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.