Capitalism is not Democratic

Capitalism is not Democratic. The reason for that statement is that the goal of all economic activity is the make a profit. Making a profit is an 'authoritarian' endeavor. It does not 'hold back' so that the competition can 'catch up' with competing economic activity. Also, most capitalistic ventures are 'incorporated' so that the size 'overwhelms' the small business establishments. The corporate structure is a recognized 'fiction' and hence the big incorporated businesses can be said to be 'business fictions'. Yet, they produce more 'profits' than the small business-person. In other words the government creates fictions to compete with the real human beings in the economy. Is that democratic? Of course, some will say the individual is free to pursue economic activity as s/he pleases. That's true, but the point is that a government is motored by democratic principles of Freedom and Equality, while an economy is motored by the profit motive. The two are starkly different and they must be kept separate. Freedom and Equality cannot 'motor' an economy and the 'profit motive' cannot motor a democracy. It is imperative that the two principles be kept separate and that the Democratic spirit not be contaminated by money. Of course, the question is, "how is that to be done"? The answer should be obvious to anyone putting a little thought behind the two concepts. Of course, an important consideration is always, "how do our elected officials feel about the greedy accumulation of money"? Yes, unfortunately, the human condition is not beyond entertaining selfish goals that relate to money more so than to democratic principles of Freedom and Equality. That's why the 1% wants to field candidates for office and that's why the Citizens case needs to be overturned. The Citizens case makes money the 'driving force' behind a corporate takeover of government. Big Business, big corporations, money, Citizens and the 1% are beginning to undo the Freedom and Equality of the principle of Democracy. How did that happen? Well, money has become power, and the Freedom and Equality of the human condition has been transferred to the economy, so that capitalists now say, " we are free to engage in economic activity, and the democratic principles of Freedom and Equality of a democracy, be dammed". No!, they must be kept separate. Neither of the two principles can be co-mingled with the other. All we have to do is look around and see what is happening. Even leaders of Religious organizations who are said to have a 'proper value system' have become 'money hungry'. The human condition needs to re-evaluate itself. How sad. Sooner or later, we are going to be remembering, "how wonderful it was to have once lived in a Democracy, where we could live Freely and in Equality. Are there any 'true leaders' out there?

'Government', in the International sphere, is as necessary, as Government on the National sphere.

The International community is different from the National community. We all know that; and we know that International 'government', is about governing other political entities; entities that possess power over their People, and consequently, having equal 'power' on the International sphere. In other words, the 'World Government' governs other entities with the 'same power' that it purports to have, in order to be able to govern at that level. To be sure, the level of government is different, but there is no difference in the 'power' of the 'governed Nation', from the power of the governing International body. Obviously, the 'power' of any 'member' Nation, is a 'given' political attribute of just being a Nation. The level of government is, truly, 'more abstract' than on the National level. On the National level, the Top is truly abstract, but the Bottom is 'real'. On the International level, both, the Top and the Bottom of the International spheres are abstract. Power is abstract, and both political entities are also abstract. Hence, the politics of the International sphere is a purely abstract politics. Not so, with any National political entity. Each National political entity should have a 'direct relation' with its own People; and its own People are as 'real' as those of any other Nation. In other words, underlying both the International sphere and the National sphere, the 'Peoples of the world' are real human beings. Hence, the politics is different on one sphere from that of the Other sphere. The difference can be emphasized by a 'term' which applies to both spheres. For example; so called, 'unrest' on the National level, and 'unrest' on the International level are different. On the National level that 'unrest' could turn into a 'revolution'; on the International level, that 'unrest' could turn into a 'War' between Nations. Why? because the International sphere deals with purely 'power politics', while, on the National sphere, it should be a 'clash' between the institutional 'power' of a government at the Top, and the 'Rights' of the 'human condition' in its 'condition of togetherness' at the Bottom, in other words, a 'clash' between 'institutional power' and the 'Democracy' of the People. Wouldn't it be nice, if all 'Leaders, Chairman's, Presidents, Dictators, Oligarchs, Plutocrats, Kings, or 'whatever', would be more 'democratically human', and less, egotistical, power hungry, 'money driven', humans. All they have to do is think of the 'Other', instead of 'themselves'. The 'Bottom line', whether Nationally or Internationally, is that the People, in their 'condition of togetherness', and in great 'Numbers', are 'stronger', than 'instituted' governments. Instituted governments should govern 'real human beings' in a democratic manner.

A 'form' of Government is the 'highest' most abstract entity of the human race.

Government is a creation of 'Peoples'. All governments have an origin, and as such, an institutional 'beginning point', where the government set out to 'govern' the Peoples within its geographical area. The Peoples, in their 'condition of togetherness' acquire an identity and hence become a Nation. So we have to ask, what of 'groups' of people that did not seem to have a 'government', in the way we use the term now. Well, we're going back a long way, but that has never been the case. Even as early as institutions of the 'family', there was always a 'head of the family', or, as we say 'politically', a 'leader'. Todays families have 'governments' in the sense that the parents always help the new born to establish themselves in a healthy way within the social. Parents always care for the young, and stick together as a family, when they're old. The same should apply to governments as institutions of the Many. There is no difference, except for the concept of the Many, or millions of people who are 'the governed'. Sure, families are small and governments are huge. But, the relation that runs from the Top to the Bottom is the same. So, why can't human beings 'live' in a 'condition of togetherness' within any one Nation, as a family lives in a 'condition of togetherness'? Well, unfortunately, the two situations are different. Blood holds the family together, whereas 'political ideology' holds the Nation together. We can reduce the relation between the Top and the Bottom, or, the One and the Many, in each case, but besides the 'numbers involved', at the Bottom, there is no 'blood relation' in the Nation. Political ideology is a different, abstract, 'cohesion' that has many ramifications, and the worst of these is the human tendency to 'divide up', or to divide into 'competing' political Parties. That, in itself, would not be so bad, if the Parties were both 'democratic' in their ideologies. But, unfortunately, in both Parties, the 'democratic spirit' has gone into hiding, and 'economic principles' are having a 'heyday' in politics. The Top of government is not just for the 'rich'. What does money have to do with governing in the 'democratic spirit' of Freedom and Equality for all Peoples. Yet, it seems that government is now available only to those individuals who have 'lots of money'. Where has democracy gone? The 'democratic spirit' exists in each and every human being within a Nation and each individual can 'craft' a life with these principles. Whereas, money, the 'medium of exchange' in capitalism, 'requires circulation' in the economy, and it is being held 'hostage' by the 1% at the Top of the economy. And now, it seems, even our Leaders 'compete' to be at the Top of the economy instead of the Top of a democratic government, or, at the Top of government, but with 'lots of money'. We need a 'huge' re-orientation of democratic principles.

Governments are necessary institutions, but they are also 'empty Institutional vessels' of necessary power.

Government is a necessary institution, but it does not have to 'revolve' around any one Leader or any one Nation. Sure, there are many Nations in the world and the International sphere has its own governing body or 'United Nations'. But, is every Nation a member? If not, why not? Governing on the level of a United Nations or a 'world' is not an easy matter. Governing on a National level stresses the importance of the People within any one Nation; but, governing on the International sphere is a different ball game. The focus is on the different Nations and each one is different, and each one is sovereign, within its own sphere. The same respect for the Freedom and Equality of the people within any Nation must be extended to the Freedom and Equality of each sovereign Nation within the United Nations. It would seem, that on the International sphere, 'governing' the relations between individual Nations is vastly different, than any one Nation governing its own People. The reason, is that each Nation is a 'political power' and sovereign within its National boundaries. So, Internationally, power governs the relations between Nations of equal individual power. Whereas, Nationally, through institutional power, the Nation governs the freedom and equality of the human condition. Nationally, and in a Democracy, power exists only at the Top of government; at the Bottom, the People have inalienable Rights and the 'condition of togetherness' insures their strength in Numbers. The Right to " peaceably assemble and Petition the government for redress of grievances" is a Constitutionally protected Right. Individual people never have power; only an Institution can grant 'institutional power'. The relation is between an institution and the human condition. While, on the International sphere the relation is between equally powerful Nations. Governments, of whatever form, i.e. whether Democracies or not, are merely institutions of power. As such, their major concern should be their own people. When governments respect the integrity and dignity of their own People, there should be no reason for being aggressive within the International sphere. Large Nations should not bully smaller Nations. Each Nation is equally sovereign and each Nation has a right to its own 'culture', way of life, dignity and respect as an equal Nation among other Nations, but each Nation should respect the human condition, in the same way, as all other Free People within any other Nation are respected. Leaders with 'power' should never flex their muscles against other leaders with equal power. Sure, Governments are necessary, but they are also 'empty Institutional vessels' of necessary power; and their sole purpose is to govern millions of people. There's no other purpose for the existence of Nations, and Governments. Human beings have dignity and integrity; not governments, they are 'empty, hollow, Institutional vessels' of necessary power.

The problem with governments is 'government'.

A big problem with governments is 'governing' itself. Some government were established by 'force', 'fraud', 'conquest' or 'heredity', or by some other means; other than by being 'selected', or 'elected' by the People. Of course, some were 'instituted' by the People, and some were 'elected' by the people. In any case, and regardless the 'form' of government, all governments are for the purpose of governing 'their' People. This, I'm sure, is obvious to everyone. So, why do governments 'fail' their People? Why can't government, in general, govern properly? Why do 'personal issues' or 'considerations' enter the problem of governing, and why do these 'considerations' not include the 'welfare' and 'well being' of their own People? The answer is simple. For some reason or other, Rulers, Leaders, Dictators, Presidents, Administrators, or whatever they call themselves, are not 'doing' their Job. They're too busy trying to become more powerful; to acquire more land, or to 'expand their influence' beyond the boundaries of their own Nation, and into the International sphere'. That, instead of trying to improve the general welfare and the well being of their own People. Maybe I should change my premise; maybe the problems of governments are the Individuals who do the 'governing'. After all, a government has a 'structure' that it follows, or should follow, when it governs. All governments govern from the Top of their 'structure'. But, some governments acquired the 'right' to govern by 'force', 'fraud', 'conquest', 'heredity' or some other method, and consequently, that is not a 'real' method of acquiring the 'right to govern'. Why not? Because no 'human being' is 'superior' than some Other human being. There is no such thing as being born with some 'inherent power' to govern. Power, in government comes from the People that are the 'governed'. There is no other source, of political power, and 'power' is power. By that last statement, I mean there is no such thing as being a 'weak' governor, dictator, President, or Administrator; in other words; there is no 'leader' that 'lacks' some 'imagined degree' of political power. Power is power. He or she has it, period. Now, understand me correctly, a leader may make decisions or 'act' in ways that disagree with some other course of action, but that is never a sign of 'weakness', only a way of 'perceiving the situation'. All governing is done by human beings and if some government acts antagonistically, you can bet your last dollar, that its the 'Leaders' fault; not the 'governments'. Its simple; People, all People, like to be treated like 'Leaders' like to be treated. So, 'Leaders', leave your personal idiosyncrasies aside, and do your duty as a 'governor' of the Many.

Government is important; the economy is important; but, the People are more important.

The government is important; the economy is important; but, the People are the 'essence' of government. Obviously, a government without a People cannot exist. An economy without People is ludicrous. But, a People need a government and an economy, and both, will benefit from the Peoples contribution towards both institutions. Governments and economies are 'useless' without People. Hence, the essence of a Democracy that has a Capitalistic economy are the People who constitute it. Why can't governments see that and why can't government see that a Democracy can only function and 'run' on democratic principles and not economic principles. Of course, Capitalism and money are important but, they cannot successfully operate a democracy. Lets face it, the economy and Capitalism are motored by profits; and profits and making lots of money is the goal of all capitalistic ventures. Its a 'dog eat dog' economy. Sure, the economy provides lots of work and 'income' for the People, but the already established big corporations and big business always controls the outcome of 'incomes'. Where is the 'work'?, where are the 'opportunities?, why does the 1% hold most of the income? And we have to ask, what is government doing about this sad state of economic affairs? Maybe it should get involved in the 'fray'. Why not? Oh. of course, it will be called 'socialistic'. The top 1% will always find some ideological label to place on any government contributions towards creating jobs, employment, medical help, or providing for the homeless and the needy. If it were not for the People, Governments would not be necessary; and if it were not for the People, the economy could not exist. Our institutions need to understand that's its a government, of People, by People, and the most important one is "for the People". People are the essence of government and the economy.

Government is a 'mere function', and it needs People, otherwise, who needs government?

Government is a mere function of the 'organization' of all the People within any particular Nation. This is true, regardless the 'form' of a government. It could be in the 'form' of a Democracy; an Autocracy; an Oligarchy; a Plutocracy; or an outright Dictatorship. The point is that its a mere function of the organization of the millions of People who constitute the Nation and who are situated at the Bottom. In an Autocracy, or a Dictatorship, or a Plutocracy, or an Oligarchy, the Top of government is not dependent on the People at the Bottom of government. Of course, that doesn't sound right, and, of course, there are many gradations in the relation between the Top and the Bottom. But, that relation is what 'binds' the Top to the Bottom and determines the dependence of the Top to the people it governs. In government forms, other than democracies, the People are out of the picture. The Top rules and that's the end of it. Notice, that all forms of government, have to 'govern', and they do so, in any way they please. The Sanctity or the Freedom and Equality of the 'individual' is not a consideration. That's the quagmire, that a Democracy finds itself in, when other Nations are being 'abusive' of their own citizens. Does 'democracy' have a right to intervene in the domestic matters of another Nation? Of course, that would be a 'long discourse', but the issue becomes, how does this effect the other Nations. In most cases, it doesn't effect other Nations. Yet, the human condition in all the above listed Forms of government, is the same human condition as in a Democracy. How does 'humanity', as a 'condition of togetherness' tolerate the 'imbalances', the 'destruction', and the abuses of the human condition. Democracy is not perfect; but neither, is any other form of government. Yet, the human beings are all the same. Governments never create People, People created the Governments. It's sad, that we cannot govern ourselves.

Democracy is not a panacea.

As the saying goes, "democracy is not perfect, but its the best government around". How true. The reason it's true, is the fact that it's a government "of People", "by People", and "for People": and, if it's not perfect, the blame has to be placed "on the People". Its their government. Of course, the imperfections arise, not from the institution of government itself, but from the human beings that assume the Offices of power and, in a democracy, the ones who elect them. In Autocratic forms of government, the imperfections arise from those in power, period. In democratic forms, or some 'hybrid' of the form, the imperfections arise from the People who elect the representatives. The reason I say, 'hybrid' of the form, is because many 'purported democracies' are, at best, 'attenuated' democracies. Its unfortunate that so-called 'Political Science' has assumed some 'gamesmanship' aspects. In the Olympics, the games take the form of 'sports' or physical competition by individuals from different Nations. Well, that's interesting and friendly enough, and the opening ceremony that celebrates the beginning with, "let the games begin" is appropriate. If one thinks about that and transfers ones thoughts to the political arena, and ponders, the so-called 'competition', between Nations, in the present; the 'grasping for more land' in the International sphere, one could also begin the process with "let the political games begin". The problem is that its not on the level of 'games' anymore, because it could lead to war. Initially, in America, 'expansion' depended on the "land rush", "go west young man", then on the "gold Rush", then on the "Oil rush"; and now on the International sphere, 'politics' is still on the "land rush", and "the oil rush", but with the added consequences, that we could cause a War between Nations. That's not a 'game'! Its not or should not be, a disaster between Nations; unfortunately, its a disaster of the human condition. How sad.

Party loyalty and economic principles undermine democratic principles

Its not simply the 'representative' nature of democracy that sometimes hurts democracy; its also the 'rigid' lines of Party loyalty, money, and the misuse of economic principles within the political domain. Economic principles should not drive the Freedom and Equality of democratic principles. Its close to election time and we already hear of millions being spent on advertising and support of candidates that will hopefully upset the balance in the 'Representative chambers' of the Top. For what? Of course, to favor and pass legislation beneficial to The Party that will then be able to further entrench Party power over policy, programs and laws that favor economic principles over democratic principles. How can democratic government prevail, if elections are being driven by economic principles, or, simply put, money? The economy is a 'profit venture', democracy is about the freedom and equality of each individual. Government cannot function on the basis of 'making a profit', and the economy cannot function on 'freedom' and 'equality'. So why are elections being driven by, 'who can spend the most money on advertising'? Advertising? That's an economic principles that 'says', 'just sell the product by stuffing it down the consumers throat; they'll never know the difference'. Economic principles cannot drive democracy; democracy is about human beings and both Parties know that; but, they still talk about 'who can spend the most'. Unfortunately, both Parties have become dependent on money, but we know there's one Party that relishes it and cannot wait till the next 'profits roll in'. That's the source of antagonism between the two Parties. Democracy and Capitalism is an oxymoron. Why can't they be kept separate? They actually can, but that is to 'demanding' on the integrity of our politicians.

'Representation' should exist in all governments.

All governments exist as 'representatives' of their Country. Since, no 'Country' can exist as a mere 'political entity' without any People, it cannot merely act as a political entity on behalf of itself. It took a 'People' to form the Country and it should act on behalf of its People. This immediately places the Governing Body of the Country in a 'representative' state. The government represents the People in its domestic affairs and in its International affairs. The domestic affairs covers the direct relation between the Top of government and the Bottom of government, or the People. Its in the domestic area that anyone can ascertain whether a Country is acting in a 'representative' manner or not, simply because its the area where the direct relation between the Top and the Bottom can be perceived more clearly. Countries that do not respect the integrity and the uniqueness of the human condition, are not 'representative' in nature. In other words, the Leaders of those Countries are acting on behalf of themselves and not on behalf of the People it governs. In actuality, there cannot be any 'activity' that comes from the Top of government, that excludes the Peoples within that government. A Nation or a Country cannot act, of itself, by itself, and for itself, as a 'pure' political entity; that is to say, without Peoples. Its always an act on behalf of the Peoples or as representative of the People. Since a Top cannot exist without a Bottom to support it, a Top cannot exist without Peoples; millions of People. Hence, the 'representative' nature of all governments. Even Autocracies should be representative in nature. Otherwise, they could not exist. That being said; nevertheless, Autocratic governments do exist and Autocratic governments act as if they owned the world. 'Power' is a strange creature; but so are 'Peoples' in a 'condition of togetherness'.

A huge problem in a democracy is its 'representative' nature.

"Representation" is a term that can mean 'great' things, or 'not so great' things. The fact that democratic governments are "of People","by People", and "for People", is a linguistic generalization that must be 'made real'. Its an abstract rendition of a goal to be achieved. But, the only way to achieve that goal is through the concept of "representation"; that is to say, without representation, there is no way to 'connect' the Top of government with the Bottom of government. That is the case with Autocracies. But, then the 'representative' mode of connecting the Bottom with the Top and the Top with the Bottom does not always function correctly. For sure, it gave birth to the concept "politics", as early as the 15th century. The connection between the Top and the Bottom is abstract and linguistic; hence, there 'arose', the term 'politics'. Heaven help us. But, the connection between the Bottom and the Top, is, or should be, real. We all know that politics at the Top functions more easily, than politics at the Bottom. The politics at the Bottom functions mainly in getting the 'vote' out. There are no 'original' ideas at the Bottom; those ideas should emanate from the Top. But, do they? The Top is 'fractured' along Party lines, and hence there is no solidarity in any one position. A 'fractured', Party loyal, Bottom, cannot give 'solid' results either. Obviously, that represents only a part of the Bottom, not the entire whole. Is it possible to be 'lots closer' to the whole than just 'majority' rule in a democratic government. Yes it is, but not with a party loyalty that is heavily 'driven' by economic concepts of money, profits, possessions, and 'economic classes'. The inextricable merging of money and profits with democratic principles of governing, has taken over the principles of 'Freedom and Equality'. Democracy is driven by democratic principles, not economic principles. We have become victims of the 'land rush', the 'gold rush', and the 'oil rush'. Now, even the 1% want to govern. But, people want 'homes', not palaces.

No 'government form' can be more important than the human beings it governs.

Governments being 'artificial' arrangements of power can never be more important than the human beings they govern. Obviously, the 'State', the 'Nation', and the 'functional' part of the 'condition of togetherness', namely; the Government, in their 'linguistic ascriptions' have to be linguistic fictions. It can't be otherwise, because the 'name' and the 'power' ascribed to it, is at the very Top, or at the 'highest part' of the 'condition of togetherness'. Of course, this 'form' gives the structure of a triangle or, a Three Branch government. The Top is recognized as the 'governing' part of the triad, and the Bottom is accepted as the place where millions of individuals live their individual lives. Language is 'fictional' because it always 'refers' or 'alludes' to 'something' other than itself. It is never isomorphic. Hence, it becomes necessary that, when governments govern, that they never 'incorporate' the Bottom, into the linguistic labels of politicians and leaders who govern from the Top by means of these abstract 'labels'. The Bottom must 'remain real' because the Bottom 'is' real. The Bottom is 'numerically real', i.e. each individual is important and 'counts'. Politics, like governing, is a relation between a Top of power and a Bottom of individual 'strength'. The Bottom never has 'ascribed power' as the Top, but it always has 'strength in numbers' at the Bottom. All the People in a 'condition of togetherness' have more strength than the 'abstract linguistic power' ascribed to the Top. That's why revolution is a Constitutional privilege! Why would that be the case? Simply, because you and I are real; we're not fictions, and how dare they refer to us as less important than their political manipulations at the Top. But, hold on! Please, don't get me wrong. Leaders are very important and they have a 'tremendous duty' to represent the People in domestic matters as well as International matters. Governments must have the 'right kind' of Leaders.

In all forms of government, the people are supreme.

Government is about governing; and one has to ask; 'what' or 'who' is governing; and 'what' or 'who' is governed? Of course, there are many different forms of government, but in all cases, the essential 'tension' in all governments is the tension that arises from the relationship of the One to the Many or, stated differently, the relationship of the Top of government to the Bottom of government. Hence, the Top, or the governments, are all conceived as 'abstractions' simply because they are all situated at the very Top of the multitude in a position of 'power'. That being the case, all governments can also be labeled as 'fictions', in the same manner as Rousseau's concept of the State, and in the same manner, as corporations. The 'State' and the corporation are both accepted as necessary 'fictional configurations'. Hence, government must also be a necessary 'fictional configuration'. Since, all government institutions are situated at the Top of the multitudes as necessary fictions that always deal with 'power' and its exercise, and the Bottom is always about the 'Many' or the Multitudes, it must be understood that the Top is abstract and the Bottom is real. Stated differently; the Top is an abstract necessity but the Bottom is composed of real individuals. Human beings are real, not abstractions and they can never be conceived as less important then the 'fictional configurations' that become necessary to the governing process. Each individual is free and equal as is the Other, and all government is a fictional configuration. In democratic forms of government, this arrangement is recognized and respected. In other forms of government, the government is more important than the People. But in all forms of government, the People are real and hence supreme. Governing is basically a relation between a Top and a Bottom and the big issue within any Nation is always the relation between the Top and the Bottom of government. In a democracy, the Bottom is supreme. That should be the case in all forms of government.

In 'real' democracy, the 'People' rule.

The essence of democracy is the People. The function of the Executive,the Legislative,and the Judicial branches, is to perform their functions as set out in the Constitution. The function of the People is to 'live' democratically; i.e. in Freedom and equality; to obey the laws; and to keep 'score' on how their government is functioning. If the Three Branches always performed their jobs properly, there would be no need for keeping score. But, since we have a Party System, you can forget about that. The essence of government is in the People, because only the People can change what 'goes on' in government. The Party can change nothing. No branch can change another Branch. Can the Executive do whatever it pleases? Can the Legislative legislate whatever it pleases? Can the Judiciary decide whatever it wants? Of course, the answer is a resounding, No! First; there are Constitutional requirements; then there's the needs of the Nation; then there are proper 'interpretive practices' to be followed. No Office holder can do other than what his office demands in a democratic form of government. They must do their job or 'suffer the consequences'. They'll be out of work in the following Session. So, in the meantime, what does the Bottom do while all this is going on? Well, they should be 'keeping score'. There is nothing stronger and more 'powerful' than a 'condition of togetherness' at the Bottom of government. That's why democracy is a 'Peoples' government. Don't 'kid' yourself; if you let it, the 'government' will take advantage. Look around at what's going on in the world. Revolutions are becoming necessary. Hence, its important that 'we all' hold together as human beings; not as political Parties, nor to seek preferential treatment, but to protect our Freedom and equality. It's up to the 'People'.

Democracy can be problematic.

Obviously, democratic forms of government can be problematic. We have referred to several problems, if not many, in previous blogs. Of course, the reason I call Three Branch Government,as spelled out in the Constitution, Triadic government, is that a triangle is easily pictured and the 'manner' of its formation, and its 'continuation' as the same 'form', i.e. in the same 'relations' of the 'parts' to each other, is 'seen' more clearly. Of course, the same principles apply to Three Branch government, except that each of the 'Branches' has to be legally 'understood' in the way the Constitution sets it out; if that 'understanding' is not so simple or obvious, then, its understood in the manner interpreted by the Supreme Court. Of course, this depends on the 'interpretive practices' of the Court, at any particular time. But, notice the importance of that Third Branch; and notice that the Court is, exactly, one of those described Three Branches. So we actually have a situation where a Third Branch determines how the other Two Branches are to function; not how the Three Branches( inclusively) are to function. So, it appears that 'Three Branch government' is actually 'Two Branch government'. Not so in Triadic government. In Triadic government, the Bottom is the essence. The Top is the Executive, the 'sides' are the Judicial. But, its easy to notice that without a Bottom, we cannot have a Top ( the Top of what?) and certainly the Judicial 'helps' to support that Top by its interpretive practices. But, its 'interpretive practices' must be based on a democratic form or, a form of government "of People", "by People", and "for People". The "People" are the essence of government. All government, including the Judicial, is a government " for the People". If there were 'no People', who needs government?

The harmful effect of Party ideologies.

The most harmful effect of so-called 'Party Ideology' is their 'rigidity'. Its already harmful that a Party is based and formed on a division of the Peoples. The People divide-up according to differing 'opinions', or, differences in political ideology. This 'move' causes divisiveness on the basic, underlying, 'condition of togetherness' that characterizes a democracy. The essence of democracy is at the Bottom of the structure of Democracy, viz. where all the People are situated in the structure. One can have differences of opinion and still have a 'democratic Bottom'; one that is not 'fractured' by opposing Parties or, one that does not damage the 'condition of togetherness'. The strength of a Democracy is in the 'real' relation between the Top and the Bottom of government; not between the Left and the Right of the Bottom. The Bottom should never be divided. Nevertheless, people will differ, and unfortunately, form into opposing Parties. But, Parties in a democracy should not be un-democratic. And furthermore, under no circumstances must a Party 'weaken' the integrity of the Bottom. The Bottom must hold together into a Nation that functions as a democratic political entity with a government, "of People", "by People", and "for People". This is where so-called Party devotion and Party affiliation can be dangerous. If the 'devotion' or 'affiliation' to a Party is mandatory or 'compelling' to being a Party member, and hence 'compels' the 'vote' along Party lines, then, Party affiliation is too rigid. The fight within a Democracy is not between 'Left' ideology and 'Right' ideology, its between a government at the Top and the Freedom and Equality of the people at the Bottom. The Freedom and Equality of every individual at the Bottom must be respected and protected by government. The 1% cannot govern in this manner; nor can 'money'; nor can the 'economy'; only a real democratic government can govern in this manner.

Democracy from Three perspectives.

Democracy has more than one perspective. It has a perspective from the Top(Executive); from the Bottom(the People, through their representatives); from the Judicial(the Constitution). All Branches of Government should be democratic, but are they? A Democracy is a government of the People. Hence, the essence of democratic forms originate from the People. The Executive or the Top is the 'determinative' factor of the form of government and the 'object' of government, or the 'purpose' of the Executive, is to govern all the People at the Bottom, and to do so in a 'democratic way'. The Judicial is on the side-lines of government, but plays a very important part in the democratic process, because it interprets the Constitution. But, how does it interpret the Constitution? Well, that means it should interpret the Constitution, 'democratically' and since the essence of governing comes from the Bottom, it's 'interpretive practices' must favor the 'real' People at the Bottom. But does it? Well, one has to ask, "why does it favor corporations"? Corporations are fictions, unreal. They themselves, created the "legal Fiction", so why prefer corporations over real people? And why 'extend' the fictional nature into the areas of "free speech" and hence, politics? The high Court opened the 'door' for 'economic principles' to enter into the political arena of democratic principles. Money, or 'a medium of exchange' cannot usurp democratic principles in a Democracy. Government is about 'governing', not about money. Well, that leaves the Bottom? What's their obligation in a democracy. The essence of governing is that the People are governed by 'law and order' without imposing on the Freedom and Equality of any human being's Right to live a life of integrity and dignity within the parameters of Law. The Integrity and Dignity of the human condition is a 'democratic principle'.

Should Law govern disputes between Nations?

If there is to be an International Law, there has to be an International 'domain'. Law governs relations between individuals within a Democratic Nation. That law must be Equitable and Just. By that I mean, the individual's Freedom and Equality should never be compromised. However, on the International 'Domain', the issue is different. The International Domain must be constituted as a 'Collection of separate organizations' of different Nations, and each Nation is different, and that difference must be respected. The question immediately arises, are all the Nations in the world, members of the United Nations? Has 'someone' been left out; were they recognized as a 'constituted' Nation and refused entry; if refused entry, on what was the refusal based; is 'membership' still a viable option? If International Law applies to every Nation in the World, then every Nation in the world must become a member. If a Nation is left out, how can it be subject to International law? It can't. But, there are other problems within the concept of International Law. Each nation must be respected with respect to its form of government. Why? Because each Nation has a responsibility to its People and they are governed according to their own National policies and Laws. So how can a United Nations interfere with a Nation, who is not a member, and legally compel it to adhere to International standards. Well, it can't. That raises an interesting question, can 'democracy', within any one Nation, be compelled? Should democracy be a condition for joining an International organization of Nations? Is there such a thing as crossing a 'red line', where one Nation should not be tolerant of the conduct of another Nation's conduct toward its own People? If the sanctity (freedom and Equality)of the human condition exists within a National sphere, it should exists within an International sphere.

In a dispute between Nations, do individuals need to be 'represented'?

"Representation" is not an easy term to define. In a Democracy, it depends on the actual 'representation' of the People, by the elected Representatives, and by the Top of government. Generally, the Constitutionally 'constituted' Top, 'represents' all the people at the Bottom; but, it can represent the People in Domestic matters, or, on International matters. The two situations are different and call for a different approach. Nevertheless, 'representation' always remains an issue when any political entity purports to act. To be sure, that issue depends on the form of government that is acting. Autocratic forms, by definition, need not represent 'the people' and certainly, not 'all the People'. Of course, Autocracies always claim to represent the Nation as a whole, which is understandable, because the Nation is a political entity and, as such, is a source of power on the International scene. A Democracy also represents the Nation as a whole in an International situation, but the obligation to 'represent' can still be an issue. For example; the People may not want War, or may not want the effects of a large mobilization, because of its economic effects. Nevertheless, in a Democracy, 'Representation' of the Bottom by the 'Representatives of the Bottom', is always a critical issue. Do these Representatives act on behalf "of the People"; or, "for the People"; or, on behalf of 'democratic issues'; or, have issues of 'political power' become inextricably intertwined with issues of 'personal power', 'personal importance', or 'purely individual preferences'? If the issues are 'personal', as previously described, they cannot be 'representative' of the People. Don't get me wrong, there will be times when action is immediately required. But, for now, I speak of the theory of 'representation' in a Democratic form of government. Issues of 'political power' and issues of 'personal power', and 'personal importance', need to be distinguished.

Political power cannot exist, except in a properly established government.

Political power cannot exist except in a properly established government. A properly established government can only be established by the People who are to be 'governed'. No 'Other' People can create a governing body outside themselves; and no 'Other' governing body can assume the government of an 'Other', already established, government; not by conquest; nor by defeat, military or otherwise; nor by any other forceful means. Only the 'governed' can create their own government, and the result of doing so, creates the establishment of 'power' at the Top of government. Only real human beings can create positions that can 'house' power. Even corporate institutions cannot create other corporate institutions. They can expand their size, and set up departments, but the original corporate structure must always be dependent on its Articles of Incorporation. It can grow, and it can voluntarily or involuntarily be dissolved, but it cannot 'create'. A corporation is a "legal fiction". A "State" or a government may be a 'fiction' but, its a properly established institution that has been 'constituted' by a People who draw up a Constitution that will determine its 'ongoing' structure. 'Outside' of these forms of organizations, there is no structure or individual that possesses power. "Power" is an elusive term and is much misunderstood. Individuals may have 'influence', may get 'respect', or be elevated to 'high' positions within society, but they cannot and do not have 'power'. Power is an attribute of a 'governing body', and that means a properly 'organized' governing body. Absent that, an all individuals, regardless their social position, are 'free and equal' human beings. Free and equal human beings alludes to their humanity, not their possessions, money, or holdings. Some social positions may have 'authority', but none has power. Power only belongs in a properly organized political Office. Its essential because 'governing' requires it.

'Forgotten' terms.

Sometimes, we can become 'more clear' about something, when we resurrect 'forgotten' terms like, 'revolution'. Its a known fact that America was established on the 'results' of a Revolution. The way we got to that 'position' was by way of 'founding' a 'New' Country in a 'new' Land.. Of course, some will say, the Indian already had possession of the 'New Land'. That's true, in a way, yet, I very much wish there was better historical data to clearly delineate the establishment of government in this new continent. It seems that the 'white settlers' were as 'heinous' towards the Indian as the Indian was to the 'white settlers'. Yet, the revolution was against the King, who was in Europe, and who wanted to govern the Colonies, not the Indian. America was a new Land; there was not an 'already established' government in the Land. It, the whole Land, was only occupied in part, but it was not governed as a whole. The early colonists wanted to establish a 'government' to govern the 'whole Land', and when the Articles failed because of quibbling between the States, they convened the Constitutional Convention. Once 'free' of the control of the King, America was free to establish Constitutional government over the 'whole' of the land;(at that time and after the Civil war), namely, a government "of People", "by People", and "for People". And here is the distinction that needs to be drawn; in todays world, there are no longer any 'ungoverned Lands'. Hence, the term "revolution" becomes problematic. But, the Constitutional Right of 'assembly' is allowed in a democracy. And, 'properly applied', this is just a rejuvenation of that 'forgotten' term, "revolution". The question is always, in those Countries where revolutions flourish, did they start as "assemblies"; if they did, they're legitimate.

If power, in a Democracy, comes from the Bottom, from where do Autocrats get power?

If the power in democratic government comes from the many People at the Bottom, where does the Power in an Autocracy come from? Or, to put it more directly, how do Autocratic 'leaders' acquire the power of the political institution they purport to govern? In the Divine Right of Kings form of 'governing', it was never a secret. In dictatorial forms, power was wrested from the Top, conquered, or taken by force. They have no secrets either. But, consider how some Autocratic, Oligarchic, or Plutocratic forms of government acquire power and one has to consider the part played by the People. Why is that?; because these other forms of government 'purportedly' get their power from the People. Does that make the acquisition of power in these latter governments legitimate? Not necessarily! Every political entity has a Government, a social, an economy, a judiciary, a military, a geographical area, and many other institutions. These institutions all lie between the Top of government and the Bottom, where the people live. As an institutional way of doing things, they can be arranged and designed to 'reflect' the 'will' of the People in diverse ways. For example; In a Plutocratic form of government, its well known that the power comes from the Plutocrats. Period. So, if they are in power, how can they arrange the 'institutions' to reflect the 'will' of the People? That's the goal. Hence, even if the institutions are so arranged to reflect votes by the populace, in actual fact, its the Plutocrats who will design it that way, because, simply, they have the power. That's changing the terrain of the political to reflect a 'democratic' form of government, when in fact, democracy has nothing to do with the process. Plutocrats are not dumb, they're smart, but they are 'motored' by the medium of exchange, or stated differently, by 'money', not democracy.

Resolving the problematic of the One and the Many raises many other issues.

One of the issues, in resolving the problematic of the One and the Many, is the relationship between 'political Power' at the Top and 'democratic Strength' at the Bottom. Both 'ends' must be kept viable. Yet, some sort of 'harmonic' blend of 'power' and 'strength' must result from their working together. On the International sphere, a 'harmonically blended' People within a Nation, is a strong Nation. Although the function of a Nation on the International sphere is different from its function on the National sphere, all Nations need to function as a 'political whole'. But, sometimes the 'voice of the People' is different from the 'voice of the Nation'. 'Animosities' within a Nation can lead to revolution; 'animosities' among Nations on the International sphere can lead to war. What's the difference? No difference, except the geographical area within which each takes place; the availability of arms; and the nature of the 'motivations' that leads to the confrontation. The reasons on the National sphere that lead to revolution are different from the reasons that lead to war. The International sphere functions and 'interacts' on the level of 'Nations', and hence, on the 'established' level of power, political power, and each is ready to assert its superiority. While, the motivations that lead to revolution within the Nation, are the 'freedom' and 'equality' of the individuals. In the 'long run', its the real individuals that live and die from either activity. That's why, the sanctity and the integrity of the human individual should be the paramount consideration in either activity. However, a Nation, any Nation, should first resolve its domestic problems before it tackles International problems; and here, we find one problematic, among many, on the International sphere as we have on the National sphere; the relationship we have towards 'legal fictions'( the 'State' and corporations) and 'International fictions'( 'States', a la Rousseau). 'Fictions' asserting power, and real individuals, who 'live and die'.

Governments are powerful institutions.

Governments may be 'dead letters' but, they are powerful institutions. They constitute the 'last stop' of the 'natural inclination' to form into groups. When a Nation forms into a 'condition of togetherness' and assumes political power over a particular geographical area, they will do what they consider necessary to control and protect the geographical area against all 'comers'. As we said earlier, the requirements of an International Political Organization should be no different than the requirements of any other 'condition of togetherness', except for one very important factor, the International scene must be organized in the same manner as the National scene. That's the problematic. The 'National' is autonomous; the International should be autonomous; that means each 'National' within the 'International' should function under the same respect for the 'integrity' and 'dignity' of the human condition. Is that the case? Of course, the answer is No. On the National scene, any member of any Nation has a Right to "assemble and petition their government for redress of grievances"; the basis of that Right is that a Nation should be the 'political end-results' of all its 'People' within its jurisdiction. In other words a democratic 'People" government has a Right to 'assemble'. Does any 'other form' of government have the same right and ,more important, does a democracy have a Right to use force or threats against a non-democracy on the International scene? Can Democracy be 'compelled'? If there's an answer to this question, it must be sought within the Nation that instigates the International dilemma by asserting power over other Nations. The power of a Nation is in the real individuals that govern that Nation. Those are the Individuals that must be very careful of the 'political moves' they make on the International scene. We can't allow negative 'human motives' to get entangled with International 'political motives'. 'You' are 'free' and 'equal'; allow the Other to be the same. God help us.

Government is a 'dead letter' or a 'dead institution'.

Its time we 'conceive' our 'necessary' institutions for what they are. The dilemma of the Top and the Bottom was resolved long ago. Nevertheless, we continue to attribute institutions with 'power' and 'authority' that they actually do not have. Government is an institution, no different from other institutions. It was called a "persona ficta" by Rousseau; during the times of the Divine Right Of kings, it was a 'Divine' institution, to the extent that the 'thinkers' of the era had to come up with the concept that the King had "Two Bodies", in order to justify the Divine 'authority' in the King. Then came many different types of 'authoritarian institutions' of government. In those types, the power was always at the Top, and the 'governing' was always what the Top declared. The 'closest' institution that came close to a 'real organization' of freedom and equality, was the family, a natural arrangement. Of course, then came democracy. Back to the issue. Government can't do 'anything', but keep 'order'. That's why the term 'law and order' always go together. But all institutions only 'institute' a way of doing something. It can't 'compel', only law compels, but only after a 'fashion'. In a way, Law can't 'compel' either; it can only be 'enforced'. Hence, government is 'dead'; it can't do anything for a human being. Only a human being can 'do' something, if s/he has the 'will'; but only within a 'democratic paradigm'. Democratic government only 'organizes', the acceptable and the unacceptable, within a democratic 'paradigm'. But, democracy is the ideal political organization, because governmental authority or power, emanates from the Bottom of government; from the People. Hence, all 'changes' must be pursued by the individuals who want the change, but always within an acceptable democratic paradigm of government. Telling people what 'to do' with their lives, is only a pep talk, but, nevertheless, an essential one. Government must allow that. Democratic government requires it; after all, its the Peoples Government.

Government is essential; Law is also essential.

We all know that government is essential: we also know that an economy is essential, and we know that Law is essential; but do we really 'understand' the 'essential' nature of Law? How does a government come into existence? The obvious answer is, a Government is 'constituted' by means of a Constitution. Hence, the Constitution 'embodies' a Constitutional Law; which 'structures' a democratic form of government, and a democratic government, obviously, is a government "of People" ( the 'same' People who have formed the Constitutional government) "by People" and "for People". The end result is a form of self-government, but keep in mind, democracy cannot survive if the 'Freedom and Equality' of each individual is not respected and protected. But, how does the law enacted by a few 'Representatives' reach all the way down to the Bottom where millions of People reside? That has always been the ancient dilemma of the One and the Many. Of course, that basic human impulse of 'forming or dividing into groups' ( just like forming into political Parties)kicks in: and we divide the effects of law into Constitutional Laws; Federal Laws; State Laws; City ordinances; Criminal Laws and Civil Laws, and 'institutional Laws, e.g. the laws of marriage, traffic laws, and many other laws, oh,'lest we forget', Corporate Laws and Tax Laws. Wow, we are truly a Nation of Laws; no Lawyer knows all the Law, s/he only knows where to go to 'find it'. The point is that none of these Laws are legitimate, if they do not pass the test set forth in Constitutional Law. That's why Constitutional Law is called the Law of the Land; it holds the Freedom and Equality of every individual in the Nation together. How do other 'hybrid' forms of government rule? Well, each one is different. In Japan, cars are driven on the left side of the street. New laws are enacted as changes in society occur, e.g. Gay marriage. Now, that will involve some basic changes in our social institutions but, change, we must.

Governments are Institutional 'functions'.

A government is an institutional function and a function has a particular purpose for having been established. Some functions 'work'; some do not. Obviously, if an institutional 'function' does not perform along the lines for which it was established, the institution can and should be changed. The issue always becomes, "for what was it established" and "once established, is it performing its duties?" Of course, some governments were established by 'conquest', some by 'force', and some by 'fraud'. The 'divine' type no longer functions. The fraudulent type is not so easy to detect. The others are easier to detect. In those easy cases the issue becomes one for the People being governed. Its up to them and to the conditions in which they exist. In the fraudulent type, the alleged fraud has to be 'detected' and, in all fairness, be pointed out. That is the difficulty and requires lots of elaboration. The main difficulty in detecting 'fraud' is that 'politics' is usually engaged in by individuals who do not have the "Peoples welfare" in mind; instead their service is 'self-serving', 'party-loyal' and for the 'wrong reasons'. Many are not motivated by a 'democratic value'; instead, they are motivated by 'personal' and, by 'economic values'. They resort to the principles of the economy instead of the principles of democracy and, instead of implementing the 'unwritten rules' of 'statesmen-ship', they resort to the rules of 'advertising'. Economic advertising tries to cram down our throats, whatever articles, products, they wish to sell. The goal is to sell and to sell more and more and to reap a profit. That's the motor of the economy. The motor of democracy requires that governments understand that they function only to protect the Freedom and Equality of all Peoples, in their 'condition of togetherness'. Government is "for all the People"; not just a select few.

governments can change their 'form'; Individuals can change dispositions

Governments can change their form of governing, but they cannot change the fact that they are a government that must govern. Individuals can change their disposition and hence view themselves, other individuals around them; and their government in a different light. While individuals at the Bottom of government can undergo many 'changes', government, at the Top, can only undergo a change in the 'form' by which it governs. For example; an autocracy can change into a democracy or a democracy can change into an Autocracy. Of course, these are two 'extremes' of government, and as we know, there are many gradations in between the two. But, the change at the Top will always effect the manner of 'governing' the individuals at the Bottom. While individuals can undergo many changes in 'disposition' and not have any effect on the form of government. Change can occur anytime and in many different ways. However, if an individual or individuals decide to change an egregious form of governing, in a democracy, they will seek different ways to bring about changes in their government. In an Autocracy, this move is not tolerated, while in a democracy, the People are free to try to bring about changes. Nevertheless, they are required to follow certain rules and regulations. They can "vote out the rascals"; they can 'run' for office; they can 'support' a different candidate; and if the 'change' is imperative, necessary, and immediately necessary, they can "assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances". This is a Constitutional right in a 'real' democracy; the right of 'assembly'. But, its obvious that a 'Constitutional assembly' can easily transform into 'chaos', and revolution. Usually, there is no 'consensus', between the Top and the Bottom, about the sought after change and hence its deterioration into revolution. Governments must 'listen' to the People; a sought after change is usually related to the Freedom and Equality of the individuals. These changes do not 'harm' government; they only increase the proper democratic distribution of its power.

If the State can be called "a Fiction", so can the government.

There is no distinction between the concept of the State and the concept of Government. Of course, that does not mean that they are unnecessary. They are essential because the Many peoples need government. Nevertheless, in any political institution, whether of the State or of government, their essential nature is based and founded on the need of the 'condition of togetherness' of the people. Its the people who need government; but we can never forget that if it were not for the people the government would not be necessary. Hence, we have the dichotomy of a government and a People; the question then can be formulated as "who or what" is more important? Such a question is not really necessary, but if it should ever be asked, the only answer is, the People. Don't get me wrong; but remember, its the People who 'made' government; and no government ever made 'the people'; and their 'condition of togetherness' needs direction. Hence, the need for direction or 'governing' of millions of human beings. This 'need' of the People does not, in any way, diminish their nature as 'natural creations'. The People still retain their dignity, and integrity, as natural creations, and their Freedom and Equality in their 'condition of togetherness' as people, under government. Government is important, but look around and see how many types of government we have, and how some governments treat the human beings under their jurisdiction. Not all governments have the welfare of the individual, as their primary concern. Its sad to see a political institution that has so inflated its own self-importance as a 'government' or a 'State', and who purports to be more important than the People it purports to govern. Even so, political Institutions are not devious, per se, its the people who 'use' these institutions, who are devious, and who use them to 'self-inflate' their own self importance.

Government is essential: the economy is essential

A very important aspect of all societies is it's economy. Of course, that does not mean that government is to be operated on economic principles. It's very important that the two systems be kept separate. Nevertheless, issues will arise that require 'government activity' and sometimes those that require 'economic activity'. The two issues should not be 'commingled' as far as the 'act of governing' is concerned. In other words, government governs based on democratic principles and should not be required to 'interfere' in all economic issues. That's why the economy needs to resolve its own issues. For example: That recent article about a family raising money to pay for a funeral of one of its members. Both activities; a commendable moral activity, and a necessary economic activity. Of course, the price of funerals was immediately brought up. That's capitalism. Every activity in the society is 'organized' along lines of 'making a profit'. That's the only way capitalism can work. We're talking the 'economy' here. Well, where is the Funeral Home in all this; its margin of profit, its 'organization', is it privately owned or incorporated, Why has the price of funerals arisen up to the $7,000.00 dollar mark? etc. People are relying on other people to raise money by engaging in an 'economic activity'. They are 'working' for that necessary need, called 'a funeral'. The economy in the Society charges for 'being born' and for 'going dead'. It 'gets' you at both ends. These contributions should be coming from the Funeral home; from all the Funeral Homes; the corporations; the economically fortunate, the 1%; and not the other people at the Bottom, who may be in a similar, needful, economic condition. Where is the economy in all this? The economy also needs to 'stick together'. Its time for Capitalism, and the economy to 'relax' it's motor(profits) and live up to its own grandiose elevation of what a great thing it is. Where is Capitalism? Where is the economy?

'Government' is essential: 'Freedom and Equality' are essential.

Government is essential, in the same manner as any large 'group', 'collection', 'condition of togetherness',(of the Many)is essential. The Bottom needs a 'pivot' by which to organize itself. The 'pivot' is the centralized function that helps the Many to remain in a 'condition of togetherness'. If the 'pivot' or government did not exist, nothing could 'guide' the arrangement of the Many at the Bottom. If the 'togetherness', at the Bottom, does not exist, neither will the 'strength' of the condition. The Bottom does not have 'allocated power' like the Top, but it has 'strength in Numbers. Hence, Government, governing, and Freedom and Equality of the Many individuals, is a mutually supporting system with allocated power at the Top and strength in numbers at the Bottom. Government would not be necessary, if there was only one, or ,even a few, individuals on the 'island'. Government needs People just as much as People need government. Neither is more important than the other. Working together and mutually supporting each other is essential. Otherwise, there will always be a 'tension' between the Top and the Bottom. However, it must not be forgotten, that 'strength in numbers' will always be superior to 'power allocated' among just a few individuals at the Top. The individuals 'integrity', 'dignity', and the uniqueness, of his/her humanity, will always be a paramount consideration in determining the essential nature of government. Here, enters democratic forms of government. The reason being that democratic forms of government get their 'allocated power' from the Many individuals at the Bottom. It cannot be otherwise. No 'power' exists at the Top, when that power is 'self-attributed' by that very same Top. No, "We the People...", in a 'condition of togetherness', allocate power, and our 'strength' is in the 'Numbers of the condition'. Such is the condition of "assembly".

The terms, "assembly" and "revolution" have acquired a bad connotation.

Normally, the function of government is 'to govern'. I realize that's a very general formulation, nevertheless, government has no other function. In Democratic forms of government, the Top is required to follow the Constitution. The function of the Supreme Court is to define those parameters and to guide the formulation of policies and laws that are applied to the Bottom or to government. The First Amendment of the Constitution allows citizens to assemble "peaceably and petition the government for redress of grievances". Now, if we assume some 'dissatisfaction' at the bottom, for whatever reasons, the People are required to assemble "peaceably". Now, there's the kicker. If, the "assembly", for 'legitimate reasons', is not peaceable, the law kicks in and 'achieves' control of the situation. That's not too bad, except for the fact that many reasons can be raised to make the assembly, 'illegitimate', e.g. "that's public property"; "that's private property; "that's destruction of public property"; "that's destruction of private property"; etc.. ( where else can they 'assemble'?) Nevertheless, in a democracy, People have the Constitutional Right to "assemble peaceably". But, this story is different in an Autocratic form of government. Any 'assembly' at the Bottom is usually called 'revolution'. There is no 'middle way', the Top rules completely, and the Bottom remains 'dissatisfied' completely; end of story. There are many ways to abuse government power, and both ways, above cited, are abuses. I cite only the 'most important Right' any People can have, and that is to "register your complaint" and "seek amends". All types of government, including democracies, will abuse the power at the Top, hence 'basic' changes are necessary; after all, the power, in a democracy, emanates from the Bottom. We give 'you' power and 'you' abuse it. Is it any wonder the terms, "assembly" and "revolution" have acquired bad connotations?

In a Democracy, both the Top and the Bottom, has a function.

In a democracy, every individual has a job to perform; those who occupy political positions as well as those who occupy the entire Bottom of government. Of course, those who occupy political positions at the Top come from the Bottom. Although the Top has a duty to govern, it must do so pursuant to democratic requirements set forth in the Constitution. These requirements are 'clarified', on a case by case basis, by the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the Court is not always objective in its interpretations. Often, the courts follow Party ideology, which in most cases, is divisive. Of course, in an Autocracy, the Bottom doesn't have much of a say-so. Such is also the case with Plutocracy. In a government of the 1%, the 1% are the only ones with a say-so. Those are not governments; they are 'rule' by the Top. In democracy, the Bottom determines who occupies Office and who gets elected. Power in a democracy arises from the Bottom. The Top merely has a 'function' to perform. In order to keep a democracy viable, the Bottom must also become active. Whether, its 'active' in politics or active in just staying alert to the changes taking place in government. Unfortunately, that is not always easy to spot. For example, as we get ready for elections, instead of hearing about qualifications, proposed programs, and what they will establish, we hear about run-of-the-mill 'gossip'. Of course, the issues are both political and moral. Nevertheless, I would rather have a strong political leader, although, morally inept, than a strong moral leader, although politically inept. There are some 'big' issues out there; one is 'Global Warming', and another is 'weapons of mass destruction'. Either one could destroy the world as we know it. We cannot ignore the issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction, when we consider the level of 'intelligence' of some campaigners; we cannot ignore Global Warming when we consider the climatic changes, flooding, and destruction, that has recently being brought to our neighborhoods. We already begin to hear 'grumblings' that manifest the 'low-level' of political campaigns. Politics should be the art of 'statesmanship', not the art of advertising.

A Democracy is for all the People

A democratic government is constituted of 'all its People'. No one is left out. All governments also require an economy. Its at this point, in a democracy, where Capitalism enters the picture. 'Capitalism' is the 'structure' given to the economy; it's a separate social 'entity' from the governmental entity. All Governments should be democratic, because that's the only way to 'factually recognize' the 'dependence' of the government structure on the individual. The 'individual' gave rise to government. If we reason in this fashion, we also begin to see that the ascendancy of greed in the economy is attributable to the individual. Individuals used the Freedom and Equality afforded them by democratic government, to then, manipulate the government and the economy to their advantage. An Economy and Capitalism are not greedy, per se, even corporations are not greedy, per se. Its the individuals in the economy and those behind the corporations that are greedy. The individual has found a perfect "legal fiction" to do 'massive economic dirty work' for him/her. Unfortunately, the reason we have greed in the economy is because we have greed in some individuals. There has taken place, a substitution of an economic value, in lieu of a democratic value. How can we eliminate greed in an individual? Actually, we can't. We can only appeal to the recognition of the fact that we must live in a 'condition of togetherness; that's inevitable. A 'condition of togetherness' cannot 'hold' together without the political values of the freedom and equality of each and every individual. Once an individual in a 'condition of togetherness' begins to 'isolate' him/her self from the Others, and begins to 'greedily' amass more and more money and possessions, the condition begins to break down. Heaven helps us, if the 'condition' breaks down and we have 'loose' individuals attempting to be 'more greedy' and 'less democratic'. We bring these things upon ourselves. 'Look around', and 'really' appreciate what 'real individual freedom and equality is', and you will appreciate what 'real' democracy is.

In a Democratic government the People retain control

In a Democratic government, the People at the Bottom retain control of the government. How is this possible? Well, first notice that whoever ascends to the pinnacle of power has to be voted in. When someone is voted in, its always for a short period of time. Hence, that person can be replaced or a new person can be selected for the position. This applies to every political office, of course, except for Supreme Court jurists. 'Control' by the Bottom can only occur if the Bottom 'keeps tabs' on the performances of any one particular office. Nevertheless, the 'watchful eyes' of the Bottom are always there. Of course, every Political office can engage in political shenanigans that do not reflect a real democracy. That can happen in the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch and, unfortunately, the Judicial Branch. Nevertheless, there is some semblance of control by the Bottom of government. Well, you will say, what if those in power change the rules by which we select governments and honker-down on their positions, and their selected group, or Party, and keep the 'imbalance' going? For example; what if a Plutocracy assumes power and perpetuates Plutocracy. True, that's possible, but unlikely. You see, the Founding Fathers, which gave us the structure of democracy, also gave us another means of controlling the government; and that is the First Amendment. The People have a Right to "peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". All other possibilities, for whatever reasons, failing, the "People" have a Constitutional Right to 'revolution'. Some will say, that's extreme; no its not, 'real' human beings retain the dignity, integrity, freedom and equality, of the human condition at all times; even against undemocratic government.

In government, verbal classifications are abstract 'schemata' of 'real People'.

Classifications are abstract. The problem with classification is that, once a 'classification' enters the language, we get 'hooked' by it. We, then, no longer use the 'real' numeric formulations that gave rise to it, but instead use the 'linguistic term' for the 'classification'. 'Number' counts each and every variable and expresses it with a precise number. Number does not lie; verbal 'Classification' can. Of course, numbers can change, while classification 'schemata' retains its verbal 'fixity'. That's a danger, in all fairness, even with the so-called 1% and the 99% formulation. The percentages may change, but the terms remain fixed. However, I understand from recent numbers, that the situation is a lot worse than it sounds. Nevertheless, the extreme juxtaposition of the numbers reflects the absurdity of the imbalances in the economy. The 'distance' in the numbers comes from an emphasis on the value and importance of money as opposed to the value and importance of the 'freedom' and equality' of democracy. That's why the 1% has become interested in politics. In politics its possible to control Legislation, Judicial decisions, and executive 'applications'. Government has become 'driven' by an economic value system. The sanctity of the human condition is no longer a 'value' of government. Is it any wonder, that small 'collections', or tribes, of real human beings distrust the 'inroads' of government. Yet, government is essential to any 'condition of togetherness'. There is a 'real' need for government, and hence the democratic form stands out as the only 'People' government, that can be a government set up by the same People who are governed; a government "of people", "by People", and "for People"; but, not a government by some foreign People. Human beings are 'real', they are not "legal fictions".

The economy is a 'value system', but it's not a democratic 'value system'.

As we have pointed out before, the economic system is driven by a different 'motor' than the democratic system. The criticism of the 99% by the 1%, is the 'living proof' that our political system is being 'driven' by an economic motor. Shamefully, the 1% states, the 99% is already rich by 'worldly standards', so stop complaining. How Plutocratic can we get. The 'obscene' accumulation and concentration of 'profits' by the 1% is stark evidence that those with 'lots' of money just want more. What happens to the Constitutional values of freedom and equality for all the individuals at the Bottom of government? I know that not everyone wants to be 'obscenely' rich. Of course, being rich and being obscenely rich is two different things. I know, and I'm sure you know, that some individuals, although well-to-do, but not rich, are 'satisfied' with their economic standard. It seems that the 1% gets carried away with 'more and more'. That's called greed. Of course, not all rich people occupy the 1% level of economic accumulation. But, the 1% unquestionably thinks in a Plutocratic manner. Why else would a Supreme Court decide that a corporation has a Constitutional right to 'freedom' of speech? A recognized "legal fiction", all of a sudden, develops the human faculty of speech. If the corporation is a fiction, so is the 'faculty of speech'. That sounds like Alice in Wonderland. Economic values are taking over; we're going down the 'economic drain'. We can't let that happen, we are a democracy and the political struggle with some Party loyalists is that they want a Plutocracy. A Plutocracy means that the 'voice' of the people will be squelched. If that happens, only the 1% will have a voice. In a democracy the 'voice of the People' comes from the Bottom, not the Top.

The 99% speaks

If the 1% thinks that the 99% should stop complaining and consider themselves lucky because even the median income of $35.000 a yr. would be considered 'wealthy', in any other Country, he just doesn't get the picture. The issue is not how anyone measures and compares economically to someone else in some Foreign Country, or on some 'universal scale', but how he measures in his/her Country. The economic imbalances in an economy, within any Country, that creates an income disparity of a top 1% and a 99% at the Bottom is clearly not democratic. If we were an Autocracy, that would just be the Top patting themselves on the back. But, we are not an Autocracy and we are not a Plutocracy and we are not an Oligarchy. We are a democracy. And I defy anyone to show that they did not earn their status at the Top 1% in a Democracy. They 'used' democratic principles and now they criticize the 99% because the Bottom is calling them out on the income disparity created by greed. The disparity exists because the medium of exchange is being hoarded and greedily concentrated by the same 1% that does not allow the medium of exchange to circulate at the Bottom. All the money is at the Top. The Bottom does not have jobs, fair wages, a fair tax bite, health insurance, education opportunities, homes, and the Bottom cannot compete with "legal fictions" called 'corporate persons'. Corporations have 'stolen' human dignity, by depriving humans of the right to compete in that so-called fictitious 'market place'. How fast we forget. The real problem is that even the 1% is still unhappy and wants more money and more economic 'power'. The economy is the place that needs more government control. The dignity of the human condition has got to be returned to the People. The 1% preaches democracy, but practices Plutocracy. Hence, its up to the government to implement democracy. Where's the government?

A human Individuals first experiences, are of freedom and equality.

Every individual, when born, first experiences the freedom and equality of the human condition. Of course, there are many different limitations to this 'holistic' experience. Nevertheless, I refer to an early age, when, as children, we first 'confront' our lives. This is our first experience of freedom and equality. Of course, there are some children who, because of where they are born, may never have had this experience. The last sentence, refers to children we often see pictured on our T V screens, who look emaciated and hungry. The normal trajectory of childhood is usually one that has 'feelings' of both freedom and equality. There are no 'feelings' of 'limitation' of this freedom, and there are no 'feelings' about the 'inequality' of the Other. But, childhood changes rapidly, and as it does, it becomes a 'life' seeking ways to express itself by 'expanding' on this sense of 'freedom and equality'. As we grow older we come face-to-face with governments that either limit these natural human values or who protect them. Autocracies limit and control these human values; Democracies should respect and protect these human values. No one has a choice on where s/he is to be born. But, for the fortunate, these first experiences of freedom and equality become ingrained into our very nervous systems. How then, can we, and the 'less fortunate', be expected to live under a form of government that does not recognize, respect, and protect these natural values? Its unbelievable! Government has no 'priority' over the human condition,( we were here first) and it is not superior( its just a man-made institution) to the human condition. To the contrary, government is dependent on the human condition and if it was not for humans 'living in a condition of togetherness', there would be no need for government. How then, can government show disrespect and not protect that which preceded it; which is natural, and, we might even say, Divine. No!, governments do not 'rule' humans; humans made government possible and hence governments should show respect and protect, the human condition which 'allows' governments to assume an 'institutional condition of power'.

We know what to expect from an Autocrat, but what can we expect from a democrat?

We know what to expect from an Autocratic government, but can we know what to expect from a democratic government. Obviously, forms of government that emphasize autocracy are predictable. But, such is not the case with a democratic form of government. True, a democracy has to be a form of government "of the People", "by the People" and "for the People". But, its not that simple. Many variables enter the democratic picture. Some Parties favor and protect the economy and corporations, and some Parties favor and protect the People at the Bottom. The problematic is that the ascendancy to power is relatively simple, but once someone assumes the position of power, the carrying out of policy and law is not always democratic. For example, declaring war against another Country and justifying that move by saying we are "bringing them democracy"(no references to killing civilians, women and children). Sounds ridiculous, yet that has occurred before. Or, how about justifying a Court decision, by deciding that a corporation (a legal fiction) has a Constitutional Right to 'freedom of speech', just like a 'real' human being. Corporations are recognized "legal fictions" and hence are not 'real', in the same sense as 'real' human beings, and hence should not be allowed to 'participate' in the political process. The founders and the individuals behind the corporate façade are 'real' and they can always participate in politics. But, why grant a right to an artificial 'person' that only exists "in contemplation of law". The only way to keep a democracy, democratic, is for the people at the Bottom of government to always be on their guard. Maybe we could have a law that says if a politician promises something, s/he should be held to that promise. We require that in contractual obligations. We should not allow frivolous campaigning and false advertising in political campaigns. The People deserve better. The right to ascend to a position of power should be monitored more closely. Democracy should also be protected.

There's a lot of good things to say about Democracy, but...

There's a lot of 'good things' about democracy, but, to say that its an easy government to implement, is not one of them. It's difficult because it emanates from the Bottom and there are a multiplicity of different 'personas' who can ascend to the pinnacle of power. That being a possible source of problems, then, add to that, the division into Parties. I do not mean that we should not have different Parties, but only that, if we do, they should both be democratic. Difference of appellation is one thing, difference in political ideology is another. Democracy is about the People, stated differently, democracy is about the Bottom of government. The Top houses the theoretical structure of government, the Bottom, the spirit of democracy, or the Freedom and Equality of all its inhabitants. It's this freedom and equality that allows the different ideologies to flower. That, in and of itself, is not the problem. The problem, unfortunately, is the human condition. The differences in 'human values' give rise to both; good democratic values, and greedy, selfish, self-aggrandizing, values. I don't have to tell you which is democratic. Government is as necessary to People as People are necessary to government. Otherwise, government is lop-sided, too much at one end and not enough at the other. Trying to govern millions of individuals is not an easy matter, and I am being critical of both ends of government; both the Top and the Bottom. So, for Gods sake, stop being individually-greedy, and ideological-greedy, nor individually-selfish, and Party-selfish. A 'condition of togetherness' cannot survive without government. So, look around, there's millions of 'others' next to you. Your not the only One on the Island.

The issue is never, " should we have government" ?

Its never an issue of, "government or no-government". Obviously, the Many at the Bottom of the triad established by the One and the Many needs government. The direct relation leading down to the lower levels of 'togetherness' demand it. A people cannot survive in a 'condition of togetherness' without the establishment of a government at the Top. Peoples in a 'condition of togetherness' cannot live in the 'condition' for any length of time without some kind of governing. The Top of governing must have 'power' and 'authority' and must get that from somewhere. Obviously, the only source of that kind of 'power' must emanate from the Bottom. Government is Triadic in nature and hence, the Top must get its power and authority from the Bottom. Who else can govern, if not someone selected from the Bottom, by the Bottom, to ascend to the Top of power. There can be no other source of political power. The Duties and Powers of the Top are spelled out in the Constitution. The Duties and Rights of the Bottom are the Freedom and Equality of each individual at the Bottom. Without these two conditions, the Triadic nature of government cannot hold together. If government does not hold together the 'condition of togetherness', we have Anarchy. That's precisely why it is dangerous and dumb, to 'shut down government'. The term 'revolution' describes, in a negative 'tone', something that arises from the People at the Bottom. But, its even worse to initiate a movement in the direction of 'anarchy' when the movement starts at the Top. One would think that so-called political Leaders would have more sense than that. We need some better criteria for judging those who purport to govern us, than money, or 'economic affordability' of political positions. Politics has to stay away from money or the value system of economics and pursue the democratic values of Freedom and Equality. In politics, we don't need a 'medium of exchange', we need an uncompromised democratic spirit of Freedom and Equality.

Democracy must be 'kept separate' from the 'value system' of the economy.

A Constitutional Democracy and a Capitalistic economy are 'motored' by two different 'value systems'. Democracy is 'motored' by the "Freedom and Equality" of each individual, while the economy is 'motored' by the profit motive. No one enters business with the attitude of not making a profit. In the same manner, no one should enter politics unless s/he is motivated by the Constitutional requirement that each and every individual under democratic government is Free and Equal. Two different motivations. If a democracy of all the People is 'reduced' down to just a few individuals, we have an Oligarchical type of government. If an economy is motored by a few huge corporations, we have an Oligopoly. We can have an Oligarchy and an Oligopoly at the 'same time', but we can't have either one and a democracy at the same time. Democracy stands alone, and by this I mean the 'value system' of democracy applies to each and every individual in the democracy. No preferential treatment and no 'shift' from the freedom and equality of each individual to the 'profits' value system of the economy. A 'shift' to the 'economic value system' can be disastrous to the highly regarded 'individuality' of a democracy. Oligarchy and Oligopoly equals to the 1%. The Many at the Bottom of government cannot be governed by a mere 1%, or by a 'few' corporations. 1% cannot govern 99%. But, 100%( I include the 1%)can govern the 100% in a democracy, if the freedom and equality is retained in the system of government and the 'profit motive' is remanded to the economy, where it belongs. Democratic government is 'representational' in nature, hence is referred to as 'self-government' and self-government means everyone in a democracy. At no time is the 'democratic motor' replaced by the 'economic motor'. To do so is to reduce the 'dignified freedom and equality' of the human condition, to a mere economic principle of uncontrolled greed.

If government 'begins' with language, how can it 'end' with number?

A written Constitution must be interpreted hence, the need for language, analysis, reasoning, and eventually, a decision that requires application. Governing is always a Top that governs a Bottom; the Top being One or a 'few' and the Bottom always being the Many; i.e., millions. However, the 'sanctity' of the Bottom is the individual attribute (freedom and equality, sanctity, dignity, and integrity) of each and every individual constituting the Many at the Bottom. Hence, the 'sanctity' of the human condition is a characteristic of each individual, and being in 'a condition of togetherness', also applies that same value, or 'quality', to the entire Bottom. Hence, the only way to do democracy, is to apply 'democratic values' to the entire condition ( as a proper abstraction) but, always including each and every real individual. By, doing so, we include the individual an this can only be accomplished by 'counting', and not merely by 'talking democracy'. To be sure, democracy is a 'talking', but it's also a 'doing', and if we 'count' we can know if we are 'doing' or just 'talking'. Every democratic policy must include everyone for whom it was designed. Politicians talk too much; all governmental policy is inclusive, and hence, must 'touch' the individual at the Bottom. 'Counting' requires the use of number and number does not lie. A number is always itself, it has no variables of the 'qualities' that make it a number. Unlike language, number has only, 'itself', as its signification, while language is dependent on context, has a multiplicity of meanings, has different levels of abstraction, and unfortunately, can be an 'empty vehicle' that can be manipulated for 'political advantage'. An 'empty vehicle', as the saying goes, "full of sound an fury, signifying nothing".

Government 'begins' with language and should end with real results

The ancient problem of the One and the Many is still with us. Of course, not in the same manner as in the old days, but in a similar manner. Of course, the One and the Many will never 'meet', because the problematic applies to the act of governing, or the relation between the 'Governors' and the 'Governed'. The 'One' or a 'few' must govern the multitudes at the Bottom. The Divine Right of Kings had their solution to the problem, but, of course, that didn't last long. 'Thinking' and 'doing' is also a human problem. Of course, that's what raised the questions of 'free will', and 'doing' something within a definite human value system. Ethical 'behavior' applies to individual human behavior and has two aspects, the theoretical and the practical. However, governing applies to a 'One' at the Top and the millions at the Bottom. There's a huge difference between an individual 'governing' him/her self and a government governing the Many. Nevertheless, there is a similarity. The act of Governing is set forth in a written Constitution, which, of course, requires interpretation. Here enters language, and the formation into 'competing' political Parties; campaigns to solicit the votes of the people; and the important role played by the Supreme Court. The nature of democracy viz. the Freedom and Equality of everyone, at the Bottom of government, requires that the above 'steps' all be conducted in language and hence the 'meaning',or the semantics of political decisions, and political language, in general, becomes important. That linguistic 'gap' is huge, and it's huge because in a democracy every human being is Free and Equal and has dignity and integrity. That is the 'value system' of a democracy, and both the dignity and integrity of every human being, must be respected and protected. The institution of Number at the 'gap point' in every democratic policy cannot be ignored. That's the only way to 'implement' democracy and the only way to make it inclusive.

Democracy must 'quantify'.

Rendering abstractions into real, practical results is not easy. Nevertheless, the only manner of 'giving' real results in government is to 'quantify'. This is not the same thing as quantification in mathematics, geometry or computer science. Here, we have to be careful. Human beings are NOT numbers. Computer science certainly involves a 'form' of quantification, but before that became possible, technologists had to create a 'new computer language'. Much like the language of science, computers had to formulate a basic quantification of the phonetic alphabet. Computer language is not subject to the so-called Linguistic Turn, but the triadic Governmental structures must circumvent the Linguistic turn because governing is a 'representational' process. Political 'language' or political obfuscation already used language for the sole purpose of 'misleading', even without the need to refer to the problems created by the Turn. We could say, 'political obfuscation' took a Linguistic Turn a long time ago. Politics was 'using' the 'Linguistic Turn' long before the origin of the Linguistic Turn. Hence, the political problematic. The relation between the Top and the Bottom of the governing process is similar to an individual 'thinking' of 'doing' something and then, either, doing it, or, not doing it. The road to implementation has a 'wide gap' and that gap is fraught with many 'difficulties','reasons', or 'obstacles'. Such is the case with the act of governing. Some of the intervening problems are divisions into Parties, 'Party loyalty', the need for 'new practices', the need for new 'institutions', and of course, the many linguistic, political shenanigans of political campaigning. Every policy or law has a 'receipt-iant', i.e. someone to whom it applies or who receives. That, or those, receipt-iants must be quantified, i.e., they must be 'counted'. If a policy applies to 'workers', it applies to all workers. Count them and insure they're all included. If a policy applies to all 'marriage', count them and insure all such institutions are included. Number is not subject to 'carving'. Quantify the results. 'Number' is never subject to the Linguistic Turn. Democracy is "for the People" and there's a lot of human beings in the world.

Governing is difficult because rendering abstractions into concrete results is difficult

The difficulty in governing 'enters' at the point where the relation between the Top and the Bottom must achieve concrete results. The Top formulates political abstractions and each and every individual,at the Bottom, awaits the 'reality' of those abstractions. Therefore, the problematic of governing by the direct relation of, the Government at the Top and the Many individuals at the Bottom, has an inherent difficulty. If you introduce, at this point, different Parties with different ideologies of what constitutes democracy, or even, a case of a miss-placed value-system, such as, economic values in lieu of democratic values, and you can form an 'appreciation' of the difficulty of administering democracy in a real way. The trajectory between the Top and the Bottom is fraught with inherent difficulties without the unnecessary introduction of obstacles by 'differing' Party ideologies and power struggles between Parties. I'm not saying we should not have political differences, I'm saying we should have a 'common' agreement on what constitutes democracy. Its simple. Its a government "of People, "by People" and, most important, "for the People". Unfortunately, the 'view' from the Top and the need for verbal generalizations and abstractions, renders the Many 'real' individuals at the Bottom into some sort of 'surrealistic configuration'. Try understanding a surrealistic painting by the use of 'realistic images' and you get the picture. There's already too much linguistic 'space' between the Top and the Bottom of government, without the unnecessary introduction of trivial values, of political opportunism, and political values inconsistent with real democratic values. We already have problems without the injection of misplaced economic values and 'basic' misunderstandings of what real democracy is all about. Where are the 'Statesmen'?

Why is governing so difficult?

Governing is not easy. So what is the problem? Many interpret the difficulty as one which lacks sufficient and efficient programs which would benefit the populace. But, what happens sometimes is not the inadequacy of programs or the lack of sincere intentions by those at the Top. Of course, the Top will always spell-out and campaign on their suggested programs or policies. To some that constitutes a sufficient effort to carry out the intended programs of the Top. But, oftentimes, even when every effort is made, the so-called implementation does not reach the Many people at the Bottom. Why? The real difficulty kicks in when a program conceived in abstraction (to include everyone intended) remains 'abstract' and fails to achieve concrete results. Too often, the different 'divided' States ( blue and red) do not help the transition from an abstract rendition to a concrete result, one that reaches every individual intended. This is a result of different Party loyalties and different Court interpretations of the intended program. Hence, we call such efforts, "symbolic" or the candidate or Leader, a "symbolic leader". The problem, in such a case, is that the relation between the Top and the Bottom in a Triadic or Three Branch Government, is not a 'real' relation; it remains abstract and is blocked at every step in its transition from abstraction to a 'reality' that 'touches' every intended individual at the Bottom. What is to be done? Unfortunately, democracy 'invites' too much 'obstructionism', and Party differences, the Top 1% ism. The Bottom has voted-in the Top. That should be sufficient to implement the suggested programs. Either we organize the Bottom in a manner that helps the transition from abstract to concrete or we invoke the First Amendment's right to "assemble". Unfortunately, we have to organize to get the right guy or gal in, and we also have to organize to implement 'abstractions' into 'concrete' results.

Government has a duty to govern

Government is for governing. There is no other function for a government. Its the most unnecessary 'function' for any one human being living in a condition of 'aloneness'. One human being does not need government. Sometimes we can see that 'phenomena' when we study the institution of marriage. Married people divorce because sometimes two human beings, for whatever reasons, either choose not to live together, or cannot live together. Now apply the same principle to millions of people 'living in a condition of togetherness' and you begin to see the necessity of Government and Law. Unfortunately, human beings require government and law lest they be at each others throat. The communal 'condition of togetherness' is much more complex than the institution of marriage between two people. Unfortunately, human nature is not such that it can exist in a 'condition of togetherness' without the help of government and law. That being said, a form of Government is given to us in the Constitution. but that form must be interpreted objectively by the Third Branch of government viz. the Judicial branch. The problems arise when the People at the Bottom of government begin to divide-up ( because there are millions of individuals) and begin to form into antagonistic political Parties and political 'groups' like Labor Unions, Teachers Unions, etc.. Labor Unions had to form because employers were not being fair in the distribution of wages, duties, and work hours. At one time 'child labor' was being used and exploited. My point is government is necessary and government must govern. It must govern all areas of the social where the 'freedom and equality' of the human individual is not being respected. A government has the right and duty to correct any known 'disrespect' and abuse of the human condition. Yes, we have Labor laws because they were necessary. But opposing Political Parties and ideologies are eroding those 'controlling mechanism' and the Supreme Court is complicit with them. A Democratic Government has a duty to the People it governs.

Corporations should not be in competition with the Government

Corporations are legal fictions created by State government. As such, they should not be in competition with the State or Federal government. It is said that some corporations hold more money than the government. True or not, the reason for their existence is to function in the economy and not the government. Corporate interests should remain within economic bounds and not extend into governmental functions. Corporations are fictitious, and hence not 'real'; that's a sufficient reason to exclude them completely from the operations of government. The fact that they are fictions already 'declares' that they, as such, are not real. They are fictional functionaries in the economy, not the government, and as such, should not have all the Constitutional protections that a 'real' individual has. Although they were originally given Constitutional protection, they cannot have all the Constitutional protections that a 'real' individual has. Obviously, since their creation, they have grown economically into economic giants. That's fantastic, but they are not 'democratic giants', and hence, should not be in competition with the government. Government has to remain within the principles established in the Constitution, and business functions, motives, should remain within the principles of a successful economy, viz. money and profits. A system of Democracy and a system of economic success should be kept separate and never should the twain meet. The reason being that government can never be operated on the principles of 'profits' and corporations can never be operated on the principles of 'freedom ' and 'equality'. If 'money and profits' ever creeps into our democratic structure, we are headed towards Plutocracy, or maybe Oligarchy. That would rob, the People of a Democracy, of their freedom and equality, and that, would cause the invocation of the First Amendment freedom "to assemble".