If a Business Corporation produces a Lot, its successful; if a Human Being acquires a Lot, its Greed.

If a Business Corporation 'produces' or 'makes a 'Lot'; its called Successful; if a Human Being 'produces' or makes a 'Lot', including 'Money', it can be called 'Greed'. Of course, 'some Humans' are called 'Successful'. But, Why does the 'Human Quest' for 'More and More of the Same' usually constitute 'Greed' and the Corporate quest for 'More and More of the Same', is called 'Success'? After all, Corporations are also called 'Persons' in 'Contemplation of Law'. Has the Law injected into Economic Discourse terms, or Legal Characterizations, which are demeaning to the 'Human Condition', yet compliments the Corporate Structure. Does this produce some kind of inferiority in the 'Human Condition' and 'superiority' in the 'Economic Status'. After all, it declared the 'Producers' of More and more of the same, as 'Persons in contemplation of Law'. Can we then say that its the 'Economy' that's lopsided; not the 'quest' for 'success' by the 'Human Condition'. After all, there 'has to have been' a time when Humans 'shared' their 'Resources'. But, later the 'Social' created 'Rigid Divisions' that distinguished between 'Sharing' and 'Buying'. Here enters the Linguistic Terms, 'Mine' and 'Yours'; now, we have something to Fight about. Do we create our own Problems?

The 'Business Corporation' is a 'Person'; A Human being is a 'Person'.

The 'Business Corporation', at its 'Inception', is an 'Incorporated Entity'; The 'Birth' of the Corporation is attributable to a 'Charter of Incorporation' that spells out its functions and sets out what it can do; A 'Charter of Incorporation' is a Document filed with the Secretary of State. Up to that point, the Corporation is just a Corporation. Subsequently, the Highest Court in the Land holds that the 'Business Corporation' is 'a Person' in 'Contemplation of Law'. 'Human Beings' are 'Persons'. What's the Difference? A 'Human Being' is a 'Natural Born' Person, who constitutes 'The Many' at the 'Bottom' of the 'Polity'. They are all 'Human Beings'; 'they' are all 'Natural' and they constitute the Governed. But the 'Business Corporation', for some 'economic reason' is 'declared' a 'Person in Contemplation of Law'. They are 'Legal Fictions' and they can constitute 'Huge Economic Persons', because they can become as 'Large' as they want; but, the 'Natural Born Persons' always remain 'Natural Born' Humans. A 'Human Person' can 'never compete' with an 'Incorporated Person' and that creates a 'lop-sided Economy'. It also creates 'profit making' Machines, whose 'sole Function' is to make 'Profits' and 'nothing else'. Humans can also make Profits but on a much smaller scale. Corporations should not just be 'Persons, in contemplation of Law'; they should be 'Citizens' who should be 'required' to have 'Democratic Duties'. It may surprise you but, that may change the 'Lop-sided Economy' and the 'Nature' of the 'Corporate society'.

Human Greed is based on a 'Human Decision'; Constitutional 'Persons' just 'function'; they dont 'decide'.

Human 'Greed' is based on a 'Human Decision'; Constitutional 'Persons' just 'function'; they don't 'decide'. A Human Being has to 'choose', to some extent, what She/he will do next. Business Corporations can only function as 'Huge Producers' of 'Products, Goods, and Items'. 'Failing to Produce Profits' is to fail 'to function'. That does not have anything to do with 'Decisions'! Of course, we all know that they 'Exist only' in 'Contemplation of Law', and what does that mean?..... that they exist only within 'Legal Discourse', or 'legal Talk', and not 'Discourse as Humans know 'Ordinary, 'everyday talk'? We live in a 'Social' populated with 'Economic Giants'. Now, please don't get me wrong. Corporations are necessary, but they must also have 'Other attributes' that make them 'more like a Person'. A 'Business Corporation' must also have 'characteristics', or 'Departments', that deal with functional 'Democratic Principles' in Society. To say it differently, they must recognize that in a Democratic Society, the 'Freedom and Equality' of all 'Real Persons' is very important; that does not mean that they must stop producing as 'Economic Giants'; only that, that is 'not' their 'sole function' and that 'Other aspects' of 'Personhood' are equally important. They must 'contribute' to the 'Freedom and Equality' of 'all Real Persons' within the Social... that too is their 'Constitutional Duty'. They must have 'Departments, and Functions' within their 'Corporate Nature' that contribute towards the realization of The 'Freedom and Equality' of 'Everyone' in the 'Social'.

"Greed" is a characteristic of Human Nature; "Power" is a characteristic of Democracy.

"Greed" is a characteristic of Human Nature; "Power" is a characteristic of Democracy. 'Greed', to a Human Being, means 'More and more of a relentless quest for the 'same'; and that usually means something of 'Value' or 'Money'. 'Democracy' is characterized by the 'Freedom and Equality' of The 'Bottom', or the 'Real Individuals' of that 'Political Entity'. Those Individuals are 'Free' and can 'Equally' strive for 'Public Office'. Occupying 'Public Office' is 'Political Power', and occupying the 'Highest Office' in the Land is the 'Peak' of 'Political Power'. Of course, other Political Entities, like Autocracy, Plutocracy; and Oligarchy also have 'Political Power' at the Top. I don't know from where Autocracies get their Political Power, but Plutocracy is Government by the 'Rich' or 'Wealthy'; whereas 'Oligarchy' is Government by a 'few Individuals' who 'Monopolize' the Top, like a 'Family'. But, having lots of Money; being Rich, a Millionaire, a Billionaire may be Influential, but its not 'Power'. If Money was Power, Billionaires would not be running for Office. They already have Money. 'Public Office' in a 'Democracy' is 'Power', but only for a short while. So, if the Business Corporations 'sole, relentless function' is to make 'Profits', the Business Corporation is a 'Greed Machine'. Not only does it make profits, but that's the only thing it does. Hence, it would not be improper for the 'Business Corporation' to 'extend' its 'Function' and include 'other Democratic Functions,' or Duties. Why not require that 'Business Corporations', or 'Profit Machines', or 'Greed Machines' also function as Democratic Citizens? The Supreme Court so fit to declare them 'Persons' in 'contemplation of law'; so why not declare them 'Citizens', with all the 'attendant' Democratic Duties, and functions.

We Live among 'Economic Giants' that create 'Haves' and 'Have-nots'.

We Live among 'Economic Giants' that create 'Haves' and 'Have-nots'. They are 'Persons' in 'Contemplation of Law' and are protected by the 'Constitution'. They are 'Persons' but, not like 'You' or 'I'. They do not 'Hurt', have Pain, diseases, hungers, require sleep, and they do not need Education, or a Roof over their 'heads'. They are the 'Business Corporations'; the 'greatest producers' and Manufacturers of 'Everything' Humans need to 'Survive' and then 'Some'. The 'Some' refers to 'really' unnecessary Items but, which produce 'Profits' and that's the 'name of the Game'. 'Business Corporations' are 'Profit Making machines'. If a Corporation is not making a Profit its immediately 'Dissolved','Killed', and maybe even 'Resurrected' with another 'Name'. We are Persons also but without the 'economic advantages' of 'Corporate Life'. Everyday a Business Corporation must produce, sell, and makes a 'Profit'. But, do all Human Beings, as Persons, have that advantage. We used to ride in 'Carts', 'Wagons', and Horses. Now we ride in Automobiles, but with different 'Horse-power'. We got the 'Auto' but kept the 'Horse-Power'. Human Values have been 'attenuated' and replaced by Corporate Values and the 'height' of Corporate value is 'More and more of the same', viz., Profits. I asked if greed was the result of 'Democracy' or the 'Human Condition'. Maybe its the result of our 'Corporate Economy'? Hey, in todays World, Corporations are necessary but maybe they should also have 'Democratic Duties' within the 'structure' of their 'Nature' as 'Constitutional Personhood' and not just make 'Profits'. If they don't want to be Democratic, just Dissolve them.

Is 'Greed' a characteristic of 'Democracy' or is it characteristic of the 'Human Condition'?

Is 'Greed' a characteristic of 'Democracy' or is it a characteristic of the 'Human Condition'; and does it make any difference? It does make a difference because 'Greed' is 'not necessary'; 'More and More of the Same' is unnecessary. 'Governments' are 'necessary' and so are 'Social and Economic Conditions' that 'contribute' to the 'General Welfare' of the 'Many' at the 'Bottom'. Why? Because the 'Many' cannot be controlled to just 'a Few'; or 'limited' to a certain 'Number'. Hence, we have to live with the 'Other'. The 'Human Condition' is not a Man-Made Institution. But, Government is 'Man-Made' and the 'different Types' of 'Government' are 'Institutions'. Hence, 'Institutions' can be subjected to 'Institutional Conditions' that the 'Human Condition' cannot. In other words, the 'One', as Polity, can be designed in such a manner that the 'Benefits' of the 'Social' and the 'Economy' contributes to the 'General Welfare' of 'everyone' in the Polity. I'm not suggesting that 'every Polity' should be a 'Democracy' or that everyone at the 'Bottom' should have 'Equal Benefits'. Even an 'Autocratic Government', or 'any Other Type of Government' can certainly have such a 'Great Leader' that He/she contributes towards the 'General Welfare' of 'all its People'. Back to Democracy. Democratic Government has organized its 'Economy' in 'Capitalistic Fashion'. It has protected the 'Business Corporation' by declaring it a 'Person in contemplation of Law'. The Constitution protects the Business Corporation. That 'helps the Economy' but, does that help 'Everyone' at the Bottom, or the 'Many' at the Bottom? Does 'Capitalism' generate the 'Materials', 'Matter', or even the 'opportunity' for 'Greed'?

The 'Real Issue' that exists between 'Political Parties' is that of the 'Haves'and the 'Have Nots'.

The Real Issue that exists between adversarial 'Political Parties' is that of the adversarial 'Haves' and the 'Have-Nots'. A Line can be drawn between 'Political Adversaries' and you will find that the 'Rich' and the 'not so Rich' and the 'Poor' covers the 'Entire Bottom' as well as the Top of the 'Polity'. Of course, if one were to ask 'What are they fighting about?' one would have to conclude that, in the last analysis, the 'Rich want more'; the 'not-so Rich' want more; and the 'Poor want more'; but, the Poor 'might be satisfied', if they had enough to 'live on' and to cover necessary expenses. Why has 'Democracy' and 'Capitalism' created a 'Bottom', and of course, a 'Representational Top' that's mobilized by 'Greed'? Of course, you always have those at the 'Bottom' that says, 'Just Leave Me Alone' and get on as best they can. Why Greed, or, better yet, is that the 'normal' for a 'Human Being'. Do 'all Humans' get 'Greedy' when they find themselves in 'Favorable' and 'Prosperous circumstances'? Some will say, that's not a Political Issue, that's a 'Human Issue'; a 'Psychological' Issue; an 'Economic Issue'; or a 'Social Issue'. No! That's precisely the Issue. That's why the 'Democratic Structure of Government' was set up as it was. Government and Politics is absolutely necessary, if the 'Human Race' is to survive. The 'Top' must 'Represent' and 'Serve' 'all the Bottom'. I think, what I'm asking, is if the Top really Represented all the Bottom in a 'Fair manner', would there be 'Greed', or is 'Greed' a 'necessary Aspect' of all Governmental Collectivities?

No 'Political Entity' can have a 'Top' without a 'Real Individual' to occupy its 'Post'.

No 'Political Entity' can have a 'Top of Power' without a 'Real Individual' to occupy its 'Political Post'. A 'Political Top', or an Institution of Government are not 'Natural Phenomena'; they are 'Man Made'. If something 'goes wrong' in a 'Government' or a 'Political Entity', its usually the 'fault' or 'Responsibility' of the 'Human Condition'. 'Institutions' can do no wrong because the 'Responsible aspects' are the 'Humans' that 'Mobilize' it. One cannot have a 'Top with Power' without 'Someone' to operate it. Of course, there's always the issue of 'Whose Institution' is it and 'Who created it'? But those are 'Historical Questions' and cannot be answered without a more clear 'definition' and 'understanding' of 'History' and How 'compelling' it should be. Hence, most 'Political Questions' are reduced to the question of 'Who occupies the Top' and what are his or Her opinions of the 'History' and the 'Political Function' of the 'Entity'. These 'factors' make Democracy 'more difficult' to Govern than Autocracies. In Autocracy, the top 'does not listen' to the 'Bottom'. In 'Democracy' the Top 'must listen' to the 'Bottom' because they are the 'source' of the 'Power at the Top'. But, the 'Bottom' must also 'listen to the Top' because that's their Government.

A 'Democratic Top' can degenerate into an' Autocratic Top'.

A 'Democratic Top' can degenerate into an Autocratic Top. All it takes is a Selfish Individual at the 'Very Top' occupying that 'Public Office'. But, its never the 'Office' that 'compels' it, its the 'Individual' or the 'Personality', or the 'Psychological State' of that 'Individual'. That's why we need 'Real Politicians' at the 'Helm'. A 'Politically Correct' Politician is likely to be influenced by the 'Power' in the 'Highest Office' in the Land. At that Point, Political Issues change to 'Personality Issues'. That's why we need a 'Real Politician' who possess 'selfless traits' and has the 'General Welfare' of the 'Bottom' and not his/ her own 'Personal Welfare' in mind. That's also why a candidate should file his/her own Tax Returns after being elected to Office. Why should 'that issue' go 'unexplored'? 'Power seduces' but not in the same manner, as when its tied to the 'General Welfare'. A 'Real Politician' is concerned with the 'General Welfare' of the 'Bottom'. A 'Public Office' serves the 'Bottom', never the 'Occupant' of the Office. Where are the Real Politicians?

'Governing' can easily be reduced to 'Rule'; but, 'Rule' is 'unlikely' to become 'Governing'.

'Governing' can easily be 'reduced' to 'Rule'; but, an established 'Rule' is unlikely to become 'Governing'. For 'Governing' to be 'reduced' to Rule, the only requirement is that the 'Top of Power' becomes occupied by someone that's not a 'Real Politician'; at best, is only 'Politically Correct'; or, someone 'unfamiliar' with the meaning of a 'Selfless Leader'; i.e. a Leader concerned with the 'General Welfare of the People' and not with His/her 'Personal Welfare'. Of course, this 'Personal Welfare Switch' can occur 'after Election'. If so, there will be attempts to 'modify' and 're-structure' the 'Top of Power' instead of the 'General Welfare of the People' at the 'Bottom'. Since, in a Democracy, the Real Source of Power is 'in the People', the People will be 'appealed too' but, by the 'Persuasive Rules of Advertising', and not with the 'General Principles of Governing'. 'Persuasion' is easy once one knows who one's appealing too; and then, come the 'empty promises' of the 'Politically Correct'. Another characteristic of changing from 'Governing' to 'Rule' is an attempt to 'Modify the Top of Power'; e.g. an attempt to 'Pack the Courts' and change the 'Judicial Structure' into a 'Reflection' of 'Party loyalty'. If that happens, the only result is a 'Lop Sided' Democracy. I say, 'Lop Sided' only because there is a 'Possibility' that so-called 'Party Loyalty' is not 'founded' on the 'People' at the 'Bottom'. Instead, its a division based on the 'Corporate Nature' of the 'Social' and its 'Productivity'. We're 'headed' towards 'Plutocracy'.

The 'Bottom' gave rise to the 'Top'; the Top can only 'Govern' or 'Rule'.

The 'Bottom' gave rise to the 'Top'; the 'Top' can only 'Govern or Rule'. If the Top is Autocratic; Plutocratic; or Oligarchic, it has 'imbued' itself with 'Power of Rule'. In such cases, the 'Top' becomes 'more important' than the 'Bottom'. But, if the 'Top' is 'Democratic', the 'Bottom' is more important than the 'Top' and that means that the Top must 'Govern' the Bottom. It cannot Rule. More importantly, it also means that the 'Essence of Democracy' are the 'Real People' at the Bottom. In all Political Entities, its the 'People' who are the important ones. But, not all Political Entities accept that. In a Democracy, it was the 'People' who 'Constituted' the 'Polity' and they 'Committed it to Writing in a 'Constitution'. The Constitution 'constitutes' the 'People' and the 'Government'. The Government is structured as a 'Government' 'Of the People', 'By the People' and 'For the People'. The 'Democratic Institution' assumes its 'proper place' and 'Structure' within the 'Political Entity'. This is not to say that Democracies do not have their 'Problems'. They do, but the problems are 'resolved Democratically'. When an 'Autocracy' has a Problem, the 'Polity' can get 'rid' of the Problem. Of course, all 'Polities' have Problems. One of the biggest Problems in a Democracy is when a Candidate assumes 'Leadership' and She/He is 'unqualified' to 'Govern'. 'Leadership' in a Democracy can be more Problematic than leading an Autocracy. One Reason for that is that solving a 'problem' or a 'Political Issue' is not as 'Simplistic' as using 'Democratic Ideology' or 'Republican Ideology'. It can be a 'Human Problem' and hence, not 'completely Ideological'. Where are the Real Politicians?

Democracy has 'Power at the Top'; like any 'Other Form' of 'Governemnt'.

'Democracy', as a Political Entity, has 'Power at the Top'; just like any 'Other Form' of 'Government'. A 'Form of Government' is a 'Political Institution' and consequently, one must ask, "from where does a 'Form of Government' get its Power? All 'Political Entities', Large or Small, are 'Created or established' 'Political Institutions'. Early Tribes, Groupings, etc. usually had 'Leaders', 'Chiefs', who were 'selected' from the 'Wisest', 'Strongest', 'Fastest', or the 'Most Cruel'. Some just 'took' the Position by 'Force' and some 'Inherited it' by being a 'member' of a 'Powerful Family'. Later came the 'Divine Right of Kings' which 'attributed' their 'Right' to Rule to the 'Divinity'. All these Forms are now 'Obsolete' except, and just in case, there still exists, a few 'Isolated Groupings'. 'Every Grouping' had its manner of deciding who would Lead them. Of Course, today, every 'Government' has a 'Top of Power' and a 'Bottom of People'. That was the source of the so-called 'dilemma' of the 'One and the Many', or 'How to Organize an 'Institutional Political Entity' with a 'Top with Political Power' and a Bottom with the 'Many' Human Individuals. If 'Human Individuals' are 'Free' and Equal', as in a Democracy, 'Law and Order' must exist. If 'Law and Order' exists, 'The Many' need to be Governed. But, 'Governing' is different from 'Ruling', hence, the 'basic difference' in the 'Forms' of Autocracies, Plutocracies, Oligarchies, and Democracies. But, 'Democracy' is the only Form that emphasizes the importance of the 'Many People' at the 'Bottom'. The Essence of Democracy are the 'Many Peoples' at the 'Bottom' and the 'Top of Power' is there to 'Serve the General Welfare'.

Democratic 'Government' is a 'Form' of Government; 'Real Democracy' is the 'Nature' of the 'Bottom''.

Democratic 'Government' is a 'Form' of Government; "Real Democracy" is the Nature of the 'Bottom' of a 'Form of Government'. The Top of Power follows 'Democratic Principles' as it 'Governs' and the Bottom of Government is where all the 'Real People Reside' next to each Other. The People are 'Real', not Constitutionally created "Persons" like 'Business Corporations'. The 'Real Persons' Live, Die, and Suffer. They are not 'Institutions' and if they are included as 'Citizens' of a 'Nation' they should be properly 'Governed' and not 'Ruled'. All Political 'Positions' are of a 'Representative Nature'. That means, the Positions were created to allow a 'Representative' from the Bottom to serve and only for a short Period of Time, in some 'Functional and Democratic Capacity'. The 'essence of Democracy' is 'all the Real People' at the Bottom. Without Real Individuals, i.e. 'Real People' there is no Democracy.

That was no 'Trial'; it was a 'contest' between 'Ideologies' and 'Party loyaly'.

That was no Trial; it was a contest between Ideologues and Party Loyalty. How did anyone expect 'Party Ideology' to vote against itself? The 'Representatives' have already 'separated' and each has formed their own 'Party Preferences'. It should have been a search for the 'Truth' and for 'Competence' and that doesn't have anything to do with 'Party Lines'. I don't mean 'Political Preferences', I mean 'Truth'. How could an 'Ideologue' go against His/Her own Party Ideology? Some did. The Highest Political Offices in the Land and they turned it into some 'Political Contest' about voting along 'Party Line' instead of voting for the 'Truth'. Even the 'United Nations' appears to know the Truth. 'Party Loyalty' had no part to play in this scenario. It was not supposed to be a Political Contest between the 'Parties', it dealt with Political 'Behavior', human behavior. Usually, Politics 'seeps' into 'Normal Conversations'; this was a case where 'Human Behavior seeped' into 'Politics' and that 'says more' than any 'Party Ideology'. A perfect example that 'Human Behavior'; 'Decency'; and 'competence' qualifies a 'Representative' for 'Public Office', not Party Ideology. Politicians consider 'Party Ideology' as some 'inflexible criteria' for putting 'Public labels on themselves' and then refusing to step outside the Label. Being 'locked' into 'Party Loyalty' destroys 'Human Decency' and 'Real Political Understanding'. Where are the Real Politicians?

Party Loyalty has just demonstrated its 'Frivolus' nature.

Party Loyalty has just demonstrated its 'frivolity'. Imagine Two of the Highest Political Institutions in the Nation have 'divided' along Party Lines. Each Party Line has its own 'Ideology', yet neither could see that the real issue was not an Ideological Issue; it was more of an 'Incompetence issue'. It was a 'Personality Issue' not an 'Ideological one'. The Issue dealt more with 'behavior' than with Political Ideology. The behavior was an attempt to extract a 'Deal', more so than a 'Political Solution' among 'Nations'. A 'Nations' Ideologies apply to 'National Issues', more so than 'International Issues' After all the 'Party division' is about 'National' and 'Local Government', not about 'International Relations'. That's a horse of a different color. Nevertheless, a 'Leader' must be 'competent' in both the National and the International Arena. Dividing among Party-Lines and voting among Party Lines is frivolous. It demonstrates a 'lack' of 'Personal Flexibility' between 'National and International' modes of behavior. How sad, 'Leaders' unable to distinguish between mere 'Ideological Party Issues' and 'Real Political Issues' on the International Sphere. 'Voting' along 'Party Lines' is 'childish'; 'inflexible'; and 'demonstrates a weak reason' for 'Serving' in a 'Representative Capacity' in a 'Democracy'. Where are the Real Politicians?

A Political Campaign for the Higest Office in the Land has descended into 'name calling' and "sheer Mockery".

A Political Campaign for the 'Highest Office' in the 'Land' has 'descended' into "Name Calling", Insults, and Sheer Mockery. What has happened to 'Political Language'? Even a Movie made in Hollywood where the Language is 'comparable' would be 'distasteful', 'Mockery', or a 'Comedy'. Of course, if the 'Opposition' does not reply with 'equal distaste', it places itself at a 'disadvantage'. That's what happened in the first Debate. The 'Appeal' was made to the 'Back-yard Barbeque Crowd' and it was 'never challenged'. Has Politics descended to that level? Can Political Language still refer to the "Constitution"; "the General Welfare" and "Freedom and Equality" of the 'Individual' at the Bottom, or has Politics 'lost' its Language? A 'Politics' without a 'Proper Language' cannot survive. Of course, I do not speak of 'Political Correctness'. That's Empty, Vacuous, 'Insincere', and 'Hypocritical'. A Proper Language is Important, but I speak of a 'genuinely Proper One'. Insults and Name Calling will not work. Especially at the 'Highest Level' of 'Public Service'. What Kind of leaders do we have? A 'Top' should always set an 'Example' for the 'Bottom'. But, when the 'Top' talks like the 'Bottom'; and 'without Political Discipline', its only 'Natural' to 'worry' about the 'Quality of Leadership' driving the Ship of State. Where are the Real Politicians?

Many Political Entities call themselves 'Socialist':and 'Republics': but 'Govern' like 'Autocrats'.

Many Political Entities call themselves 'Socialist': 'Republics': and even 'Democratic', but 'Govern' like 'Autocrats'. The Real Difference is in the 'Form of Government', or the 'manner' in which they 'Govern'. But, they do not seem to 'hide that difference'. But, an actual 'Democratic Leader' that tries to 'Rule' instead of 'Govern' stands out in His/Her preoccupation with 'Economic Issues' and 'other Issues', instead of 'Civil Issues' like 'Freedom and Equality'. For Example, how long does it take to 'eliminate', or at least, 'to address' 'Racial Inequality' in the 'Social'? It was done in the 'Educational System'. In a Democracy, the 'essence' of any 'Social Institution' is to address the 'condition and status' of the 'Bottom'. Otherwise , its not a Democracy and its 'not Governing'. All Political Entities exist only for the Purpose of 'Governing' or 'Ruling'. They are 'Social Institutions', not 'products of Nature'. If a Nation purports to be 'Democratic', it must serve the 'Bottom' or the 'Peoples'. 'Democracies' Govern, they don't Rule. One doesn't have too look far to see some of the 'Atrocities' perpetuated by 'Autocratic Rule'. But, the problem in a Democracy is that, 'Someone' can be 'Elected' to the 'Top', who then attempts to 'Rule'. When that happens, the 'Top of Power' is in turmoil. Most 'Revolutionary activity' occurs at the 'Bottom'. When it occurs at the 'Top', 'Democratic Ideology' is being destroyed, and when that goes, the 'Democratic structure' unravels and 'cannot hold together'. The 'Top of Power', becomes 'unhinged'. Where are the Real Politicians?