In a Democracy, revolutions take place at the Bottom of government.

In a Democracy, revolutions take place at the Bottom of Government, not at the Top. A revolution is an event characterized by a confrontation between the 'assembled' People who are 'governed', and who are at the Bottom, and the Government, at the Top, that is doing the 'governing'. Any attempt to change the manner of governing, by the Top, is not a revolution. At best, its the undermining of the 'structure' of the government, by the 'very same structure', that characterizes the Top of that Government. In other words, in a Democracy, its just the form of Government that's 'self-destructing'. Of course, Governments can change the 'manner of governing'. But, if the Top of Democratic Government is characterized by the 'division' of Power into Three Branches, the Three Branches would have to 'agree' on the changes in the entire mode of Governing. That's why we have 'elections' and the exercise of the 'vote'. In a Democracy, obviously, any attempt to 'circumvent' the 'electoral' or 'voting process', would just be an attempt to undermine the very structure of the Government. Wow, a Democratic government trying to de-construct. Its unbelievable. Where would that leave the electorate? Well, I guess with a 'non-meaningful' vote, or, an 'empty vote'. All that political friction arises from the human tendency to separate into political Parties. The Party mentality is divisive. Of course, it doesn't have to be divisive, but that pre-supposes that both Parties are democratic in 'ideology'. Obviously, Parties don't see 'eye to eye', each Party has an agenda and that agenda 'carries over' into the Supreme Court, which has been 'packed', and whose members, incidentally, have also divided up into Parties, or stated differently, into different 'interpretive practices'. Consequently, once an Individual ascends to the 'halls of power', s/he should only have duties to perform; at that point, s/he should not try to install 'ideological differences'. A Branch of Democratic Government does not have the authority to pass a law, that authorizes, one Branch, to 'shoot itself' in the 'democratic foot' of the other Branch. If you need to change Government, start a Revolution, or, go to the polls.

Democratic values apply to 'real' people; economic values apply to 'economic institutions'.

Democratic values apply to 'real people', i.e., to autonomous individuals. Each Individual is autonomous and is as 'free' and 'equal', as another. Each Individual, is as 'Equal' and 'Free', to express the principle of 'life', within her/himself. Democratic 'organization' or 'structure' going from the Top to the Bottom, stops with its 'confrontation' with the 'real individual' at the Bottom of Government. Why? Because Government is necessary to the 'condition of togetherness' but it only organizes or structures a form of government that allows for the 'fullness of Life' to be expressed within an Individual. It does not tell the Individual how to express life, it only helps the 'condition of togetherness' by structuring a 'democratic manner' of interactions within the social and within its social institutions. Each 'Life' is responsible, for 'each expression' of Life. No government can be more important than the 'life' it protects and enables to live 'democratically' in a 'condition of togetherness'. Governments are 'late' to the Game of Life. Life was here first, then 'family' organizations; then tribal organizations; then larger units of 'togetherness' which were eventually called 'Colonies', and later 'States', and which admittedly, were considered Legal Fictions. 'States', or, 'political entities', are Fictions. But, at no time, in the evolution of Individuals and Families, and Tribes, and into other 'conditions of togetherness', is there a 'transition', or 'transmutation', or even, a 'transfusion' of the 'life principle' from a 'real human being' to the Governmental Institution. Governments are, at best, fictions. The economy functions differently. The economy functions by competition. Without competition, we would not have a successful Capitalistic economy. But, the goal of the economy is purely to have more and more. Obviously, we could not have competition for 'life' between Individuals. Individuals should not have to compete with each other for their 'freedom and equality'; why should they?, they already have it; and Government must 'protect' and 'preserve' it; and the economy should 'stay out of it'.

All Democratic Governments need an economy; but, economies do not need democratic values.

All Democratic Governments need an economy. But, an economy does not need democratic values. In a Democracy the two must be kept separate because the Government functions with political values of Freedom and Equality and the economy, functions with economic values and principles, based on a profit motive. But, the measure of the success of a democratic government must be based on the 'human condition' and not on the state of the economy. To be sure, the economy is important, but government can not function on the basis of economic principles of 'profits'. A government or a Nation can be rich, yet its People can be destitute and in need. But, its also possible that a Government or Nation can be based on Individual Freedom and Equality, an also have a very successful economy. However, its at this point, where great care must be exercised to keep economic values from 'contaminating' the political principles of freedom and equality. For example; if a successful economy produces candidates for political Office that arise to the Top of government power, and they entrench themselves, and Others like them, we are headed towards a Plutocracy. That's the danger of mixing Democratic values with economic values. Of course, the issue is one of keeping the two underlying values separate and apart. Of course, neither can be eliminated; that's not the point. But, so-called 'political science' must insure that a democracy be always 'motored' by Freedom and Equality and not by economic principles which revolve around 'profits', money, and possessions. Political values of freedom and equality cannot function on the basis of economic principles, and successful economies cannot function with the democratic values of freedom and equality. Those may be fine distinctions, but they are essential, otherwise, we walk straight into a Plutocracy or Oligarchy. Of course, complete separation is impossible, they have to mingle, but the two disciplines can have commensurate principles that allows both to function within a democracy. To be sure, Corporations that 'arose' in a democracy, must 'practice' more democratic values, not in their 'creation of profits', but, in their 'allocation of 'profits' and the 'practice' of that same 'freedom and equality' that allowed them to 'function freely' within a Democratic social. 'Gratitude' is not a political value, nor is it an economic value; its a human value.

Democratic Government is an 'Institution'; the 'Bottom' of Democratic Government are 'real' People.

The Top of government, any type of Government, is a political Institution. The Bottom of Government, any type of Government, is constituted by 'real' People. In a Democracy, the duty of Government is to establish a real relation between the Top and the Bottom. That can only be established by setting up 'Institutional forms' that carry out the 'democratic dictates' of Governing. In a Democracy the Institutions must be Democratic, viz., they must protect the Freedom and Equality of every Individual at the bottom. However, the Individuals at the Bottom also have duties, but those duties are generally expressed in 'Freedom and Equality', whereas, the duties of the Top are carefully delineated in the Constitution, and the interpretive practices are applied by the Supreme Court. The 'expressions' of Freedom and Equality, at the Bottom, are not delineated anywhere. That is left up to each and every Individual at the Bottom. That's real 'Freedom and Equality', but that's not to say, that an Individual at the Bottom can do anything s/he dam-well pleases within a Democracy. There are rules, most are established Institutionally, through Laws, Policies, and 'social norms'. The Top Governs Democratically; the Bottom 'lives' democratically. Fortunately or unfortunately, the 'bottom line' in a democratic governmental system is its People. Government, governing, and 'living' in a Democracy, is a 'people thing'. So what can be expected from the people in a Democracy? To be sure, the Individual who is 'enjoying democracy' must also 'practice democracy'. 'Social disruption'; 'Institutional disruption'; 'legal disruption'; and just plain 'disrespect for other human beings' or human institutions cannot be tolerated. Why?, because of the social consequences that can occur within the social. The problematic in 'social unrest' is that the Bottom of Government, viz.,the People, is also divided into 'factions', 'racial groups', or just plain 'divided', and these 'oppositions' demand actions. But, 'opposition' within a democracy is never just among the People at the Bottom; its always between the Top and the Bottom; that is, it involves both, the 'assembled', and the 'enforcers' or the police. The Bottom of government is characterized by a 'condition of togetherness'. The 'condition of togetherness' does not allow for 'divisions' among the 'Many People', based on 'racial', 'economic', 'social', or 'governmental' preferences. Democratic Government protects and defends the Freedom and Equality of 'everyone' in a 'condition of togetherness'.

Not all wealthy people are Plutocratic or Aristocratic.

Of course, not all wealthy People are Plutocrats or Aristocrats. Don't get me wrong. People can have plenty money and possessions and still be 'Democratic in spirit'. Nevertheless, the burden is on them. Its the same with the People at the Bottom. All People at the bottom are not necessarily, Democratic. Obviously, the reason is that anyone at the Bottom of government, must 'live' his/her democracy. S/he must understand that the guy or gal, next to him or her, is 'also' "free and equal", and, unfortunately, not many, can do that. Some individuals can have 'auras' of 'superiority' simply because of reasons based on 'Race, Color, or Creed'. In other words, neither the Top nor the Bottom is automatically 'democratic', simply from the position, social or political, they may hold in the 'democratic arrangement' in the Nation. That's why I say that the Top is under obligation to the Constitution, and the Bottom is under obligation to 'live democratically'; not 'selfishly', nor isolated from a 'democratic spirit'. That's also the reason for pointing out that 'economic values' have 'supplanted' Democratic values, and have 'seeped' into the political arena. Once economic values 'seep' into the political arena, the 'standard' for participating in a 'viable democracy', can very easily, become a matter of money and possessions. It should be obvious to everyone, that 'political or democratic' values apply to both the Top and the Bottom of Government. These Democratic values permeate the entire system of life within a Nation. However, 'economic values' are situated within the Capitalistic structure of the economy and are determined by 'success or failure' within the economic system. Economic values are not based on 'freedom and equality', they are based on 'profits', and economic competition; more of the same; and in some cases, greed. That is not to say, that all rich people are greedy. Neither, are we saying that all poor people are 'democratic'. Nevertheless, whether fortunately, or unfortunately, the bottom line is the 'human condition'. How easily we 'forget' our 'humanity', and our 'condition of togetherness'; and how easy, it is to come under 'obligation' to our 'monies and possessions'.

Legal and Institutional harmony is possible in a Democracy.

In a Democracy, both Legal and Institutional harmony becomes possible, when the Top of Government understands its function as a 'Government of Freedom and Equality'. That is the sole purpose of Democratic government; to govern equally. The Top is not necessarily required to be 'free' in the exercise of its political power. The Top is 'not free', to do as it pleases, its 'duty bound' to do its job. The Top, being duty bound to do its job must function according to Constitutional mandate. It must exercise its power in the form of establishing the Legal and Institutional underpinnings for a 'smooth functioning' among all the millions of People, as Individuals, and not as "factions", that constitute the governed. The Top has been given a Standard to follow; namely, the Constitution. But the Bottom also has a standard, one that is usually not recognized as a standard, and that is, to function or rather to 'live' in Freedom and Equality. Living in Freedom and Equality is basic to a Democracy. There are no superior Individuals in a Democracy; there are only 'free and equal' individuals. The Office holders at the Top, are duty bound to perform their Constitutional job. The Many People at the Bottom are bound to properly express their Freedom and Equality, by 'living' freely and equally with their neighbors. The Bottom 'lives' democratically; the Top guarantees it. The problematic arises when Individuals, whether at the Top or the Bottom, begin to sift their attention to the 'quantifiable standards' established by Capitalism, viz. profits, money, and possessions. There's nothing wrong with these standards, but they are not Democratic standards. They are economic standards; and Democracy is 'fueled' by Freedom and Equality, and not with profits, money and possessions. That would be a Plutocracy, or, an Aristocratic form of Government. We are neither. Plutocrats and Aristocrats are too busy 'pruning their egos', by staying up late, counting their money, and possessions; hence, they cannot be concerned with the Freedom and Equality of the human condition.

The Top governs the 'condition of togetherness', at the Bottom; but both must live in 'legal and institutional' harmony.

The Bottom of Government is characterized as a 'condition of togetherness'. In a 'condition of togetherness', each individual is free and equal. Freedom and equality means each individual is free to do as s/he pleases, subject to the 'parameters of law and institutional structures'. The role of the Top of government is to provide the 'institutional' and 'legal structures' within which this freedom and equality can be 'expressed'. Equality means 'equal human beings'. The human condition is, the 'same' within the 'human kingdom', which separates us from the 'plant kingdom' and the 'animal kingdom'. Hence, Government governs the human kingdom by preserving the 'equal expression' of human life among a People. Government is only an Institution, and an Institution has a duty, and the duty is to 'preserve and protect', each and every Individual at the Bottom of government. Government cannot be blind to the needs of a 'Just Order'. The People cannot be blind to the 'Freedom and Equality of the Others' at the Bottom. We cannot establish a dichotomy between the Top and the Bottom. The reason we can't do that, is that the Top would always be 'inadequate' to the 'needs of a Just Order' and the Bottom would always be 'antagonistic' to the dictates of Government. The only solution is for the Top to 'understand' its proper function, and for the Bottom, to 'live freely and equally'. There is no other way. The Top and the Bottom must live in 'democratic harmony' instead of living in a constant state of 'democratic tension'. Let me explain. Democratic 'tension' is a 'misunderstanding' and 'misuse' of the freedom and equality, afforded everyone in a 'Democracy'. Life must be 'lived' democratically, and the Top must 'structure its institutions and laws', in such fashion, as to allow the 'free and equal expression' of life, 'within' each and every individual. The individual must 'live' in freedom and equality, and the biggest barrier to this realization, is not considering the 'neighbor' as 'equally free and equal' as 'you'. 'Seeing Others' as one sees oneself is a beginning; but then, Government also has a duty, to provide the Institutional Framework for the 'expression' of 'real democracy'. We cannot have 'unjust laws', or laws that are 'not enforced', at the Top, and 'social disorder' at the Bottom; and we cannot live in a 'constant state of tension'.

"Freedom and Equality" are not easy to achieve, but they are absolutely necessary.

The most important thing that should motivate a 'politician' is to try to help 'implement' and 'protect' the 'freedom and equality' of all the individuals that constitute the 'governed'. Of course, that would be the case in a Democratic form of government. The reason that implementing Freedom and Equality can be a problem is basically, two fold. One aspect is that the transition between the 'abstract language', which we are all familiar with, and the implementation into actual 'results' can be difficult to achieve. The other aspect is that the Individual who occupies the Offices at the Top comes from the Bottom of government, and is also a human being and hence has the same human frailties. The former needs an Institutional base from which to establish a genuine realization of Freedom and Equality, and the latter, needs to practice the Freedom and Equality that s/he preaches when s/he runs for Office. Of course, there's always the politician that just doesn't care about results. But, we speak about a serious effort to implement a democratic result. In all cases, whether Institutional or Personal, we must 'descend' from language to results via legal requirements and social institutions. Often, on an Individual basis, the Individual holding Office does not 'see' the 'Other' human beings at the Bottom, as being as 'free' and 'equal' as s/he is. Hence, the 'political activity', s/he engages in is 'colored' by 'individual imperfections' that directly or indirectly proves harmful to the democratic Ideal. A perfect example of the 'failure' of 'institutional control' and 'individual control', is the condition called 'rioting'. Unfortunately, the term 'riot' already assumes a 'wrong assembly'. Continual use of the term by the media can only be a disservice, and contributes to 'escalation'. In such conditions, the only remedy would have been to have addressed the 'initiating impetus', immediately, at its inception, and to the satisfaction of the 'assembled'. Failure to do that, is a 'human failure', not an institutional failure, because the institutions provide means by which to address those issues. But, 'human kind' being what it is, ignores the original impetus. Once, there is escalation within the 'initiating impetus', there is a loss of control because 'Other individuals' will join the 'assembly' and 'change' the 'acceptable condition' into a 'riot', i.e., an unacceptable condition. Obviously, both conditions, the 'assembly' and the 'enforcement', can be excessive, and because both conditions can be 'peopled' by individuals who don't care about 'democracy' or 'freedom and equality', the conditions merely escalate and harm the Individuals who were not involved in the 'initial assembly' and the 'subsequent enforcement'. The problematic is, there are idiots on both sides of the dispute. From the human side, truly, human beings have the Right to 'assemble'; from the enforcement side, 'representatives' should 'listen' to the people, they're trying to tell you something, and they are entitled to a 'democratic resolution'.

'Real' Freedom and Equality are inherent in the Human Condition.

Freedom and Equality are 'characteristics' of every Democratic form of Government. They constitute an 'element' of the form of Government; which form is only a 'political organization'. To be sure, its very important to the form of Government, and as an 'element' of its constitutive nature, as a 'political entity'. But, don't kid yourself; the 'freedom and equality' inherent in the human condition cannot be 'captured or housed' by the political entity. For that matter, no form of government can 'encapsulate' the freedom and equality of the human condition; nor its uniqueness, nor its dignity, nor its integrity, nor its sacredness. The Freedom and Equality essential to the form of Democratic Government, is a 'political' Freedom and Equality. It arises from the fact that Democratic government is a Political Institution, and as such, merely helps to 'organize' the 'condition of togetherness' of all the Individuals at the Bottom of the Political Institution. Government is essential and important, but it can never, in a real sense, 'govern' the human condition. No Institution can govern the 'expression' of human life. That does not mean, we don't need Government; to the contrary, it means that Government is so necessary to the 'condition of togetherness', that we cannot exist without it. But, the problematic arises when government purports to 'limit' and 'control' the 'expression' of the 'freedom and equality' inherent in the human condition. That cannot be done by government; the 'expression of life' is sacred and not subject to governmental control by means of political or social institutions. True, that's a dilemma; but Government must 'necessarily organize', the 'manner' by which individuals, 'give expression' of that life, by means of Laws, that protect the Individual Freedom and Equality inherent in each and every human Individual, while they exist in their 'condition of togetherness'. In different words, Government helps 'organize and defend' the freedom and equality in each and every human being from the usurpation and misguided control of 'another human being', in the same 'condition of togetherness'. True, Government 'governs', through Law and Order, but its the 'Order' that protects the Freedom and Equality 'inherent' in each and every Individual, in their 'condition of togetherness'. Your 'neighbor', is more important, than your Government; but don't misunderstand, 'Government' is absolutely necessary. Its very sad; but the human condition 'needs' Government; at that point, the issue becomes, what 'form' does Government take?

A Triadic, or Three Branch, Government has Three mutually functional sides.

Obviously, a Triadic, or a Three Branch, form of Government has Three sides. Equally obvious, no side can exist by itself, and the continued existence of a Three Branch Government is dependent on 'all' its functions, or on the function of all its sides, i.e., in a 'condition of togetherness', and a condition of 'mutual interaction of its People, in 'Three different ways'. That is important for a governmental structure to function as a 'whole', i.e., with its own 'integrity', as an 'institutional power'. Otherwise, the result would be a 'lame' structure of government; and democracy is 'not' a lame government. It is not 'lame' or 'weak', because the Power of the Top emanates from the People at the Bottom, from each and every Individual in the Democracy. Any 'Institutional form' must have a basis for its existence, and for its continuing 'support'. Hence the 'strength' of the People at the Bottom, in 'their condition of togetherness', which is conveyed to the Top of a democracy, in the form, or, 'grant' of an 'Institutional Power', has its source in the 'People'. People's 'strength' in 'togetherness', is 'institutionally' converted into 'political power' at the Top. These Three basic functions of Democratic Government cannot be 'dis-functional'. For any one side of the Triadic form of government to attempt to legally sue, another side, is an act of 'political Deconstruction', at the Top. We can expect Revolutions at the Bottom, but how can we accept 'dissolutions' at the Top? On a less 'political perception', its like authorizing some individual to shoot himself/herself on the foot. Its ludicrous and politically unacceptable.

A Democraic form of Government is the best expression of the Universal 'human condition' of existence.

Democratic Government is a government "of the People", "by the People", and most important, "for the People". It is a political form of government that has a Universal political value. The 'human condition' is a Universal 'condition of existence'. All human beings can be politically organized into a Democratic form of Government. Of course, all human beings are 'dependent' and 'conditioned' by the Nation, into which they are born. Being born is never 'an Individuals choice'; nor a 'choice' of the Nation, into which we are born. Hence, forming a system of government always involves a 'human choice', made by an Individual, or a few Individuals; individuals who assume a 'responsibility' for 'giving' a 'structure' to a 'Universal', but, Institutional form of government. Once established, the form of government remains in place, but continues the 'act of governing'. Once it 'becomes' an Institution, it must establish 'positions of power', at the Top of the governing triad. The Top always governs the Bottom. However, that does not mean that the Top is 'superior', or 'more important', than the Bottom. The Top is always Institutional and hence a result of 'some organizational impetus'. The Bottom of government, are the People, and the Bottom is constituted by human beings. All human beings 'have life', and hence, are their own 'self-expression', and hence, Sacred. As between the Top and the Bottom, we find that the human condition is more important than any Institution of Government. Nevertheless, the human condition needs Institutions of Government. That makes government the basic institution of the masses. Nevertheless, the 'sole purpose' of government, is only to 'govern' the Many under its care; it has no other function; of course, with the exception of establishing a more 'universal relation' to other Governments. That's the function of the United Nations. Firstly, a Nation has the duty to govern its People, as a Nation; Secondly, it has a duty to 'relate' to Other forms of Government, on an International sphere. In both cases, its always about the 'human condition' and its 'care' in the Nation or the World. 'Humanity' is 'larger' than any form of Government and the best 'expression' of the human condition, in a 'condition of togetherness' is a Democratic form of Government.

'Politics' is a 'public discipline'; it functions 'sluggishly', and is not a "science".

It's not easy to be a politician, (assuming 'serious motives' in the practitioner), because the trajectory between the Top and the Bottom of government, is replete with social, institutional and linguistic obstacles; of course, everyone recognizes that there is a 'gap' between the 'word' and the 'reality'; that's natural. Since, all our language is naturally 'abstract', there must exist a gap between the 'saying' and the 'doing'; except, maybe, exclamations of pain, like "Ouch". In such cases, the connection between the exclamation, and the pain sustained, is 'somewhat inseparable'. To be sure, such, is not the case with 'political terms'. Why is that? Simply, because the 'separation' between the Top and the Bottom of Government, is a real 'institutional separation' which creates a 'real relation' between the Top, or the few, and the 'real millions' of individuals at the Bottom. There is no question that both, you and I, are 'real', nor, that all 'Others' at the Bottom, are also real. There's also no question that, we live under government; nor is there a question that Government arises from the Constitution, and that the Constitution requires interpretation. Of course, this is the point, where 'interpretive practices' in the Judicial Branch, kick-in. The reasons for that is that the 'generalities framed' in the Constitution must be 'applied' to specific cases. But, only certain disputes can be heard by the Court. Why? because only certain disputes involve the 'mode' of governing, or the 'Constitutionality or Unconstitutionality' of the activity. But, Constitutional adjudication has its problems also. Why should that occur? Because they are also divided into Political Parties, and hence have different 'loyalties'. All Judicial candidates are asked if they will 'follow' the Constitution; yet, I've never heard of a candidate being asked, in 'unambiguous terms', if s/he, will 'renounce' his/her 'Party-loyalty'. Too extreme you say. Yet, its the only Branch of Government that should be 'Constitutionally Objective'. So how can Politics be a 'science' that determines 'proper' political activity? The term, "Political Science', is an oxymoron. To be sure, its "political", but, a "science"?, not even close.

Is there such a thing as a serious 'States-person'? (Politician, or 'political Office holder')

Certainly, one should not be required to be wealthy to run for public office. If anyone comes from modest means when s/he 'ascends' the 'pinnacle of institutional power', its very likely that s/he won't be of 'modest means' when s/he 'descends'. Of course, there's a lot of 'personal exposure', once one sits at the 'Top'. The question is always "did the change in 'finances' come from the political exposure or from 'somewhere' else"? We must 'immediately' eliminate those that are already rich when they run for Office, because they are already rich. Democracy is a political value not an economic value. It tries to balance-out the inequities in the economy. Of course, not everyone within the Top 1%, wants to 'run' for Office, but, nevertheless, there seems to be personal enjoyment in being 'greedy', or, 'hoarding a medium of exchange', or "being on the Forbes List. The problem with that attitude is that, it is an 'economic attitude', as contrasted, with a 'political attitude'. Greed is an economic value, easily 'inhabiting' a human beings personal value system. Of course, there's a clear distinction, or should be, between 'political values' and 'economic values'. If everyone in the Nation was 'rich', such a problem would not exist; i.e., no one would run for Office for the purpose of becoming 'rich'. But, apparently, that's not the issue. The issue seems to be, not so much 'money' per se, as, a problem of 'greed'. "Greed" is a certain 'grasping-ness' that is characterized by the 'fact' that 'economic values' are quantifiable, and hence, 'more and more' of the 'same' acquires a 'momentum', not easily overcome. Some of us live 'economically', not 'politically'. Some of us, don't live 'economically, nor politically'. Some of us just, 'don't count'. Can anyone live 'Politically', i. e., in Freedom and Equality? That's the issue. Can a 'politician' possess 'pure political values', as contrasted, with 'economic values' or, 'greed'? Notice, the 'political values' are qualified with the word "pure". Of course, "purity" in that sense cannot exist. There's a little of both in every politician. We can only hope for more of the 'political', than the 'economic'. But, "Greed" is an abnormal 'acquisitiveness', that seems to contaminate the 'political values' of Freedom and Equality, and hence, should not be allowed at the Top of Government. Well, I guess we should just become, as best we can, 'good judges' of the 'moral and political values' of our candidates. No 'greedy' person should be allowed at the Top.

A "State" is a 'government'; a government is a 'way' to relate the Top and the Bottom, of the social..

J.J. Rousseau, called the State a "fiction". Apparently, the reason is that, one cannot point to a State, in the same manner as one can point, to a rock, or a house. Its a 'political Institution' that demands great respect. The 'reason' for that respect is more apparent, viz. it 'institutionalizes' the Top of a Governmental structure. I say, the Top of a Governmental structure, because all 'arrangements' or 'governments' of the 'Many' People, are arrangements of that ancient problematic, called the One and the Many, which is an arrangement of a Top and a Bottom. Since it is an 'arrangement', of the Many Peoples in a 'civilized unity', the Top must, of necessity, relate to the Bottom. That's where language has always been a problem. The problematic is that the relation can be a purely linguistic relation, in which case, it quickly translates into 'political jargon'; viz., we do the 'talk' but don't do the 'walk'. Simplistic? yes, but even these 'everyday sayings' can reflect a serious problematic. The relation must be a 'real relation' not just a 'reflection' of simple 'linguistic usage'. Of course, if the relation is a 'real relation', as opposed to a purely 'linguistic relation', then the concept of the State is not a 'fiction'. Why? Simply because the State is a structure of the One and the Many, in a 'most functional' form, where a Top 'really relates' to the Bottom where all the People are situated. Hence, in that case, the State would not be an empty concept of a 'political Institution', that relates to the multiplicity of Peoples at the Bottom, in some 'purely linguistic fashion'. Of course, the linguistic terms, "a real relation" can also be called a linguistic formulation but, notice that the 'terms', reflect an 'activity' that 'must take place'. That's using language in a real way where the Linguistic terms don't just 'define' an activity, ( going to a dictionary) but compel it, (do it) in a 'real way'. It also clarifies the difference between a 'politician' and a 'states-person'. A 'politician' is very adept at manipulating language, whereas, a 'states-person', is very adept at manipulating institutions that 'support' a government, "for the People". The real relation 'really touches', or includes or excludes, the individual at the Bottom, who are affected, effected, by the Policy or Law. A 'real relation' is not 'just' an abstraction, its real.

Economic values and goals are quantifications; Democracy cannot be quantified, but the Top can learn 'how to count'.

There's a misunderstanding of the phrase, "Quantify the Bottom". Democracy cannot be quantified, nor can a 'real individuals' value system. Nevertheless, a Government, " of People", "by People", and "for the People", must have a certain amount of 'quantification'. But, be careful with this phrase; it does 'not quantify' the Individual at the Bottom of Government. People are not 'Numbers' and they never will be. But, consider the phrase, " for the People". That phrase, means the 'real People', not the economic 'legal fictions' created by the Law. Stated differently, the phrase includes all the 'real People' at the Bottom of government. Hence, any 'policy' or 'law' that applies to the 'People' must have a criteria for 'exclusion and inclusion'. One statesman, while discussing, exclusion and inclusion, within economic Policy, said, " look at the numbers, stupid". ( I may have 'added' the word, 'Stupid', but the point was well made.) Look at the Numbers! Neither, Human Beings nor human values, are being 'quantified' as individuals but, the human being, as a 'totality', is being 'included' and 'excluded' according to the social target of the policy or Law. " For the People", means all the People, and should conform to a 'delineation of applicability' within the social or the economy. For example, availability of jobs; amounts of 'wages'; home owners; etc. Another quantification within the political structure is the Tax system. That needs clarification, because, that's not an 'economic or political' goal. Of course, its important for governments to 'function', and like everything else, needs to be 'funded'. Consequently, the funding should be 'fair and 'economically viable' but the goal is never to levy taxes, to have a 'rich' government. Government should be economically 'viable', not 'wealthy' nor 'destitute'. The 'human condition' cannot be quantified, neither can the 'Freedom and Equality' of a Democracy, but our Leaders can learn how to 'count'. They must learn to 'count', 'what, and who', is included or excluded; " for the People", means "all the People" and does not 'exclude' anyone on the basis of Race, color or Creed. I will add one more political 'value system'; nor does it 'favor one Party' over another. The Party system was established by 'weak human beings'; human beings who could not 'see', that 'they were in the same boat'. They still can't distinguish between a "legal fiction" and a 'real human being'.

Governments are necessary; so are Revolutions.

Government is necessary, because the 'Many' at the Bottom of government is constituted of millions of Individuals. The Many are the 'governed', and the One is the 'Sovereign' or the Top. In the 'basic relation' of the One and the Many, Government becomes the 'mode of governing' and the Many, or the People, become the 'governed'. Since both the Top and the Bottom 'arise' from the same 'relation', at which arising, both are 'equals', both must have certain equivalent 'powers' or 'strengths'. In this way, and since both arise from an 'original impulse', each is protected from the other. This helps 'control' the Top from abusive positions of 'institutional power', and 'sets' certain 'conditions' the Bottom must achieve, to protect itself and to 'express' its 'strengths', at the Bottom of the Relation. Of course, the Top must have the 'institutionalized power' of Office. But, the problem with that is that it leaves the Individual, as Individual, at the Bottom, somewhat 'helpless'. She/he, as individual, can't do anything. Hence, in a Constitutional Democracy, the Bottom is given the First Amendment, which grants the Constitutional Right, " peaceably to assemble". That is the Right to Revolution, and is 'reserved' to the 'Many' People, in their 'condition of togetherness'. But, just as the power of government is 'defined' and 'delineated' by Constitutional 'structures', or the Triadic form of Government and Adjudication, the 'Right of Assembly' also has certain constraints. One of those 'constraints', is the general requirement of the Electoral process, which Constitutionally allows for a change of government. It would appear that, if the 'governmental abuse' is so flagrant, that one cannot wait for 'election time', then the right to Revolution kicks-in. Another 'condition' set forth in the Constitution, is that the 'Right' must be exercised as a form of a 'peaceable' assembly. Obviously, there is a great difference between the exercise of the Institutional 'Power at the Top', and the exercise of the 'strength at the Bottom'. Of course, the Top always has the 'institutional advantage' and the only way for the Bottom to surmount that 'disadvantage' is for the Bottom to be correct in its 'analysis' of the 'political' or 'social abuse'; and it must be so obvious that no-one would dispute it; and the 'assembly at the Bottom' must include a 'very large portion' of the Many. A small 'grouping' will not suffice. For example; the Occupy movement. Nevertheless, that 'movement' awoke us from the 'greedy slumbers' of a 'basic economic valuation' of a 'distorted political position'. Other 'distortions' are; infiltration of Plutocratic values into the 'political' structure of democracy; 'Capitalistic impulses' gone bananas; political Offices held by the 1% only; 'Dictatorial motives' for social organizations; extremely un-fair taxation of the 'real People' ( by favoring Corporate taxation); or generally, the 'curtailment' of the 'Freedom and Equality' of the 'real Individual' at the Bottom. Oh Well, at least, at the inception of a 'Constitutional, democratic, way of life', someone had the 'intelligent insight' and, the audacity to 'Constitutionally protect' the 'real persons', Right to revolution.

'Politics is a 'public discipline' easily contaminated by 'human weakness'.

Why is 'politics' so easily contaminated by human weaknesses? The answer is not so complicated. Politics involves 'positions of authority' within the social or, to put it differently, within the established institutions of government. Remember, government becomes essential, because the People need a Top with 'power'. That Top with power is what we call the Government. Government 'needs' and 'has authority' or, 'power' to govern the People at the Bottom; and it gets "institutional power" from the People at the Bottom, otherwise, it would not have power, and hence, could not 'govern'. That makes these 'public offices', very enticing. Nevertheless, the only individuals, who can ascend to 'these heights' are situated at the Bottom of the social, or at the Bottom, of the "Government structure". A Government structure can only exist because the People have created such a governmental structure. A government, 'governs' and has no other reason, for existing. One human being on an Island doesn't need to be 'governed'. However, millions of human beings, do need Government. But, keep in mind that all human beings are 'free and equal'. The term "equality" is an 'equality of existing', or to put it differently, every, Tom, Dick and Harry, and, every, Mary, Martha, and Matilda, is equally human. No human being has 'more or less' life within him or her. That's Equal! Equality has nothing to do with money, gold, or possessions and its ludicrous, to think that those who 'own more' possessions have more Life, than Another; and its equally ludicrous, to think they have 'power'. As we've said, the Top gets power from the Bottom in a Democracy. Hence, many Tom, Dick, and Harrys seek Public Office, because the Office 'confers' power. And truly, the Office confers power, but only while in Office. As human beings and as humans at the Bottom of the government structure, we're all the same, i.e. 'powerless'! The only 'strength' in a 'democratic governmental entity', is the 'strength' of the 'condition of togetherness'. That's 'real strength' within any governmental structure. 'Togetherness' is 'strength', and one can say, that kind of 'strength' can also be called 'power'. Other than that, the Individual is left with his/her own individual 'moral standards', and that has nothing to do with 'power'. No Individual has power. We are all "Equal". That's why the Founding Fathers protected the Right, "peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances". That's, under the proper conditions, a "Right to Revolution"; a 'Right' to tell the Top, "hey, wait a minute, who do you think you are? we live in a Democracy, and we're all Equal. If you can't handle the Job, we'll elect someone else".

'Politics' has become a 'world affair'.

Politics, like every other discipline or practice, has become a 'world affair'. In other words, our politics, or the politics of any one Nation, is no longer just concerned with the 'home turf'. Our early 'politics' was concerned with 'freedom and equality' within a Kingdom. Later, the need for 'expansion and concentration' on another continent became the main issues. As this new continent expanded 'westward' the issues became larger and more 'expansive'. We had more land, and more concentrations of 'governing' and 'values' became essential. Even afterwards, more 'lands and expansions' were added, until 'wars and revolutions' began to define our 'oppositional Politics'. It was not until the Constitutional Convention, and the structures for governing set out at the 'second Convention', that the final 'Three Branch' structure of government was established. Along with the evolution of politics, there were evolutions in 'mechanical technology' and finally, with the evolution of 'electrical technology', and the subsequent 'information technology' which led to a 'computerized World'. The center of gravity of the 'World' changes with the diminution of the 'geographical reach' of our communication systems. It seems that geographical boundaries no longer define the exchanges of political ideas. We need a more 'complete picture' of the 'whole', we need to 're-configure' a more complete picture of the 'reach of politics'. Important changes have become necessary. If we are to keep pace with the technological advances in the world, we must 'design a politics' that sees the 'Peoples of the world', as the real 'underlying conditions' of a politics of People, as contrasted to a 'politics of separate individual Nations'. It is no longer possible to just 'think', in isolated fashion, of a politics of one Nation that merely strives for, 'more and more power', or 'strength', or 'advantage', on the International community. Of course, that's why we have a United Nations, but, its not that easy; we must 're-configure' the politics of Nations into a politics of 'Peoples'. Of course, we must 'all begin' with a domestic politics that respects and protects the human condition, at 'home', and then, extend it to the Peoples everywhere. But, its equally important, to respect the autonomous Nations of the world, as well as, their possession of 'equal power' on the International sphere. Therein lies our International problematic. The International 'game' is between Nations of equal power. But, even Nations of equal power have Peoples, and those People are the reason for there being a Nation. Nations, all Nations must begin to 'respect and protect' the 'Human condition' once more.

Economic 'values' can be a danger to the 'democratic spirit'.

Economic values are essential to every form of Government. Obviously, all Peoples, regardless their form of government, need an economy. Each Nation has its own manner of providing for its Peoples. Some economies are 'aspects' of the form of government, and some are completely 'separate' from the form of government. For example, Democracy is a form of government and is 'motored' by the Freedom and Equality of the individuals, at the Bottom of Government. The structure of the economy in a democracy is Capitalistic. That basically means that all economic activity is motored by 'profits'. No one starts a business with the intent to fail at making a good profit. This helps to distinguish 'governing activity' from 'economic activity'. Of course, the two 'disciplines' must be kept separate. By this, I don't mean that Individuals in government should not be successful businessmen, nor do I mean that successful businessmen should not be in politics. The activity of governing has a certain 'democratic purity' that should 'preserve' the act of governing, from being 'contaminated' by the 'profit motive'. That means that all 'governing' is motivated by the democratic spirit which Constitutionally protects the Freedom and Equality of each and every Individual in the social. Making a profit is never a criteria for 'governing'. And, I can assure everyone, that implementing 'freedom and equality' of every individual in the social, will never be the basis for 'making a profit'. Making a profit, is economically, a 'cut-throat activity', and is based on out-doing, out-selling, out-producing, or competing with another human being, always with the intent to out-do the Other. Of course, the problematic at that point, is that there is no way a 'real human being' can compete with a corporation, which is a "fictitious person" according to Law, and hence a recognized "legal fiction". That's why economic activity or the 'economic motor' cannot be the basis for political activity. Corporations destroyed the 'competitive edge' that any one, real individual, 'might have had', against another real individual. Corporations have an 'incomparable economic grasp'. You can call it 'greed', but 'greed' should never be the 'motor' of a Democracy. That, only leads to a Plutocracy; not a Democracy. Only Freedom and Equality of everyone, leads and 'fills-out' the inner workings 'underlying' a Democracy.

Allowing one Branch of Democratic government, to file a law-suit, against another Branch, of the same government, is the 'peak of asininity'.

Freedom and Equality is an important aspect of every Democracy. A Freedom and Equality within the 'social' is possessed by each and every individual within that social. Each human being, being Free and Equal, is then in a 'social position' to help structure and create 'democratic values' for the 'institutional continuation' of 'his/her' Government, as well as the 'institutionalization' of those political values. 'Peoples' create Governments; it is never a government that creates a People. That's impossible. But, keep in mind, that once created, a Government must 'hold together' as a political Institution and as an 'embodiment of the People' who created it. Of course, the way, that is accomplished in a democracy, is through the 'election process', because that allows a manner of 'political existence' that, through Representation, can help 'circulate those democratic principles'. All political power, although exercised at the Top, 'emanates' from the Bottom of government, i.e. from the 'People' who established it. The power is always at the Top, because the Top becomes the 'gravity- center' from where 'governing' is exercised over the Many. The Top becomes the basic center of Institutional Government, and Institutional Government becomes a Three Branch democratic form of government. Nevertheless, there are many 'differences of opinions', as to how better to 'preserve', the democratic spirit and the democratic process, within that Triadic form of government. The Peoples at the Bottom go through those 'deliberations' every election year, because, at that time, a change in Administration becomes possible. Elections, voting Rights, Freedom and Equality, allow the individuals at the Bottom 'a means' by which, to 'preserve' their Democracy. 'Democracy' and 'political change' comes from the Bottom; the Top is only an 'Institution' established to 'preserve' and 'implement' democracy, at the Bottom. The Three Branch form of Government is the best way to do that. But, today we read that One Branch is filing suit against another Branch of government. How can that be?; a 'political institution' at the Top, is 'self-destructing'?, is this another way to 'practice democracy',? 'My Party' can beat-up 'your Party'?, if that is a 'viable democracy', we might as well do away with Three Branch Government, and just give it to the 1%. One Branch cannot sue another Branch of government, unless it has the permission of each and every living, real, individual,( not corporations, they're not real) at the Bottom. And I'm not just talking, 'majority', I mean 'each and every' real individual. Oh heavens, what am I saying? This is asinine! 'These questions' don't deserve serious consideration; neither does a law suit against a Branch of government, by a different Branch, of the same government.