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.