An economy is essential; but a 'democratic economy' can 'fly' loose from its 'moorings'.

An economy in the 'condition of togetherness' is essential; but, it cannot 'fly loose' from its moorings. Although, an economy is 'more' quantifiable than Equality and Freedom, it must have a 'foundation' that keeps it in check. That foundation used to be the 'gold standard', but, that no longer applies. Its difficult to conceptualize, but Money, the 'ultimate fiction', has flown into a 'fictitious realm' labeled as 'derivatives'; once referred to as "financial weapons of mass destruction". The 'unchecked' ascendancy of a 'fiction' into a 'higher level of abstraction', one that 'tramples' on the line separating 'morals' from 'economics'. It cannot be kept in check unless the Government begins to require more democratic duties from corporations. How sad, the fictitious realm has taken over a 'genuine life' of human Equality and Freedom. Of course, the 'Individual' in a democracy also has 'duties',but, fortunately and unfortunately, the Equality and Freedom of the human condition can become 'greedy'. That's real sad; because, in the economic realm, that 'greed' is 'motored' by a fiction that is totally empty. The bottom line is that both Government and the Individual must learn not to give up their 'real life' for a 'fictitious life'. Maybe some 'degree' of so called 'Socialism' is needed. I say 'so-called' because the term, in a political context, is misunderstood. The term is on so high a level of abstraction, that it is 'dis-functional'. The term needs to become 'more connected' to the act of governing (less abstract) that it actualizes the duty of Government to 'really govern' the 'condition of togetherness', and each and every Individual 'in' the 'said condition'.

The 'tensions' in Democracy 'generate' Law; the 'tensions' in Capitalism 'generates' greed.

The 'tensions' in Democracy generates Law; the tensions in Capitalism generates Greed. Democracy demands Freedom and Equality and the freedom and equality of each and every Individual, subject to democratic Government, brings about the necessity of Law to 'regulate' and monitor' the exercise of that assured freedom and equality. Individuals are prone to 'individualism' or 'self-rule' and very often that individual attitude 'overflows' into the 'governing aspects', within the social, or the 'government', into some form of Autocratic-rule. Individuals do not distinguish between individual-self-rule and 'social' or 'government rule'. Stated differently, 'control'over 'ones-self' and 'power' over the condition of togetherness are two entirely different matters. Hence, established rules for the interactions of an individual living within the 'condition of togetherness' becomes essential, hence the necessity of Law. Of course, Law regulates and controls interactions of Individuals, in such a manner, as to hold the 'condition' together, without violating anyone's basic 'human rights'. Capitalism is different. The motor that drives Capitalism is not the freedom and equality of the Individual. Capitalism is driven by profits. No profits, no chance of survival in the economy. Hence, the 'self-rule' of 'democratic freedom' translates into 'more and more' of the same, or Greed. Capitalism creates Greed, and Greed establishes the 1%. It has become necessary for Government to establish institutions and possibly Laws, that require the 'fair' 'circulation' of the 'medium of exchange'. After all, the reason we have 'money' is because it is a 'medium of exchange'. If it was 'not' a medium of exchange, it would be a worthless piece of paper. Hence, it shouldn't be 'locket' up, or kept from circulating. Of course, the 'biggest culprit' that creates Greed is the Corporation; that 'legal fiction' that only exists in 'contemplation of law'. We create our own monsters and then we lose control over them.

Government is a political Institution; as such, it has a 'Persona'.

Democratic Government is a Political Institution, as such, it has a 'public persona'. Many Governments call themselves Democratic, but, not all so-called Democratic governments have a 'public posture' that practices the 'essential elements' of 'equality' and 'freedom' of the Individual. Many Nations can be judged to be 'democratic or not', by the 'social practices' acceptable within their 'established' political structures or, stated differently, by their 'Public Persona'. Of course, what is normally called an 'established' Democracy often-times fails the test of a 'true democracy'. How many Nations can say their practices do not, in fact, allow 'racial', religious, or economic', discrimination? Often-times, these so-called 'tolerable' public practices merely tolerate Individual, personality, characteristics with 'plutocratic leanings'. We all have 'plutocratic leanings'. Fortunately, or, unfortunately, every Individual needs a certain amount of 'money' to survive in our society. The problematic, arises when the so-called essential 'need for money' accelerates itself into the Plutocratic, public domain. At that point, an essential striving translates itself into a 'more and more of the same' type of striving characteristic of the 'Plutocratic Leanings' that lead to Plutocracy. How sad, we cannot live 'alone' and we cannot live in a 'condition of togetherness'.

A Democracy should 'unify' Equality and Freedom, not 'nickles and dimes'.

A Democracy should have a political system that 'unifies' the values of Equality and Freedom, instead, it unifies an economic system driven by profits. Why? Because, most Individuals are driven by 'money' or a quantified system of acquisitions. 'Money', a 'quantified system' of measurement 'motors' Capitalism and hence, easy to measure. Unfortunately, most Individuals don't value Equality and Freedom, of course, unless it effects the economic returns of their investments; viz., 'profits'. It's easy to determine if one is at the 'Top 1%', or not. It should be just as easy to determine if one is 'Equal" or 'Free'. But, the political value system of a Democracy has become so distorted, that it becomes easier to determine whether one is successful by measuring the 'nickels and dimes' that one owns. How sad! 'money' replaces Equality and Freedom. We should try living in a Nation that does not respect 'human life'. What has lead to this distorted view of the 'values of a Democracy'? Simply and unfortunately; we give 'lip service' to 'Equality and Freedom', but do not in fact practice it. Even the Top 1% provides for a 'proper distribution' of their 'net worth' among his/her heirs. Have you ever heard of someone in the Top 1% leaving their 'money' to the lower 99%? Of course not, and you never will. Why not? Of course, most will say, that's stupid, or silly! But, some of those assets could be used to 'institutionalize' the Bottom more democratically. Lets be clear about this. I don't mean, to leave it to any 'one Individual' in the 99%, I mean to some Institution that can create more Equal and Free opportunities at the Bottom of Government; like health care; just wages; more jobs, the homeless, etc. In other words, lets 'free' that locked in 'medium of exchange', that is meant to 'circulate' and stop 'hoarding' it.

The basic 'tension' between Democratic Government and its People is the Equality and Freedom of the Individual.

The basic 'tension' between the Institution of Democracy and the People is the careful, political, delineation, of the 'social principles' of the Equality and Freedom of the Individual. Equality and Freedom of the Individual must be carefully crafted into a political institution that protects and defends the 'human condition' as a unique 'expression of Life'. The question is always, "does Government 'allow' or 'tolerate' discrimination between different 'Races'; are all races 'politically Equal'?, are all races 'politically Free'?; and does Government allow and defend the 'preferential treatment' of different 'economic levels'; and even between different levels of 'so called education', and between the 'providing of the 'basic necessities' of a 'healthy Life'. Does it have 'homeless' veterans? If government does not, in reality, protect these 'characteristics' in the human condition, then Democracy is failing its people. How can Government say its doing its job, if it doesn't even provide for those who 'fought' and 'died' for its very existence. How easy it is for 'politicians' to 'claim' to fulfill these basic necessities, when in fact the 'sad basis' for seeking political Office is actually some kind of 'self-aggrandizement'. How sad! 'Power' runs amok; and the Office-holders cannot, or, do not, know how to handle it. It immediately takes a form of self-aggrandizement. Democratic Government must defend and protect the basic Equality and Freedom of each and every human being living within its 'territorial and political' boundaries.

One cannot equate 'Equality and Freedom' within a political institution with the 'same' in a human being.

The Equality and Freedom guaranteed by a political Institution is not the same as the Equality and Freedom inherent in the human condition. Obviously, the equality and freedom of the human condition is without limit, because it is 'Life itself', and yet, if the human beings live in a 'condition of togetherness', it must be subject to rules and regulations. That's why the 'condition of togetherness' needs Government. Hence, political Freedom and Equality becomes a political and social institution that governs and regulates, by means of Law, mores, and social structures, the expression of the said Freedom and Equality within the political institution. It does not 'limit' any one individuals freedom and equality but, it governs and limits the expression of 'it' within the 'condition of togetherness'; a condition that human beings must live within. One Individual on an Island does not need Government; the 'condition of togetherness' needs and requires Government. Hence, the duty of a political structure to organize, install, and regulate, the interaction of the human beings within its social and political institutions. Nevertheless, some individuals view laws, institutions, social regulations, as being limitations placed on themselves, 'personally' as 'individuals'. That's a 'mistaken', 'socially unhealthy' view of the 'condition of togetherness' and its 'mandatory structures'. The Individual, as a unique Individual, is not the 'subject of Government; the 'condition of togetherness' is the subject of Government. The 'Obligations' run both ways; Government respects protects, and defends the Rights, of Individuals; and Individuals respect, protects, and helps defend, the Power of Government.

Democracy is a 'political arrangement', but the underlying 'practitioners' are human beings.

Democracy is a 'political arrangement', but the underlying 'practitioners' of that arrangement are human beings, hence, even the best political arrangement will not work, if the 'practitioners' do not know how to handle 'themselves', and then, how to handle 'political power'. How sad; our political problems reduce themselves to personal human problems. The 'human' problematic is that individuals think of themselves with an 'undeserved self-importance'. That's too 'common', and in the political field, it becomes even 'more pronounced'. Why?, simply because of the 'undeserved' allocation of the 'political power' attributed to Public Office. That 'feeling' of 'self-importance' contaminates the exercise of 'political power'. We then call it an 'International Problem' or, in some cases simply 'War'. If we learn how to handle political issues with a degree of objectivity, we would not get our own 'personal inadequacies' into the picture. Politics is not an 'ego trip', and yet it often becomes one. How sad, our 'politics' is dependent on the mental health and sanity of our Leaders. Of course, these facts do not 'exculpate' the 'ordinary citizen'. We, unfortunately, sometimes also need to 'think' and 'feel', 'outside our own environmental box'. Hey, we're all in the same boat. 'Politics' like 'human psychology' is not a 'self-importance trip'. The 'little-picture' needs to be as 'objective', as the 'Big Picture'. We should become 'better human beings' and we should pray that our Leaders become more Objective. 'War' is not an Objective, its a failure of the human condition.

Democracy is the best political organization for Humanity; unfortunately, the human condition needs to become 'more human'.

Democracy is the best way for 'humanity' to arrange themselves politically. The system will work, since the human condition is the 'bottom line' in all political arrangements. If there were no humans, there would be no need for Government. As we've said, one human on an island does not need Government. Hence, if we have the best political arrangement, what is the problem? Obviously, the millions of humans on the planet, need to reconsider their own humanity and the their own reasons for continuing to exist as a political entity. Some Individuals may do that; some don't. All leaders in the political arena are humans that have been 'granted' the 'power of office'. Political power is being 'misused'. How? Simply by not 'really' 'understanding that all humans must live in a 'condition of togetherness'. Instead, politicians- not Statesmen-, 'govern' from the perspective of Power, and from a 'false assumption', that they as 'individuals' wield that power 'personally'. They are the same as all other human beings. Humanity did not 'give' 'more humanity' to any 'one human being' over the Other. Personally, 'leaders', of 'all stripes'are performing a 'job', and cannot claim to have some 'quality of Kingship' or 'human superiority' or 'Divine Wisdom', whatever that may be. Truly, we are all in the same boat. However, it seems that all 'progress' is in the 'direction' of more money, more possessions, and 'bigger legal fictions' like colossal corporations, and that much admired 1%. Progress is 'possible' in the economic sphere, but not in the Democratic political sphere. Democracy is already the the best system available; politically, there is no better, Other. Democracy cannot be 'improved' as a system but, it can sure be improved in its 'practical implementation'. We need to stop talking and start doing. Humanity must reclaim its sense of human values. Humanity is already at where its 'supposed to be'; now, it must act as a human being with 'real political values', and not as an 'economic monster' living in some 'illusory Utopia'. Lord, Please keep us from being 'over-loaded with trivialities'.

"Equality and Freedom" works only when the 'uniqueness' of the 'human condition' is recognized.

Its one thing to say Equality and Freedom works in a Democracy; it's quite another to say, 'each and every human being', at the Bottom of a Democratic structure of government, is 'Equal' to all 'Others' within the same structure, and is 'free' to do as s/he pleases, within the confines of 'legal structures'. If that were truly the case, there would be no 'racial' discrimination, and no classification between 'econo-haves' and 'econo-have-nots', nor 'social-class' distinctions. The Bottom of government would truly be democratic, functional, and Equal, with respect to each and every Individual within the system. Hence, democracy would apply to the Individual-Life, as distinguished from the Governmental structure as a whole. Of course, the Governmental structure would also be implemented democratically, as a whole, but, it would also legislate democratically with respect to 'social institutions' and 'Individual rights', in such a manner, as NOT to 'exclude' anyone, or any so-called 'race', or any so-called 'social class', from the Equality and Freedom that each and every-one in a 'real democracy' would expect. 'Democracy' as a Government system is the opposite of Autocracy and Plutocracy, because the 'power' of the Individual is vested in the human condition in a 'condition of togetherness', and that is at the Bottom of Government, not the Top; Truly, a Government 'of the People', 'by the People' and 'for the People'. The power of Autocracy and Plutocracy is at the Top; the power of democracy is in the 'condition of togetherness', at the Bottom of Government. But, the Bottom must be protected, and respected; and the Legislation must be for the 'benefit of the human Individual'. Hey, wake up!! Governments are Institutions; you and I are real.

Capitalism 'works' because Democracy 'works'; democracy 'works' because Equality and Freedom 'work'.

Capitalism 'works' because Democracy 'works'. Democracy 'works', because the Equality and Freedom of each and every human being within a political system is the basis for the underlying, political ideology, of every Democratic Nation. Capitalism cannot 'work' in an Autocracy; it cannot work in a Plutocracy. The reason it doesn't work in a Plutocracy is because the rich are already in 'control' of the circulation and accumulation of Capital, and the 'competition' necessary for real Capitalism would not exist. Competition would be restricted to the lower levels of society and it would become 'meaningless' and maybe, 'neighborly'. It would not be 'real competition'; only a 'tolerated competition'. That is one of the dangers that exists today. The fastest way to Plutocracy is to create 'legal fictions' that are considered 'persons' and are protected by the Constitution. Once a corporation acquires 'person-hood', it can use every Constitutional trick in the 'Book' to protect and expand its power as an artificial, fictional, 'person'. That is what they(corporations) have done. No human individual can compete, in a real sense, with a corporation. Its bad enough that corporations are solely 'driven' by the profits motive, but now, as a result of Citizens United,they can even 'participate in politics'. What had been allowed 'indirectly' is now allowed 'directly', thanks to the 'blessing' of the Supreme Court. Today, truly, 'money talks' and 'political bullshit' walks. What has happened to the human condition? Where are the States-men?

Capitalism has been 'good' for Democracy; but, it has 'dehumanized' the democratic spirit.

Capitalism has been 'good' for Democracy, but; it has 'dehumanized' the democratic spirit. As most things, 'anything' that is good for us as 'human beings' can become 'bad', if its excessive. Capitalism has a good, functional,'economic motor'; namely, profits; but, profits do not have to replace the Freedom and Equality of Democracy. Economic activity has 'shifted' from the economic sphere into the political sphere. Of course, that's what gave rise to the so-called 1%. We hold money in higher regard than Freedom and Equality. Today, the goal of most individuals is to be in the Top 1%, or, at least, to drive oneself in that direction. Our democratic value system has been replaced by a desire to have more and more of the same vacuous possession called 'money'. We accumulate 'emptiness' instead of Freedom and Equality. Freedom and Equality applies to each and every human being in the world, i.e. it is a 'real factor' in the human condition. It actually 'affects' the physical nature of the human condition. But, 'money' is a 'fiction', i.e. it only exists because its a 'quantification' we use to 'measure', 'more' or less', in economic activity. It used to be backed by gold, but that has been changed, it is now a pure, arbitrary, quantification, 'founded' by 'absolutely 'nothing'. That wouldn't be so bad, if it did not distract us from the democratic spirit that 'holds' democracy together, into an unadulterated pursuit of an 'empty fiction'; the 'economic motor' of capitalism, namely the 'Holy Dollar'or profits. How sad, human beings have become dehumanized, by the misguided pursuit of 'Fictions'. We eat 'real' food; we 'breathe' real air; why can't we 'think' 'real ideas', viz. about the 'condition of togetherness' that we live in, and the 'spirit of democracy' that holds it together? Why do we pursue economic fictions? Economic success has 'emptied us' of a 'real, genuine', Democratic Life. Its time to re-think Democracy, and re-shuffle our value systems. 'Greed' is not a democratic value.

The 'value system' of a Political Institution is different from the 'value system' of the Economic Institution.

The differences between the 'Political' and the 'Economic' are obvious to everyone. Yet, we continue to be 'ruled' by the economic. Its 'obvious nature' has become glaringly 'evident' in the 'World Issue' of 'Global warming'. Millions of Human beings are being effected by horrible weather conditions. Of course, that is not a 'direct' political issue. But, 'indirectly', the 'economic' value system is implicated. Any attempt by a Political System to 'correct' the political posture so as to 'disengage' the Economic system driven by Profits and Big money is immediately quashed by the 'Economic System'. Please notice, that I do not say, "quashed by the Political System", because the decisions are driven by the Profits Motor, not the 'Equality and Freedom' motor of Democracy. One has to ask, Why? Simply, because 'Profits', instead of the 'Equality and Freedom' motor of our political system drives the Nations decisions, in spite of the fact, that they may be 'contributing' to the weather conditions that are effecting the Global conditions directly effecting all Nations and particularly, the poor Nations. Of course, 'weather' doesn't effect the 'political nature' of the 'Institution of the Nation', as such; like War, it effects the 'real Human beings' in those Nations. Millions are dying and are being dispossessed of the necessities of life. Only a 'political decision' that addresses the 'economic value system' can help those conditions. So where is it? Nowhere in sight. We will probably continue living under the 'Profits Motor' until we can no longer 'breathe'. Our economic values will continue to 'drive' our lives till they destroy the 'food' we eat, and the 'air', we breathe, and the Planet we live on. Where is Democracy? I mean 'real democracy'; a democracy driven by the 'Equality and Freedom' of 'each and every' 'dignified' human being on the Planet. If the 'Profits motor' is not destroying our lives, its destroying our Planet. How sad; we create our own 'enemies', and, rest assured, the 'human condition' will be 'implicated' in its own demise.

All Nations are political Institutions; political Institutions are created by a 'People'.

All Nations have a 'beginning'. A Nations history reflects its political institutionalization. No Nation can exist without its people. Nations did not come into existence 'out of nowhere'. They are all political Institutions. As a 'Peoples Institution', their main concern should be the Peoples that they should serve. The different 'conditions of togetherness' into which the populated World is 'divided', lay different claims to 'Nation-Hood' and also to different 'forms of Government'. Regardless the differences in the forms of Government, a 'political Institution' is obligated to the People it should serve. It has no other purpose for existing. It would not exist except for the Peoples within its geographical area, or within its Political Institution. No 'War' was ever declared by 'People' or 'Individuals', living within a 'condition of togetherness'. All Wars are declared by Political Institutions. Why? Because the Individuals serving at the Top or in Offices of Power are the ones who, in the name of their Nation, declare War. How sad. War between Nations is basically a 'human factor', not an Institutional factor. 'Institutions', as such, don't think - just as the fact that they do 'not fight' in declared Wars- Institutions 'decide' and real human beings die. Maybe the problems of the World are in the 'Human condition', or stated differently, in the 'lack of humanity' of the Leaders of the World, and not in Nations? Why can't so-called Leaders handle Political Power? Why do they identify themselves with the Power at the Top, why do they lead their young people to fight in Wars? Why can't they dedicate themselves to serve and help their own Peoples. Human beings need help also. Nations have no other reasons for existing. Help us before its too late.

The importance of 'Equality' and 'Freedom'.

The importance of Equality and Freedom can be better appreciated if we examine both concepts. "Equality" means 'equally human'; 'Freedom' means a real living human being, at the Bottom of Government, is 'free' to live a 'democratic life'. Freedom usually means, an individual can do anything s/he wishes to do. In politics; this perception 'appears' to allow an individual to create 'mayhem', 'break laws', and do just about anything s/he wishes. After all, we are 'Free'. But, that is not the case; political freedom does mean one can do 'just about' anything s/he wishes, but, withing a 'political Institution' regulated by Law. That makes a big difference. If I am Free first, I am free to consider the Other, not as 'free' as myself. That's the reason I say, 'Equality first' and 'Freedom second'. If I am 'Equal' so is every 'Other' human being. Once that's understood, the concept of 'freedom' can enter the 'political picture'. The sequence and order in which these inalienable Rights are realized within a political structure becomes important. If I am Free 'first', I am in danger of considering myself 'free' to consider myself 'more Equal' than the Other; hence I 'imagine myself' free to 'racially discriminate'. If I am 'Equal' first, I am just as 'equal' as anyone else, 'then' I am 'Free' to live within a political Institution governed by democratic laws. If I choose not to abide by Law, I can do that also, but will have to pay the price. Hence, Equality first; Freedom second. Political 'Freedom' is a question of 'choice'; Political 'Equality' belongs to every 'living human being' within any political system. Please notice, I do not include Corporations within the inalienable Right of Political Equality, because they are not 'human'; hence, cannot be 'Equally Human'. They are 'mere' legal fictions that exist only 'in contemplation of law'.

'Democracy' has Three 'Branches', but the Third Branch is creating an 'imbalance'.

Democracy has Three Branches and one of those Branches is creating an imbalance. Of course, I refer to the Judicial Branch. The other two Branches also have their 'imbalances', but with elections and 'time limits' on service, those can be, with time, 'potentially balanced'. The Third Branch was created as a 'stabilizer' i.e. a Branch that balances-out the ideological differences, so as to implement democratic Institutions. However, the Justices are appointed for their life-time; that aspect of the judicial function merely allows a Justice to 'fixate or cement' his/her ideological stance or, to decide one-way 'today' with a view of changing it 'tomorrow'. The end-result is that many hard fought victories about 'Equality and Freedom' are being rendered 'unstable' and effete. (Of course, this would not have been possible if the ideologues had not separated into so called Liberals and Conservatives, but its too late to change that.) Public service for a life-time may have been designed to 'enunciate' some sort of stability to 'democratic institutions' and to that particular Branch, but, lets face it, that's too long for a 'diverse' Judiciary. 'Good behavior' is not a 'controlling factor', and neither is 'one or the other' ideology. Now, maybe what has 'become necessary' is that they serve for 20 or 30 years only.( a life-time is too long.) Certainly, a limit on the time-factor would be a sufficient time to establish an Institutional ideology that is Democratic. The Court's function is too stabilize, not to separate and 'create', 'temporary change', for 'later modifications' that will destroy democratic Institutions. That is where its heading. The Court is using Law to destroy democracy.

Politicians differ from Statesmen.

Politicians differ from Statesmen as Political Values differ from Economic values. Most Politicians don't know the difference between Economic values and Political values. Political values are driven by the Equality and Freedom of every Individual living in the 'Condition of Togetherness'. Economic values are driven by profits. Politicians 'acknowledge' that a good economy must make 'profits' and organize their perceptions of 'public office' on a foundation of a 'healthy economy'. In other words, most Politicians are 'motored' by economic values which underlie their political perceptions; the political values of Democracy, or, Equality and Freedom, are 'driven underground'. They don't have to confront the problematic because the problematic is 'elusive' and 'underground'. Where-as, a States-Person acknowledges the importance of the economy, but motors his political activity on a basis of 'Equality and Freedom'; in other words, the economy is important but economic values do not motor his political perceptions or agenda. The 'politicians' never seem to confront the 'vacuous', 'nebulous', position of their 'politics', because they just 'don't get it'. But, this year they have been confronted with a candidate of their own, who is 'the Ideal' of 'economic accomplishment' and activity; and what do they do?; they instruct him to 'tone it down'; which he refuses. They should thank him for 'clarifying the 'Big Picture', and for giving them data for a 'real' political, self-analysis. They have a real problem. Unfortunately, the 'candidate' is completely unfamiliar with 'political values', or, with political values as 'motor'. This year, the political landscape has been 'lit up' with the unfortunate fact that politics is driven by 'economic values' instead of 'political values'. How sad. This is a complete verification that democracy is 'dying' and that Plutocracy is 'ascending'. In other words, even the 'politicians' are confused, while the 'economic motors' continue to proliferate in the 'condition of togetherness'. Where are the States-persons?

The difference between the National scene and the International scene is the Locus of Power.

There's a huge difference between National Governments and the International scene. International 'Government' or the United Nations purportedly governs the Many Nations within its jurisdiction. However, each member Nation does not relinquish its Power. Each Nation has power and the International 'Government' cannot deprive any of its member Nations of its inherent Power. In other words, Power is at the Bottom of the Governing Body. In the National scene, Institutional Power is at the Top of the governing body, and the people at the Bottom do not have power. To be sure, in a democracy, they have the Constitutional Right to a vote. But, that is more of a 'privilege' than a power. Of course, its a valuable Right, but the people do not have Power. To be sure, they can influence the exercise of Power, but, nevertheless, they as Individuals do not have Power. Power is solely a function of the Top. Well, those political arrangements raise many questions. One could say, that a National Government has the Power to Constitutionally insure the Equality and Freedom of all its People. In such a case, Equality and Freedom is 'potentially' possible. But, that Nation can never be assured of being in a 'World' where all the Nations have Equality and Freedom. Why? Simply, because the International Government or the United Nations does not have the Power to rule its 'Bottom' or, its member Nations. In other words, Internationally, Government is 'politically weak'. Nationally, Governments are strong. Obviously, we have not resolved that historical dilemma, of the One and the Many. A suggestion; the human condition is all the same, regardless of location, place of birth, or form of government into which one is born. Governments are man-made Institutions; they are 'given' Power by the Many, or the people; so why can't our political Institutions have more 'respect' for the Equality and Freedom of every human being. After all, 'Peoples' create Governments; Governments don't create People. They only exist to serve the People.

Democracy is 'flexible'; an economy is 'rigid'.

A democratic value system is flexible because Equality and Freedom are flexible. I do not mean they can be one thing, then, another thing. The Individual always retains his/her Equality and Freedom but can maneuver within that Equality and that Freedom. That's a 'democratic Life'. However an 'Economy' is a quantification and is measured 'all along the way'. A 'good' economy is a 'quantification' of sorts. The economy depends on the circulation of a 'medium of exchange' and the formation of Institutions in the social that help the circulation process. It should never become 'static' and should always be in motion. In other words, the 'medium of exchange' must always be in motion. But that 'valued mobility' is a quantified 'fiction'. Hence, the 'rigidity' of money. It's a 'fiction' that has been given a 'social value' that can 'accumulate'. That gives rise to Greed and massive accumulations. That value is entirely separate from the 'political values' of Equality and Freedom. Equality and Freedom are 'not cumulative'. You either have them or you don't. In the meantime, 'money' is accumulated by the top 1% to the point where it does not circulate 'freely' or 'democratically' within democratic Institutions. The sad part is that these results were made possible by the creation of 'legal fictions', called corporations. Corporations are purely imaginary, unreal, and exist only in contemplation of Law. In simpler language, if they 'misbehave', you can't put them in jail. What a set-up; the damage done to the Equality and Freedom in the 'condition of togetherness' cannot be remedied. The Corporate World needs 'more democratic duties'. If Government can create them, it can require that they 'participate in democracy' or have their Articles of Incorporation terminated. Individuals are 'not governed' by an 'economy'; they are governed by a Democratic government. Maybe 'someone'or 'something' will 'awaken' us, to what the "haves" are doing to the "have-nots".

A democracy is a 'value system'; an economy is a 'quantified system'.

A Democracy is a 'political value system' that functions by means of the "Equality" and "Freedom" of every Individual in the Social. An economy is also a value system 'of sorts', but functions 'specifically' by means of 'quantification'. In other words, economies are measured by means of 'Number'. Number is always what it is. It cannot signify 'one thing' in one case and 'another thing' in another case. Whereas, Words, language, 'meaning', varies in the different manners of use. Language conveys 'meaning', and Number, has 'precise signification'; that's why we can "add", "subtract", "multiply" and "divide" Number. That is always why an economy can be measured by its 'medium of exchange', Money, Capital, etc.. We cannot confuse the value systems between an economy and a political system. When Money, being rich, etc. dominates a political system, we're in trouble. Politics should first be about Equality and Freedom and then economic concepts can come into the picture. To be sure, the economy is important, but if the goal of one's life is 'money', property, and being on the Forbes list, or the 1%, then the issue of real democracy becomes secondary, and dare I add, Plutocratic. How sad, political entities exist to help the 'human condition' in its 'condition of togetherness' and the 1% is 'grabbing' and 'hoarding' all the medium of exchange. The 'medium of exchange' is 'just that', a 'medium', and the 1% 'denies' it to the Other, at the Bottom, of the Government relation. Corporations need more legal, democratic goals, and the 1%, and Other 'greedy Individuals', need to be 'less greedy'. Apparently, its more difficult to really be Human, than it is to be 'rich' and on the Forbes' List. Well, I guess, the next step is for some rich guy or corporation to buy the Moon, Mars, or some Planet, and then we're really in trouble.

A 'real' Government should have 'Three Branches'; Each Branch should be occupied by a 'States-Person'.

A 'real' Government should have 'Three Branches; that would be an Executive Branch; a Legislative Branch, and a Judicial branch. Of course, governments are political Institutions. They were not 'born' Institutions; they were established by a People. The establishment of such Institutions is for the purpose of giving a 'structure' to the ancient dilemma of the 'One and the Many'. The Many 'need' Government and they can only be Governed by the 'One' or the 'Few', and hence, need 'Law' and a 'political structure'. The major way of insuring that the 'One' does not go over-board in its 'governing' is to establish a structure that allows all the participants in the 'Condition of Togetherness' to be represented in the Political Institution. The executive Branch would govern and execute the Laws established by the Many; the Judicial would help interpret the Law and insure that the Law was not against the established political Institution; and the Many would legislate Laws. Certainly, a 'balanced form' for a Government. So, whats the problem with Politics? The problem is the 'Human condition' or the Individuals who 'seek' and those that 'acquire' Public office. The difference between a 'States-Person' and a Politician is the States-Person has the 'general welfare' of the 'Many' or the 'People' in mind, and the Politician has 'political power' in mind. Don't be fooled, most Politicians don't care about the General Welfare and enjoy 'wallowing in the accouterments' of Political Office; and that would be 'Power'. Why can't Human Beings 'handle Power? Where are our States-Persons, and when are we going to stop fighting each Other?

Democracy has 'created' an economic system that has, in turn, almost destroyed 'real democracy'.

Democracy and the Freedom and Equality of 'everyone' has given rise to an economy that is trying to undo the very 'freedom' and 'equality' that made it possible. The first thing it did was to create the 'corporate monsters'. This completely destroyed the 'competitive edge' of every single individual competing in 'economic activity'. That not only rendered economic competition between Individuals, impossible, but further, and slowly, reduced the tax liability of the Legal Fiction to be the same as that of a real human being. "Whamo", there goes competition between 'equals' and there arises the 'economic behemoths'. Now, our esteemed Supreme Court has given them the Constitutional Right to participate in elections. Truly, 'money talks' and bullshit walks. Politics has been reduced to the level of 'bullshit', and money has been 'elevated' to the level of a 'democratic value'. How sad. First, politics is leveled to some kind of inefficient level, and money, becomes a prerequisite of 'political participation'. Even Billionaires can now run for office. But, try to get some 'poor' guy at the Bottom of the 'condition of togetherness', with good political principles, to run, and s/he would be laughed out of the 'race'. But, no one laughs at a billionaire. What we need is more Individual participation by 'real Individuals' who have somehow become 'real Statesmen'. What we are witnessing today, is an 'over-crowding' of political candidates. Lets hope the people can see through that and sift-out the 'politicians' from the 'Statesmen'. It's becoming more apparent, that Statesmen-ship is a lost art, and in its place is, more and more of the same, or, simply, Money. If we're not a Plutocracy, we're pretty dam close to it. A 'medium of exchange' has become a 'huge sore' in the Body Politic.

'Politics' is about Governing; not about 'feeding' and strengthening legal fictions.

'Politics' is not a science, but it should be more 'disciplined'. Instead, politics has become an economic 'mores', or practice. Of course, there's the saying," If you want to become rich, run for political office." Obviously, politicians don't become rich because of the salary they receive. They become rich because they 'befriend' huge corporations and legislate 'favorably'. The biggest 'fiction' in the world is not found in Theology, Philosophy, or Psychology'; Its the 'legal fictions' we created in the economy; the Corporation. The corporation does not exist; even the Law considers it a 'legal fiction' and an entity that exists only 'in contemplation of Law'. Other than that, it does not exist. Yet, it is more protected than the human bring and the reason for that is its 'economic grasp'. No real, living, human being can have an economic grasp as that of the corporate structure. Corporations are 'greed machines'. We have developed a 'science of advertising' that completely overcomes the 'will' of the human being. All advertisements are about selling and buying economic products and services of the corporations. The problems that arise relate to 'income inequality' and the Top 1%. No one addresses those issues; instead the politicians 'buy' into the economic products and services and 'sleep' with the corporations. How sad. Our economy is motored by 'greed' and 'corporate fictions'. Our politicians are 'motored' by the economy, the corporate 'elite', money, and a 'complete lack' for a genuine democratic spirit. Corporations need more democratic duties. We have succeeded in creating 'economic monsters' that create a 'lopsided economy'; where the result can only be an 'income inequality'.

Some political terms have acquired a 'bad taste'. Its time we left them behind.

Some political terms have acquired a bad taste. For example, the Bottom of the political structure has always been referred too as the 'social'. The term is a 'collective' term and when expressed within a 'political framework' has always been called 'Socialism'. That's bad nomenclature; to be sure an acquired one, but nevertheless has bad 'political baggage'. The 'Socialist' type of Governments that have existed have never really been 'Social' and have tended more in the direction of Autocratic forms of Government; certainly, not Democratic forms. That's why, I prefer to call the Bottom of Government ( where all the People live) a 'condition of togetherness'. You see, such a 'condition of togetherness' can more easily assimilate into itself the Equality and the Freedom of each Individual at the Bottom. The term, as defined, preserves the equality and Freedom of each Individual and hence avoids terms like 'socialistic', etc. Of course, we can still use the term 'Social', but when referring to the Bottom of the relation of Government, we must preserve the Integrity of the 'Human Being', who constitutes the 'essence of Governing'. A Human being does not lose his Independence, nor his reality as a real human being, nor the fact that s/he created Government and not the reverse. Humanity is real, powerful Governments, are 'constructed political Institutions'. Regardless, that in all Governmental structures, the 'institutionalized power' is always at the Top, we cannot lose the fact that humanity is more important than Government. No God or Gods created Governments ( The Divine Right of Kings is no longer a viable form), it was the 'condition of togetherness' ( the Many) that required Governments to be created 'by the people'; the same People, who were 'to be Governed'. We must be very careful, how we use Political terms; and never forget that the human condition can never be 'lesser' than the Institutions it creates.

A Nation should be a 'unifying force' of the 'condition of togetherness'.

A Nation should be a 'unifying force' of the 'condition of togetherness'. Always remembering that a Nation is 'of People', by People' and 'for People'. A Nation does not have an existence, separate from its People. The important element of Nationhood is the "Equality" and "freedom" of every Individual within the 'geographical' and 'political entity'. Hence, a Nation is formed by the Peoples it Governs. Every Nation is an institution and every 'People' are real. Hence, every Political Institution should be for the benefit of its People. Of course, on the International sphere, the political picture changes because of the number of separate Nations in the World. 'Politics' on the International sphere is different from politics on the National sphere. Yet all Nations have 'real' Peoples. The people are the same; it cannot be claimed that some people are 'better' or 'different' from the other peoples. The human condition is the same. But, the Institutions of the different Governments have the same power over their people as any other Nation. There's the dilemma that arises in a 'local politics'. When local politicians start making policy or demands of other Nations; that is, in effect, an extension of the local into the International. The 'political differences' must be respected. Of course, that is not to say that violence on the International sphere is condoned. Only that great caution must be exercised when it comes to making demands of other Nations. That's what causes Wars. Yet, its not the Institutions that fight the Wars, it's always the People withing the Nations that have to 'give' their lives. God save us from 'narrow minds' and 'bad politics'.

All Nations need Government; all Governments need a political structure; and, an economy, a social, and a legal structure.

All Nations need a Government with a 'political structure'; an economy, a social, and a legal structure. Nations are very large and have 'Many peoples', hence a 'social', and an economy becomes essential, to care for the General Welfare, social as well as economic, of 'all' of it's People. Hence the necessity of Law to help implement the 'organization' of the 'condition of togetherness'. That 'organizing Power' is what is generally called "Law and Order". One can't have one without the other. Without Law there is no Order; without Order there is no Law. However, each Government is different. Democratic Governments are usually referred too as 'People Governments', because they are Governments 'of the People', 'by the People', and 'for the people'. ( a 'circular affair') Autocratic Governments, or, the 'different shades' found in 'similar' forms of Government, are also 'Forms of Governments, but their Power is exercised 'from the Top-down', and differ from the Democratic forms, by the lack of participation of the individuals at the Bottom of Government. To be sure, there are many forms of Government, but the essential characteristic of all governments is that "all Governments must govern." Obviously, there is a need for Law, because Law can help organize the social. Law can 'emanate' from the People at the Bottom of Government, or, it can 'emanate' from the very Top of Government. The exercise of Power is essential to all forms of Government, but if the Power comes from the Top, its up to the Top of government to exercise that power. Whats the likelihood of that? If the Power comes from the People, or, from the Bottom of Government, its up to the 'People' to bring about political change. Democracy needs more 'responsible human beings' at the Bottom, to serve as 'Representatives' at the Top; Autocracies need 'more responsible human beings' to serve as 'Leaders' at the Top. Regardless what they call themselves, all 'Institutional Political Power' is 'Representative' in Nature.

"Political rigidity" is a 'blindness', unacceptable in a 'real' Democracy.

'Political rigidity' in a democracy is an oxymoron. The political condition to which the term 'political rigidity' is applied, implies a sole and rigid way of doing something. The politicians further divide that 'way' into two Parties or 'two ways' of doing the same thing. It leaves no room for 'flex-ability' or changes within the system and instead creates the semblance of two different ways. Political Democracy is not a binary-system. If the political system is democratic, it implies a freedom and equal( as it relates to the other party) ability to adjust to future modifications of the social, the economy, and the structure of a free political form. What remains constant is the Equality and Freedom of the Peoples. The social; the political; the legal; and the institutional undergo many 'changes' and 'modifications'; all designed to protect the Equality and Freedom of every individual in the social. It cannot be otherwise! Democracy must be socially, legally, and institutionally flexible. It cannot be 'Rigid'. Its an 'open system' of living and allowing for changes in the many social institutions of the 'One and the Many'. Democracy is not rigid; its an open-ended political system that welcomes changes into the 'future' of Society and Politics. Rigidity, to the contrary, blocks growth and 'social maturation'. If the ideology of the two Parties stands for two 'different ways' of doing democracy, they are wrong. Political rigidity like 'political correctness' is not 'real politics'; it spells the 'death pangs' of 'real' democracy and the further 'crystallization' into a binary-system of the "haves and the have-not's". 'To Hell' with Party loyalty; lets do Democracy!

The Party-System should be beneficial to a Democracy; but, is it?

The Party-System should be beneficial to a Democracy. But, is that the case? Both Parties should have the general, common goal, of implementing Democracy; but, again, is that the case? Why is there so much 'strife' between the parties? If the goal is, generally, the same why should the 'way' to its accomplishment be so different and so 'competitive'. Of course, many party-candidates see 'politics' as a means of 'getting rich' and 'wallowing' in their own self-importance. But, there are 'underlying elements' that also affects the nature of democracy. Politics involves 'power' because its the only way to 'effect' the system as a whole. The power to represent millions is a tremendous power. That same power can re-shuffle democratic institutions to the point where Equality and Freedom are replaced by economic institutions, or simply by the 1%. In such a case, we are headed towards a Plutocracy. Some say we are already a Plutocracy; notice the dominance of candidates from the 'same families' or, 'group' of Party members. Its a cycle!, or 'bicycle' because it only has 2 wheels. That's why its so 'refreshing' to see a 'political candidate' that seems to have little to no political ambitions. But, beware! 'Money' could be replacing democracy! ( if it hasn't already done so) Nevertheless, the refreshing aspects of such a candidate is that he has breached a hole in all this so-called 'political correctness' of the Party System. Its a welcome 'insight' into 'political rigidity'. Lets face it; its not possible by someone, no matter how intelligent, from the Bottom of society. Lets wake up, human beings are not destined to go in circles. Our destiny can only be to help the 'helpless'. There's no other goal for a 'condition of togetherness'.

Governments need economies; but, not all economies need government.

All Governments need an economy, but not all economies need Government. One must be very careful how one ponders these two separate, different social institutions. Government needs an economy to help provide for its People. But, the motor of an economy is different from the motor of a democracy. The motor of a democracy is the Equality and Freedom of the people within the Institution. The motor of a capitalistic economy is 'profits'. Without profits, an economy will not grow, hence the 'equality and freedom' that motors a political institution, or, stated differently, 'democracy', goes out the window. Why? Because, Capitalistic economies require 'competition' to generate larger profits, and 'Equality and Freedom' the motor for democracy, are not matters of competition. In a Democracy each Individual 'is' politically 'Equal and Free'. Equality and Freedom are not matters of competition, or profits. They are 'inherent' in the Individual living in the 'condition of togetherness'. That's politics! The issue of an Individual having 'money to get included in the 'Forbes list'; that's economics!, and never shall the twain meet. When Democracy functions properly, an economy can function properly; when an economy 'dominates' or overwhelms the democratic function, Democracy dies and gives birth to Plutocracy. Plutocrats can never be Democrats; but Democrats can use a 'viable economy' to provide for the 'general welfare of the People'.

Millions of 'Peoples' need Governments; but the People were here before the Governments.

Millions of 'Peoples' need Governments, but 'the People' are here before the Governments. Governments were then 'created' by the Peoples. So why does Government assume an Institutional 'posture' of being more important than the peoples it should serve? Of course, governments must have 'Institutional Power' in order to 'govern'. That's their 'job'. This fact is obvious to most Individuals. So, why is it that When individuals are born within any form of Government, the Government begins to act as if they had 'created' that individual and had given him/her everything he/she possesses. How strange. People create an Institution and then the institution becomes 'superior to the people'. The Institution exists for a purpose and that can only be to 'serve its People'. A Government cannot function and act 'by and from itself', except by the same People that 'created' it. The people in positions of power act on behalf of, and as, representatives of the Government. The Institution of Government is a vacuous, hallow, Institution, if it does not have 'a People'. If it has a People its an 'embodied Institution' that is as Noble and Strong as the People that embody it. How sad. When Nations cannot get along, it's actually 'the People' that cant get along. The Human Condition is the same everywhere. Everyone is 'equally human' and no one is born with 'more humanity' or 'less humanity' than some other human being. Then, what is our problem? Power and Greed. The human condition cannot handle 'political power' and 'economic Greed'.

Capitalism needs to 'mature'.

Capitalism needs to become more responsible. It needs to mature. Some will say, "but, it works, so why change anything?" Well the truth is that Capitalism is an economic institution and not a political Institution; its an economic function, and the goal of all economies is to produce 'more and more of the same'. Profits drives capitalism. Lots of activity of 'more and more', 'concentration', and then that 'human failure' called " its mine". The 1%. One of the problems with Capitalism is that it is founded on a Fiction(the Corporation), to begin with, and then, it never 'considers' the Other, even though the Other is a real human being and was instrumental in creating the corporate fiction. The welfare of the Other is more important than the welfare of the Corporate fiction. Yet, Corporate fictions received so-called 'Welfare' just as real human beings do. The truth is that Government does have a duty to its economy, but its primary duty is to Democracy. Real human beings have lots of duties; why can't, corporations be required to have more 'democratic'duties? After all, the corporate entity is considered a 'person', and is protected by the Constitution as are all other 'real persons'. One example of the 'imbalances' the corporation creates is the fact that, originally, corporations used to pay a 70% tax instead of the same tax a real individual pays. Corporations are not real 'Persons'. The corporate nature 'increases' the 'economic grasp' of the entity, hence rendering 'competition' with 'real persons' more problematic. The human individual cannot compete with a 'corporate fiction'. Hence, economic activity 'frees' or 'distances' itself from the 'democratic control' of the real Individual. The economy becomes 'self-functioning' alongside the governmental, democratic, 'control' of the real Individual, but under a 'different value system'. The motor of the economic value system, viz., profits, can only lead to 'more and more of the same' and hence, creates a form of Plutocracy instead of a form of Democracy. Plutocracy seems to be the closest thing we have to "Kingship". Plutocrats, Kings, and Autocrats need to realize that if it were not for the People in a 'condition of togetherness', there would be 'no need' for them to exist.

The essence of Democracy is Freedom and Equality. It would be better if it was Equality and Freedom.

Freedom and Equality is the essence of a Democratic government. However, it would seem preferable, if we instead referred to those basic principles as "Equality and Freedom". Why should that different arrangement make a difference? Simply, because if "Freedom" is first or basic it might be interpreted as " Primarily, I am Free to consider Others as Free or not" or, "I am free to consider Others as Equal or not", or, I am free to discriminate, if I so wish". Accepting 'Freedom' as primary can be a dangerous way of thinking. However, if we make "Equality", primary, than after being considered Equal, one can consider "Him/Herself" as Free, but, obviously, not "free" to discriminate against the Other, because everyone is "Equal". That may seem convoluted, but remember, the human Individual is more important than the Institutional Government, and the Individuals create Government. Governments also establish Law, which is an institutional structure that protects social Order, hence, Law and Order. Government has a duty to protect the Equality and Freedom of each and every Individual in the 'condition of togetherness', which creates a need for Government. A Government is duty bound to protect the 'sacred nature' of the human individual. If it doesn't do that, who needs Government. Governments are not 'Natural"( they are necessary) and they can, and should be "Just". An "unjust Government" has no Right to exist. A "Just Government" has every Right to exist and every Individual, under that Government, will fight for that Right.

The basic relation between Government and people is one of a 'Top' and a 'Bottom'.

The basic relation between Government and 'a People' is one characterized as an 'institutional Top' and a 'real Bottom'. The Top needs and has institutional Power.Regardless the form of Government the Top always has Power otherwise it could not govern. But, the Top is only a man-made political Institution subject to change every so-often. The Bottom is always real and a 'National Reflection' of the relation between a Government and its People. Wars are 'started' by the Top, and are 'fought' by the Bottom. The Top 'speaks' politics and the Bottom lives or dies as a result of political agreements or disagreements. The International problems in Government are created or resolved by real People serving as leaders and in dialogue with Other leaders. Needless to say, Leaders are People who must have a grasp of the Big Picture and not get involved with petty disagreements nor 'personal emotions'. The Institution of Politics on the International scene, unfortunately, is also 'motored' by economic values instead of political, real, human values of Freedom and Equality. Nations disagree and real human beings have to kill each other because their Leaders 'disagree'. A larger 'motor' for International politics is that fictitious 'Arms Race'. There is no 'race', only a fictitious scenario of the old childish game known as 'My father can beat up your father'. Sad but true. What can we do? How do we get Individual Leaders to understand that the Human Condition on the International sphere is the same as the human condition on the National scale? Political Institutions can never have more value than the 'Human condition'. Politics may be essential, but the human condition, under any banner, is Sacred.

Nations are Institutions that cannot survive long without their People.

A Nation is a political institution of Power. Make no mistake, its the most powerful institution in the world. But, all nations are 'constructed' institutions and hence, dependent on how the 'Top' uses its political Power. It was People who originated the Institution and its People who 'operate' it. All Nations have a history, and in most cases, a Nation is its history. A History has become a political Institution, but its an Institution that can be changed, for the better, or, for the worst; and that change can be brought about from the Top or the Bottom. The Top has Power as a product of its Institutionalized nature; but the Bottom does not have Power as an Institution; nevertheless, each Individual has individual Power over him/herself. The only way for the Bottom to have a direct influence on the Top is for the Bottom to organize. Workers Unions have understood this aspect of institutional power. But, how can all the Individuals in a Nation organize at the Bottom, if they are 'splintered' into 'different parties', or, if they are influenced by 'value systems' ( economic value system) that 'should be unrelated' to the 'political value system' (freedom and Equality)? The 'economic' cannot function in the 'Political'. It must be kept separate. Every single Individual is ( or should be)Free and Equal. In the economy, not every single Individual is 'rich'; not everyone has a job; not everyone has a home; not everyone has food to eat; not everyone has medical care; etc.. I am not advocating some sort of distribution scheme!! I'm advocating a democratic scheme of opportunity; where every Individual at the bottom is, in fact, Free and Equal; where corporations(legal fictions) have democratic duties, just like every human Individual; and where Government is ,in fact, Democratic.

A Civilization needs 'solid Nations; solid Nations need 'human beings'; human beings need Compassion.

A Civilization needs solid Nations; solid Nations need Human beings. Advanced Civilizations cannot exist without advanced Nations. Advanced Nations cannot exist without the human condition living in Freedom and Equality. The bottom line for an advanced Civilization is the human condition living in Freedom and Equality. Another way of saying the same thing is, without the human condition living in Freedom and Equality, there can be no advanced Civilizations. We can have much technological advances, but, without an equal advancement in Freedom and Equality in the 'human condition', Civilizations 'die slowly'. The human condition living in a 'condition of togetherness', and in Freedom and Equality, is the foundation of all Nations, and the foundation of Civilization. Without the human condition, there is no need for Nations nor for Civilization. Its only because the human condition 'needs' Government, and Nation-hood, that Civilizations come into being. When a Nation declares war against another Nation; its the 'same thing' as if an Individual decides to 'hack-away at his own body' and sets out to destroy his/her 'own self'. How absurd. If we could only 'live' with our 'neighbor', or with 'each Other', we could hope, in the near future, to bring about an Advanced Civilization. Today, the 'human condition', especially the Leaders of all Nations, need more 'human compassion', and to cultivate a less 'hunger' for political power. 'Political power' is 'empty' without human beings.

A Capitalistic economy could not survive without 'economic fictions'; but, they need more duties and responsibilities..

A Nations Capitalistic economy needs economic fictions. Of course, the fictions are the 'corporate structures' that it created. We call those economic structures 'persons' and extend Constitutional protection to them. 'Economic persons' have an economic grasp that is incomparable. No human being can compete with a corporate structure. This creates a social with two types of 'persons'; an 'economic person' and a 'real person'. Both are under Constitutional protection. However, a real persons has definite 'moral', 'social', 'economic' and 'political' duties, while a corporate person has only the protection it needs to 'exist' as a fictional person so that it can have an increased economic 'grasp', and to make a 'profit'. Its only duties are to exist and to make a profit. If it does not make a profit, its existence can be terminated by those who incorporated it or it can blend with other corporate structures. That is not the case with real human beings. The problem is that real human beings have many social, family, financial, and political duties and the corporation has none. A corporation only exists too make a profit and has no other duties in the social or the political spheres. To be sure, it also pays taxes, but even that, is not on a basis that reflects the 'increased economic grasp' it has been given. It has no duties, and no social, or political, responsibilities. The indirect result of all that, is that it allows for the existence of the Top 1%. How sad; we create 'economic fictions' and the 'owners', who are real people, 'hoard' all the money at the Top 1% of the economy. The 'corporate fictions', if they are to exist, need more 'duties and responsibilities'.

A Nations economy is quantifiable. Why can't democracy be quantified?

The economy of all Nations are quantifiable institutions. An economy can be 'quantified'. As a matter of fact all major aspects of an economy can be measured. The engine (profits) of an economy must be quantified to determine whether that economy is profitable or not. Profits is the engine; 'capital' is quantified; 'wages' are quantified; 'economic value' is a quantification; 'interest' is a quantification; 'losses' are quantifications, 'money' is a quantifiable 'medium of exchange'. etc.. My point is the essence of an economy is a quantification. Can democracy be quantified? Yes and No. No!, Freedom and Equality cannot be quantified in an Individual. Every Individual is Free and Equal in a Democracy, and hence, is 'free' within the institutional complexities of the social. S/he can do as s/he pleases within the confines of Law; Law being a kind-of-measure of 'social order'. Every Individual is also an 'Equal human being' within the 'condition of togetherness'. No one is 'special' and no 'classifications' of the human condition can be established. Human is Human. Equality means 'equal human being'. So, how can we quantify Democracy? The only aspect of a democracy that can be quantified is the unique status of each Individual as a 'human entity' that 'counts' within a 'condition of togetherness' and is included in all democratic political 'institutions'. In other words; everyone 'counts' and hence is subject to 'inclusion' or 'exclusion'. In a Democracy everyone 'counts' and hence is entitled to the same freedoms as all others and must be include in all 'population counts' as a 'free' and 'equal' Individual. In other words, only the Individual 'as a whole' can be 'counted' and hence, that can be considered as a 'form of quantification'. But, notice, its the Individual as a whole i.e. as a 'human entity', i.e., from Nature, that is 'free and equal'. Political structures have nothing to do with the Freedom and Equality of the 'human condition', except to 'respect' and 'protect' it within the political. 'Leave no human being behind'.

'Peoples' need each Other; but, they do not need 'despotic' governments.

People have always needed each other. They formed into 'conditions of togetherness', and formed Governments. Governments were authorized to represent the 'different conditions' as separate political entities. People needed to 'stick together' and to organize politically to 'simplify' the search for food, shelter, clothing, and the general welfare of all. But, the 'condition of togetherness' also needed an 'economy' to exploit the many possibilities in the 'search for food', the manufacturing of 'goods', shelters, or homes, clothing, and to provide for the general welfare. Hence, an economy was 'born' and that economy needed an 'engine' for the creation of a continuous 'stream of necessities' for the general Welfare. That engine was the 'profits engine'. An economy cannot survive without profits. No profits; no business, no business corporations; no work, no work; no wages nor salaries, no wages; no food, no shelter, no clothing, no 'economic welfare'. An Economy is very different from a Government and the 'motor' of a Democratic Government. Democracy cannot function without Freedom and Equality while an economy cannot function without profits. The engine for Democracy is Freedom and Equality; the engine for a successful economy is Profits. Never shall the twain meet. We cannot mix the two. To be sure, they are 'intertwined' in the social, but the 'engines' of the two activities must be kept separate. We cannot have a 1%. We cannot have racial discrimination; we cannot have 'classes' of human beings; and we cannot elevate the 'importance of Government' over the 'importance of the human condition'. The Human condition, in a condition of 'Freedom' and 'Equality', is far superior than 'any' form of Government. That's why the Divine Right of Kings type of Government did not survive; neither will a Plutocracy.

Governments cannot govern 'life'; but, they must govern the 'condition of togetherness'.

Although there are 'Many' human beings on the planet, Governments cannot govern 'Life'. This fact should not need an explanation. Governments are necessary, as places of Authority, in the 'condition of togetherness. Human beings in the 'condition of togetherness' need Government. That's an absolute necessity; however, each human being has his/her own 'life' and that's a 'gift of Nature' and has no relation to the government in which she/he was born; hence, Government has no authority over 'that life'. Nevertheless, no individual can long live in isolation; they must live in a 'condition of togetherness'. Hence; the need for Government. Every Government is a human political 'construction', and the 'value system' of that institution of Government is determined by the respect for the Freedom and Equality shown to the human beings under its governing authority. A Government cannot abuse 'those' that give it the right to exist. 'Peoples' come first; then, comes Government. So, it would seem that the question is what's wrong with Government? Unfortunately, Governments cannot function without People. OK, so what's wrong with People? Well, it seems that 'Leaders of Governments' cannot handle political Power. How sad. People 'create' Governments, and then, succumb to its 'Power'.

Government is essential to the 'condition of togetherness' but, it should never suppress 'life'.

The 'condition of togetherness' requires that Governments exist. Governments are duty bound to mandate legal rules for the protection of all. So, where do we 'look' to examine whether a law offends the 'requirements' of Law, as distinguished from the suppression of Life? That's not an easy task, yet, we can examine the 'generality' of the requirement in such manner as to determine the 'generality of application'. Obviously, the Law must apply to all in an equal manner, and that means in a non-discriminatory manner. To be sure, there will be categories of application, but the generality or essence of its application cannot suppress the basic 'life impulse'. That's where the problems kick-in. 'Governing' and 'Law' applies to the 'condition of togetherness' in its essential 'condition of togetherness', i.e., as a 'whole', in its 'completeness', or, in its 'inclusivity'. Contrary to that is the fact that "each and every individual matters"; "everyone counts", everyone 'is a life'. The 'life' of the human individual is sacred. At this point enters the problematic. Government does not and cannot 'govern' Life. It governs the 'condition of togetherness'. It has already been pointed out, one solitary human being on an island does not need the institution of Government. Of course, that's the other end of the problem. An individual can live any way s/he pleases. The clash between the requirements of living in a 'condition of togetherness', and the natural Right to live 'as one pleases' becomes the 'basic clash' of civilizations. Sometimes, we have to face the fact that our problems are not 'all' government problems; they are 'human problems'. How sad; we don't know what we want.

Democracy is being 'overpowered' by economics.

The democratic spirit is being overpowered by the economic spirit. Stated differently, the values of democracy are being overpowered by the values of the economy; even more clearly, freedom and equality are undervalued, while 'money' is so over-valued that its becoming our God. How sad. The greatest motivation for human activity is an 'artifact'. Why do we undervalue freedom and equality? Why has a 'medium of exchange' become so valuable that we greedily hoard and collect it, to the point of aspiring to be on the Forbes List, or the Top 1%. Where are we going? The answer is not that money is more valuable than freedom and equality, but that the human condition is so weak that it pursues money and its substitutes, because, in actuality, it does not seem to understand that freedom and equality is a 'natural phenomena' of the human condition. It does not come from Government; it comes from Nature, but Government has a duty to protect it in the 'condition of togetherness'. That's what makes us 'civilized'. How sad. Of course, the 'human condition' has been 'down-sized' by the legal corporate structure, to the point, that a corporation is more 'protected' by Government than the human condition. Government comes to the rescue of 'suffering' corporations, with billions of dollars, while it helps the 'retired', the 'worker', the sick, the suffering, with a measly 'few dollars'. Then, it has the gall to label one as 'necessary' and the other as 'welfare'. Sad and sick; Plutocrats are at the helm. But, they will soon discover that their 'enemy' are not the 'common folk' at the Bottom of Government, but the other Plutocrats, that 'will vie' for that 'top position'. Try to understand, 'greed' can never be satisfied. How sad and stupid.

The "State" or "Nation" are necessary politiical concepts that are rendered into Institutions.

The Nation is a necessary Institution. The reason for that is that there are an infinite number of human beings in the World and humanity could not survive without Government. However, all Human beings are born in Nature, and Governments are 'constructed' or set-up, by the very human beings who are to be 'the governed'. Hence, the different types of Governments have been constructed in the 'historical context' of their 'beginnings'. That should be an obvious fact to every governing Institution. Stated differently, humans have no choice in the matter of being born, while Governments are mere constructions by the human beings. Nevertheless, Governments need 'Power' in order to Govern. Hence, the Power of Government over the human condition. This should be clear to every Government in the world. Hence, Governments and Nations are dependent on the human condition. Hence, the Human condition is entitled to its 'natural' freedom and equality, while s/he exists within a 'constructed political framework'. Of course, in todays World, People are born into an 'already constructed' political structure, and hence have some 'inferior sense' that Government is a 'superior entity'. But, that is never the case. People born into a natural freedom and equality are entitled to a 'political Freedom and Equality' as a necessary 'construction'. People need Government, but Government should never abuse its 'powerful artificial nature'. People create Government; Government does not create People.

The concept of the 'State' or 'Nation' is real because it's an 'embodied concept'.

When we say the State is a "persona ficta", we mostly imply that the concept is a fiction. When we use the term "fiction" we usually imply its 'unreal'. The fact is that the concept of the State or a concept of 'Nation' is 'real'. By real, I mean, its nature is not 'fictional'. Its a 'real political institution'. This fact can be ratified by anyone who is incarcerated or compelled to pay taxes. To be sure, the concept is a 'general linguistic term' that encompasses a huge geographical area with a specific 'political Identity' with 'Power'. To say that its a 'fiction', in whatever form, is ludicrous. The State or Nation is real and that term includes each and every 'real' human individual, living within the 'political limits' of its Identity. The geographical area may not be 'continuous' or 'contiguous', but its political 'Identity' is 'One' and has political 'Power. To be sure, a political concept is a linguistic generalization, but it encompasses real human beings. A political entity. or State' or Nation, cannot exist but for its People. Without 'real people', a 'verbal generalization' is empty, vacuous, insignificant, and has no power. But, as a political Institution with People, it is Powerful, and has a duty to the People that created it. Every Nation has inherent Power and every Nation must learn to get along with other Nations. Of course, the 'People of the World' must also learn to get along with each 'Other', but it becomes easier when 'their Nations' learn to get along with 'other Nations'.

A 'People' must support their Governemnt; but, a Governemnt must support 'the People'.

Its absolutely necessary to say that 'a People' must support their Government. Its equally necessary that a Government must support their People. Of course, neither of the two 'somewhat similar' ways of 'support' are the same. A people usually supports their Government by paying taxes, serving in the Military, serving in 'Government and social' positions of authority, by running for election, and by following established 'mores' of social behavior, etc.. In return, the Government provides for the 'general welfare' of its People, by helping provide jobs, establishing rules (laws) of interaction between the Peoples, providing some system of 'social security', making homes available, establishing medical care, etc. Obviously, the Governments 'relation' to the People must be exercised through the established social and political institutions between the Top and the Bottom. To the contrary, the Bottom or the People relate to the Government by participating in the established social or political institutions of the form of Government. Some of the Individuals duties may be unpleasant, e.g., participation in War; paying taxes, etc.. Although the 'relation' between the Bottom to the Top may sometimes be 'disagreeable', the Individual at the Bottom has a duty to his/her Government. However, that same relation also 'flows' from the Top to the Bottom. That's the relation that must acknowledge that the Top is performing an obligation to govern the Bottom and that it must do so in a 'just manner'. This requires that the social and political institutions respect and protect the 'freedom and equality' of each individual. Otherwise, Who needs Government?

Political Parties are usually 'oppositional'; but, they don't have to be.

Political Parties are usually oppositional; but they don't have to be. If both Parties exist within a Democracy, the difference could well be a difference in approach, and not a difference in 'less' or 'more' democracy. Obviously, the difference in approach would just be a different way of bringing about the 'same' or 'similar' result, but in no case would it be a non-democratic result. But, the usual differences in the Ideology of the Parties, create a 'result' that cannot be considered completely Democratic. The problematic then becomes, "how can political parties in a democracy be non-democratic"? The term "party" in a political context means "a collection of similar minded individuals that have a particular way of viewing and doing something", that applies to everyone under Government. Unfortunately, that makes 'democratic problems' into personal 'human problems'. How can that be surmounted in the political sphere? The truth? It can't. The only approach available is to really understand what democracy means i.e., the Freedom and Equality of each Individual, and to compute into the 'democratic critique' of the 'democratic social status', a real mathematical perspective that includes every real individual, and which leaves no one out. Notice, that I leave corporations out, because they are not real persons, and I refer to the Individuals as 'real'. A 'social', contemplated as a political unity, must exclude the 'artificial'. I do not mean that they are never considered, to the contrary, they are very important. But, lets get 'real' about our situation. The 'human problematic' is a 'real' problem. First, lets sort out the human problematic, the artificial can work itself out.

The Party system, rightfully implemented, could be a blessing to Democracy.

The Party system could be a blessing to a Democratic political structure. The reason for that, is that different approaches can generate change in the direction to 'perfecting' the 'political concepts' of Freedom and Equality. However, if the differences in the so-called ideology of the Parties is not so much a 'political difference' as it is an 'economic difference', the result will be catastrophic. Why catastrophic? Mostly, because one Party emphasizes the 'political aspects' while the other emphasizes the economic aspects, or, both Parties emphasize the economic aspect, and everybody knows, that democracy has nothing to do with economics. Its true that Capitalism can flourish in a Democracy, but we must be careful that, it not be, at the expense of Freedom and Equality of the Individual. The political ideal of Freedom and Equality cannot 'motor' an economy; while the economic ideal of 'profits cannot motor a Democracy. In such cases, the economic Ideal causes damage to the political ideal by substituting economic values in place of political values. The political values of Freedom and Equality cannot be replaced by profits. Then, we must ask, why do we have institutions about the 1%; the Forbes list; whose number One; who's the richest man in America?, in the World? Economics and money are essential to everyone, but we must be careful that we don't create a 'lop-sided' economic monstrosity, in place of, a living, democratic, economy; i.e., a viable Democracy. We are sacrificing freedom and equality, for a pocket-full of money. Try 'Incorporating' your 'diurnal-personal-life' into a 'corporate life' and discover that there is no such thing. You don't have a 'corporate life'. We are destroying our own lives by replacing the political values of freedom and equality with money. How sad, we 'die' in 'castles'.

The political term "Revolution" is a much misunderstood term.

The political term "Revolution" is a much misunderstood term. The 'term' does not include such 'flare-ups', or, 'set of contraries' postulated by 'antagonistic' political Parties'; nor, does it include 'minor' physical skirmishes such as 'demonstrations' sit-ins, etc.. No; revolutions are against the 'political foundations' of the very form of Government under which a People live. Its an attempt to change the 'rules of the Game' and to establish a 'new foundation' for political activity. Since the basis of a Democracy are the Freedom and Equality of every individual, it is impossible to have a 'political revolution' in a Democracy. Why is that? Well, simply, the form of Government is already instituted as a Democracy, and hence all a democracy can do is to try to 'compel' a more accurate definition of Freedom and Equality. Hence, most political Parties can not be 'revolutionary', they can only compel 'adherence' and 'recognition' of a proper understanding of Freedom and Equality. That is precisely the case with 'racial discrimination' and 'economic imbalances'. A democracy cannot have both of these 'problems' and claim to be democratic. Why? Because real 'Freedom and Equality' cannot exist in a 'social' that has 'racial discrimination' and 'economic imbalances'. Democracies should not tolerate 'racial discrimination' nor the '1%'. So, lets change the political rules in the case of the 'discrimination'; and lets change the 'economic rules' in the case of the 1%. That may not be revolutionary, but it certainly is a much better understanding of 'real democracy'.

The 'State' or Nation is not a Persona Ficta.

The State, or, the Nation, is not a 'Persona Ficta', if by 'Persona Ficta', is meant a fictional entity; the State cannot be fictional. The Concept of the State or the Nation is real and is the 'verbal tag' attributed to the 'condition of togetherness' in which every Individual finds him/herself in. In other words, the Nation is as real as the Individuals within it, viz., you and I are real and so is the 'condition of togetherness' in which we find ourselves. It is 'not possible' to say that we, as Individuals, are not real- I am real and I think you are too- and hence we, in a 'condition of togetherness', must also be real. If one Individual is real, so must all Individuals. The only difference would be the 'size' of the 'condition of togetherness', or stated differently, the size of the "State" or "Nation". The verbal tag, "State" or "Nation" is merely a notion that identifies all of us in the 'condition of togetherness'. It merely gives us a 'political Identity'. This political Identity describes the political affiliations, type of Government, Nationality, etc., of the citizens within the geographical and legal parameters of a "State" or "Nation". Nevertheless, and in spite of political differences, every real human being has the same 'human nature' as all other human beings. "National", or, "political" differences, does not, and cannot, attribute 'more or less' humanity to the human condition. We are all in the same boat. How often we hear that statement and yet we do not appreciate what it states. States and Nations are different by virtue of 'political Identity' and type of Government, but the 'human condition' is the same in every living Individual, regardless of the difference in the State or the Nation, in which s/he finds him/herself in. The sad part of all this is that, a "State" or "Nation" has 'power' and cannot function without the 'human element'.

Capitalism can flourish in a Democracy; but, it can also lead to Plutocracy.

Capitalism is an economic system that can flourish in a Democracy, but it can also lead to Plutocracy. One of the problems of Capitalism, is that it can attempt to substitute itself in place of democratic principles. I mean, it can consider "money", the end result of organizing in a manner to solely make profits, in lieu of contributing to the general welfare of the Bottom of Government, or, the People at the Bottom of Government. Capitalism is a form of economic organization that must be arranged in a 'right manner', viz., to make profits. Well that's ok, but it must never 'substitute' for the freedom and equality that makes it possible. Without Freedom and Equality, capitalism cannot exist. Yet, it attempts to replace the very spirit that made its existence possible. What happened? Simply, Money and 'making a profit' became 'personal values' to real individuals, that became more important than the Freedom and Equality of every 'real human being' within the Nation. As we know, it even invented' new 'economic persons', viz., corporations, that are protected by the Constitution. The Top 1% hold most of the economic value in existence in the whole economy. Maybe we already live, in a Plutocracy, or, an Oligarchy? Of course, every real Individual in the social is Free to run for Political Office, or, is s/he? Then, why do the candidates need to raise Millions, or Billions, to even think of running for Office? Oh, its simple. Our so-called Democracy has been 'bought' by 'Corporate Governments', and money, and 'real Freedom and Equality' has been burned at the stake, by the inextinguishable fires, of the Profits engine. Democracy is dying; Freedom and Equality no longer matter; what matters now is your Bank Account.

The folly of the Party system.

The establishment of a political Party system could be a valuable asset to government. Unfortunately, the usual result is a division between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots'. If one examines the political postures of two opposing Parties, its not only obvious, but actually 'declared' that the major differences is what they call, "more Government" or "less Government". Unbelievable. Parties, in a Democracy, should be attempting to insure and protect the Freedom and Equality of the Individual, at the Bottom of the governing process. Instead, one Party emphasizes Government and the other wants to do away with Government. In an established Democracy, the issue is never about Government (it already has the best form); its about the People at the Bottom of the governing process. Its not about taking away from 'One' and giving to the 'Other'. Its not that difficult; its about protecting and insuring the Freedom and Equality of every Individual, regardless of Race, color, creed, or economic standing. Just take inventory; is every individual being treated equally and fairly? Race doesn't matter; color of skin doesn't matter; 'belief system' doesn't matter; gender doesn't matter; economic standing ( rich or poor)doesn't matter; and the important thing is, what will either Party do to equalize the economic standing of everyone? Its unfortunate that "money" has replaced "democracy"; but if we live in a 'rich' Nation, why does the 1% hold all the "money"?; why can't more benefits, of all kinds, inure to the benefit of every human being in the Nation? Its unbelievable, a 'Rich Nation' with 'huge pockets' of People who are 'dis-enfranchised', poor; needy; sick; helpless; hungry; and 'homeless'. Oh, we have already set aside a social separate 'linguistic category' for the "homeless"; they are the 'ones' who live under bridges, etc.( of course, they are included, but that's not what I mean). No! I mean the most 'abused sector' in a Rich Nation, the 99%.

Revolution is the natural Right of every Individual living within any form of Government.

Revolution, is the natural Right of every Individual living within any established Nation or Government. Of course, in a Democracy, that Right is protected by its Constitution. A Democratic Government, having being properly established, provides for the protection and the insuring of the Freedom and Equality of every Individual living within its borders. Under the establishment of such a proper political organization, every individual retains his/her Right to revolution. No Individual, living alone on some remote Island, needs a Government, and no 'Government' can assume 'control' of such an Island, and purport to govern said individual. One Individual does not need Government, and no Government can assume forceful control of the human condition in its natural condition of existing. But, once the lone Individual begins to live with 'many Individuals' in a "condition of togetherness", the need for 'some form' of Government becomes necessary. Hence, the need arises for the establishment of the most 'rightful type' of Government. Of course, a Nation is as much a 'fictional entity' as a corporation. They both need human beings to operate the 'entity'. Nevertheless, a Nation must be properly 'constituted' and the Right to Revolution must be properly protected. That's what the First Amendment of the Constitution does. It protects the Right of every Individual,... "peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". It provides 'protection' from 'both sides' of the Right; the assembly 'must be peaceable', and the 'enforcement by the State' of that right, must also be proper. Its a 'political shame' when neither side knows the 'parameters' of that Right. Its so easy to be violent; its difficult to be democratic. What a shame.

Law is a necessary institution in every Democracy.

The Legal system is a necessary institution in every Democracy. Without Law, there can be no Order. Without Order a social is in disarray. It is in the very nature of a democracy, that it have a Legal System. The reason for that is because a democracy insures the Freedom and Equality of every Individual in the social. Every Individual is Free and Equal and hence is free to exercise that Freedom and Equality. Of course, the exercise of that Freedom and Equality must be delineated by Legal and Social rules for every-day and institutional interactions. That's why a social, at the Bottom of Democratic Government, has a Right to revolt, viz., if conditions are such, that the Freedom and Equality of the Individual, are being abused. By the same token, and from the Top of the Top/Bottom relation in every Government, social and Legal rules must be laid down for the purpose of the expression, as well as the protection, of that Freedom and Equality. Hence, the art of Governing requires proper legislative enactments in order to structure a smoothly running social. A 'smoothly running social' needs Law and Order. In turn, Law and Order needs for Individuals to live democratically, morally, and Legally responsible lives. Law is a social institution that structures the expression and the protection of the Freedom and equality of each and every Individual.

The 'enemy' of a Democracy can be its own Economy.

The 'Global' enemy of a Democracy is its own Capitalistic Economy. How can that be? Simply, by having a fine-tuned economy that includes 'legal-fictions' called "corporations", the democratic principle of Freedom and Equality is undermined by the creation of fictional entities that are 'equal' to real human beings. We have endowed the corporate fiction with the same Constitutionally protected principles that apply to real human beings. At one time in our history, some corporate protection may have been necessary, but continued assimilation of the 'attributes' of the 'human condition', are not necessary. That is the judicial attitude that made Citizens United possible. Of course, some protection is necessary, but to say that corporations need protection from human beings is ludicrous; its human beings that need protection from corporations. The Freedom and Equality of the human condition cannot be encroached upon by a 'corporate society'. To go in that 'direction' is to replace 'human society' by a 'corporate society. Of course, some say we already live in a corporate society. Nevertheless, we should not become victims of our own 'creations'. The Freedom and Equality of the human condition is superior to any 'form of Government'; any form of economy; and any 'institutional structure' in the social.

In a Democracy, elections become necessary.

Every Democracy must hold elections. Of course, every Nation has its 'electoral rules'. In a real democracy, each and every Political Party fields its candidates. However, the 'political tensions' sought to be remedied, are not always democratic in nature. Add to this, the fact that, not all political Parties are truly democratic. By this, I mean some Parties favor and support the 'corporate nature' of the 'economy' and the 'social'. It is true, that we need corporations but, politics is an entirely different game. Its not an economic game; its a political game and the rules of politics are very different from the rules of the economy. Nevertheless, at this point we are confronted with the fact that, all political candidates need money, to finance their campaigns, and hence, the entire process favors those with money, or the rich. That's unfortunate, but true. Consequently, what real democratic candidates must learn, is to use money without 'giving-in' to contributors who are wealthy, and who favor economic 'advantages', 'tax' favoritism, and further 'corporate entrenchment', at the expense of human Freedom and Equality. Of course, if we changed the rules and laws to 'compel' corporations to lead a more 'democratic fictional Life', we could get help from corporations to have a more 'truly democratic Life'. As it is now, corporations have no 'democratic duties'. Their sole existence and their sole duty, is to make a profit. All corporations should be 'democrats'.

Every Nation has a Social; every Social has an Economy; every Economy has a value system.

Every Nation has a Social; every Social has an Economy; and every social institution and economic institution has a value system. Of course, these value systems interact with each other at all times. Although they interact with each other, they do not equate to each others value system. Every Social is a 'condition of togetherness' and is constituted by 'real' Individuals and corporations. Of course, corporations are 'legal fictions', and hence not in the same category as a real Individual. Both the 'real' and the 'fictional' within the Social, constitute the Economy. The 'economy' and the 'social' interact with each other, but its important to understand that they function autonomously i.e., each is motored by its own value system. The social is motored by the moral value system of each 'real Individual'. 'Fictional entities', corporations, do not have a 'personal' value system; they have an economic value system or a Market 'value system'. That Market value system is motored by 'profits'. Of course, Democratic Nations all have a Political value system. That value system is the 'Freedom and Equality' of each and every 'real' Individual, or, 'person' within the Nation. The merging of political values and economic values is what screws up the works. The 'moral values' of the real Individual can function with the political values( Freedom and Equality) of the political system; but, the 'Market value system' of 'profits' cannot function within the social or the political. The 'political system' cannot be 'motored by profits'. Each system must retain its 'autonomy' and must be kept separate from the 'Other'. That should probably be a job for the 'interpretive practices' of the Supreme Court, but, obviously, if they decided Citizens, they don't get the picture.

There is a big difference between a 'Political value system' and a 'Human value system'.

Every Nation has a 'political value system', or, stated differently, every political system has a political 'structure'. Every Nation has a 'geographical area', or, a 'Jurisdictional system' that it 'calls' 'its own'. These political values 'define' and describes the Nations political Identity and its 'Governmental system'. Every Nation has a 'political relation' to its 'own People' and to the International sphere. But, regardless the differences in the Political systems, every Nation has a People. At this point of 'intersection' between the National and the International, the 'human race' has a huge problematic. Should the 'political value system' be imposed on the 'human value system'?, or, should the 'human value system' be imposed on the 'political value system'? You may think, that issue is frivolous, but is it? Every Nation is 'born' with 'political power'. It can do what it 'wants' with its People and on the International scene. Every human being is born 'helpless' and 'incomplete'; and must learn to live in a 'condition of togetherness' within 'every' National boundary, and must respect his-her neighbor. The 'togetherness' referred too in the 'last', is that of the Nation. If a human being must 'learn' to live together, why can't a Nation? Nations have advantages over humans, because they are 'born' with Power and can immediately assert their 'autonomy' and their 'antagonisms'. Of course, in a Democracy, it's assumed that a Democracy 'respects' the human condition, but, is that truly the case? Politicians vie for political office and then assert their 'individual' or 'Party preferences', which, unfortunately, is more 'economic' than 'human, instead of the 'most human'. Politically, we are different; humanly, we are the same.

Democracy is a theoretical structure; but, without 'Peoples' , it's useless.

Democracy is a theoretical structure; but, without its People, it cannot function. But, remember, so is every other form of Government. The problems arise when a Government must 'act' as a Government, on behalf of the People, or as a unified representative of the People. This last sentence applies to every Government in the World. But, some Governments are democracies and some are not. The problematic 'kicks in' when the Government, as representative of 'its People', acts within the larger domain of the International sphere. The issue then becomes; " was that a purely Government activity",i.e., one where the activity does not 'reflect' on the 'Individuals' living within the Nation, e. g. where a Nation establishes "Trade" relations with another Nation.( of course, all trade regulations will eventually 'seep down' to the People.) But, I use the word 'reflect', in a much more direct manner. For example, " a declaration of War", or, activity 'that could precipitate a War'. Extreme cases, I'm sure, but indicative of a 'direct connection' with the People. In a Democracy a Leader must consider, or should consider, the opinions of its People. In an Autocracy, or in any other form of Government, that is not 'Representative' of its People, the Leader acts with little or no concern for the People. To be sure, there will be 'economic concerns', 'technological concerns', ' allies', 'atomic weapons', etc., but the last concern, if any, will be the People. A Democracy will have all those concerns, but the main concern should be the welfare of its People. After all, its People who fight Wars, and in a Democracy, 'elections' always 'loom' in the future. Autocrats don't worry about elections; they worry about Revolutions and acquiring 'more advantages' on the International sphere. An interesting question arises; are Autocracies more 'efficient' Internationally?, or, are Democracies more 'efficient' Internationally?. "A can of worms", to be sure, but, an inquiry worth pursuing. Maybe later.

A Democratic Governemnt has a Three Branch structure, but each Branch is 'run' by 'People'.

A Democratic Government has a Three Branch Structure. The Top, or Executive Branch 'governs' the People at the Bottom. The Bottom are all the People in their 'condition of togetherness', 'each' of whom lives in Freedom and Equality. The Third Branch is the Judicial, which is the 'Interpretive Branch' which interprets the Laws that hold the Nation together. Of course, each Branch is put into 'motion' by the same People who constitute the 'Governed'. In other words, a Democratic Government is a Government 'of People'; 'by People'; and 'for the very same People who are the Governed. A Democracy is a Government that gets its Power to govern from the People it Governs. There is no other source of Power to Govern. Without People, a Nation with 'Power' cannot exist. From where will it get its 'Inception'; from where will it get its Power? Who will it govern, if not the People living in a 'condition of togetherness'? There are no 'empty Nations'; no 'geographical areas' that can be considered as 'institutions of Power', if those areas have no 'Peoples'. No! Only the 'People' in their 'condition of togetherness' can 'grant Power' to the Top of a Governing Institution. People existed before Nations, and if we are to have institutions called 'Nations', it better be one constituted by the People. Of course, we're down to the 'great problematic' of Government, namely the People who occupy the Branches of Government. Fortunately, Democracy is the best form of Government there is; unfortunately, some People misplace the 'aura of Power' in themselves, instead of in the 'form of Government'. There's nothing wrong with Democracy; its the People who 'run' it.