The 'issue' of the One and the Many is a 'political' issue.

The 'issue' of the One and the Many is a 'political issue'. However, the problematic is not one of contraries, or, opposites, or some 'dualism'. For Government purposes, the problematic can be further described as a relation between a Top and a Bottom. The Top is Linguistic, or abstract, or a 'Map, the Bottom is 'real'. Whether, a Democracy, an Autocracy, a Dictatorship, or a Divine Right of Kings, form of Government, the real issue is always from where does the Top get its authority to 'govern'. 'To Govern', is a 'Power', that must exist at the Top, or be granted, to the Top. But, from where does the Top get the Power? In the Divine Right of Kings, the Power came from God. In an Autocracy or a Dictatorship, the Top is 'assumed' by some Individual, or Individuals. In some cases, the 'assumption' is by force, fear, or some 'continuing line' of authority. Of course, in a real Democracy, the authority comes from the Bottom, or, stated differently, it comes from the 'Governed'; it is they who grant to the Top the 'Institutional', or, 'political', Power to 'govern'. Power cannot exist in the Individual, whether the Individual is at the Bottom, or the Top. Power, 'emanates' from the 'condition of togetherness', that characterizes the Bottom. That's the only Power that can exist in a Political entity. Once, vested, no matter how, the Power is an 'equal characteristic' of each and every 'Nation' in the World. That's why, the United Nations 'government' works, and that's why, the Internet, which crosses political boundaries, and goes into every individuals 'living room', cannot 'organize' or 'effect' the International community. The National autonomy of every Nation, must be recognized and respected. Only a World Government, or a United Nations, can govern the International scene. Of course, Individuals can bring about Revolutions, but only within their own Nation. If they bring about changes in their own Nation, it might be possible, for that Nation to effect another Nation, but only through the United Nations, never through the Internet. The Internet may facilitate International Communication between 'Individuals', but it does not 'house Power'.

A 'Capitalocracy' is a Capitalism with democratic goals.

A 'Capital-ocracy' is a form of Capitalism with some Democratic goals. Its can be called an "oxymoron", but only if we limit the reference of the term to the purely abstract level. Obviously, each word is a separate political term, but we have already clarified the fact that neither term replaces the other in a Democratic Government or a Democratic society. They both function separately, though jointly, in 'independent' political terrains, hence, their separate nature is appreciated and respected. Nevertheless, Democracy must govern and Capitalism must 'produce profits'. Together, they can probably, accomplish more, but, only if they work together. If Capitalism infiltrates Government and becomes self-serving, we will have a Plutocracy. But, its clear that the job and engine of Capitalism is not to govern, but to produce Profits . The 'motor' of the economy is separate from the Democratic spirit. In the same way, Democracy must govern, and it must 'Govern democratically', and hence, 'profits' is not a 'motor' in the governing. Profits belong in the 'economy', and the Freedom and Equality of each individual, belong in a 'Democratic Social'. Never should the two principles be confused. Obviously, and by definition, Democracy cannot thrive in a Plutocracy, and a Plutocracy cannot 'govern' Democratically. The essence of Democratic Government is the Freedom and Equality of the People, and that principle of governing, cannot be replaced by anything else. However, it is possible to require, re-define, and establish, new 'democratic ideals', in the economy, so that Capitalism can become more 'Democratic' and less 'Plutocratic'. Those new Ideals could 'help' combat, Greed, monopoly, and a 'corporate society', and it can help to 'de-centralize' the 1%. Government needs to become more involved in the establishment of 'democratic' economic ideals. If not, the 1% will continue to grow stronger, and eventually, divide, split up, and self-destruct Democracy. The result wouldn't even be a Plutocracy; it would be 'something' like a 'Dictatorship by Wealth'.

Democratic government needs more 'control' over its 'legal fictions'.

Democratic government needs more control over the Legal Fictions it has created. Of course, I speak about the 'Corporations'. Corporations do not 'exist', except as 'entities' in the 'Universe of Legal Discourse'. They are pure abstractions, and as such, have been 'given' an economic 'grasp', that is 'incomparable'. I do not mean that government needs to 'control' its 'profits engine', but it does need some kind of 'management' over the 'results' of a successful Capitalistic economy; viz., the management of the 'medium of exchange'( money) that needs to be kept in circulation. Money is a 'medium of exchange', and as such, it needs to circulate among the Many Peoples at the Bottom. Look, there is no excuse for a 'hoarding' of the medium of exchange by only the Top 1% of the Population. (Remember, corporations are now 'persons' within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.) Real Individuals have many 'duties' in a Democracy, so, why not impose more democratic duties on these 'surrealistic economic entities' called corporations. When a successful economy 'runs' a Government, we call it a Plutocracy. We don't need that! When the real People at the Bottom, runs a Government, we call it a Democracy. That's what we need; a Peoples democracy. In such a case, the people need to keep the 'medium of exchange' in 'circulation', and if 'Legal Fictions' exist in 'contemplation of Law', they must also have legal duties, as 'real People' do. They must also help the 'medium of exchange' to 'circulate' among the 'real individuals' at the Bottom; provide a 'fair wage'; help the 'poor'; the needy; the sick; the elderly; who have already contributed to the economy. In other words, the corporations must become 'democratic'. The fact, that they are Legal Fictions, should not 'shield' them from having 'democratic ideals', as all other real human beings are expected to have. Sure, they can benefit from their economic success, but, not to the point of 'Greed' and 'hoarding' by a mere 1%. In the case of 'legal Fictions', if the Government 'gives'; the Government can also 'take away'.

Every Government deserves a successful economy; every economy deserves a Democratic Government.

Every Democratic Government deserves a 'successful economy'; every 'economy' deserves a Democratic Government. Every Government, regardless the type of government, must have a means of existence, and that means, some 'economic system' by which it furnishes or supplies, the 'means of subsistence' to its People. Obviously, a Government, or the Top, governs the 'Many' People, situated at the Bottom of the structure of the Government. The Bottom is always the 'population', in its totality. The Bottom is also the 'governed' and hence, subject to the 'exercises of power' by the Top. A Government needs an economy to survive; but, an economy also needs a Government to monitor the 'progress' of the economy. The two systems work in tandem. Nevertheless, the Freedom and Equality of each Individual at the Bottom, is the 'motor' of a Democracy; while the 'profits motive' is the 'motor' of the economy. The two motors must be kept separate. If we mingle one with the other, we may still get a 'well functioning economy', but we will lose the Democratic spirit, or stated differently, the 'motor' that drives our Democracy. Freedom and Equality has no chance of surviving in a Government driven by the 'Profits' motor. Why not? because, the 'profits' motor is 'completely unrelated', to Freedom and Equality of each Individual. Economic competition is dead. Competition between real Individuals may have, once, been a 'good motor', but today, there is no way a real Individual can 'compete', in the business world, with the 'surreal', Legal Fiction, created by Government. Obviously, a balance between the two systems must be struck. But, the 'initiation' of the 'balance' cannot be from the economy, because that would destroy Democracy. It must arise from a Governmental control of the economy. Stated differently, Government needs 'more control' over the surreal, 'legal Fictions', it has created.

The benefits of Government Office is Power and influence; the benefits of 'economic activity' is money.

The only benefit for Individuals that run for political Office is the exercise of Power during the time spent in Office. The benefits that accrue to someone well situated in the 'Corporate World', or the economy, is money, and possessions. The retired politician enjoys his/her 'reputation', 'fame', and a comfortable existence. But, he/she loses his/her power. The 'retired' businessman never 'loses' the benefits of his/her labor, and gets to enjoy being on the Forbes list. The 'retired', corporate businessman is 'never really' retired, because she/he has full ownership of whatever 'benefits' or values accrued to him/her, while in business. Of course, the imbalances that has resulted between 'politics' and the 'economy' is the difference in the end-results of the 'corporate world', and the end-results of the political world. The unfortunate aspect of this whole scenario is that the 'corporation' is a 'legal fiction', its not a real individual, and has a tremendous advantage, in economic competition, between 'real Individuals' and 'corporate fictions'. It was created by Government, to protect the economy, and the end result, is that the economy has assumed a very powerful position in 'social life'. Everyone wants money; Politicians, Corporations, and citizens, all want more money. In other words, the 'value system' of a viable democracy, i.e., the Freedom and Equality of the Individual, has been replaced by the value system of a viable economy, (of course, helped by the 'legal fiction'), or simply, money. If Government creates Corporations, why can't it have more control over them? Why do successful corporations,( that have been given a 'greater economic grasp') not pay any taxes?

There is no 'perfect' Government; only the 'best form' of Government.

When it comes to Government, 'perfection' is out of the question. The best, that 'Government' can strive for, is to be the 'best form' of Government. Why should that be the case? Obviously, we are talking about the 'act of governing', 'Many' 'Individuals', and that means that only a 'few', or 'One', can assume the 'institutional position' of 'Governor'. Its obvious that a 'multitude' of Individuals cannot be governed by the Multitude. Why is that?, because the result would be chaotic. Some critics of Democracy, wrongfully call democracy, 'mob Rule'. But, that's an oxymoron; there is no such thing as 'Mob Rule'. A Mob cannot be 'ruled', because it has no 'Ruler'. The ancient problematic of the 'One and the Many', is the problematic of 'Government'. History is replete with instances of Rule by the One; viz., when the One was considered of 'Divine' origin; or Rule by the 'strongest'; or Rule by the 'smartest'; or Rule by the 'most influential'; or Rule by the 'richest'; or simply, Rule by force, cruelty and mayhem. All these examples give sufficient validity, to the fact, that 'whosoever' purports to Rule or Govern, must have 'Power'. 'Power' is essential to both, 'arbitrary Rule', or 'Government'. But, be assured, there's a difference in the two. The former is truly 'arbitrary', and does not consider the Many at the Bottom; the latter is 'Representative' and only gets 'Power' from the Bottom; i.e., a Government, "of the people", "by the People", and "for the People". The ancient problematic of the One and the Many has gone 'full circle'. The 'One' truly has 'Power', but its Institutional, and is 'granted' by the very People who are the Governed. The 'Top' is different from the 'Bottom'; the Top is Institutional, linguistic, and abstract; the Bottom is not 'an abstract generality' nor, a 'Mob', not even an 'abstract specificity'; its REAL. You and I are real, I know that, and you know that; and neither of us wants to be 'Ruled', we want to be 'Governed'. Of course, the unfortunate part of all this, is that 'neither' of us is 'perfect', but we can hope for the 'best'.

"Veterans Day" is the 'starkest' declaration against War.

Veterans Day is the starkest Declaration against War. Its a Day when Nations 'celebrate' their warriors. Regardless the Nation, and regardless the nature of the Government, whether Democratic, Autocratic, Dictatorship, or whatever form of Government, Nations should become acutely aware of the 'loss' of their People. Some are mutilated for life; some are crippled, some cannot go on living, and some are dead. Real human beings fighting for a 'political entity', an abstraction, an intangible, an unreal entity. And yet, we say "what a great service" they rendered. Why is reality upside down? Its the Nations that should be 'fighting' for their People. Human life is sacred; its more sacred than National Identity. No Nation can 'fight' another Nation. But, they get their People to fight each other. What a cheap way to justify 'National strength". Nations cannot exist without People, and Nations should protect their People, and not put them in harms way. Of course, we all know that crime, violence, and mayhem on a National, domestic level is somewhat inevitable. Its in every Nation. So, we conclude that War is the fault of the human condition. But, that's not true. If our Leaders represent all their People, why should Leaders act on an International scale, in the same manner as the Individuals act on a domestic scale? International 'disagreements' are 'abstract disagreements' on an International scale. Usually, no real Individual, other than the Leaders, are involved in an International dispute; the disagreement is usually between Two Nations, with equal Power, that are disagreeing about some International issue. The problematic is, that an argument between two real individuals, results in a fight of some sort between the same two Individuals. Whereas, a disagreement between two Nations, with equal political power, results in War. But, the two Nations don't fight each other, they send their People. Its the People who are maimed, crippled, and who lose their lives. We call them Veterans. If 'Nations and Leaders' could learn to get along, 'Veterans' wouldn't have to fight. How sad; the World is upside-down.

The 'Legal fiction' is the source of much abuse.

The corporation is legally held to be a 'legal fiction'. As such, it has 'gained' protection as a 'person' under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. A 'human being' can only be 'real'. Can you name or 'point' to a human being that is 'unreal'. If s/he is a human being, regardless of sex, color, race, or creed, s/he is 'real'. Only the "corporation" has the distinction of being a "legal fiction", hence, admittedly 'unreal'. The 'legal fiction', apparently, has a right to exist, even though it can't be put in jail, can't be 'touched', doesn't get 'sick', doesn't have to 'eat', and if you ask someone to point out the so-called, "person", they can't do that either. Its a Fiction. Of course, some say there's a whole set of laws that governs their existence. But, that's not so. The Law describes how they function, i.e., the Board of Directors, the shareholders, their capitalization, etc., but the law does not say how long, or, how they are to 'exist', only, how they are to function as Legal Fictions. Of course, they must be 'law abiding' and not 'violate any laws'. But, corporations, that don't exist can't 'violate any Laws', because they don't exist. They can't be put in jail, as real people who violate laws. They even have immortality, i.e., they have a "perpetual existence". If they are shut-down, for some reason or another, the owners, just 'create' a new "legal fiction" with the same perpetual existence. In other words, they don't really die, they just 'change names'. The only way the Law can punish a corporation, is by "involuntary dissolution". But, that's temporary, and in order to do that, the Law has to 'pierce the corporate veil', to get to the 'owner' wrongdoers. I don't have to tell you how difficult that is. How sad; Government 'creates' corporations, and then, loses control over them. Corporations are great economic institutions, but Government needs more control over them.

Democracy was not 'born' overnight.

Democracy was not 'born' overnight. To be sure, it went through many stages of 'political integrity', i.e., 'Individuals Integrating', before it became the best possible 'form of government'. Ancient people did not have 'Government' per se, but they had Myths. Of course, the modern tendency is to hold those belief systems as 'imaginary', 'superstitious', or 'Religious'. To be sure, they were religious in nature, but they 'helped' to keep the People together. That's why, Myths were about 'Gods' and that's why those beliefs held the Peoples in a 'condition of togetherness'. From Myths, the People went to Kingships, i.e., the Divine Right of Kings. Obviously, that system was 'part' Divine, and 'part' secular. That's why the concept of The Divine Right of Kings eventually came up with the concept of the Two Bodies of the King; which, of course led to the statement, "The King is dead, long live the King". From the times of 'Kingship', we slowly went through the Middle Ages, wherein, the 'center of gravity' at the Top, i.e. the authority of the King, slowly began to disintegrate. He could not control all those People. At that point, the concept of the 'Many', and the problematic of the One and the Many, was born. Nevertheless, Authority and Power were conceived as attributes of the Top. The Bottom, or, the Many, at that time, played no part in the act of Governing. Of course, that's how Autocracies were 'born'. There have been many different types of Autocracies. But, slowly, the 'absolute power' at the top also began to disintegrate, and the Individuals, at the Bottom, became more 'vociferous'. Many Centuries passed. Eventually, the People 'realized' that it was 'they', who created Governments, and not Governments who created 'them'. Of course, that constitutes the 'Separation of Church and State'. Democracy, in its present form, was born when the Many, understood, that they 'needed Governing'. But, it had to be a 'Peoples Government'; a Government "of the People", "by the People", and most importantly, "for the People". We cannot live in the Past, we must live in the Present, and we must prepare for the Future.

Clear distinctions between Democracy and Capitalism need to be made.

Clear distinctions between Democracy and Capitalism need to be made. The reason for that is that each system is different and functions with a different 'motor'. Of course, all Democracies need an 'economy'. But, all economies, don't necessarily have to be Democratic. Why is that? Autocracies also need an economy. Both, Democracies and Autocracies, are 'forms' of Government, and Capitalism, is an economic form that is 'motored' by the 'profit motive'. Capitalism can survive, and thrive, in a Democracy, but not necessarily in an Autocracy. In an Autocracy, the Government is Top-heavy and may not tolerate freedom of movement within the economy. All Governments are 'motored' by the Top, but Autocracies don't insure the Freedom and Equality of all Individuals at the Bottom and Autocracies 'own' or 'control' the Top as well as the Bottom. Democracy insures the Freedom and Equality at the Bottom. The Individual at the Bottom is Free and Equal to pursue economic activity. But, one of the biggest problems with Democracies, is that the Individuals at the Bottom, are 'free' to Incorporate a business. By so doing, they, whether directly or indirectly, create a 'large entity' that can do business. Of course, it wasn't long before the Supreme Court considered the 'corporate structure' as a 'person' within the protection of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Hence, now we have "legal fictions", recognized by Law, who are protected, 'as if', they were 'real persons'. In the 'economy' no human being can compete with a corporation. Now, they can even contribute to a Political Campaign. Is it any wonder that the 1% is trying to get more 'control'? I wonder if 'corporations' are counted as 'individuals' in the census? Some say, they are to 'Big' to fail. 'Democracy' doesn't want them to 'fail'; but, now that Government has created these "fictions", Government needs to get more CONTROL. Children always play with 'toys', but the 'toys' never take control of the children.

The 'inherent tension' between the Top and the Bottom, is different from the unnecessary 'tensions', created by Political Parties.

The inherent tension between the Top and the Bottom of Government is an 'institutional tension', created by the difference in the 'nature' of the Top and the Bottom of Government. The tensions and oppositions created by the 'ideologically' different, Political Parties, are tensions that have their arising from the different perspectives about 'Governing'. Of course, the Parties vie for Office, and hence will try to prevail, by anything they can get away with. The proposals about the so-called 'best policy' for the Bottom, are easily forgotten in the skirmish. Politics, unfortunately, is all about winning Office. How sad. Even if the differences were actual differences in implementing Democratic Policy ( which they seldom are)the welfare of the Nation, or the People at the Bottom, is soon forgotten, in the 'struggle' for political victory. It would seem that in a Democratic society, the differences in implementing 'democracy' should not vary that much. There could well be some disagreement on how to implement a Policy, but a complete disagreement, with the Democratic value of the Policy, is absurd. The purpose of all Democratic policies is the 'freedom and equality' of the individuals, or, it could be, the more 'smooth functioning' of the 'machinery' of Democracy. Political Office, has no other function. Its only a 'Representative' position. Politicians should have political goals, not personal goals. Of course, its a well known fact that 'power' corrupts many politicians by transforming political, Representative, aspirations into greedy pursuits for 'more' power, and for a place on the Forbes list. How unfortunate. Democracy 'gives' them a job to perform, and their greed takes over, and they puff-up, with self-importance.

All Governments, or Nations, have an inherent tension between their Top and their Bottom.

All Nations have an inherent tension between the Top and the Bottom of Government. The 'necessary relation' of Government, the relation that must exist, is always a relation between a Top and a Bottom. The Top is a 'linguistic generality', that must house political power; by that, I mean, a Nation has Power at the Top and that power must be used for the process of 'governing' and for no other reason. Of course, that power is an attribute of all existing Nations, but that power must also have a 'source'. It cannot be said, that, 'political power', ipso facto, comes into existence, by the simple act of some sort of 'self-declaration' as a 'relatively new' Political Institution. Political Institutions must be 'created', and 'organized', and since their only purpose for existing is 'to govern'; they must be 'created' and 'organized' by the very people, who are in need of Governing. One of the biggest problems of Governments, is that the Top, is always 'described and organized' in linguistic terms, because language can have a 'generality of description' that includes all the 'Individuals' at the Bottom. Of course, language can also be used in direct 'specific' terms, but, it still remains 'abstract', because language is always about 'something else'; language has a referential power that refers to 'something', 'other than itself'. Consequently, political language is a 'type of Map', whose sole function is to 'reference' a 'territory'; the territory being 'very real', because, You and I, know that we are 'equally real'; hence, 'every individual', at the Bottom, is also 'equally real'. That dichotomy; language at the Top, reality at the Bottom, renders politics into an 'art-form' that must bridge the gap, between the Word and the Territory. Unfortunately, this is the place where political 'double-talk' is born.