capitalism by protecting Freedom and Equality; why can't Capitalism help Democracy by being a Capital-ocracy?

Can racial descrimination be 'controled' in a democracy.

The human condition is a 'universal phenomena' and it is the 'same' everywhere. No one can make distinctions about 'life'. No one has 'more' life than another, and no one has a 'better', more genuine life, flowing through his/her veins than another. Of course, in a democracy, every individual is Free and Equal. S/he is free to think as S/he pleases. But, remember that the Many individuals living at the Bottom, in a 'condition of togetherness', must have Government. Hence, the factors for control in a 'condition of togetherness' are different from the factors that motivate individuals. Government becomes necessary because of the Many, and government must assume control of the 'condition of togetherness', hence, government must 'control' racial discrimination within the 'condition of togetherness'. Government cannot assume the prejudicial attitudes of the individual towards another, and the duty of government is to 'govern' through Law and Order, within the 'condition'. Law and Order becomes necessary because the values that govern a 'condition of togetherness' in a Democracy are the Freedom and Equality of each and everyone. Since Government is neutral, when it comes to 'personal preferences', it must acquire control over the entire 'condition of togetherness', and that means there can be no discrimination among, and between, individuals in the 'condition'; and furthermore, government must have laws to control 'personal preferences' viz. discrimination. Government is different from an individual, and although an individual is Free to think as s/he wishes, Government is not free to 'think' and 'do' as it wishes; and neither are the individuals who are functioning in a Representative capacity. Racial discrimination between individuals is an unfortunate attitude, and its 'harmful' to the 'condition of togetherness', and it can only arise within an individual who doesn't understand the equality of 'life', as a real human being, nor the requirements of a 'civil' Society. All human beings are equal, no one is more 'human' than another. Therefore the 'practice' or 'support' of racial discrimination by a democratic government, or the legislation of Laws that have a 'preferential bend' is highly inappropriate. Justice Sotomayor is correct and her courage in stating the fact must be respected. How sad, that the Supreme Court cannot see any further than their 'individual preferences'. A 'democratically blind' Supreme Court can only lead to an Oligarchy or a Plutocracy. May the 'spirit' of the Dissent live on. Hopefully, a 'spark' in the direction of 'Real' democracy will catch fire.

Its one thing for a Nation to call itself a Democracy; another to be a 'real' democracy.

Its one thing to claim to be a Democracy; quite another to actually be a real Democracy. The political term "Democracy" is an abstraction which applies to the form and organization of 'governing' of any one particular Nation. That government has People at the Bottom, in the millions, who constitute the 'essence' of democracy. A Democratic form of government always places the Rights of the People as the sole purpose for its activity. No government has 'any considerations' or duties to perform, other than those that apply to, and benefit, the People. Of course, there will be activity that 'purely' reflects on the government structure and not on the People. But these activities usually apply to administrative duties, and possibly even to 'shows of strength', on the International sphere, but, that being said, even those activities 'indirectly reflect' on the Many individuals at the Bottom. A 'government' cannot protect itself. A government needs People to support it, and to help 'represent' the Nation, when necessary, to protect itself. All government activity involves the People; or its not government activity. Simply put, Governments cannot act on its own behalf, it can only act as a 'representative' of its People, and as such can only act on behalf of the People. That's why, its primary duty for even existing, is to represent the People; it has no other purpose for existing. All democratic activity is for the benefit of the People. Period! Hence, legislation and law must help the millions at the Bottom. A Democratic arrangement of government, the economy, and the Social, is one structured to help 'all the people' at the Bottom; that means, opportunities, work, jobs, income, health benefits, homes, and what's wrong with a little recreation? A problem arises when Leaders in a democracy begin to think in some 'politically' warped manner instead of a 'Representative' manner. Of course, there are Nations that call themselves Democratic, that don't care about their People, and don't provide for them. They become Nations with leaders that act on behalf of themselves and with the goals of acquiring more territory, or acquiring more 'power'. Some individuals begin to 'think' in economic terms, or in terms of increasing their money, their possessions, or assuming positions of power within the Nation, so as to legislate policy that will increase their already vast amounts of money; that would be the 1%, the Plutocrats, the Oligarchs, or just simply, the non-democrats. Where are the Statesmen?

The 'problem' with Democracy is democracy.

One must be very careful how one uses verbal terms; especially terms that refer to political 'structures', 'political systems', or, on a more practical level, simply 'politics'. All forms of government are abstractions at the Top; and there is no difference between one abstraction and another. In the same manner, the term 'politics' applies to all the different ways of 'practicing' or implementing the different political ideologies. But, for now, we are focusing on the term "Democracy". The term, "Democracy" is also an abstraction but, the term applies to the 'theoretical' level of the structure set up to implement the ideology. The 'actuality', i.e. the actual effects of the implementation of the term, takes place at the Bottom of the governmental triad. As we have said, the Bottom of the governmental structure, is where the People reside in a 'condition of togetherness'. Its possible for a government to be a Democracy at the Top and not be a democracy at the Bottom. This is the problematic. The People at the Bottom must 'live' the democracy on a daily basis. That individual at the Bottom is 'Free and Equal', as is any other individual, within the same system; and that includes the individual who has been 'elevated' to the Top, to do the 'governing'. In a Democracy, all individuals are Free and Equal, in a real way. Each individual has her/his own life and is free to 'live' it. Governmental structures cannot interfere with that expression of the 'living condition'. Actually, government has a duty to protect and defend the 'living conditions' at the Bottom. Governments are necessary because the human beings are too numerous and need guidance to live side by side in the 'condition of togetherness'. However, that does not entitle the theoretical structure of government to implement policy and law that does not respect the integrity of the human condition. The human condition is sacred and should not be manipulated or demeaned politically, by policy or law, nor by any governmental structure. Democracy at the Top is theoretical ,but at the Bottom, it is actually lived by the People. That should be the case. But, is it always true? Of course, not. Many policies and laws that are applied to the people create problems, instead of resolving problems. Those policies and laws should be rewritten to reflect 'life' at the Bottom. If that is not the case, they should be abolished. 'Life' at the Top is never a problem; the problems are always at the Bottom. That's why real democracy is about People; the policies and the laws may be good, and if so, they have to be implemented, and secondly; they have to actually be 'lived' by the People who live at the Bottom.

The first duty of a Nation to its People, is to provide a decent livelihood

The sole purpose of government is to govern, and 'governing' means to provide a decent livelihood for its People. I understand that economics is involved, but Capitalism is here to stay. How best to govern, than to provide a 'livelihood', good health, and shelter, etc., for the People. Of course, there's other aspects to governing, but isn't a Nations duty primarily to protect and defend the people it governs. Government should not take sides with 'economic ventures' because those activities are motored by a profit motive, and although that motive works in Capitalism, it will not work in governing a Democracy. Government has a duty not to align itself with 'economic ventures', particularly, at the expense of the People. Sure the economy is important, and maybe government should be more involved in the economy, but the important goal of government is a democratic goal; to provide for the Safety and Welfare of its People, and not to make a profit. In a Democracy, this attitude leads to Policy and Programs that benefit the underlying essence of all governments, viz., the People. When a Nation becomes more preoccupied with its relations to Other Nations, instead of its own People, something is not right. Primarily, because its concern should be the Welfare and Safety of its own People instead of 'some' project to enlarge its geographical parameters or to acquire power over another Nation. Of course, there is always the 'necessary posture' of 'defense', but otherwise, its concern should be the Safety and Welfare of its People. Unfortunately, the economic system, or Capitalism, is not motored by such an attitude. The 'Safety' of a Nations People is the safety within the National sphere and the Safety within the International sphere. The 'Welfare' of a Nations People is the physical, economic, and domestic welfare of the individuals within the National sphere and the 'Welfare' within the International sphere. Truly, the first duty of a Nation is to provide for the Safety and Welfare of its People, and that includes the economic welfare of its People. There is no room for a 1%; for a 'Plutocracy'; or for an 'Oligarchy'. A democratic system is motored by the Freedom and Equality of each and every individual and, if such is not the case, maybe its time to invoke the First Amendment and begin to 'peaceably assemble' our 'collective minds', at least, and bring about a real 'attitudinal change', and then, a 'real change' into a real democracy.

A Nations first duty is to its own People.

A Nations first duty is to its own People. Obviously, on the International level, a Nation has no business interfering with the 'governing' of any neighboring Nation. Of course, every Nation is free to govern its People as it sees fit. However, its one thing to 'govern' a People, and quite another, to abuse or attempt to destroy, the human condition within its boundaries, which 'human condition' is the essence of every government. Of course, no Nation sets out to intentionally destroy its own People. So the question is always why is a Nation having problems with its own People? Certainly all human beings should have a right to complain about how its government is treating the People. In a real Democracy, the People have a right to "petition the government for redress of grievances". Unless the changes are made, this Right can easily turn into a revolution. Of course, all governments are usually better 'armed' or 'equipped' than the so-called 'revolutionaries'. This scenario raises difficult problems. The reason for these problems is the 'inequality' of the different sides. But, that is the nature of revolutions. The problem arises when the government-side decides to quell the revolution with 'violent-means'. Revolutions should bring about a re-assessment of democratic values, not a suppression of the revolution, and a continuation of the same value-system; a value system that caused it in the first place. A violent suppression merely causes a re-alignment of forces. The result is an already 'divided-up social' becomes 'more divided-up' and entrenched and the 'tension' merely continues. Problems should be resolved, not made worse. However, on an International scale the issue that arises is the duty' of the other nations, when the nation uses force and 'unfair' means of quelling a revolution. Certainly, a Nation that uses chemical-weapons against the revolting citizens does not get any respect from neighboring Nations. What is the duty of the neighboring Nations? Of course, one always hopes that a Nation can resolve its own governing problems, but if the revolt reaches a point where unfair or chemical weapons are being used by the government, no Nation can accept that as an expression of the governing process. Every nation should resolve its own problems. All other Nations should 'mind their own business'. But, no Nation has to 'put up' with the annihilation of the human race. To be sure, People need 'governing', but if that Nation is 'not governing', who needs that Nation.

A 'rich' Nation cannot survive, if the 'greater' part of its People live in poverty.

To say that "a Nation is rich", is an abstract statement. To begin with, the concept of the Nation or the "State" is itself considered a 'fiction'. I assume this last statement means that the concept is abstract because it does not exist as a 'concrete thing'. To be sure, it applies to a geographical area that has limits and, the Nation to which the concept applies, is 'well established' and 'well defined'. Nevertheless, the concept itself; Nation, State, or Country, is an abstract term that applies to a 'political entity' that exists in a well circumscribed geographical area as a 'real' source of 'political power'. This rationale may not be sufficient to justify the use of the term, 'Fiction', but the main thing to consider, is that the term refers to an 'abstract entity'. When we call a Nation 'rich', we are referring to an abstraction that refers directly to a 'political entity' as a whole. But, no 'Nation' can exist without 'a People', hence no Nation can be rich, if the greater part of its People live in poverty. How can an 'abstraction' be considered 'rich', if the essence of the entity, to wit; the 'People', live in poverty? That does not make sense. I do not refer to a situation where all the People within any 'rich' Nation are equally 'rich'. But, I do refer to a situation where the 'greater part of the People' live in poverty, i.e. without homes, without work, without funds, without health-care, without education, and, the gravest problem of all, without food. How can a Nation be said to be rich and have poverty-stricken Peoples? That's a weak Nation, not a strong Nation. The problems with a weak Nation is that it could have, both, 'International problems', as well as, 'National problems'. If such a Nation cannot resolve its National problems, it could deconstruct from within. People are important. They cannot be ignored for long. Once, People understand that they are the essence of any one Nation, they understand that they are the 'strength' of that Nation. A Nation without the support of its People is a weak Nation. It cannot 'fight' too long, on both fronts.

A political system that abuses its People is abusing its own strength.

A political system has power over its own People, but, it does not have power over the People of other political systems. On an International scale, any one government, or, any one Nation, has the same 'power as a Nation', as any Other Nation. On an International scale, all Nations have the same Integrity and political power, as any Other Nation. In other words, Internationally, all Nations are Equal and all Nations should be respected as Equal entities of equal power. However, its different, when any one Nation claims to be more powerful than any Other Nation or begins to flex its political muscles in the International community. Obviously, that should never be the case, because as Nations, they are all equal. Nations are institutionally of equal power and, within the International community, they are Free and Equal in the same manner as individuals are Free and Equal within any one democratic Nation. However, all Nations also possess 'strength'. A Nation that abuses its own People, for whatever reason, can never have 'strength' in its competition with Other Nations. A Nation with 'abused People' is a weak Nation. That's why every Nation should protect and respect the integrity, Freedom and Equality, of its own People. Although every Nation has political power over its People, it must also have the 'strength of its People' in order to hold together. Otherwise, it becomes weak. Sure, technology has taken over the 'war machine', but without People, no Nation can hold together. Eventually, a Nation that abuses its People, will self-destruct. Technology and Weapons of Mass Destruction can never rule a world, they can only destroy it. The World without People is not a World. In every case, whether Nationally, or Internationally, the World is about People; its about humanity in a 'condition of togetherness' trying to get along. Regardless, the Nationality, color of skin, race, wealth, or religion, the human condition has an 'innate strength', and every human Individual has a 'strength' that must express its 'Life energy' as a human being. People are real; governments are not. No government can touch that; whether on a National or on an International scale, the human condition is sacred, Free and Equal. Its time for governments to understand that without People, a Nation is weak. Sooner or later, you will self-destruct. Humanity cannot be held back.

Democracy can work, if it stops substituting "profits" for Freedom and Equality

Its one thing to say "we are democratic" and another for the Legislation and the Judiciary, to 'favor' the rich. The first statement refers to the system of government, the second statement refers to an economic 'activity' or to 'preferential treatment'. The political position that a government cannot regulate the 'appearance' of favoritism is to miss the point. Its not an 'appearance', its an activity. The activity actually takes place, its an 'activity' which is being 'distributed' within the political domain. Of course, that 'activity' and 'distribution' refers to the 'medium of exchange' or money. This political move facilitates and heavily favors the top 1%. We are headed towards a Plutocracy. Well maybe, if a Plutocratic Nation finds itself involved in a War, in the near future, it can enlist all the wealthy people or the 1% to fight the war 'on the ground'. After all, it will be their Nation. In such a case, surely, there will not be any legislation that will 'benefit' the 99%, so maybe the Plutocrats will fight for their 'Freedom and Equality'. Forget it, its not going to happen. That's the danger of Plutocracy. It's only a 'limited' form of government. In a democracy, where the Plutocrats have taken over the form of government, the end political result is simple 'abuse'. Plutocracy is economic abuse of the 99% by the top 1%. How easily, they forget that even Plutocratic Nations must live among many other Nations on the International sphere. That's one of the dangers a Nation runs in being 'greedy' and in 'substituting economic values' for the democratic values of Freedom and Equality. It becomes vulnerable. That's why democracies are about People, all the People, and about each individuals Freedom and Equality. To be sure, the millions of People, in a Democracy, will fight for 'their' Freedom and Equality', because its 'their' freedom and equality that is in danger. In a democracy, its not about how much money any one has, its about being able to live 'too its fullness' in Freedom and Equality. How can anyone living in Freedom and Equality, not fight for their Nation? How can anyone be expected to fight so that the 1% can enjoy their luxuries. We have actually seen how some individual Rulers were living in 'golden Palaces' while their People were practically starving. Why are human beings so callused against other human beings. Sadly, the political problem has its roots in a human problem. Democracy is a 'theoretical structure', and if it functions the way it should, it will work. But, it must be made 'real'. If its abused, we're headed for trouble.

In Democracy, the People 'confers' power to the Top; in Autocracy, the Top 'assumes' power over the People.

Most forms of government, if they were arranged properly, would not be problematic. The individuals at the Top of government are the ones who are 'problematic'. Truly, a Democratic form of government is the best form, because it delineates, in a more clear manner,the source of the power of government. As you know, in democracy, the People confer power by electing an individual into office. It's the individual, or Leader, who becomes responsible for the exercise of power, as a Nation, and as a Government. In a Democracy, the People grant power to the Top, but, only for a short period of time; and by a division into Three Branches, they also have 'Checks and Balances' over the exercise of that power. In Autocracies, regardless of how anyone got to the Top, the Bottom of government, or, the People, are at the mercy of the Leaders ability to handle 'Power'. Obviously, many Leaders and individuals cannot handle power; to be sure they know how to 'wallow in its glory', but when it comes to exercising power on behalf of the Nation, they get entangled with 'personal wishes and desires' that are completely unrelated to an equitable manner of governing a large body of Peoples. At a very basic level of government, governmental 'misbehavior' is individual misbehavior. Its sad to see individuals who have been 'given', or who have 'assumed', tremendous 'chunks' of political power, and who abuse the duty to govern and all because of some personal preferences, or wishes, or desires, that the People are completely unaware of. Individuals at the Bottom of government are not, normally, motivated by 'power'; but they surely can understand being 'discriminated against' in whatever form, that might take. Not to even mention, the young people who become necessary as soldiers, in a 'condition of war'. So, what's wrong with the 'National logic' of a Nation? 'National logic' is not the same as 'individual logic'. And since a political Office also has a duty to represent the People in an International sphere, why do some 'Leaders' think in terms of 'personal, individual logic, instead of a National, International logic. Obviously, the reasoning is different on the two levels, and we cannot reduce these two levels of interaction, down to a 'childish level' of, " my Dad can beat up your Dad". Its sad to see individuals who should be on very high levels of intelligence, as representatives of millions, and who engage in 'activity' that has a potential for war. " Listen to the People", and understand, that you have the highest, most noble duty, to Represent, respect, and protect the human condition.

Land, gold, and then, oil were 'early' stages of growth in the founding of many Nations.

First there was 'Land'; a 'new' Land, then there was gold (originally, a basis for a new medium of exchange, money), and then there was oil; all of which formed a foundation for the establishment of many a 'new Nation'. Of course, now there is a different technology; the Internet; the 'computer' world; a world made possible by the quantification of language into 'bits'. Today, we live in a more 'intact' world. National boundaries have been 'erased'. Language and human communication has gone International. We are all 'neighbors'. One would think that a more broad, larger, 'condition of togetherness', of human beings, would be possible and would enhance the 'possibility' of 'neighbors', to become, maybe, 'brothers' and 'sisters'. What has happened? Well, we have regressed. The International sphere is now fighting over Land and using Oil as a tool for intimidation and wrecking havoc on other Nations. The problem is 'governmental power', and mostly the 'desire of governments' to continue the fighting over the initial basis of 'National integrity'; Land, Gold, and Oil. Truly, we have regressed, but its a regression that applies to abstract political entities, called Nations; and Nations only function with 'power'. Nations have power over their own 'Peoples'; but, instead, they 'express' this power over other Nations. Every Nations power is dependent on its own Peoples. Without its People, it cannot have power. There is no such political entity. A political entity cannot exist without its Peoples. And hence, a Nation can never, or, should never, 'express power' over Other Nations. Political power exists only within the confines of any one Nation. Relations between Nations is more of a 'Neighborly' affair, or a 'brotherly' affair. That's why each Nation with 'power' has an identity as a political entity. So, what is the 'job' of the United Nations? To keep the peace! Every Nation 'with power' that comes 'together as Nations' into the form called, The United Nations, cannot grant power, to the entity called The United Nations. They form into a larger 'group' of Nations by 'agreement' and 'consent' to be governed as a group of separate Nations. Nations cannot grant power to a larger entity because only the People of any one Nation can grant power to govern to its own political entity. That's the only source of political power there is. There is no such thing as a grant of power from one Nation to another. So what's the problem. The problems, obviously, are the so-called Leaders of each Nation. The problem is an individual's problem; one that arises from the human condition. How sad. 'Representatives' of Peoples are still fighting that old problem of 'needing' more Land; more 'gold' (money); and more Oil. Will the human condition ever learn. Truly, the human condition is headed towards self-destruction; and it won't be a 'governments fault'; it will be an individuals fault; a simple failure of the mixture of power and 'personality'.

The most important 'institution' in the world( government) is being misused.

How can the most important institution in the world be misused? The structure of Government is an abstraction, but exists only to become 'practical'. Otherwise, there would be no need for government. Since, the People at the Bottom of government are the 'governed', it is vital that 'governments' function properly because, their sole aim is to 'govern' their People, not to 'govern' other Nations nor to 'quarrel' with other political entities. At what point do Nations go beyond the bounds of their proper self-interest. At what point, do they 'extend-over' into the 'proper functioning' of the Other Nations? We still see Nations 'fighting' over geographical areas that do not pertain to them. I can understand the so-called 'possessiveness' of a Nation over its own 'National structure' or geographical area, particularly when it comes to responding to 'aggressive behavior' by the Other Nation. However, what happens when the Peoples of any one Nation have 'revolted' and formed their own 'Nation'? What right does the 'mother' Nation have in attempting to bring it back into the 'fold'? It doesn't have that right, because the People have 'spoken'. But, what rights or obligations does that scenario give to the other Nations? Do they have a right to interfere? The problematic at the International level, should be 'handled' by a United Nations form of government. Does a United Nations have a right to interfere when any one 'mother' Nation is interfering with the 'newly formed' Nation? Absolutely. But, where is the United Nations? If a United Nations is not responding to some atrocity, do the Other Nations have a right to respond? There is the problematic. Does a Nation have the right to interfere when the 'essence' of government is being harmed or destroyed? Governments are about People; not about Other Nations. Sadly, abstract differences often lead to 'practical difficulties'. In a Nation they lead to 'revolution'; in the World or a United Nations, they lead to War. How can a 'tool' constructed for the sole purpose of 'governing' the Many, be so misused. Government is only a tool; a necessary 'tool' for 'governing' People. Its somewhat ridiculous for an 'abstract entity' to 'differ abstractly' with Other nations , about 'some International issue', that could cause a war between Nations. People 'never' have a say-so in war; they're just 'dragged' into war. War is not necessary, but neither is the 'destruction' of the 'human conditions of existence'; 'conditions' that make governments necessary. Nations should 'concern' themselves with their own Nation, and should stop 'dabbling' outside their geographical boundary.

Why is Democracy and Capitalism antithetical?

It is important to see the antithetical nature of the two different systems. Don't misunderstand. The two systems are both necessary to a viable Nation and a viable economy. We need them both. But, one is for governing and the other is for producing necessary 'goods' and circulating a 'medium of exchange' within the economy. Without money, the economy is not going to 'move'. Its the 'motor' of the economy and its circulation is necessary. Nevertheless, governing millions of People, is about the Freedom and Equality of the Individual, and those two basic values, or 'qualities', are the only 'political values' that will help the People 'hold together' as a Nation. Otherwise, why live in a 'condition of togetherness'? Of course, everyone will say, "well, where are you going to go? As a practical matter, there's no other place to go. You don't have a choice!" One can argue in that manner, and that may well be true, but, be very careful, because that point of view is completely theoretical and completely misses the point. The point is everyone is born into a political entity or Nation, and that Nation already has its own government, and its own economy. Some are democratic some are not. If you happen to be born into a democracy, do you want to be 'governed' by the principles of an economy? In other words, do you want to be governed by the 'now become Rich', and, the 'now become wealthy', or, the so-called 1%, or do you want to be governed in 'Freedom and Equality'? In a 'government' that has been completely 'taken over' by the rich, or that has substituted the principles of Capitalism, in place of, the principles of Democracy, I assure you, will not have Freedom, nor Equality. Only in Freedom and Equality, is it possible for any one individual to 'achieve something' within the Nation. Otherwise, we are born into 'slavery'. There are many kinds of slavery, and 'economic slavery' is one of them. Where are the jobs, where are the 'opportunities' to achieve a 'certain Equality' that makes us 'Equal' human beings? (This would 'attenuate' the so-called 'classes' in a society). There should be no classes in a society, only Equally Free human beings. Human beings are not divided into classes, only the principles of an economy 'creates classes'. That's precisely why we cannot be governed by economic principles. The economy, as important as it is, has too remain within the economy, and should not infiltrate into the principles of a Democracy. Democracy and 'governing' is about People, the economy is about a 'medium of circulation'. Keep both, but keep them separate. For Gods sake, overturn Citizens United, and keep Democracy viable.

Theoretical Democracy is different from practical democracy.

It is very important to understand the difference between a theoretical Democracy and an actual, practical democracy. A theoretical democracy is merely a verbal 'postulation' or 'arrangement' of the structure of government and the 'political state' of the Nation. Its easy to have a theoretical Democracy at the Top of government, and its easy to 'talk' democracy, but its not so easy to have an 'actual' democracy at the Bottom of government. The reason should be obvious. The Top is general and hence linguistic in nature; whereas, the Bottom is actual, real, and practical in nature; not to mention that the Bottom includes millions of individuals. The relation between the Top and the Bottom must be a 'real' relation; in other words, it cannot just retain its theoretical import and never be reduced down to a practical, applicable, import at the Bottom. That's where the problematic enters, and that's where 'political language', with all its 'misty' meanings also enters. Political language is not an 'accurate' language, or, maybe I should say, is not always used in an accurate fashion. It has not been 'designed' by politicians to be accurate and we have already pointed out that 'persuasion' in politics 'draws' more from the 'advertising media'( persuasion in 'economic' affairs) than it does from the ideological stance of its politics. To be sure, Constitutional language is accurate, but it 'still' has to be interpreted and is 'still being interpreted'. ( here notice, the Citizens case) Hence, the 'problem' with 'political language' is language itself and its 'aversion' to 'practice'. Why is that the case? Because, theory is abstract and practice is real, and practice includes all the individuals at the bottom. We can 'talk' democracy and never 'do democracy'. But, keep in mind that the 'gap', is a necessary gap, and allows 'many things' to be said about theoretical democracy, that may sound 'too critical'; nevertheless, they are necessary. For some strange reason, People are always dividing themselves into separate groups,or Parties. But, it would seem that in a 'political situation', the necessity of 'unity' should be perceived. A nation cannot 'hold' together, if, its too 'divisive'. Great 'Numbers' in a 'condition of togetherness', are essential to the 'strength' of the bottom in any Nation. Hence, its also 'easy' to criticize the 'Top' of a Democracy, (or any other form of government); nevertheless, the Bottom of democracy has to 'live' democracy. One cannot 'live' democracy if s/he is not Free and Equal. Hence, the difference between the Theoretical and the Practical in politics.

If Capitalism is not 'democratic', why mix the two principles?

Democracy is one 'thing', Capitalism is another. If the basis of their proper functioning is not the same principle, then why mix the two. But, be careful; I'm not saying that the two cannot exist side-by side. For sure, they can both exist in a Democracy but, proper 'separation' is essential because democracy functions on the basis of the Freedom and Equality of each individual and Capitalism functions on the basis of 'making profits'. Government must be democratic, while the economy must be 'profitable'. So, what is the problematic? The problematic is 'greed' and the hoarding of the 'medium of exchange'. Money should not 'creep' into politics and democracy should not be 'practiced' for the purpose of making a 'profit'; nor, should seeking political Office be considered as a 'profit venture'. When money seeps into politics, the buying and selling of political offices becomes possible. If only the 'rich' can run for Office, we have the same effect. If money is hoarded, the 'medium of exchange' is not being exchanged. The hoarding of the medium of exchange is, obviously, why we have a 1%. So, how are the two principles kept separate? We have said that the problem is 'greed'. Greed is not a characteristic of the political, and it is not a characteristic of the 'proper functioning' of the economy. I say, 'proper functioning' because the 'medium of exchange' must circulate and not be hoarded. 'Hoarding' is even bad for the economy, because it fixates 'profits' in one place and stifles circulation; e.g. the 1%. Hence, money should circulate among the economy at the Bottom of government where all the People live. The bottom line is that 'greed' is a 'human problem'. Its not a political problem, nor, an economic problem. Its a human problem and the 'distorted vision' that 'more and more profits' is essential to living a democratic life of Freedom and Equality. Don't get me wrong; money is essential in both Capitalism and Democracy, but 'hoarding' is not, and democracy is not just for the 'rich'. ( That would be a Plutocracy) Government can get involved in 'helping' the circulation of money; but, the economy cannot 'define' the political. The goal of economics involves the 'use of money'. The goal of democracy, is the Freedom and equality of each individual. The government has a duty to 'govern' the Many; the economy has a duty to make profits. But, keep them separate. Human greed is a 'complete misuse' of the 'instinct' to possess. The 'instinct' to possess means to possess 'life' in Freedom and Equality, more and more life; every human wants 'life', and wants it, for as long as possible. More and more 'economic possessions' and 'greed' reverses the natural energies of 'life'. 'Pace yourself'. We live 'upside down'. Don't turn democracy 'upside down'.

Capitalism is not Democratic

Capitalism is not Democratic. The reason for that statement is that the goal of all economic activity is the make a profit. Making a profit is an 'authoritarian' endeavor. It does not 'hold back' so that the competition can 'catch up' with competing economic activity. Also, most capitalistic ventures are 'incorporated' so that the size 'overwhelms' the small business establishments. The corporate structure is a recognized 'fiction' and hence the big incorporated businesses can be said to be 'business fictions'. Yet, they produce more 'profits' than the small business-person. In other words the government creates fictions to compete with the real human beings in the economy. Is that democratic? Of course, some will say the individual is free to pursue economic activity as s/he pleases. That's true, but the point is that a government is motored by democratic principles of Freedom and Equality, while an economy is motored by the profit motive. The two are starkly different and they must be kept separate. Freedom and Equality cannot 'motor' an economy and the 'profit motive' cannot motor a democracy. It is imperative that the two principles be kept separate and that the Democratic spirit not be contaminated by money. Of course, the question is, "how is that to be done"? The answer should be obvious to anyone putting a little thought behind the two concepts. Of course, an important consideration is always, "how do our elected officials feel about the greedy accumulation of money"? Yes, unfortunately, the human condition is not beyond entertaining selfish goals that relate to money more so than to democratic principles of Freedom and Equality. That's why the 1% wants to field candidates for office and that's why the Citizens case needs to be overturned. The Citizens case makes money the 'driving force' behind a corporate takeover of government. Big Business, big corporations, money, Citizens and the 1% are beginning to undo the Freedom and Equality of the principle of Democracy. How did that happen? Well, money has become power, and the Freedom and Equality of the human condition has been transferred to the economy, so that capitalists now say, " we are free to engage in economic activity, and the democratic principles of Freedom and Equality of a democracy, be dammed". No!, they must be kept separate. Neither of the two principles can be co-mingled with the other. All we have to do is look around and see what is happening. Even leaders of Religious organizations who are said to have a 'proper value system' have become 'money hungry'. The human condition needs to re-evaluate itself. How sad. Sooner or later, we are going to be remembering, "how wonderful it was to have once lived in a Democracy, where we could live Freely and in Equality. Are there any 'true leaders' out there?

'Government', in the International sphere, is as necessary, as Government on the National sphere.

The International community is different from the National community. We all know that; and we know that International 'government', is about governing other political entities; entities that possess power over their People, and consequently, having equal 'power' on the International sphere. In other words, the 'World Government' governs other entities with the 'same power' that it purports to have, in order to be able to govern at that level. To be sure, the level of government is different, but there is no difference in the 'power' of the 'governed Nation', from the power of the governing International body. Obviously, the 'power' of any 'member' Nation, is a 'given' political attribute of just being a Nation. The level of government is, truly, 'more abstract' than on the National level. On the National level, the Top is truly abstract, but the Bottom is 'real'. On the International level, both, the Top and the Bottom of the International spheres are abstract. Power is abstract, and both political entities are also abstract. Hence, the politics of the International sphere is a purely abstract politics. Not so, with any National political entity. Each National political entity should have a 'direct relation' with its own People; and its own People are as 'real' as those of any other Nation. In other words, underlying both the International sphere and the National sphere, the 'Peoples of the world' are real human beings. Hence, the politics is different on one sphere from that of the Other sphere. The difference can be emphasized by a 'term' which applies to both spheres. For example; so called, 'unrest' on the National level, and 'unrest' on the International level are different. On the National level that 'unrest' could turn into a 'revolution'; on the International level, that 'unrest' could turn into a 'War' between Nations. Why? because the International sphere deals with purely 'power politics', while, on the National sphere, it should be a 'clash' between the institutional 'power' of a government at the Top, and the 'Rights' of the 'human condition' in its 'condition of togetherness' at the Bottom, in other words, a 'clash' between 'institutional power' and the 'Democracy' of the People. Wouldn't it be nice, if all 'Leaders, Chairman's, Presidents, Dictators, Oligarchs, Plutocrats, Kings, or 'whatever', would be more 'democratically human', and less, egotistical, power hungry, 'money driven', humans. All they have to do is think of the 'Other', instead of 'themselves'. The 'Bottom line', whether Nationally or Internationally, is that the People, in their 'condition of togetherness', and in great 'Numbers', are 'stronger', than 'instituted' governments. Instituted governments should govern 'real human beings' in a democratic manner.