Each 'aspect' of the triadic 'governmental structure' has 'values' and 'duties'.

Every Government has 'political values' and 'duties'. Of course, the 'governmental duties' have their foundation on the 'political values'. One of the biggest problems of a 'Democratic government' is the 'value system' of the Bottom, viz. the Many People at the Bottom of Government. Of course, the Top also has a 'value system', but its easier to 'perceive' the systematic functioning of the Top and hence, compliance with the Constitution becomes a 'little easier' to perceive and to control. The Judicial Branch also has values and duties; the values are those of 'impartiality'; the duties are also those that require Constitutional objectivity in interpretive practices, but unfortunately, the Court is divided by 'Party Ideology'. Nevertheless, its easy to perceive the ideological divisions in Adjudication. ( The Majority and the Minority) But, the 'values' and 'duties' of the People at the Bottom, involves and includes the 'individual values' of millions of People; hence a great problem in democracies. Individual values have been 'overcome' by economic values( money, possessions and "bigness'.) This is a 'form' of 'quantification' because, the issues within the economy are always 'money or profit issues', how 'much money', how 'many possessions', and how economically 'Big' are you. This has become obvious by the phenomena of the 1%. Of course, all economic issues involve 'quantification' because the economy is 'motored' by profits. On a large scale, one can 'talk' about 'profits', 'possessions', and 'bigness'. Equally obvious is the fact that the 'corporate structure', viz., the 'biggest' Constitutional 'person' that exists in the social, is instrumental in creating these 'huge concentrations' of 'money', and 'bigness', etc.. However, the 'concentration of huge' profits in 'real Individuals' is perceived as 'Greed', a 'moral issue' because its based on a certain kind of 'graspingness' i.e. greedy for wealth. So, what is happening? Well, we create "Constitutional persons" whose function was to increase their 'huge economic grasp', and then we call them "persons", which compete with 'real People', in the economy. We then condone "bigness" in the economy, but we morally condemn 'Greed" in the real individual; while everyone knows that the 'legal person' does not even 'act'; that's why there is always some 'real person' behind the 'corporate veil' of the "legal Fiction". We create a 'social dilemma'; one that undermines the 'value system' of a democracy, based on Freedom and Equality, by substituting a 'devious motor' or 'value' for the real individual at the Bottom. We need to 'control' our "fictions", and the real Individuals need to 'restructure' his/her value system.

Why is Triadic Government the perfect form of Government?

Why is the Triad the perfect 'symbol' for Government? Because, it provides a 'place' for all the 'Many Peoples' being governed, under the authority of the Top, and it provides a Top, from which the Bottom is 'governed', with rules, and it provides, the 'sides' from where an 'objective interpretation' of a 'real' relation between the Top and the Bottom can take place. Any written Constitution must be interpreted, hence the Triad provides a 'perfect' skeletal model for interpretation. The only problem with a Three Branch Government, is that it is always interpreted by means of 'language', which is inevitable, but, it succumbs to the many 'fabrications' that are possible and which have been clarified, and brought to light, by the so-called "Linguistic Turn". The Triad provides a clearer, 'skeletal', example of the 'need' for government; the 'need' for Representation; and the need for 'Objective' 'interpretive practices' of the Constitution. The Three Branches are essential to a proper 'Representative form' of Government; a proper 'Governing'; and a proper Objectivity, in Government. But, that's the 'Form', not the 'actuality'. The 'actuality' is that the Bottom, or the place where the People are, has divided itself into a 'Party system'. This move may be 'democratic', but it also serves to weaken Government; because the division is 'not based' on 'political democratic principles',( freedom and equality); it is based, on economic principles(money and profits). The division into Parties is nothing less than an economic division and augmentation of the 'haves' and the 'have nots'. It wouldn't be so bad, but the so-called "haves" include the Corporate structures which have been held to be "legal fictions". Don't kid yourself; "Legal fiction" is just plain fiction. There's nothing 'esoteric or legalistic' about the language 'term' itself, it's 'plain language'; like that used in Alice in Wonderland; in plain language, it is "We the People..." who have been 'thrown' down the "rabbit hole". That's why corporations, and the People, behind the corporations, inhabit the Top 1%. Of course, that's not all the problems in our democracy, BUT, its one BIG problem. Maybe some day, we'll get through the 'Rabbit Hole' and wake up in a 'real democracy'. For that to happen, the "Bottom " of the triad needs to 'wake up'.

One of the problems of mixing 'Government theories' with 'economic theory'.

As we have repeatedly stated Government is motored by Freedom and Equality, and the economy, or Capitalism, is motored by profits and, never shall the twain meet. Although separate principles, both are essential to a successful Nation, because every Nation needs a 'successful economy' for its People. But, they must be kept separate. Although, economic issues raise many issues on the National sphere, they also raise many serious, and different, issues on the International sphere. One, in particular, is the problem of 'economic aid' to 'poor Nations' or 'growing Nations'. Obviously, any Nation should help out its own People; But, 'helping out People', in another Nation, on the International sphere, is altogether, a different game. We've said, that Nations on the International sphere, interact as 'Power equals'; i.e. every Nation is autonomous on the International sphere and every Nation is 'equally powerful'. There is no 'governmental superiority' on the International sphere. Hence, one government does not have an obligation to another government, on the International sphere. Hence, One Nation can't call the 'neighbor' Nation and say, "I want you to become a Democracy". Although, that's putting it a little 'simplistic', consider the issue of helping out, other less fortunate Peoples, within another Nation. Can we 'tie in' a requirement that the Nation become a Democracy, or that it should 're-shuffle' its 'priorities' towards the human condition. Absolutely not; Governments on the International sphere are 'Equals" and we cannot interfere with the 'governing' practices in another Nation. One can 'hope' that all governments should be Democracies, but that's a little like 'hoping' that every Individual in a Democracy sees every other Individual in the same democracy, as being "free and equal". That's not going to happen, and that's, why we need Law. Nevertheless, It serves as a perfect example of 'value systems' getting 'mixed-up'. Even in a Democracy, all the People do not see 'eye-to-eye'. Its a shame, but in a Democracy, "money and profits", economic principles, have become more important, than "Freedom and Equality", a political principle. Consequently, One Nation can extend economic aid to another Nation, but it cannot require 'changes' in its political system. The two principles, 'economic' and 'political', are different and separate, and each independent Nation is entitled to their own Government and their own economy. Its sad to see 'good human beings' trying to help 'other less fortunate' human beings, in the world, and seeing that their 'help' does not bear fruit. That's why we have a United Nations; Nations need to understand that, no Nation 'lives' separately anymore; we're 'all' in the 'same room'; and 'human beings' need to understand that, we are all "free and equally human". "Life" is the same everywhere, Governments, unfortunately, are not.

One individual on an Island does not need Law.

One individual on an Island does not need Government, and hence, does not need Law. Since Law is a necessary component of Government, and since One Individual on an Island does not need Government, s/he does not need Law. But, the Many, at the Bottom of Government need both Government and Law. Consequently, an essential aspect of a Democratic Government of Many People, is that they need both Government and Law. The problematic, is that Language, in general, is not 'accurate'. We all know that "the map is not the territory", but, nevertheless, we have to use the "map" to communicate. That gives, so-called "political Science", a substantial nudge into the field of 'science-fiction'. In the same way that science-fiction cannot be 'real science', politics cannot be a real "political science". A science, of 'whatever', always involves a 'quantification' of the subject matter. If political science was to be a 'lot closer' to a 'real' science, it would have to 'quantify'. That is not as far-fetched as it sounds. The reason is that, although, we can't quantify the Top of government, because of its reliance on Language, it is possible to 'quantify' the Bottom of Government, or stated differently, it is possible to 'quantify' the Individuals at the Bottom. Nevertheless, the Top or the Three Branch Government, is about as 'perfect' as it can get. Of course, not because the Top is 'quantifiable', but because it has Three Branches, at the Top, and If each Branch performs its duties in a correct manner, that's an 'accurate way' to Legislate, Adjudicate, and 'Govern' as well as possible. Each Branch 'checks' the Other. We all know that, and its the only way to short-circuit the Linguistic Turn. But, when it comes to the Bottom, each and every Individual can be 'counted' or 'accounted for' in such fashion as to be 'included' or 'excluded' in any one policy or Law. If a Law applies to everyone, no-one can be excluded. Freedom and Equality is enjoyed by everyone and hence cannot be curtailed by Law. Of course, the parameters of Freedom and Equality need to be defined by the Law, but if any Law curtails an Individuals freedom or equality, it cannot stand. That would be, an Unconstitutional law. But, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Individual human beings are 'Numbers', and that they are 'not People'. I'm saying that an 'autonomous' Individual within the 'domain' or 'target' of any Policy or Law, can be 'counted' or included or excluded, from the 'applicable' domain of the policy or Law. If we 'quantify' the 'applicability' of Law, or policy, we can better measure the 'success or failure' of that particular Law or policy. Its the applicability of Law or policy that is being quantified, not the Individual. We quantify in the economy; we quantify in Taxation; we quantify in many areas of the social, so why not also in the 'applicability' of a 'Just system of Laws'? Real Democracy is a 'quantification' of 'social institutions', 'economic institutions', and 'legal institutions'. Everybody counts.

Some of the greatest imbalances found within any Nation arise from the economy.

One of the greatest imbalances within any Nation, are the imbalances created by the economy. Some Nations are defined by the structure of Government itself, e.g. the Divine Right of Kings, Plutocracy, Oligarchies, and Dictatorships. All governments, whether democracies, or not, are usually based on a 'form' of an economy. Why? Simply because all Nations ,regardless their nature, also need an economy to subsist. That's why, every Nation should Tax its economy, or, rather the participants in that economy. A Nation needs to subsist in a viable manner or it won't hold together. The problematic arises when a Nations economy is held by only a few of the People within the Nation. That defines a Plutocracy, and 'could' define an Oligarchy, or a Dictatorship, an usually does. But, don't kid yourself, it can also define a Democracy, especially when the medium of exchange is held by only 1% of the populace. How did that imbalance come about? Obviously, the 1% had, or has laws, 'in place' that favored their particular existence or function within the economy. How did a 'beginning Democracy' originally handle that phenomena? It used to be simple, e.g. corporations were taxed 90%, then 70%, but now they are taxed 35%, in other words; "as if they were real humans". The twist came about when the Supreme Court, whether mistakenly entered by a clerk, or not, held that they were "persons" within the 'reach' of the 14th Amendment. (if that was a 'mistaken characterization', just change it, or correct it.) How ironic, the Government created 'corporate structures' that have caused some of the greatest imbalances within the economy; and these imbalances, are mostly due, to the gradual reduction of the Tax liabilities of a corporation. Maybe that so-called mistake, cannot be corrected, but certainly the Tax liability of a 'fictional creation' designed to increase the economic grasp of the "legal fiction" or "person", can certainly be taxed as, the "fiction" that it is. You see, a Fiction cannot "hurt" from the tax levy, but a 'real person' will certainly 'hurt'. When Government 'favors' fictions instead of real People, we are in trouble. A "just" tax on a "Fictional person" is always better than a tax on a 'real person'. Truly, taxation is a power that can destroy; but you can't destroy a 'Fictional existence', so maybe government can, at least, balance out the 'equities'. After all, a 'legal fiction' just needs 'enough votes', to pass a resolution to 'self-destruct', and its 'gone'. A real person has to 'jump out the window'. "We the People...", need help.

International disputes are "power" struggles.

International disputes are 'power' struggles. The problematic that arises from that phenomena is that a power struggle differs from an individual struggle that attempts to establish 'right relations' with his/her own Nation. Of course, one involves an individuals attempt to 'fit' within the National 'power organization' of its own Government; while an International dispute is one that involves a struggle between two or more established Nations, that are autonomous, and that have an 'equal Right' or 'power' to exist. On the International scene, the dispute is among 'equal Nations' possessing equal power. No dispute arises from the fact that one Nation is a Democracy and the 'Other' is not. No one Nation has a 'Right' to try to 'set things right' in some 'Other' Nation. (not without the 'permission' or 'cooperation' of that Nation), Hence, an International struggle is always one involving 'borders','size', and 'land'; in other words, its 'external relations' with other 'equal Nations'. The 'struggle' is 'purely' between Nations of equal power. Why should that be a dilemma? Well, the problem seems to be that every Nation has a 'People'; and the 'People' are also effected by the relations between Nations on the International sphere. How is that possible?, simply, because every Nation is an 'abstraction' that needs a 'real' foundation for existing; and that 'real foundation' is its People. If a Nation is 'at war', its the People who are 'fighting' and dying; if a Nation is 'economically destitute', its the People who 'suffer'. But, a 'vacuous abstraction' is not 'real', because it has no 'content'. But, a 'real Nation' has a 'content', it has a "People". Hence, every International dispute, always involves the People within the Nations involved in the dispute. The 'identity' of a People is reflected in the 'identity' of a Nation, and vice versa. That's the real problematic. Human values are being considered in establishing 'friendly' relations or 'unfriendly' relations with other Nations,(Allies, etc.) instead of keeping the 'relations' on the International scene in a more "pure form". In other words, relations between Equal Nations, should not be 'resurrecting', 'old animosities', old injustices, or, to put it plainly, 'human values' to justify disagreements in a "sphere" where the Nations function on an 'Equal basis' of power. Of course, 'self-defense' is always an option. But, there should not be any 'political manipulations', that belong on the National level, used, to justify a 'problematic' on the International level. C'mon Guys, don't you have enough problems at home?

Political Freedom and Equality gives an Individual the freedom to choose.

The Freedom and Equality afforded the Individual, in a Democracy, is the freedom and equality, that everyone, living in that democracy, has as a matter of Law. This 'human condition' cannot be interfered with. As a matter of fact, a democratic government must protect 'that' individual freedom. The Government is an 'institutional organization' and the Individual is a living human being. Of course, there has to be some control by government, but that control relates to 'legal structures' allowing and recognizing the 'maximum expression' of the principle of life. No activity, in 'consonance with life', can be curtailed by Government. Government can only help with the 'expression of life' within the legal institutions set up by the government. Of course, there are still some long standing, important issues, that relate to government institutions and laws, that still need to be resolved; like the Death Penalty; some forms of racial discrimination; etc., but the most recent issues that has arisen relates to the economy. There is no 'catchy name' attributable to this recent issue, but the issue is an 'economic issue'. What are the Peoples rights in relation to an 'economic standard' established by the Nation, for economic survival within the Nation? Since, a Capitalistic economy is separate from the political values of a democracy, how do we handle poverty, work, health, availability of jobs, etc.. Government must take care of its People, and must establish institutions that protect the human welfare, as well as, the economic welfare of the individual; but government, or better yet, the Law, which is a Branch of the Government, seems to favor the 'evolving Rights' of the corporations, "legal fictions", to the point, where the medium of exchange, is being held 'hostage' by only the top 1% of the people in the Nation. The issue seems to be; can a Capitalistic economy dominate the medium of exchange, a standard set by government, to the point where the 'medium of exchange' is not being 'exchanged'; i.e. its hoarded by 1% of the People? The more important issue is does the government have a right to 'compel circulation' and to establish 'economic institutions' that 'helps' those not included in the top 1%. Capitalism is viable because it exists within a democracy; it will not work in an Autocratic form of government, where the Government holds possession of the 'means of production'. Both Government and Capitalism must work in concert; but, 'money and possessions' must never be more important than the 'political value system' of Freedom and Equality. An economic and social system that favors the top 1%, cannot hold together for long. Only Freedom and Equality can hold a democracy together; and freedom and equality gives an individual the right to choose his means of subsistence; but only the government can provide the opportunity.

The value system that motors a democracy, is different, from the one that motors the Individual.

The political 'value system' of Democracy is different from the 'value system' of the Individual. It's pretty much obvious that the motivation of any one individual, is not the same as the motivation a Nation should posses, in relating to its own People. Why is that? Simply because any one individual, when weighing his/her motives for acting, normally considers, his own individual welfare. Of course, that's not the only case, e.g. when considering the welfare of the 'family', as opposed to his/her individual welfare. For that matter, that is always the rule when considering the welfare of any "group" of organized individuals, within the general parameters of the Nation. Of course, the same rule applies to any corporate entity. However, the value system of a Democracy is motored by Freedom and Equality of every individual living within that Democracy. The question then becomes, what's the difference between 'governing' ones 'own self', as an individual, and governing, 'millions of People', as a Nation? The answer is that a government of millions cannot abuse the privileges of the individuals, to live his/her, own life. How can that abuse be avoided? The only way is to have a government of People, that is, from the same People who are to be governed, and to 'govern' for the benefit, of the same People who are 'forming' the Government. There is no other way. In other words, a Government, must protect and insure, by Law, the Freedom and Equality of each and every individual living within the Nation. That places the 'ultimate decision' of governing a Nation, on some Individual or Individuals, who have been 'elevated', by election, to a political positions of authority. No one else, has the authority to govern millions. How ironic. When an individual governs him/ her/ self, the individual must have 'power' to do so; i.e. She/He is 'solely responsible' for 'generating' the 'self-power', or 'will', for 'self-government'. When a Nation governs millions of People, it also must have 'power' to do so. It gets that 'power' from the People it governs. That's an Institutional power; not a 'natural power'. At this point, the Government, or the Top, has 'power' to govern millions, while the People at the Bottom, living in a 'condition of togetherness', must continue to 'govern their own self', and at the same time, must submit to 'Democratic Government' of the People, by the People, and for the People. The Top comes into being out of necessity, and 'institutionally' acquires Power, while the individual is 'free and equal' to the personal task, of acquiring 'personal power' over him/her self; or not. Obviously, not every Individual has 'personal power', but, s/he is 'free and equal' to the task.

Political Parties are 'political divisions' in the 'wholeness' of the 'Democratic Bottom'.

Political Parties are divisions of the 'wholeness' of the democratic Bottom. Triadic Government or Three Branch Government struggles to retain the integrity of the Democratic Bottom by offering a cyclic form of government that continually changes every so-many years. That means the Three representative Branches are not 'permanent fixtures' in democratic government. By that, I mean the People, who occupy Offices in any of the Three Branches, are subject to election, and hence, being occupied by someone else, at the end of their tenure. Of course, except for the Supreme Court; the members are appointed for life, not just a term of years. So, what happens? Well, each Party 'packs' the Court with its 'preferred Judges' to make decisions that are acceptable to their Party Ideology. All Branches have a duty to perform and the Judicial, in particular, has a duty to impose 'impartial interpretive practices' and not to express some preference for one Party or the Other. That's why, when appointed, they are asked if they will follow the Constitution in their 'interpretive practices', and not just decide along Party Ideology. That's their function; impartiality. If one Branch can sue another Branch because of its Party ideology, we are destined to be a litigious government. In such a case, there would never be any 'integrity' in 'governing'. That's the problematic with dividing into 'opposing Parties', and that's the problem with a Supreme Court 'constituted' of 'Party Ideologues'. Certainly, People can form into different Parties, but both must be democratic, hence no destructive opposition becomes necessary; only a different way of accomplishing the same 'democratic ideals'. Of course, if any 'one' Party is 'not democratic', then it will file suit against another 'Branch'; and basically 'close down government', under the 'pretense' of 'using Law'. What's the difference between that, and just closing down government by so-called 'political maneuvers'? There's no difference. Its somewhat 'amazing' that such, so-called 'intelligent', and so-called 'learned' officials, in our government, can come up with that type of 'governmental' opposition in a democracy. That's destructive. If any one Party wants a change, for Gods sake, go to the Polls! Government is 'self-destructing', its own 'self', and its being done, 'at' the Top, and 'by' the Top. A democratic 'social' has the Right to change its government, but it must do it in accordance with the Constitution; Government must also follow the Constitution. The 'Three Branch Government', at the Top, does not have a Right to destroy the very 'nature' of its Three Branch Constitutional government. What do they want? A one Party system of government; isn't that the nature of an 'Oligarchy'? We might as well, do away with elections also. Where are we heading? As we become less democratic, we become more Autocratic. 'Parties' do NOT represent 'All The People', they only represent their Party. God help us.

Government cannot be 'motored' by profits.

Government cannot be motored by 'profits'. 'Profits' is the end result of economic activity, not government activity. The 'line' between the two must be carefully drawn. Government can only be 'motored' by the Freedom and Equality underlying the political principles of Democracy; namely, the Freedom and Equality of the People; all the People. No other 'motor' or 'motive' can underlie the 'governing' of millions, because democracy is a form of 'self-government'. Hence, all the People, in a democracy, constitute the 'motoring power' of government. Democracy does not have a 'source of power', separate from the People, who constitute it. But, how can this be? Simply, by the principle of 'Representation'. Without representation, 'government' cannot exist. I realize that there are other forms of government, but those forms get their power to govern from an 'external source', not the People. In the Divine Right of Kings, the source was a 'Divinity'. In other forms of Autocracy, the 'source' is the end result, of a theoretical 'triadic structure', where One, or a few, Individuals assume the position of the Top in order to govern the Many at the Bottom. A Triadic, or a Three Branch Governmental structure is 'necessary' so that 'power' becomes situated at a 'Top' in its relation to a 'Bottom' of millions. There is no other way to govern millions. The issue in 'all forms of government' is always, how does the 'Top' get to the 'Top'? Why? because only a Top can 'govern' a Bottom of millions. There is no other way. Hence, non-democratic forms of government must configure a form of government where they must justify the 'ascension' of the 'individual' or 'individuals' to the position at the Top. That, can be accomplished in several ways; by physical 'force', or 'social strength', by 'influence', either political 'influence', 'family influence', or 'economic influence'. At this point, we get into the infiltration of 'money or possessions' into politics. In a Democracy, 'money' can never be the 'motor' of 'the People' at the Bottom. Although, the 'well being' of the People also includes a successful, 'economic well-being', the 'freedom and equality' of all the People cannot be 'assured' or 'insured' by the 'profits motor'. That 'inclination towards profits', signals the ascension of a Plutocratic form of government. Money cannot 'motor' democracy. The two principles can exist within the same 'social', but, they must be kept separate.

The function of government is different from the function of the economy.

Government functions with the basic form, structure, and basic Individual Rights, set forth in the Constitution. The economy functions on entirely different principles from those of government. Economic principles are independent and are not set forth in the Constitution. Every Individual wishing to participate in economic activity can do so. An individual can conduct his/her economic activity in any manner that s/he wishes; of course, economic activity is subject to governmental regulations of 'unfair economic practices', and 'monopolistic activity'. Government 'limits' some economic activity, but economic activity does not effect the Constitutional form, or structure of government. The individual 'Rights' protected by the Constitution, also protects an individual from 'unfair' economic practices. The economy is subject to the legal control of its practices, just as the Individual is subject to the legal control of his/her 'activities' or 'behavior'. Of course, this legal control also applies to the corporate structure. But, the Law has held that a corporate "person" is a "legal fiction". This is another way of saying that a corporation is not real; it's only a 'person', "in contemplation of Law"; which means that the Courts will consider a corporation as a legal "person", but its a person only in 'legal discourse'. This can be verified by anyone who tries to locate any 'particular corporation' in 'actuality'; e.g., try finding "Ford Motors"; "Ma Bell"; etc.( I don't mean find their 'offices' or 'buildings', I mean the 'person'). I use two examples of 'corporations' but only as examples.) The only way to get to a 'real person', who is 'shielded' by the corporate structure is to "pierce the corporate veil", and this is only allowed in certain cases, where the infraction is 'serious' and can be traced to the 'real' People 'behind' the 'corporate structure' or 'veil'. Although a corporate structure must function amidst many prohibitions, so must 'real' People. The issue is that, although both 'real persons' and "fictional persons" are regulated by Law, one is real ;the other is only a "legal fiction"; and I don't think, I have to elaborate on the differences between the 'real' and the 'imaginary, fictional'. Government regulates all activity, by means of Law; both the real and the imaginary, but why do the Courts 'favor' the imaginary? They do that, by treating the 'imaginary' as if it was real. The effect is to place economic values, to wit, money and possessions, in all its forms, as being more important than the Freedom and Equality of 'real People'. We truly live in a 'real world', and an 'Alice in Wonderland' world, and 'never shall the twain meet'. We become social 'schizophrenics' in a world that refuses to distinguish between the 'Imaginary' and the 'Real'.

The function of government must be distiguished from the function of the economy.

The function of government is to 'represent, protect, and defend' the Individual and to provide for the "general Welfare" of all. The function of Capitalism is to function so as to provide for the 'economic' well being of the Nation within which it exists. The two 'activities' are motored by two different principles. It helps to distinguish from the "general welfare" and the "economic welfare". Truly, there is a great similarity. But, General Welfare is not the same as economic welfare. Each functions under a basic underlying principle; one which is political, and the other, which is economic. The former, obviously, cannot function without Freedom and Equality. The latter, cannot function without 'profits'. An individual human being can engage in economic activities, because he is free and equal. However, an Individual's motives for being a 'good citizen', or a member of a democratic social, cannot be founded on 'profits'. Nor, should s/he have a preferential basis for 'profits' at the 'expense' of 'freedom and equality', especially, if s/he is in politics. To put it differently, a good citizen is not required to have lots of money, nor to have a 'political posture' in favor of only the Individuals, who have lots of money. Furthermore, money or profits should not enter into politics, as some form of criteria for political service. The results of economic principles becomes 'personal', while the political, becomes a duty to serve and to insure the Freedom and Equality of every individual in the polity. They should not be mixed. To be sure, they're both equally important, but neither can be utilized by the other in a successful manner. 'Profits' cannot be created by means of the political principles of Freedom and Equality, and Freedom and Equality, cannot be 'assured' by using the economic principles of 'making a profit'. The two principles do not compete against each other. Hence, the two functions should be kept separate; or at least, they should not be mixed. To mix the two principles is to contaminate the political process, and hence 'the condition of togetherness'. Recent Supreme Court decisions amount to a mixing of 'economic principles' and 'political principles' of 'real human beings', by a preferential treatment of the corporate structure. The Supreme Court keeps granting the "legal fictions" more and more human qualities, which they ,in fact, do not possess. 'Leaning' in favor of corporations, actually destroys any 'competitive edge', a real human being might have had, and at the same time, contributes to the 'accelerated' establishment of a Plutocracy.

Law and Order, go together, like Freedom and Equality

The term "Law" is sometimes used, as if, it was something separate from "Order". The question becomes, are there any instances of Law where the two are intentionally kept separate? I imagine, if one looks hard enough, such instances can be found, but that is not the nature of the inquiry. The inquiry is more general. Generally speaking, we can couch the same question, about the terms, Law and Order, within the 'political terms', of 'Freedom' and 'Equality'; those two terms also go together. Of course, Freedom and Equality are basic to the organization of the 'social sphere' at the Bottom of Government. In other words, the 'organized social' should not infringe upon the Freedom and Equality of the individual; neither should 'social mores' and practices, and my point is, neither should the Law. How do we address these issues? The 'basic' approach is generally by means of Laws; but, Law cannot infringe upon Freedom and Equality; it must protect 'each individual' from any encroachment into his/her Freedom and Equality. But, how do we look at 'Freedom and Equality'. Someone is free when s/he can 'do', 'move about', or, 'live', any way they please. There can be no limitations placed on the 'expression' of 'Life" by any one individual. Equality means of "equal life". Consequently, most Laws are expressed in a 'Negative fashion' instead of a 'Positive fashion'. In other words, Law, generally, is about what you 'cannot do', never a limitation on what your 'life wishes' to 'express'. Neither Government, nor Law, can restrict the expression of 'Life" by any 'real' individual. Notice, I use the term 'real individual'; Why is that? Because the 'principles of a human Life', are higher and of greater value, than the principle of 'any organized government'; and because, 'corporations' are not 'real'. Corporations can be 'voluntarily dissolved', by the Incorporators, or 'involuntarily dissolved' by the Government that created them. They, as "legal Fictions" do not have 'control' of their existence. But, that's another issue. Back to the point. Although, it can be said that 'Life' is more important than 'government', that does not mean that government, does not have a role to play in that 'necessary dichotomy'. We have seen that Government has a 'real' relation to the Bottom, and that government is absolutely necessary. Government, in its triadic nature, must legislate Laws, that lead to Order in its function as a Three Branch Government, and, of course, which includes the 'social', and which, 'protects', one individual, from the Other individual, and hence establishes Order in the social. This is done by Laws that 'prohibit' any 'disruption' in a social, that truly 'lives' in Freedom and Equality.

Government is 'essential' to the human condition: the economy is 'essential' to a Government.

Government is essential to the human condition, viz., the 'condition of togetherness'. The economy is essential to any and every Government. Law underlies the 'arrangement' of the People; of the Government; and of the economy. Of course, 'Incorporations' are essential to an economy and they are also under Law. Democracy is a 'lawful' arrangement of the 'practices' of the People in their 'condition of togetherness'; and the arrangement of their 'practices' within Government; and the arrangement of their 'practices' within the Economy. A Nation of Laws, should reflect the essential 'tensions', necessary to hold together the 'condition of togetherness'. A 'holding together' of the 'condition of togetherness' is a holding together of a 'condition of strength'. The People at the Top of Government have Power, the People at the Bottom of government, have 'strength in Numbers'. The reasons that a 'condition of strength' is housed at the Bottom of Government, is because Democratic Government is a Government, "of the People", "by the People", and "for the People". A Government of "People" is not a government of "legal fictions". Government must be founded on 'real strength', and the Power attributed to the Top must emanate from the Bottom, the only source of strength in the 'condition of togetherness'. Don't get me wrong, 'Institutional power' at the Top is essential, but its an 'attributed Power' that emanates from the 'real People' at the Bottom; it does not emanate from the Corporations. The 'divided' Supreme Court attributes more power to "legal fictions", than to real human beings; that's a mistake. The "Real" cannot be replaced by the "fictional". The 'economic grasp' of the Corporation is necessary for a successful Capitalistic economy, but don't make the mistake of substituting 'money' and 'false economic values', "a la 1%", in place of the 'democratic values', of Freedom and Equality. A democratic Government of 'real People' is one thing; an economy 'overloaded' with 'Legal Fictions' is another. The Supreme Court keeps trying to 'transform' a "Legal fiction" into a 'Real' human being; That's impossible, that's reckless, and that could transform the Nation, into an 'abstract vacuity' without 'real strength'. Don't mix, protect your 'real strength'.

Law is the 'glue' that helps hold Democracy together.

Democracy is a form of government constituted by the very People who are to be governed. Some say that it lacks a 'locus' from where power is exerted. Of course, Autocratic and so-called, Authoritarian forms of government are credited, as having a 'less dispersed' locus of power and hence more 'solid' and more efficient. That 'structural point' may be partially true, but its not completely true. A form of Government is never determined by only 'one facet' of its structural form. A Democracy is a Government of Laws, and the Laws are 'passed' by the Representatives of the People. Law is not determined by the Executive, nor the Courts, nor the Policemen. Everyone is bound by the Law, including the Executive, the policemen, and the Courts, that enforce it. Such is not the case with Authoritarian, or, Autocratic forms of government. In such forms, the Top is the law, or better yet, "its the way things are done". In a Democracy, Law is 'Institutional Glue' and helps to delineate a 'precise structure' to the 'behavior' of People in a 'condition of togetherness'. Law is not 'magic', and heavens knows, that legislators need to study the issues about formulating Laws. The most difficult aspect of governing millions of Individuals, institutions, and practices, at the Bottom, of government, from a 'Top' position, is the 'exacting degree' by which Laws need to be formulated. Its not easy, and its the 'job' of the Representatives who legislate. Some Laws are not functional, and hence, need to be improved, modified, or eliminated. Nevertheless, everyone, from the Top to the Bottom, is required to act in accordance with Law. But, this fact does not impede, in any manner, a functional democracy; it guarantees it. Sure, the Top of government must, in some cases, be able to move rapidly, or efficiently but, the Law allows for such Executive Privilege. One of the problems with a Democracy is the division into 'adversarial Parties'. Parties should not be adversaries, they should be discussing the 'better way' of delineating Democratic Policy and Democratic Laws. They should argue about the best way to serve all the People, not just to the 'loyalists'. Party loyalty sometimes undermines real democracy.

The biggest dangers to the 'democratic' spirit are "profits".

The biggest danger to the democratic spirit are "profits". Profits by Individuals and profits by Corporations are the result of 'economic principles' and not 'political principles'. To be sure, the economy needed democratic principles so that it could thrive. But, there are huge differences in the two basic principles. A democracy cannot function without the 'Freedom and Equality' of the individual. To the contrary, an economy cannot function without competition and profits. When government created the corporate 'person', it created a "fiction" that was subsequently protected by Law. Its a pure 'abstraction'; one that can be put in a "frame" alongside any other document. By the Supreme Courts own decisions, its a "legal fiction". To put it a little differently, its a legally created "person"; created by the filing of Articles of Incorporation and the subsequent issuance, by Government, of a Charter. That Charter can be framed and hung on the office wall. In simple language, its not real! You can't touch it; you can't kill it; it doesn't have to serve in the Military like you and I; it doesn't get sick; hence, it doesn't need medical insurance; you can't even point to it! ( only to the huge building where its main offices are) If it should do something illegal, you'll never locate it, and the 'real' incorporators and owners are shielded by law. ( its called, "the corporate veil") and hence, you can't punish it. But, its also a fact, that they can't function without 'real People', hence they are populated' with 'real employees'. Well, it would seem that if corporations are to be protected by the Constitution, they should also have Constitutional duties, especially to the 'real people' they employ; the People who 'allow it to function' in the economy. Real People have duties; try violating a simple traffic law. Of course, corporations are not real, and hence don't have to worry about those little things. Corporations do not 'express' a 'life', or any, 'principles of living', as do 'real people', living in a 'condition of togetherness'. Yet, they live among us in all their 'abstract glory'. When 'money' takes over government, or "the democratic spirit", we will have entered the era of Plutocracy. When a corporation won't even provide for the 'Health an Welfare' of its own 'real employees', or when it tries to place 'limits' on a 'real' employees health insurance, and when the Supreme Court protects a "fictional persons" right, as against a 'real persons' right, Democracy is in trouble. Sometimes, its better and more informative to read the Dissenting Opinions of the Court. They're more honest.

Democracy 'applies' to 'real' individuals. Democracy must comply with the Constitution.

'Democracy' is a governmental institution that applies to all the 'real individuals' at the Bottom of government. It applies 'without distinction' between 'real' individuals existing in the 'human condition'. But, the 'economy', and Capitalism are different, and have a different 'purpose' for existing. An economy, any economy, can only exist and function as a means of 'subsistence' and, or, by means of the 'profit motive', whereas, the political system, can only 'function democratically', by 'protecting and defending' the 'real People', from which it gets its power as a Political Institution. The 'Rights and Power' of the Government, as institution, are protected by the Constitution. The Constitution, 'constitutes' it. Hence, government cannot willy-nilly, do whatever it pleases, because its very existence is 'dependent' on the 'condition of togetherness' of the 'Real People'. That's democracy; it must comply with democratic, legal, institutional, social an political structures, established by a process that is democratic, and a process that protects, the Freedom and Equality of the 'real individuals': of course, corporations have also been protected by the Constitution, but they are 'not real'; all of that has been established by Supreme Court Decisions. Now consider the situation with Capitalism within the economy. It functions by the 'profit motive'. It cannot function otherwise. No one goes into business to lose money. An essential part of a successful economy are its 'corporations'. The Courts say, that corporations are "legal Fictions": that can only mean that they are not 'real'. Now, if a corporation, any corporation, needs 'real' people to help it function as an economic entity, shouldn't it also be required to 'protect and defend' the Constitutional Rights of those 'real' individuals? A corporation is a "Legal Fiction"; hence, created by government, whereas the 'real' People, were not created by government. An employee, any 'real' employee, even if employed by an employer that's a "legal Fiction", is still entitled to protection by the Constitution. The employee needs protection, not the "Legal fiction". How can a Court decide that a "fictional employer" has Religious Freedoms, while at the same time, depriving 'the real People', the employee, from that very same Freedom? If an 'employer' does not want to be considered "fictional", its simple, don't incorporate, or don't hire 'real People'; try hiring 'fictional employees'.

Democracy is an 'ever present' form of human Freedom and Equality.

The most important 'relation' in the World is the relation between the Top and the Bottom, of any form of Government. 'Democratic' Government cannot assume any form, other than, a form that respects and protects the very People at the Bottom; the People that establishes the Government or Nation. Why is that? Simply, because Government cannot exist unless it 'understands' its 'institutional necessity', as an 'instrument' or 'institution', of its People, for the purpose of 'self-governing'. It cannot be otherwise, because there is no other source of 'political power', except from the 'very People' who are to be 'governed'. To be sure, its a complete cycle, but its a cycle that respects and protects the 'source' of Political Power. Its 'cyclic nature' and 'integrity' is what gives a Government, or Nation, its political identity. It seems that the 'condition of togetherness' became 'institutionally' necessary, before the 'realization' and 'understanding' that its 'institutionalization', required the exercise of political 'Power'. That's why 'power' was purportedly 'claimed' to arise from many different sources. The 'Autocratic form', purported to house power at the Top, simply from the fact, that the individual who assumed the Top position, was 'stronger', 'more forceful', or had 'power' from some 'Noble' source, or from a 'Divine' source. The relation of the One to the Many, or the Top to the Bottom, needed to be established and organized and the Top needed to exercise Power. So, from where could this 'power' come from? The only way to 'describe political power' is to explain it as a form of 'attributed power', and hence ,of necessity, had to 'emanate' from the 'governed', or the People, at the Bottom of Government. In such a scenario, the Top has its 'necessary' institutional, Political Power, and each individual at the Bottom retains his/her Freedom and Equality, as Individual Human Beings. 'Institutions' can have Political Power, not individuals, but individuals have 'strength' in the 'condition of togetherness', and as individuals, each is Equal to the Other, and each is as Free, as the Other. 'Democracy' is a 'permitted institution' that arises from the Bottom; viz. from the 'human condition', and 'attributes' institutional power, to the Top. 'Humanity' never takes 'second chair' to an Institution; that's why each individual retains, his/her, Freedom and Equality.