'Real' democracy, is not just 'talk', its also a 'walk'.

A 'democratic social' is characterized by the Freedom and Equality of all the people at the Bottom of government. The main characteristics of a democracy are the freedom and equality that exists at the Bottom of government. The Top of Government can call itself a Democracy, and yet not be a real 'democracy'. The real test is always the conditions in which the people actually live. The Top can use all the linguistic labels that apply to a democracy, and yet, not implement them in actuality. Implementation is important, lest we remain 'captive' to the 'talk' of democracy. One is a linguistic label, the other is a reality. The 'natural' gap that exists between the Top and the Bottom of government is a linguistic one. What does that mean? It means that the Top must use language in its formulations; because the linguistic 'generalities' must apply to everyone, and hence, must include everyone, but only in 'linguistic fashion'. But, this fact, leaves the 'real individual' at the Bottom, untouched. The only way the Top can 'touch' the individual at the Bottom, is to implement a Policy, or law, that is 'democratic'; that is, that applies to everyone at the bottom in an 'equal manner'. But, that last statement takes us right back to the problems that we said arises between language and actuality. That is why, the Bottom of government must use 'Number' to verify whether, a law or policy, actually applies to everyone within any 'one category'. For example; lets 'use' a very general democratic phrase, like "in a democracy everyone is free and equal". Well, that applies to 'everyone', and that means, each and every individual, within the 'social', at the Bottom. But, we're still not 'outside' the words. Hence, we apply 'Number' and 'count' the individuals to whom the general phrase applies and we find that the 'black' race and the 'brown' race, are not included, and we also find that the 'rich', are included, but, not the 'poor', in the enumeration. Then we can be sure that all that 'talk' about democracy is just that, 'talk'. 'Number' cannot be 'disfigured', 'generalized', are circumvented, by 'political talk'. Number is subject to 'counting', and hence 'included' or 'excluded'. Government must use Number to determine whether any one policy or law reaches 'everyone' for whom it was enacted, or whether, its just empty 'democratic talk'. Sure, we must do the 'talk', but we must also do the 'walk'. Hey, its not just 'your' government, its everyone's government.

All Governments, whether Democratic or Autocratic, are about millions of People.

Government is about governing. That may sound simplistic, but governing is about People, and when one realizes that the 'objects' of all governing are millions of People, at the bottom, the complexity of the situation can be appreciated. Regardless the type of government at the Top, the Bottom of governing, in all cases, is always people, millions of People. The 'distance' created by language when the 'relation' between the Top and the Bottom is merely linguistic, is insurmountable. The relation must be 'real'. By 'real', I mean, it cannot remain a mere linguistic label; that would 'interfere' with the real relation between the Top and the Bottom. A mere linguistic relation is 'open' to much verbal manipulation. Unfortunately, such linguistic shenanigans characterizes politics. Of course, politics treats political language as a 'mere linguistic' relation and hence, introduces many variables into the real relation. A real relation 'directly' affects the people at the Bottom. Policy and Law should be categories of 'democratic thought' that directly effects the people. I use the term 'democratic' thought because in a democracy all policy and Law directly effects the people at the Bottom. The Top of government only has a duty to carry out, and to effect, in a direct manner, the category of people to whom the policy or law is directed. All Law and all Policy, in a democracy, relates to the Freedom and Equality of the individual at the Bottom. Of course, in Autocratic rule, the Laws and the Policy implemented by the Top, is done in such fashion as to 'solidify' the power at the Top. In such cases, the Bottom doesn't have much say-so about any policy are law; the people are there to be ruled. In a Democracy the People are 'governed', not 'ruled'. The term 'ruled' has a top to bottom relation that constitutes a 'one-way' street. Its a 'dead-end' street. In a democracy, 'governing' People becomes a 'two-way' street; the relation is from Top to Bottom and from Bottom to Top. There is 'control' from the Top to the Bottom, and there is 'control' from the Bottom to the Top. The Law applies to both ends of the 'governing relation'. Democracy is a government, "of people", "by People", and "for people". Its never a 'dead-end' relation.

Democratic 'politics' is a serious 'business'; but, democratic elections can be hilarious.

Politics is a 'serious' business but, democratic politics can be vicious and hilarious. How can anything so 'serious', become ludicrous? That's easy. Its the result of the initial division of the Many, or, the 'Peoples', at the Bottom of democratic government into political Parties, and the subsequent vicious, adhesion, to so-called, 'Party loyalty'. Comes election time, and all the 'comedians' come out. Its really insulting. I mean, do the politicians really believe that the public actually believes all the 'antagonistic' remarks that are published? Yet, with the many uses of 'advertising techniques', instead of political 'statesmen-ship', we become 'inundated' in an avalanche of 'information' that is difficult to ignore. Some of these so-called 'political issues' draw more 'attention' than the first showing of the Godzilla movie. Of course, that's the goal of political ridiculousness. Maybe all politicians should be given psychological evaluations before they are permitted to 'run'? Maybe it takes a 'brain-dead' type of 'self-evaluation', for any one 'individual' to think s/he can assume a 'political position' within a democracy? Hey, it's 'serious business'. (Notice, that even I cannot ignore the word 'business' in the discussion of a political situation.) Politics is about 'Statesmen-ship', not about economic advantages, nor adhesion, to Party politics. Sure, they divide to 'conquer' at the polls. But, politics should be about 'driving the ship-of state', i.e. the 'whole' ship-of State, not about dividing the ship-of-State into Parties. The Duty of the One is to establish a 'real relation' to the 'real People' at the Bottom of government; and then, to abide by the 'political principles' of Freedom and Equality of each and every Individual at the Bottom. Economic principles and all their institutional 'off-spring' exist for a different reason, and have absolutely nothing to do with competence to 'drive' the whole 'ship-of state'. The two principles must be kept separate. Driving-the 'whole' Ship of State requires a certain 'selflessness'. That, should be the 'quality' possessed by someone seeking political office. Of course, even someone with that 'quality', must first 'survive', the 'information overload' created by the political division into Parties. How can politicians become more serious? How can we, as individuals, become 'whole' again?

The Judicial Branch must interpret the Constitution, but it must be objective.

All the Three Branches of Constitutional Government must play their proper role. Democracy, i.e. a democracy of the People is dependent on the proper functioning of each of the Three Branches. To be sure, each Branch can violate its proper function. The Executive can engage in activity that is not considered 'democratic'; the Legislative can violate its proper 'representative' function; and the Judiciary can violate its proper function by 'reaching decisions' that are unfounded on democratic principles, and that just don't make any sense, much less, democratic sense; e.g. the Citizens United Case. If the question is asked, " which Branch in Triadic government is the most important?", the answer, of course is, "all three are important". Nevertheless, the Judicial Branch has a more 'serious role',( if it can be said in that manner), than any other Branch, in that it is 'slightly' more important than another; why? because we 'depend' on its 'professional judgments' in Law; (the other Branches don't pass judgments on Constitutional law, but only carry out the interpretations of the Court); not to mention the fact that any other Branch is in Office for just a few years, after which they have to be voted back in. Not so with the Judicial. They're appointed for life; hence, they can 'freeze' the 'conversation' in some rigid manner, which renders the results thereafter, un-democratic. How? Well, consider the fact that a 'holding' that a corporation which is a 'fiction'; i.e. unreal, and really doesn't 'speak' and which exists 'only in contemplation of law', has a Constitutional 'freedom of speech', and has a right to engage in politics by means of 'contributing money' to the political process. WOW. Hey, corporations are not real people; the Courts even consider them 'fictions', and the money contributed should be in circulation in the economy, and not 'bolstering' corporate advantage, and helping an 'economic value' to solidify its position within a democratic social that gave it its arising. The end result is, economic values trump democratic values. And to boot, its done by means of a 'judicially created fiction', that needs no further 'extension' into the social. And certainly, corporations don't need protection from the People; to the contrary, the People need protection from a 'corporate society', a value system founded on a recognized 'legal fiction'.

Both, Democracy and Capitalism, must function in everyday life.

Both Democracy and Capitalism must be functional in everyday life but, they must function in a harmonious manner. The problematic arises when Capitalism wants to take over a Democracy or political system that will not 'work' with the principles of a Capitalistic economy. An Autocracy might work, but a democracy can never work on the basis of a Capitalistic arrangement of a power structure. Make no mistake, Government is a power structure. But, in a Democracy, the power has been 'given' by the People at the Bottom of the structure. It has done this through the electoral process. The Representatives at the Top have power. But, only for the duration of Office. The source of that 'temporary attribution' of political power are the People at the Bottom. A democracy, being a 'Peoples government' is the source of all political power. How can that be? Well, the Many People at the Bottom, in their 'condition of togetherness', have strength in Numbers i.e. 'together' they are 'stronger than the 'Institutional One' at the Top. Truly, many people together are 'stronger' than any One individual. Nevertheless, the people in a 'condition of togetherness, can transfer their 'strength' in Numbers into an 'Institutional locus' of political power, viz. the Top of government. That is the way a Democracy functions. Capitalism is different. Capitalism would not work without the profit motive which automatically leads to 'greater' and 'greater' or just 'more' and 'more' of the same. That's ok, when it comes to the economy and its driving force, 'money'. But, that's a different value system from the Freedom and Equality necessary for the 'condition of togetherness'. Money is only a 'fictional medium' of exchange, it propels the economy. It should not be hoarded, or, at least, not to the extent, that situates all revenues at the top 1% of the social. The medium of exchange must circulate at the Bottom of the social; it must circulate to the benefit of the democratic social. If the economy cannot bring this arrangement about, then its time for government to intervene. Capitalism 'grew' in a Democracy; Democracy can never 'grow' in a Capitalistic form of 'governing'; that would be a Plutocracy, and that would destroy the 'economic benefits' that could benefit a Democratic social.

Democracy is essential to Capitalism; 'Democratic Capitalism' is essential to Democracy.

Capitalism has become an irreplaceable Institution in our Democracy. To be sure, its an economic institution but, is 'motored' by a profit motive; not by the Democratic political motive, of Freedom and Equality. Obviously, a profit motive engenders a competitive spirit. But, the economic motor and the political motor must be kept separate; if not kept completely separate, they must, at least, have equal responsibilities. The two principles should not be mixed nor be antagonistic to each other, nor should the political engine be replaced by an economic engine. Since democracy respects and protects the institutions of capitalism, as it has in the past, because many economic institutions have their 'source' in the Freedom and Equality guaranteed to all 'Persons', which legally includes a Corporation. Capitalism should reciprocate by supporting the institutions in the social and in the economy. By that I mean that the 'competition' engendered by the corporate structure should not violate the political principles of Freedom and Equality of the individuals in a democracy. As it is, a corporation is considered by the legal system as a "legal fiction". In other words, it doesn't really exist; of course, only "in contemplation of law". Hence, a Fiction. That, already unbalances the 'competitive scales'. A real human being competing against a corporate structure? Come on, where is the balance? Of course, some will say, well anyone can incorporate his/her business; so just incorporate. But that's not the problem. The problem is that an 'abstract fiction' has a greater 'economic grasp', than a real individual and hence amasses great profits. In order to bring this result, it was necessary to incorporate the businesses. But, the answer is not to put a 'cap' on profits but, to legally have the created 'person', or "fictions" assume some social and economic responsibilities, such as those related to the 'work force', employment, employees, and institutions of a 'social nature' or institutions of an 'economic nature'. These social and economic responsibilities should be 'backed' by Law. If there is no compliance, and the law can't put the 'corporation' in jail, put the Real people behind the 'corporate shield' in jail. Corporations have given us a great economy; isn't it time they reciprocate to the economic institutions and the people at the Bottom who helped them generate so much profit. It took 'real people' to 'motor' and to generate profits for the corporations. A successful economy cannot function well without corporations; but, the economy needs a Democracy, not a Plutocracy or an Oligarchy. If we ever get a Plutocracy or Oligarchy, the economy will collapse. ( maybe that's our problem) Hoarding income at the top 1% does not benefit an economy that should function as a democracy.

All Nations need an 'economy'; in the U.S.A., the economy is Capitalistic; so, what's the problem?

Capitalism 'works' in a Democratic economy. Capitalism flourished in early America, and is still flourishing, because it 'functions' in a Democracy. In any other form of government, it may not have flourished. In a Plutocracy, the rich at the Top of government would have remained rich, but the economy, in general, would have suffered. In an Oligarchy, the Top would have remained rich or powerful, but the economy, in general, would have suffered. In an Autocracy, the Top would be rich and powerful, but the People would be 'hurting'. Why? Simply because all these latter forms of government emphasize the Top and exclude the Bottom. The people are at the Bottom. In a Democratic form of government, the government is "of People", "by People", and "for people". In other words, in a democracy, both the Top and the Bottom 'matter'. I'm tempted to say, its one Great, Big, Happy Family, but, its not! Unfortunately, the 'Capitalistic' economy is too busy trying to change the nature of government into a Plutocracy, or an Oligarchy, but, in no case, an Autocracy. Why not an Autocracy?; the answer is, the People would never stand for that, because only the Top and no one else, would have political power, and who would want to give that a try? Never, in a Nation where the People have 'tasted' Freedom and Equality, at the Bottom of government. However, the transition into a Plutocracy or an Oligarchy, would be easier. Why? Simply, because the rich and the powerful would 'substitute' a medium of exchange, i.e. Money, 'hoarding money', and 'power' in the 'few', in lieu of Freedom and Equality of all the individuals at the Bottom. How ironic. Capitalism grew because it had Freedom and Equality, and now it wants to hoard the 'benefits'( the 1%) at the expense of the system and the democratic principles that allowed it to flourish. In such a case, the Plutocrats or the Oligarchs, would 'solidify' their gains into a 'different form of government'. So, that's the problem. The political principles that brought us to this stage of 'governing' must be protected, or Capitalism must change and become more democratic, and that could be described as a Capitalocracy. Not a very good term; if you can coin a better term, please let me know. Nevertheless, the term is descriptive of the process of Capitalism within a democracy with Institutions and People who function 'together' in Democracy, and who also benefit from the Capitalistic 'impulse'; not just the 1%, and not just the rich. That could eliminate 'excessive' hoarding.

The Bottom line of a Nation are the 'Many', thats why the principles of democracy are important.

Democracy is about the Many, in the basic political 'relation' of the One and the Many. Nevertheless, the One or the Top of any and all governments is always an individual, or, the few individuals, who 'inhabit' the Top as Leaders. There are many 'political problems' in the assent from membership at the Bottom, to a position at the Top of government. Regardless, the form of government, or the manner in which the 'leaders' get to the Top of government, there are other problems that face the structure of a government. One of the problems is the 'value system' of the economy; simply, the profit motive, money, and possessions, hoarding, or Capitalism. Capitalism and the 'profit motive' cannot drive a political entity. The 'profit motive' is best described as 'cut-throat activity' to outdo the neighbor, or more euphemistically, 'competition'. Of course, we all know what competition means, 'to defeat or win' over engaging in the same activity with another. That is an economic principle, not a political principle. A political principle requires, or should require, a Leader to treat every individual coming under his/her jurisdiction in the 'same' manner. There can be no preferences in a Just political system. Simply put, the Freedom and Equality of every Leader and of every individual under the Leaders jurisdiction is assured. No exceptions. All humanity is equally human. Even though every human being must fend for his/her economic success, governing is not about 'competition'. Governing is about Freedom and Equality. Competition is about the economy. Don't mingle the two principles. The economy can never survive on the basis of Freedom and Equality. Government can never survive on the basis of the profit motive. However, every Nation has, and needs, an economy for its Peoples. Governments should use economic principles to help govern the masses, but to govern according to political principles. To some extend, it already does this. Government has budgets, taxes People, builds roads, arranges housing, provides Social Security to those who have contributed to Social Security, provides government assistance to the sick and needy, etc., and provides help on the basis of the political principles of Freedom and Equality. The economy can thrive under a Democracy of Freedom and Equality; but a democratic government cannot function on the basis of a 'profit motive': that's why we don't need a Plutocracy nor an Oligarchy; and that's why we need a 'Capitalocracy'( less hoarding of money and possessions). If Democracy 'functions' for the benefit of the People, so can Capitalism.

Every Nation has a People and every 'Nation' is an 'abstraction'.

The 'name' of every Nation is a generalized abstraction, and hence, has characteristics or 'elements' that give it an Identity and a 'constitution'. By constitution, I mean all of its People in a 'condition of togetherness' gives the Nation its sense of 'Identity', i.e. its Name, and also a sense of 'being constituted' as a People. Of course, that 'sense of being constituted' as a People, is what we, in a Democracy, consider as given in a Written Constitution, which sets forth the structure of the Nation. A Constitution can be written or not. If its written it 'gives' a sense of being 'a commitment' because its written nature makes it available to every individual within the Nation, and hence is available, if necessary, for their own study. If the Constitution is not written, it has to much 'wiggle room'. If a Nation exists without a Constitution, its sense of Identity is that of an Autocracy, because the people have no say-so in the constitution of the Nation, or, the operation of the government. Of course, an Autocracy is recognized as a Dictatorship, or some specie of autocratic rule. An Autocracy is a 'pure sense' of Rule over the People. An Oligarchy changes a little bit; it's rule by the same small group of Individuals, over and over. A Plutocracy is rule by the Plutocrats, or by the rich. Every Nation has a government and every Nation is recognized as one of the above listed variations. Fortunately, we have abstract terms that describe the different kinds of governments, and, which help us analyze the characteristics of each. But, these terms apply to the Top of government and to the manner in which it governs the People. It is undeniable, that the best form of government is a 'Peoples' form of government. And truly, it can be called a Government 'of People', 'by People', and 'for People'. This is a phraseology that emphasizes the importance of the People at the Bottom of government. The People are at the Bottom, i.e. they are the ones being ruled, in a Democracy, as well as, by the forms of government listed above. They are the ruled, not the Rulers. So what do the politicians do to give that process a bad name? They refer to the People in a 'condition of togetherness', as a 'social' and 'coin' the term, Socialism!. That gives the People a bad name! But, obviously, the People can't rule from the Bottom. The Top rules. We must listen very carefully to the words of the Politician.

The 'common characteristic' of each Nation, on the International scene, is People.

Each Nation has its Government. Each Nation has political power. But, all Nations have 'a people'. Each nation has succeeded in giving itself a political Identity, viz., it has 'clothed' the One, i.e. the 'structure of a governing' relation with the 'Many', i.e. the 'Peoples' under its jurisdiction. In other words, all Nations, or all governments, are 'relational' affairs. By that, I mean the One governs the Many. It has to be that way, except for the Triadic form. There are no other ways of 'governing'. The One becomes institutionalized into a 'form of government' with power that relates to its People on the National scene, and relates to Other Nations on the International scene. On the International scene, the relation is one, or should be, of 'Equal Power'. Hence, the relation between Nations is a relation of 'equal power'. Nevertheless, Nations don't, or shouldn't, have an 'issue' with 'Identity', nor 'Power'. But, obviously, Nations on the International scene, because of their individual power, over their People, cannot be 'unified' by means of their Political Identities. Why not? Because the retention of their 'political identity' as Nations, is a retention of their attributive 'power', over their People. That's why you can have a 'United' Nations but, not a 'United Nations', constituting one Great, Large Unified World Nation. To be sure, there's a difference. Consequently, the only way to 'unify' world governments, is to Unify the common characteristic of all nations, to wit; the human condition. In unifying, the Free and Equal 'human condition', we unify the world of Humanity. Why not? All humans are Free and Equal. Of course, there's always that old die-hard, that lays claim to superior race, or intelligence, but lets hope that they will continue to dwindle, or fade away. The truth of the matter, is that no government 'creates' its People, and consequently, governments have a 'right and power' to 'govern', because ultimately, 'government' was 'created' by the People, and hence, no one 'individual', nor 'government', can judge the superiority, or inferiority, of the human race, or of any one race. Hey, humanity is here to stay, unfortunately, it may destroy the world, but it won't be because of any one Superior Race, or Superior government. It will be from some 'self-centered','selfish', 'power hungry', politician. Where are the Statesmen?

In one sense, the International is no different from the National.

In one sense, the 'National' is similar to the 'International'. That is to say, whether Nationally or Internationally, the underlying aspects of both political entities are the 'Peoples' within the geographical boundaries describing their sense of Identity as a political entity, i.e. as a Nation. But, the same 'condition of togetherness' underlies all Nations, regardless their location or sense of Political Identity, as a separate Nation with political power. In the same manner, as the 'essence' of a Democracy, being the 'Peoples' at the Bottom of government, so the essence of an International politics are the different 'Peoples' underlying each National Identity. The biggest dilemma facing the International sphere is the sense of 'separate Identity' of each Nation. Survival in the World is not possible if each Nation emphasizes its Identity as being 'separate', and having more 'power' than another. The World is a Planet where human life exists, and where humans arrange themselves into Nations, for 'political purposes'. The 'condition of togetherness' of 'Political entities', is very different from the 'condition of togetherness' of the People within any one Nation. 'Freedom and Equality' should definitely, 'motor' a National Politics( as in a Democracy), whereas, the National 'Power' of each nation 'motors' International relations. True, both scenes have 'a People', but International politics does not 'move' on the basis of the People within another Nation, it moves on the basis of International 'expressions' of National power and International 'relations' between Nations. Of course, Nations have the right to select their form of government; nevertheless, underlying all forms of government, are the 'Peoples' of each Nation. The World should be 'unified' as a People; not as Political entities seeking ways to increase their power on the International scene, or ways to 'increase' their National boundaries. The bottom line of any Nation as a 'political entity', are the human beings, that 'allow' the Leaders to govern them. Nations and States may be 'political fictions' with power, but underneath each Nation, are the Many; i.e. real human beings.

The International 'game' is different than the National 'game'.

Obviously, International politics is different from National politics. When International politics uses the terminology of National politics, it just 'doesn't get it'. Everyone knows that National politics is a direct reference to the National situation, whether institutional, legal, social, or even structural. But, the relation of one Nation to another, or, to all Nations in the World, requires a different International dialogue, one that relates directly to all the Nations, as Nations, in the same World of Power. The International 'game' differs from the National 'game'; and that applies to each and every Nation as a separate political entity with Power. Of course, the National has its problems, and the National, within the International, also has its problems. By that I mean, the vocabulary of different 'International arrangements', differs from the arrangement, of 'National arrangements'. One 'arrangement' could be a Democracy, while another could be a Dictatorship. To mix the 'International dialogue' with the National dialogue in such a situation, just doesn't make sense, even to someone not sophisticated in International politics. When an International leader uses a 'racial slur' extracted from a National 'problem area' within any one Nation, S/he just doesn't get it. The racial slur is on the same level, on the International scene, as something we call, on the National level, 'name calling'. How ridiculous. What kind of leadership can be expected from an International leader that reduces International politics to the level of a little boy engaged in 'name calling'; "my dad can beat up your dad" type of mentality. That, is dangerous. When the personal becomes the 'instigation' of International 'political postures', we are in deep trouble. The People of the International sphere must realize that the problematic of International relations, cannot be played by the rules of any one Nation. If 'race' becomes an issue on the International sphere, every single Nation is in trouble. Why? Because, every Nation is 'Peopled' by a different race. Hey, we need to wake up. Peoples within any Nation learning to 'live together' in a 'condition of togetherness', is one problem; and it needs to be worked out; On the International scene, that problem should 'not exist'. Internationally, any one Nation that cannot live with the different races of Other Nations, in the World, is in deep trouble. In such a scenario, what are the chances that the mind set of, "my Dad can beat up your Dad" will prevail. What are the chances for International peace? Unfortunately, all the problems of politics, both National and International, are dependent on the 'human condition' of the 'Leaders'. How can we change that? I don't know, but I do know, there are more 'People' in the World, than 'Leaders'.

Racial discrimination is the peak of 'asininity'.

Racial discrimination is asinine. Consider it closely. One human being allegedly claiming to be 'superior' to the Other. To be sure all human beings have the same 'functions', but different human 'ways' of interpreting and relating to the 'world' outside her/his skin. In such interpretations and relations, we are 'different', i.e. we have different 'personalities', different 'likes' and 'dislikes', and have different 'possessions'; i.e. we have 'more' or 'less' of these possessions, and last, but not least, 'have' different quantities of 'money'. These so-called 'differences' are said to create a belief system in different classes of human beings. There lies your social classes! Every single characteristic that determines the social class is 'un-human'. (I have to use that term, because that's the only opposite term of human.) Also, most of these characteristics relate to the economy, namely, to the Capitalistic values of 'profits', 'possessions' and 'position' of 'class', and 'influence' and also of 'education'. But, notice the emphasis on 'possessions' and 'money', and notice how the possession of these 'products', facilitates the further acquisition of 'more of the same'. Hey, the 'true value' of a democracy is the Freedom and Equality that one can enjoy. What 'good' are all these possessions, if one is sick or cannot function as a 'human being'? You ask, "and what would that be"? Just 'function' within the 'condition of togetherness' in a 'democratic way', i.e. in a Free and Equal 'manner' as a human being. I hate to disillusion anyone out there, but when 'push comes to shove', 'possessions', 'money', and 'classes of all kinds', are not going to make a bit of difference. Every 'human' being is just as 'human' as every Other 'human being', and to make social distinctions on the 'simplistic' basis of 'Race', or possessions is just, 'not to get it'. 'You' don't get it.

I am One; you are One; 'We' are Many; we are 'the People'.

Never let it be said, that "We the People", are not important. "We The People"..., are the most important element of any and all governments. Governments, as important as they are, must take 2nd chair to the People. A government is important, even very important, but the people are more important. A government can change into a 'different' type of government, but the 'condition of togetherness' can never do 'without a government'. Its ridiculous to 'try to shut down' government. In that view, 'someone out there doesn't get the picture'. That's not even a political position; that's political suicide. A 'condition of togetherness' needs government, and government needs a 'condition of togetherness'. A society cannot have One without the Other. The unfortunate aspect of government is the misplaced emphasis on 'where' to place the 'importance', Nay, the necessity, of Government. Sure, its important, but like I said, Government must take 2nd chair to the People. As important as government is, it must recognize that government is "of People", "by People", and "for People". Democratic government is government by the 'same people' who constitute the Governed, i.e. Democratic government is 'self-government'. Governments are 'political institutions', and "We the People", need them. Any attempt to 'shut down government' is a form of 'political suicide', with a simultaneous introduction of 'chaos' into the 'condition of togetherness'. We need Government and government needs the People. Well then, 'who' are the People? The People are the 'essence' of government. It is, you and I. "I am One, you are One, We are Many". Each of the Many are One; One is a number, hence, "We are Number", and number is a quantity and it can be 'counted'. 'Everyone counts' in a Democracy. Lets judge Legislation, Policy and Law, by number, and we can't go wrong. Democracy, at the Bottom of government, is a 'political equation', and 'each' and every number counts in an equation.

The People are the important element of any and all forms of government

Truly, we have different forms of government and each government has its People. Some governments are Dictatorial, some Democratic, some Plutocratic, and some are Oligarchic. There are probably other forms, but the main characteristic is that they all have a People. They are the individuals at the Bottom who are governed or, in some cases, ruled. In all these forms of government the important aspect of any 'condition of togetherness' are the individuals who constitute the 'condition'. Governments are established institutions that arise out of necessity. The different names attributed to them are abstractions. Even a so-called Democracy is an 'abstract' term that refers to the 'structural arrangement' of the government at the Top, as a Three Branch Government, and its relation to the 'condition of togetherness' at the Bottom. The 'condition of togetherness' is the condition, constituted by each and every member of the social. A Democracy 'proudly' refers to the fact that it is a government established "by the People", "for the people" who established it. Of course, this fact does not make the democracy a perfectly functioning government, nor are we saying that. But, the term itself describes the 'nature' of the government. In other cases, the term attributed to the governments also describes the structure or form of the government, but the emphasis is on the power at the Top, not the People under its care; in a Dictatorship; the Top rules, period, in a Plutocracy; the 'rich' Top, rules, in an Oligarchy; a select 'power hungry few' always rule. In these other forms of government the 'People' don't matter. But, the bottom line in any governmental structure, should be the 'People', because without People, there is no one to govern, and no need for government. Government seem to have elevated itself as a necessary institutions of power, which is a fact, but the other fact, is they are necessary only because there are Many People. Without People, no government. Hence, all governments should exist for the benefit of their People. Democracy has a head start in this process, and the People of a democracy need to learn how to exercise their political Freedom and Equality, in a Democratic manner. The strength of a Democracy depends on 'the People'.

A Nation is a 'political institution' with Power; a Religion transends the National and the International.

A Nation, all Nations have great Power, and they must. They must because they Respect and Defend the Many human beings within their geographical boundaries. Maybe, I should say, they 'should' Respect and Defend, the Many within their geographical boundaries. The term "should" already distinguishes a Democracy from a non-democracy, but 'only' theoretically. Theoretically, because sometimes even a Democracy or a 'purported Democracy', does not respect the human 'integrity'. Again I use the Term "integrity" to refer to the 'integrated Nature' of the individual human being. But, since the Bottom or the People in a Nation are the 'essence' of that Nation, most human Rights, in a Constitutional Democracy, that are protected by a Constitution, relate to the 'human integrity'. In other words, Government is 'here' to serve the human condition; that's Governments duty. However, we cannot elevate the 'human condition', to some level of 'egotistical self-importance', nor deny it to any one individual. Most human beings understand that they are 'more' than what they understand about themselves, and most human beings profess a religion that expresses that relation. That's why the Constitution protects religion. Religion has nothing to do with government; its a different 'relation' and a 'different endeavor', and every individual is free to believe whatever s/he wants. The 'relation' of religion is 'higher', more 'cosmic', and transcends National boundaries. Of course, there's always the possibility of a wrong interpretation. Regardless any misinterpretation, no Religion, because of its Higher Order, will condone violence against the human condition. No individual should be allowed to 'hide' behind such a wrong interpretation. Nevertheless, Government has no business 'governing' an individuals belief system. That's not government. Government relates to being able to 'live' in a 'condition of togetherness', or stated differently, in a condition under Law. That why, when the term law is used its almost always accompanied by the term "Order"; hence, Law and Order. Law and Order regulates the 'condition' as harmoniously as possible. Law is always changing, as it must, because the 'condition of togetherness' is always in motion as a 'large condition', continually attempting to 'hold' the condition together, or, stated differently, continually attempting to hold it in an integrated fashion. A Nation cannot have a 'belief' in a cosmic scheme. "It" doesn't think. It can have an 'institution' that accepts a particular interpretation of a cosmic scheme but, that's different from 'having' a belief. No one, no Nation, no institution, can limit what an individual accepts as his/her relation to 'something higher' than a National or International political Organization. All Nations should respect all religions, and under no circumstances, condone violence, in the name of religion, against the human condition.

Democracy is about People; but People must learn to 'live' in Freedom and Equality.

The reason Democracy is the best form of government is that democracy recognizes the Freedom and Equality of the Individual. In this way it acknowledges the fact that People 'establish' and 'create' Governments and that Government does 'not create' People, nor the 'condition of togetherness'. The essence of Democratic government are the Many people at the Bottom of the triad of Government. This differs from an Autocratic Government that just 'assumes' control over the Bottom and either disregards their rights to a 'life', or, exerts Power from the Top over the individuals at the bottom in some arbitrary manner. In those cases, the Bottom is not important. But, the important point of all Governments, regardless their type, is that the individual's Right to 'Life' should be respected and protected by the Power of the government; i.e. by the Power of the Top. In a Democratic form of government, we have pointed out the importance of 'living democratically', as contrasted with, living selfishly and 'isolating' oneself from the 'condition of togetherness'. Consider this; If I just think of myself and ignore the 'condition of togetherness', the 'condition of togetherness' will not hold. The 'condition of togetherness' must be held together by the Individuals respect for the Freedom and Equality of the 'Neighbor'. This attitude 'brings' all the people together. If that should occur in 'any form' of government, the form of government would not matter. A Dictatorship could have a very 'fair and democratic' form of government, if the individual who rules is a fair and a 'good guy'. But, that does not happen. Look, government is about power and the power at the Top is exercised by an individual from amongst the 'governed'. The Ruler was not flown in from some strange place with some superior power to govern the little guy. No, the bottom line, in all governments, are the individuals at the bottom, because they create or should create governments. If all 'Rulers' or 'Governors', were good guys, the form of government wouldn't matter, but, unfortunately, that is not the case. What does that say about the individual? That says that its the Individual that is important in all forms of governments. In a Democracy, that is why, its important that the People choose the 'right' individual to do the 'governing'. The Constitutional phrase, " We the People..." does not 'hide' anything, government is about People. 'People' constitute the Nation and a strong Nation is one where the People 'hold together'. Leaders are people too and they should govern democratically, because they also come from the Bottom. Its very important to choose the right leader. No government is so strong and Just, that it can ignore the individuals at the Bottom.

The bottom line in a democracy is that each individual is Free and Equal.

We know that the essence of Democratic Government are the Many or, stated differently, the essence of government are all the People at the Bottom. The Freedom and Equality of every individual has been emphasized as the essence of any and all Governments. Yet the People are at the Bottom of the Governmental triad, i.e. they constitute the governed. They don't govern. The Top, whether Autocratic or Democratic, is the locus of Political Power and Authority. That top governs in a Democracy, or, an Autocracy, and even a Plutocracy. The Top is political power. Nevertheless, the Bottom is the essence of 'governing' because without a Bottom there would be no need for any type of Government. The Bottom line in all governments, are the Many People at the Bottom, of the Governing Triad. The People 'create' government and the democratic form is the best there is. So, what's the problem? Unfortunately, and sadly, the People do not know how to 'live' in Freedom and Equality. An Individual who is Free and Equal can do whatever pleases him/her so long as its within the confines of Constitutional Law and Constitutional Institutions of society. Freedom and Equality are characteristics of the Bottom of Government, not the Top. The top has Constitutional duties to carry out and that within a short period of time. The Bottom gets to enjoy Freedom and Equality within an established political system and in a Democracy, the People are at the Bottom. "We the People..." are given Freedom and Equality and yet, we do not know how to handle it. Why? Its simple. Individuals are too prone to live a life of self-importance, selfishness, and greed. In other words, we want to live in a 'condition of togetherness', yet we do not know how to 'share' and how to 'live together'. Freedom and Equality require sharing, not isolating ourselves from the Other and 'groping' around the 'condition of togetherness', seeking for 'advantage', whether personal, political or economical. That's our downfall. We transfer a personal inadequacy into a social goal that excludes the Other. As individuals we are overcome by our self-importance, greed, and wanting more an more of the same. No. We are the 'Many' and we must live as a 'Many'. This can only be done in a spirit of co-operation, community, and within a 'condition of togetherness'. Together, the Bottom can be strong.

Both, the Top and the Bottom, in a Democratic Nation, are important; The Top must follow the Constuitution; the Bottom must 'live democracy'.

Both the Top and the bottom are important in a Democracy, and furthermore, both must remain 'active'. By that ,I mean, both must play their roles within the social. The Top acts in a 'Representative" manner and the Bottom lives 'democratically. The Top follows the 'structure' and the 'laws' set by the Constitution, and which have been established by Constitutional adjudication. The establishment and subsequent evolution of 'democracy' did not take place, on one bright and sunny day. It took years and, to our shame, some issues have not yet been resolved. One of those issues is the issue of race. The issue was Constitutionally decided by the Supreme Court, in Brown vs. Board of Education, some 60 years ago. One has to ask, what has taken so long to implement the Decision within a Democratic society? Consider, the Citizens United Decision of just a few years back. Immediately after the decision, the economic sector set itself up, immediately, to begin pouring lots of money into political campaigns. Why didn't that happen with Brown vs. Board? Well, Discrimination against Black people existed within the early Colonies for a long time. Not until Brown did the Court recognize the freedom and equality of the Black race, but only after long battles in the schools and in the public domain. Nevertheless, the problem of racial inequality within the political system is still with us. How strange, Dictatorships don't recognize the equality of the human condition, because they 'discriminate' against all races, except for the individuals at the Top. To them, its a power game. To the contrary, democratic values purport to recognize the Freedom and Equality of the human condition, but they discriminate against the members of some races, and espouse the superiority of the White race. How strange, Autocrats say, we, the Leaders are superior human beings, and the Democrats say, everyone is equal but, the white race is the superior race. Neither of the two, seems to understand that Government is a 'man-made' institution, and it would not exist, but for the human condition, which consists of all races. People need Government, but, not a Government, that elevates itself to glorious heights and then claims a Superiority of the political. The Autocrats claim superiority at the Top; the Top of 'power'; Democrats claim equality and freedom for all, at the Top; but the white race remains superior at the Bottom. The Autocrats discriminate at the Top, the people in a democracy discriminate at the Bottom. Both are wrong, because the Top would not exist but for the people at the Bottom, and the Bottom is the source of all power in every 'political institution'. This fact points to the fact that in some Democracies, its the people who are the source of many of the prejudices in the social and in government. The people in a democracy have duties also; they have a duty to 'live' democracy, not just pay it lip service.

The 'media' is an important factor in democracy, but, it must be kept objective.

Democracy is about People, lots of people. The essence of a democratic government are the People, or, the 'Many' at the Bottom. The Top, or the 'One', called the 'Government', is an abstract formulation about a governing 'center of gravity' of the masses. Of course, we have already emphasized that the Individual at the Bottom, is the essence of governing. Hence, the 'bottom line' for a Democracy is always the freedom of speech of the individuals at the Bottom. Of course, no one individual can say that s/he knows the 'Other' so well, that s/he understands and knows about all the opinions 'held' by the 'Other'. There's too Many of them. Here enters the media! The media reports whatever it decides is 'newsworthy'. That word is an invented word that is practically meaningless. Of course, there are 'important' events, taking place, and also 'less important' events. What to write about becomes the big issue for media institutions. There is no limit to what could be called 'newsworthy'. But, unfortunately, there are also other motives for reporting or writing, and the dominant issue is always, will it attract attention or 'will it sell'? 'Economic values' have infiltrated the social milieu and the dominant concern is, 'is it marketable'? If 'something' attracts attention, the media will not turn it loose. Instead, it will help 'publicize' it, and, in many ways, help it escalate. The media is never held to a criteria of 'write about democracy' only; and rightfully so. Freedom of the Press is pretty much a freedom to write about whatever you please. But, the media also has a responsibility to write, or report events, as truthfully as possible, and furthermore, not to take sides, or 'fan the fires' of 'racial discrimination', 'class warfare', or other, 'social inequalities' that 'may' or 'may-not' exist. A certain objectivity is required in 'reporting'. 'Reporting' is essential to help circulate the many opinions, that may exist in the social, as well as to, notify the Public of what takes place within the 'halls of Government'; and also to keep abreast of what is occurring on the International scene. Of course, the 'media' can be abused. A big factor in elections is all the negative reporting and publicity by candidates against their opponents. The media, as institution, merely reports these individual conflicts between candidates. It has been said, that political candidates no longer study 'statesmanship', instead they study, and apply, the laws and rules of 'advertising'. The issue is always 'how can I sell myself'? How sad. The rules of the economy and the rules of a democracy are different and they must be kept separate, lest we become a Plutocracy, or, maybe something 'worse', a "huge economic institution with, 'dog eat dog', values".

Democracy and Capitalism are essential to the Nation.

Both Institutions are necessary to a strong Nation. However, we cannot change Democracy. Why not? Because Democracy is the best form of government there is, simply because its a form where the People govern themselves. This cannot be changed into a better form, it can only be 'perfected'. However, its possible to modify Capitalism to better fit the democratic scheme of things. How? Simply by moving the end-game of 'profits', the motor, behind the institution, into a more 'comprehensive' reach; one that will benefit the democratic institutions. As it exists today, Capitalism is all about profits and the problematic is that profits can be hoarded and converted into assets or acquisitions. This causes a fixation of a medium of exchange that should circulate. That, in itself, wouldn't be too bad, if greed did not take over, and if Capitalists were not trying to 'invade' the democratic underpinnings of the best form of government. That there is such a move is obvious from the recent Supreme Court decisions that allow 'legal fictions' to participate in politics and allows for a concentration of money within the political playing field. These political moves weaken the democratic value system and strengthens the influence of money within the political playing field. That can only lead to a Plutocracy or Oligarchy and I don't have to elaborate on that. Democracy is about fairness, about Freedom and Equality, and a better form of life for everyone. We may not be there yet, but that's the direction of change. Capitalism, is about profits, accretion, greed, and 'self-inflation'. It must be improved before it destroys the very democratic institution that allowed it to flourish. It has no sense of 'direction of change', it only wants more and more of the same; profits. It 'stops' at 'accumulation' and that becomes the sole end-game of capitalistic endeavors. Hence; democracy cannot be changed, only improved into more and more freedoms and equality; and more viable democratic institutions, supported by its economy. I call it a Capitalocracy, because it merges the 'best' of Capitalism with the 'best' in Democracy. Its somewhat of an 'unmanageable term' but the effects of these changes can establish, a better, stronger, Democracy; one 'unified front' moving in the right direction, instead of two institutions competing against each other. Money can never be more valuable, then Freedom and Equality. Freedom and Equality is how we got here.

Democratic Government may be an abstraction, but the real test of real Democracy is the 'condition' of the People.

As we all know, one can call a 'government' by any abstract term, and then claim to 'be' that System of government. But, as we also know, that's not the 'true' test. The 'true' test is the 'condition' of the People and the freedoms and liberties they enjoy as well as the fact that all human beings are equal human beings; i.e. they are politically Free and Equal. The test of Equality is often a clear gauge of the real attitude of the 'governing power' as well as the 'Other people' living in a condition of togetherness. Freedom means freedom from any 'imposed limitation', but for, the compliance with Constitutional Laws, and institutions, and Equality means, equal human beings. Equality has nothing to do with money, possessions, 'net value', or any social or political position. In other words equality means equal human beings. Discrimination by Race, Color, Creed, or economic situation, has nothing to do with equality, nor, the 'unfair' levy of taxation, which raises the issue of taxation of corporations, (recognized legal fictions) and taxation of real Individuals. Hence, we can call ourselves, a "Democracy", an "Autocracy", or a "Plutocracy", or an "Oligarchy", or even by this new neologism, "Capitalocracy", or, "Capitalocrats". All these are abstractions that serve a merely 'descriptive' function; they still have to be analyzed by the actual 'effect' they each have at the Bottom of government, where all the people live, and have their Freedom and Equality. If a Democracy does in fact respect and protects the Freedom and Equality of the Individual, it is, in fact, a Democracy. However, the fact that the value system of the economy, to wit; "money", a medium of exchange, has 'taken over' the value system of democracy, which is the Freedom and equality of the Individual, makes it necessary to better describe, the requirements of a real democracy. Money and possessions have no place in determining 'freedom' and 'equality' in a Democracy. Hence, in a Democracy, the economy must be organized in such a way that the Democratic value system 'balances out' the invasive Capitalistic value system of 'profits'( the motor of the economy). This balancing can only be accomplished by organizing the governmental structure in a way that compels obligatory institutions within the economy, to contribute to the democratic institutions already established. In other words, the economic value system does not stop with profits, but continues as a 'support and aid' to Democratic institutions. No government can accomplish all that is necessary in a democracy, solely by the levy of taxes; especially when the Tax system favors the rich and oppresses the poor. Hence the necessity of re-describing the Capitalistic system driven by profits, into a system that compels contribution, to the democratic institutions within which it thrives. We need more Capitalocrats; i.e, more 'Democratic involvement' 'by' the economy,'within' the economy. Democratic government 'needs' Capitalism, but Capitalism can not exist in a Non-Democratic Nation. Its 'pay-back' time.

The term, "Capitalocracy" is an abstract neologism but, like abstract Democracy and abstract Capitalism, must be implemented in the Real World.

Neologisms are everywhere; so there is nothing new in using a new configuration to further define and clarify the necessary relation between "Democracy" and "Capitalism". In this new usage one can better 'see' how Capitalistic activity can be arranged in such fashion that the term can have 'practical' applications within a 'Democratic society'. Of course, that means a Capitalocracy. Though the term itself is unwieldy, the activity appears more focused; more defined; and more manageable. The political effect of such a term is that the 'end-game' for economic activity does not 'stop' at "making a profit", but continues with an 'impetus' towards Democratic values, and consequently, places a sort of 'barrier' on the 'inclination' to hoard 'profits'. Hoarding profits keeps a 'medium of circulation' from circulating. 'Profits' become invested in 'personal' acquisitions and 'properties', which in turn constitutes a 'hoarding' of sorts, all of which inures to the benefit of some Corporation, or, some individual at the top 1%. In a Capitalocracy, the profits from economic activity, are 'further circulated', among the People at the Bottom, by improving institutions, creating jobs, work, just wages, health care and benefits, proper compensation for veterans, homes, and taking care of the 'homeless', etc. Of course, some will say, that's the job of the government, but is it? Then, People would cry, "socialism". No, the purpose of such institutions is not to make the Bottom wealthy, but to insure a better life-style for each and every individual at the Bottom of a 'real democracy'. Of course its not that simple. Programs, practices, and new investment opportunities would have to be established within the economy. The Ideal, being laid out, there should still be enough remaining for the Top 1% to still remain at a 'wealthier level' than anyone at the Bottom, but possibly, not constitute a 1% at the top. Hoarding hurts democracy; it increases egotistical inclinations in some individuals to try to get 'more of the same' and, who knows, possibly to be at the top of the Forbes list. The individuals in a Capitalocracy who contribute towards a democratic social, should be recognized for the personal 'sacrifices' they make. There are many 'millionaires' who contribute to schools, the needy, the sick, and the unfortunate, and who go unrecognized. That's a shame. That's as 'bad' as having 'homeless' in a wealthy Nation; a Nation that functions as a democracy. In a real democracy, those who help Democracy should not go unrecognized, and its time that Capitalism understands its proper function in a Democracy, i.e. as a Capitalocracy. If we didn't have Democracy, there wouldn't be any Capitalism. If it wasn't for People, there would be no need for 'products'.

The two words, "Democracy" and "Capitalism" are theoretical terms.

The two terms, being theoretical, must be implemented in a practical manner. The implementation of Democracy into a practical arrangement is the establishment of a government, of People, by People, and for People, wherein the term, 'for People', refers back to the 'same people' referred too in the originating term, 'of people'. Hence, it is a cycle of 'self-government'. The term Capitalism refers to an economy where the 'motor' for economic activity is 'profits'. Hence, it can be said that Government is 'constructive', and Capitalism is 'productive'. The productive aspects of Capitalism can be anything that makes a profit, e.g. hula-hoops. While the 'constructive' nature of democracy must refer to the people it governs, and the 'ideal' of 'construction' would be 'inclusive', i.e. it would include each and every individual situated at the Bottom of government. Hence, government has nowhere to go, except towards 'perfection'. While the ideal of Capitalism is only to make a profit, and unfortunately, the making of profits, not being sufficient, it (money) is hoarded and 'hoarding money' is 'applying the brakes' to a medium that must circulate. Hoarding money can only be 'motored' by greed, otherwise it would not be 'limited' to the top 1%. There lies its problematic. Consequently, it would be better to refer to economic activity as 'Capitalocracy'or Capitalocratic i.e. an activity that benefits the People and the social institutions at the Bottom of government and consequently, 'contains' the profits within the 'institutional' and 'social structures' of a Nation. In this way economic activity becomes a 'function of a democracy' where institutional activities benefit the economic and social structures of a Nation. This arrangement would not be antithetical, and furthermore, the term 'Capitalism" could shed the suffix "ism" which did a lot of damage to the originating term of 'commune'(a Biblical term)to the later use of the term 'Communism'. ( please don't get me wrong, I don't support communism, its just an example to show how some "isms" acquired a bad name.) Hence, Capitalocracy could benefit a Democratic Social and might 'put the brakes' on 'hoarding, a medium of exchange', that must circulate to the benefit of the social structure, that gave it its arising. Again, don't get me wrong, there would still be plenty of profits for the Capitalists, but the 'hoarding' would be less justifiable by words as "I did it on my own", "its my money", "I am a hard worker and you are lazy". The truth is that none of the above statements justify 'success in the economy'. The only justification is that those individuals live in a democracy where Capitalism, or better yet, Capital-ocratic activity can be pursued. Try it in an Autocratic government.

Democracy and Capitalism may be antithetical in principle, but they can function together.

Democracy and Capitalism may be antithetical in principle, but they can be made to function more harmoniously. Of course, the initiating principles must be kept separately, but the end-result can become more democratic. Capitalism, in such a case, would function in a manner that would promote democratic institutions. If that should occur, it could even be described as Capital-ocracy. Capitalocracy would insure that the 'end results' of Capitalistic activity would inure to the benefit of 'Freedom and Equality', in such a way, as to benefit, in a more 'economic manner', the Bottom of government. This 'move' would indirectly limit the amounts of money that are usually taken out of circulation and would allow democratic institutions to flourish. Of course, this approach to better merging the results of economic activity at the Bottom, within the Nation that gave rise to it, would depend on the individuals initiative. Unfortunately, that impacts on the 1% and that may not be a very welcome move. Nevertheless, it leads to less greed by the individuals at the Top 1%, and many others, and more Democracy for the individuals at the Bottom. 'Capitalism' within a Democracy would not be an 'ism'; it would be a Capitalocracy. That would not be a 'trickle down' economy, instead its practice would strengthen the social institutions at the Bottom; the institutions that help integrate the 'condition of togetherness' which constitute the essence of Democracy. Those 'institutions' would be, jobs, health benefits, food, fair wages, veterans benefits, homes, and other democratic opportunities. A democracy should not have 'homeless' people. Some of these 'moves' would effect 'outsourcing' to other Nations and the avoidance of taxation by off-shore banking, etc.. The goal of a Capitalocracy would be to keep as much economic activity within the Nation, as is possible, and to stop outsourcing for the sole benefit of a larger profit, and to keep the economic benefits within the Nation that gave rise to those profits. Capitalism flourished in a democratic economy; now its time to pay back. We need a Capitalocracy.

Its not Democracy vs. Capitalism; its Democracy and Capitalism

We have also said that the two principles must be kept separate. Capitalism should not 'mingle' in the democratic principles or get involved in politics, for the 'sole purpose', of augmenting profits. It must be kept separate, but that is not to say that the People cannot benefit from the 'results' of Capitalism. A capitalistic principle creates profits for the Individuals who own or share in the instruments, or the owners of the instruments, of the activity; usually a corporate structure. However, it could become possible that the 'profit venture' should benefit those who will buy or use the product, and that, the activity can be organized, to benefit the Bottom of government. 'Profits' or simply money, should benefit those who help the venture by buying and using the products and by creating jobs, income, wages, and homes for the People in the Nation first, and then, the International sphere. This is not a 'hand-out' scheme; its a balancing scheme where the Triad of government benefits by having economic activity contributing towards a 'balanced triad', viz. a well, economically, balanced, Bottom, strongly supporting a Democratic Top by means of its economic activity. All nations have and need an economic activity. The problematic arises when an individual is overcome with personal 'greed' instead of allowing a medium of exchange, money, to circulate as it was meant to do, and as it must. Instead the 'few', hoard the 'money part' of the capitalistic activity, for the 'simple reasons', of having more of the same, and possibly, to make the top of the Forbes list. How ironic, Government is designed to govern the 'condition of togetherness', in a 'condition of togetherness', and Capitalism 'degenerates' from the 'condition' into an individual emphasis against the 'condition' and basically, 'gives birth' to economic greed. An individual can have as much money as s/he pleases, as long as its not at the expense of the democratic principles, of Freedom and Equality. The oft repeated and sometimes 'ridiculed' phrase of "trickle-down economics" is more real than appears. That is to say, the abstract term sounds silly, but the reality has never really taken place. Actually, money always seems to 'trickle up'. If the principle of 'Capitalism' was properly generated and used, nothing would have to 'trickle'; it would be a 'whole' effect. Unfortunately, that takes individual effort, and the 'haves' are not about to help the 'have-not'. That seems to be the 'crime' of humanity; to aspire to be on the Forbes list instead of the 'Freedom and Equality' of the human condition. Truly, Democracy is the best government around; and its certainly, not perfect; but it must do better. Democracy should not be overcome by Capitalism. Democracy 'helps' Capitalism by protecting Freedom and Equality; why can't Capitalism help Democracy by being a Capital-ocracy?

Can racial descrimination be 'controled' in a democracy.

The human condition is a 'universal phenomena' and it is the 'same' everywhere. No one can make distinctions about 'life'. No one has 'more' life than another, and no one has a 'better', more genuine life, flowing through his/her veins than another. Of course, in a democracy, every individual is Free and Equal. S/he is free to think as S/he pleases. But, remember that the Many individuals living at the Bottom, in a 'condition of togetherness', must have Government. Hence, the factors for control in a 'condition of togetherness' are different from the factors that motivate individuals. Government becomes necessary because of the Many, and government must assume control of the 'condition of togetherness', hence, government must 'control' racial discrimination within the 'condition of togetherness'. Government cannot assume the prejudicial attitudes of the individual towards another, and the duty of government is to 'govern' through Law and Order, within the 'condition'. Law and Order becomes necessary because the values that govern a 'condition of togetherness' in a Democracy are the Freedom and Equality of each and everyone. Since Government is neutral, when it comes to 'personal preferences', it must acquire control over the entire 'condition of togetherness', and that means there can be no discrimination among, and between, individuals in the 'condition'; and furthermore, government must have laws to control 'personal preferences' viz. discrimination. Government is different from an individual, and although an individual is Free to think as s/he wishes, Government is not free to 'think' and 'do' as it wishes; and neither are the individuals who are functioning in a Representative capacity. Racial discrimination between individuals is an unfortunate attitude, and its 'harmful' to the 'condition of togetherness', and it can only arise within an individual who doesn't understand the equality of 'life', as a real human being, nor the requirements of a 'civil' Society. All human beings are equal, no one is more 'human' than another. Therefore the 'practice' or 'support' of racial discrimination by a democratic government, or the legislation of Laws that have a 'preferential bend' is highly inappropriate. Justice Sotomayor is correct and her courage in stating the fact must be respected. How sad, that the Supreme Court cannot see any further than their 'individual preferences'. A 'democratically blind' Supreme Court can only lead to an Oligarchy or a Plutocracy. May the 'spirit' of the Dissent live on. Hopefully, a 'spark' in the direction of 'Real' democracy will catch fire.

Its one thing for a Nation to call itself a Democracy; another to be a 'real' democracy.

Its one thing to claim to be a Democracy; quite another to actually be a real Democracy. The political term "Democracy" is an abstraction which applies to the form and organization of 'governing' of any one particular Nation. That government has People at the Bottom, in the millions, who constitute the 'essence' of democracy. A Democratic form of government always places the Rights of the People as the sole purpose for its activity. No government has 'any considerations' or duties to perform, other than those that apply to, and benefit, the People. Of course, there will be activity that 'purely' reflects on the government structure and not on the People. But these activities usually apply to administrative duties, and possibly even to 'shows of strength', on the International sphere, but, that being said, even those activities 'indirectly reflect' on the Many individuals at the Bottom. A 'government' cannot protect itself. A government needs People to support it, and to help 'represent' the Nation, when necessary, to protect itself. All government activity involves the People; or its not government activity. Simply put, Governments cannot act on its own behalf, it can only act as a 'representative' of its People, and as such can only act on behalf of the People. That's why, its primary duty for even existing, is to represent the People; it has no other purpose for existing. All democratic activity is for the benefit of the People. Period! Hence, legislation and law must help the millions at the Bottom. A Democratic arrangement of government, the economy, and the Social, is one structured to help 'all the people' at the Bottom; that means, opportunities, work, jobs, income, health benefits, homes, and what's wrong with a little recreation? A problem arises when Leaders in a democracy begin to think in some 'politically' warped manner instead of a 'Representative' manner. Of course, there are Nations that call themselves Democratic, that don't care about their People, and don't provide for them. They become Nations with leaders that act on behalf of themselves and with the goals of acquiring more territory, or acquiring more 'power'. Some individuals begin to 'think' in economic terms, or in terms of increasing their money, their possessions, or assuming positions of power within the Nation, so as to legislate policy that will increase their already vast amounts of money; that would be the 1%, the Plutocrats, the Oligarchs, or just simply, the non-democrats. Where are the Statesmen?

The 'problem' with Democracy is democracy.

One must be very careful how one uses verbal terms; especially terms that refer to political 'structures', 'political systems', or, on a more practical level, simply 'politics'. All forms of government are abstractions at the Top; and there is no difference between one abstraction and another. In the same manner, the term 'politics' applies to all the different ways of 'practicing' or implementing the different political ideologies. But, for now, we are focusing on the term "Democracy". The term, "Democracy" is also an abstraction but, the term applies to the 'theoretical' level of the structure set up to implement the ideology. The 'actuality', i.e. the actual effects of the implementation of the term, takes place at the Bottom of the governmental triad. As we have said, the Bottom of the governmental structure, is where the People reside in a 'condition of togetherness'. Its possible for a government to be a Democracy at the Top and not be a democracy at the Bottom. This is the problematic. The People at the Bottom must 'live' the democracy on a daily basis. That individual at the Bottom is 'Free and Equal', as is any other individual, within the same system; and that includes the individual who has been 'elevated' to the Top, to do the 'governing'. In a Democracy, all individuals are Free and Equal, in a real way. Each individual has her/his own life and is free to 'live' it. Governmental structures cannot interfere with that expression of the 'living condition'. Actually, government has a duty to protect and defend the 'living conditions' at the Bottom. Governments are necessary because the human beings are too numerous and need guidance to live side by side in the 'condition of togetherness'. However, that does not entitle the theoretical structure of government to implement policy and law that does not respect the integrity of the human condition. The human condition is sacred and should not be manipulated or demeaned politically, by policy or law, nor by any governmental structure. Democracy at the Top is theoretical ,but at the Bottom, it is actually lived by the People. That should be the case. But, is it always true? Of course, not. Many policies and laws that are applied to the people create problems, instead of resolving problems. Those policies and laws should be rewritten to reflect 'life' at the Bottom. If that is not the case, they should be abolished. 'Life' at the Top is never a problem; the problems are always at the Bottom. That's why real democracy is about People; the policies and the laws may be good, and if so, they have to be implemented, and secondly; they have to actually be 'lived' by the People who live at the Bottom.

The first duty of a Nation to its People, is to provide a decent livelihood

The sole purpose of government is to govern, and 'governing' means to provide a decent livelihood for its People. I understand that economics is involved, but Capitalism is here to stay. How best to govern, than to provide a 'livelihood', good health, and shelter, etc., for the People. Of course, there's other aspects to governing, but isn't a Nations duty primarily to protect and defend the people it governs. Government should not take sides with 'economic ventures' because those activities are motored by a profit motive, and although that motive works in Capitalism, it will not work in governing a Democracy. Government has a duty not to align itself with 'economic ventures', particularly, at the expense of the People. Sure the economy is important, and maybe government should be more involved in the economy, but the important goal of government is a democratic goal; to provide for the Safety and Welfare of its People, and not to make a profit. In a Democracy, this attitude leads to Policy and Programs that benefit the underlying essence of all governments, viz., the People. When a Nation becomes more preoccupied with its relations to Other Nations, instead of its own People, something is not right. Primarily, because its concern should be the Welfare and Safety of its own People instead of 'some' project to enlarge its geographical parameters or to acquire power over another Nation. Of course, there is always the 'necessary posture' of 'defense', but otherwise, its concern should be the Safety and Welfare of its People. Unfortunately, the economic system, or Capitalism, is not motored by such an attitude. The 'Safety' of a Nations People is the safety within the National sphere and the Safety within the International sphere. The 'Welfare' of a Nations People is the physical, economic, and domestic welfare of the individuals within the National sphere and the 'Welfare' within the International sphere. Truly, the first duty of a Nation is to provide for the Safety and Welfare of its People, and that includes the economic welfare of its People. There is no room for a 1%; for a 'Plutocracy'; or for an 'Oligarchy'. A democratic system is motored by the Freedom and Equality of each and every individual and, if such is not the case, maybe its time to invoke the First Amendment and begin to 'peaceably assemble' our 'collective minds', at least, and bring about a real 'attitudinal change', and then, a 'real change' into a real democracy.

A Nations first duty is to its own People.

A Nations first duty is to its own People. Obviously, on the International level, a Nation has no business interfering with the 'governing' of any neighboring Nation. Of course, every Nation is free to govern its People as it sees fit. However, its one thing to 'govern' a People, and quite another, to abuse or attempt to destroy, the human condition within its boundaries, which 'human condition' is the essence of every government. Of course, no Nation sets out to intentionally destroy its own People. So the question is always why is a Nation having problems with its own People? Certainly all human beings should have a right to complain about how its government is treating the People. In a real Democracy, the People have a right to "petition the government for redress of grievances". Unless the changes are made, this Right can easily turn into a revolution. Of course, all governments are usually better 'armed' or 'equipped' than the so-called 'revolutionaries'. This scenario raises difficult problems. The reason for these problems is the 'inequality' of the different sides. But, that is the nature of revolutions. The problem arises when the government-side decides to quell the revolution with 'violent-means'. Revolutions should bring about a re-assessment of democratic values, not a suppression of the revolution, and a continuation of the same value-system; a value system that caused it in the first place. A violent suppression merely causes a re-alignment of forces. The result is an already 'divided-up social' becomes 'more divided-up' and entrenched and the 'tension' merely continues. Problems should be resolved, not made worse. However, on an International scale the issue that arises is the duty' of the other nations, when the nation uses force and 'unfair' means of quelling a revolution. Certainly, a Nation that uses chemical-weapons against the revolting citizens does not get any respect from neighboring Nations. What is the duty of the neighboring Nations? Of course, one always hopes that a Nation can resolve its own governing problems, but if the revolt reaches a point where unfair or chemical weapons are being used by the government, no Nation can accept that as an expression of the governing process. Every nation should resolve its own problems. All other Nations should 'mind their own business'. But, no Nation has to 'put up' with the annihilation of the human race. To be sure, People need 'governing', but if that Nation is 'not governing', who needs that Nation.

A 'rich' Nation cannot survive, if the 'greater' part of its People live in poverty.

To say that "a Nation is rich", is an abstract statement. To begin with, the concept of the Nation or the "State" is itself considered a 'fiction'. I assume this last statement means that the concept is abstract because it does not exist as a 'concrete thing'. To be sure, it applies to a geographical area that has limits and, the Nation to which the concept applies, is 'well established' and 'well defined'. Nevertheless, the concept itself; Nation, State, or Country, is an abstract term that applies to a 'political entity' that exists in a well circumscribed geographical area as a 'real' source of 'political power'. This rationale may not be sufficient to justify the use of the term, 'Fiction', but the main thing to consider, is that the term refers to an 'abstract entity'. When we call a Nation 'rich', we are referring to an abstraction that refers directly to a 'political entity' as a whole. But, no 'Nation' can exist without 'a People', hence no Nation can be rich, if the greater part of its People live in poverty. How can an 'abstraction' be considered 'rich', if the essence of the entity, to wit; the 'People', live in poverty? That does not make sense. I do not refer to a situation where all the People within any 'rich' Nation are equally 'rich'. But, I do refer to a situation where the 'greater part of the People' live in poverty, i.e. without homes, without work, without funds, without health-care, without education, and, the gravest problem of all, without food. How can a Nation be said to be rich and have poverty-stricken Peoples? That's a weak Nation, not a strong Nation. The problems with a weak Nation is that it could have, both, 'International problems', as well as, 'National problems'. If such a Nation cannot resolve its National problems, it could deconstruct from within. People are important. They cannot be ignored for long. Once, People understand that they are the essence of any one Nation, they understand that they are the 'strength' of that Nation. A Nation without the support of its People is a weak Nation. It cannot 'fight' too long, on both fronts.

A political system that abuses its People is abusing its own strength.

A political system has power over its own People, but, it does not have power over the People of other political systems. On an International scale, any one government, or, any one Nation, has the same 'power as a Nation', as any Other Nation. On an International scale, all Nations have the same Integrity and political power, as any Other Nation. In other words, Internationally, all Nations are Equal and all Nations should be respected as Equal entities of equal power. However, its different, when any one Nation claims to be more powerful than any Other Nation or begins to flex its political muscles in the International community. Obviously, that should never be the case, because as Nations, they are all equal. Nations are institutionally of equal power and, within the International community, they are Free and Equal in the same manner as individuals are Free and Equal within any one democratic Nation. However, all Nations also possess 'strength'. A Nation that abuses its own People, for whatever reason, can never have 'strength' in its competition with Other Nations. A Nation with 'abused People' is a weak Nation. That's why every Nation should protect and respect the integrity, Freedom and Equality, of its own People. Although every Nation has political power over its People, it must also have the 'strength of its People' in order to hold together. Otherwise, it becomes weak. Sure, technology has taken over the 'war machine', but without People, no Nation can hold together. Eventually, a Nation that abuses its People, will self-destruct. Technology and Weapons of Mass Destruction can never rule a world, they can only destroy it. The World without People is not a World. In every case, whether Nationally, or Internationally, the World is about People; its about humanity in a 'condition of togetherness' trying to get along. Regardless, the Nationality, color of skin, race, wealth, or religion, the human condition has an 'innate strength', and every human Individual has a 'strength' that must express its 'Life energy' as a human being. People are real; governments are not. No government can touch that; whether on a National or on an International scale, the human condition is sacred, Free and Equal. Its time for governments to understand that without People, a Nation is weak. Sooner or later, you will self-destruct. Humanity cannot be held back.

Democracy can work, if it stops substituting "profits" for Freedom and Equality

Its one thing to say "we are democratic" and another for the Legislation and the Judiciary, to 'favor' the rich. The first statement refers to the system of government, the second statement refers to an economic 'activity' or to 'preferential treatment'. The political position that a government cannot regulate the 'appearance' of favoritism is to miss the point. Its not an 'appearance', its an activity. The activity actually takes place, its an 'activity' which is being 'distributed' within the political domain. Of course, that 'activity' and 'distribution' refers to the 'medium of exchange' or money. This political move facilitates and heavily favors the top 1%. We are headed towards a Plutocracy. Well maybe, if a Plutocratic Nation finds itself involved in a War, in the near future, it can enlist all the wealthy people or the 1% to fight the war 'on the ground'. After all, it will be their Nation. In such a case, surely, there will not be any legislation that will 'benefit' the 99%, so maybe the Plutocrats will fight for their 'Freedom and Equality'. Forget it, its not going to happen. That's the danger of Plutocracy. It's only a 'limited' form of government. In a democracy, where the Plutocrats have taken over the form of government, the end political result is simple 'abuse'. Plutocracy is economic abuse of the 99% by the top 1%. How easily, they forget that even Plutocratic Nations must live among many other Nations on the International sphere. That's one of the dangers a Nation runs in being 'greedy' and in 'substituting economic values' for the democratic values of Freedom and Equality. It becomes vulnerable. That's why democracies are about People, all the People, and about each individuals Freedom and Equality. To be sure, the millions of People, in a Democracy, will fight for 'their' Freedom and Equality', because its 'their' freedom and equality that is in danger. In a democracy, its not about how much money any one has, its about being able to live 'too its fullness' in Freedom and Equality. How can anyone living in Freedom and Equality, not fight for their Nation? How can anyone be expected to fight so that the 1% can enjoy their luxuries. We have actually seen how some individual Rulers were living in 'golden Palaces' while their People were practically starving. Why are human beings so callused against other human beings. Sadly, the political problem has its roots in a human problem. Democracy is a 'theoretical structure', and if it functions the way it should, it will work. But, it must be made 'real'. If its abused, we're headed for trouble.

In Democracy, the People 'confers' power to the Top; in Autocracy, the Top 'assumes' power over the People.

Most forms of government, if they were arranged properly, would not be problematic. The individuals at the Top of government are the ones who are 'problematic'. Truly, a Democratic form of government is the best form, because it delineates, in a more clear manner,the source of the power of government. As you know, in democracy, the People confer power by electing an individual into office. It's the individual, or Leader, who becomes responsible for the exercise of power, as a Nation, and as a Government. In a Democracy, the People grant power to the Top, but, only for a short period of time; and by a division into Three Branches, they also have 'Checks and Balances' over the exercise of that power. In Autocracies, regardless of how anyone got to the Top, the Bottom of government, or, the People, are at the mercy of the Leaders ability to handle 'Power'. Obviously, many Leaders and individuals cannot handle power; to be sure they know how to 'wallow in its glory', but when it comes to exercising power on behalf of the Nation, they get entangled with 'personal wishes and desires' that are completely unrelated to an equitable manner of governing a large body of Peoples. At a very basic level of government, governmental 'misbehavior' is individual misbehavior. Its sad to see individuals who have been 'given', or who have 'assumed', tremendous 'chunks' of political power, and who abuse the duty to govern and all because of some personal preferences, or wishes, or desires, that the People are completely unaware of. Individuals at the Bottom of government are not, normally, motivated by 'power'; but they surely can understand being 'discriminated against' in whatever form, that might take. Not to even mention, the young people who become necessary as soldiers, in a 'condition of war'. So, what's wrong with the 'National logic' of a Nation? 'National logic' is not the same as 'individual logic'. And since a political Office also has a duty to represent the People in an International sphere, why do some 'Leaders' think in terms of 'personal, individual logic, instead of a National, International logic. Obviously, the reasoning is different on the two levels, and we cannot reduce these two levels of interaction, down to a 'childish level' of, " my Dad can beat up your Dad". Its sad to see individuals who should be on very high levels of intelligence, as representatives of millions, and who engage in 'activity' that has a potential for war. " Listen to the People", and understand, that you have the highest, most noble duty, to Represent, respect, and protect the human condition.

Land, gold, and then, oil were 'early' stages of growth in the founding of many Nations.

First there was 'Land'; a 'new' Land, then there was gold (originally, a basis for a new medium of exchange, money), and then there was oil; all of which formed a foundation for the establishment of many a 'new Nation'. Of course, now there is a different technology; the Internet; the 'computer' world; a world made possible by the quantification of language into 'bits'. Today, we live in a more 'intact' world. National boundaries have been 'erased'. Language and human communication has gone International. We are all 'neighbors'. One would think that a more broad, larger, 'condition of togetherness', of human beings, would be possible and would enhance the 'possibility' of 'neighbors', to become, maybe, 'brothers' and 'sisters'. What has happened? Well, we have regressed. The International sphere is now fighting over Land and using Oil as a tool for intimidation and wrecking havoc on other Nations. The problem is 'governmental power', and mostly the 'desire of governments' to continue the fighting over the initial basis of 'National integrity'; Land, Gold, and Oil. Truly, we have regressed, but its a regression that applies to abstract political entities, called Nations; and Nations only function with 'power'. Nations have power over their own 'Peoples'; but, instead, they 'express' this power over other Nations. Every Nations power is dependent on its own Peoples. Without its People, it cannot have power. There is no such political entity. A political entity cannot exist without its Peoples. And hence, a Nation can never, or, should never, 'express power' over Other Nations. Political power exists only within the confines of any one Nation. Relations between Nations is more of a 'Neighborly' affair, or a 'brotherly' affair. That's why each Nation with 'power' has an identity as a political entity. So, what is the 'job' of the United Nations? To keep the peace! Every Nation 'with power' that comes 'together as Nations' into the form called, The United Nations, cannot grant power, to the entity called The United Nations. They form into a larger 'group' of Nations by 'agreement' and 'consent' to be governed as a group of separate Nations. Nations cannot grant power to a larger entity because only the People of any one Nation can grant power to govern to its own political entity. That's the only source of political power there is. There is no such thing as a grant of power from one Nation to another. So what's the problem. The problems, obviously, are the so-called Leaders of each Nation. The problem is an individual's problem; one that arises from the human condition. How sad. 'Representatives' of Peoples are still fighting that old problem of 'needing' more Land; more 'gold' (money); and more Oil. Will the human condition ever learn. Truly, the human condition is headed towards self-destruction; and it won't be a 'governments fault'; it will be an individuals fault; a simple failure of the mixture of power and 'personality'.

The most important 'institution' in the world( government) is being misused.

How can the most important institution in the world be misused? The structure of Government is an abstraction, but exists only to become 'practical'. Otherwise, there would be no need for government. Since, the People at the Bottom of government are the 'governed', it is vital that 'governments' function properly because, their sole aim is to 'govern' their People, not to 'govern' other Nations nor to 'quarrel' with other political entities. At what point do Nations go beyond the bounds of their proper self-interest. At what point, do they 'extend-over' into the 'proper functioning' of the Other Nations? We still see Nations 'fighting' over geographical areas that do not pertain to them. I can understand the so-called 'possessiveness' of a Nation over its own 'National structure' or geographical area, particularly when it comes to responding to 'aggressive behavior' by the Other Nation. However, what happens when the Peoples of any one Nation have 'revolted' and formed their own 'Nation'? What right does the 'mother' Nation have in attempting to bring it back into the 'fold'? It doesn't have that right, because the People have 'spoken'. But, what rights or obligations does that scenario give to the other Nations? Do they have a right to interfere? The problematic at the International level, should be 'handled' by a United Nations form of government. Does a United Nations have a right to interfere when any one 'mother' Nation is interfering with the 'newly formed' Nation? Absolutely. But, where is the United Nations? If a United Nations is not responding to some atrocity, do the Other Nations have a right to respond? There is the problematic. Does a Nation have the right to interfere when the 'essence' of government is being harmed or destroyed? Governments are about People; not about Other Nations. Sadly, abstract differences often lead to 'practical difficulties'. In a Nation they lead to 'revolution'; in the World or a United Nations, they lead to War. How can a 'tool' constructed for the sole purpose of 'governing' the Many, be so misused. Government is only a tool; a necessary 'tool' for 'governing' People. Its somewhat ridiculous for an 'abstract entity' to 'differ abstractly' with Other nations , about 'some International issue', that could cause a war between Nations. People 'never' have a say-so in war; they're just 'dragged' into war. War is not necessary, but neither is the 'destruction' of the 'human conditions of existence'; 'conditions' that make governments necessary. Nations should 'concern' themselves with their own Nation, and should stop 'dabbling' outside their geographical boundary.

Why is Democracy and Capitalism antithetical?

It is important to see the antithetical nature of the two different systems. Don't misunderstand. The two systems are both necessary to a viable Nation and a viable economy. We need them both. But, one is for governing and the other is for producing necessary 'goods' and circulating a 'medium of exchange' within the economy. Without money, the economy is not going to 'move'. Its the 'motor' of the economy and its circulation is necessary. Nevertheless, governing millions of People, is about the Freedom and Equality of the Individual, and those two basic values, or 'qualities', are the only 'political values' that will help the People 'hold together' as a Nation. Otherwise, why live in a 'condition of togetherness'? Of course, everyone will say, "well, where are you going to go? As a practical matter, there's no other place to go. You don't have a choice!" One can argue in that manner, and that may well be true, but, be very careful, because that point of view is completely theoretical and completely misses the point. The point is everyone is born into a political entity or Nation, and that Nation already has its own government, and its own economy. Some are democratic some are not. If you happen to be born into a democracy, do you want to be 'governed' by the principles of an economy? In other words, do you want to be governed by the 'now become Rich', and, the 'now become wealthy', or, the so-called 1%, or do you want to be governed in 'Freedom and Equality'? In a 'government' that has been completely 'taken over' by the rich, or that has substituted the principles of Capitalism, in place of, the principles of Democracy, I assure you, will not have Freedom, nor Equality. Only in Freedom and Equality, is it possible for any one individual to 'achieve something' within the Nation. Otherwise, we are born into 'slavery'. There are many kinds of slavery, and 'economic slavery' is one of them. Where are the jobs, where are the 'opportunities' to achieve a 'certain Equality' that makes us 'Equal' human beings? (This would 'attenuate' the so-called 'classes' in a society). There should be no classes in a society, only Equally Free human beings. Human beings are not divided into classes, only the principles of an economy 'creates classes'. That's precisely why we cannot be governed by economic principles. The economy, as important as it is, has too remain within the economy, and should not infiltrate into the principles of a Democracy. Democracy and 'governing' is about People, the economy is about a 'medium of circulation'. Keep both, but keep them separate. For Gods sake, overturn Citizens United, and keep Democracy viable.

Theoretical Democracy is different from practical democracy.

It is very important to understand the difference between a theoretical Democracy and an actual, practical democracy. A theoretical democracy is merely a verbal 'postulation' or 'arrangement' of the structure of government and the 'political state' of the Nation. Its easy to have a theoretical Democracy at the Top of government, and its easy to 'talk' democracy, but its not so easy to have an 'actual' democracy at the Bottom of government. The reason should be obvious. The Top is general and hence linguistic in nature; whereas, the Bottom is actual, real, and practical in nature; not to mention that the Bottom includes millions of individuals. The relation between the Top and the Bottom must be a 'real' relation; in other words, it cannot just retain its theoretical import and never be reduced down to a practical, applicable, import at the Bottom. That's where the problematic enters, and that's where 'political language', with all its 'misty' meanings also enters. Political language is not an 'accurate' language, or, maybe I should say, is not always used in an accurate fashion. It has not been 'designed' by politicians to be accurate and we have already pointed out that 'persuasion' in politics 'draws' more from the 'advertising media'( persuasion in 'economic' affairs) than it does from the ideological stance of its politics. To be sure, Constitutional language is accurate, but it 'still' has to be interpreted and is 'still being interpreted'. ( here notice, the Citizens case) Hence, the 'problem' with 'political language' is language itself and its 'aversion' to 'practice'. Why is that the case? Because, theory is abstract and practice is real, and practice includes all the individuals at the bottom. We can 'talk' democracy and never 'do democracy'. But, keep in mind that the 'gap', is a necessary gap, and allows 'many things' to be said about theoretical democracy, that may sound 'too critical'; nevertheless, they are necessary. For some strange reason, People are always dividing themselves into separate groups,or Parties. But, it would seem that in a 'political situation', the necessity of 'unity' should be perceived. A nation cannot 'hold' together, if, its too 'divisive'. Great 'Numbers' in a 'condition of togetherness', are essential to the 'strength' of the bottom in any Nation. Hence, its also 'easy' to criticize the 'Top' of a Democracy, (or any other form of government); nevertheless, the Bottom of democracy has to 'live' democracy. One cannot 'live' democracy if s/he is not Free and Equal. Hence, the difference between the Theoretical and the Practical in politics.

If Capitalism is not 'democratic', why mix the two principles?

Democracy is one 'thing', Capitalism is another. If the basis of their proper functioning is not the same principle, then why mix the two. But, be careful; I'm not saying that the two cannot exist side-by side. For sure, they can both exist in a Democracy but, proper 'separation' is essential because democracy functions on the basis of the Freedom and Equality of each individual and Capitalism functions on the basis of 'making profits'. Government must be democratic, while the economy must be 'profitable'. So, what is the problematic? The problematic is 'greed' and the hoarding of the 'medium of exchange'. Money should not 'creep' into politics and democracy should not be 'practiced' for the purpose of making a 'profit'; nor, should seeking political Office be considered as a 'profit venture'. When money seeps into politics, the buying and selling of political offices becomes possible. If only the 'rich' can run for Office, we have the same effect. If money is hoarded, the 'medium of exchange' is not being exchanged. The hoarding of the medium of exchange is, obviously, why we have a 1%. So, how are the two principles kept separate? We have said that the problem is 'greed'. Greed is not a characteristic of the political, and it is not a characteristic of the 'proper functioning' of the economy. I say, 'proper functioning' because the 'medium of exchange' must circulate and not be hoarded. 'Hoarding' is even bad for the economy, because it fixates 'profits' in one place and stifles circulation; e.g. the 1%. Hence, money should circulate among the economy at the Bottom of government where all the People live. The bottom line is that 'greed' is a 'human problem'. Its not a political problem, nor, an economic problem. Its a human problem and the 'distorted vision' that 'more and more profits' is essential to living a democratic life of Freedom and Equality. Don't get me wrong; money is essential in both Capitalism and Democracy, but 'hoarding' is not, and democracy is not just for the 'rich'. ( That would be a Plutocracy) Government can get involved in 'helping' the circulation of money; but, the economy cannot 'define' the political. The goal of economics involves the 'use of money'. The goal of democracy, is the Freedom and equality of each individual. The government has a duty to 'govern' the Many; the economy has a duty to make profits. But, keep them separate. Human greed is a 'complete misuse' of the 'instinct' to possess. The 'instinct' to possess means to possess 'life' in Freedom and Equality, more and more life; every human wants 'life', and wants it, for as long as possible. More and more 'economic possessions' and 'greed' reverses the natural energies of 'life'. 'Pace yourself'. We live 'upside down'. Don't turn democracy 'upside down'.