Power is political. Influence, by whatever means, is personal. Personal influence extends to other individuals as individuals within the social. One friend can have influence over another friend. An individual can also have influence as a leader within the limited structure of a social institution. However, power being political extends to the governing of all the individuals in the social or as a 'limited' group. Of course, referring to the social merely by a linguistic concept can be very nebulous, because the social 'group' may include different races or individuals. This was the case with slavery. Humans who were slaves were not included in many Constitutional and legal categories. Thats why it's best to refer to the individual within the social as number. All I mean to convey by that statement is that each human being is included within the category being referred too. If the Constitution states, or is interpreted as stating, that every individual is Free and Equal,that means 'everyone'. If we use a 'quantified' term, the individuals to which it refers, cannot be mis-understood. Governing individuals is governing human beings in a 'condition of togetherness'; everyone must be included. Inclusion and exclusion can be better calculated with quantities than with 'meanings'. Meanings change, numbers are always the same. Of course, language is essential, but when it comes to the application of a Constitutional or legal right,the quantification of the part of the social to which the Constitution or law relates too, is better understood as a quantity than as a 'meaning'. Number cannot be mistaken and is less confusing. Why should we require more accuracy with the application of Constitutional and legal rights? Because the Constitution constitutes us and is formed in such a way as to protect each and every human being under its 'roof'. Government exists because the People created and formulated the Constitution. All government must comply with the Constitution. In any government, its the People who are important.

Of course,there are many institutional 'offices'or positions that are said to be 'powerful'. But, that is not what I mean when I say the only power in the world is a political power. Certainly, teachers, coaches, policemen, preachers, priests, Popes, presidents of organizations, CEO's of corporations, and many government officials are said to be 'powerful'. A better word to describe that kind of authority would be influencial. Certainly, the above and many other positions have authority and can 'influence' the members of the related social organization. But, none of the above have the power to establish Law and to enforce it. The policeman, at whatever level, can enforce it because thats his/her job. Law and Order is a parameter imposed on all social activity. Only a government can pass these laws and try to establish order in the social. The very basis of social order are the laws designed to delineate and contain that order. In a democracy, Constitutional Law is what holds the Nation together and gives it it's integrity. Without this power the One could not govern the Many. This is real power and its a political power. If one violates a law, s/he compromises her/his Freedom ( not the Equality)and is punished. Hence, political power exists on the National and State level and attempts are being made to apply it on the International level (but thats another story). Why should a Nation or government wield such power? Thats a power over human life! Because, no One or few individuals could possibly govern the Many at the bottom of government. Power is essential at the Top of government but it must follow the parameters established by the Constitution. Anything outside the Constitutional arrangement, especially in a democracy, that has power or influence over the offices of government is a danger to a democratically 'arranged' social. That,s precisely where money comes in. When money influences political office, we're in trouble. Money belongs in the economy, not in politics. If money influences politics and politics is the originating source of real power, we no longer have a democracy based on the Freedom and Equality of the individual. We have changed our democratic values and replaced them with an economic value system. We then live in a society where money is 'King'; in a society of the 1%.

The only source of power in the world is a political power. Individuals, per se, don't have power. Nevertheless, it is the individual that wields the political power of the Nation. The issue becomes an individual matter from this perspective. We are as 'safe' as the leader of any Nation wields his/her political power. At this point, we are concerned with democratic forms of government, not autocratic forms. So, how are leaders chosen and what motivates leaders. The 'how' of choosing a leader is a political problem. The 'motivation' of chosen leaders is a more personal issue. What motivates a politician to 'run' for office? Of course, that's a very personal isssue and a very complex one, even for the person seeking office. But, we can delineate a few general parameters of any 'seeker' of political power. S/He chooses to spend her/his life in office. S/He has a life and a duty. As everyone else, even a politician has a right to a 'life'. But, unlike everyone else, s/he has duties to a government. In a democracy, those political duties should gravitate toward the people at the Bottom. Increasing the freedom and equality of the individual and protecting those Rights, at home and on the International sphere, is the sole purpose of government. Why else organize the One and the Many in a democratic form? Of course, there are many other collateral and sub-issues that tie-in to the major one, but we're right back to the question of why 'run' for office, but this time we're on a more personal scale. Why 'run'? The political reasons have been sketched above, the personal reasons have to relate to the personal welfare of the individual. Of course, his/her lifestyle changes for the duration in office. How about his/her personal wishes after s/he leaves office? Most have a different life-style from the one they had before and they are in high demand for 'social and political' functions. But, were decisions made, while in office, to bolster and help personal priveledges after leaving office? In different words, were decisions based on economic reasons designed to increase a personal economic value as oppossed to a political value? If so, the decision was not a political decision based on democratic values. At every step, an office holder is faced with the welfare to 'himself/herself' and the public duty to the welfare of the individual in a democracy. Public office reaps many benefits, but it is also the most arduous office in the world. A real 'States-Person' has 'the general welfare' of the individuals at the front of all his political decisions; s/he already has a confortable personal life. The distinction between a 'States-Person' and a politician is sometimes based on which of the two is sacrificed, the personal or the public.

Power is a much mis-understood term. There is no such thing within the personal, individual sphere. A political leader acquires the power of political office by virtue of the structure of government. Outside that office,( it can be said) s/he is powerless. Its only the political previledge that bestows such immense power. And,(it must be said) only a democratic form of governement can bestow such power, because it emmanates from the People in a condition of 'togetherness'. Persons cannot have power, they have different strengths and they also exert different influences. But, personal strength and influence is just personal strength and influence. Nothing is acquired from the 'social at large' because each individual in the social has the same 'freedom' and 'equality'. Money does not confer power, only the ability to purchase. However, a functionary of a democratic governmnt, regardless his strengths and personal influence, gets his/her political power by virtue of political office. There are no superior human beings in the world. Everyone on the planet is in the same 'boat'. Our only hope is that those in power will reflect wisely and try to continue the existence of the human race. Of course, every human being has an obligation to his/her own self; but, every politician has an obligation to our 'condition of togetherness'. Power only exists on the political sphere and International power only exists between Nations as Nations and only within an Internationally organized government. But International Government and power must seek equilibration between Nations just as National power must seek equilibration of the freedom and equality of each individual. Only the people can 'confer' power. There is no other way to acquire power in this world. The other ways are illusory and depend on guns, weapons, and money.

There comes a time when the inner workings of a democratic Nation must assemble behind their leaders. Such is the case today. Sometimes the International sphere gets out of balance and belligerent words begin to dominate the International rhetoric. Of course, the International sphere has more variables than any one National sphere. In a democracy, each Nation has an obligation to its People, but it also has an obligation to the International sphere. However, some Nations are not concerned with the first obligation and instead think about ways to acquire control and rule other Nations. The only possible reason for that attitude has to be because of the need for more egoistic,personal Power over the International sphere, or more weapons of mass-destruction with which to acquire more personal power over the International sphere. But, this attitude pre-supposses that the peoples of the Nation are totally behind their leader. There are two reasons underlying that National attitude. Either all the people support their leader or they become the victims of their leader's whims. I doubt very seriously that every man, woman, and child,including young people, who are in the military and those who are not, prefer a condition of war instead of some peaceable solution.( especially in the International sphere) So,the issue is how does one get some control over such a dangerous condition? Unfortunately, the problem reduces itself to a personal problem. If the leader had weapons of mass destruction, he would have already started something besides just talking. Hence, the problem gets very personal; one that requires a better relationship between the leader and his People. Of course, Revolution within the Country is the answer. However, it's an over-simplification to state that that solution is easy. The reason being that they don't have a First amendment, viz. the right to assemble. The Peoples of a dictatorship are compelled to follow their leader. Hence, either the leader 'changes' his mind or the People revolt. Revolution is difficult in a dictator-ship; the former can only be viable in a leader that understands his primary obligation to his own people. Surely, there's enough work to be done within the Country, than to extend the limits of personal power outside its boundaries into the International sphere. This attitude calls for a re-focus of personal power within its proper political domain (where it belongs) and not Internationally. There are many Countries that in their 'togetherness' can organize for the purpose of imposing International stability. Lets hope the leader re-evaluates his decision. Sometimes 'power-hunger' is 'allowed' within a Country, but extending it Internationally is not allowed.

Democracy is not without its problems. A government "of people", "by people", and "for people", is not 'home free' simply because it's democratic. Unfortunately, the first thing that millions of free and independent people do is divide themselves into political Parties. Political parties are usually at loggerheads. These differences can become politically vicious. Can anything be done about the Party-system of democracy. Yes and No. Of course strict compliance with Constitutional government as set out in the Constitution may help attenuate the antagonism. In other words, a Triadic government whose Branches are always in motion viz. one Executes, one Interprets, and one Legislates,( according to democratic values) may off-set some of the antagonistic elements in Party politics, but that pre-supposes that each Branch is functioning according to democratic values. By that I mean that each Branch emphasizes and implements the Freedom and Equality of the individual, which are political values of a democracy, and no Branch is being influenced in their political decisions by other value systems. What other value systems? Well, try economic values. Economic values are not values that can be 'used' in governing. Democracy is about People, people need to be governed; economics is about profits, both people and huge corporations want to make big profits. The goal of each institution is not the same. A democracy requires governing and that means Constitutional democratic values; not economic values. I think most people can 'see' that, but greed overcomes the best of intentions and some of them want to ascend to levels of power from where they can increase their booty. Enter the Party system. I don't mean that any one Party is solely motivated by economic values, but democratic values ( the motor of democracy) are being overcome by economic values( money). Its getting to where people would rather have lots of money than being free and equal. Unfortunately, all political Parties are influenced by the 'holy dollar' and the big corporation. Competition between individuals is not 'bad' per se, but who can compete against the big corporation? No one! And its the government that creates the corporate monster. The economy then divides the economy into Big business and Little business. More divisions! Why? well, it allows the little guys to feel like they are functioning in a free society, while the Big corporations assume control of government. Little business meeks-out a living while Big business acquires political punch and ascends to the top 1%. Democracy falls and Plutocracy ascends. Where are the people? They are in a state of acquiescence. They witness the battles between political parties and the corporate behemoths and the best they can hope for is that something will fall to the bottom. After all, democracy is about the People.

The term "revolution" has acquired a bad connotation. Just like the terms,"riot", "demonstration", "uprising", and even the limited term "strike", are perceived as harmful to organized government and organized work. Of course, using these language terms in isolation is usually perceived in a negative manner. But, we must place these terms and other similar terms withing the context of the organized structure of government and of organized work. There is only one structure of government and that is the Constitutional structure, or stated differently, the triadic form of government. Any organized activity falling outside the triadic form of government is usually interpreted as being harmfull to the inner workings of organized government. But, that is not always the case. Sure, democratic government must follow the Constitutional structure and if it doesn't, then its not Constitutional. But, the nature of democratic government is founded on the freedom and equality of the people that inhabit triadic government. It is the People who help establish the government and who elect the representatives into the triadic form( A few exceptions, like appointing Supreme Court Justices). Once the government is established it continues to function from election to election in a 'Representative' manner. The term 'Representative' is also a term with many 'faces'. Thats a problem that exists in a democracy. The Founding Fathers knew that not all Representatives( in whatever office) were going to be faithful to their elected duties. Hence, the First Amendment; the freedom to assemble and petition for redress of grieviances. That is a right to revolution! Hence, the term "revolution" is Constitutional and a legitimate way for the People to bring about changes in a government that is going in the wrong direction. The term provides for action ( in the proper circumstances)within the structure of democratic government. The other terms have a similar denotation. The more limited term, "strike", allows workers to petition the corporate structure for better work 'conditions'. These terms allows People outside the 'structure' to petition for better conditions and for changes within the structure. Thats the only manner that a democracy can function. Otherwise, we are victims of the system. In the right circumstances, all these terms are democratic.

A democracy must function only with democratic principles. Of course, that's obvious, but what is not so obvious is the easy manner in which democratic principles co-mingle with economic principles. A well established democracy may have a capitalistic economy, but the principles or goals of capitalism can not be co-mingled with the basic principles of a democracy. Of course, profits and money are as essential to a well balanced economy as they are to a democracy. However, profits and money cannot be the 'motor' behind a democracy. Of course, they are the 'motor' of a capitalistic economy, but the 'motors' of democracy are the freedom and equality of the individuals. Government must protect and defend the freedom and equality of all individuals, while capitalism must circulate the medium of exchange, make profits, and encourage competition. Capitalism is about profits and money; democracy is about freedom and equality. One big problematic in politics arises when big corporations or very rich individuals begin to acquire control over government or government agencies and try to gain advantages over the democratic form. The result is government of the wealthy, by the wealthy, for the wealthy. That's what is happening with the so-called 1%. If the trend continues, the freedom and equality of all individuals will not 'motor' the democratic process. In such a case, the value system of the democracy is replaced with the value system of the economy. These value systems must be kept separate. Democracy will not work in a Nation where only the wealthy have a say-so in the governing process. Democracy will not work in a Nation ruled by the 1%. As soon as the People learn that democracy is about freedom and equality (not money), and as soon as they learn that the Constitution protects their right to 'assemble' and petition for redress of grievievances, they will 'assemble'. In the right circumstances, the people have a Constitutional Right to revolution.

Every Government needs an economy. Every economy needs a government. But, the economy is dependent on the form of government within which it evolved. An organized economy cannot exist without an already existing government. A form of government can 'hold' an economy together, while an economy cannot hold a form of government together. For example; a democratic Government has a Constitutional right to "peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances". Obviously, an economy cannot do that because it functions on the basis of "profits", which is not a democratic activity. Competition is democratic, whenever possible by real individuals, but profits are not democratic. The reason being that without profits there would be no competition; besides, competition between individuals has now become impossible with the creation of artificial human beings, to wit; "legal fictions". Hence,an economy needs a democratic government, but a democratic government does not need a capitalistic economy. So, what can be done with an already established, and effective capitalism that has encased itself within the democratic aspects of government. This requires an extended consideration. Generally, if government 'helped' create the natural evolution of economic entities that eventually led to undemocratic conditions, government must also correct them. Government created them; government fixes them. But how? The corporate entity owes its 'life' to government. Just as government allowed these "fictional entities" to function and amasss huge profits, it can assume more control over the entities. Of course, not complete control, but why allow corporate efficiency to be founded on a fiction called "the market"? Surely, the government is entitled to some leverage with respect to the so-called 'market', other than being totally at its mercy. Government could 'help' create 'markets' as well as 'help' create circulation of the medium of exchange that determines markets. In other words, government could help the economy to function in a more balanced manner by off-setting the tremendous advantage it gave to "legal fictions". All these economic changes to occur within a "soft" capitalism in the direction of a democracy of free and equal, competing individuals. Government must become more involved in economic matters as well as on the freedom and equality of its people.

Economic values have replaced democratic values. Democracy is about the Freedom and Equality of each individual. The economy is about making profits. The acquisition of money and possessions has become the goal of many individuals. There is no harm, per-se, in persuing the holy-dollar, so long as there is healthy democratic competition between individuals. That would be a matter of choice. But, that can no longer be the case. The economy has removed itself from government control by creating a fiction called "the Market". In a Capitalistic economy; one which hampers competition by individuals by creating "legal fictions", there can no longer be any democratic competition. Legal fictions don't really exist, yet they have been given a massive grasp over economic activity. The political problem arises when democratic values become dependent on economic values, or simply put, when money permeates every level of the governing process. Today, even the corporation( the richest, non-human, legal fiction ) has a grip on the political process. This "fiction" can now contribute to its favorite candidate. But how? The 'learned members' of the Supreme Court say, "because, although a fiction, it 'speaks'. Wow, democracy is rapidly becoming an "Alice-in-Wonderland" affair. Real humans are being ruled by artificial "persons" and "legal fictions". At the top of the economy are a few huge corporations. Its no longer a democracy, its an Oligarchy; or maybe a Plutocracy. Whats the difference? Well, it all revolves around money. A few corporations at the top of the social get together with a few rich individuals and together form a moneyed elite. Whatever the difference, if there is one, its not a government based on the freedom and equality of all real human beings. I keep using the word "real" because corporations are unreal; they're fictions; they don't exist. Yet, they are created by government. The real individual is replaced by a "fiction"; the economy distances itself from government control by another fiction called "the Market"; and polititians, including the Supreme Court, 'respond' to organized lobbyists or money. Does democracy have a chance in this political Alice-in-Wonderland? The Founding Fathers foresaw 'similar conditions' at the Top and crafted the First Amendment. The People have a Constitutional Right to "...peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances". Its time for real people to stand up.

Democracy was born from struggle, hardship, and sacrifice: the assurance of the Freedom and Equality of each human being was a revolutionary form of government. The digitalized world of the computer is also a revolution. Constitutional government is Triadic and insures the freedom and equality of each and every individual. Up to now, we have struggled with political language to clearly delineate the parameters of a true democracy. Needless to add, that the struggle still persists. The linguistic generalities of policy that apply to the governing process has not met with much success. Governing takes place within a social split into antagonistic political Parties that push-pull in different directions. Of course, much has been accomplished, but the complete assurances in the Constitution that refer to a government "for the people" still lacks direction. Economic principles and corporations have become too powerful. They have usurped democractic principles. But, the digital revolution has opened a means to combat the problematics of political language and the Linguistic Turn. The Triadic form of government places emphasis on the Bottom, where all "the people" reside. "We The people" is not a generalized abstraction that lacks bone and blood; the Constitutional phrase refers to each and every individual alluded to within the phrase, as a real, individual, human being. If we begin to refer to the social as Number, we can learn to 'include' each individual in a real way because every number counts in an equation. There are no 'general' human beings; they're individual and they're real. This fact immediately distinguishes them from the legal fiction(corporations). Corporations may be called "persons", but they don't bleed. The requirement that policy and law must become 'more algorithmic', can begin to include each and every individual within the class of the applicable policy or law. In this manner the 'digital' revolution can assist the 'democratic' revolution. In government, nothing is more important than the Freedom and Equality of each, real individual. In the digital revolution nothing is more important than quantification. The bottom of 'governing' must become quantified.

Democracy is a 'form' of government, while Capitalism is a form of economic activity established and protected by the structure of the government. An economy cannot hold together without government. An econony needs government. Of course, a government needs an economy also, but it does not necessarilly need a capitalistic economy. At one time, our economy was agrarian. The point being that Capitalism is by nature anti-democratic because government is about freedom and equality of all the individuals being governed, while Capitalism is a form of economic activity originally founded on competition between individuals. The freedom to compete automatically creates imbalances in economic activity because one competes by means of the medium of exchange to acquire profits and possessions. There is no other reason for a competitive economy. Hence, economic activity is not based on the same freedom and equality of the governing process. Certainly, competition between individuals is healthy, and in the early years one individual could compete with another,if he or she so desired. That is no longer the case. Its impossible for individuals to compete with the economic monsters created and protected by government. The corporate monster becomes the focal point of economic activity. Not only is it futile to compete with a corporate structure but the law even states that a corporation is a "legal fiction". How can a real person compete economically with a fiction? No way! The bottom line is s/he can't! But, keep in mind that economic principles are separate from governing principles. We are not governed by economic principles, we are governed by democratic principles. Hence, the government created its own monsters and now has become the victim of another fiction called "the Market". Wow, thats surreal! Complete control has been transfered to the economy. What happened to democratic values? The government needs to become more involved in economic matters. I hear someone in the background hollering, "Socialist". But, its not a case of socialism, its a case of having permitted legal fictions to interfere with the right of individuals to compete in the economy. Government created the barriers, now government must attenuate them. There is nothing wrong with governmental control of the corporate structure. Of course, I'm not saying complete control, but the imposition of democratic functions would not harm the social nor the corporation. Of course, those who have benefited the most from the corporate structure have done so because they live and work in a democracy. Government already complies( to some extent) with its Constitutional duties to the people, so why not include a few duties in the corporate charter. If they don't comply, dissolve them.

People must have a Democratic government. Every democracy must have an economy. In spite of the intricate relation between the two principles underlying those two facets of the social, the democratic principle of government is completely different and separate from the principle underlying the economy. Democracy functions because each individual is free and equal, while the economy functions under a capitalistic system where everyone is free to compete and engage in economic activity using a medium of exchange to earn money and acquire property. The freedom and equality of each individual holds a democratic social together, while competition in the economy allows individuals to earn money and acquire property. Obviously and historically some individuals got a head start in the amassing of monies and properties and will protect and increase said possessions with all their might. Once at the top of the economy, they will never relinquish their position of being in the Top Ten. While the Darwinian impulse of the survival of the fitest might apply to economic Capitalism, it does not apply to Democratic principles. Freedom and equality are the motors of Democratic government, while profits and possessions are the motors of economic capitalism. The new Information society has helped an economy that functions on a quantitative basis, while a democracy and the assured Freedom and Equality of each individual does not benefit from a computerized, digitalized social. Why not? Because those qualities cannot be measured. That is why the Bottom of Constitutional Government must be quantified. The Top of Government governs the Bottom, viz. the social where all the people work and live. The bottom of any democracy must be conceived as Number because attributing the characeteristics of Number to the bottom allows for quantification of the democratic process and eschews the confusions of political language. Capitalism has flurished in our democracy not because some individuals worked harder, longer hours,or better quality of work, but because of the creation of the corporate structure, which is one, great, big, Legal Fiction. It then got Constituional protection as a "person" and recently has been allowed to contribute to politics. How on earth did we let an economic principle override a democratic principle? Its not that corporations are not necessary, they are, but they cannot usurp a democratic principle. Once they do, we're headed towards a Plutocracy. Computers function because they work with digits and quantifications. Once democracy, which is at the bottom of government, becomes quantified as Number, maybe we can establish some sort of algorithm for democratic principles. Where are our statesmen?

Democracy is not a theory, its a life-style. Each and every human being has a life and is entitled to establish his or her life-style. This implies a freedom and an equality to choose the many different forms of life-style available within the culture. This life is expressed within a context described and protected by the Constitution. There is no compulsion to conform to ways of living set up by someone in authority. Of course, compliance with law and order is essential but if law is wrong,oppressive,or disorderly, it must be changed. The Top of a democratic form of government governs, the 'sides'(judicial) defines the parameters of the system and the people at the Bottom live their lives under the protection of the Top and the definitions of the 'sides'. The function of the Executive is to enforce the Constitution; the function of the Judiciary is to be objective about its interpretive practices and the 'function' of the people is to be law abiding. Up to this point, democracy is theoretical. But, democracy is more than just a theory. The democratic form works if all the parts of the triad are constantly in motion and in harmony with its triadic nature. The most important part of a democracy are the people at the Bottom. The reason for that is that the peoples lives are what is being governed. Without people, there is no need for government. The economy is also essential to a smooth running social but so are the freedoms and equality of the individuals in the social. Law created corporations and its no secret that the corporate form is an accepted 'legal fiction'. You can never shake-hands with a corporation. They exist only in "contemplation of law" and only for the purpose of increasing their huge 'economic grasp'. That's precisely why an individual is never in a position to compete with a corporation. And that's exactly why an individual is more important than a corporate structure. Now, democracy is a government "of people", "by people", "and for... people". Democracy is an equation. The unique-ness of human individuality is at the Bottom of the theoretical democratic structure and those individuals are real, not theoretical nor abstract. Each individual has a particular life style. Each is sacred. The importance of each individual life is why the bottom of theoretical democracy must be conceived as Number. Each number stands on its own integrity. Each is valuable as an individual number. Each is independent. Equations can be configured from individual quantities, but in an equation each number must retain its quantitative variable and must participate in the equation. In other words each number is important to the equation. Theoretical democracy is an equation and each individual life is vital to its success. Democracy is a life style. You choose your life style, but stay within theoretical democracy. Number never 'discriminates' against another number, they work with each other to configure the equation. In a similar manner, each individual must configure himself, herself, into the democratic equation.

Every government 'nudges' an economy and a social but, we must understand how they differ and in what way they are the same. Obviously, in a democracy, the government governs the people democratically and the economy attempts to stabilize itself by allowing for a healthy competition among individuals. Of course, to facilitate competition, a medium of exchange becomes necessary. Money is that medium of exchange. Without money we could not have exchange of goods and labor. Hence, in a healthy economy, money must circulate among the people at the Bottom, not at the top 1%. We know this, but there is no way to compete against the corporate structure. Hence, we are left at the mercy of corporate competition. But now, lets look at the conditions in the social. The social is also undergoing many changes. Great changes have been brought about by the information revolution and by computers. There appears to be a similarity in the attempt to control the circulation of money in the economy, to wit; the 1%; and the attempt to control the circulation of information; to wit; the recent prosecutorial zeal and subsequent suicide caused by 'info-leaks'. Could it be that the 1% want all the money at the Top and the government ( maybe we should say the Justice Department) wants to keep all the new information for itself. It seems that the same principle applies to both situations, viz. money must circulate in the economy at the bottom and information must also circulate in the social. I can understand real secret info being published but I understand that, in one case,what was leaked was not even "1% of the 92 million items the government classified last year". Wow, thats a lot of secrets. Maybe we should take another look at classification and the zeal with which we persue these matters. Democracy is about real individuals at the Bottom; the economy is about the circulation of money at the Bottom; the social is about the circulation of information among the individuals at the Bottom. Sure, the people need some form of government, but government needs people to even exist. People are never dependent on government, but government is entirely dependent on people. People are just trying to live their daily lives, its the government that places arbitrary limitations on the 'condition of togetherness' of the social. Democracy can work if its practiced.

Democracy follows the underlying form of the Constitution. The linguistic structure encapsulating the underlying form is the best that could have been done with language. Regardless its many limitations, it is amazingly clear that its a Peoples Constitution. The very begining states "We the People"; how can that be misunderstood? The current debate about gun control is an example of how interpretation can go wrong (especially from the point of view of so-called Party loyalty). One politicion compares a freedom with respect to the press(books) within the context of the First Amendment with the context of the Second Amendment dealing with the so-called freedom "to bear arms". It's a ridiculous comparison.( thank heavens there was an intelligent polititian responding to that suggestion. Lets hope people were listening) One needs only to read the Second Amendment within the context of when it was ratified (1791) to catch a glimpse of why it was necessary at the time. The Declaration of Independence was in 1776 and the Constitution drafted in 1787, the Bill of Rights was added in 1791. Those were 'wild days'. The debate between States Rights and Federal Rights was at its height. The Country was agrarian. Sure, the people needed weapons for self-protection. They still do! But, automatic weapons! Before long we're going to have one individual declaring war against his neighbor because he's amassing weapons of 'mass destruction'. Hey, don't laugh, one politician in office started a war with that same accusation. Lets engage in a little fantasy(the Supreme Court does). Imagine the 1% collecting weapons like they collect money and 'legal fictions'; now imagine that some twisted individual decides to produce and hoard automatic weapons and weapons of 'mass destruction'. Now, suppose that the 1% decides to fight the 99% ( sort of like South and North in the old days) with automatic weapons instead of with money and 'legal fictions'. You say, why, thats ludicrous and impossible! Is it? Comparing books to automatic weapons is also ludicrous. Oh well, enough imagination. Lets get real. Respect the Second Amendment, but view it withing the context of why and when it was ratified and what were the conditions existing at the time. Everyone wants to protect the Constitution, but don't use it to justify ridiculous outcomes. We should support the Second Amendment, but lets get real and forget so-called Party loyalty. We are a Country of Peoples; we are a democracy; everyone counts; we are Number; so don't let the children go unprotected. We can't keep the 'crazies' out, but we can keep weapons that mutilate and dismember out.

Democracy respects the uniqueness and integrity of each individual. Yet, individuals in a condition of togetherness,form a larger political entity called a "State" or a "government",or a "Nation". These larger entities are necessary because no individual lives alone; hence the need for government or a larger political entity like "State" or "Nation". Of course, historically the term "State" was considered a fiction by Rousseau. I'm sure, other thinkers, even contemporary ones, don't hesitate to consider it a fiction, but they are not going to make that particular thought a commonly used every-day term. Obviously, in some peoples minds, that would demoralize the binding nature of law and hence, would not be a very 'safe' way to conceptualize and govern the Nation through its laws. Our condition of togetherness is a large condition and hence must be referred too in very 'large' concepts. This is where the generality of linguistic terms (of necessity) comes into the picture. Of course, not far behind, lurked the so-called Linguistic Turn. The Linguistic Turn was a necessary stage in the evolution of the use of linguistic terms to relate to particular activities or particular phenomena. The Turn seemed to attack language from the 'top'(generalization) while computer science began its attack from the bottom( 'below' the individual); namely, bits, digitalization etc. Hell, we can't relate to either the 'top' of language or the 'bottom'! Language and science forgot about us and just left us to hobble in the middle. Well, the best way to talk about democracy and government is to look at the Constitution and study how the Founding Fathers constituted us. We are a 'condition of togetherness' that,(historically) has gradually formed, and is still forming, and which is constituted of individuals and every individual has a unique human integrity. Thats why politics can sometimes seem to be a lot of empty talk. Of course, the Top of government is entitled to 'talk politics' but the effect of the talk must relate to each individual in a real way. The only way to do that is to relate to the Bottom as Number; each individual is real and stands out as clear and as unconfused as a number. Democracy is an equation. Maybe what we need is an algorithm for democracy. The people at the Bottom of government are real; they are not just general concepts. Government is real power and that power effects real people in a real way; not just linguistically. Recently, a new Pope was selected. He's practicing humility, a characteristic of individuals who, as human beings, are 'free' of 'institutional glory'. With all the problems in the Church, he has a lot of work ahead of him. The same applies to politicians, practice democracy,( thats how you got 'up there' in the first place) but don't deny it to the people. Stop glorifying corporations and 'accumulated money'. Of course, humility has no place in politics, but the 'democratic spirit' does. If you want to govern, do so democratically and don't usurp the integrity and sanctity of the individual human condition.

If corporations are legally recognized as "legal fictions" and if they are to be protected by the Constitution, why not also enlarge the sphere of their duties. Of course, a corporation is an economic entity not a political entity. But, its an 'invented ' economic entity that only "exists in contemplation of law". Unlike a real human being who functions in both the economy and the polity, and who has economic duties and Constitutional duties in the polity, a corporation was fictionally created primarilly to increase its economic 'grasp'. It was given Constitutional protection, but it seems they forgot to give it Constitutional duties. Instead of extending their fictional nature and attributing speech to them, which is ridiculous, why not give it a few Constitutional duties. Of course, fictional "persons" cannot serve in the military, although they do help to manufacture and produce weapons. And of course, corporations can and do pay taxes. It used to be they had a 90% liability. Why was it originally 90% and why is it now 35%? Could it be that when it was 90%, 'someone' really understood that since their corporate nature tremendously increases their economic 'grasp' and economic activity, they should pay a 'fair' share of their newly acquired economic powers. So, why was their tax liability reduced? No human being, regardless how wealthy s/he might be, can compete with the corporate structure. As a matter of fact, the 1% use the 'structure' to increase their personal fortunes. Besides increasing the corporate tax obligation, how about requiring some contribution to the work force relative to 'fair wages' and/or the availability of 'jobs'. Why shouldn't 'out-sourcing' be outlawed? Of course, unless it meets a primary requirement of having made every effort to keep the activity within the confines of the Nation and only secondarily, it can go to other Nations, so long as some Constitutional duty is not being avoided. Surely some guidelines along these 'economic and legal paths' are possible. If we can create economic fictions, we can create Constitutional obligations commensurate with their fictional nature. They're not human, they cannot 'hurt'. The only people who 'hurt' are the real people 'behind' the corporate structure who are pocketing the money made by the entity. And generally, those people are the 1%. Real persons at the bottom of a triadic government are not benefiting from corporate activity and the 'fictional' person is laughing all the way to the bank.

Party loyalty sucks. It should be 'democratic loyalty'. Party preferences and party ideology have to many preferential perks. Democracy for the peoples is too often set aside in favor of Party loyalty or so-called market economics. Both have replaced loyalty to the political principles of democracy. Market economics, a fiction, is what governs us. Party loyalty has become economic loyalty. Economic loyalty is economic advantages for the Top 1%. Sure, economic principles are very important but they are not democratic principles and we are talking about governing, not about changing the basis of government from democracy to a market economy. Often, those advantages protect corporations or whitlle down so-called entitlements of real people. For example, the top 1% do not pay their "fair share"of taxes. Corporate rates used to be 90%, went down to 70%, now its 35%! Why? How can an economic "fiction" with a horrendous grasp of economic activity be compared with a real human being? As corporations become more efficient in the economy, they lessen or reduce their democratic responsibilities. A human being cannot do that. A human being cannot compete with a corporation. Even small corporations cannot compete with a large corporation. Why do we reduce a corporations democratic responsibilities as they become more efficient. Their responsibilities should be 'enlarged', not reduced. Look at the tax tables, is that happening? Of course not! As they monopolize government and governing, they get more breaks and they're fictions! How can that be. The truth is that there are a few people 'behind' the functioning of the corporation and as it becomes more efficient, they 'hog' the medium of exchange(another fiction). That applies to both Parties. Wow, Is this an Alice in Wonderland world? What has happened to the reality of work; the reality of living together with other human beings; the reality of 'sharing'; the reality of the human condition? Reality has been replaced by fictions, all around us and only the 1% are benefiting from our 'togetherness' and their corporate greed because they are Plutocrats, not democrats. Real people need to harness their strength and 'assemble'. That is their Constitutional right.

A triadic form of government must always be active. The Top governs; the Bottom is governed; and the 'sides' interpret the legal 'concrete' relation between the Top and the Bottom. No part of the Triad can survive without the other parts. However, in a democracy, the entire structure is entirely dependent on the 'bottom' of the structure and the relation between the Top and the Bottom must be interpreted in a concrete measurable manner. The measurability of policy and law is dependent on the particular classification of the activity governed. Law is order and policy is always a recognition of the sanctity of the human being living in a condition of togetherness. Individuals never exist in isolation. People living together in a condition of togetherness deserve a good government and why not?,if the people who governs them come from the same people who are being governed? A good government has integrity and keeps the social in the most productive and orderly manner possible. No government is perfect, but every government must work towards the freedom and equality of each and every individual; especially those accused of crime and those not included in governmental policy. The best way to establish this condition is to quantify the Bottom of government and submit policy and law to a strict quantification of the sub-categories being governed. The best way to measure success in policy and law is to quantify the process. The enactment of policy must establish the fact that those excluded from any particular policy is not a discrimination against their freedom and equality. Just as law cannot descriminate against an individual's freedom and equality, neither can governmental policy descriminate against freedom and equality.

Activity that emanates from the bottom can be democratic. Of course, not all activity from the bottom is democratic. However, activity that 'originates' from the top has a very high potential to be Autocratic even though it originates from some 'Representative capacity'. Emanations from the Top come 'packaged' in linguistic terms. Therein lies their problem. Political language was confusing well before the so-called Linguistic Turn. The reason for that confusion has been the absolute neccessity to allude to the bottom in a 'general' manner; hence, general formulations that lack democratic precision. Why? Because democracy is not just an abstract formulation, it embraces each and every living individual at the bottom in a real way. An 'un-democratic' rule or activity is 'felt' in a real way at the bottom. (emotionally) Its not a simple matter of accepting or not accepting an abstract formulation that 'registers' solely in the intellect. It 'registers in the emotions and the intellect and effects the physical activity of the real individual. Hence, the need for democracy to apply to 'everyone' at the bottom in the same manner and in a real way. Therefore, we need better methods of formulating democratic policy. The only alternative is to make political language more 'quantitative'. General 'Rights', like Freedom and Equality, do have to apply to everyone, but certain policies and laws that have a more limited application must be quantified with regard to the area of application. No one can be left out: we are talking about people governing People. Some amount of classification may become necessary, but that classification cannot be abusive of the sanctity of the human condition. There is nothing superior at the Top that does not first exist at the Bottom. In fact, all 'power' emanates from the Bottom in the form of 'strength in togetherness'. At the Top, its called 'power' and is dependent on an 'abstract condition', namely political language; at the Bottom it's actual strength in the 'condition of togetherness' and is only dependent on the relationship between you and your 'neighbor'. A good relationship with ones 'neighbor' is conducive to a good relationship with the 'Peoples' of the world. Change yourself, so you can change the world.

To expand and paraphrase the statement made by the President, "In a democracy, all the people deserve a vote". How can any Party in a democratic government step away from that. That's the only way to implement democracy and that's why, in a democracy, the people and their representatives are allowed to vote. It's the people at the bottom that need to be heard and if they've spoken and its democratic, they do indeed deserve a vote. Democracy is "of the people", "by the people", and "for the people". How can any Party, in a democracy, not vote or intentionally block a vote that originates from the bottom? Thats totally undemocratic. Thats the problematic with Party politics. A Party takes a position on some issue, properly before them, and immediately take issue that,in no way, reflects the peoples wishes. Of course, in a democracy, Party-politicians are free to differ on positions of policy, but, in no case, should the position be un-democratic. Who or what gains from such a position? Of course, in the above cited reference, the beneficiaries are some corporation and/or lobbyist. Corporations, guns, money, lobbyists, all these roll-up into an un-democratic position. The position assumes misplaced values that usurp democratic values (corporations are legal fictions, they're not real; the Second Amendment does not refer to weapons capable of 'mass-destruction'; money is an economic-fiction, not a democratic value; and lobbyists get paid to 'sleep' with their 'fictions'(thats 'economic prostitution'.)How can any of that be democratic? We suffer from mis-placed values. Democratic values are being usurped by economic values. Freedom and equality are being replaced by an economic and a legal fiction, to wit; money and corporations. I said earlier that the democratic value of freedom and equality are the values that we should organize around. No one is saying its easy, but anyone can see and feel the difference between a human being and an economic or legal fiction. Its about the people stupid. If a Party stands for Plutocracy, why doesn't it just say-so? I'll tell you why, because that Party would cause an 'assembling' of all the peoples in a democracy. No one wants a Plutocracy -only the 1%. Thats why they do in-directly what they can't do directly. Democracy is protected by the very First amendment. Don't you get it?

We are fortunate not to have to begin at the begining of the formation of 'togetherness' or government. We are all born into a political structure. In our case, the Founding Fathers gave us the form to follow in the establishment of the structure of democratic government. Clearly, democratic government begins to form from the bottom up. Begining at the Top does not work. Government from the bottom to the top must have a triadic structure. The reasons for a triadic nature is that the Top is given 'centralized' power with which to govern the bottom, but the power to govern is given to it by the bottom, and then only for a short time. The form at the Bottom is democratic and hence involves every single individual at the Bottom constituting the body politic. A democracy is about people, millions of people living together under the structure of a triadic government. Although the Top is granted power by virtue of office, there is nothing sacred about the Top. The Top is a function that has certain duties and responsibilities attached to it. The only aspect of a democracy that is sacred is the human individual. Each and every individual is sacred because government did not create the individual but, the individual created government. The strength of a democracy is in its people. The strength ( call it power, if you wish) is in the condition of togetherness that binds the bottom together. Thats the reason for the First Amendment. The Top and sides, as well as the representative bottom, only have duties; the Bottom, where the people are, has a Constitutional right to revolution. Properly executed, the right to "assemble" is the most powerful thing in the world. The Top of any government is powerless in the face of a properly 'assembled' bottom.

If we ask, "what is government?", we will get many definitions. Many answers will reduce to simple terms like, "its a political entity"; It's "encapsulated power"; it's rule by the One over the Many"; it's a "political condition we're born into"; it's "government by superior human beings",or its 'rule' by "Divine Edict"; etc. All these answers have an element of truth to them except for the last two. The last two have already been tried and they don't work to well, especially the second one's reference to Divinity. The first one still 'lingers' in our world in different forms; took the world by force and inherited the position at the Top, or the 'I'm special posture' of superiority( for whatever reason). How would you answer? I say, the basic skeletal condition(without ideology)is rule by the 'One over the Many'. It has to be that way, but the next query becomes necessary and that is what historically got us into trouble. How do you 'select' the One? Historically, one answer was "by Divine Edict, Divine Right," or whatever. That was a mistake because we need to determine what is 'Divine Right' and there will never be a consensus on that. The next query is equally deceptive, but not quite as obvious. The question, how do you select the One was historically answered by "conquest" or "the strongest", the "smartest", etc. Notice the emphasis in both approaches. The emphasis is on the wrong pole of the relation of the One and the Many. Why the wrong pole? How can anyone select One from the Many without some method for the selection? Divinity doesn't work nor does the issue of the superiority of someone within the Many. No! The process can only be democratic.( of course, at this point, I just 'sneaked' into the argument, the concept of ideology) But, lets not do that, in oreder to answer the question, lets get away from the ideological and venture into the more practical. I think we can and that is precisely why my blog is entitled "democracy for the bottom". Look, we must begin at the Bottom, not the Top. Thats where all the people reside. No individual can live alone! A lone individual on an isolated island does not need government. But, we do not live alone; an individual must come together with other individuals. There's no other solution. In this preferrable 'condition of togetherness', if its a mutual condition, an individual can continue to exist. The 'togetherness' becomes necessary in order to continue to exist in the condition and so does the organization of the condition. So, how do we organize the condition? (See forth-coming 'blog')

Governments, all governments, need to stop pushing human beings around. Some will say, thats what governing is all about; its about governing every human being within its jurisdiction. When I say 'pushing human beings around', I mean treating people like they are inferior or of lesser importance than government, or that government is more important than the human condition. How can that be? If people are the ones who create governments and, in fact, the only function of government is to 'rule'. There's no other reason for the existence of governments. Government does not create people. People create government. Government would not exist were it not for the people. Although some governments are arranged around their people, (I refer to democratic government)that's not, in itself, an automatic panacea, but its a move in the 'right direction'. All governments that claim to be democratic must measure that statement by means of a triadic form. The triadic form is the basis of a democratic form of government, i.e. a democracy must have power at the Top; the people of the democracy are at the Bottom; and the Judiciary on the sides is required to monitor the 'real' relation that connects the Top to the Bottom. The strength of the governmental triad is entirely at the Bottom. The Bottom supports the Top. Since the people are the source of the strength of the triad, the Bottom must be 'quantified' so we can better gauage the democratic tenor of the activities and wishes of the Top for the benefit of the Bottom. One individual's activity or wish does not determine the tenor of a democracy. The activity must benefit some of the people or most of the people at the Bottom. An activity or a wish has to be quantifiable and hence measureable with respect to its democratic tenor. The activity must benefit the people at the Bottom as a whole. Why is that? Because, just one isolated individual or small group of 'isolated'individuals' activity or wish can be easily guided by excessive self-interest. Isn't that what's happening to the 1%? Governments exist because people created them. Hence, government is not free to undermine and mistreat the hunman condition. Government should function for the benefit of the people; it has no other function.

How do human beings become better human beings and how do Nations become better democracies. Human beings can become better humans by realizing that every human, regardless the differences in race,color,creed,or Country of birth, is free and equal in a world divided into different political ideologies. Its one thing to change ones personal belief systems when relating to the ever-present conditions of immediate existence within ones own Country, its another to understand that in a world as large as ours one must respect the sanctity and equality of the human condition everywhere. Of course, one may do just that, but still be hampered by the political ideology of the Other. People usually adopt the ideology of their nation, although that is not necessarilly the case everytime. Some people differ from their Country's ideology. Differences in political ideology should apply to the political entity as a whole and not to the individuals within that entity. The political issue then becomes an issue for the United Nations. The individual issue would involve individuals who are equally human and equally free, but need to be politically equal and politically free to voice those qualities. So, individuals everywhere need to see the equality of everyone and the Nations need to recognize the sanctity of the human condition and the need to be politically democratic in their governing. Although issues between individuals are different from issues between nations, every Nation and every individual must recognize the sanctity of the human condition and the political need for the freedom and equality of everyone within their political boundaries. In that way, maybe we will not self-destruct the planet so easily. Nations must recognize that their strength in the International sphere depends on the integrity of their Nation, and that depends on the democratic nature of the Nation because they can only be as strong as their people.

A 'shrunken' International World actually enlarges the 'concerns' of the individual living on the planet. What we previously perceived( if we read the newspaper) as occurring in another far-away Country can now be 'seen' in ones living room.( if you are fortunate enough to own a TV set). We then relate to these activities in the same manner as we would have related to the same activities by a 'real' next-door neighbor. Proximity and the illusion of proximity begats personal feelings. So, is it possible not to relate in a 'personal' manner to International activities? Yes and No. Yes, one can merely not give a dam. No, we cannot exclude the human condition from the 'shrinking condition' of the International scene. Its one thing to say, "its just a TV image" and another, not too react as human beings. The TV and the newspaper are medias of communication that do in fact communicate 'something' across political boundaries right into your living room. Political boundaries separate millions of people from millions of peoples. Its potentially dangerous to mix 'personal feelings' across political boundaries. There will never be a consensus of life-style, but there can be a consensus of political frameworks that helps a consensus of basic human qualities. The political boundaries of the International sphere must come closer and closer to a real democratic condition of political existence. The governments can be different,but the human condition within political boundaries is never different. In a real democracy, individuals have real democratic values,i.e. individual Equality and individual Freedom. All other Rights circumnavigate around these two basic principles. The political framework is just the 'container' of these values. Governments can differ, but not the human condition. The human condition and these values are universal and can help 'blend' the International scene closer together by just recognizing the freedom and equality of everyone. All governments must protect themselves as well as their own peoples. But, they cannot 'fight' their own people and the other political entities on the international sphere at the same time. That's self-destructive. So, we need to become better human beings and Nations need to become better democracies.

The only form possible for a democracy is the Triadic form. The reason being that's the only form that allows and demands that all 'sides' of the triad function at maximum 'value'. At any one time, one or several of the sides could be functioning improperly. In other words,the Executive Branch could be against the 'interests' of 'the people' as a whole, individually, or as a class. The other side of that is that the Executive Branch has preferences that are selective and that do not reflect the democratic nature of the whole. The Legislative Branch could favor special areas of the social to the exclusion of all the people, or it could be legislating specific 'pet' areas of the social that excludes too many people;or it could not be 'representing' the people but only certain preferential areas of the polity. The Judiciary could have interpretive practices that favor certain parts of the social or parts of the polity, such as the economy. Obviously, its not a perfect government, but it has the potential to be the best in the world. The people elected to the Top are not perfect, but they assume a position of 'representation' and power that should not be abused. It's the only form where the people being governed are governed by individuals who were, previously, also at the Bottom of the triad. There is no superiority in the rulers and there is no Divine guidance. There is only a 'promise' to represent the whole and then only for a short time. It seems that the worst offense against democracy is the 'creation' of a 'person' that only exists in 'contemplation of law' and giving that 'fiction', the same human rights as those of a real person. How can we create something that didn't exist before and make it more important than a human being trying to organize his or her existence? A corporation is just a piece of paper called Articles of Incorporation and By Laws and having being approved, receives a Charter from the State and gets hung on the wall. Don't get me wrong, corporations are vital to the economy. But,we cannot have a polity of real human beings taking second chair to a fiction. Those fictions already get preferential treatment by giving them a perpetual existence,( hey, thats the closest thing to immortality), they can volutarilly dissolve themselves and re-emerge under different names,( hey, they 're-incarnate' on the spot); they don't 'hurt', they don't need medical care, and, in a way, that's a great 'economic invention', but don't 'replace' democracy with a fiction that has profits as its sole goal. 'Circulating money' is great, but it's not a democratic 'value', and its not even a democratic principle. We have never solved the basic 'mystery of creation', instead we create belief systems into 'Western Religions', 'Eastern Religions',and all kinds of other belief systems, and then, comes along a 'minor' inconsequential fiction called 'money' and we let it dominate our lives. We 'live' for it, we fight for it, we kill for it, and then we try to organize our democratic existence around it. What's happening?? What happened to Life and after Life, what happened to Democracy? We create our own problems. So much for the Human Condition.

Corporations are important to the economy of a Nation. But, we must never forget that they are legally considered as "fictions that exist only in contemplation of law". Why and what does that mean? Well,human beings in a democracy are not fictions, they're as real as you can get. They 'live' they suffer and they die. Hence, side by side, a human being should be more important to a democracy than a "fiction". That does not mean that we discriminate against corporations, only that we distinguish between an economic principle and a political principle. Not only do we make a distinction between them but we do not co-mingle them. OK, so what does that mean? It means that the goal and purpose of having a healthy economy should not be the sole criteria of a democracy. To be sure, its very important, but never at the risk of relaxing democratic principles. We do not switch from democratic principles to economic principles. Democracy must remain democracy, it never changes. Thats why we have the First Amendment. The economy must continue to grow within the context of the democracy within which it is realizing its full potential. When economic principles begin to effect democratic principles, that means that the 'motor'and goal(profits)begins to replace the Freedom and Equality of a true democracy.That means that instead of freedom and equality as a 'motor' for democracy, that money,the medium of exchange that must circulate, becomes a 'value'. That means money replaces freedom and equality as the 'motor' of the Nation.When money replaces freedom and equality, we go from Democracy to Plutocracy; We go from a 'freedom and equality' to a 1%. When the 1% rules, we create a Country with 'riches',instead of a country with freedom and equality of those who, in the first place, created it. Come-on guys, money is necessary;like you,I like it too, but don't let it replace democracy, especially when the main culprit is a "legal fiction". You know, legal fictions can't function on their own, they are 'run' by real people, so who is benefiting? We're back to the 1%.

Remember when you were in the military? Among many other things ,they issued you an M1 and a bayonet, also a whole slew of magazines with 30 caliber rounds. Heavens, do they still issue bayonets? I know they don't issue M1's. I guess killing has become more efficient. We now have "weapons of mass- destruction". Its no longer a one on one situation. The more we can kill with just one 'weapon' the better. That means automatic weapons with as many bullets as you can carry. Well, if your in a war situation, I guess that makes some sense( not addressing the sense-lessness of war). The Second Amendment also allows the people "to bear arms". When was that Amendment passed? Oh, 1791. Hell those were wild times. The American Revolution was just over, the Constituion was just 'approved', and maybe there were even indians and wild animals all over the place. But, I betcha they didn't have assault weapons. At that time, it was also necessary that a State have a "well regulated Militia" to prevent enchroachment into the State. For sure, everyone was entitled to protect his family and his home. And, face it, everyone is still entitled to self-protection, so having a weapon for that purpose is as Constitutional as you can get. But, a "well regulated Militia" to the security of the State? Thats the States business! And for self-defense, hunting, or collecting, do we need "weapons of mass destruction"? Some will say ,"you exaggerate". OK,lets just say automatic weapons with many magazines for killing dozens of individuals who are attacking your family or home? As unlikely as that scenario is, its not unlikely that some 'crazy' will do just that in a crowded auditorium or a school building. Isn't that whats happening? Well, those victims were someone's family. Your family is your family whether your at home or going about your business. They need protection just as you and your home need protection. So, lets control the availability and misuse of these automatic weapons. We don't need them for self-defense at home and we don't need them for hunting and we don't have to collect them. If you do collect them, then just remove the firing pins on those suckers. I guess we no longer issue bayonets but we do issue automatic weapons because unfortunately they have become necessary in war. Production and manufacture of weapons for war is still necessary. But that is unrelated to running a business designed to make the availability of these weapons to just anyone. Sell to the government, or is there a 'profit' issue lurking in the background? We need to keep the Second Amendment but lets not use it to justify the taking of innocent lives. People govern themselves so how can people allow the taking of innocent lives. Some control is imperative.

All human beings are 'unique' expressions of life. Regardless of the color of their skin, gender,place of birth,life style or belief system. Human life is sacred. No political entity can claim to have 'given'or 'issued' that life and no political entity has 'control' of the sacred. A political entity is merely a 'coming together' to form a general organization designed to better protect, the uniqueness of that life. Some called it a "Divine Right", others 'took it' by conquest or force. It can be called a 'State', a 'Nation' or a 'Country'. Its a political entity and as such does not come into existence in the same manner as human beings. It has a purpose and a goal and that goal is predominant and sovereign and each political entity has to establish the form and structure by which it will govern those lives. In a democracy, the people themselves organize the form and structure by which one or several of them will govern the rest. This method of forming a political entity does not claim to select the 'governors' that are superior in any respect. Interested individuals campaign to be elected into offices.(who knows if they're being honest?) The people do their best to choose a candidate that will respect the sanctity of life. The 'chosen' have a political 'job' to perform. That job is to protect and defend the general welfare of those who have placed him or her in a position of 'political' power. The so-called 'Top of power' is a political power and never an individual power. So-called 'power' can come wrapped in many 'social wrappings'. Some individuals are strong, some are rich, some are poor, some are smart, some are dumb, and some of these can get elected to serve at the Top, but regardless, what has been conferred is political power,not individual power. No one individual in office can claim to have given life or claim to have a right to manipulate the life of any 'Other' individual. An individual in office can only claim the right to better the general welfare of those whom he or she governs. There is no other purpose for government. I know about the tensions between States and Nations but that's another matter. Thats about Nations relating to each other not people dealing with the form and structure of their own particular government. Every human being has a right to his or her life and to demand that 'the general welfare' of the people be addressed by those in power. The Top has no other function. The 'Bottom' of government must be conceived 'quantitatively', if one is to judge, whether democracy is true Democracy or whether only a few are benefiting from the organization into a political entity. Why should only 1% benefit from politics? Why do you think the First Amendment was passed? Thats a Right to your religion, to 'free' speech, and the right to 'revolution'.

Democracy is about the freedom and equality of human beings: the economy is about making a profit. Have you ever seen a business, whether incorporated or not, that is not making a profit, remain in business? Or for that matter, an individual that works for a living, continue to work if s/he will not get paid? The economy functions on a principle of 'monetary growth'. Of course, the economy of a Country must be stable and must show signs of growth. However, Democracy will continue to be a democracy and the only 'growth' it will experience is where the parts of the social that were previously left out, can now be included. Government is a democratic arrangement into three parts of the social that will hold the underlying form in a true 'democratic' reciprocity. Democracy will always be democracy; the only question that arises is, "is it a true democracy?" If not, then that's the direction of change. Democracy does not grow, it just finds its true center. That is why democratic principles of government cannot, and should not, be co-mingled with economic principles of growth. Sure, they're related. However, the individual is the very basis of democracy. If any individual or class of individuals is left out of the 'reckoning' of a democratic policy or law, we have failed. Democracy will never change; it is to be achieved. To the contrary, the economy is based on the profit motive which can very easily become motored by greed. Therein lies its problematic. Individual greed may be morally wrong(maybe not), but, in the political sphere, it's clearly wrong. If the medium of exchange is 'hogged' by the 1%,a very important part(that should circulate) of the economy is being held hostage in a democracy based on freedom and equality. The 'top' of the social is not the same as the Top of government. The two are different and must remain separate in a democratic government. Why change the principle of democracy to a principle of the economy? Thats not democracy, thats Plutocracy. Why do 'democrats' who have used the principles of democracy to get to the 'top' of the economic ladder, all of a sudden, want to be Plutocrats? You know the answer to that.

Democracy is about human beings. Although a democratic government functions democratically, true democracy is at the bottom where all the people reside in a condition of togetherness. The Top, or the government is able to function because it has Constitutional power. The power at the Top comes from the Constitution. The Top is not per se a democratic form. It is a triadic nature that allows the people at the bottom to elect someone to sit in the 'seats of power' situated at the Top. The Top cannot demand anything as a democratic right. The only right it has is to act according to the delineation of power granted in the Constitution and to act for the general welfare and that must pass scrutiny by the Supreme Court. The point is that all power and law comes from the Constitution and the Constitution comes from the People. The people are at the bottom. The previledge of governing extends only for a few years. So, unquestionably we live in a Country where the people rule. True, they rule indirectly but, without people there would be no need for government. The point is that one duty of government is to serve the general welfare. So, how on earth can we have a classification of peoples called "homeless"? Is the government doing its job? Recently, one State introduced the "Homeless Person's Bill of Rights and Fairness Act.( California). Assemblyman Tom Ammiano is right. There are just as many reasons for being 'unfortunate' or 'unlucky' as there are for being 'fortunate' or 'lucky'. The homeless can only go around in circles and never be able to ascend up the scale to the level of the 'fortunate'. Where is democracy in all this? Why can't government help them? The economy is not going to help. In spite of their conditions, they are human beings and they ,admit it or not, have human dignity. Why is that sector of the social completely ignored. Could it be that they are just to poor and unfortunate to be helped by democracy? Its true, in a democracy people have to do their share and they do; they work, earn money, pay taxes own homes and property, serve their Country, and sometimes many die for their Country. Could it be that democracy has no place for the poor, unfortunate, or homeless, only because they don't pay taxes, etc.. What kind of democracy is that?

People are entitled to own and possess any thing they wish, so long as its not against the law. Of course, I refer to gun control. The second Amendment protects that right. But, we must also consider when the Amendment was passed and when it was ratified; 1791. This occurred a few years after the end of the American Revolution and after the drafting of the Constitution. Certainly, conditions of daily existence have changed tremendously from the conditions existing at that time. Of course, the Amendment was passed at that time for a reason and a purpose. Hence, I say lets not tamper with the Amendment and lets keep it. But,that Amendment does not have anything to do with the right to easily acquire automatic weapons, normally used in war-like situations, for use by 'crazies' to kill innocent children. Sure, we can't control the 'crazies'. Sure, people have a right to own a gun and to use it to protect their homes and families, but what does that have to do with making them available to anyone who wants an automatic weapon to just slaughter other human beings? That doesn't make any sense. The issue is availability and the potential for mis-use. I'm sure that people who do not want gun control are not saying, "Well, let them get those guns 'over-the-counter' and slaughter whomever they want"; At least I hope not. But, thats the effect of not controlling availability of war-like weapons. Sure, the bad guys will always be able to get them, but is that a reason for just neglecting the problem. We're not talking about normal people were talking about a few crazies who have no respect for the human condition. Easy availability! Some amount of control has become necessary! Don't eliminate guns in homes used for self-defense, defense of property, guns used for hunting and target practice, but please get them out of the hands of the crazies! It used to be that a man could walk down main street with his pistol wrapped around his waist, but you can't do that anymore: those days are over. Some clear thinking must be done and some degree of control must be implemented. We cannot ignore the problem! To ignore the problem is to not care about innocent lives.

The novelty of the problem on the International community is caused by the revolution in the communication media. The internet has brought a spread-out collection of different peoples in different Countries a lot closer together.Its easy to reach out from ones living room into another living room separated by many miles and Political boundaries. The world has shrunk and the "togetherness" of peoples of all races and belief systems is now possible. Of course, there will always be the insistense of the superiority of one Nation over the other. Maybe, that's necessary for political purposes, but its not necessary for human reasons. I understand the philosophic perspective which states that there is no such thing as a Human Nature which binds all humans together. The problematic that arises from that concept is the issue of equality. The argument seems to be that we are all more different than we are alike; that there is no such thing as human equality. In other words, some of us are superior to others. But, that argument falls when we consider that we all need to live together in order to be individually and politically free. If we live in isolation and don't live together, after awhile, each individual will be pitted against the other individual. Unfortunately, thats just the way people live, always anxious to assert their individual superiority. Thats why all individuals need to be controlled politically. Not in the sense of controlling everyday activities, but in the sense of a 'political togetherness' with a National identity that protects its citizens and, not only that, but also governs the general welfare of the constituted political entity. If we do not have political equality, we will never have human equality. Although, human equality gives rise to political equality, the polity, in return, protects everyone's human equality by legislating laws of order. The people need government, but government also needs the people. In a democracy of people, by people, and for people, the government depends on all its people; not on just 1% nor on some preferred political party.

The 'International Community' has created a novel problem. First; can there be a 'community' on the International sphere? Well, much like a 'National community' cuts through States' lines to form a more National Community of people, maybe a political National community can also cut across other National lines to form a more global community where the different peoples of the world are sovereign. They would be sovereign as a 'formed unit of humanity' as contrasted and differentiated from the organized political entities they inhabit. Stated differently, the 'peoples of the world' would be a democracy. Each Political entity has its people who are 'together or united' and who live and communicate with each other on a daily basis. In todays world, the Internet and Media companies have brought together Nations as well as the individuals in the different Nations. The new communication medias have made the world more 'neighborly'. An International 'unity' of Nations has become possible as has the individual 'unity' of the human race. If Nations can and should communicate with each other to better 'unify' different Nations, why can't individuals from the different nations also attempt to unify the mass of humanity in the world? Now, more specifically, if individuals attempt to 'unify' the peoples into a democracy, they will have to cross National markers. But, thats not a reason to stop communication. If some individual from the Arab 'world', or any other 'world', is trying to get a foothold into a different media, National market, why shouldn't that be allowed? The same legal constraints for the local media world would, of course, be applicable to the 'outside' medias trying to enter. Of course, many issues on Freedom of Speech and ,of course, ideology come into play. But, we've dealt with those issues before. Not only do real humans have a freedom of speech, we have even extended that freedom to legal fictions. Of course, a real human can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre, (we don't have to worry about Corporations yelling 'fire', since they don't talk, but then again, they can support their favorite candidate) but you can express differences of opinion. Every human being should have a freedom of speech; a freedom to express themselves, regardless the ideology. But, how about through the media of TV? Why not?, we allow violence, sex, mayhem, etc. on TV. How about different ideologies? Well,we already have access to them in our libraries and University courses. Within a well-regulated legal presentation, anything should be allowed expression via the media. There will always be 'abusers', but we should be able to handle that. The interesting thing about the new media and the Internet is that I can always pull the plug. Democracy is about people; its about human beings being entitled to their life. Whether you know where life comes from or whether you can explain it to yourself, or whether it remains a mystery to you, for sure, we know it doesn't come from the State, the Nation, nor any other form of political entity. Every individual is entitled to his/her life and to express their thoughts and feelings. Otherwise, how can we claim to live in a democracy? Language cannot be a taboo.

The biggest problem with established governments is the distribution of power. The act of coming together into a huge 'togetherness' and assuming an identity as a Nation or Country is an act of conferring 'political power' to the Top of the political entity. There is no 'natural power' that inures to the Top just by virtue of being on Top of any political entity. The power at the Top that the entity posseses is a 'conferred power'. Historically, it was by 'divine right' or 'inheritance', in others, a position taken by force. In a democracy of people, by people, and for people, that conferring of power comes from the bottom where all the people reside. By virtue of 'placing' one of their own at the Top of government for a period of time, grants the authority and power to govern 'for the general welfare',each and every person within the 'togetherness', and also to relate to other global political entities. The issue of political power is not simple. There is a clear distinction between political power and personal power and never shall the two meet. The political and the personal must be kept at a respectable distance. The Top has political power, but only by virtue of office. The Bottom(the people) have personal power, or better yet, they have strength in Numbers. Yet, there comes a time when political issues mix with personal issues. Gun control is such an issue. Obviously, we cannot control the individuals who periodically go crazy and massacre others. Of course, we have to try. However,we can control( to some degree) the availability of guns particularly so-called combat weapons. Of course we have an Amendment that protects the right of people to protect themselves and their homes. The gun issue is not about the Amendment, which was passed for a different reason and at a different time, and which should remain intact; its about personally having 'weapons of mass destruction'. (sounds familiar?) If we can justify begining a war by creating a wrong impression about the 'potential' possession of weapons of mass destruction(a political issue that involved killing women and children)surely we can instigate some form of actual gun control, particularly when it involves 'helpless' children( a personal issue). We can't control the 'crazies', but we can control the availability of guns. Maybe we should be glad to have a statesman at the Top who really cares about the Bottom; particularly, the helpless children and the families being effected.

As governments become 'larger', more 'expansive',it would seem that governing would become more efficient and the 'condition' of people in the Nation and the world would improve. After all, the Top of every government has, or should have, the general welfare of its people as its primary concern. Then, why is it that as soon as a government acquires more strength, individual human emotions about killing, conquering and overcoming other governments, come to the fore? Those emotions are 'individual' emotions, not 'governmental emotions'. Government is an 'arrangement' of people in a manner best suited to govern many individuals. Its independent of the people it governs. Its completely separate from human individuality and the 'emotional tenor' of any government should be the 'general welfare' of its people, not the welfare of any one individual at the Top, or of any group of individuals within the governmental structure. Why else become established as a government? Understandably, a government, as an individual, must protect itself. A government can become 'stronger', but that 'governmental strength' does not transfer to any individual within the political entity. The same is true of human emotions; human emotions remain individual emotions and its a mistake to transfer any one individual emotion 'into' the 'emotional tenor' of any 'act of governing'. How ridiculous; we form governments to keep millions of individuals within a structure of 'law and order'( which keeps them from 'killing' each other) and then,once we form into such governmental structures, 'governments' insist on 'killing' each other (on the National as well as on the International sphere).Wow. Even a child could see how ridiculous that is. I guess, that would be a job for the United Nations or similar groupings(whatever). A Nation must govern itself with 'governmental emotion', not the human emotion of the individual at the Top of power. I understand the difficulty of defining any such emotion, but governing means governing the Nation, not any other governmental system on the International sphere. So lets keep human emotions where they belong and lets govern with the 'broader emotional tenor' of a statesman and not the 'misplaced' individual emotions of a politician.

Government cannot measure success or failure because words and language are to unmanageable. Semantics and multiplicity of meanings renders language duplicitous. That is not the fault of language, its the fault of government. Government needs to organize along the lines of the triadic nature crafted in the Constitution. Certainly a government of people, by people and for people can be structured along quantifiable lines. (Separate Parties are OK, if both are democratic.) In that way, policy and legal mandates can be measured for accomplishment. Otherwise,we are left with sweeping generalities completely unfounded on the bottom of the triad or the people. The economy is totally quantified because it uses money as its measureing stick. Government can use each individual as a measure of democracy. If it just uses semantics, the results can be chaotic. If, when policy or law declares, "everyone is free and equal" it's actually meant, the solution is simple. Everyone means everyone. Where's the problem? Instead, when we use language or semantics , we begin to make distinctions like, "Oh,I'm free to do anything I please". Well yes, but, of course, you have to stay within the law. And don't step on your neighbors toes, cause he's not going to like it. Remember, he's free also. My favorite,of course, is "what are we doing in Afghanistan?" Ans: " we're bringing them democracy". Right. The other is equality. It's the popular belief that someone is unequal if s/he is not white or belongs to a different race, or, s/he is poor, or is on welfare, or is to old to be useful,etc. Has anyone heard of the human race? Being human is all thats required to be equal. There's no other measure. Government Office is a priviledge that should not be abused. Don't forget, your up there only for a short while. Democratic rule is the only form of government that can be imposed on a human being. Thats why all people have the Constitutional right to revolution. The human condition has a right to protect itself, even against government.

The economy must help fortify the Nation, but the Nation does not have to fortify the economy at the expense of democracy. Don't get me wrong.Government needs to help create a 'healthy, strong, National economy', but it does not have to sacrifice democratic principles. In no case do democratic principles take second chair to economic principles. Government is operated on democratic principles, not economic ones. Just making profits is never a democratic principle. However, economic considerations should not exclude democratic considerations. Although the two principles function by means of separate paradigms and, of course, for separate purposes, yet they can and should support each other. The problematics with a so-called 'Market' economy is that the sole engine is to make a profit and not to promote democracy. Little, if any, consideration goes into the realization that the so-called Market is constituted by the same people that constitute the democracy. Of course, thats why some "out-source". ( Thats another story) Democracy is governed by the basic principle of "free and equal", whereas the 'market' is founded on making a profit. Consequently, government could well contribute to a stable market by establishing programs that create a 'value' that helps circulation of money within the market and hence, the economy. However, under no circumstances is government entitled to step outside the political principles of democratic government. Government has many duties to its citizens as citizens have duties to their government. The cry for stopping entitlements is ridiculous. Helping the poor; the 'needy', senior citizens, the retired,etc with Social security, medicare, welfare, is not an entitlement,its a duty and they better well provide it. ( Who fights their wars, if not the people at the bottom)The only entitlement in a democracy is the priviledge and entitlements attributed to those normal human beings who were lifted into offices-of-power by the people at the bottom. Once out of office, the top is free to join us at the bottom. I dare say, without the 'power of office', they seem pretty normal.

The economy has a standard of value that measures its success or failure.Democracy can also have a standard of value with which to measures its success or failure. The value standard of the economy is money which is a medium of exchange. Of course money must circulate in order to accomplish its 'exchange function'. Since that medium is a quantification, it can be changed, modified, or accumulated as number does in mathmatics. If, at present, that medium is accumulated in the top 1%, and if it is not circulating or exchanging, something is very wrong with an economy designed to circulate. But, the value system of a democracy is different from that of the economy and must be kept separate. The value system of government relates to the freedom and equality of each individual in the polity. If the freedom and equality are important, the form of government has to be democratic, or stated differently, a government "of people", "by people" and "for people". But, our democracy relies on constitutional interpretive practices and hence is subject to many linguistic variables. Of course, that's necessary and there's nothing wrong with that. But, if these practices were to include 'quantification', the efficiency or effect of any policy or law could be more easily measured. Otherwise, unfounded generalizations will 'free-float' in abstract space completely unfounded on anything real. By 'quantification' we mean to 'extend' our discourse into the geometric and mathmatical field. Of course, I don't refer to a geometry and math that follows the basic paradigm of those disciplines. But, I do mean that we switch to those disciplines when the results of some political concept involves some degree of measurement. After all, math and geometry are languages also and more precise. They also 'move' or 'communicate' from 'here' to 'there'; they 'include' and 'exclude'; and 'Number' never changes; in its quantified state, its always the same. So is the individual in a democracy. In quantification we can more easily measure the 'democratic tenor' of any policy or law. Hence its need. The relation between the One and the Many at the bottom is real and that relation can change the applicability of the 'discourse' from one replete with variables to one more certain and quantifiable. Power in its descend from the Top to the Bottom must be applied democratically.It must be tempered quantifiably.

Why has the Linguistic Turn disorganized and unsettled language-usage? Well, language was already subject to many variables in meaning, which led to many disagreements and arguments but, the Turn completely destroyed the effectiveness of language by claiming that no 'word' corresponded to the thing it referred too, or more generally, the 'Map does not correspond to reality". Since language is always about something other than itself, it inhabits two different domains. Grammatical usage is one domain and that to which it refers is the other. Nevertheless, and in spite of its limitations, language is essential to the human condition. But, the Turn has caused a restructuring of many linguistic disciplines and thats why the Constitution must be perceived in its underlying form. That form has to be geometric and mathmatical. Those two disciplines have not been confused or disorganized. Why not? Because they deal with 'direction' and quantities and not meaning. Why should democracy be quantitative? Because each individual in a democracy is important as a living human being and democracy refers to each and every individual at the Bottom. A triadic government best protects the sanctity of each individual. It has three different sides with three different functions to 'hold' the integrity of the triad and the integrity of democracy. Also math and geometry,being quantitative,are 'what they are' and cannot be otherwise. Language, to the contrary, has many meanings and can be interpreted in many different ways. Hence, government must have form and structure. The structure is in the language of the Constitution and the form underlies it. The structure may be arguable, but the form is not. The form is a government 'of people','by people', and 'for people'. That speaks for itself and that is as quantitative as can be. Otherwise,how can One or a few govern a multitude without the multitude's decision in the matter? Its impossible.The problematics with language arises when terms like,'all', 'everyone', 'free','equal',and many other general terms, remain on an abstract level and never really sink down to the real human beings to whom they apply. Abstraction can lead to political double talk and heaven only knows we hear it daily. The essense of the democratic spirit must be quantified. No one says its easy, only that it's a must. Where are our statesmen?