Initially, Democracy was a relation between a Top and the Bottom and a relation among the Many at the Bottom.

The relation between the Top and the Bottom refered to the Form of Government and the relation between the Many at the Bottom referred to the relationships of the Individuals constituting the Many. Individuals must follow the Institutional make up of the Government to live in a Democratic Manner. The Relations between the Many to each Other must respect the Freedom and Equality of each Individual to each Other. But, we no longer live in a 'tribal form' nor do we live in some 'Form' of 'Dictatorial relation' to the Top. Modern tecnology and 'Institutional mores' have modified the 'Initial establishment' of the begining of both the 'Form of government' and the 'Relations of Individuals' to each Other. The 'physical aspects' of the 'World' has shrunk and the 'tecnology' has expanded the parameters of control and even the 'distinctions' between the 'Real' and the 'Virtual'. Initally, it began with creating Atomic Weapons with the hope that Other Nations would be kept in place by the fear of retaliation. The bigger the weapon the more control of the Other Nations who may have 'aspirations' of 'dominance'. Now, one weapon can destroy the world to the point of self annilation. Every World moves in the Cosmos, destroy the shape or form of the Planet and possibly the earth would not be able to keep attuned to its Cosmic Movements. Initially, it was the Form of government that was the culprit, then the Relation between Individuals and the growth of Economic Giants. Now, its become the incomprehensibility of, so called 'Reality'. Science effects the 'Form' of Government and it effects the 'Individuals relation' to each Other.

Of course, the Economy does need 'periodic help', at least more than the Multi-Million business Corporations.

Of course, the 'Economy' does need 'periodic help' to keep a viable and sustainable Economy; at least more than the Multi-Billion Business Corporations. Multi-Million Corporations already fighting over a trip to the moon and 'business contracts' to build the 'means whereby' to accomplish it. Thats essential and Great; but why arn't the smaller businesses being helped to survive. The Big Corporations can be 'Bailed-Out', but the small ones can't even be kept viable. Why not. Small Businesses help to keep 'Neighborhoods'; 'small neighborhoods'; viable by 'contributing to their neighborhood' and hence the necessity of keeping them Functional. But whats happening, the 'Small Guys'are going bankrupt. If they can get a Loan, they have to pay it back. Do the 'People' that went out to 'Outer-Space' have to pay their 'opportunities' or 'loans' back? ( of course, some of them were already Millionairs and Billionairs, but there are a few 'common folks' that can't afford to pay for such trips.) Most Individuals can't afford to pay for a 'Re-location' of a 'Living -enviornment'. Will they be 'left behind' to start 'turning against each Other', just to survive. Look at the Social; People are already finding 'differences' in the Social that 'justify Demonstrations' and 'Violence' toward each Other. Isn't the Government suppossed to " form a more perfect Union;..... and promote the General Welfare"?

Why do we need 'Legal Persons in contemplation of Law', when we have the 'Real Persons'.

Why do we need 'Legal Persons' in 'Contemplation of Law' when we have the 'Real Persons', and why do 'Legal Persons' need 'Constitutional Protection'? Doesn't sound right, doesn't look right and is 'not Right'. We have to ask, why do we need more Legal Fictions? 'Legal Fictions' may be necessary to connect Legal reasoning to its subject matter, like the Reasonable prudent Person, but why do we create a Legal Fiction in the Economy when it contributes to 'Monopoly' and 'Self-aggrandizing' and when it 'displaces the 'economic position', and value of the 'Real Working Person'? Most Individuals would agree that Legal Fictions do not belong in the Economy because economy deals with 'Production', Money, and Profits. A 'Business Corporation' is an 'economic entity' and should not be considered a 'Real Person'. A Business Corporation just makes Profits. Certainly, it provides the Socal with 'essential products' and 'contributes to their availability': but why does it need Constitutional Protection? Does an Economic Entity need protection so that it can contribute towards 'Monopoly', 'centralization of Monies', and the 'creation of Economic Classes'? If the Business Corporation is considered a 'Legal Person' and functions as a 'Real Human Person', namely; contributes towards 'Democracy', it may not be a bad idea. Of course, 'small changes' in the 'Structure' would have to occur. But, thats not the case; the 'structure' functions like an 'Autocrat', and it gets 'Constitutional protection'. We have to ask, Why?

The 'Business Corporation' is a Legal Fiction, that's its 'Nature'. But now the Supreme Court has made it a 'Person'.

The Business Corporation is a Legal Fiction. Its basically, an artificial creation of Law. Anything that is 'Fictional', in our language, is 'never the case'. A 'Fiction' cannot be 'made' 'truthful' or 'valid' or 'existent'. Anything 'fictional in nature' is 'Unreal' and 'remains' Unreal. Its 'legal nature' is merely a Linguistic Connection allowed for sole purpose of 'Legal Reasoning'. It serves no other function. It does occupy a 'Place' within our economy. But, 'we must ask', why does it have to be a 'Person in contemplation of Law'. Why is that necessary? Why not just consider it what it actually is; a Business Entity, in the Economy and not a 'Person in contemplation of Law'. 'Creating' a 'New Person' within the 'Economy' or in the 'Social' or 'anywhere else', is beyond the 'Power' of any 'Court' or 'any man made' Institution. The end-result is that its as protected by the Constitution, 'as if' it really was a 'Real-Person'. Persons, of all types are Real. Legal Fictions are Social and Legal Creations that must exist as 'Real Fictions' and contribute to Legal Reasoning but not to the 'sanctifying result' of being a 'Real Person'. How can a Supreme Court create a Real Person? It can't! But, the Court seems to be pre-occupied with the Economic-Ability of the Business Corporation to create huge amounts of Money and Capital to Itself and to the Corporate Structure; not the Social, but solely to an Unbalanced and lop-sided Economy. The 'Social' is left behind in its 'tatered conditions' of existence.

The weaknesses of a Democracy are Self-Induced.

The weakness of Democracy is 'self-induced'. It is not the 'nature' of Democracy that undermines it, but the Nature of the 'Bottom' of the Institution. By the Nature of the Bottom, I do not mean that its a charecteristic of Democracy, but the Nature of the 'Individuals' who populate the Bottom. Their first 'move' was to divide into Political Parties. Can you imagine, they create their own 'Political opposition'. Every Individual has a different appoaches to the 'Freedom' and 'Equality' of the Individual, but the division into Political Parties is a temptation to great to resist, so they Form into some kind of 'Political Power-Party'. Politics is Power, but why does Democracy need to have 'inducements' and 'enticements' to form into Groups to acquire 'Political Power'? Why can't Individuals implement Freedom and Equality? Freedom and Equality is a precious thing and needs to be implemented at the Bottom; implemented by the Individual for the Individual. The problems with Political Parties is that they are reduced to 'Political Platforms', and many times Individuals become Identified with the Platform. A Vote by an 'Individual' in a Party is a Vote for the 'Platform' and for the Party, hence the inducement to join One or the Other Party to have a Political Identity. 'Political Power' raises its ugly head. How sad, a 'Real living Human Being' becomes a Republican or a Democrat. Now they have a 'Political identity' and in that process, they have given up their Real 'Person-Hood'. Real Freedom and Equality is not implemented by the Individual and Institutional 'Creations'called 'Business Corporations' are given 'Personhood' and as a result, we become a 'Social' motivated by Money, Riches, and a 'Motor' guided and measured by 'More and More' of the same.

The division into 'Political Parties' at the Bottom is a 'fracturing' of the Democratic Ideology.

The division into 'Political Parties', at the Bottom, is a 'fracturing' of the Democratic Ideology. Why? Because the 'Freedom and Equality' afforded to the 'Individual' at the Bottom has 'crystalized' into separated divisions at the Bottom. The Bottom is no longer a 'Unified collectivity' of 'Separate Individuals'. Its become a 'divided Bottom' that furhtur creates a contest between the very thing a Democracy should insure, namely 'Real' Freedom and Equality of the 'Individual'. It will be said that the Individual is free to choose between the 'Two' Party System. But, think about it: is that a 'Real Choice' or is that a 'limitation' between two 'Opposing Indeologies'. How about a 'Real Choice' between 'Real Freedom and Equality' that conforms with the 'Democratic Spirit' and any 'subsequent clarification' and 'focus' of the 'exercise' of 'Real Freedom and Equality'. Choosing betwen Two separate Party Ideologies is 'not per se Democratic'. That not the only choices available and thats actualy placing a 'limit' on 'Freedom and Equality'. Our Two Party Political System augments and furthur creates a division between 'Rich and Poor', Haves and Have-nots, Real Individuals and Legal Corporate 'Persons' or 'Legal Fictions'. It 'transmutates' into an underlying 'Economic System' instead of a 'Political System' of Freedom and Equality of the Individual.

We are witnessing the 'self-destruction' of Democratic Politics.

We are witnessing the 'self-destruction' of Democratic Politics. The most harmfull thing to a Democracy that is Free and Equal at the Bottom or in the so-called 'Social', is the disfunctional aspects of the Bottom. Unfortunately, we must ask Why is that the case? The only answer has to be its division into the two-Party System. The problematic is not only 'that aspect' of the 'Social', but the fact that both Parties are at each others throat. The Two- Party System has become as antagonistic towards each other as 'Two Warring political Ideologies. Each wants to litterally destroy the 'Other'. It doesn't have to be that way. Both Parties can compete with each Other and they can each invoke a 'Democratic manner' of resolving differences. But the attempted Resolution must be democratic. It should not be a mere 'striving' for Political Power based on Authoritatism, or Rich vs. Poor, and should not be led by incompetent Politicians. When the very system that allows participation in Politics is 'overrun' by Incompetence, by seekers of Power, by Money, and is aided by division into a Two Party System that does not 'implement' a 'Two Party Democratic Spirit', we are in trouble. We need more Rules for the participants of 'Politics'. It can't continue uncontrolled in such a manner that the Freedoms and Equalities that characterize the Bottom are abused by the very same participants in Politics. Where is the control? Is an Individual qualified simply because She/He is Rich, Socially Powerful, Famous, or is just seeking more Power? Where is the Control?

How sad; the 'problems of Governing' are no longer just the 'People' at the 'Bottom', 'they' are at the Top.

How sad; the problems of Governing are no longer just the People at the Bottom, they are concentrated at the Top. Of course, the Bottom has its troubles, with all the Racial discrimination and the efforts to Control the vote, etc. That will always be the case. But, when the Top, the Ideology begins to unravel, one has to find the cause for that. Several publications have stated that Trump and Putin are 'very friendly' and that Putin said it was to Russia's advantage to have Trump in Office because of his 'incompetence'. Thats dangerous and the cause is probably the 'lack of qualifications' for Running for Office. Anyone can Run. Also, the fact that we have 'Two Political Parties' that differ in their 'politics' simply on the basis of being a member of the opposing Party. Why cant we have One Party based on the the 'Constitution' and just 'differ' on how to accomplish the same democratic Political Goal? The division into a Two Party system doesnt seem to be working. Of course there will always be discussions on various ways of achieving the same Democratic goal. Nothing wrong with that. Are both Parties democratic? If political candidates want to monopolize the political landscape with a Party Ideology, why not just say it. Both Parties claim to be democratic, yet the two parties are 'replete with disagreements' and the competition between them is 'fierce'. It appears that the difference is about Money and that Money and the big Corporations determine the Policy and that 'Governing' should become 'Rule' and should be based on that and not on a 'Democratic Ideology'. Why should there be a 'Political' Connection between an Autocracy and a Democracy? Could that be some kind of attempt to merge or overcome 'One' or the 'Other' Ideology? Should'nt 'Each' be Independent from the Other? Could that lead to an antagonistic relation between Ideologies that could lead to War? What is wrong with our Politics?

Economic 'values' are essential, but 'not definitive' of a 'Social System' of 'Freedom and Equality'.

Certainly 'Economic values' are essential, but 'not definitive' of a Social System of 'Freedom and Equality'. Economic values are descriptive of a 'Social' but it does not create a Bottom or an Economy that is determinative of Democratic values. The Bottom of a Democracy does require 'Economic Values' but it does not shift the Democratic Value System of 'Freedom and Equality' to an 'Economy descriptive' of an 'Autocratic System'. Certainly an 'Autocratic System' can monopolize its Economy and subsistute, a value system that emphasizes the Economic as its strong-point at the Bottom, but it does not emphasize 'Freedom and Equality' of the 'Individual' as the strong Point of a Democratic 'Bottom'. All Bottoms need economies, but that aspect of all Socials is not the only defining parts of a Democratic Social. If the economy was the sole factor we would be 'inching' closer to a 'Plutocracy', not a Democracy. Hence, great care must be exercised when defining a Successful Economy. 'Corporate Persons' create a 'Lopsided Economy' and a 'Lopsided Social'. The Constitution applies to every 'Real Individual' and should not include 'Legal Fictional Persons' or 'legal Fictions. They 'may be' necesary 'Legal Constructions', but they are 'Fictional' and hence have no 'direct connection' to 'Constitutional Rights' which 'adhere' to 'Real Individuals' at the 'Bottom' of a Political Entity.

Of course, 'Economic Values' and accomplishments are essential to a 'Successful Economy'.

Of course, 'Economic Values' and accomplishments are essential to a 'Successful Economy'. A well developed 'Corporate Structure' and its 'protection' as such is 'essential' to the 'productivity' of the Structure. But, being 'essential' in the Economy is 'different' from placing it in the 'Higest Rung' of the 'Social Value' system. The 'Economy is essential because the Social is essential'. One could not imagine a Tribe of Indians creating 'Corporate Indians' to 'merely exist' alongside the 'Real members' of the 'Tribe'. There's a reason for the 'Corporate System' but our Corporate Creations can not 'free themselves' from the purpose for which they were created. We must remember that our Corporate Creations were created for the purpose of 'contributing' to the economic aspects of the 'Social System'; of the 'Condition of Togetherness'; or of the so-called 'Many'. The 'One and the Many' is a 'Form' that must be 'filled-in' with 'different value systems' that help 'integrate' the 'Social Aspects' of the So-called, 'Many'. The creation of 'a Person in Contemplation of Law' is understandable. But, that 'Person' is not the same as a Real Living Person and it should not usurp or dominate the function of the 'Real Human Worker'. It 'can be Huge' and it can also be a 'Fiction' but it should 'not Function' as an 'Autocrat'. Our 'Social is Democratic' so why not require the 'Corporate Structure' to also function as a 'Democrat'. 'Require it' to 'Contribute towards Democracy'!

If all 'Political Activity' is 'knowledgeable activity', of 'what' must it 'consist'?

If all 'Political Activity' is 'knowledgeable activity', of 'what' must it 'consist'? Well, we can't forget that 'Knowledge is knowledge'. Its a 'Knowing of sorts'. That's kinda vague, but in this case, its a knowing of the 'Relation' between the 'One and the Many'. Why do we need a 'Relation' there? Simply because the 'One' is 'Institutional' and the 'Many' or 'Bottom' of the 'Activity' is 'Real'. The 'Bottom' is 'Real' like in a statement that a 'Human Being' is a 'Real Person' or a 'Real Human Being'. If thats the case, why do we say that a 'Business Corporation' is a 'Person' in 'Contemplation of Law'. We certainly must give credit to the 'Law' that it 'admits' that a 'Person' in 'contemplation of Law' is a 'legal Fiction'. Of course, that leads to the further question, 'why' do we need 'Fictional Persons' when we already have 'Real Persons' who constitute the 'Bottom' of the 'Political Activity'? That would be the Social. Why do we need to 'create' 'Fictional Entities' at the 'Bottom of Social Activity' or, more precicely, at the 'Bottom' where the Economy becomes an 'important aspect' of the 'Social'? Of course, thats why we are called a 'Corporate Society'. But a Society is composed of 'Human Beings' not 'Fictional Beings'. If the 'Social' was composed of 'Fictions', even one 'lone Individual' on an 'Island' would never be 'lonely'. Unfortunately, the 'misplaced' 'Social Value' system of 'Money' and 'More and More of the same' ( pofits) has created an 'imbalance' in the structure of the 'Social and the Economy'. 'Legal Fictions' have become 'more valueable than the 'Human Condition'.

How does one evaluate the different Forms of Government?

How does one evaluate the different Forms of Governemnt? Not an easy task because Governemnt depends on a 'proper Relation' between the 'Top' and the 'Bottom'. That proper 'Relation' has to 'consider' 'both aspects' of the 'basic structure' of 'Government'. Why must it do so? Simply because 'Governing' is a 'Relation' between a 'Top and a Bottom' and not a difference in the 'Human Condition'. Humans are alike, yet different. A 'structure' that 'does not consider 'both ends' of the One and the Many does not consider the 'connection' that constitutes the 'Governing or Ruling' process. A 'Tribe' has a Top and a Bottom, even a 'Group', no matter its 'function' or its 'goal', has a 'Top and a Bottom'. The 'important aspect' of the 'structure' is the 'Relation' that 'flows', or 'doesnt flow', from the 'One' and the 'Many'. The larger the Group the more difficult to relate to a 'Top and a Bottom'. Of course, the difference in the 'Governing process' is not a 'Human Difference', but a difference between the 'Means' by which any 'One' or 'Group' of 'Individuals' 'ascends' to the Top of the 'Governing Relation'. A 'Ruling Relation' is different from a 'Governing Relation'. Since, Individuals are all 'Alike', i.e. 'equally Human', there must be some 'qualifications' for 'occupying' the 'Top' rung of a 'Governing Relation'. All 'Political activity' must be 'knowledgeable' activity.

Is the 'Democratic Form' of 'Government', the Best Form ?

Is the 'Democratic Form' of 'Government', the Best Form? All 'Governemntal Forms' are about a 'Political Top' and a 'Political Bottom'. There are no alternatives because all Governmental Forms are about a 'Top' that 'Governs' and 'its relation' to a 'Bottom' that is 'Governed'. The so-called the 'One and the Many' is a very basic structure, but it 'creates a Relation' that 'connects' a 'Top to a Bottom'. That 'Relation' can be 'Arbitrary' and 'function' only from the 'Top down'; but the 'Relation' can also function from the 'Bottom Up'. From the 'Top down' is 'Rule'. From Both, the 'Top down' and 'from the Bottom up' is 'Governing'. A Democratic Form functions from both ends of the spectrum and the Relation of the 'One' and the 'Many'. In simular words, it functions both ways. Hence, it allows for a Two-way type of Functitoning. Actually, in the 'Democratic Form' the 'Bottom' helped craft the 'Top'. Hence, change is possible at both ends of the Relation. The Top can modify the 'Institutional structure' at the Bottom and the Bottom can 'modify' or 'Amend' the Political Structure of the Top. Of course, not all Political Structures function in that manner. One could say that the 'Democratic Form' has 'Both Doors' open for 'valid criticism'.

The 'Democratic Top' is slowly becoming 'Ideologically Weak'.

The 'Democratic Top' is slowly becoming 'Ideologically weak'. A Political TOP should be Ideologically Strong. Of course, some Political Ideologies are stronger than Others because the Ideology is held together by 'fewer' Political 'Ideals'. For example, an 'Autocracy' is strong at the 'Top' because the 'Top Rules the Bottom'. The Issue is not about 'Governing', or the 'Rules of Governing', its about 'Ruling' and that means that 'Rule' is 'just Rule'. End of Story. In such cases, the Top has all the 'political principles' of 'Rule' and it is up to the 'Top' to 'Rule' in a 'Proper Manner'. The so-called 'Divine Right of Kings' could have been a Good Ideology if, and only if, Divinity permeated the Top and the Bottom. But, it didn't work. The Top had as many variations as did the 'Bottom in the Divine Right of Kings Government. Of course, the same problem attaches to all Autocratic Forms. If the Autocrat is 'Wise', even 'Divine', or 'thoughtful of the Individuals' at the 'Bottom', that could also 'have worked'. But, that seems to ask for too much. The 'Human Top', of any Ideology, is as 'good and efficient' as the 'Human Being' at the Top. Hence the Democratic Form. All 'Political Forms' have a 'Bottom' and all Bottoms are 'Real' and consist of 'Human Beings', or 'Human Persons'. There is no distinctions between Race, Color, or Creed and they all live together in a 'Condition of Togetherness'. The problematic is the Human Condition. Why?, Because, all Tops are occupied by a 'Human Being'. Hence the 'Democratic Ideal' of a Governemnt 'of the People', 'by the People' and 'for the People'. The end-result is still a Top with Humans in Political Positions of 'Power'.

Tensions in a 'Real Democracy' are inevitable. Both the 'Top' and the 'Bottom' have to 'Balance the Equities'.

In a Real Democracy there will be 'Social Tensions'. Both the Top and the Bottom must work 'Together' to balance the Equities. A 'Form' of 'Social Equity' arises only in a Democracy. The reason is that each 'Real Individual' is 'Free and Equal'. Each has 'His, Her' Life and is 'entitled' and 'expected' to live in 'Freedom and Equality'. Notice, I say, each 'Real Individual' and by that I exclude 'Corporate Persons'. A 'Corporate Person in contemplation of Law' is 'not' a 'Real Person'. This viewpoint does not take away any 'advantages' that it gets from its 'Situation' in the 'Economy' as a 'Business Corporation'; it merely Identifies it for what it is, a 'Legal Fiction' and allows it to 'function' 'only in the Economy' as a Fiction. Thats an economic classification, 'not' a 'New Human Creation' in the Social. The Real Individuals at the Bottom are expected to 'work out' there own Inequities and Inbalances. A Political Top has Power at the Top but, an 'Institutional Political Top' has an 'Attributed Power' not a 'Natural Power'. All 'Governing Agencies' are 'Institutional' and hence posseses 'only what they are 'Given' and never 'something' that they get from 'Nature'. In a 'Real Democracy' the 'Real Individual' is 'expected' to work out His, Her, own Social Equities.

The Abstract Top must 'Govern' the 'Real Individuals' in their 'Condition of Togetherness' at the 'Bottom'.

The 'Abstract Top' must 'Govern' the 'Real Individuals' in their 'Condition of Togetherness'at the Bottom. Thats 'one Reason' why the 'Nature' of the 'Top'( all Political Tops) is an 'Abstraction' and the Condition of the Bottom is a 'Condition of Togetherness'. The Bottoms 'Condition' is not 'One', 'Unified Condition', or 'Social Entity'. It is composed of a 'Multiplicity' of 'Real Individuals' living in their 'Freedom and Equality'. As such, Each 'Individual' is 'His'/'Her', own 'Person' and is 'Individually Free and Equal'. No Human Being 'lives on behalf' of 'Another'. Each is Unique. In this 'Isolation' the 'Individual' seeks for 'Another' to share his 'Life' and establish a 'Family'. A 'Democratic Top' respects this condition of Freedom and Equality and a 'democratic Bottom' should also contribute to the 'Solidity' and 'Stability' of the 'Political Entity'. The Top must Govern, not Rule and the Bottom must contribute to that 'Government' by 'Living without Tensions' in its 'Condition of Togetherness'. Of course, Democracy has its 'Problems'. The 'Political Parties' divide into a 'Two Party System'. (they Both claim to be Democratic, but are they?) Very often the 'Free and Equal' Individuals at the Bottom 'form their own Ideas and Opinions' as to what 'Democracy really means'. Some 'descriminate' on the basis of 'Race', others on the basis of 'Money' and 'economic class', and some on the basis of 'Religion'. Can a Democracy survive 'Tensions' in the 'Ideology' and at the 'Bottom'?

The 'Ideological Top' is abstract; the 'Generalized' Bottom is 'Individualistic' and 'Real'.

The 'Ideological Top' is 'Abstract'; the 'Generalized' Bottom is 'Individualistic' and 'Real'. The 'Top' can be easily 'distorted', but it remains Abstract; the 'Bottom' can also be changed, but it 'remains Real'. It cannot be otherwise. Each Individual has an opportunity to 'express' and 'Live' 'His', 'Her' Individuality and 'Today', even to change their Sex, but never their 'Humanity'. The Top is just as easy to change as is the Bottom. But, a change in the 'abstract Top' would change the 'nature' of the 'Top'because it is 'Ideological' and it would also 'effect' the 'Bottom' because the Ideology 'relates' to all the 'Individuals' at the Bottom. Hence, an Ideological Top Governs 'Everyone' and the 'Bottom' which consists of all the Individuals is 'Free and Equal'. Hence, the Bottom in its 'condition of Togetherness and Multiplicity' must be 'constrained' by Reasonable, Cultural, and Social 'Laws'. Hence, the Top 'relates' to the Bottom and the Bottom 'relates' to the Top. Hence, both 'Institutions' must relate to 'each other', to keep Democracy 'viable'.

The Problems at the Top are usually the Implementations of the Ideology.

The Problems at the Top are usually the 'implementations' of the Ideology. Most Ideologies are designed to Control the 'Bottom' in a variety of ways and most use Language that implies 'Fairness and Equity'. Some even use the word 'Democracy'. But, sometimes 'that Language' can be abused and can be 'justified' in the 'wrong manner'. As a general Rule the Top becomes 'fixed' and the exercize of Power is considered as a 'strong' political place of Power; one that Individuals dare not criticize. A Democracy will not allow Autocratic behavior by its Office Holders but, the Top merely shifts the definitions at the Top to justify some shift in the acquisition of Power or 'economic advantage' and then re-defines its 'Political Policies' to fit the Legal Definition. For Example, calling a Business Corporation a 'Person in contemplation of Law' solidifies the 'Corporate Function'. Everyone knows a Corporation is 'not a Person' so why called it that? What does the Court or Polity hope to accomplish by so-doing? Well, for one thing it will extend the 'Protection' of the Corporation just by calling it 'a Person'. All of a sudden, an 'acknowledged Legal Fiction' acquires 'more protection' than 'other Businesses. An 'acknowledged' Legal Fiction that is 'Legally considered' to have the 'Same Rights' as a 'Real Person'. Some will say, thats not what they said. Then why call it that? If it 'hasn't been elaborated upon', why not hold it to the same standards as any other 'Corporation'? If it hasn't been clarified, it soon will be. How sad, even the 'Courts' are involved in 'undermining' the Human Condition.

Being called a 'Democracy' does not, in and of itself, constitute its 'Integrity' as a 'Political Entity'.

Being called a 'Democracy does not, in and of itself, constitute its 'Integrity' as a 'Political Entity'. The 'Top' has a 'Name', as does the 'Bottom', but the 'actual circulation' of 'Political Ideology' and the 'People at the Bottom', must determine its 'Real Identity' as a Political Entity. A 'Real Democracy' cannot arise from the 'creation' of 'artificial' Human Beings, or stated differently, a 'Bottom' cannot exist if its not a 'Human Condition'. All 'Political Tops' are 'Institutional', but never 'Natural'. The 'Human Condition' cannot be 'artificially created'. A Robot, no matter what it accomplishes, is never a 'Human Being'. A Robot is a Robot, end of argument. We must not confuse the creations of the 'Human Race' with the creations of 'Nature'. A 'Political Top' is a 'Political Institution' and 'all' the 'Bottoms' of such Institutions, are 'Human Beings'. Humanity in its 'Totality', is the 'same', yet every 'Individual Human Being' is 'different', and 'each' has a 'Personal, but 'Human Integrity'. When a Political Entity Governs or, refers to the Human Condition, it must understand that it, the Political Entity, is 'Institutional' and 'not Natural'. It must govern the Natural, but not Rule it, the Divine Right of Kings no longer exists. 'Political Ideologies' differ, but their 'Integrity' is determined by the 'actual harmonizing practices' of the 'Human Condition' under their care. The 'Name', of the Polity, in and of itself, is not the 'Ideology', nor its 'Practices'.

Can 'Democracy' be diminished by the Functioning of its Ideology ?

Can 'Democracy' be 'diminished' by the functioning of its 'Ideology'? Can an 'Ideology' be 'diluted and 'reconstructed' as a different 'Ideology' supporting a 'False Democracy'? Yes, Real Democracy can be 'diminished' by weakening and transforming the basis of 'Real Democracy' at the 'Bottom'. Any 'generalized weakening' of 'Freedom and Equality' by the 'Polity', as well as by the establishment of 'different Institutions' in the 'Social' can provide 'differences' that can be 'called false democracy'. For example, the creation of a 'Legal Fiction' as also being a 'Person in contemplation of Law' can, and 'has', created an 'unbalanced Economy' because of their 'Productive Superiority' that elevates the 'Business Corporation' or Legal Fiction as a very 'important aspect' of the 'Social'. We're already called a 'Corporate Society'. Do we address the Legal Fiction as a 'Who' or a 'What'? Do we say 'She' or 'He' doesnt pay any Taxes? Once a 'Verbal Inroad' has been 'created', its relatively easy to create other 'Misnomers'. A 'Business Corporation' being called a 'Person in contemplation of Law', not only creates the 'potential' for 'other Misnomers', it also creates a 'haven' for the 'basis' of a 'Plutocracy'. How many 'Autocratic' Nations call themselves Democracies?

The Top of a 'Democratic Polity' should be 'Intelligent'; and 'Compassionate' of the 'Individuals' at the Bottom.

The Top of a 'Democratic Polity' should be 'Intelligent; and 'Conpassionate' to the 'Individuals' at the Bottom. After all, the Top is a 'Democratic Institution' crafted to 'Serve' the 'Real Individuals' at the Bottom. It has no other 'Structural Function'. By the words 'Structual Function', I refer to its 'democratic nature'. Its function at the Top is the result of electoral-votes and the Representatives at the Top only serve in 'Office' for a 'Prescribed Period' of Time. The 'Political Office' is the 'Only Source' of 'Political Power'. The 'Democratic Top' Never has a justification for the exercise of 'Power' other than the 'Political One'. 'Money' is not a 'Source', 'Race' is not a Source nor is 'Creed'. Political Power is 'Electoral Power' and that is dependent on a 'Process' that is truly 'Democratic'. When the Bottom divided up into Political Parties, they established a 'Political Tension' that should not be there. Although, both Parties claim to be democratic, that 'Political Tension' is not really between 'Parties', its between 'Ideologies' which is 'used' to 'cement' their Power. Both Parties compete for 'ascension' to the Top where they can 'generate and exercise' their 'Political Power'. 'Politics' becomes a contest between Parties about which Party will 'Govern'. Govern they must, but the 'Institutions' and 'Laws' they promalgate will determine if they are being democratic or leaning towards Autocratic Rule. An 'Autocratic' or 'Semi-Autocratic Lean' will diminish 'Real Democracy' at the Bottom.

The Top of a Political Entity is 'more or less' fixed, the Bottom is 'Malleable'.

The Top of a Political Entity is 'more or less' fixed, the Bottom is 'Malleable'. Of course, the Top can change certain aspects of its Political Structure. The Bottom is less predictable. The 'Millions' of 'Real Individuals' composing the 'Bottom' are all 'Free and Equal Human beings'. They are aspects of 'Nature'. As such, they can 'express' their Freedom and Equality as 'Human Beings' but 'cannot change' the 'Naturalness' of their 'Human Condition'. 'Freedom and Equality' can be 'constrained' and 'directed' by 'Laws' and 'Mores', but never 'Surpresseed'. Of course, there are 'Political Ideologys' that augment the 'Power' at the Top and 'constrain' the 'Legal' and 'Moral' arrangement at the 'Bottom'. But the 'Top' is 'Institutional' and the Bottom is 'Natural'. How much of the 'Natural' can an 'Institution' constrain or limit? The answer to that defines the different 'Political Ideologys. The 'difference' in the Ideologys exists mostly at the 'Top', not the Bottom. All 'Political Bottoms' are also 'Institutional', but are composed of the 'Human Condition'. As Humans, they each, reflect the 'Nature' of their 'composition'. As Individuals of 'Natural Kinds', each is 'Free and Equal'. Whatever limitations are placed on 'their existence' becomes an 'Institutional Thing' that depends on its 'Political Posture'. Politics is not 'Natural', its 'necessary'. Its a 'Political Institution' that tries to 'harmonise' the 'Relation' between the 'Top and the Bottom'.

The 'Top' must 'interact' with the 'Bottom', but the 'Bottom' must 'interact' with the 'Top' and 'Itself'.

The 'Top' must 'interact' with the 'Bottom', but the 'Bottom' must 'interact' with the 'Top' and 'Itself'. There are no 'shortcuts' in Politics. 'Everyone', and their 'relation' to 'each Other' must be understood and included. Political Theory involves 'Totalizing Aspects' of the Political Entity and its 'Political Relations'. It must include the entire 'Human Condition' at the 'Bottom' and 'their Relations' to the Entity. At this point, at the Bottom, the 'Individual' also becomes related to his 'Neighbor' and to the 'Other'. We now have 'Millions of Individuals', each of which, must learn to live 'Individually' with the 'Neighbor' and with each 'Other'. The 'Relations' at the 'Bottom' become more 'Distant', more 'Abstract', and less 'Personal'.Thats why 'Politicians', at all levels of Government, must be driven by 'Service', not 'Artifice'; and the 'Individual', at the Bottom, must truly 'Understand' that 'We', as 'Individuals', are truly in the 'Same Boat'. If the Individual is truly Free and Equal at the Bottom, 'He' and 'She' must apply that 'principle' to 'every Other Individual' that finds 'himself or herself' at the 'Bottom' of a 'Political Entity'. Political Entities are 'all Institutional'. 'Humans' are 'all Free and Equal'.

The Bottom becomes 'Problematic' because of the 'Number' of 'Real Individuals' at the Bottom.

The Bottom becomes 'Problematic' because of the 'Number' of 'Real Individuals' at the Bottom. In and of itself, and not as a 'Form of Democratic Government', a Bottom of 'Many' is not neccessarilly a problem. Just 'Mix them' any way a 'non-political Top' wants. But, a 'Political Entity' has 'responsibilities' to the 'Bottom' and a 'Political Bottom' has responsibilities to the 'Top'. The Political Democratic 'Top' finds its responsibilities in the 'Constitution' and 'Constitutional Law', but the 'Political Bottom' does not have a source of written obligations. So how are the 'Relations' at the Bottom handled? Of course, the Bottom also has to abide by Law; 'Common Law' and 'Statuatury Law', and each 'Political Division' has its 'own Law'. But, there are also 'everyday obligations' in their 'Relations' to 'each Other'. No one lives in Isolation and some aspects of Human Behavior are codified into Law. But, there are some aspects of Human Behavior that are not covered by 'Law or the Constitution'. We generally call these Relations as the 'Good Will' towards each Other. The 'General Will' covers the 'Constitutional basis' of behavior, and the 'Individual Good Will' the bahavior of the 'Real Individuals' towards each Other. Of course, that can be a Problem. Why? Because there's Millions or Billions of each 'Other' and Good Will applies to 'Each'. Many Individuals have Good Will towards the Neighbor, but not necessarilly to 'all Others'. From this 'hiatus' or 'distance' arises 'Racial Descrimination', Professional Descrimination, Economic Discrimination, and Class descrimination. This distancing must be 'closed up' to allow for the expression of the 'Good Will' and the 'General Will'. To enable that to come about is complex and requires cooperation between the 'Top and the Bottom' as well as 'between' the 'Many Real Individuals' at the Bottom.

The 'Form' of the Top and the Bottom are Obvious, but the expected 'Relations' are not.

The 'Form' of the Top and the Bottom are obvious, but the expected 'Relations' are not. Both the Top and the Bottom have 'responsibilities' to adhere to the 'Democratic' and basic structure of the 'Political Entity'. The Top 'must Govern', it cannot do otherwise, and the Bottom is 'Free and Equal' in their 'Inter-Relations' to each 'Other'. The 'Top' must have a 'Theory' and a 'Full Knowledge' of what a 'Democratic Entity' requires. Why? Because the 'Top Governs' and must be fully qualified. If someone just says 'I want to be President', is that sufficient? Of course Not. If 'He or She' says I'm a 'Billionaire', is that sufficient? No. If He or She says Im 'very Educated, is that sufficient? No! He or She must be 'fully qualified' and 'prepared to Govern', 'not to Rule'. Rule is easy, just say, Thats 'Me' or 'thats the way I am'. A Hundred times, No. A 'Real Politician' 'Serves' his or Her 'Nation' and tries to 'make conditions' at the 'Bottom' more tolerable. Remember, the Top is constituted by a few Individuals and the Bottom is constituted by 'Millions or Billions' of 'Real Individuals'. There are no Corporations at the Bottom, Corporations are created by the State for the 'Betterment of the Bottom' and not to increase the 'Persons' at the 'Bottom'. The State 'should have better control' of the 'Corporate Bodies' and the 'State' should use the 'Corporate Persons' to 'further the 'implementation of Democracy'. Of course, the 'Form' or 'Structure' of the 'Constitutional Top' is relatively easy to depict, but the 'Bottom' is not.

Both, the 'Top' and the 'Bottom' must contribute to the 'General Welfare'.

Both, the Top and the Bottom 'must contribute' to the 'General Welfare'. The Top is 'Formally', 'formed' and 'organized', by the Constitution. The Bottom lives in a 'Condition of Togetherness' that divedes itself into 'States' and Smaller 'Political Entities', 'all of which' must 'adapt' themselves to the 'General Welfare'. So, how can 'each Individual' at the 'Bottom' assist the 'General Welfare', if 'Each and Everyone' is 'Free and Equal? Doesn't 'Freedom' insure the Individual that there are 'no restraints' against the excercise of their personal 'wishes', nor their 'participation in Political Activity'? Absolutely! But, there are 'Laws', Social Mores and Political standards that One must adhere too. Freedom and Equality means freedom and equality in a 'Democratic Political Entity'. The Individual at the Bottom must adhere to the Law as well as the use of his,her, Language. The Bottom can very easily become 'Identified' and 'held captive' by the 'Usage' of 'His', 'Her', Language. 'Language' can be as much a 'Social' and 'Personal' 'constraint' as is the 'Law'. That reduces the 'Individuals obligation' to the 'General Welfare' to an understanding that Freedom and Equality are not 'just Terms' that are 'Socially' and 'Linguistically' binding. 'Freedom and Equality' are sincere 'behavior patterns' that must be 'Lived'. Asserting ones 'Individuality' must allow for the 'Same' in the 'Other'.

The 'One' and the 'Many' is a 'Great' description of the 'Relations' of the 'Many' to each 'Other' and to 'Government'.

The 'One' and the 'Many' is a 'Great' description of the 'Relations' of the 'Many' to each 'Other' and to 'Governemnt'. The One is the Top and the Many is the Bottom. The One is 'Political Power' and 'Authority' and the 'Many' is 'Human Nature'. The Top is 'Institutional' and the Bottom is 'Natural'. Already we begin to see the need for Governemnt and the 'Natural Conditions' of Humanity. In a Democracy, the 'Primary' characteristic of Humanity is that 'each Individual' is 'Free and Equal. The Top is accountable for its 'Institutional Character' and the Bottom is accountable for its 'Humanity'. But, the Freedom and Equality that characterizes the Bottom needs 'control' and that control is 'Law'. The Top also needs a 'Form of Stability' and that form is 'Constitutional'. Every Top requires a Bottom and every Bottom requires a Top. That 'Relation' gives Rise to the different 'Political Ideologies' of the different 'Institutions of Governemnt'. The Pinnacle of Power is described by the 'Form' and the 'Ideology' the Government assumes. But, the 'Bottom' of 'all Governemnts', whatever its Political Ideology, is the 'Human Condition'. 'Each' Real Individual is 'different' and yet 'each' reflects the same 'Human Condition'. 'Humanity' is 'Humanity'; the only difference arises from the 'Place and Conditions' of 'Birth'; 'present Domicile'; and 'Migration'. Suddenly,the 'Problems' at the 'Bottom' become more complicated; how do 'Different Individuals' remain 'Free and Equal' at the Bottom? Humanity has not changed, Individuals adjusting to their 'Conditions of existence' evolve 'Different Personalities'. Its called 'Survival'. Its become 'imperative' for 'all Humanity' on the Planet to learn to 'Live Harmoniously'. Where are the Real Politicians?

If we lived in a 'Real Democracy', the 'Division' at the Bottom would not be Problematic.

If we lived in a 'Real Democracy', the 'Division' at the 'Bottom' would not be problematic. Why? Because the Bottom would still be Democratic and persue democratic Values. But, the division at the Bottom shifted its value system into an Economic Position. A 'Political Position' that has a high concern for Money and Profits and the 'Corporate Structures'or, the 'Constitutional Persons in Contemplation of Law', has shifted into the 'Economic Sphere' and no longer espouses 'Democracy' and the 'Freedom and Equality' of 'All Real Individuals' at the 'Botttm'. Certainly The Economy is very important to a Political Entity, but so is the 'Freedom and Equality' of the 'Real Individual'. The Individual at the Bottom is Real and Democratic Values are designed to benefit the 'Human Condition' and not necessarilly the 'Constitutional Persons'. They are Legal fictions. Constitutional Persons should also follow Democratic values and not 'solely contribute' to a so-called 'Corporate Society'. 'Corporate Societies' do not 'need' Government, they are creatures of Government and need to be better Controled by Government. After all, Government 'creates them' and should also control them. Government issues their 'Corporate Charters' and describes their 'Function' in that Charter. The main characteristic should be that such 'Creations' are required to 'function Democratically' and not function as 'Autocrats'. Once they become 'democratic' they can 'better contribute' towards the 'Freedom and Equality' that characterizes the Bottom. If a Democracy can 'Create' 'Constitutional Persons', they should be able to 'Control' their Function.

First, the Bottom divided into 'Two', then the Top embraced 'Technology and Computerization'.

First, the Bottom divided into 'Two', then the Top embraced 'Technology and Computerization'. The First division caused the Bottom to assume a 'weaker Nature' as a 'Condition of Togetherness' and as a 'Political Party'. The 'Party aspect' divided the 'Unification of the Bottom' as a 'Political source' of 'Political Power'. Some Individuals supported the 'Individual Freedom and Equality' at the Bottom, and some supported the 'Corporate Society. Well, the Top embraced Technology and Computerization and became 'Cybernetically' sophisticated. The 'Real Workforce' at the 'Bottom' became smaller and the Technologically advanced and Computerized Top acquired more control over the 'Factors of Production'. 'Some aspects of the 'Top' could now function without the assistance of the 'Real Individual' at the 'Bottom'. The Top is no longer dependant on the Bottom for 'much' of its 'Labor'. The Top grows in 'Power' while the Bottom becomes 'attenuated' and 'weaker'. 'Real Democracy' and the 'Vote' becomes 'endangered'. Today, even the Legitimacy of the Vote is becoming Questioned, Contested, and no longer the 'Sacred Carrier' of the 'Voice and Choice' of the Real Individual at the Bottom.

In a Democracy, being a Billionaire does not automatically qualify anyone to 'Higher Office'.

In a Democracy, being a Billionaire does not automatically qualify anyone to 'Higher Office'. In all probability, the status of His, Her, Estate would have to be a consideration in any economic decisions, resolutions or Laws effecting or connected to his, her, Economic status. Any Billionaire is already in a position to contribute more than anyone else towards the improvement, or betterment, of the 'Lower Classes' or the Homeless. But, most are not that 'charitable'. Of course, its unfair to compell such 'generosity' on someone who is a Billionaire. 'Competition' is alive and well in a 'Democracy'. Its actually the Motivating force in a 'Social' that is 'Free and Equal'. But, is it 'Free and Equal'? Can there be 'competition' between the 'Rich' and the 'Poor'; the 'Corporate Persons' and the 'Real Persons'; 'Rich Politicians' at the Top and the 'Poor People' at the 'Bottom'. Is the Top really 'Governing' or is it 'causing imbalances' in the 'Economy'; imbalances that only 'widens' the division between Rich and Poor. Politics seems to have reduced itself to a struggle between the 'Haves' and the 'Have-Nots'; and the 'Political Values' of a 'Democracy' have been 'Transformed' into 'Squables at the Top' between the 'Two Parties', each 'Political Party' seeking advantage for 'itself' within the 'Economy', instead of the 'Social'. The 'Social' continues with a 'complete severance' between the 'Haves' and the 'Have-Nots'. The Top continues its 'Plutocratic' 'implementation' and 'modification' of 'Economic Principles'; Principles that transforms a Democracy into a Plutocracy.

Legal Fictions and Modern Technology in the Economy contribute to Massive Productivity.

Legal Fictions and Modern Technology in the Economy contribute to massive Productivity. Certainly, Productivity should benefit both the 'Corporate Status' and the 'Well Being' of the 'Individual' at the Bottom. Isn't that its Purpose? Productivity should be for the Well Being of the Individual in the Social and not just for 'Profits' and a 'Place' on the 'Forbes List'. The 'Individual' should benefit from 'Both' the 'Production' and the 'economic means' made 'available' to enhance their 'General Well Being'. Then why do we have 'Poverty' in the 'Social' and 'Billionaires' in the Economy. Why do we have 'Economic Classes' of 'Rich', Not so Rich, Middle, and Poor Classes? Why is the 'Integrity of the 'Freedom and Equality' in the 'Social' severed by the 'Economic Means' that 'Generate' or 'should Contribute' towards the 'Individuals Well-Being'? The Top can Produce as it does because of 'Tecnology' and its 'Person-Hood'. Of course, the Top says that the Bottom is Lazy and does not want to work. But, the truth of the matter is that the TOP has availed itself to massive and tecnological Means of Production. The 'Human Beings'( Capitalists) at the Bottom 'create' an 'Economic Monster( Business Corporation) of a 'Person' and give it 'Constitutional Personhood' and dare to characterize the 'Real Individual' at the 'Bottom' as Lazy. Its time to revamp that 'Person-hood' and make it less Autocratic in its Function and 'compell' it to contribute to the 'well-being' of the Individual in a Democracy. Its 'sole Goal' should not be a 'Place on the Forbes List', but the 'Well Being' of all the Real Individuals for which it was 'Incorporated'. There should not be 'Economic Advantages' in a 'Tecnologically Improved Economy'. After all, being a 'Billionaire' does not make a 'Human Being' more 'Human'.

Why is 'Party Ideology' a 'compromised form' of 'Democracy'.

Why is 'Party Ideology' a 'compromised form' of 'Democracy'? The answer is obvious and the 'Division' at the 'Bottom' can only be called a 'Compromised Form' of 'Democracy'. The 'Division', 'Severance', or 'Fracturing' that results at the Bottom or 'of the Many' causes a weakening of the 'Democracy' because it also causes an 'Unusual Tension'at the 'Bottom' of the 'Relation' between the 'One and the Many'. That Relation is 'descriptive' of the 'proper connection' between the 'Institutional Top' and the 'Many people' at the 'Bottom'. But, today its no longer 'just' the 'Top and the Bottom'. Today, it's an 'Instituional Top' and a transformed Bottom of 'Two Adversarial Clusters' of 'Politically Adversarial Individuals'. Hence, how can the Bottom be called a 'Condition of Togetherness'; a 'Unified Bottom' of 'Freedom and Equality' when there are 'Two Political Ideologys' at the Bottom. The Two Political Parties become Adversaries that demand 'Party Loyalty' and causes 'Friction' at the Bottom, among all the People in a Democracy. Hence, the Bottom becomes 'severed' by Party Ideology into a dualism that is always competitive and never fully Democratic. Of course, they could both be Democratic, but are they? Arn't the Parties 'adversaries' if they create a 'conflict' between two Groups espousing 'oppossing' Political positions? Party members 'do not' easily change 'Party Ideology', but merely increase the 'Tension' at the 'Unified Social' or the 'Bottom'. The effect is that it severs a 'Real Bottom' of 'Democratic Principles'. The Bottom can have its continueing 'States Rights' and 'Federal Constitutional Rights' debates but, 'Both' 'must comply' with a Unified Constitutional Structure. Party Ideologies must also pass the test of a 'Real democracy', otherwise the tension at the Bottom can introduce 'adversarial', 'Undemocratic Values' that arises from the 'Double Standard' and injects 'Economic Values' in the 'Social' that have no place in a 'True Democracy'. 'Money', 'Rich', 'Poor', and 'Homeless', stir-up a Unified, balanced Social.

How does one distinguish between a 'Democrat'; an 'Autocrat'; and a 'Politically Correct' Politician.

How does one distinguish between a genuine 'Democrat', an Autocrat and a 'Politically Correct' Politician? Its not easy and its important to know the 'Ideologies' in order to understand the 'Personalities' that motivate the 'Individuals' to be eligible for 'Public office'. Of course, the Autocrat serves in an Autocracy, so the form of Governemnt is already established. In such cases there, I assume, are many ways of determining who will be at the Top. Usually its someone 'already Politically Popular', 'Influencial'or who has been 'Handed' the Office. But, be assured it will be someone who will continue to rule in the Autocratic manner. Since Autocracies have absolute control of the Ideology, they can determine or influence the manner of ascendng and perpetuating the Time frame of Office. In manny cases the Autocrat dies or becoms unable to Rule and is replaced by other means. However, a candidate in a Democracy needs 'exposure' to His or Her 'ambition' and qualifications to assume the Power at the Top. Since the Top has few qualifications to Run for Office, its popular to just say 'Anyone' can 'Run for Office'. Of course, it takes Money, Influence, Popularity, and Knowledge of the Ideology. No one who is 'unfamiliar' with the 'Democratic ideology' can purport to 'Govern' a Democracy. That's the vital aspect of becoming a 'true Representaive of the People'. That means all the People and not just the 'Party Ideologues'. 'Party Ideology' is a 'compromised Form' of Democracy. The Bottom separates from 'other Parts' of the Bottom and a 'tension' between 'Party Loyalty' is 'added' to the the normal tensions within a 'Democratic Polity'. The Top remains the Same, but in fact it also causes a 'tension' at the 'Top' that derives from Party Loyalty. In other words, tensions and loyalties 'creates an Opposition' at the Top that should'nt be there. The end result is an 'Antagonistic Politics' at the Top where economic values 'replace' those of 'Freedom and Equality'. The 'shift' goes from Politics, to Party Loyalty, to a value system of 'Money' and 'Economic Imbalances' in the Social.

Legal Fictions are 'probably essential' to insure the 'Legal Structure' holds together.

Legal Fictions are 'probably essential' to insure the 'Legal Structure' holds together. However, it becomes essential for that 'function' to 'relate' to the 'Integrity' of the 'Legal Structure' and not the 'components of the Social'. Of course, the components of the 'Social Structure' are multitudinous and do include the Economy. But, the characteristics of the 'Social' is its 'Freedom and Equality'. Of course, the Economy 'can' and 'should' produce at its maximum to 'sustain' the 'General Welfare' of the 'Many' Individuals in the 'Social'. But, the 'Business Corporation' is not a 'Real Individual'; they are 'Institutions' that 'function' in the 'Economy'. 'Individual Human Beings' constituting the 'Many', as 'themselves', 'are not Institutions'. 'Each' is a complete 'Human Person in 'Herself' or 'Himself'. No 'Human Being' lacks 'in Being Human'. They may behave as 'not Human', but thats why we have 'Law and Order' in the Social. The 'legal structure' governs the 'Behavior' of the 'Real Individuals' in the 'Social' and in the 'Economy'. Of course it also governs the 'formation' and 'functions' of the 'Business Corporate structure', but not its 'behavior' because it doesn't 'Behave'; it just 'Functions'. The 'behaviors' of the 'Real Individuals' are 'Many', the behavior of the 'business Corporation' is solely to 'Produce' and 'get Big'. So, why do we need 'Persons' in 'Contemplation of Law? The Big Corporations are 'Autocrats', the 'Human Condition' is Democratic. How ludicrous, a 'Democrat' creates an 'Autocrat'. Surely, there must be a better way.

'Persons' as 'Legal Fictions' can retain their 'Size', but must allow for 'Democratic Functions'.

'Persons' as Legal Fictions should be allowed to retain their 'Size' in the Social, but must allow for 'Democratic Functions'. By allowing them to retain their Size, the creation of 'Democratic Departments' in all Legal Persons should allow the 'Purpose Clause' to open itself to the establishment of 'democratic Functions'. Hence, their 'Size' and their 'productivity' would not be compromized, but their 'function' as Legal Fictions are free to contribute to the 'Democratic aspects' of the Social. Each Corporate Structure that exceeds a certain Valuation would be required to have a 'Department' within the Structure whose 'sole function' is to 'implement Democratic' values in the Social. Democratic Functions are necessary in the Social because it is constituted by Individuals who are Free and Equal. 'Autocratic Functions', whether in the 'Economy' or the 'Political Ideology' should not be tolerated in a 'Democracy'. All Individuals in a Democracy are 'Free' and 'Equal', hence the creation of 'Social' and 'Economic Institutions' should also contribute to those Institutions. Since, 'Corporate Personhood' is established by the Rulings of the Supreme Court, Social and Economic Institutions should also 'function' Democratically. Since every Real Individual is required to abide by Law and Order, 'Corporate Persons' should also be required to abide by 'Law'. 'Autocratic Power' should not be allowed in a Democracy. Hence, the requirement would be 'Function as a Large Economic Entity', but do so as a 'Democrat in a Democratic Society'. An 'Institutional Creation' in a Democracy should not be allowed to function as an 'Autocrat'.

Creating " Persons" that are 'Legal Fictions' in the Economy seems misguided.

Creating "Persons" that are Legal Fictions in the Economy seems misguided; or, to say it differently; creating 'Legal Structures' that are considered 'Legal Fictions' and calling them 'Persons' in the Economy seems misguided. Why are they necessary and at the 'very place' where 'Competition between Human Beings' takes place. The Law has created a 'Monster Worker' that is Immortal because it cannot die and if it's been around for Many years can merely change Name and 'continue its existence'. Sure it contributes to Economic Acheivement, but what about 'Economic Balance' within 'Social Balance' among 'Real Human Workers'? Why does the Law favor 'Legal Fictions' when those Fiction's sole function is to Function as 'Autocrats' and make Money. Of course, 'Small Corporations' can become 'disfunctional' or go bankrupt. But, the Big Corporations 'cannot fail' and can merely change 'Names' or be 'Bailed out' by the Government and continue their Immortality. Of course, 'Big Corporations' are important but, what about the Little Guy? That seems like a misguided focus on the concept of the 'Economy' and 'not' on some 'Social Good'. Democracy is a good system and is designed to Contribute towards the 'Welfare of the Human Condition' and certainly 'Economic Competition' between Humans is highly regarded and necessary. But, why does the 'Huge Business Corporation' function as an 'Autocrat' and not a 'Democrat', and why not 'Re-Conceive' them to have 'Democratic functions' that contribute towards a more 'Democtaic Social'. All it takes is an Amendment of the Purpose Clause.

Why are there Legal Fictions in the Economy?

If a 'Social' can 'hold together' with the 'Social Values' of 'Freedom and Equality', why can't a Business Corporation hold together without it having to be a 'Legal Fiction'? Business Corporations are enormous 'Money Making Machines'. Their existence is solely for the Purpose of 'making Money and making a Profit'. Of course, they are necessary because 'some' provide for the 'Well Being' of the 'Individuals' at the 'Bottom'. They are very competitive in the Business world, but they don't have any 'other Functions'. Have you ever seen a 'Business' Corporation that is not making a Profit? Why do they need protection? Is being on Top of the Forbes List their only motivation? Have you ever seen a 'Charitable Corporation' make a 'Profit'? Of course, they are also necessary because of their 'Social Function'. Thats a 'Democratic Function'. Its function is solely, in most cases, the Social Function for which it was Incorporated. The question arises, is it also a Legal Fiction? Better yet, are they entitled to the Protection of 'Personhood'? Most Individuals would respond, " Of Course". Protection from what; from some adversairial 'Social Function' that it serves? But, if it serves a Social Function, why would it need protection? If anything, it might need help to continue its 'function and contribution' to the 'Social Welfare' of the 'receipients' of their 'Purpose' for Existing. But, a 'Money Making machine' that gets 'Constitutional Protection' as a 'Person' in 'Contemplation of Law' creates many Problems within the Economy. It contributes towards an 'Unbalanced Economy' and to 'Haves and Have-nots' and furthur-more, they dont pay Taxes!. Do they count 'Legal Fictions' as 'Persons' in the 'census'? Shouldn't they also have a Democratic Function?

Are there Legal Fictions in the Social?

Are their 'Legal Fictions' in the Social? No. Why not? Because 'All Socials' are constituted by a 'Multiplicity of Real Individuals'. 'Real' Indivividuals are 'all' Equal and Free, regardless of Race, Color, Creed, Culture or anything else you can think of. All 'Socials' are 'Instituted Collectivities'. Humans don't differ in their 'Humanity'; they might differ in their 'Instituted existence' as a 'Condition of Togetherness'. But, the tension in their 'Condition of Togetherness' arises from that old Problematic of the 'One' and the 'Many'. The Instituting of 'One' 'Human Individual' at the Top and 'Many' Human Individuals at the Bottom in a 'Condition of Collectivity' creates a 'Tension' between the 'One' and the 'Many'; a 'Quantitative Concept' injected into an 'Instituted Concept' of 'Freedom and Equality' of the 'Many Individuals' creates the 'Difference'. But, the 'difference and the Tension' does not have to be between a 'Quantitative One' and a 'Quantitative' Many Individuals. It can be between a 'Human Individual' and 'Many' 'Human Individuals' in the 'Social'. 'Aha', in such a case, 'Everyone', whether at the 'Top' or at the 'Bottom' is 'Equal and Free'. So, why does 'Equality' have to have a 'Tension'? The 'Social' is an 'arrangement' and the arrangement is a 'Social Institution' of 'Equals'. All the Tensions that arise therefrom are 'created tensions' that can and should be addressed. Of course, thats the point where 'Institutionalized Governemnts' and 'Institutionalized Socials' are required to have 'Law and Order'. Notice that when we say 'Law' we always include 'Order'. Could it be because the sole purpose of Law in a 'Social' is to 'maintain Order' and 'not' to 'create a Tension' in the 'Social', and more importantly, between a 'Top and a Bottom'. The 'One' and the 'Many' are 'quantified concepts'. 'Equality' is Equality.

Why is the 'Business Corporation' the most Protected 'Person' in the World?

The 'Business Corporation' has been 'Christened' as a "A Person in Contemplation of Law" and which is also recognized as a "Legal Fiction". 'Everyone knows' that a 'Fiction', whether 'Legal' or 'not' is not 'anything Real'. So why does the Law have 'Fictions' and why does it protect the Business Corporation. I do not think that 'Law in General' is held together by legal Fictions when it comes to personal Liberties or Personal Rights of the Individuals in the Social. Most of those Rights and protections are justifiable by the 'Freedom and Equality' that 'inheres' in the 'Human Condition'. It seems like 'Legal Fictions' have become 'necessary' to hold 'Legal Argumentation' and 'Justification' for some, specific line of 'Legal Reasoning' and 'Legal Argument'. Why have certain Legal Fictions become necessary? Of course, its understood that some 'Social Entities' and more important, 'Social Values' have become so necessary that 'couching argumentation' in the 'Fictional Mode' is one manner of protecting the 'Concept'. But, why in the Economy? Why is the focus of the 'Protection of the Corporation' relate to its 'Size and Monopolizing' effect of the business? Of course, the Economy needs to be protected, but why do the Fictional Aspects also relate to 'Money', lots of Money? Do they all have to be in a 'Race' to be on the 'Forbes List'? Of course, the Economy is about Money but its also about the Freedom and Equality of the Real Individuals at the Bottom. The Bottom needs an Economy and the competition between Individuals is a good measure of a succesful Economy. But, the Business Corporation is a Fiction; a Fiction whose Productivity is the result of a functioning that's Autocratic in its results. Why can't it be a Democratic Fiction that 'requires' every Business Corporation to have a Department for Democratic Activity? Why do Democracys create 'Autocratic', 'Economic Institions' that establihes an 'Unbalanced' and 'lopsided Economy'. They 'benefit' the 'Rich' and contributes to a 'bigger Gap' between the 'Haves' and the 'Have-nots'.

There is 'No Reason' to have Government other than to 'Serve' the People at the Bottom.

Why do Governments exist? Why do we need Government? Of course, the reason is obvious. A 'Political Top' can operate as a 'hub' to 'help organize' the 'Multiplicity of Indiviudals' at the Bottom. There are always 'Many' Individuals at the 'so-called Bottom'. That why the Ancient Dillemna is phrsed as the 'One' and the 'Many'. The 'One' is always a source of control and organization and the Bottom is always the Many Individuals at the so-called 'Bottom'. Actually there is no such thing as a 'Bottom' just as there is no such thing as the 'Top' or the 'Political Top'. But, the 'Required' need for 'Order' of a 'Multiplicity of Individuals' at the Bottom should be obvious. Without 'Order and Organization' the Multiplicity would always be in a state of turmoil, conflict, and disorder. But, the term the One and the Many has hidden implications that Governments should be composed by One Individual at the Top and Many Individuals at the Bottom. The formulation favors a mode of control by 'One' or by some absolutely 'Superior Institution' at the 'Top' and the Bottom is the object of the Control by the Top. This manner of looking at the Dillemna of the One and the Many easily 'suggests' a Superior Top Ruling an Inferior' Bottom which leads to Autocracies, Plutocracies and Oligarchies. Hence, the need for the 'Democratic Form' of 'Constitutional Government'. Constitutional Democracy provides the 'hub' of authority necessary for Organizing a Bottom with Free and Equal Human Beings. All Human Beings, whether at the 'Top' or the 'Bottom' are 'Free and Equal'. Hence, Governemnt Institutions can be 'controlled' at the 'Top' and the 'Bottom'. Thats the purpose of Constitutional Government.

A 'Political Ideology' is a Human 'Institution'; a 'Political Bottom' is a Human 'Condition'.

A 'Political Ideology' is a Human 'Institution'; a 'Political Bottom' is a Human 'Condition'. Thats a dilemma that has existed a very long time. The main reason for its existence is that both the 'Top' and the 'Bottom' can only 'function' if both are occupied by 'Human Beings'. A 'Machine' or a 'Computer' cannot Govern a Bottom of 'Human Beings'. The dichotomy requires 'Human Leaders' and 'human followers'. Neither should be required to lose their 'Humanity' in order to 'serve' at the 'Top' or the 'Bottom'. Hence one must ask, why are their Autocracys, Plutocracies, or Oligarchies. The answer is simple. Some Humans want a focused 'Political Power' for whatever reason they may have; and the Others can be 'Governed' by the 'Political Power' from the Top. Governance or Rule can only come from a Political Top because thats the 'Institution' that will 'Govern or Rule' the Bottom. In either case, some semblence of stability must prevail at the Top and at the Bottom. A 'Political Top' can only have 'attributed' Political power because it only has that attributed 'Political Power' for the 'duration' of the 'Office' or, it can have 'arbitrary use of the Power'. Of course, one of the most 'arbitrary' uses of Power in the past was the so-called 'Divine Right of Kings'. Why? Because it permeated every aspect of the 'Political Entity', both the Top and the Bottom. Today, all 'Religious Systems' in the 'Social' are kept separate by the 'Institutional Structuring' of the 'Social' and the 'Political'. Every Political Structure is a 'Manufactured Institution' and every 'Political Bottom' is formed of 'Human Individuals'. In Governemnt Entities, the Issue is always, 'Do we Govern or do we Rule? There is a big difference between 'Government' and 'Rulers'.

The 'One' and it's 'Creations' are 'Institutional'; the 'Many' are 'Real Human Persons'.

The 'One' is Institutional; the 'Many' are 'Real Human Persons'. An 'Institution' is a 'Human Creation', its not anything 'Real', in the same sense, as a 'Human being' is 'Real'. A Human Being is a 'Person'. All 'Real Persons' are 'Real Human Beings'. That was always the case until the Supreme Court held that a 'Business Corporation' was a 'Person' in 'Contemplation of Law'. If the Law is going to assume and grant 'Person-hood' to a Fictional Entity, what other attributes does this 'Fictional Person' have? Does it have the same 'Rights' as a 'Real Person' and where do we draw the line between a 'Legal Fiction' and a 'Real Person'. How do we resolve the issue that if a Real Human being violates a Law, he can be put 'in Prison' and if a Corporation violates the same Law, 'It' cannot be put in Prison. Of course, all these issues and questions can be called academic, but remember we are called a 'Corporate Society' and keep in mind that the major cause of 'Economic Imbalances' is the 'Business Corporation'. We have created a 'Legal Fiction' that creates 'Haves' and 'Have-nots'; is the cause of economic imbalances; and no where in their By-Laws does it say that they are 'Democratic' in nature. The 'Legal Fiction' is truly a 'Fiction' and now its been made into a 'Person' in Contemplation of Law and its 'main' and 'sole' function is 'Autocratic'; not 'Democratic'. It 'must' make a Profit or be Dissolved and if it makes a Huge Profit, it creates 'Economic Imbalances'. Its sole 'Function' is 'Autocratic' and its 'Sole Result' is 'Plutocratic'; and 'Plutocracy' is 'Government by the Rich'; and Government by the Rich is 'NOT' a 'Fiction', its a 'Disaster'.

Posing the Governmental Problematic as the One and the Many creates many problems.

Posing the Governmental Problemantic as the 'One and the Many' creates many Political Problems. The One is a fixed Point and the 'Many' are 'all' Many fixed Points. The reason for that is that the Many are all Real Individuals and Real Individuals are all, each and everyone, 'Human existents'; and 'Every' Human Being is changeable. 'Fixidity' is difficult to 'move' or to Change. Whats fixed is fixed, but Real Unique Individuals are separate 'Existents' and 'Unique' and 'Self-Modifiables'. Characterising the Bottom as a 'Problematic' includes all the 'Individuals' as the 'Many' and as a 'Quantifiable concept'. That 'fixes' the 'Top' and 'weakens' the 'Bottom'. In Autocracy, its different, the Top is Power and the Bottom is not. Hence, the One will always be 'stronger', fixed, and the Bottom will remain as 'Many' but without 'Freedom and Equality', and hence, the Top has Absolute power over the Many. In Democracy the 'Top' comes from the 'Bottom' and the Top also has 'Power', but the 'Bottom', being less Quantifiable, has 'Freedom and Equality' and also has more 'Political-Mobility'. This manner of looking at the 'One and the Many' has more 'Variables' and less Quantification. But, the Bottom must 'seriously utilize' their 'Political Mobility' to achieve a 'Political Order' that is 'Constitutional'. The Constitution 'describes and defines' the 'Political Structure' and the 'Political Order' that distributes 'Power at the Top' and 'Freedom and Equality', or 'Political Rights' at the 'Bottom'. Democracy is a 'Functional concept' and hence there is continuous 'Interaction' between Top and Bottom. Democracy is a 'Living Concept' that is never 'Completely Quantified' and never ceases to 'Evolve and Develope'. Democracy is a 'Living Concept' with a 'unique Relation' between the Top and the Bottom. That Relation 'will always exist'. The Top will never stop 'Governing' and the 'Botttom' will never stop 'Questioning' the 'Effectiveness of their Democracy'.

The Huge Problematic with an 'Equilibrated Polity' is the 'Unified Top' and the 'Distributed Bottom'.

The Huge Problematic with an 'Equilibrated Polity' is the 'Unified Top' and the 'Distributed Bottom'. In the Divine Right of Kings the problem was merely to determine who was the 'King' or 'Queen'. In Autocracy, the problem is who is the 'Autocrat'; in Plutocracy, who is the 'Richest'; and in 'Oligarcy' who are my 'Friends'. Once the Top of Power is determined, the 'Bottom'; the 'Social' becomes whatever the Top decides or the type of 'Rule'. There is no question of 'who Rules' and 'who' and 'how' the 'Bottom Lives'. 'Rule' is 'Unified' and 'Living is Distributed'. The Bottom is at the Mercy of the Top. But; in a Democracy, the 'Top' is held together by a 'Written Constitution', subject to 'Amendments' and to a 'Constitutional Law'. Its very important to 'understand' that the Top 'does not rule'; it 'Governs' and it Governs according to the 'Political Formulations in the Constitution'. The Constitution 'qualifies' the excercize of 'Power' by the 'TOP'. Not only that, it also 'Describes', 'Defines', and 'Mandates' the 'Freedom and Equality' of 'all the Individuals' at the Bottom. Democracy 'defines' and 'describes' the 'Unified top of Power' and also the 'Distributed Rights' of 'Freedom and Equality' of the Many at the bottom. It could be said, Democracy diffuses and defines the 'Unity' of the Top of Power and 'consolidates' the Freedom and Equality of the Individual at the Bottom. Hence, many of the Problems of the 'One' and the 'Many' go away. But, if the 'Relation' is properly 'Described' and 'Defined'; it allows each Part of Government to function in a 'Balanced' manner. The Top still has Power, but its well described and defined. Other 'Forms of Governemnt' are free to determine how they will 'Govern' or 'Rule'.

The 'One' at the 'Top' and the 'Many' at the 'Bottom' need each other.

The 'One' at the 'Top' and the 'Many' at the 'Bottom' need each other. A Democratic Form of Government is arranged in such manner as to allow for the 'working together' of the 'Opposition' and the 'Mutual Functioning' of the 'One and the Many'. The 'Mutual Functioning' of the 'Two' is controled by a 'Written Constitution'. No Constitution is 'Perfect' and it must allow for 'Changes' and 'Amendments'. An Autocratic Form of governemnt would work perfectly if the Top was Perfect. That is seldom, if ever, the case. Given a Perfect Top the Bottom can only expect perfection. That is never the Case. 'All Political Tops' have 'Power' and 'Power', unfortunately, 'corrupts'. There are different Forms of Tops. There are 'Autocracys'; there are 'Plutocracys', there are 'Oligarchys', and there are 'Democracys'. But, the Democracy is the only form where the Constitution 'Recognizes and Protects' the 'Freedom and Equality' of 'each' and 'every' Individual at the Bottom. Obviously, the Non-Democratic Forms could treat the Individual as a 'Free and Equal Individual', but, its not very likely. There is always a 'Tension' between a 'Top with Power' and a 'Bottom' with a 'Multiplicity of Individuals'. The 'Divine Right of Kings', started off with the 'Help' of the 'Diety' but it didnt last long and is no Longer Functional. All Other Autocratic Forms of Governemnt do not hesitate to exercize their Absolute Power. Of course, the 'Democratic Form' also has the same amount of Power at the top, but there is a 'Written Constitution' that 'controls' the 'excercize' of that 'Power'. The Democratic Form has Power at the Top and the Bottom has 'Freedom and Equality'. That allows for a Proper excercise of 'Political Power' at the Top and a 'Law Abiding' exercise of 'Feedom and Equality' at the Bottom. So, it seems like the 'Equities' and 'Tensions' are more balanced in the Democratic Forms. So, what happened to the Democratic Form? Why is there so much turmoil in a Democracy. From the very establishment of the Democratic form, the Top and the Bottom divided into 'Political Parties'. Then the Bottom started to have 'Haves and 'Have-Nots' and the 'Haves' strive to get to the 'Top' and that is getting to close to a 'Plutocracy'.

The word 'Service' in Politics refers 'to the People'; not the Political Party.

The word 'Service' in Politics refers 'to the People'; not the 'Political Party'. Most Political Parties have an 'Agenda' and that is usually 'designed' to 'benefit' the 'Party and the 'Party-Incumbent'. Belonging to a 'political Party' is not a 'real belonging'. Its 'Temporary Political Apparel' with adjacent benefits. Of course, the benefits are 'Politically related' to the 'Party' and sometimes to the 'Individual'. But, strangely; have you noticed how 'Normal' an 'Individual appears' when 'out of Office'. No longer encircled with the Politcal Aura of 'Self-Importance' and 'Political Power', 'He' or 'She' appers like a 'Normal Human Being'. A Human Being that is just 'One' of the 'Many' at the 'Bottom'. Even when you get together a 'bunch' of 'Out of Office' Holders for 'some Photo-Op', all in Suits, they all look so 'uninfluencial', as would a photo of 'all the Real Individuals' at the 'Bottom' of the 'Political Entity'. Eight Years of Service to an infinite number of 'Real Individuals' at the 'Bottom' is not without consequances. No longer 'Self important' and no longer a 'possesor of Political Power', the Individual must return to 'normality'. That is not an easy-trick. 'Serving' the 'People at the Bottom' should not be Problematic. If the Parties are both Democratic, why should there be a Political Problem? The Problem is probably Two-fold. Generally speaking, its the 'Power at the Top' and the 'Freedom and Equality' at the 'Bottom'. The 'Top of Power' is 'One' and is 'focal'; the 'Bottom' of 'Freedom and Equality' is 'Many' and is 'distributed'. That should work, but there are other influences involved; namely the 'Economy', its 'Corporate Fictions',or 'Corporate Persons' and 'Money'. That influence helps create and contributes to the 'Haves' and 'Have Nots'.

Politics is about 'Service'. The 'Highest Office' in the Land has 'Political Power', not the 'Individuals' in Office.

The 'Higest office' in the land has 'Political Power', not the 'Individuals' that 'serve' in the Office. Political Power 'arises' from the 'Institution', not the Individual. In a Democracy, the Individuals that 'Serve' in that capacity or all 'Free and Equal', as are all 'Human Beings' at the 'Bottom' of the 'Democratic 'Political Entity'. That applies to all 'Political Institutions', regardless of the 'different' Ideology. The 'Political Ideology' does not 'create' Freedom and Equality. But, the 'Political Ideology' either 'recognizes' or 'does not recognize' the 'Freedom and Equality' at the 'Bottom'. Freedom and Equality is a characteristic of the 'Human Condition'. Its the 'Human Condition' that establishes the Freedom and Equality of the Individual. But, the Politivcal Entity or Ideology determines whether it will 'recognize' or 'not recognize' the 'Freedom and Equality' of the Individual at the Bottom. All 'Leaders' are 'Human' and so are all Individuals at the bottom. In terms of an established Institution, there is 'no distinction' between the 'Individual' at the Top and the 'Many Individuals' at the Bottom. The 'Human Condition' is all the same, yet 'each' Individual is 'Unique'. The 'Political Ideology' is something entirely different. It determines how 'Political Power' will be 'exercized'. An Autocratic regime will 'Rule' the People at the Bottom; a Democratic Government 'Governs' the People at the Bottom. The important thing to remember is that its the 'Office' that has 'Institutional Power' and 'not' the Human Indivdual. The 'Human Condition' is equally 'Human'; each is the Same, yet each 'Individual' is 'Unique'. 'Political Ideologies' differ with respect to the 'Model' of the Ideology and the 'exercize' of 'Political Power'.

The Problematic of the One and the Many is still with us.

The Problematic of the One and the Many is still with us. It can only be resolved if the 'One' becomes a 'Real Governor' and the 'Many' becomes less influenced by 'Power' and 'Money'. Capitalism has become necessary because the Bottom involves a Great Multiplicity and each and every Individual at the Bottom is just as Free and Equal as the Individuals at the Top. How can it be otherwise? The Individuals at the Bottom are the same as the Individuals at the Top and in a Democracy, the Individuals at the Top comes from the 'Bottom' and are 'elected' by the Bottom. The Top is also a 'Human Being' but 'no' Human Being can be superior to any other Human Being. All Human Beings are Natural Creations hence they are all the Same. But, the Human Condition is fallible. In an Autocracy, the Human Being at the Top is not superior to the ones at the Bottom. If the Top would 'Govern' instead of 'Rule', that would change the 'Political Ideology' of the Entity. But, the 'Power at the Top' is 'intoxicating' whether 'Democratic', 'Autocratic', or Plutocratic. A 'Top' will always consider 'Itself', 'Himself', 'Herself' Superior. There seems to be a 'terrible mistake' or 'Mis-understanding' between a 'Political Ideology' and the 'Human Condition'. The distinction is Simple. A Political Ideology is an 'Institution', and a 'Human Being', or a 'Human Creation', regardless, Race, Color, or Creed, is a 'Result' of 'Human Nature' or, if you wish, 'God'. 'Civilizations' or 'The Many' become necessary because of the Multiplicity at the Bottom. The 'Old Kingdoms', at least had a purported connection with 'The Deity', hence, 'some element' of 'Control' from the 'Top'. It was said, the King had two Bodies, one 'Human' the other 'Divine'. That Institution is no longer viable and is 'dying away'. Present-day 'Political Autocracy' has no connection with anything Higher than Itself. 'Democracy' must rely on the 'Human condition' at the Bottom; and an 'appreciation for Political Knowledge' and 'Human Integrity'.

Politics requires a certain level of Intelligence and a Definite Moral Attitude.

Politics requires a certain 'level of Intelligence' and a definite 'Moral Attitude'. The level of Intelligence 'addresses' a definite 'appreciation' of the 'Representative Nature' of all Democratic 'Politics'. 'Public Office' is a temporary endeavor and not a 'Professional Position'. Certainly, someone can be a Politician for a large Portion of ones Life, but, it must be understood that its a 'Representative endeavor' and in a Democracy, one of 'Public service'. In a Democracy, no one who does not have the 'Level of Intelligence' nor the required 'Moral Attitude' is 'capable' of Serving in Public Office. So how does someone who 'does not Read' get to the Highest Office in a Democracy? ( 'does not Read and does 'not know how to Read' are two different things, but that Issue has never been cleared up; and it never will be) The end result will be an Office Holder who acts from 'his' or 'her' 'Persona or Personality' and not from the 'Representative Nature of the Office'. All activities emanating from 'such a Representative' will be misunderstood as someone with a 'Political Agenda' but, in actuality, it will reflect a 'Value System' of the 'Personality'. No Personality 'driven act' can be interpreted as a 'Representative Act' or Policy or even a knowledgeable Political Act. Thats why a certain level of 'Intelligence' and a 'Definite Moral attitude' should be required of anyone who wishes to be a 'Politician'. Thats why, in a Democracy, Standards and Requirements should be established which qualifies any, every, and all, Candidates who wish to serve as 'Candidates For Public Office'. Don't Mis-Characterize or Mis-Represent the Acts and Activities of a Persona or Personality for the acts of a true 'Representative' who 'Represents and Serves' the 'People' in a Democracy. 'One', Serves the People, the 'Other', Rules them.

A Business Corporation is not a Natural Person; Its a created Fictional Entity.

A Business Corporation is not a Natural Person; its a created Fictional Entity. Why are they necessary? Well it consolidates an 'effort' that is necessary for the success of the economy of a Nation. Every Nation has an economy and every Nation needs to consolidate the manufactoring and success of its economy. However, the citizens of a Democracy are Free and Equal and can also participate in the Economic Structure of the Nation. They are Free to work and to be compensated for their Labor. Most 'Jobs' or Professions are competitive and that includes the function of the 'Business Corporation'. But, no 'Human Individual' can compete against a 'Large Business Corporation'. Of course, we all know why thats the case. They are just to Big and they are Money Making Machines. Well, the Government thought it necessary to call a 'Fictional Entity', 'a Person in contemplation of Law'. What does that mean? Does the Corporation need to be protected from the Human Being or does the Human being need to be protected from the Corporation? Business Corporations have become necessary; no question about that; but what has also become necessary is the striking of a better balance between the 'Artificial and the Real'. Corporations can be required to have in their constitution and By-Laws, a 'Department', or a 'Function' whose 'sole purpose' and 'function' is to 'contribute towards Democracy'. As it stands now, most function 'Autocratically' and monopolize 'Business Functions' and 'Profits'. A 'Created Autocratic Fiction' that is protected by Law. Surely, they can create a 'Department', whose 'sole function' is to 'help' and 'contribute' to the 'Democracy' within which they exist.

How can a Business Corporation function more Democratically?

There are many ways a Business Corporation can function more democratically. Most Business Corporations are Huge Corporations. Their Design is to function as Money Making 'Persons'for the benefit of the Corporation and its owners. The Supreme Court's Baptism of the Corporation as 'Person' opens 'protections' to it that are not available to the normal 'Real' 'Business-Person'. A 'Real Business Person', not a 'Legal Fiction' has a limited impact on its Business and the creation of the 'Supply and Demand' and 'Demand and Supply' required of it. The Demand must exist and the supply is limited to a much smaller Market. Most small corporations can supply the demand existing within the area of 'function'. They may well serve the 'Common Good' but only in a 'limited manner'; not the 'General Welfare and Common Good' required by the Constitution. Well, that's good, but the Large Business Corporation is in a better position to serve the 'General Welfare' and the Common Good of the Nation as a whole. Instead they serve the Sole Owner and the few Owners who strive for a place on the 'Forbes List'. Generally, most Large Corporations function as 'Autocrats'. A Constitutionally created Person in a Democracy that 'functions undemocratically', as an 'Autocrat'. Does that make sense? A Democracy that creates a 'Legal Fiction' that 'functions' as an 'Autocrat'. Every Large Business Corporation should have a clause in its By-Laws that require it to also serve the 'General Welfare' and the 'Conmmon Good'. Surely, they can find a way to do 'that' and since they are 'Constitutionally created Persons', and 'failing that', they should lose their 'Constitutionally created Personhood'. Isn't it time for a 'Corporate Society' to become a 'Democratic' Corporate Society?

Why can't Business Corporations function Democratically?

A 'Business Corporation' is considered as a 'Person' in 'Contemplation of Law'. Of course, Corporations, like other smaller Business entities, have their 'expenses', pays Taxes, as does a 'Real Individual'. They must also 'survive' in the Economic area as all Real Individuals also do. Yet, they are 'Money Making Machines' and are 'created' for a 'specific business purpose by 'By-laws' that states the purpose for their Incorporation, and regulates their Internal Structure, and Function. Their sole purpose, as set out in their by-laws, is for the Specific Production of an Item and its sole goal is to make a Profit'. It cannot exist for any other reason. A Real Individual doesn't have that luxury. A real Individual has a family and his expenses cover a 'variety of necessities'. Those 'necessities and expenses' are essential to living an 'acceptable life'. They must be paid. A Corporation doesn't have a Family, Medical Bills, food expenses, housing expenses and family expenses, such as health of family, education, and for the education of the family members. An Individual does. Is it any wonder we are considered a Corporate Society? Business Corporations are money making machines. Is it any wonder that our economy is lopsided. Why can't a Business Corporation function more Democratically? Parts of their 'money-making' could go towards establishing a more 'balanced Social' and towards a more 'balanced Economy'. Every Business Corporation should have a 'Department and a Function', created by their By-Laws that requires that they 'function' and contribute towards a more balanced Economy and a more balanced Democracy.

The Trump Years have brought forth 'Divisions' in the 'Social' that 'think' like an 'Autocrat'.

The 'Trump Years' have brought forth 'divisions' in parts of the 'Social' that 'think' like an 'Autocrat'. Autocracy and Democracy are Political Ideologies and should not define the 'Individual Personality'. Of course, the Individual 'Personality' has greater 'freedom of movement' and 'expression' than does a 'Political Ideology'. A Political Ideology is 'fixed; as to 'Political Form' and 'Political Structure'. Whereas, a 'Personality' is never so fixated as to avoid changes caused by the 'Enviornment'and the 'Social' and the 'Political Field'and the 'Economy'. Why? Because the 'Human Being' is a 'Persona' or 'Personality' and has a 'flexibility' not granted to a 'Corporate Structure'. A Human Being is 'born', 'not Created' by another 'Human Being'. He or She is 'Real' and 'not' a 'Fiction' nor a 'Legal Fiction'. But, the Supreme Court, in its 'infinite wisdom' has held that the 'Business Corporation' is a 'Persona' in 'contemplation of Law'. If Business Corporations are considered 'Persons' in the Economy, shouldn't 'they also' exist in the same 'Democracy' that 'gave them' their 'Legal Existence'? Shouldn't they also be considered as 'Existing and Living' within a 'Democratic Social', as are all other 'Persons'. So why don't they engage in 'Democratic activity'? Why is a 'Created Economic Structure', existing within a 'Democratic Social', allowed to be solely 'Autocratic' in 'function'? Why can't they be Democratic in function? Why can't they also help 'contribute' to the 'Democracy' that allows for their creation? Maybe that would be a more 'Proper Capitalistic Function' of the 'Corporate Structure'? Wouldn't that be more 'Democratic' than 'Autocratic'? Maybe that would make us less a 'Corporate Society' and more of a 'Democratic Economy' in a 'Democratic Society'.

In a Democracy, the 'Bottom' has a 'Multitude of Individuals'; some of whom want to "GO" to the Top.

In a Democracy, the 'Bottom' has a 'Multitude of Individuals'; some of whom want to get to the Top. How is this phenomena controlled? By 'controlled', I don't mean 'absolute control' because that would be Autocratic, but, some kind of 'Democratic Control' that is 'Fair and Equal' to all who want to engage in 'Political Office'. Certainly, 'Rules' can be 'Fair and Democratic'. It has become obvious that Many so-called Politicians have become 'Office Holders' and are not in the least bit 'Democratic', nor interested in Democracy, but are 'Small', 'Uninformed', 'Autocrats'. Of course, some are Educated; some are Rich, and some even Billionaires. ( of course, I do not refer too every Educated, Rich, or Billionaire in the U.S. as I dont refer to everyone in Political Office.) But, the Bottom, during Election Time, has turned into some kind of Bar-Room Brawl.( here again, I use a Metaphor and don't reference Bar Rooms in general)There is no Order, nor requirements in the Political Activity of a Democracy. The activity is completely left up to the person engaged in Politics. Legal Profession has requirements; Medical Profession has requirements, and Many other disciplines have requirements and conditions that have to be met. Why, does the most important Position- being a 'Leader' of a Political 'Democratic Entity'- not have Requirements? Does that make sense? Surely, Honesty, Integrity and Fundamental Knowledge of 'Democracy' and 'Political Activity' should be required. And if a 'Genuine Candidate' should appear and not have the Money, He or She should be provided the Monies and the Means. This Nation finances many things, why not a 'qualified candidate' for President? Is 'Party Loyalty' so entrenched that it can't provide Real Leadership? How do we get someone who is really interested in the 'general Welfare' and the 'Blessings of Liberty'?

Why is the Human Condition so infatuated with Political Power?

Why is the Human Condition so infatuated with Political Power? There are no 'simple answers' and there have to be 'Many Answers'. There are as 'many answers' as there are Human Beings, at the Top, as well as the Bottom. How Sad. Of course, many Individuals don't really care to become Politicians, and are satisfied with living a 'Democratic Life', in 'Freedom and Equality'. Of course, there are those who wish to serve the Political Entity and Rightfully so, but, in a Democracy, Service 'must be' or 'should be' Democratic and some Politicians do serve in such a Democratic Manner. But, there seems to be those who do not seem to care to much about 'Public Service'; 'Freedom and Equality' at the Bottom; and 'Serving Constitutionally' at the Top. Some seem more concerned with the 'emoluments' of Office or the 'Exercise of Power'. I say, 'more concerned', because there is some 'proper exercise' of Political Power that is essential, practical, and necessary. But, sometimes one can detect subtle statements and some, not so suble, about lengthening the 'Tenure of Office', 'challenging the results of an Election', and even 'seeking help' from sources outside the 'involved' Political Entity. That kind of 'political activity' reflects an exercize of Power that is not Democratic and a 'Personal Attitude' that reflects an 'egoistic preoccupation' with 'Power' and its 'Emoluments' and an attempt to circumvent Democratic Institutions an installing 'Autocratic Institutions'. A Democracy will not last long when there are attempts to change the 'Political Ideology'. Any changes in Ideology and emphasis on 'Personalities', so-called 'Important People', or, 'Rich Individuals', or 'Strong Individuals' usually recognized as 'Desotic Individuals', will destroy Democracy and with that, will 'Destroy America'.

Every Governmental Top has a Bottom; and every Governmental Bottom has a Top.

Every Governmental Top has a Bottom and every Governmental Bottom has a Top. Thats the only manner in which a Governemntal Entity can exist: a Top that Governs or Rules and a Bottom that is Governed or Ruled. That seems to be the only solution to the problematic of thr One and the Many. But, even in a Democracy, the problem seems to be that some Democratic Tops dont seem to mind 'Ruling' and some Democratic Bottoms seem to be to 'eagar' to 'ascend to the Top' or become 'Agents of the Top' and to 'Rule'. Of course, in a Democracy the Top is voted-in by the Bottom so its Individuals at the Bottom voting in 'Leaders' that ascend to the Top to Govern and to protect the 'Democratic equilibrium' of 'Democracy'. But, even in a Democracy, some 'Agents' at the Top dont seem to be satisfied with 'Governing' and are to eager to 'Rule', or to benefit from their positions of Power. It would seem that in a Democracy the Bottom would be appreciative of its Freedom and Equality and would dedicate themselves to the business of 'Governing'. What happened? Where has the Political Organization of a 'Democracy' gone wrong? Maybe were asking the wrong question. Democracy hasn't gone wrong, its an Ideology, maybe the 'human Condition' has gone wrong. Where has the Human Condition gone wrong? Well, one of the first things that happened is that the 'People at the Bottom' formed into opposing 'Political Parties'. That already injects into Democracy, 'different concepts' about 'Government' and the 'relation' that must exist between the Top and the Bottom. Now we have the 'Republican Way' and the 'Democratic Way'. If they're truly both 'democratic' organizations, whats the problem? It seems to come down to the 'Individuals' who are involved in 'Politics'. Why is the 'Human Condition' so infatuated with Political Power?

Every Political Top must be Regulated and every Democratic Political Bottom must be Law Abiding,

Can a Democratic Political Top and a Democratic Political Bottom exist if they are not regulated? The fact that a Top is Institutional and has Institutional Power to Govern and the Bottom is the Governed and the Social has Freedom and Equality of the Indiviidual, renders the combination imposible unless both are regulated. A Top without regulation can become Autocratic. The Top must be regulated by a Democratic Constitution and the Bottom by Law. Both must follow the same Legal, Democratic, Ideology. A Top has Power, but its Democratic Power, as structured by a Democratic Constitution. A Bottom has Rights but its Law abiding and the result of an Equitable Balance of Power and a Democratic Bottom that must be Law abiding. But, the Law must be enforced, both at the Constitutional Top and the Law abiding Bottom and in accordance with democratic Principles. It must Govern Democratically and enact laws that enforce and protect the Freedom and Equality of the Individual at the Bottom. Otherwise, a Top with 'unadulterated' Power can usurp the Rights of Freedom and Equality. A Democratic Political Top with Power and a Democratic Political Bottom with Rights cannot exist just 'automatically' and without an Ideology. Each needs 'protections' and 'regulations'. But, a Top and a Bottom that is 'equitably Balanced' can exist within a Democratic Structure. 'Equities' and 'Balance' in a 'Democratic' Political Structure can exist if properly Instituted at the Top and the Bottom. Both the Top and the Bottom must retain and enforce a Democratic Ideology. Otherwise, a Top with Power can become Arbitrary, Selfish, and Despotic. In other words, it can become Autocratic. Hence, in a Democracy both the Top and the Bottom have to abide by Law and a Democratic Ideology. A Democratic Top Governs, and a Democratic Bottom must be Law abiding. Law must always Protect and Regulate the 'Freedom and Equality' of the 'Human Condition'.

When a Democratic Top of Power unravels, the Political Ideology is in Danger.

The unraveling of a Democratic Top endangers the Political Ideology of Democracy. Any other form of Government is not endangered. If an Autocracy or Plutocracy Unravels, it is merely replaced by another Autocrat or Billionaire. In such a case, the 'Form' of Government is not endangered. However, that will not work when the Ideology is Democratic. Why not? Because, a Democratic Form of Government that has a Political Ideology that Respects and Protects the Freedom and Equality of the Bottom and the Top has been voted-in by the Bottom and they both have a Democratic Ideology. A Democratic Top cannot function without a Democratic Bottom and a Democratic Bottom cannot continue to exist without a Democratic Top that protects and defends the Freedom and Equality of the Bottom. In such a case, the Bottom will lose its Freedom and Equality and the Top will not Govern with Freedom and Equality; it will Rule. The Democracy transforms into Plutocracy or Autocracy. The Bottom, in either case, is not Governed; it is Ruled. A Democratic bottom will not survive such a transition at the Top. The end of Democracy, at the Top, spells the end of Democracy at the Bottom. The Top becomes Rule and the Bottom become servants or victims of the Top. A Democracy must be protected at the Top and the Bottom. The Bottom is under Law and hence some sense of Order. But, the Top also needs Political Regulations that guarantees that the Ideology will remain Democratic and also that any Person exercising his/her Right to participate in Political Office will remain 'Democratic'. This last sentence does not refer to 'Political Parties'. 'Democratic Ideology' does not grant a 'Right' to govern 'Anti-Democratically'.