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'.