When Capitalism takes over the reigns of 'Power'; what happens to Freedom and Equality?

When Capitalism assumes the reigns of Political Power; what happens to Freedom and Equality? Capitalism is 'driven' by Profits; not by Freedom and Equality. Hence, in a 'purported Democracy', the Nations motive for establishing democratic 'Governing Principles' and 'democratic Institutions' will be determined by the 'Profits motive' and not the 'Freedom and Equality' of each and every real Individual at the Bottom of Democratic Government. Questions about 'racial discrimination'; about 'low wages'; or about 'Jobs'; about 'Medical care' for those not able to 'buy it' or 'earn it'; Freedom to express ones' opinion about 'Political Parties'; 'economic imbalances' caused by the Corporations 'economic grasp'; the ability of Corporations to 'dissolve themselves' and 're-create' themselves under a different name ( a form of Corporate Immortality); the unregulated growth of 'Corporate Size'; the 'Rights' of veterans who have fought for their Nation; and many other questions about the Power to Govern and the Power of the economy; All these questions and issues, and many more, need to be 'asked' and 'resolved'. How is a Nation governed by 'the Profits motive' or simply Money, going to answer those questions. Its not. A government operated by the 'Profits motor' becomes a Plutocracy or an Oligarchy or is already One. A Government run by business CEO's, who are not familiar with 'Political Principles' or the 'Constitution', is already on the road to Plutocracy, if not, Oligarchy. The 'few' in the economy will prosper, the 1%, but only at the expense of the Political Freedom and Equality promised to 'real Individuals' by the Constitution; the Individuals who are situated at the 'Bottom of Democratic Government'. After all, it is the Bottom, the People, who confers 'Political Power' to the Top. We have all kind of Agencies that 'police' and 'control' products that are being made 'available to the People' at the Bottom; why can't we have an Agency that 'polices' and 'controls' candidates who run for Political Office? We need more control over Politicians; and the Nation needs more control over Corporations. Democracy should not self-destruct because the 1% sends in 'unqualified Politicians', or, because 'Immortal Corporations' are out of control. Our Mortality is not assured, and why should Legal Fictions be 'out-of-control'; we are under control of Law; and why should they be 'Immortal? you and I are not.

Any Economy; Capitalistic, Socialistic, or Otherwise, is not a Form of Government.

Any Economy; whether Capitalistic, Agrarian, Socialistic, or Otherwise, is not a form of Government. A Government can have many Forms. A Democratic Form of Government gets its Power to Govern from the People that are to be Governed; whereas, Capitalism is an 'economic form' that cannot exist without competition. Competition exists in every 'condition of togetherness'; but, competition only exists between 'Equals'. There is no such thing as competition between Individuals that are not Equal. Hence, the Democratic Form of Government is the perfect form that allows competition between 'Equals'. Other forms of Government; that do not 'stress' Equality; do not form a 'good medium' for 'Competition'. Socialistic forms of Government, is a kind of Governing that controls 'economic activity' and 'competition' from the Top; in many forms, of these type of Governments, the 'Governing Part' owns the means of Production. Hence, Democracy is a 'Medium' for the 'proper expression' of Competition. However, the Freedom and Equality enjoyed by the 'Real Individuals', 'translates' into the 'Legal Fictions' called Corporations and produces a 'lop-sided economy' of 'Real Individuals' and 'Fictional Persons'. These 'Fictional Persons' are not Real; and there can be no competition between the Real and the Fictional. As a consequence, we are 'saddled' with a Capitalistic Economy that creates 'in-equality', the 'Haves and the Have-nots'. That, in itself may not be too bad, but, when the 'Economic Institutions' purport to 'Govern' the 'condition of togetherness', it becomes problematic. Democratic Government becomes 'Economic Government', or, 'Capitalistic Government' that merely 'perpetuates itself'. The Real Individuals be Dammed; the 'Legal Fictions' ( Corporations), take over and 'Real Freedom and Equality' goes out the window. Government has been 'overcome' by the Economy. The 1% Governs and ascends to 'higher levels' of controlling a Medium of Exchange. A Medium of Exchange belongs at the Bottom, not the Top.

Have 'Real Individuals' in Democracy been transformed into 'products' of Capitalism?

Have Real Individuals in Democracy been transformed into 'products' of Capitalism? If the Freedom and Equality of the Individual is being ignored ( by 'permissive' racial discrimination; low wages; 'assaults' against 'Other Races' by Immigration policies; and 'Border Fences'; Taxation inequality; 'oppressive' law enforcement) while the Corporations get stronger, bigger, and the 1% increases incrementally into a higher class, 2%, 3%, 20% or higher!; the answer is Yes! Economics has taken over Democracy. The Individual has become a 'Product' in the eyes of a Government. What has happened to Freedom and Equality? Government 'Offices' have been filled by 'Individuals' who have no 'respect' for the 'sameness' of the Human condition, that is, the 'Freedom and Equality' of 'each and every Real Individual' at the Bottom of Government. 'Government power' is now used to make a Profit and is 'operated' by the 1%. Freedom and Equality of the Individual has been sacrificed for the freedom and equality of the 1%; the Corporate Society; the 'fictitious Persons' created by a Branch of Government itself. The Courts have created an 'economic monster' and now do not know what to do with it. Its really simple: you created an economic person, or a Legal Fiction, that has taken over Government; give that creation more Democratic duties, i.e. make it respect the 'Freedom and Equality' of 'all' Real Human Beings. After all, Corporations owe their very existence to the fact that they 'live' in a Democracy. Try having a Corporation 'take over' a Dictatorship within which it was allowed to function. Won't happen. In such a case, the Dictatorship owns the Corporation, or, it won't exist. Where's the Freedom and Equality? When the 'Economy' begins to 'understand' that the 'corporate motor', profits, also needs 'Freedom and Equality', it 'may begin' to understand that Freedom and Equality is a 'Democratic Political value'. You cannot have a Democracy without 'People'; and you can't even have a Corporation( a Legal Fiction) without a 'Real Individual' 'operating' it, and you can't have 'Freedom and Equality' without Democratic Political values. Sacrifice Greed!

A Real Democracy is composed of Real Individuals; not Legal Fictions. Corporations are not 'real'.

A 'Real Democracy' is composed of 'Real' Individuals i.e., Human Beings, not Legal Fictions. Corporations are Legal Fictions and exist only in 'contemplation of Law'. They are not 'Real'; they don't 'eat'; they don't 'live'; they don't breath; they don't reproduce themselves; they don't need medical assistance; they don't need work; they don't need a 'home' in which to "lay its weary head". One would think that Statesmen or Politicians would be very interested in the 'human condition' and its 'real relation' to Government; i.e., if the Freedom and Equality of the 'condition of togetherness' is being 'respected and protected' by the Government. Instead, the Politicians become interested in the 'economic motor'and economic principles. Of course, they are also interested in 'human beings' but, only in relation to the economic aspects of the human condition. They do not seem interested in the Freedom and Equality of the Individual. Why don't they Legislate 'principles' or 'Institutions' that would balance the Inequality between the 1% and the 99%? After all, money is a 'medium of exchange', not a medium for 'hoarding'. Sure, some can be 'saved', but; a medium of exchange must be kept in circulation, and no one should be allowed to acquire 'complete control' of a 'medium of exchange'. Today, the Tax rates between the 'Real' and the 'Imaginary' reflect a certain 'equality', but the fictional corporations are 'fictions', unreal, and the 'economic grasp' between a corporation and a real individual will never be equal. For all 'practical purposes', Corporations have rendered 'competition' obsolete. Hence, Tax proportionately; base it on the difference in the 'economic grasp', not on the premise that they are Constitutional fictions; or 'persons'. Corporations used to pay a tax rate of 70 to 90 %, but the Corporate Lobbies 'reduced' the rates based on their status as 'legal fictions'. They are not 'real Persons' and although entitled to some protection under the Constitution, they are 'not Equal' to 'real human beings', and they never will be. That would be a 'Capitalistic Government', not a 'Democratic Government'. (oops). Is that what we are? Well, it looks like most of our Public Offices are going to be filled with CEO's, so, we're either 'there already' or 'headed there'. Looks bleak. Where are our Statesmen and where is Democracy?

A 'Real Democracy' is not a 'Business'.

A Real Democracy is not a 'Business'. A Real Democracy is a Government that needs to be 'governed' according to the basic, underlying, principle of Freedom and Equality of all the 'Real Individuals' at the Bottom of Government. That 'basic principle' excludes the 'business mentality' of doing only what produces a Profit. Governing is not for the purpose of profits; but, for the purpose of establishing a 'form of Government' and 'social Institutions' that protect and defend the 'Freedom and Equality' of all 'real Individuals'. Excuse my use of the term 'Real', but we have 'locked ourselves' into a 'frame of mind' where it becomes important to distinguish the 'Real' from the 'Fictional'. Real Individuals do not live and function in 'Alice in Wonderland'. If a corporation , or a 'fictional business entity', is 'unreal', so is the 'end result' of 'corporate activity'.( that would be 'money' or 'Profits' and 'money' is a Fiction) Obviously, Democracy cannot be 'operated' on a Profits motor. It only functions on a motor of Freedom and Equality. The 'economy' is absolutely necessary, but its 'activities' are 'separate' from the 'activities of Governing' a Democratic form of Government. When 'governing' becomes a 'business', it will effect the International sphere of Governments also. Once the 'political nature' of a Nation's Government is 'dismantled', the 'Freedom and Equality' of the 'real' Individuals in that Nation goes out the window. We need 'Real Politicians', not the 1% mentality.

Democracy cannot survive without 'the People' and an 'Objective' Judicial Branch.

Real Democracy cannot survive without Three Objective Branches of Government. A Democracy needs Three Branches because the Top will house Institutional Power; the Bottom will house the People; and the Third and Judicial Branch will settle Legal Issues involving the Constitution. The major Branch is the Branch that houses all the 'real Peoples' at the Bottom. Since Democracy is a 'Peoples' Government, the Bottom of government is the most important Branch. 'Everything' emanates from that 'Branch' and every Constitutional Issues relates to the Institutional arrangement of the Social and the economy and the Freedom and Equality of each and every Individual that occupies the Bottom. Without a 'grant of Power' from the bottom; viz, from the People, the 'Institutional Political Top' would be without Power. Hence, all Democratic Governments are dependent on their 'Peoples'. The problematic arises when the 'Peoples' divide-up and form opposing 'Political Parties'; 'factions'; and 'economic enclaves'. Division of the Peoples into 'Select Groupings' is harmful to the Bottom of Government because the Bottom becomes 'weak'. If the Bottom is conceived as a 'condition of togetherness' where the uniqueness of the human condition and the Freedom and Equality of each and every Real Individual is recognized, the 'corporate structures' being 'Legal Fictions', would not be as powerful as they are. Corporations are part of the economy, not part of the Government. The economy needs the corporate structure, but the Fictions are not part of the 'Bottom of Government'. The corporation is created by Government, and they might be conceived, for special purposes, as 'Persons', but Government 'cannot create' more 'real persons'. The artificial can never be 'real'. The Judicial Branch should be Objective and place the 'Legal Fictions' in their proper place; in the economy, and they should not be allowed to 'participate' in Politics. The 'Peoples' cannot be Governed by Legal Fictions, or, the 'end products' of the economy, to wit; a medium of exchange, or, money.

Democracy needs Capitalism; but, Capitalism cannot 'govern'; and Corporations must become 'Democratic'.

A Democracy needs a Capitalistic economy, but Capitalism can never Govern a Democratic 'condition of togetherness'. The 'condition of togetherness' is the best 'characterization' of the 'Individual' living in a Democratic society. It is a 'description' of the 'uniqueness' and 'importance' of the 'humanity' in 'each and every Individual' at the Bottom of Government. No one is left out. In a Democracy the Individual counts. He and she lives in Freedom and Equality. Capitalism is different. It describes an 'economic process' by which 'competition' between 'persons' leads to the 'production' and 'sale' of necessary 'products', technology, food, clothing, etc., for the benefit of the Individual in the 'condition of togetherness'. But, it also 'directly' and 'indirectly', leads to the accumulation of 'wealth' for the 'continuation of the means of production' in the economy, and the accumulation of 'profits' for the 'Individuals', in the 'condition of togetherness'. A problematic arises when Government 'creates' 'Legal Fictions', or artificial persons, known as 'Corporations' and affords them Constitutional protection. Now we have a situation where 'competition' between 'Real living individuals' and 'Artificial Fictions', protected by the Constitution, as such, are in competition with each other. Government creates a 'lop sided economy'. That's how we became a 'Corporate Society'. A real Individual can never compete with an Artificial Person called a Corporation. The issue is then, how can the lopsided economy be 'corrected'? Of course, we cannot do away with the Corporate Structure. But, since Government 'creates them', why can't Government require that these 'artificial Persons' also be required to 'function' as 'Democratic Institutions'? They are 'not real', they can pay 'more taxes' to 'offset' the 'artificial advantage' and the increased 'economic grasp' of the corporate structure, that Government gives them, and which 'real Persons' do not have. The economic grasp of a Corporation and that of a real Individual is 'not equal', so why should the 'tax obligations' be equal? If we are to be characterized as a 'Corporate society' why can't we be characterized as a 'Democratic Corporate Society', one that 'respects and defends' the Freedom and Equality of 'every Person', including the 'real Individual'? Where are the 'real Politicians'?

When an 'Economy' takes over a 'Democracy', Freedom and Equality 'go out the window.'

When an 'Economy'takes over a Democracy, Freedom and Equality of the Individual, goes out the window. Individuals no longer 'count' in the 'act of Governing'. Economies are driven by 'profits' and 'Largeness'. Economies are quantified and hence can be measured as to 'a large economy', a 'successful economy', etc., and the 'end goal' always seems to be 'more and more of the same', or Profits. The 'Governed' and the Freedom and Equality of the real Individual becomes 'secondary' and only the 'movements of money' become important. As a result, the 'corporate society', and its Capitalistic motor becomes the 'primary concern'. Real Democracy becomes weak an effete and 'legal fictions' become the 'dominant factors' of success or failure, in the 'substituted' act of Government. The 1% overwhelms the 99% and the 'real' Individuals are reduced to 'living in Alice in Wonderland'. The 'real' becomes artificial and the artificial, becomes 'real'. How sad. Capitalism becomes 'dominant' in a Nation that recognizes and respects 'Freedom and Equality' of the Individual, but then, 'greed' monopolizes the 'corporate society' and renders humanity 'inconsequential'. In a real Democracy, the Freedom and equality of the real Individual is controlling. The economy is also important but assumes it proper place in economic institutions and remains aloof of Government. The economy remains an important factor in the Society, but it does not assume primary importance in the act of Governing. An economy cannot Govern; as a Government cannot produce Profits, or, 'more and more of the same'. In other words, a democratic Government has 'an economy', but, 'an economy' can never 'govern' a 'Democratic Government'. A Democratic Government 'protects and defends' the Freedom and Equality of every Individual.

A Real Democracy requires a Real Politics.

A Real Democracy requires a Real Politics. 'Politics' is essential to the democratic process because 'politics' involves the relation of the Top of Government to the Bottom of Government, or the 'Top' to the 'Bottom', or the 'Bottom' to the 'Top'. Of course, the Top houses Power and the Bottom houses 'the People' who are to be governed. In a Democracy, the People at the Bottom vote for the 'Representatives' who are to serve as 'Office Holders'. In order for the People to vote for a candidate, they must be familiar with the 'qualifications' of the candidate and his or her involvement with the 'democratic spirit', and the 'democratic process'. Most 'states-persons', always set-out the 'programs' they claim they will 'establish', and the 'corrections' to be made in the existing 'polity'. In an existing 'social', permeated by an empty, vacuous, 'political correctness', a candidate must establish the 'contents of a 'real transformation' of policy and not become a victim to the existing 'political correctness'. In such cases, the issue is always, how will the 'political correctness', be 'transformed' into a 'real Political solution'. 'Novel political issues' creep into the picture, and its at this juncture, where it becomes important to 'really understand' that the solution to an empty political correctness must be a 'political solution' and not an easy 'economic solution'. A candidate cannot 'buy votes'. A political candidate's 'Political Program' must be based on 'political issues'. This is vital to a democracy. Of course, 'economic issues' may be involved in 'political issues' but, Democracies do not 'function' with 'economic principles'; Democracy is not motored by 'money' and 'profits'. To be sure, economic principles do operate in 'all forms' of Governments. But, the concern with the welfare of the 'Bottom of Democracy' is the 'Freedom and Equality' of every Individual at the Bottom; Democracy is Government "of the People"; "by the People"; and "for the People". Plutocracy is government by the 'Rich'; Oligarchy is Government by the 'few'; Dictatorship is government by 'One'. Democratic Government is not a Business; it cannot be governed by business Principles; Real Democracy is not 'motored' by money, profits, business corporations, businessmen, nor with a 'business attitude'. Democracy is not 'for Profits', Democracy is for the 'Freedom and Equality' of 'every real Individual' at the Bottom.

A Real Democracy cannot persist without Real Freedom and Equality.

A Real Democracy cannot persist without Real Freedom and Equality. However, the equation of 'Government' sets up a real problem. The problem is that the Bottom of Government i.e., the People, must also appreciate and understand the Democratic form of Government. In other words, a democracy cannot be motored by any other governing principle than the Freedom and Equality of the People at the Bottom of Government. That gives rise to the Voting process. The most pernicious and subtle 'substitute' for a true 'governing principle' is an 'economic principle'. In different words, 'money', 'economic classes', 'have & have-nots', or the so-called 'corporate society'. The 'motor' for a corporate society, 'legislates' and 'protects' its corporate nature; not the Freedom and Equality of the 'real Individual'. Some will say, why do you call Individuals 'real' when everyone already knows that 'all Individuals' are 'real'? Well, why do you call corporations 'persons', when you know they are 'not real' like you and I? When you or I violate a Law, we can go to jail. You cannot put a Corporation in jail. Corporations are 'persons' only in 'legal jargon' that states that they are 'Persons' only in "contemplation of Law". In other words, they are Fictions. They are 'not real', so why can a corporation 'contribute' money to the 'voting process', and not contribute to 'Freedom and Equality' in a 'real democracy'? Real Democracy has become 'overcome' by an economic principle. The 'corporate nature' of society has overwhelmed the real democracy in which we live, or, stated differently, the true 'condition of togetherness' in which the 'real individuals','living next to each other', at the Bottom of Government, live. How sad, politicians cannot 'handle Power'; the 'political Power' they acquire, from the People, in a Democracy, is exercised 'selfishly', instead of 'democratically'. They slowly erode the political principle of democracy and, in its 'place', they situate an economic principle, that I assure you, will 'awaken' the 'International sphere' of Governing. Can you 'picture to yourself', a 'Globe', or 'Earth', striving to exist on an 'economic principle', a principle 'motored by Profits'? Where are the 'States-persons'?

Government is a necessity; Representative Government is a necessity; being "Politically correct", is politically Objective, not Selfish.

Government is necessary to a 'condition of togetherness'. A 'condition of togetherness' consists of many 'real Individuals', or human beings, living together, 'side by side', 'next to each other'. That 'condition' requires real Individuals to 'represent' the 'condition' as a whole. That's why we call it Representative Government. Representative Government is necessary because Government is an Institution required by the 'condition of togetherness'. A Government is not necessary to one lone Individual living on an Island. However, 'to Represent' requires 'political Power' in the Representative and 'political power' means Power over the 'body politic'; its not Power over Individuals, its Institutional Power over an Institution and that means that 'personal self-interest' is not included in the exercise of political power. The exercise of Institutional Power requires a 'working' and 'functional knowledge' of the Institution as a whole. That's where so-called 'political correctness' comes in. The term as it is currently used, is empty, vacuous, hallow, and insubstantial. Its not accompanied with concrete suggestions of the Institutional changes being brought about, if any. In other words, the talk is 'empty', and real political talk demands 'real changes' in the institutional make-up of the Bottom. But, these changes are not for the sole benefit of the Representative,( himself or herself), nor are they for the sole benefit of any 'one sector' of the Body-Politic. They benefit the whole 'condition of togetherness', and not just 'specific Races' (White), or 'specific economic groups'( the 1%, or, the Legal Fictions called 'Corporations'). That's 'selfish', and not 'political'. Political activity is 'objective', personal activity, can be objective, but in most cases, is 'selfish'. How sad. Politicians cannot handle Political Power. They do not understand political Power. They think they, as individual human beings, are 'powerful', when, in fact, they function only as 'Representatives', and only for their duration as 'Representatives': which, thanks to a Democratic Polity, is not very long.

Plutocracy at the Democratic White House.

Plutocratic principles cannot drive a Democracy. Democracy is driven by the democratic principles of Freedom and Equality. A Government that is not driven by Freedom and Equality is 'transformed' into an economic institution that can only be driven by Profits. How sad; an Institution for the sole purpose of Governing is transformed into an Institution for Profits; an Institution for 'more and more of the same. There is no Freedom and Equality in an economic Institution driven by Profits. The essence of a 'condition of togetherness'( the Bottom of Government) is the uniqueness of each and every 'real' Individual at the Bottom of Government. The 'real people' at the Bottom are the ones who transfer and 'clothe' the institution of the 'Top' with 'political power'. Without that transfer of Political Power, the Top is merely 'the Top'; an empty vacuous, 'political' Institution'. In such a case, the Top is 'empty', 'powerless', and does not have the power to 'Govern'. Hence, a Plutocracy cannot govern and should 'not have power' to Govern. That was the reason why the so-called, "Divine Right of Kings" form of Government was instituted. They needed some source of Power. So, they reached to the very Top. The fact is that there is no 'Divine Right', nor is their an 'economic right', i.e., a 'right' based on an 'economic fiction' called "money", ( more and more of the same) which happens to be 'cumulative', and which should be a 'medium of exchange', and which is 'equally vacuous'. A huge 'shift' from going to the very Top ( "God made me do it") to going to the very 'Bottom', for the wrong reasons, ('I have more than you have'). If Plutocracy is 'alive and well' at the White house, democracy is dead. If democracy is still 'alive and well', the People need to 'speak up', and the Media needs to emphasize that we live in a democracy, where real Statesmen protect the Freedom and Equality of the People at the Bottom of Government. The People do not need more 'deals', they need more Freedom and Equality.

The "Social Contract" no longer exists; What does exist is "power" at the Top and 'real Individuals' and 'Legal Fictions' at the Bottom.

The "Social Contract" does not exist. The term Social is so general and abstract that it does not even begin to include all the real Individuals at the Bottom of Government. Abstract terms can be so vacuous that they become unmanageable. If anyone asked, "should the term 'social' in 'Social Contract' include every single 'real' Individual at the Bottom of Government, the answer would have to be "yes", but; we still have a 'semblance' of the 'racial problem' and we have a huge 'economic problem', in the form of the 1% and the 99%. So, what happened to the Social Contract? To begin with, only 'real Individuals' can be said to be able to enter into a contract. So, why do we include Corporations( legal fictions), and protect them as if they were real, in the Social Contract, and why do we include them as "Persons" in the sense of 'contributing' to economic activity by 'participating' in politics? Law does not even recognized them as 'real', yet, Citizens United considers them 'Persons' and entitles them to Constitutional protection, as such. The proper manner to consider the 'Bottom' is to consider it as 'constituted' as a 'condition of togetherness', formed by real Individuals, and not as a 'vacuous Social'. This way, all real Individuals retain their human uniqueness and are 'counted' as 'individual elements' forming a 'condition of togetherness', which permits every real Individual to be 'counted'.This is one way to 'quantify' democracy. Corporations can be protected, but should not be considered as constituting 'Persons' entitling them to the same 'Constitutional Rights' as real persons. How sad. Economic principles have usurped the 'political principles' of Freedom and Equality by creating imbalances in the economy. Money has taken over Politics and the principles of Freedom and Equality. Greed drives our Democracy; or should I say, our Plutocracy.

The Top knows it must govern democratically; the Bottom does not know what democracy is.

The Top knows it must Govern Democratically; the Bottom, unfortunately, does not know what democracy is. The Top has a duty, as a Democratic form of Government, to Govern in a democratic manner. But, it does not always do that because it has substituted an 'economic principle' as its 'motor' and has created 'artificial' human 'persons', known as 'Corporations', which have eliminated 'real' competition between 'real' Individuals. No Individual can compete, in economic activity, with a Corporation. Hence, the economy is generated in a Lop-Sided and 'unbalanced' manner. The problematic occurs when Government is then controlled by 'money', and 'economic classes', instead of a political principal of Freedom and Equality. Be careful, I'm not saying to eliminate 'corporations', I'm saying don't govern with an 'economic principle'. That gives rise to the problematic of the Bottom. Remember, the Top of Government is 'operated' and 'run' by Individuals, 'real Individuals', as Representatives of the People. The Bottom has become fixated with 'money', the Forbes List, and the 1%. The Bottom is too attached to 'more and more of the same', as a governing principle, and thereby, cuts off the Freedom and Equality it is entitled too. It does not understand what 'real democracy' is. The Bottom needs to appreciate the 'Freedom and Equality' assured by a Democratic form of Government. After all, it is they who elect the Representatives. If we study Elections, we discover that in most cases the election becomes a contest between the 'Haves and the Have-nots'. In todays elections, the contest is not between 'democratic ideals', nor is 'democratic language' being used, its the language of a bar-room brawl, and, unfortunately, a contest between the "haves and the have-nots". Sometimes, when the People, or, the Bottom speaks, or when they vote, the result is not always democratic. How sad. Political manipulation is alive and well.

Democracy's sole duty is to Govern; Capitalism's sole duty is to create 'more and more of the same'; to wit, Profits.

Democracy is a form of Government whose sole duty is to Govern; it is driven by Freedom and Equality. Capitalism is an economic form of competition: it is driven by a medium of exchange, namely, money or profits. Government just governs; Capitalism, being driven by Profits, produces more and more of the same. In order to do that, it needs an abstract 'medium of exchange', namely, money. Money is an abstract 'fiction', printed on a worthless piece of paper. Nevertheless, without a medium of exchange, there can be no competition. Competition leads to accumulation. If the medium of exchange is hoarded and not kept in circulation, the end result will be a 1% and a 99%. That's a Plutocracy or an Oligarchy, but, its not a Democracy. How did that happen? Simply, Individuals who should be driven by Freedom and Equality become driven by money. The People have substituted an 'economic result' or 'goal' in place of a political, or 'democratic goal'. Democratic goals or democratic values, to wit; Freedom and Equality, apply to 'real' Individuals or persons. Government creates the 'corporate structure'. It calls them 'Corporations' and requires that they be organized under Law, i.e. as 'legal entities', which are recognized legally as 'Legal Fictions'. As such, the Courts have held that corporations are to be considered as 'Persons', subject to protection by the Federal Constitution. In other words the Fiction, or, the 'non-existent' has become 'Real' and is now subject to Constitutional protection as you and I. Under Citizens United, they can now contribute corporate money to political campaigns. The result is that 'artificial Persons' can now engage in politics more efficiently than a 'real human being'. Is it any wonder that the Nation has become more Capitalistic than Democratic. The irony is that behind every 'corporate fiction' lurks real Individuals who are benefiting from the huge 'Economic Grasp' of the corporation. Those real Individuals are protected by a "corporate veil" that keeps out Legal penetration. In most cases, that is the 1%. There are many rules or laws that protect the penetration of the "corporate veil. The 'artificial' becomes economically strong and powerful, while the real People at the Bottom struggle for jobs, wages, homes, and a 'decent life'. How sad, we are created Free and Equal and we must live in a 'condition of togetherness' that emphasizes 'greed' and the 'artificial'.

The necessity of Democratic Government should be obvious to everyone.

The 'necessity' of Government should be obvious to everyone. The only issue to be asked is, "what type of Government"? That answer should also be obvious. No one Individual has the power or authority to 'govern' another. One Individual living alone on an Island does not need the Institution of Government. If the population on the Island increases to thousands or millions, then there had better be a Government, or all would be chaos. Then the issue of 'what kind of Government' arises, and also the issue of what "type" would be acceptable to the 'condition of togetherness'. In a 'condition of togetherness'; the Individual never loses his 'Individual Freedom' and 'Individual Equality' as a living Human Being. That 'Term'( 'condition of togetherness') differs from terms like "the Social" or "Society"; which terms have become 'too abstract' and, whether intentionally or not, always tend to leave out certain "races", "colors" or "Creeds". The 'condition of togetherness', instead 'clarifies' the 'uniqueness' and the 'Equality' of all living human beings. Government becomes necessary; but only a Government that 'protects and defends' the 'Freedom and Equality' of all its Citizens. An Individual citizen is Free and Equal and each Individual must have the 'authority' to participate in the 'organization' and 'structuring', if she or he wishes, of the Institution called 'Government'. Only a Democratic form of Government has the 'authority' and 'permission' from 'its People'; to Govern its particular 'condition of togetherness'. That 'form' of Government must be founded on the provisions set forth in the Constitution of the United states.

Government is necessary; Capitalism is necessary; but never shall the twain meet.

Government is necessary and Capitalism is also necessary. However, the two systems are motored and motivated differently. Government must 'govern' the 'condition of togetherness', and Capitalism must generate 'money', or value, for a successful economy. 'Freedom and Equality' hold the 'condition of togetherness' in a state of 'Integrity', and Capitalism generates 'money', a 'medium of exchange', that allows 'value' to be 'held' and 'used' for a 'standard of living'. A medium of exchange must 'circulate' if its to have maximum utility. It cannot be held in the Ratio of the 1% and the 99%. An Individual living in a 'condition of togetherness' can hold money and can use it to provide for his or her standard of living. But, 'governing' cannot be 'implemented' or 'take place' by means of Capitalistic principles; nor can Capitalism be implemented by Democratic principles. In other words, 'Governing' and Government cannot be based on the amount of 'money or possessions' held by any 'Representative' or candidate for office. That's too close to Plutocracy,( Rule by the rich and wealthy), not Democracy. How strange our Government is purportedly Democratic, but our 'economic lives' are 'Plutocratic'. In the same way, Capitalism cannot be based on 'Freedom and Equality', because that would eliminate the 'competition' that generates "profits". Capitalism is basically a 'greedy pursuit' that must generate 'more and more' of 'the same', or profits, because nobody goes into business to lose money. Without the pursuit for profits, there would not be any motivation to go into business. That is the sole basic motivation for going into business. On the other hand, Democracy is not about profits , but about Freedom and Equality of each and every human being in the 'condition of togetherness'; and the Governments duty is to integrate and solidify the 'Integrity' of the 'condition'. The generation of Wealth has absolutely nothing to do with the 'power to Govern'; and the power to Govern is never for the purpose of making a big or a bigger profit. A business mentality 'cannot govern'; and a Government is for the sole purpose of 'protecting and preserving' the Freedom and Equality of each and every Individual in the Social. Government and Capitalism are both necessary, but never shall the twain meet. We must learn to keep them separate.

Democracy is a form of Government; Capitalism is a form of economics.

Democracy is a form of Government; Capitalism is a form of economics. Democracy is motored by Freedom and Equality; and economics is motored by Profits; and never should the twain meet. Neither belongs in the same 'bowl'. They cannot be mixed with each other and each will always retain its identity. Of course, they can 'work together', but, they cannot be 'co-mingled'. Their separate nature can be, and is, problematic. Institutionally, its not difficult to separate the two. However, the 'co-mingling' that arises occurs at the 'Bottom of Government', within the 'condition of togetherness'. That co-mingling is transferred into the political system and contaminates it 'into' a Plutocracy; an Autocracy( Kingship or Dictatorship),or an Oligarchical form of Government. No combination of the two can be 'democratic'. So how can this misuse of 'profits' be eliminated or controlled. Unfortunately, it cannot be eliminated. Money is essential to the function of Government( Its called Taxation.), and real Individuals are entitled to work for their 'General Welfare' as well as for the Welfare of their Nation. But, wait a minute, it can be controlled. So where do we exert that 'control? Certainly not on the 'real human beings' trying to earn a living. However, we do have in the economy 'legal fictions', which are 'not real' individuals, and which have been created by Law. If 'Law' has created them; Law must also have control over its Legal Fictions. It would be ludicrous, if Law could not control, the very 'artificial persons' it has created. How can the Law of a Nation create an 'artificial person' and allow that 'fiction' to destroy the very Nation that created it? Real Individuals live in a Democracy where each and every one of them is Free and Equal. A corporation is 'not real' and should not be allowed to contaminate a real democracy. Corporations need less Rights and more Democratic Duties.

Democratic Government needs Capitalism; but, Capitalism cannot govern a Democracy.

Democratic Government needs Capitalism; but, Capitalism cannot govern a Democracy. The reason being that Government is motored by Freedom and Equality; and Capitalism is motored by profits. That is clear. However, many Individuals living in a Democracy usurp their Freedom and Equality and replace Democratic values with economic values; usually with money and possessions. Too often Individuals living in a Democracy misplace their political loyalties and values with Capitalistic values. Money and possessions are fine and necessary, to an extent, but they can never replace the values of a Democracy and economic values should never attain to the the degree that the economy is divided into the 1% and the 99%. That can be translated into "haves and have-nots". Unfortunately, Corporate profits play a large part in creating this huge imbalance. Even though corporations are necessary to a successful economy, they are "legal fictions" and should not have 'all' the same 'Rights' that a real Individual has under the Constitution. Nevertheless, if its necessary to protect their 'existence' by calling them "persons", under the 14th Amendment, its also necessary that they have Duties and Obligations commensurate with their 'fictional nature'. In other words, Corporations should be Constitutionally obligated to contribute to the Democratic Government, as well as the 'condition of togetherness', (the Social), that gave them their 'arising' and 'protection'. 'Economic Obesity' must be controlled; especially, in the area that allows 'hoarding' of the 'means of production'. The 'means of production' should circulate; and the circulation should augment the same 'democratic values' that allowed for their 'creation' as well as those values which characterize a real Democratic society.

The 'power' to Govern 'arises' from a 'real Democracy'; not from the 'results' of a 'successful economy'.

Governing requires Power; power 'must arise' from the democratic nature of a real 'condition of togetherness'. Power should not be related to economic principles. Stated differently; Power is not some 'inherent quality' in the economy; its not about 'money and possessions'. As important as a successful economy is, it does not determine the 'inherent Power' of a Democratic, 'condition of togetherness', to govern itself. The reason for that is that a successful economy is motored by 'profits', money, more and more, of the 'same'. Its 'cumulative' in nature. Democracy is motored by 'Freedom and Equality' of 'each and every' Individual in the 'condition of togetherness'. The essence of Power is based on its application to 'each and every' real Individual in the 'condition of togetherness'. Freedom and Equality applies to 'every' real Individual; not to some 'abstract', 'vacuous', 'generality', about the 'condition of togetherness'. The 'condition of togetherness' retains the 'uniqueness', of each and every Individual in the 'condition'. The Individual does 'not get lost' in the 'abstractness' of the condition, as it does in linguistic terms like 'Society', 'Social', etc.. That's exactly how terms like 'Socialism' had their arising. The term 'Socialism' is an oxymoron; a 'social' cannot be governed; only 'Individuals' can be governed. If any 'real Individual' is left out of a 'proper governing' process, then, that would be discrimination. If 'we discriminate'; its time we stopped. All we have to do is look at our 'past footprints' to see 'where we've been' to determine 'where to go'. A Nation must learn from its past. Failure to consider the past can lead to 'self-destruction'. How sad; we create a real political 'Locus of Power', and then we switch our allegiance to a 'cumulative fiction'.

Government is essential to the 'condition of togetherness', but; Government must govern the 'real individual'.

Government is essential to the 'condition of togetherness. But 'Government' and its functions can very easily be misunderstood and misconstrued. "To Govern" means to 'order', 'structure', and 'guide', on a daily basis, the 'condition of togetherness', in its governmental functions. Government is a 'guide' not a 'rule'. It passes 'Laws' to structure the movements of the populace and its Institutions. Of course, that includes the 'economy' and its Institutions, as well as the Institutions of Religion and of the so-called 'Social'. Government must govern the 'condition of togetherness. It has no other function. As we've said before, one man, maybe even two men, on an Island, do not need Government. They may need Morals, rules of behavior, but they do not need Government, nor Laws. But, unlike the 'term' "the social", the term the 'condition of togetherness' retains the 'Individuality' of each person. The Individual does not blend into some nebulous 'abstract term' devoid of 'the reality of each and every human being' constituting the 'condition'. As such, Government governs the 'real individual', not the 'social', in all its abstract, surreal, nebulous, manifestations. In other words, Government governs 'real People', not 'nebulous abstractions'. Its very easy to fool ourselves into believing the 'words', and ignoring the reality. We must also be very careful not to confuse the 'terms' of government with the terms of the economy. Government is 'motored' by 'Freedom and Equality', and the economy, is 'motored' by profits. Today, it appears, that even 'politics' is in danger. When politicians conduct a campaign according to the unwritten rules of a 'bar-room brawl', and 'personality assassination', Democracy is in trouble. Where are the 'Governors'; the 'States-persons'; where is 'real' Democracy?

What does 'Politically correct' really mean?

What does "politically correct" really mean. Today, obviously, the term is being thrown around as if being 'political' is, in itself, inappropriate. The problem with the term is that it is used in an 'empty vacuous' manner. In other words the term is used only as 'words' free-floating in social space and completely unfounded in the 'real level' of the social. Its empty talk that is designed to persuade, but that has no foundation in reality. That's the 'political correctness' that must be remedied. A real political 'program' or 'suggestion' must accompany any political suggestions about, for example, Freedom and Equality, and the 'empty terms' should not be allowed to free-float in empty social space. If 'racial discrimination' exists, it must be corrected. If 'economic discrimination' exists, it must be corrected with a 'real program' for improvement. Today 'some politicians' condemn 'political correctness' and apparently do not understand what the term means. That is obvious because the opposite of political correctness, to them, seems to mean 'economically correct', which just focuses on 'more of the same',or, promises of more money. Apparently, they do not have a real 'political vocabulary'. They, admittedly, are not political at all, and yet purport to 'correct' the political situations that need to be improved. A 1% er, running for office is motored by the economy, and money, and usually, has no political motives, for seeking office. Just listen to the terms being used and you will hear the 'language of the economy'. The Nation and the social cannot be nourished by money or the economy. What becomes necessary is 'real' political language; the language of democracy; a language that helps the Nation and the social to become more 'integrated', and more 'social'. Show me the 'meat'; the programs; the 'institutions; the elimination of all the 'faults' that still exist in our social. Show me, 'real' Freedom, and 'real' Equality. That's 'real' politics.

Lets face it; Democracy is not perfect, but its preferable to any other form of Government.

Democracy is not perfect, but neither is any other form of Government. Nevertheless, Democracy is Government "of the People", "by the People" and "for the People". No other form of government gives 'the People' at the Bottom of Government, the privilege of 'ascending' to the 'pinnacle of Power'. Its the 'Peoples Government'. However, great care must be exercised in designing the means by which any one Individual may ascend to power. Of course, a Government is as 'proper', practical, and 'Just', as the People who 'run' it. Some Individuals believe the 'vocabulary' of Government and, of elections, has lost its efficacy. That may be the case, but that vocabulary cannot be 're-established' from the terms and vocabulary of the economy. There's a reason for that; it being, that the economy runs on 'profits', and not on 'political' principles of Freedom and Equality. Freedom and Equality of the Individual, 'organizes' and 'structures' the 'condition of togetherness' that the Peoples live in. That 'condition of togetherness' is a National condition, not a State or 'local condition'. Democracy is not a State or local function only. Its National in scope and totally inclusive. To assume that States have a 'privilege' to set up there own Government is O.K., but a State cannot set up a Dictatorship form of Government. The reason for that is that the U.S. Constitution governs the 'condition of togetherness on a National scale. States must also comply, and not be antagonistic, to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States. A Democratic form of Government, governs the whole Nation, and all the States must also comply. A Democracy depends on 'its People'; other forms of Government depend on 'their Ruler'.

In a Democracy, the term 'Socialism" is an oxymoron.

In a Democracy, the term 'Socialism" is an oxymoron. Simply, a Democracy is Government, "of the People", "by the People", and "for the People". The essence of democracy is "People", real People. Democratic government 'governs' the 'Bottom' of the structure of Three Branch Government. It governs Individuals, not a 'whole block of thousands or millions of Individuals' living next to each Other, in the 'collective condition' called the 'social'. The term, 'social', is a 'very general abstract' term that includes the whole 'condition of togetherness'. Government cannot govern such a 'unit' in 'all' its 'particulars'. That is not real Government. In a democratic 'condition of togetherness', the individuals constituting such a 'condition' do not lose their 'Individuality' by being in the 'condition'. Hence, the abstract term 'Socialism', in a democracy, is an oxymoron. Government, in a democracy, 'governs' each, and every, Individual in the 'condition of togetherness', and should not 'exclude' any Individual, or 'group of Individuals', based on Race, Color, or Creed, economic status, or any other 'individual characteristic'. It should not consider the 'corporate nature', as if it was a 'real' person, nor should such a 'fictitious Person' be allowed to 'participate' in politics. The economy is separate from 'politics' and the 'condition of togetherness'. Government must help the 'real Individuals' that need help; the economy functions with a different 'motor', and never shall the twain meet. Government is not being 'Socialistic', if it helps the Individual, it is being Democratic. If Government cannot help the Individuals that 'established it', it is not doing its job as a 'Governor'. A 'condition of togetherness' that does not 'continue to grow' and to 'benefit from its condition', will soon deconstruct. How sad, we create 'economic monsters' and now they turn on us. They need to be 'controlled', and Politicians need to be 'reined in'.

Capitalism can endanger Democracy.

Capitalism can endanger Democracy. The Democratic political form is a Three Branch form that 'allows' the 'People' at the Bottom of Government to participate in politics. Democracy is motored by the 'Freedom and Equality' of 'each' and 'every' Individual at the Bottom of Government. Democracy insures that each and every Individual is Free and Equal. Freedom and Equality motors the Democratic spirit. Capitalism is the 'form' taken by the economy. The economy is an 'essential part' of the social in a democracy. But, the economy and Capitalism is driven by 'profits'. No economic institution can survive in Capitalism if its not making a 'profit'. Consequently, there is a huge difference in the spirit of Democracy and the spirit of Capitalism. The spirit of Capitalism cannot 'drive' a democratic society. Only, the 'values' of a democratic government can drive a 'democracy'. Its a terrible mistake to use an 'economic standard' to 'drive' democratic 'politics'. 'Profits' or 'money' cannot drive Democracy. Don't misunderstand this last statement. To be sure a Democracy has a duty to provide for the welfare and well being of its People; and that includes; jobs, fair wages, medical care, etc., or what is Constitutionally known as the 'General Welfare', which includes economic welfare. But, 'democratic politics' should not just focus on profits, and money; they drive the economy, not democracy. Democracy is driven by 'Freedom and Equality'; Capitalism is driven by profits; and never shall the twain meet. To be sure, both Institutions are important, but don't confuse the two; their 'motors' are different. Plutocracies and Oligarchies are driven by profits. Democracy is driven by the Freedom and Equality of every Individual at the Bottom of Government.

Freedom and Equality are human values.Democracy is Government,"of People", "by People" and "for People".

The Freedom and the Equality of every Individual must be protected in a Democracy. Democracy is a Government "of People", "by People" and "for the People". Governments would not exist but "for the People". The People themselves 'establish the Government' along Constitutional requirements. Governments cannot exist if there are no People to govern. Two Individuals on an Island need to 'live and work together'; 'respect each Other'; 'get along with each Other'; but, each one is Free and Equal. No Individual, regardless of Race, Color, or Creed, is 'lesser' than Another. One or Two Individuals on an Island do not need a Government. When the 'condition of togetherness' increases into the 'Many', or into thousands and millions, then the 'condition' needs Government. But, Government, which would not even exist, but for the size of the 'Condition of togetherness', has a 'legal obligation' to protect and preserve the 'Freedom' and 'Equality' of 'each' and 'every' Individual in the 'condition of togetherness'. Of course, there are many different types of Government; but all Governments 'should Preserve and Protect' the Freedom and Equality of every Individual within its Jurisdiction. Even an Autocracy or a Dictatorship should respect the 'human condition', and some do. But, the Democratic form of Government has a 'duty' to Protect and Preserve the Freedom and Equality of all Individuals. Its 'very constitution' is 'based' and 'founded' on the many 'Peoples' who are to be governed. The 'principle of Life' is inseparable from the 'human condition', but Governments are political 'Institutions' that have been 'established' by 'human beings'. Governments assume many different 'forms', but all are 'secondary' to the 'human condition'. Freedom and Equality are 'human values', inherent in the 'act of living', while Governments are 'political Institutions' with Power, but 'secondary' to the Human condition.

The biggest 'linguistic sins', circulating in a Democracy, are the 'Legal Fictions' considered necessary.

Legal fictions, to some extent, are necessary. However, we cannot disregard their 'reach', nor the inevitable damage they can create. Fictions are artificial contrivances that do not 'really' exist. They occupy 'spaces' in 'reality' which have no 'real' foundation. Usually, they are high level, linguistic abstractions that 'free-float' in 'social space'. A corporation exists as a high level abstraction, but not as a 'real person'. 'Money' is another fiction. Necessary? absolutely, otherwise we would not have a 'medium of exchange'. A medium of exchange is necessary to 'measure' so called 'profits'. Without 'profits there would be no 'personal incentive' to 'create' and provide the 'necessities of life'. The result is the tensions created by 'corporations',( unreal persons), and money,( unreal medium of exchange) between the 'artificial' and the 'real'. Stated differently, 'tensions' between 'real persons' and 'artificial persons', (corporations) and between 'real value' ( land, Gold, Oil?) and 'artificial value', namely a 'medium of exchange'( the Holy Dollar). Are all these fictions necessary? The answer is Yes! So, whats the problem? The problem is that, even as they are necessary,- to hold together the 'condition of togetherness'-, human beings should not be unmindful of the artificiality of linguistic 'fabrications' necessary to hold the integrity of the 'condition of togetherness', as a 'political entity'. That's why Statesmen are necessary. But, the 'human condition' is never deprived of a 'personal integrity' founded on 'real' values of Freedom and Equality. There, an Individual can find 'real personal' values founded on his/her Individuality, as a living human Individual. Those Individuals who want to live in their Nation can do so; those who want to live in their own 'Alice in Wonderland', can also do so. But, give us 'Statesmen', don't govern us, as if, we lived in 'Alice in wonderland'.

In a real Democracy, Party-loyalty is not real Patriotism.

In a real Democracy, Party loyalty is not the same as Patriotism. 'Patriotism' involves a 'political' or an 'ideological' 'posture' which relates to the Nation or the Country as a Whole. Loyalty to the Nation, as a Nation, is a 'holistic' or 'complete act' by the 'condition of togetherness' as a whole, and, by Individuals who purport to Represent the Nation. Any Representative who purports to be loyal or patriotic to the Nation, must occupy a political position that involves the Nation as a whole. He or she cannot divide the 'patriotism' into Democratic or Republican. Its the People who have separated into different 'camps', and then, have divided the 'Ideology'. You are either 'Patriotic'; or 'Loyal', to the 'Nation', or 'Not'. Being Democrat or Republican does not identify a Patriot. Unfortunately, it merely relates to how the Individual Representative wants to 'play' the 'political game'. Equally unfortunate, the 'People' become victims of the language they use and fall prey to 'Ideological blindness' and ideological 'gamesmanship'. Political Ideologies and 'Party-loyalties' divides the political Power of the People. We need more 'guidelines' for the Representatives who wish to represent the People in the 'Offices' of the Nation. The People do not have to change; its the 'Individuals' who purport to Represent the People in a Democracy that need to change. They need more 'humanity' and less 'political Ideology'.

Democratic Politics, as being practiced today, needs to be 'cleaned-up'.

Democratic Politics, as being practiced today, needs to be expurgated. The Language of politics could use a thorough 'cleansing' of the so-called 'terms' being used today and the so-called 'political language' being used in campaigns today. Its completely 'obstructionist' to merely allude to 'personality traits', 'sexual escapades' as a condemnation of 'Other' candidates. Of course 'character' is important in seeking political Office, but more important is the contribution to democracy being suggested by the candidates. The focus of a campaign should be the democratic structure of the society and the 'gaps' and 'lacks' of democracy in the 'arrangements' of the Nation; the arrangements of its Social and Political Institutions. When 'campaign' language focuses on 'personality traits' or 'sexual exploits' to appeal to the 'populace', the campaign becomes more like an x-rated novel than a political campaign. Today, instead of picking up a copy of an x-rated novel, we read the political headlines. Now, lets be clear about this. To be sure, personalities and character are important, but the focus should be on 'political language' and on how candidates are going to 'contribute'; 'establish'; or, 'correct'; the 'democratic values' or the 'visions' of the candidate. Politics is about governing a democracy; and it should not be a 'popularity contest' nor, some kind of 'lurid novel'. A candidate that engages in such 'politicking' does not have political values at heart; he is merely striving for Office. Unfortunately, most Individuals at the 'Bottom' of Three Branch Government, are not in an 'educated position' to 'correctly evaluate', distinguish, and weigh, political language from purely 'antagonistic exchanges' that are not 'democratic' in nature. That's why the standards for political language should be set at the Top and the candidates that are not 'versed' in political language should not become 'politicians'. We need 'States-persons', not 'politicians'. Democracy is about 'governing' the Bottom and establishing 'political Institutions' and 'Social Institutions' in some 'viable democratic manner'. How sad; democracy is self-destructing.

Political candidates and Political Parties need 'guidelines' also.

It's ludicrous to assume that a Political Party will automatically implement Democracy. Since Political divisions always exist within a Democracy, it becomes important to begin setting guidelines for Political Parties. Otherwise, the Party becomes an empty vehicle that can be used for the propagation of non-political and non-democratic practices, ideologies, economies, or 'classes'. That basic process leads to Plutocratic 'thinking', or a Plutocratic social, or just Plutocratic Ideals which lead to the 1%. Of course, it would be great, if the People at the Bottom could exert some control over Party Ideologies, but that is not going to happen. People divide themselves into Groups that eventually become Parties. Each Party has its own Ideology and in most cases, opposes the Ideology of the other Party. Hence, conflict between Parties becomes what we call an "election". If we have learned anything from election 2016, its the fact that the 'electorate' can be influenced by 'common everyday language' that has absolutely nothing to do with a 'real democracy'. But, those who use these 'shifty methods' do not have 'political motives' or 'political goals'. That becomes obvious from 'statements' that the Vice- President selected will be a Politician. What do they really want? Some means, or Agency must be established to weigh the 'sincerity of the Candidates', and their 'intent to implement Democracy', or a 'Constitutional mandate' of some sort. Failing these, 'objective guidelines', ( and they must be Objective), they should not be allowed to 'run' for Office. Of course, great care must be exercised in establishing such an Agency. We have Laws for the Bottom, we need Laws for the Top. Not just any 1%-er can be a candidate; that's 'self-perpetuating'. That's Democracy leading itself into 'self-destruction'; that's 'Plutocracy' transforming into 'Oligarchy', or, into 'Dictatorship'; or into 'Autocracy'. The Bottom of Democracy has Laws; the Top of Democracy needs Laws also. It takes 'selfless' sincerity to guide a Nation "of People", "by People", and "for the People".

Democracy was the 'founding', underlying political theory of Three Branch Government.

Democracy was the 'underlying structure' of Three Branch Government. A 'Democratic form' of Government could only be formed, if the political structure was 'triadic', or, 'triune', in nature. In other words, in a Democracy, all Three Branches have to participate in the 'governing' process. ( each according to its 'function). At the same time all Three Branches have to be 'constituted' from the 'Peoples' who are being governed. Hence, elections became necessary. Without elections, there is no other way of 'getting' the 'People', at the Bottom of Government, to participate in the 'elective' process and to select candidates to ascend to the 'pinnacles of political power'. To be sure, 'political power' is an 'attribute' derived from the 'People', or the 'Bottom' of the governing process. Consequently, elections must be about the 'structure' of the democracy and the 'institutions'; social, political, and legal, that 'hold together', the actual form of the Government. It is also, about what the government can 'do for the democracy', i. e., how can it be 'improved', how can 'racial and 'religious' intolerance, be eliminated; and how can elections be made more 'Just'. When, the electoral process, reduces itself to 'personality attacks', racial slurs, 'Party-loyalty', disputes about Party ideology, or economic classes,( which is the same thing), it is no longer an 'election' based on democratic principles. Lest we forget, Democracies cannot survive on the economic engine of 'profits', nor on the economic principles of 'more and more' of the 'same'. Obviously, that leads to the 1%. That leads to Plutocracy. Only the underlying principle of a Democracy( freedom and equality) can help the 'People' at the Bottom, not the economic principles of the economy, nor an election based on personality attacks and the influence of 'big' money. Democracy is being threatened by the same Individuals that used its Principles to get to where they are.

The largest 'flaw' in the 'Democratic form' of Government is having an ideologically divided Supreme Court.

A Supreme Court in a Democracy, should be Objective. Even though the People might be divided into Political Parties, as are the Representatives, and the President, the Courts are obligated to remove themselves from the division into differing Party Ideologies. Of course, if both Parties were democratic in nature, that would not be problematic. But, is that the case? The Nation, as a form of Government, may be a Republic, but the Nation, as a whole, is a democracy; a Government, "of People"; "By people"; and "for the People". The division into Party Ideologies was prompted by the Republic form of Government. However, a 'democratic form' of Government 'of People' relates to the Nation as a whole. There is no distinction between a Central and a State form of Government when the underlying basis of the Form of the Democracy is 'the People". It time for Representatives, in whatever Office, to understand that they represent 'a People', and not a Government. Although, government Offices and their Representative, 'hold political Power', they 'represent' 'a People' and not an Agency, or, a Government even though it is designed to express the 'will of the People'. Its the 'People Stupid'. Well, the Supreme Court should be Objective and their decisions should reflect the 'democratic Ideology' and not the Party ideology which is divided into Liberal and Conservative. Maybe we should look closer into this 'division', to examine, if the division can also be a division between 'Haves' and 'Have-nots', or, maybe one between 'real People' and 'Legal Fictions', or, even between 'White' and 'Other'? People are never asked, if they want to be born; but, truly, they are very fortunate to be born into a Democracy. Its a shame when a Supreme Court cannot be Objective.

In a Three Branch Government (Triadic): the Top must 'listen'; the Bottom must 'speak'; the ( 'sides') Courts must judge the 'Democratic nature' of the discourse.

In a Triadic form of Government, the Top must 'listen' to the Bottom; the Bottom must 'speak' to the Top; the Courts must judge the Democratic nature of the 'discourse'. The Top is Institutional; the Bottom is real( Individuals are real, not 'corporations' or, legal fictions); and the sides are Institutional. The discourse is a 'genuine discourse' of the status of the democracy. A Government "of People", "by People", and "for People", can only indulge in democratic discourse. That's a 'Democratic politics'. If the dialogue engages other issues e.g. Personality attacks, etc., its not political discourse, and hence; cannot be about the 'democratic nature' of the 'condition of togetherness'. The 'condition of togetherness' is not an Institution; its a 'real condition' of 'real Individuals' living, side by side, 'next to each other'. No Individuals loses his uniqueness, nor his/her autonomy, by living in the 'condition of togetherness'. The 'human condition' is always real, whether existing autonomously, or, in the 'condition of togetherness'. Our 'human condition' is not 'dependent' on any Institution, or Institutional Government. We are real, our Institutions are only 'constructions' that should help the 'real Individual' as s/he exists in a democratic 'condition of togetherness'.( Of course, not all 'conditions of togetherness' are democratic.) Politics is about the 'institutional relation' between the Top and the Bottom of Government. The 'human condition', 'as such', can not be 'Institutionally governed', but, 'every' human being must learn to 'govern', 'his/her self' within the 'established Laws' of a Democratic 'condition of togetherness'. Hence, the Bottom has a 'responsibility' to the Top, and the Top has a 'responsibility' to the Bottom. The 'sides' (Courts or Third Branch) have a responsibility to be Objective in 'Constitutional Interpretation' and must fore-go Party Loyalty in their 'Interpretive Practices'.

Can Democracy, as a Political Institution, be quantified? Yes, it can and must be.

Can a Political Institution be quantified? Yes, it can and it should be. The different Political Institutions are a 'form' of quantification. For example; Autocracies, Dictatorships, and Kingdoms, with absolute Power at the Top, are a 'form of quantification'. All the 'Political Power' is at the Top. Only the Top can 'politic'. In such cases, the Bottom has no say-so. Socialism is an oxymoron. There is no such 'entity' as the 'social', which would include each and every Individual that is being Governed. The term 'Socialism' is very 'abstract' and excludes many of the 'real'Individuals in the 'Totality', of the 'condition of togetherness'. Of course, we must use 'abstractions' in the descriptions of a political Institution. In a Democracy, the situation is different. A democracy is a government 'of the People', 'by the People', and 'for the People'. Of course, these are abstractions also, but every aspect of the 'governing principle' is covered and includes all the 'real' People. Hence, few positions are appointments, most are elective, and the People who are being Governed, are the same ones who are doing the governing. When we say every Individual is Free and Equal, we mean every single Individual. That, is subject to a 'count'. No one should be excluded because of Race, Color, Creed, or economic standing, or 'class'. We have a 'census', we count individuals, and we can determine if anyone has been 'left out'. Democracies can, and must, 'count'; hence, they are 'accountable' to the People. A Democratic Government must 'listen' to its People; and the People must 'speak out' to its Government. The Top and the Bottom, in a democracy, need each other. Of course, the 'motor' of a Democracy is 'Freedom and Equality' of 'each' and 'every' real Individual in the 'condition of togetherness'. I say real Individual because the corporation is also a 'person' within the reach of the 14th Amendment, and hence, the tendency is to include it in all deliberations of democracy. But, the economy is not a Government; its a 'separate and different' Institution. The motor of Capitalism is 'money and profits', not 'Freedom and Equality'. Hence, success, in the economy is 'quantified'. Success in a democracy is 'accountability' and the inclusion of everyone within the 'condition of togetherness'. That 'inclusion' or 'exclusion' can be 'counted'; hence 'accountability', which is a form of 'quantification'.

Democracy is being emasculated by the economic system it created and protected.

Democracy is being emasculated by Capitalism. Normally, a 'successful economy' is a great achievement. But, since the 'political' and the 'economic' are driven by different engines, the two Institutions should not become 'inextricably' merged. Democracy is driven by Freedom and Equality; Capitalism is driven by 'money, the 'means of production', profits, and Legal fictional 'persons' who are protected by the Law of the Land. The creation of 'legal, fictitious persons' was a great 'increase' in the 'economic grasp' of the 'fictional corporation' and gave the corporation tremendous 'power' over its 'personage' and the economy. So called 'Freedom of Competition' by Individuals was rendered effete. Citizens United gave these 'fictitious persons' the right to 'participate' in politics. How sad. The 'Holy Dollar' is destroying Democracy. Most discussions about politics and campaigning is about the Millions required to run a campaign. Democracy must learn to control its economic monsters. The only source of help can only come from Law. Laws can require corporations to become more 'democratic'. Corporations need more 'democratic duties' and failing this, the Corporate Charters that gives them their 'existence' can be modified, or yanked. How can Government have the Power to create corporations and not have the Power to 'control them? Its 'fictional' to believe that once the State creates a Legal Fiction, that it loses its Power to control or to modify the corporate structure. That's ludicrous. A fiction is not real. Hence, it cannot claim the same Constitutional protections afforded the real human beings. However, the Supreme Court saw fit to extend the 'corporate involvement' in its own existence by allowing them to participate in Politics.( Citizens United ) Notice the connection with the Millions required to campaign. That creates a 'distortion' in 'political equilibrium'. It literally creates an 'Alice In Wonderland' in politics and the 1% in the economy. We need Statesmen, not economists.

A condition of togetherness, once formed, immediately divides itself into 'antagonistic groups'.

A condition of togetherness, once formed, immediately divides itself up into 'separate groups'; into 'antagonistic groups'; into Political Parties. That would not be so bad, if the divisions retained their 'democratic nature'. These divisions create problems for the 'condition of togetherness', as 'the condition' attempts to organize itself into a 'political system'. Then, if we add another 'value system' to the 'democratic political system', e.g., the values of an economic system, or, the values of a 'corporate system', we just add to the 'antagonistic nature' of the divisions of the 'condition of togetherness'. In fact, we create the 'problematic'. To be sure, it doesn't have to be that way, but human beings have a difficult time living as 'political Equals', and as 'politically Free', within the 'social'. That's why they divide up into Groups. Of course, the big problem that is injected into the 'political sphere' is the injection of 'economic' or 'corporate values' into the democratic 'condition of togetherness'. The end-result is that Individuals get Greedy and begin to hoard 'money and possessions'. Now, I am not arguing against having money and possessions. We all need them. I am arguing against 'greed' and the 'hoarding' of the means of production by 1% of individuals in the social. Among other things, this factor 'creates' economic classes; creates 'economic imbalances', and creates 'Haves and Have-nots', in the 'condition of togetherness', and has lead to the creation of 'Legal Fictions' or fictitious 'Persons', within the economy to increase the 'economic grasp' of the corporation and, indirectly, to transform a 'political system' into an 'economic system'. We create our own problems, and then we complain about the 1%. We need to keep the 1% out of Politics. Our present political situation demonstrates that some candidates can't even discuss 'political ideology', much less 'democratic ideology'. A politician is not trying to become a 'Representative' of the People, if s/he cannot 'talk politics'. Unfortunately, it seems that only the 'haves' are able to 'run' for Office, but I hope that does not mean that we have to become a Plutocracy. If we can't live 'Free and Equal' in a Democracy, can you imagine what living in a Plutocracy would be like?

The State is a necessity; Capitalism is essential; the People in a 'condition of togetherness' is essential.

A State cannot exist without a 'People'. A people cannot exist without an economy that provides the 'essential necessities' of existence in a 'condition of togetherness'. Without a 'condition of togetherness' a State cannot come into existence. Hence; the State exists only for the purpose of providing for its People. The State has no other reason for existing and cannot be said to have an existence separate and apart from the People. States are not created by nature; nor do they 'acquire' Political Power for any purpose, other than for the Political Institutions provided in a Constitutions. A Constitution 'constitutes' the concept of the State and delineates the 'States structure' and the ramifications of its Power. The State gets its political power from the 'Peoples' who have 'Constituted' it. Capitalism is essential in a 'condition of togetherness; an economy must provide for the necessities of the People; but both, 'Capitalism' and an 'Economy' are separate Institutions from the 'Institution of the State' and its Government. Government can pass Laws to regulate the economy and Capitalism, but Capitalism and an economy have no 'say-so' in governing a People. To be sure, they have a great influence on Politics, but they cannot 'Govern'. The influence of Money and the 1% must be kept separate from the 'duty to Govern' the 'condition of togetherness'. This problematic is not just a 'political problem'; its also a 'People' problem. We've said that the minute a 'condition of togetherness' comes about, the Individuals 'divide themselves' into Groups or factions. For example; Democrats and Republicans. Consider what is happening to the Republican Party today. Its 'self-destructing' and its members are saying they will not 'cross-over' and nominate a 'Democrat'. How 'mindless' and 'senseless' can the so-called, 'cream of the crop', or, 'Candidates', seeking Office get? Its not the 'Party' nor 'Party loyalty' that is important, its the real 'Individuals' in a 'condition of togetherness' that is important. How sad. When a 'condition of togetherness', divides up, it seems to lose its 'humanity'.

Capitalistic values are displacing Democratic values of Freedom and Equality.

The Capitalistic values of 'more and more of the same',viz., profits and money, are displacing the Democratic values of Freedom and Equality. Democratic values cannot be 'driven' by profits, money, and possessions. Democracy can only be driven by the democratic values of Freedom and Equality. Money, possessions, and profits cannot drive democracy; they can only 'drive' Capitalism. Its shameful and sad to think that money, profits, and possessions, or stated differently; the 1%, can drive democracy. The 1% can only produce more of the same, or more money, or, more Capital. The 1% cannot protect Freedom and Equality; the 1% can only destroy the Freedom and Equality that allowed Capitalism to flourish. Without Freedom and Equality, Capitalism would never have been able to survive. It was the Democratic values that allowed it to flourish. So why can't Capitalism be required to protect the very Freedom and Equality that allowed it to flourish. If Freedom and equality are 'abused', the Law 'curtails' their expression. For Example; 'Freedom of speech' does not allow an Individual to cry "fire" in a crowded theater. In the same manner, an Individual in the economy should not be allowed to 'hoard' the medium of exchange, to the point where most of the 'medium' is 'held' by the 1%. A 'medium of exchange' should do 'just that'; it must 'circulate' both 'Governmental' and 'economic values'. 'Rules' and Laws should be established to 'help' the circulation of the 'medium' in the economy. Otherwise, the 'end result' of profits as a 'motor', and, 'if left unchecked', is to generate 'more and more' of the same, or, stated differently, it 'generates Greed'. If Government can create economic Fictions, it can 'establish control' over the cumulative aspect of profits, or, 'that accumulation' called 'Greed'. After all, they are only Fictions; and if they do not comply, yank their Articles of Incorporation. Government must 'solve' that problem; if not, Government will be 'ruled' by Corporations. Its not too late to pass new Laws to 'clean up the economy', or, to curtail Plutocracy.

An economy is necessary to Democracy; but the division into 'haves' and 'have-not's' is not.

An economy is necessary to Democracy, and so is Capitalism, but the further division into 'haves' and 'have-not's' is not 'necessary'. Of course, the motor for Democracy is Freedom and Equality and the motor for Capitalism is profits. But, profits can function without 'Greed'. The accumulation at the Top 1% is not necessary to the 'Capitalistic Spirit'. The cause of that 'accumulation' is two-fold. One, personal Greed, which probably, cannot be overcome, or, at least, becomes a 'personal'matter'. Two, the Other is Institutional and Legal. By now, everyone knows that Corporations are considered as 'persons' withing the grasp of the Fourteenth Amendment. That's not 'too bad', but, the further 'humanization' of the fictional nature of the corporation into 'participants', in their own 'economic process' of 'self-evolution', or, 'self-inflation', i.e. into becoming 'fictional behemoths', in the economy, is certainly something that can be 'institutionally' and 'Legally' controlled. In a Democratic society, the human condition, itself, cannot be 'controlled'; i.e. the personal 'human emotions', and value systems, are not subject to 'control. But, most certainly, a 'Fictional creation', like the corporation, can be controlled. The fictional entities in our social need more democratic duties. If a fictional 'person' can be created, for the sake of giving it more 'economic permanence', more 'focus' and 'greater economic grasp', in the economy, why can't the corporation be given 'democratic duties'? If a corporation is a 'personal fiction', the Government should have more control over the democratic duties of the 'created fiction'. Why should a democratic Government create a 'despot', an Autocrat, a Dictator in its own Capitalistic economy? That does not make sense. The end result is 'haves' and 'have-not's', the 1%, and the further cultivation of a Plutocratic 'attitude' in the social that leads to 'economic classes', and the 'Deification' of 'profits and money'; a politics that becomes 'motored' by money, and the 'inching', closer and closer,( if not already there), to Plutocracy. Why has Capitalism taken over our social? where are our Leaders? and where is our Democracy?

There's a fine line between "news-worthy" events and "gossip".

In the Media, there's a fine line between "news-worthy" events and "gossip'. Most news-papers report 'political events', entertainment, 'every-day' occurrences, births, deaths, and even a 'comics' section.( of course, there's more) But when it comes to political events, the media must be objective. That's not easy, because the newspapers are owned by Individuals who have a political preference. Every daily 'news-paper' is a 'complete picture', or a 'micro-cosmos' of 'one day' in the continuum of Time. One has to look at a daily newspapers as a 'somewhat accurate' reflection of the occurrences within any 'one day' in the 'condition of togetherness'. Media must report the 'complete occurrences' of the day. That's why media is important to politics. Of course, its not easy to capture the 'whole day' in any 'form of completeness'. Nevertheless, the 'condition of togetherness' must be informed about the 'daily happenings' in the Nation. Hence, 'political reporting' becomes necessary. But, political reporting can easily slide into 'gossip', instead of the political issues of the day. Some newspapers are read for entertainment; some for 'information'; and some for a 'reflection' of the 'status' of the Freedom and Equality of the Peoples in the 'condition of togetherness'. That's the area where "politics" can descend into gossip. Obviously, 'Personality' is important to politicians, but politics must adhere to a level of discourse that 'elaborates' on democratic Ideals, and programs, that are being suggested by candidates, and which are designed to improve the democratic institutions in our social. Political language should be persuasive and convince the electorate, but it should not 'wallow' in the language of 'gossip' and 'Advertisement'; nor, should political language ascend to a 'vacuous level' of 'political correctness'. Empty, vacuous, linguistic generalizations, about the democratic status of the social are dangerous assertions. Democratic Institutions are essential to a social that purports to be democratic. The People are Real; the Governmental structure is real; Democracy is real; 'political language' should also be real.

The Media is important in any 'condition of togetherness'; it's also vital in a democracy.

The media is important in any 'condition of togetherness' because there is no other way that Individuals can be 'privy' to all or most 'happenings' within the 'condition. At best, Individuals can communicate individually, or be privy to 'information' within a small area of mutual influence. Hence. the necessity of Media to report and make available, so-called, 'news-worthy' events and activities. Reporting on such events, to the 'condition of togetherness', becomes necessary because 'the Peoples' need to be informed about anything happening within the condition, or threatening the condition. However, within the context of 'Politics', the media should not wallow in 'personality attacks'; 'preferential reportage'; or information that is unrelated to the 'qualifications', or, 'intentions' of prospective candidates for political Office. Office holders in a 'condition of togetherness', serve in a 'representative capacity' and only the essential aspects of that capacity should be made available to the 'Peoples' by means of the Media. When Media picks an irrelevant 'fact' or 'incident' and continually focuses on it, and repeats it, it creates a 'preoccupation with it'; which can be 'unhealthy' to the 'condition of togetherness', and which destroys its 'coherence', and contributes to its 'self destruction'. The Media's influence can be devastating to the 'condition of togetherness'. That's why, Media should report the Ideals of real Democracy. These Ideals help Democracy to keep the democratic structure together; enables the Ideals of Freedom and Equality to circulate at the 'Bottom' of the structure; which serves as a 'real foundation', for the abstract Top of the structure. That establishes a real foundation at the Bottom of a 'Peoples Government'. Democracy is a 'Peoples' Government, but the People must 'take care' of it; and the Media must report the democratic Ideals of the Government, to help 'solidify the Bottom' of Government. Democracy is "of the People"; "by the People"; and "for the People". You do not need a Government, if you don't have a 'People'. But, if you are a 'People', you need a Democratic Government.

A 'State'; a 'Nation'; a 'Country', is a political Institution that exists only for the purpose of exercising political 'Power'.

A Nation or a State only exists for the 'sole purpose' of 'exercising' political Power. The 'condition of togetherness' cannot govern itself without the postulation of a political institution with Power. Of course, there are many ways in which to organize a political Institution. Those distinguishable forms, situate the 'form' for 'exercising political Power'. Only Government, in this 'political' context, has power. The 'condition of togetherness', i.e. 'the Peoples', only have the 'Rights' attributed to the 'condition of togetherness' by the Government. The 'political forms' organize the relation, perceived politically, as the Top and the Bottom. That relation distinguishes the Autocratic Forms, the Aristocratic Forms, the Plutocratic forms' the Oligarchic forms, and the Democratic forms. Each form can become a 'mixture' with other forms and hence, not be a 'pure form'; in other words, there are many variables in the construction of political Institutions. However, in every case, its an Institutional form and in every case, its a form by which the Many (Peoples) are governed. Government is an arrangement of the Bottom by the Top, and regardless the arrangement, its always about the 'exercise of political power'. Since the 'condition of togetherness' cannot govern itself, a political Institution becomes necessary, but the sole and only reason for its existence, is the 'condition of togetherness'. Individuals have no 'say-so' about the 'Life' they have; about the Life they're 'immersed' in; they can only organize it as best as possible. Its never about 'living' or 'not living', its always about 'how to live'. We are 'already here', and so are 'Others'; hence, the 'condition of togetherness'. But, in a 'constructed political Institution', each Individual is 'Free and Equal', as is the 'Other'. Consequently, all political Institutions should 'respect' and 'never interfere' with the 'political Right' of Freedom and Equality of all Individuals within any Political Organization. We're all in the same boat; hence, we must learn to live with each Other; and Government must 'learn' to respect and protect the Freedom and Equality of each and every Individual living within its political Institution. All Life is sacred; Government is just a 'construction'.

The 'will of the Peoples' is determined by 'voters' who vote for the 'Freedom and Equality' of each and every real Individual.

The 'will of the Peoples' is a human problem. It should be a problematic of each and every human Individuals 'weighing' and 'elaborating' on the Freedom and Equality of 'all human beings' living in a 'condition of togetherness', within a Democratic 'Society, or Nation'. The terms "Society or Nation" includes every Human Being in the Nation; and not just in one or another State. What is Constitutionally valid for the Nation, also applies, to each and every State. The nature of a 'human problematic' automatically excludes the 'economic Legal Fiction' of the Corporation. The Corporation, considered as a 'person', is a Legal Fiction that exists only in contemplation of Law. In other, less 'juristic terms', its not 'real', like a human Being is real. A Corporation, as a 'fictional persona', cannot discriminate racially like an Individual. The 'real Individuals' that 'own' and who 'incorporated' the Corporation, certainly can. But that's another matter. Corporations are 'not real', and hence, do not have to 'weigh' and 'elaborate' along the lines of Freedom and Equality of each and 'every' human being, at the 'Bottom' of Government. This 'weighing' and 'elaborating' is the function of the real Individuals at the 'Bottom of Government'. Only a 'deliberation' by all the 'real human beings', at the Bottom of Government, can establish the 'will of the Peoples'. Those 'deliberations' must consider the Freedom and Equality of all the 'human beings' at the Bottom of Government, but it cannot include the Legal Fictions. That is a different function; its an economic function that does not 'live' or 'exists' by 'Freedom and Equality'; it lives and exists only for the 'economic purpose' of 'Profits'. In other words, the Corporation is 'driven' by profits, and not, by Freedom and Equality. The 'will of the Peoples' is driven by 'Freedom and Equality' of the real Individuals in the 'condition of togetherness', not by 'profits', the 1%, or the so-called 'corporate nature' of the social. The Peoples live in a 'real social', not a 'corporate social'. The so-called, Corporate Society is just as 'fictional' as the Corporation. How sad; Society, the Nation, have been taken over by 'an economy' of Legal Fictions. Its time for 'real Democracy' to 'wake-up'.

The biggest problematic in a Democracy is establishing the 'will of the People'.

The biggest problematic in a Democracy is trying to 'establish' the 'will of the People'. A 'Peoples' Government must determine the 'will of the People', and then it must implement it through the machinery and structure of democratic Government. But, how is that to be done? The Government is a democratically 'fixed', stable, entity, but the 'will of the People' is an 'elusive and variable' phenomena. The 'Peoples' have divided themselves into 'apposing Parties'. If the competing Parties were both 'democratic' in nature, then the 'end result' would just be a 'variable' in the 'concept of democracy'. Either result would be a 'kind of democracy'. The only difference would be in the 'means' by which democracy is to be implemented. But, the 'divided' Party ideologies are so different, that one Party member who may be unhappy with their Party's choice, will not, in the alternative, vote for the other Party's choice. Is that politically possible in a 'true democracy', where both Parties are supposed to be democratic, and one Party differs from the other Party merely 'in the means by which democracy will achieve a desired democratic result'? Of course, not! A choice between Two Parties, may be different, but the difference should not affect the 'democratic nature' of the choice. If it does effect the democratic nature of the choice; then it 'cannot' be said that both Parties are democratic. That's the problem with so-called divided loyalties. The division between Party-ideologies often leads to the embracing of 'non-democratic' political ideas. Hence, Parties can both be democratic; or, both can be undemocratic; or, one Party can be democratic, while the Other is not. Hence, establishing the 'will of the People', at the Bottom of Government, becomes a real problematic. Of course, many problems can arise from the the 'relation' between the Top and the Bottom. But, the biggest problematic is in trying to determine the will of 'all the People' at the Bottom. At this point, it is vital that the Individuals at the Bottom become very interested in their Government, and contribute to the implementation of Democracy. The Top of Government has a duty to its People; but, the Bottom of Government also has a duty to its Government. 'One' cannot fly without the help of the Other.

A Democratic Government cannot exist without its People.

A Democratic Government cannot exist without its People. However, other forms of Government can exist without the participation of its People. Actually, an Autocratic form of Government exists because 'someone', or a few Individuals have 'assumed' the control of the Top of the Institution. Then, they have managed to give, or 'pass', through inheritance,'control', to preferred Individuals at the Top of Government. This 'passage' of control becomes a function of the Top and is the result of Individual families, or, even Party members. The prominent characteristic of the passage of control is that it is not a function of all the People who are governed, but instead, of only a 'few' selected Individuals. Its not the result of the 'vote', but the result of 'Plutocratic' or 'Oligarchic' control. The main problematic is that the People as a whole, do not get to participate. Hence, in such a 'social', democracy is dying or dead. A Government "by the People" and "for the People"( especially 'for the People') has been taken over by the 'economy' and the 'Institutions', motored by 'Greed'. How sad. The economy flourishes because it exists in a democracy and the 'opportunistic results' of such a successful economy ( hoarding profits and greed) begins to 'run' and operate the government. Money and Greed takes over; and what began as a democratic economy 'turns' a Capitalistic economy into a 'Plutocratic Institution' that 'motors' the Government. It appears that 'money and greed' has become 'more important' than democracy. Where are the Statesmen and where is Democracy?

A Democratic Government needs a Politics; but the 'politics' cannot deviate from Democracy.

In a Democracy a 'politics' must be about Democracy. It would be ludicrous to state that a democratic government could transform into an Autocracy by means of the 'electoral' or 'democratic process'. That's impossible, because democracy is about the Equality and Freedom of each and every individual in the social. In a Democracy, the People 'empower' the institution of Government. Without People, there is no need for Government. Hence, Democracy is about its People; and politics should be about the Equality and Freedom of the People. Economies are necessary; but economic values cannot 'drive' a democracy because it is based on a 'profit motive', and not on an Equality motive. Economies cannot survive on a basis of Equality and Freedom; but a Capitalistic economy in a Democracy can. A 'Capitalistic economy' could never survive in an Autocracy. That's why they call it a Plutocracy or an Oligarchy. Its just another 'verbal Label' that describes the center of gravity of the 'Form' of the Government. Its a Government of the 1%, the 'few', or some Autocrat with lots of money and property. When a 'Capitalistic economy' begins to campaign on 'any basis' other than a 'Democratic basis', its headed for trouble. To do so is to under mine the very 'democratic principles' that allowed it to thrive. That's what happens when 'politics' and elections become 'based' on, personality attacks; prejudices; discrimination; so-called, 'class-consciousness'; and plain buffoonery. Democracy needs Equality and Freedom; only a democracy that emphasizes those qualities of Life can survive. Anything, short of that is ludicrous.

'Politics' is about 'governing' all the 'Peoples' at the Bottom. It should be driven by Equality and Freedom; not Money and Greed.

Politics is about 'governing' the millions of People at the Bottom of Government. That's what it should be. It is strongly related to what the People must do. Of course, they must work, and work should be available and well compensated. They should also 'live democratically'and 'think democratically'. The thinking part is more difficult. Hence, the Bottom is often subject to 'sweeping political generalities' that are 'insincere' and that politicians use to 'persuade and trick' the Bottom. How sad. That's why voting should become more 'fair' and less circumscribed by rules and maybe the rules for campaigning should also change. As it is now, only the wealthy and well-to-do can run for office. This years campaigning hasn't exhibited one single, 'genuine' political slogan. Oh sure, its about getting votes, but no 'genuine commitments' have been made. They're all empty and vacuous generalities, and most are 'personality attacks' on each other. How did this come about? Simple, candidates that belong to the so-called 1% are 'talking' to the Bottom as if the candidates were really going to help 'democracy'; the poor; the needy; and yet, some candidates have said that they would not increase the minimum wage. Does that make sense? Of course not. The main issue that should be addressed is that a democracy is not motored by the economy nor by economic values; nor by 'class distinctions'. it is motored by the Equality and Freedom of the individual. Economic inequality, Racial injustice; Racial discrimination; the 'Plutocratic and Oligarchic' nature of our Institutions and our politics; that is what should be addressed. Democracy as a political institution has become dis-functional and in its place we find a social motored by economic values instead of democratic political values. Genuine human values are being replaced by 'economic values' driven by money, greed, and political power. How sad. Democracy is 'dying' and Plutocracy is 'flourishing'.

Politics is about 'organizing' the structure of the 'Political Institution of the State' and protecting the 'Freedom and Equality' of the Individual.

The 'State' or the Nation is an Institution. The organization of the functions of the State is what we call "Democracy or democratic". A Democracy is a government "of the People, by the People, and for the people". Politics relates to the 'means' by which democratic principles are instituted into the everyday functions of the State. The 'People as a whole', and 'Individually', benefit from the institution of democratic principles into the 'Bottom" of the Institution of the State. Politics is a competition between Individuals. Who will occupy the 'Offices' that 'represent' the People? Hence, politics should be a 'political means' by which to educate the People about the many 'democratic improvements' to be instilled into the social; to better 'perfect, and or, improve democratic structures'. Today, unfortunately, Politics has been reduced to personality attacks between candidates for Office. Of course, 'political correctness' has long used democratic language to 'compete' for election, but the terminology was too 'general', and 'abstract' and 'never really registered' in the psyche of the People. That's why the People welcomed an election that 'strikes' at so called 'political correctness'. However, candidates are too concerned with personality attacks, instead of improving the Democratic structure. How sad; that reflects on the 'mentality of politics' in a democracy. When candidates become 'insincere' about occupying political Offices, democracy is in trouble. Every candidate should propose 'improvements of the democracy', in a clear understandable manner. Lacking that, he or she should not be in 'politics'. The Freedom and Equality of every Individual is at stake. Democracy is about 'the People'; and the Individuals who strive to 'represent' the People, should be 'strongly aware' of the 'Representative nature' of the Office they seek. All Individuals should be acutely aware that we 'must live' in a 'condition of togetherness' ( that makes politics necessary) and that the State exists only because it 'has a People'. Without 'People', the State has no need to exist. Without the State, we have no need for 'Politics'.

The Media is important in Democratic politics, but 'politics' does not 'truck' in Truth.

The media play a very important part in political campaigns. Recent news that some candidates " lie, and do not tell the truth", is ridiculous. There is no "truth" in politics, there is 'only', or 'maybe', or 'possibly', a 'political correctness', but the question of "Truth" plays no part in politics. Even Philosophy, psychology, cosmology, Religion, and many other 'disciplines, are still trying to determine what 'formulations' within there 'belief system', may constitute the 'Truth'. To accuse a politician of not telling the 'Truth', and lying, is ridiculous, and can only be attributed to the media coverage, of those events, as highly prejudicial. The media is doing what they are accusing the candidate of doing. The level of language-use in politics can only be 'correct or incorrect'; and even 'that' has become highly suspicious. But 'political correctness' and 'political language' does not 'truck' in Truth. Media is very important in a Democracy, but it cannot twist words around to create a specific effect that causes damage to 'Politics' or to 'political candidates'. Certainly 'honesty' is necessary in a Politics but, it must be kept within the domain of the "political sphere". Politics is about 'Representation'; a politician can only 'represent' the People. The 'Peoples' concern is with the "representative ethics' of the Politician and not with a 'candidates' ability to answer questions about "Truth". That's the most difficult and confusing question that anyone can be asked. What kind of 'truth' is being referred too? Politics does not truck with 'Truth' as a philosophical quest. What kind of question is that? The question can be asked in a political manner, but it should not be asked in a 'confusing' manner. Even the questioner does no know what the Truth is; hence the question is 'intentionally deceptive' and 'prepared' to cause damage. The Media has a duty to be as 'Objective' as possible. hence, it must use language to report both sides of the political spectrum, but it must use a grammar and a language that reflects the 'antagonistic nature' of the exchange, especially in 'Politics'.