Can Democracy be 'limited' in its 'political expression'?

Can a Democratic form of government be limited? No, any 'limitation' placed on democracy would render the Government not truly democratic. Can an Autocracy, or Dictatorship, or Plutocracy, or Oligarchy, be limited? Its unlikely because the Top of Government has already established the 'parameters' of its Political power. However, since the power resides at the Top, the Top is certainly free to make whatever changes it wishes. But, the reason I said it was unlikely, is because the locus of power has already been institutionally situated, and hence a change of mind by the Top is not very likely. However, Democracy cannot be restricted or limited because in a Democracy the power is 'granted' to the Top, but its a 'political grant' that emanates from the Bottom. A Government is either a Democracy or its not. There can be no dilution of democratic power, nor of the Freedom and Equality of the Individual at the Bottom. Power emanates from the Bottom and the Individual is assured his/her Freedom and Equality, and that, cannot be encroached upon. Of course, there is always the necessity of compliance with Law, and Law must contour the manner by which the Freedom and Equality is expressed. Law and Order are necessary because you cannot have one without the other. My point is autocracies can be modified to allow more freedoms, because all the power is at the Top, and hence the Top can change, if it so wishes, nevertheless, its very unlikely. Whereas, in a Democracy, the power emanates from the Bottom, and is transferred to the Top, and the Top must insure the Freedom and Equality of all the Individuals at the Bottom. In other words, democracies are governments of the People, by the People, and for the People.

Is Terrorism the same as a Revolution?

Although, the word "terror" has been around for a long time, and purportedly arose during the French Revolution, the word, "Terrorism", became 'common coinage' around the time of 9-11. It was first recorded in English, in 1866, as 'extreme radical and revolutionary groups' in Russia. However, its somewhat unimaginable, how an "extreme Radical" and Revolutionary groups", can be equated with Terrorism. Of course, I speak about a Democracy. In an established Democracy a "Revolution" is recognized as a "peaceable assembly". Of course, there are exceptions and many 'demonstrations' and 'revolutionary activities' can become 'extreme', and be less then peaceable. Nevertheless, they never reach a point where the term "Terrorism" is applied. Why is that? In Revolutions, the purpose is always to bring about a 'change in the Government', or, the "policies of the Government", or to establish a 'new Government'. What is the purpose of terrorism, and what does it hope to 'change' or to 'accomplish'? Terrorism seems to be for the sole purpose of 'terror'. It does not seem to have a 'political program'; nor an established political ideology, its pure unadulterated terror. Although its a prime example, of what 'many individuals' or 'Number' can accomplish, it has no goal and, hence, eventually, will 'self-destruct'. Every Individual is free to complain about his/her government, but to 'demonstrate' by causing 'terror' is not the answer. Every Government is composed of Leaders at the Top, and the Many, or Individuals, at the Bottom. The Top is what has to change in a Revolution, not the 'elimination' of the Many or the human race at the Bottom. It may be true, that without human beings, there is no need of Government, but that, would only mean that the 'goal of terrorism' is to eliminate the human race. How can it not self-destruct?

Democracy can sometimes be 'unwieldly'.

Democracy, as a form of Government, can sometimes be 'unwieldy'. The reason being that Democratic Institutions can sometimes impede an immediate 'response', or a total 'inclusions' or 'exclusion' of democratic values, by the Bottom of Government, or by the People, at the Bottom. The 'immediate response' applies more on the International level than on a National level. The 'need' for an 'immediate response' applies to the International Level; while a less immediate, and more inclusive or exclusive consideration, applies to the National Level. In either case, a consideration of the people's welfare should always be the primary consideration, in all Government policy. Of course, on the International sphere, it sometimes becomes necessary to act with immediacy; that means by 'pure power'. Nevertheless, in a Democracy, the consideration of the welfare of the Nations People should always be a primary motive. Hence, Internationally, a Democracy should not act from 'selfish motives' of the Top, but from 'democratically', or, 'representational' motives. The primary concern in all democracies are the People at the Bottom of Government, who have 'granted' the power of 'representation' to the Top. Of course, an Autocracy, that does not care about its People, doesn't worry about those principles. But, Autocracies are 'weak' at the Top, because they may not have the support of the Bottom, in their decision process. But, Democracies are always stronger, because the Peoples welfare, is always a consideration in their governments activity of 'pure power'. In a Democracy, the Bottom always supports the Top, and the Top, always Represents, the Bottom. Democracies, do not, or, should not, act impetuously or hastily, because, they know that they will always have the support of the People, in a proper 'representational activity'.

Can a Revolution be a 'means' to establish a new form of Government?

Can a Revolution be a 'means' to establish a 'new form' of Government? Yes and No. Yes, if the purpose of the Revolution is justifiable. What can that mean? Well, if the Revolution is 'founded' on the fact that the Government is 'abusing', 'not respecting', or, 'not recognizing' the 'political Rights' of the Individuals being Governed. If such is the case and the Revolutionaries intend to set up a different government; one that respects the freedom and Equality of the Peoples who are the governed, possibly the Revolution is justified. In different words, a Revolution is for the purpose of correcting a "political wrong". That way of looking at the Revolutionary spirit may be correct, but its also important to 'delineate' or 'declare' the 'political wrong' that is being corrected. There are many reasons to be dissatisfied with a form of Government. Its important to remember that the wrong to be 'corrected' be a 'political wrong'. A 'political wrong' arises from the act of governing a 'condition of togetherness'. There are political wrongs and there are 'human Rights' and 'human wrongs'. For example; a human being is born with human dignity and is 'equally human'. There are no distinctions in human life. Government does not 'grant' that privilege. Government only insures that each and every Individual under its care, will respect and recognize, 'that natural Right' in the Other humans among which S/he lives in 'togetherness'. Government only 'governs', and should do so, in Equality and Justice. It has no other purpose for existing. If Government is abusing the human Rights of the Individuals, the Revolution is justified. However, the purpose of the Revolution must be to establish a 'more just Government'. It cannot be for the sole purpose of replacing the Top with someone else who is equally unjust. That would be a mere 'power struggle'.

On the International sphere, Nations are not equal; nevertheless, all Nations are 'equal in power'.

A Democracy can assume many distorted forms. A Democracy is usually described as a Government, "of the People", "by the People", and "for the People". Of course, the terms, "of", "by", and "for", have very specific meanings. The term, "of" means of the People who are the subjects of the Government. The term, "by" means, by the same People, who are to be Governed; and the term, "for" means for the 'benefit' of the People who are to be governed. All Governments are 'of People', and all governments are by, 'some kind' of people; there are no Governments that have a 'Top' that is 'not human'. Hence, the requirements that democracy be "of People" and "by People", is not problematic, so long as those Representatives come from the same group to be governed. The largest area of problems in democracies is the requirement that 'governing' be "for the People". What constitutes Government "for the People". Obviously, that implies a strong connection to the 'direction' required of the act of governing. Those issues apply on a National basis. However, on the International sphere, Democratic Government can very easily deviate from the 'direction' suggested by democratic principles. The reason being that Internationally, a Democratic Nation interacts with other Nations, that may be Democratic, or, may not be democratic. Nations, as between themselves, are not equal. Nevertheless, all Nations are 'equal in power'. If there is to be an International Government, all Nations must have 'Equal power'. That's 'pure power', and the People of a Nation, do not have to be 'directly privy' to the 'relations' taking place on the International sphere. Nevertheless, a Democratic Nation must take into account the fact that any problematic on the International sphere, may lead to War, and hence, involve its People. On the International sphere, Power is a 'given' and must be exercised very carefully. Failure to resolve International government issues on the International sphere can lead to War. Failure to resolve National Issues leads to 're-shuffling' of elected officials.

When 'justifiable' Revolutions take place, its time to listen.

When 'justifiable Revolutions' take place, its time for the leaders of a Nation to listen. The Leaders of Nations are primarily obligated to the 'People' of the Nation. In other words, 'all is not well' within the Nation. The problematic could be a National issue or it could be an International issue. Of course, the People, or, the Bottom of Government, are not authorized to legislate or take 'personal part' in the many issues on the International sphere, but they are surely entitled to their opinion, and to express that opinion. Its time for leaders to listen and seriously consider the 'promptings' that lead to a Revolution. A Nations People, regardless of the form of government, are the 'constituents' of that Nation. No Nation can exist without a People, and the primary obligation of a Nation is to its People. A political entity, viz. a Nation, cannot exist without its People. Since, its always the People who express the strength of a Nation, and, on the International sphere, the power of a Nation, is always 'expressed' by the People who help defend it, and by those who give their Life for it. All 'Forms of Governments' are abstractions and completely dependent on their People. Without People, a Nation or a Government would be an empty political entity. No Nation has power because its an abstract Nation; it has power because it has a People. Of course, a Nation can marshal all its institutional force against its own People, but that has a 'deconstructive effect'. It cannot last long without the strength of its People. Its better, to listen, to reconsider, modify, or attenuate, or, to cancel its International activities, or, its National activities. On the International sphere, a Nation cannot be stronger than other Nations, all have equal power, and that 'pure power', will always be there, no matter how large, or how small, the Nation might be. On the National sphere, keep your 'People together', you might need them.

The only way for Individuals to influence International Politics, is to influence National Politics.

Obviously, Individuals at the Bottom of government, cannot influence International politics. Equally obvious, is the fact that the International situation is being 'motored' by 'pure power'. But, the Individual does have an influence on the National sphere, and hence, must relate to the International by 'means' of the National. Since, most Individuals who wish to influence the International, do not act in a Representative way, their only recourse, is to influence the National sphere to the extent that they demonstrates their displeasure of the International situation. Of course, that means 'Demonstrations' or 'Revolution'. There are no Other ways. The International functions with "Pure Power", and the National functions with "Representational Power". However, the loss of 'human life' in the National sphere, is grounds for intervention, in the only manner possible, on the International sphere, viz., people must act against the conduct of their Representatives on the International sphere. Of course, this 'apparent rule' of conduct in Politics, does not apply to purported 'acts of terrorism'. Terrorism is not a 'Political entity' and its not a 'National' entity; its an act by 'human beings' against 'human beings'. There are no 'boundaries' to 'terrorism'. But, the International sphere, which functions with pure power, must learn to get along with other Nations, or possibly face, 'Demonstrations or Revolutions', at 'home'. Many 'demonstrations' and some 'Revolutions' are justifiable.

'National Politics' can bring about a 'Revolution'; 'International Politics', can bring about 'War'.

The term "politics" covers a wide area of activity; politics on the National sphere is different from politics on the International sphere. Nationally, it concerns the exercise of 'power' between a 'Top' and a 'Bottom'. On a National sphere, this relation involves the 'inner organization' of a National political entity, and the relation between the Top of the entity and the Bottom of the entity, where its People reside. Every Nation has a National 'politics', or, a Government that 'governs its People', and a Bottom, or, all its People, 'living in a condition of togetherness'. Of course, many issues can arise between a Government and its own People. However, on the International sphere, the political situation is entirely different. Nations, as in the case of individuals, do not, and cannot, live in 'isolation'. Even Nations must exist in a 'condition of togetherness'. But the relationship between Nations is different from the relationship between a Nation and its People. In the relationship between a Nation and its People, one finds many different 'forms' of government; e.g., Dictatorships, Autocracy, Aristocracy, Plutocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy,'enclaves', and even, in the 'so-called', less civilized parts of the World, tribes, and small 'groups' of human beings. This 'relationship' can be called a 'National' type of relationship, or a 'manner of relating' between the Top of 'government' and the Bottom. However, on the International sphere, 'each Nation' is already an 'established political entity', regardless its type of National organization, and is entitled to an 'equal political posture' in its relations with other Nations. The 'relation' is one of 'pure power'. So how does one Nation get along with other Nations - that are 'political equals'- within the International sphere? That's a problematic. A Nation may not be as 'powerful' on the home front as it sets itself up on the International sphere, where 'all' are equals in power. Nevertheless, all Nations, in the exercise of pure power, must also learn to live in a 'condition of togetherness'. An uprising, on the National sphere is called a "Revolution"; an uprising, between Nations, on the International sphere, is called "War". While neither is 'good', "Wars" are worse, and 'more contagious', than "Revolutions". Why can't human beings get along?

Power is an attribute of Governmenmt; and Law 'contours' that power.

Power is an attribute of Government; and the Law is the means by which it 'contours' that power. Of course, Law is a very broad discipline, but a few conjectures can be made about it. Law, in a broad sense, 'regulates' governing and it also regulates the 'behavior' of the Governed. Hence, it permeates the entire 'social' and 'economic' Institutions therein. It regulates the relations between individuals, and between, the individual and the economic and social Institutions in the social; e.g., it sets forth the 'necessary conditions' for 'creating' a corporation ( more on that later), Hence, Law helps the 'governing process', but it does not limit the 'expression of life' by any one human being. There's more to 'living' in a democracy, than being 'law-abiding'. Nevertheless, Law is essential to a proper 'governing' and a proper regulating of the Many Individuals at the Bottom of Government, and at the same time, is only applied in the 'proper place' and at the 'proper Time'. A Social, cannot survive and live in harmony, without 'governing' and Law. The 'ultimate expression' or, 'primary expression' of our legal system, of course, is found in "The Constitution". The Constitution, and its mandates and descriptions, governs all Laws; that's why the Judicial Branch of the Government should be, and must be, objective. But, is the Judiciary objective? Of course not. One reason for that, is the division into Party Systems i.e., 'preferential politics'. All Branches of Government are 'peopled' by Representatives who must 'stay' within the 'confines' of law, but there are also 'moral standards'. Law does not mandate 'morals', and a clear distinction, between Law and Morality must be made. An Individual can be 'perfectly' moral, and quite 'illegal'; or perfectly 'legal', and quite 'immoral'. The Legal aspect is mandatory in the social; the moral, while 'polite, prudent', and wise', is not mandatory. Hence, again, the problematic of the human condition. We need 'Statesmen', who follow the Constitution; not 'politicians', who follow Party politics; and 'Statesmen', or 'states-persons', are hard to find.

Only Government has power; not the economy, not the private sector, and not the Individual.

Only government can house power, because 'governing' is in the nature of Government. Obviously, the economy cannot govern, because its 'nature' is to make 'profits'. The economy knows how to make profits; it does 'not know how to govern'. Of course, that does not mean that a 'good' candidate from the economy, would not make a good political 'Office Holder'. Nevertheless, the goal of political office is to govern and that can only be accomplished by Government, regardless of the economic institutions that are beneficial to the People. Democratic Government governs with Freedom and Equality of the individual, or, its not 'governing', or its not Democratic. Freedom and Equality has absolutely no connection to making profits by means of the competitive spirit; its the reverse, the competitive spirit is only possible where there is 'governing' in 'Freedom and Equality' of the individual, which would include Freedom and Equality in the economy. Try 'economic aggressiveness', 'economic vision', 'economic competition', in an Autocracy or even a Plutocracy, and I assure you, that cannot be done. An Autocracy and a Plutocracy also have power. That's because they are forms of Government and its only Government that has power. The economy cannot have power, but the Plutocracy or Autocracy will protect its Governmental arrangement by eliminating the competition in the economy. Hence, the economy does not house power, neither does the individual, based on his/her economic accomplishments; the only source of Power is in a political arrangement; and in a Democratic arrangement, only the Democratic form of Government has Power. Plutocracy has two 'faces'; it will create 'more profits', than it already has, or, it will 'defend' the profits it already has. It does not care for Freedom and Equality of the individual, or, Freedom and Equality in the economy.

'Terrorism' is not a Revolution; 'Terrorism' does not have a political agenda; 'Terrorism' does not have a Country.

Terrorism is not a Revolution, which occurs within any one Country, nor is it an act of War by one Country against another. In actually, it does not have a political agenda. If it claims to be political, it must describe and define its political goals. Violence, for the sake of violence, is unidirectional, in the sense that it will be perpetrated on 'anyone', or 'everyone'. The goal of terror is simply the destruction of human life. How can a few, or even Many, individuals act violently against other human beings, without political reasons for the act, other than the destruction of human life. Without a political agenda, it will self-destruct. Ask yourself, who is the Leader? Who will protect the Leader, from someone else who wants to be Leader. What is the hierarchy in a terroristic 'organization', if it can be said that it is an 'organization'? What are its goals, or since we've said that it has no political goals, who are its friends, or who are its next victims? Will the next victim be someone from within the group, or from, without the Group. Terrorism cannot end with the establishment of a new Country or Nation, because that is not its goal. It will continue to implement Terror, until it implements 'itself' out of existence. Terrorism is anti-democratic; its anti- autocratic; Its anti- Plutocratic; its anti-Oligarchic; its anti-Government; its anti-Nation; its anti-'Top'; its the 'human condition', at the Bottom, 'gone wrong'. How sad.

The Top of all Governments have 'power'; the Bottom of all Governments are constituted of 'real People'.

The Top of all Governments have 'Political Power'; but the Bottom of all Governments have 'strength in Numbers'. That's a fact. No one can deny the existence of those 'conditions' within a Nation. The dichotomy between a Top and a Bottom in the arrangement of every Government is 'basic and fundamental'. But, that fact does not mean the 'tension' between the Top and the Bottom must be 'antagonistic'. To the contrary, there must be a harmony between the two Institutions and all 'internal struggles' should be to attain that 'degree of harmony', and the Freedom and Equality, promised by the form of government. The Form of Government, or, the Top, is without power unless it supports the Freedom and Equality of its People. The Government, as some 'isolated function of power' cannot exist. It has no necessity to exist, but for the purpose of governing 'a People'. The State, Government, and political power, does not exist ipso facto. It needs People. The State, Government, political Power, needs 'a People', in order to exist; but, the People of a Nation needs Governing because of the Many, or, its 'condition of togetherness'. Hence, there should be no opposition between the Top and the Bottom, only cooperation, working together, and mutual effort to insure the Freedom and Equality of the Individual. Every Nation, Country, Leader of a Nation, that thinks its necessary to precipitate War, should be required to ask each and ever individual within its borders, if s/he is willing to die for his/her Nation, in pursuit of the 'political agenda' that its pursuing. The Top never fights, it just demands or gives orders; its the People that pay the price for a 'political agenda'. That's what makes politics such a 'dirty game'; a real human life can be 'extinguished' as a result of some 'abstract political gain'. 'Politics' is abstract and 'non-sense'; the State is 'abstract and a fiction', 'political power' does 'not exist', but for 'the People' that 'give it'. But, the People that die are very 'real'. What then is "War" between Nations?

No Nation is perfect; some Nations are 'badly' organized into political Institutions.

No Nation is perfect; some are badly organized into political Institutions. Being badly organized, is already a 'bad place' to start, but then again, the 'human condition' is itself, not perfect either. Of course, this brings us back to the constitution of a Democracy. But, I don't want to emphasize that too strongly,( just now) at the very beginning of an analysis of our political Institutions. Examine the nature of political Institutions and we find that Individual, or Individuals, first initiated or organized themselves into a political Institution. Of course, the Family was the first 'human Institution', but as humans began to multiply, humans began to organize into small groups, which grew larger and larger. Eventually, the groups in a particular geographical area organized themselves into tribes, etc. with an Identity that applied to the particular area. These Families and 'small groups', or tribes, can be called 'political institutions', but they are held together by 'blood', not the political Institution. All political Institutions are held together by 'Law', 'social mores', political power, or, something similar, but that only means that Individuals within the Nation can do things, this way, and not the other way. So where and when did Nations begin to form an Identity, and set boundaries to a geographical area that attributes an identity, to that area, and establishes a Political Identity? Of course, this is the point where, the history of the 'peopling' of the area, and the 'forms of Governments', begin to be institutionalized. Where do Nations get their Power? Well, we know that its always the People in a 'condition of togetherness' that is basic to the 'forms' of the first Governments. Its their Government, its the Peoples government. Here, enters democracy. So what are the problems of a Democracy? The big answer, is the 'imperfect Individuals' that are 'necessary' to the democracy, and that are, themselves 'imperfect'. 'God' help the Planet; 'God' help the human condition. How can People begin to 'see' that every Individual is the same, no matter the geographic area, or, the political Institution? Democratic, or not, a Political Institution, should mean, 'living together' in the best way possible.

Can Democracy 'go wrong'; Can Revolutions 'go wrong'?

Can Democracy 'go wrong'? Absolutely. It could very well turn into the exercise of pure 'political power' without the inclusion of the Freedom and Equality of the human being. The goal of democratic government is to insure and protect the Freedom and Equality of the Individual. Can a Revolution go wrong? Absolutely. It could easily go from a focused revolution against a particular form of Government that does not protect the Freedom and Equality of the Individual, and 'transforms' into a mere exercise of 'violence' against the 'human condition'. That 'type of Revolution' transforms into a 'political activity' that has International implications because all governments are constituted, at the Bottom, of the Many, or, the 'Peoples of the World'. In other words, a Revolution that occurs within a Nation, but does not remain in the Nation, is not really a Revolution. In general, its an exercise of 'violence' against the human condition, regardless of the Nations, 'wherein' the humans live. In different words, both sides of the 'stick' can be manipulated for the benefit of the 'Autocratic impulse' or 'attitude' towards the 'human condition'. In a Democracy, it effects the Government; in a Revolution, it effects the 'human condition' on an International scale. The Right to 'peaceably assemble' that every human being has, must remain within the Nation, where the Right is being exercised. If it 'seeps out' or is 'directed' into the International scale, it is no longer a Revolution. Of course, we now have a new 'term' for that phenomena, its called 'Terroristic' activity. If a Nation fights against another 'Nation', as a 'Nation', its called "War"; if 'People' have legitimately 'assembled for redress of grievances', within a Nation, it can be called a 'Demonstration' or, if 'sufficiently strong', a Revolution, but, if a few or many Individuals organize themselves to destroy the 'human condition', regardless of where its 'found', and, 'except for themselves', its called "terrorism". Eventually, 'terrorism' will 'self-destruct', 'within itself' because, it will 'turn against' its 'own self'. A Democracy, 'gone wrong', can be 're-defined' and re-arranged; A 'real Revolution', gone wrong, will eventually, 'find' its democratic basis; Terrorism, will eventually self-destruct from 'within', because its based on 'destruction'.

The 'Tops' of all Governments, house 'political power'; but 'political power' is a 'fiction'.

The Top of Democratic Government, 'houses' power. Of course, the Top of 'every form' of Government also 'houses power'. That's the only place in the World with Power. Power is an 'attribute' of the 'State' and the State has been called a 'fiction'. Other than in a political organization, there is no such thing as 'power' in the World. An 'attribute' of the State, or Government, is as 'fictitious' as is the 'State' or 'Government'. The only 'real thing' that exists in the World is the 'human world' and the 'animal world'. Of course, there's also the 'plant' world, but its not necessary to go into that. Fortunately or unfortunately, the Human World fell into 'geographical patterns', called 'different Nations'. Each Nation, organized itself into a political and governmental entity. Power became essential, so that the Top of the organization could govern the Bottom of the organization. Nevertheless, the 'power' is also a 'fictitious thing'. If the State itself is a fiction, so is the power it wields. It cannot be said that, since the State or government is absolutely necessary in the 'condition of togetherness', we must make the 'power of the State into a 'real' power. Its still unreal, surreal, or whatever you like, but the fact is that power does not exist in the World. To say that 'Power' is politically essential, is not to say, that its 'real'. The only thing that exists in the World, is the 'human condition', and its 'integrity', 'uniqueness', and 'self-government'. If we cannot 'Govern Ourselves', how can we govern the Other? That's the aspect of every Government( the People) that must learn, how to live in Freedom and Equality. The Goal, or duty, of every Government, should be to allow the People, at the Bottom, to attain to the highest degree of Freedom and Equality. There is no other reason for having Government.

Democracy is a political Institution that gives the People at the Bottom the right to 'revolution'.

Democracy is a political Institution that is arranged with a Top and a Bottom. The Top houses power and the Bottom houses strength. But, the power of the Top arises from the Bottom and the strength of the Bottom arises from Number. Once, the Individuals, or, the Many at the Bottom, "peaceably" organize themselves to "petition the Government for redress of grievances", the failure or success, of the 'organization' depends on their Number. There is strength in Numbers, and rightfully executed, the People are the ones who can determine the outcome of the 'demonstration'. The only thing the Top can do to quell the demonstration is to purport to control the demonstration, not to 'crush it'. Control of the right to Revolution is different from an attempt to crush it. Obviously, any resort to 'illegal means' or some 'over- reaction', to the demonstration is not an acceptable means of control. Of course, at any time the whole thing can go wrong. It can go wrong from either side of the exercise of the Constitutional Right. The demonstration can be destructive, and hence not peaceable, or, the 'control' can be violent, and hence, not legal, or a case of over-reaction. Either side of the equation can 'go wrong'. Usually, the failure or success of such a demonstration depends on its organization, and the way the demonstrators conduct themselves. That's why the "Peace Marches" were so effective. Of course, the 'marchers' suffered many atrocities, but they changed the nature of our society. The credit goes to those who "marched", to those who suffered the atrocities, and to those who gave their lives. They also changed the nature of the Right to 'Revolution'.

A medium of exchange has 'purchasing power', not political power.

Money and possessions are economic values; not political values. Political values or political Offices have power, but economic values do not have power. In a Democracy, the power of political Office is a 'grant' from the People at the Bottom, who have elected the Representative into Office, and who have been Constitutionally authorized to Represent the Many people at the Bottom. Other forms of Government also have power at the Top, but they acquire Office at the Top by other means. Nevertheless, all Governments, being political entities, have power at the Top. The only kind of power that exists in the world is political power because its an 'organization' of the One and the Many or the Top and the Bottom. Political power is the only kind of 'power' an Individual can posses. Of course, we hear of power in the hands of the wealthy, but that is not 'power', that's 'purchasing power', and the only thing that does is serve as a medium of exchange. As a medium of exchange it can only be exchanged for, or purchase, other 'things' or 'possessions'. But, it never authorizes an Individual to 'govern'. The term or word "power" is often misused. Power is the only thing that allows one or several human beings to 'govern' Other human beings. That's why the principles of the economy, must be kept apart, from the principles of Government. A human being can only acquire political power, i.e., power to 'govern', by being elected to a political Office. Obviously s/he must demonstrate that s/he has the knowledge and dedication to 'govern' the People of the Nation. But, under no circumstance can money and possessions be a 'criteria' for assuming a responsible political office. The reason for that is that a Capitalistic economy is motored by 'profits' and a democratic political entity is motored by Freedom and Equality, and never shall the 'two meet'.

'Political power' can cause a War.

Political power can cause a War, but Individual 'strength', or, if you wish, 'individual power'( which 'power' doesn't exist on an Individual level or on a National level), will never cause a War. On a National level, Individual 'strength' or 'autonomy' may cause a 'personal dislike', or, a 'racial dislike', or, 'racial discrimination', or some 'social dislike', or, some 'economic dislike', or, even some 'political dislike'; and these Individual 'dislikes' or discriminations may even exist among 'humans' interacting with 'Other Humans' from another Nation; in other words, on the International level, but these factors, alone, are never sufficient to cause a War. Why is that? Because all these factors are 'personal human factors', that cause 'personal' difficulties, or, conflicts, in the 'condition of togetherness' which constitutes our 'National Identity'. They may cause, "riots", 'social' or 'economic unrest' in the Nation, but these 'personal human factors' do not have an 'effect' on the International sphere. However, every Nation has 'power' by virtue of its 'organization' into a political entity, and, any "organizations of Nations" on an International scale also 'houses power' in its interactions with other Nations. However, Individuals, as individuals, within any Nation do not have an effect on the International sphere. But, Individuals as Representatives, of a Nation, can and do, have an effect on the International sphere, and the political power that attaches to that Individual as 'Representative' is real Power. Obviously, this can cause a dilemma with an Individual. Here we have an Individual that recognizes that s/he has 'power' as Representative of a Nation of his/her People, and also, as 'Representative' of his/her Nation, in the interactions with Other Nations. But, the difference in the exercise of this power is vastly different. Political power in a Democracy arises from the Many Individuals at the Bottom. It can be changed every Four years. On the International sphere its a 'given' of the Organization into a 'United Nations' or some smaller 'Grouping' of Nations. However, the dialogue among Nations is motored by 'pure power' and the exercise of 'pure power' must be very cautious. 'Political power' on the International sphere can cause War; as a matter of fact, the 'careless exercise' of pure power on the International sphere will result in 'postures' of War. Why? Because, Nationally, the political Game is about the 'proper exercise' of 'Representative power'; Internationally, the political 'Game' is always 'completely motored' by 'pure power', and 'pure power' is absolute, and 'absolute power' can 'cause' War.

'Political power' is an abstraction; Individual human power is an illusion.

A Nation, or government, of that Nation, is an 'abstraction'. By that statement I mean that, in actuality, a Nation is a 'condition of togetherness' of 'real people' that live within the 'geographical and political' boundaries of that Nation. The Nation has an 'International Identity' and an 'Autonomy'. That 'Identity' and that 'autonomy' characterizes that particular Nation. Regardless, its size or Identity, on the International sphere, a Nation has 'Equal Power' as a political entity. Why is that? Simply. because human beings have a right to 'organize themselves' into a political entity. No one can set requirements on the nature of that political entity. Hence, the 'Equal Power' is a 'given' of the political organization. In other words, a Nation already has all the Power it needs to govern its People. It has no need for 'more power'. ( I already hear some laughter in the background) Hey, its the only way the 'Many' found to organize into a 'political entity', with its own Autonomy and Identity. Every Nation needed Power at the Top, and by virtue of 'organization', it has Power over its own organization. In other words, its the only way to 'organize' the One, at the Top, and the Many, at the Bottom. Nevertheless, on the International scene, it has 'no Power' over 'Another Nation', or the 'Peoples' of the Other Nation. The problematic is that 'some Nations' want 'more Power', and the only way to get that, on a World that is already 'full', is to encroach into the 'Political Boundaries' of the Other Nation. Kinda-like that old childish " my dad can beat up your dad" mentality. 'Kings', Autocrats, Dictators, Leaders, Presidents, etc., must be the most 'lonely individuals' on the planet. Can you imagine someone who can 'create' a 'war situation', and kill Other men, women, and children? (I'm serious!) Have you ever watched a Leader 'age'? Well, if they're not 'lonely', they have to be "power hungry", or 'greedy', because they want 'more and more' of the same, comparable to 'greed' in the economy, that motivates Individuals towards 'more and more' of the same( money), which leads to the 1%, or Plutocracies, or Oligarchies. Internationally, its about 'Power'; Nationally, its about 'Money', in both cases ,its about 'greed'. I used to think Governments needed to change, but I was wrong, People, who lead Governments need to change. "More and More", only leads to "less and less".

The Bottom of any type of Government, is about real People; the 'causes' of War, are abstract.

Democracy at the Bottom of Government functions, via the Individual, the Electorate, and the Vote. Democracy, within a Nation, plays its own game; i.e., 'internal politics', elections of those considered qualified, and establishing Institutions, policies and Laws that protect and preserve the Freedom and Equality of the Individual. The International game is entirely different. The International Game is a power game between Nations, i.e., it's 'external' to the 'internal politics' of any one Nation and should not involve the 'real people' in any one Nation. That's just a way of saying that the 'power struggle' between Nations should not involve the 'internal politics', or the Individuals, within a Nation. In the case of a Democratic Nation, a conflict with another Nation does not directly involve the 'internal' democratic, or non-democratic, practices of the Nation. That's the dilemma with International politics. International conflicts involves a dispute with other nations about, National boundaries; land disputes; disputes, agreements, or disagreements, about Natural Resources; and never, about the 'differences' in the form of Government. Of course, the problem is that when International Disputes break down, there is always a 'potential' for War, and that means that many individuals within the Nations will, indirectly, have to get involved. But, we have also said that Nations or Governments of all types, not just democracies, are 'abstractions', 'Autonomous', and by virtue of said 'autonomy' are equal in 'power' on the International scene. Nevertheless, they, also, are constituted of 'real People', and just because they might be 'non-democratic', and do not protect the 'freedom and equality' of the Individual, does not mean that they have a right to consider the Individual in a democracy, in the same way as they consider their own People. That's completely out of the question. 'Power' differences between 'abstract entities' must be resolved 'abstractly'. War is 'not abstract', and is not a solution; neither are threats of war. 'Real Peoples' should not be victims of an abstract problematic. That's ridiculous. If Leaders on the International scene cannot resolve an 'abstract problem' by 'abstract means', maybe they shouldn't be Leaders. Wow, maybe its not about governments, maybe its about the Individuals who 'run' government; they're the ones who need to 'change' their 'humanity'. How sad, humans create 'abstract problems' and try to resolve them with 'Real Wars'. War is justifiable, only as a 'defensive measure'.

Democracy, at the Top of Government, works in a cycle.

Democracy, at the Top, works in a circular fashion. By that, I mean the Three Branches of Government must be 'continuously' in activity. Also; each Branch must function properly, and that means that each Representative must 'think democratically' and not be influenced by 'motivations' that are 'not democratic'; e.g., 'purely' 'economic' or 'racial motivations'. Historically, and during this 'circular movement' of the 'Three Branches', or 'democratic institutions', many previously existing 'social imbalances' were corrected. For example, initially there was a 'racial divide', or stated differently, there was an institution called 'Slavery' in the social. Of course, there were many other practices that were changed and many others coming into existence within our economy. Example; at one time, Banks were 'really banks', and not investment institutions; after the assembly line, technology helped the further evolution of 'production', and with it came the business Corporation, and then, the electronic revolution and television. Of course, after that came the 'digital revolution' or the computerization of just about everything. With all these advances in technology and the computer, the World 'shrunk' into a 'large community'. People could talk to each other and we are able to 'compare institutions' and 'share commodities'. Television and computers helps us see the living conditions of the 'Other peoples' in the World. Now, we want to apply 'television technology' and 'computer technology', to, indirectly, provide for the 'well being' of everyone in the World. Of course, these 'altruistic tendencies' to help Others is a possibility, but what is really happening to us. When we go 'full circle' in the implementation of our democratic Institutions, and we still see, via T.V. and the media, 'race riots', it makes one wonder if we really did give up our 'discriminatory practices' when we overcame the 'racial divide'. "Freedom and equality" are characteristics of every 'human being' in the World, regardless of Race, Color, or Creed. Could it be that once our Democratic institutions are established and social standards and laws of behavior are established, that we return to our more primitive concepts? Could it be that once democratic institutions go full circle, we 'awaken' our more primitive belief systems; belief systems that 'again' encourage 'Individuality' to the extreme point, of 'selfishness', 'economic greed' and 'individual inequality'? How sad; sometimes its not Governments that must change, its the human condition.