The 'State' or Nation is not a Persona Ficta.

The State, or, the Nation, is not a 'Persona Ficta', if by 'Persona Ficta', is meant a fictional entity; the State cannot be fictional. The Concept of the State or the Nation is real and is the 'verbal tag' attributed to the 'condition of togetherness' in which every Individual finds him/herself in. In other words, the Nation is as real as the Individuals within it, viz., you and I are real and so is the 'condition of togetherness' in which we find ourselves. It is 'not possible' to say that we, as Individuals, are not real- I am real and I think you are too- and hence we, in a 'condition of togetherness', must also be real. If one Individual is real, so must all Individuals. The only difference would be the 'size' of the 'condition of togetherness', or stated differently, the size of the "State" or "Nation". The verbal tag, "State" or "Nation" is merely a notion that identifies all of us in the 'condition of togetherness'. It merely gives us a 'political Identity'. This political Identity describes the political affiliations, type of Government, Nationality, etc., of the citizens within the geographical and legal parameters of a "State" or "Nation". Nevertheless, and in spite of political differences, every real human being has the same 'human nature' as all other human beings. "National", or, "political" differences, does not, and cannot, attribute 'more or less' humanity to the human condition. We are all in the same boat. How often we hear that statement and yet we do not appreciate what it states. States and Nations are different by virtue of 'political Identity' and type of Government, but the 'human condition' is the same in every living Individual, regardless of the difference in the State or the Nation, in which s/he finds him/herself in. The sad part of all this is that, a "State" or "Nation" has 'power' and cannot function without the 'human element'.

Capitalism can flourish in a Democracy; but, it can also lead to Plutocracy.

Capitalism is an economic system that can flourish in a Democracy, but it can also lead to Plutocracy. One of the problems of Capitalism, is that it can attempt to substitute itself in place of democratic principles. I mean, it can consider "money", the end result of organizing in a manner to solely make profits, in lieu of contributing to the general welfare of the Bottom of Government, or, the People at the Bottom of Government. Capitalism is a form of economic organization that must be arranged in a 'right manner', viz., to make profits. Well that's ok, but it must never 'substitute' for the freedom and equality that makes it possible. Without Freedom and Equality, capitalism cannot exist. Yet, it attempts to replace the very spirit that made its existence possible. What happened? Simply, Money and 'making a profit' became 'personal values' to real individuals, that became more important than the Freedom and Equality of every 'real human being' within the Nation. As we know, it even invented' new 'economic persons', viz., corporations, that are protected by the Constitution. The Top 1% hold most of the economic value in existence in the whole economy. Maybe we already live, in a Plutocracy, or, an Oligarchy? Of course, every real Individual in the social is Free to run for Political Office, or, is s/he? Then, why do the candidates need to raise Millions, or Billions, to even think of running for Office? Oh, its simple. Our so-called Democracy has been 'bought' by 'Corporate Governments', and money, and 'real Freedom and Equality' has been burned at the stake, by the inextinguishable fires, of the Profits engine. Democracy is dying; Freedom and Equality no longer matter; what matters now is your Bank Account.

The folly of the Party system.

The establishment of a political Party system could be a valuable asset to government. Unfortunately, the usual result is a division between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots'. If one examines the political postures of two opposing Parties, its not only obvious, but actually 'declared' that the major differences is what they call, "more Government" or "less Government". Unbelievable. Parties, in a Democracy, should be attempting to insure and protect the Freedom and Equality of the Individual, at the Bottom of the governing process. Instead, one Party emphasizes Government and the other wants to do away with Government. In an established Democracy, the issue is never about Government (it already has the best form); its about the People at the Bottom of the governing process. Its not about taking away from 'One' and giving to the 'Other'. Its not that difficult; its about protecting and insuring the Freedom and Equality of every Individual, regardless of Race, color, creed, or economic standing. Just take inventory; is every individual being treated equally and fairly? Race doesn't matter; color of skin doesn't matter; 'belief system' doesn't matter; gender doesn't matter; economic standing ( rich or poor)doesn't matter; and the important thing is, what will either Party do to equalize the economic standing of everyone? Its unfortunate that "money" has replaced "democracy"; but if we live in a 'rich' Nation, why does the 1% hold all the "money"?; why can't more benefits, of all kinds, inure to the benefit of every human being in the Nation? Its unbelievable, a 'Rich Nation' with 'huge pockets' of People who are 'dis-enfranchised', poor; needy; sick; helpless; hungry; and 'homeless'. Oh, we have already set aside a social separate 'linguistic category' for the "homeless"; they are the 'ones' who live under bridges, etc.( of course, they are included, but that's not what I mean). No! I mean the most 'abused sector' in a Rich Nation, the 99%.

Revolution is the natural Right of every Individual living within any form of Government.

Revolution, is the natural Right of every Individual living within any established Nation or Government. Of course, in a Democracy, that Right is protected by its Constitution. A Democratic Government, having being properly established, provides for the protection and the insuring of the Freedom and Equality of every Individual living within its borders. Under the establishment of such a proper political organization, every individual retains his/her Right to revolution. No Individual, living alone on some remote Island, needs a Government, and no 'Government' can assume 'control' of such an Island, and purport to govern said individual. One Individual does not need Government, and no Government can assume forceful control of the human condition in its natural condition of existing. But, once the lone Individual begins to live with 'many Individuals' in a "condition of togetherness", the need for 'some form' of Government becomes necessary. Hence, the need arises for the establishment of the most 'rightful type' of Government. Of course, a Nation is as much a 'fictional entity' as a corporation. They both need human beings to operate the 'entity'. Nevertheless, a Nation must be properly 'constituted' and the Right to Revolution must be properly protected. That's what the First Amendment of the Constitution does. It protects the Right of every Individual,... "peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". It provides 'protection' from 'both sides' of the Right; the assembly 'must be peaceable', and the 'enforcement by the State' of that right, must also be proper. Its a 'political shame' when neither side knows the 'parameters' of that Right. Its so easy to be violent; its difficult to be democratic. What a shame.

Law is a necessary institution in every Democracy.

The Legal system is a necessary institution in every Democracy. Without Law, there can be no Order. Without Order a social is in disarray. It is in the very nature of a democracy, that it have a Legal System. The reason for that is because a democracy insures the Freedom and Equality of every Individual in the social. Every Individual is Free and Equal and hence is free to exercise that Freedom and Equality. Of course, the exercise of that Freedom and Equality must be delineated by Legal and Social rules for every-day and institutional interactions. That's why a social, at the Bottom of Democratic Government, has a Right to revolt, viz., if conditions are such, that the Freedom and Equality of the Individual, are being abused. By the same token, and from the Top of the Top/Bottom relation in every Government, social and Legal rules must be laid down for the purpose of the expression, as well as the protection, of that Freedom and Equality. Hence, the art of Governing requires proper legislative enactments in order to structure a smoothly running social. A 'smoothly running social' needs Law and Order. In turn, Law and Order needs for Individuals to live democratically, morally, and Legally responsible lives. Law is a social institution that structures the expression and the protection of the Freedom and equality of each and every Individual.

The 'enemy' of a Democracy can be its own Economy.

The 'Global' enemy of a Democracy is its own Capitalistic Economy. How can that be? Simply, by having a fine-tuned economy that includes 'legal-fictions' called "corporations", the democratic principle of Freedom and Equality is undermined by the creation of fictional entities that are 'equal' to real human beings. We have endowed the corporate fiction with the same Constitutionally protected principles that apply to real human beings. At one time in our history, some corporate protection may have been necessary, but continued assimilation of the 'attributes' of the 'human condition', are not necessary. That is the judicial attitude that made Citizens United possible. Of course, some protection is necessary, but to say that corporations need protection from human beings is ludicrous; its human beings that need protection from corporations. The Freedom and Equality of the human condition cannot be encroached upon by a 'corporate society'. To go in that 'direction' is to replace 'human society' by a 'corporate society. Of course, some say we already live in a corporate society. Nevertheless, we should not become victims of our own 'creations'. The Freedom and Equality of the human condition is superior to any 'form of Government'; any form of economy; and any 'institutional structure' in the social.

In a Democracy, elections become necessary.

Every Democracy must hold elections. Of course, every Nation has its 'electoral rules'. In a real democracy, each and every Political Party fields its candidates. However, the 'political tensions' sought to be remedied, are not always democratic in nature. Add to this, the fact that, not all political Parties are truly democratic. By this, I mean some Parties favor and support the 'corporate nature' of the 'economy' and the 'social'. It is true, that we need corporations but, politics is an entirely different game. Its not an economic game; its a political game and the rules of politics are very different from the rules of the economy. Nevertheless, at this point we are confronted with the fact that, all political candidates need money, to finance their campaigns, and hence, the entire process favors those with money, or the rich. That's unfortunate, but true. Consequently, what real democratic candidates must learn, is to use money without 'giving-in' to contributors who are wealthy, and who favor economic 'advantages', 'tax' favoritism, and further 'corporate entrenchment', at the expense of human Freedom and Equality. Of course, if we changed the rules and laws to 'compel' corporations to lead a more 'democratic fictional Life', we could get help from corporations to have a more 'truly democratic Life'. As it is now, corporations have no 'democratic duties'. Their sole existence and their sole duty, is to make a profit. All corporations should be 'democrats'.

Every Nation has a Social; every Social has an Economy; every Economy has a value system.

Every Nation has a Social; every Social has an Economy; and every social institution and economic institution has a value system. Of course, these value systems interact with each other at all times. Although they interact with each other, they do not equate to each others value system. Every Social is a 'condition of togetherness' and is constituted by 'real' Individuals and corporations. Of course, corporations are 'legal fictions', and hence not in the same category as a real Individual. Both the 'real' and the 'fictional' within the Social, constitute the Economy. The 'economy' and the 'social' interact with each other, but its important to understand that they function autonomously i.e., each is motored by its own value system. The social is motored by the moral value system of each 'real Individual'. 'Fictional entities', corporations, do not have a 'personal' value system; they have an economic value system or a Market 'value system'. That Market value system is motored by 'profits'. Of course, Democratic Nations all have a Political value system. That value system is the 'Freedom and Equality' of each and every 'real' Individual, or, 'person' within the Nation. The merging of political values and economic values is what screws up the works. The 'moral values' of the real Individual can function with the political values( Freedom and Equality) of the political system; but, the 'Market value system' of 'profits' cannot function within the social or the political. The 'political system' cannot be 'motored by profits'. Each system must retain its 'autonomy' and must be kept separate from the 'Other'. That should probably be a job for the 'interpretive practices' of the Supreme Court, but, obviously, if they decided Citizens, they don't get the picture.

There is a big difference between a 'Political value system' and a 'Human value system'.

Every Nation has a 'political value system', or, stated differently, every political system has a political 'structure'. Every Nation has a 'geographical area', or, a 'Jurisdictional system' that it 'calls' 'its own'. These political values 'define' and describes the Nations political Identity and its 'Governmental system'. Every Nation has a 'political relation' to its 'own People' and to the International sphere. But, regardless the differences in the Political systems, every Nation has a People. At this point of 'intersection' between the National and the International, the 'human race' has a huge problematic. Should the 'political value system' be imposed on the 'human value system'?, or, should the 'human value system' be imposed on the 'political value system'? You may think, that issue is frivolous, but is it? Every Nation is 'born' with 'political power'. It can do what it 'wants' with its People and on the International scene. Every human being is born 'helpless' and 'incomplete'; and must learn to live in a 'condition of togetherness' within 'every' National boundary, and must respect his-her neighbor. The 'togetherness' referred too in the 'last', is that of the Nation. If a human being must 'learn' to live together, why can't a Nation? Nations have advantages over humans, because they are 'born' with Power and can immediately assert their 'autonomy' and their 'antagonisms'. Of course, in a Democracy, it's assumed that a Democracy 'respects' the human condition, but, is that truly the case? Politicians vie for political office and then assert their 'individual' or 'Party preferences', which, unfortunately, is more 'economic' than 'human, instead of the 'most human'. Politically, we are different; humanly, we are the same.

Democracy is a theoretical structure; but, without 'Peoples' , it's useless.

Democracy is a theoretical structure; but, without its People, it cannot function. But, remember, so is every other form of Government. The problems arise when a Government must 'act' as a Government, on behalf of the People, or as a unified representative of the People. This last sentence applies to every Government in the World. But, some Governments are democracies and some are not. The problematic 'kicks in' when the Government, as representative of 'its People', acts within the larger domain of the International sphere. The issue then becomes; " was that a purely Government activity",i.e., one where the activity does not 'reflect' on the 'Individuals' living within the Nation, e. g. where a Nation establishes "Trade" relations with another Nation.( of course, all trade regulations will eventually 'seep down' to the People.) But, I use the word 'reflect', in a much more direct manner. For example, " a declaration of War", or, activity 'that could precipitate a War'. Extreme cases, I'm sure, but indicative of a 'direct connection' with the People. In a Democracy a Leader must consider, or should consider, the opinions of its People. In an Autocracy, or in any other form of Government, that is not 'Representative' of its People, the Leader acts with little or no concern for the People. To be sure, there will be 'economic concerns', 'technological concerns', ' allies', 'atomic weapons', etc., but the last concern, if any, will be the People. A Democracy will have all those concerns, but the main concern should be the welfare of its People. After all, its People who fight Wars, and in a Democracy, 'elections' always 'loom' in the future. Autocrats don't worry about elections; they worry about Revolutions and acquiring 'more advantages' on the International sphere. An interesting question arises; are Autocracies more 'efficient' Internationally?, or, are Democracies more 'efficient' Internationally?. "A can of worms", to be sure, but, an inquiry worth pursuing. Maybe later.

A Democratic Governemnt has a Three Branch structure, but each Branch is 'run' by 'People'.

A Democratic Government has a Three Branch Structure. The Top, or Executive Branch 'governs' the People at the Bottom. The Bottom are all the People in their 'condition of togetherness', 'each' of whom lives in Freedom and Equality. The Third Branch is the Judicial, which is the 'Interpretive Branch' which interprets the Laws that hold the Nation together. Of course, each Branch is put into 'motion' by the same People who constitute the 'Governed'. In other words, a Democratic Government is a Government 'of People'; 'by People'; and 'for the very same People who are the Governed. A Democracy is a Government that gets its Power to govern from the People it Governs. There is no other source of Power to Govern. Without People, a Nation with 'Power' cannot exist. From where will it get its 'Inception'; from where will it get its Power? Who will it govern, if not the People living in a 'condition of togetherness'? There are no 'empty Nations'; no 'geographical areas' that can be considered as 'institutions of Power', if those areas have no 'Peoples'. No! Only the 'People' in their 'condition of togetherness' can 'grant Power' to the Top of a Governing Institution. People existed before Nations, and if we are to have institutions called 'Nations', it better be one constituted by the People. Of course, we're down to the 'great problematic' of Government, namely the People who occupy the Branches of Government. Fortunately, Democracy is the best form of Government there is; unfortunately, some People misplace the 'aura of Power' in themselves, instead of in the 'form of Government'. There's nothing wrong with Democracy; its the People who 'run' it.

Once established, a Democracy has no problems; all its problems become 'People' and 'Party' problems.

Democracy is a political structure. Its a structure established by all the People; where the People themselves constitute both the 'instituted Government' and the 'governed'. The institution of government, or the political structure, becomes a "given" of every-day existence. The problems become the People themselves and how they 'use' the 'system of government'. Of course, the political structure is an invariable abstraction, but the People in their 'individuality' are different. Herein enters the 'humanity', of every system of Government. Every system of Government, is composed of both, a 'political structure', whether democratic, or not, as well as 'a People', 'living in a condition of togetherness'. Well, one would think that once a democracy is formed, there will be no political problems, because the 'political' will be the 'same mind-set' as the 'Peoples mind-set', but that is not the case. The first thing People do is divide-up into different Parties, each with a different 'ideological mind-set'. It seems that once 'humanity' is allowed to live in 'Freedom and Equality', they divide-up into warring factions. The question arises, "is this an argument against Democracy"? No! absolutely No. But, it is a sad reflection of the mind-set of Individuals and their inability to handle 'political power'. Nevertheless, at least, we reduce the 'problems of existence' from a 'Governmental System' to a 'Human problematic'. The problems of Politics are human problems.

In a 'democratic economy', the 'People' have duties to 'democratic laws and principles'; so should the 'Corporate Persons'.

In a Democracy, the People must adhere to democratic principles. Of course, the People are Free and Equal within the system, but, if they should drift away from democratic principles, they must contend with the structure of the social, and the attendant laws that governs activities within the social and the economy. That basic rule applies to every Government. People must live according to the established ideology and the established social and economic practices of the society. That is one of the problems within the economy in a democracy. Any kind of 'legal control' over economic activity would be considered socialistic, and hence, not good. And that might be the case, if government was to acquire control over the 'profits motor' of the corporation. But, that's not what I'm saying and that's not the issue. The issue is that corporations are considered 'persons' under Constitutional protection, and that's also well and good. But, the fact is that corporations cannot be punished like a human being can be punished for violating the laws of their society, and that might be good also. But, the problem remains, and that is that corporations are artificial 'persons' who have been 'given' a tremendous economic grasp, but no 'democratic duties'. Of course, an important issue is, "what are 'democratic economic duties,'"? There are no easy answers. Nevertheless, it would seem that if they had 'economic democratic duties' also, there would be 'less concentration' of monies within the corporate structure, and hence, less inclination to hoard money in the top 1%. Now, to be clear, these democratic principles would not be 'government laid laws', but their own 'corporate laid rules' of functioning, within a democratic society. That is 'not socialism', because it is not governmentally instituted. It would be their 'own democratic manner' of 'existing' within a democratic society, of real individuals and 'legal fictions', living alongside each other. After all, government creates 'legal fictions'. 'Legal fictions' should have duties also, like all 'real people' do. Stop the hoarding, and implement democracy!

The problems in a Democracy are not structural; they are 'People' problems.

A Democracy, 'of the People', 'by the people' and 'for the People', has many problems. Some of those problems can be considered as 'People problems'. By that, I mean, that the 'form' of Government is the best there can be; but, the People themselves 'inject' problems into the structure itself. In other words, given a Democratic form of Government- a good 'workable form'- the People themselves begin to 'divide-up' among themselves. They form 'antagonistic political Parties' that begin to tear the democratic structure apart. Why is it that Parties cannot get together on a common approach to real democracy. For example, a basic principle of democracy is the 'Freedom and Equality' of each and every individual living within the Nation. Yet, we have 'racial discrimination'; 'economic discrimination'; 'class discrimination'; and we have 'gender discrimination'. How can that be justified in a political system that is based on the Freedom and Equality of everyone? A Democracy has a Government, of real People, and for real People, yet Corporations, whose economic 'grasp' is incommensurable, is protected to the extent that 1% of the 'population', if not less, holds all the 'wealth' in the Nation. We give lip-service to Freedom and Equality, yet are rife with 'discriminations' of all kinds. There's nothing wrong with the 'form' of the Government; its the 'representatives' who run it. The 'politicians' cause the divisions among themselves; they divide into antagonistic Parties, and proceed to rip democracy asunder.

Democracy and Capitalism are very important; but the People in the Democracy are more important.

The reason Democratic Government is important is because it is a Government, Of People, By People, and For the People. The most important aspect is the governing aspect because the Government must govern 'for the People'. A Government should never Govern for 'the Government'. The reason is because Government would not exist, but for the People. Actually, in a Democracy, the People run the Government, and that fact, places a very high responsibility on the Individuals in Office. Why is it that People in Office fail to represent their constituents and become more concerned with their political positions of Power? Simply put, many Office holders cannot handle political Power, and hence succumb to self-aggrandizement. That results from the shift from a political value, to an economic value. Economic values should not drive political power. Only the political values of Freedom and Equality can drive a Democracy. If economic values are more important in a Political system that calls itself a Democracy, its actually closer to being a Plutocracy. When Democratic values 'motor', and rule, in a Democracy, the whole political and social system benefits from the economic status of the Democracy. We cannot substitute economic values in place of democratic ones. The economy cannot drive a Democracy. A so-called Democracy that places 'more value' on economics, than on the Freedom and Equality of a democracy, is just a Plutocracy in disguise.

There comes a time when Government must ask itself, "what can I do for my People"?

There comes a time when 'Government' must ask itself, "what can I do for my People? Obviously, the need for Government is always present because there are 'Many' people and People need Government. If People and Corporate Institutions, are Free and Equal, they are free to inquire, produce, manufacture, better and better living conditions and better 'products'. 'Technology' and 'computational skills' advance very rapidly. The 'employees' and the 'economic positions', are being replaced by technology and computerized 'advances'. In other words, real People are finding themselves out of a job, or out of a 'position', in the economy. Government and advancing technology, are becoming more dependent on new technological developments, and less dependent on real People, and Government must ask itself, what are we going to do with the 'work force'? The 'assembly line' no longer needs People, it needs technology and technology is producing better and better products. Technology has replaced the human being in our societies and in our economy. So, what happens to the real People? That's why I say, Corporations need to become more 'democratic', and Government must provide for the human welfare. A Government, and an Economy, and a Social, cannot say, "I don't need People anymore, so I will not provide for their 'General Welfare'. The reason People need Government is because Law and Order and provisions for the General Welfare becomes imperative. There is no other need for Government. Government does not have a 'life' of its own. It cannot exist without People, and if it has People, it has a duty to provide for their General Welfare; that means their health, safety, economic, work, jobs, and subsistence, in general. If a Nation has People, it has a duty to govern them, and to provide for their General Welfare. Governments and Economies cannot say, "we have advanced so much that we don't need People anymore. People need Government, but Government must provide for its People. There's no other need for Government.

Every form of Government must have Power at the Top.

Every form of government must have power at the Top. However, every Government has millions of People at the Bottom. A Government should govern the People at the Bottom, not oppress them. The reason Government must govern is because the People are the real human beings that empower a Government. A Government is only an Institution that exists because it has People. If there are no People to govern, there cannot be a Government. It sounds simplistic, but think about it; can a Government exist if it has no People? Hence, the best form of Government is one that takes care of its People. It does not have to be a Democracy, but it has to care for its People. Stated differently, all People; all human beings, are Free as human beings, and all People are Equally human; hence all People are Free and Equal within any form of Government. Hence, the best form of Government is Democratic, a Government where the People elect those who are to have Power as Governmental representatives, at the Top of the Relation of the One and the Many. A Government, at the Top of the basic Relation of the One and the Many, must have Power, but it cannot forget from where it gets the Power. It gets it from the People, hence, the People should be the Governments primary concern. All Governments should provide for the general welfare, and the economic welfare, of its People.

Democracy cannot be 'changed'. Capitalism can be 'influenced' and hence 'changed'.

Democracy cannot be changed, because the 'People' in their 'condition of togetherness', constitute the 'underlying' essence of the political principle of Democracy. Capitalism can be changed because the 'basic functionary' is the Corporation. As we all know, corporations are recognized as Legal Fictions and are protected by the Constitution. That means corporations are not actually 'real human beings', as are the 'real People' that constitute the essence of democracy. A corporation is constituted by its Articles of Incorporation, that spells out the nature of the Corporation, and which functions by means of its by-laws, and in accordance with corporate laws. Well, Capitalism is a form of economic activity that is driven by the profits engine. Corporations are the creation of the State. Hence, the way to influence economic activity is to influence the manner in which the corporation functions. Of course, we 'cannot influence' the 'profit engine' because that is its main 'motor'. It can't function without it. Hence, we must structure the corporation in such manner that it becomes a 'good citizen' and functions as a 'real individual' functions in a democracy. This would make corporations more democratic. Hence, corporations would be more 'citizen-like' and less 'greedy'. The 'centerpiece' of most corporate activity is greed. If they are 'given' more democratic principles (after all they are creatures of the State), its possible to 'modify' the 'profits engine', and hence, to make corporations more democratic. A Capital-ocracy can replace a 'meritocracy', or a pure Capitalism that leads to 'greed' by the 1%, and hence, Plutocracy. You can't do away with Capitalism, or the Corporation, but you can influence corporate activity at the very basis of its existence. Government needs more control over its 'Legal Fictions'

Individuals living in a Nation have 'privacy', Nations do not 'need' nor 'have' privacy.

Individuals, or human beings, all have a 'right to privacy'. That's should be obvious to everyone. Nations, being verbal abstractions and having a 'National Identity', do not have privacy, nor do they need privacy. Their activities are completely 'representational', and hence, have political value only to the extent that they 'represent the Individuals'. Following the same line of reasoning, that the individual is more important than the Nation; the Individual constitutes the 'flesh and bone' of the 'abstract Nation'. Don't get me wrong, the Nation is important, even 'very important'. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the fact that its an 'abstract entity' with tremendous power. But, the individuals 'compose' the Nation; they create a Nation to 'protect', 'provide' and 'organize politically', 'socially', 'legally', and 'institutionally', the General Welfare of the Individual. Nations are 'not' living entities, and since their function is a 'representational one', they cannot have a 'right to privacy'. What does that mean? It means that complete political transparency is essential to the 'representative' function. Nations don't have 'secrets'. They're 'transparent vehicles' for the 'abstract function' of political 'representation' of the human condition. Hence, Nations cannot 'spy' on their own constituents. That would entail an attribution of 'having its own existence' as some 'independent' political entity, with its own 'life' principle. That is ludicrous and cannot be. Sure Nations are important and even, very important, but lets not go overboard. Nations exist because 'real' individuals 'created' them. Nations need to understand the 'political part' they 'play' in the 'representational function' of the political 'condition of togetherness'. Nations cannot 'spy' on the 'privacy' of the Individual. That's a 'wrong use' of 'political power'.

Another problem of democracy are the People themselves.

The most basic problem of Democracy are the People themselves. Its very easy to 'live' in a Democracy, but the People are also obligated to live democratically. What does it mean, to live a democratic life? Living in Freedom and Equality requires that the individuals treat the Other Individual as Free and Equal. I don't mean to give 'lip service' to the slogan, I mean to actually treat your neighbor as equally Free and Equal, as one considers ones own self. One problematic in that area is the issue of racial discrimination. There are no inferior races; nor superior races. There are only human beings. All Human beings are Equally Free and Equally Equal. No Race can claim superiority, and hence, no Race should discriminate against another Race. Racial discrimination in any social manner, is wrong. And since, we must live in a 'condition of togetherness', which means we need Government, no Governmental Institution can, nor should, discriminate against the human condition. A Government that supports social institutions that are discriminatory, should not exist. That's why the Right to assemble is allowed to be in the Constitution. Its no wonder that there are Revolutions. Why is the human condition so weak? Why does it consider its own self, as superior, or better, than the Other. Its obvious that we are all the 'same', and in the 'same boat'. What happened? What happened was that we 'silently' and relentlessly 'slipped' into 'economic standards' that have nothing to do with Political standards. As 'Individuals' we 'became Plutocrats'. We are 'Plutocratic individuals'; hence, no wonder the 'powers that be', want a Plutocratic Government. That would be discrimination by the 'Haves' against the 'Have-nots'. That would not be racial, but equally as harmful. Unfortunately, the problem with people, is People.

A danger to Democracy is a Capitalism that succumbs to its own value system.

A big danger to Democracy is the substitution of the 'political value system' by the 'economic value system' of Capitalism. It goes without saying, that in order for Capitalism to 'work', individuals involved in economic activity must devote themselves to its many functions. Of course, the 'main economic activity' is that of 'making a profit'. Huge 'profits' equals, economic success. However, the success of the economy is dependent on the political value system that encourages economic activity and allows it the 'freedom to function'. The profits are made by 'economic actors', not 'political actors'. Of course, the main difference in the two, is that 'Political actors' are concerned with the Democratic values of Freedom and Equality, while 'economic actors' are concerned with 'making a profit'. Capitalism can thrive in a Democracy. But, and its at this point where the danger arises, Capitalism must not 'substitute' economic values for political values of Freedom and Equality. Its very easy, for the 'rich' to 'feel' that they are in control of the Government. But, the truth is, that its the other way around. Its the political values of Freedom and Equality, that afford it the freedoms of function without obstructions. That is the 'political posture' that grants to corporations their 'fictional existence', and the privilege to 'keep their profits', not to mention, being taxed like a 'real human being' and not as a 'fictitious entity'; Tax 'avoidances' and 'evasions'; and having been 'granted' an 'immortality', free of 'medical problems', not available to real human beings. A successful economy is a great thing, but a Free and Equal Democracy is greater.

A Nation is just an 'abstract political entity' that must exist.

A Nation is an abstraction; its an abstract 'political entity' that must exist. It must exist because it has within its geographical boundaries, many Individuals, or, stated differently, many human beings who exist 'naturally'. Nations are 'power points' on the surface of the World. They embrace a geographical area that has acquired a 'Political Identity', and henceforth, become a Nation. Nevertheless, they are mere 'linguistic abstractions' that have a political Identity and hence, have an 'attribution' of Power. All Nations have Power. However, Political Power is not a Power that should be used to destroy the 'individual' human condition, or the human condition in its 'condition of political togetherness'. Humans are real; Nations are abstractions. To be sure, they are necessary abstractions, but they were established by human beings, and not, the reverse. Nations have a tremendous duty to their own People, as well as to the other Nations, which also have the same duty. Of course, duty to ones own People is 'domestic politics' while, duty to other Nations, is International Politics. In either case, the human condition exists as a 'real condition', while the Political entities exist, as 'necessary political abstractions' with Power. On the International sphere, Individuals do not interact with each Other. Only Nations interact with Other Nations. Nations are the entities that can cause War, not Individuals. Yet, Individuals can cause 'revolutions' within their own 'political areas'. But, these 'revolutions' should not 'spill over' into the International domain. If they do, they're not Revolutions; its the destruction of the human condition, or, 'pure violence'. How sad; instead of coming together, human beings destroy each other.

A Democracy must have 'Law and Order', but not 'all' Law and Order is acceptable.

A Democracy must have Law and Order; of course, not just 'any kind' of Law, nor just 'any kind' of Order. The Law and Order must apply to the Individuals situated at the Bottom of the Democracy. The Top of Government always has Power and hence, can impose Order in a Social. Of course, the Law must also apply to the 'social and economic' institutions, as well as the 'interactions' between Individuals. Nevertheless, the Law and the Order imposed cannot limit the 'Freedom and Equality' of the Individual. To do so, is to limit the very essence of Democracy. Individuals must live in a 'condition of togetherness'. They cannot survive alone. But, to live 'together' does not require that they give up their individual 'freedom and equality'. The human condition creates Government: Government does not create the human condition. Hence, on a 'scale of Equalities', all Governments must know that the human condition is 'more important' than any form of Governmental Institution. Government is a 'necessary Institution', but its 'value' as a necessary Institution does not equate to the value of human life. Of course, Government must have Power, but, the power to Govern is not the power to 'destroy' or 'abuse' the human condition. Human Life is sacred, unfortunately, not all human beings respect the Freedom and Equality of their political 'brothers and sisters' or their political 'neighbors'. Hence, not all human beings are qualified to serve as Leaders in their own Government. How sad, 'Governments' abuse their power, and human beings cannot 'handle' the power 'granted them' by their own political institution.

Capitalism without constraints leads to Plutocracy

Capitalism without constraints leads to Plutocracy. Plutocracy; a Government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich, is not Democratic. At best, its a Government that uses the People, at the Bottom of Government, to make more profits, but the profits benefit 'a few', and never the Population as a 'whole'. Plutocracy results from the concentration of profits, money, or property, at the Top, or the 1%. Some will say that Capitalists work hard and hence, are entitled to the benefits of their labor. That, may be true, but don't kid yourself, the basic reason Capitalism works, is because the 'corporate structure' is protected by the Constitution. Without Constitutional protection, the corporation would not survive. The corporation is considered 'a person' by the Constitution. Of course, everybody knows that a corporation is not a 'person'. A corporation is just an Article of Incorporation issued by a Government. Its no wonder, they are 'too big to fail'; they're not real, you can't put it in jail. But, that, in itself, is not the problem. The problem is that they have been given a 'fictional nature', and also the potential for a huge, incomparable, 'economic grasp'. But, that's O.K.. The problem is, they have not been given 'democratic duties'. It seems fair that in exchange for having been given such a big advantage in economic activity, that they would also have 'democratic duties'. As it is, they are completely motivated by the profit instinct. Their sole goal is 'to have a good year', and the People be damned. Government needs more control over its 'fictional population'. The Government, literally, created them, so why not control them.

'Political values' are essential to the 'strength' of a Nation.

'Political values' are essential to the 'strength' of a Nation. Political values are the values that help 'structure' and 'hold' together the polity. A 'Polity', or, a Nation, must have 'cohesive principles' that mold the 'integrity', or, stated differently, the 'integrated nature' of the Polity. Those principles are commonly called 'political values'. They differ from 'economic values' and 'moral values'. Economic values apply to the economy. Moral values apply to the Individuals within the Polity and the economy. As essential as economic and moral values are, to the human condition, they cannot be inter-mixed with the political values. The reason for that is that political values apply to the Nation, 'as a whole', or, as a 'political entity'. The Polity or Nation must hold together 'as a Polity'. Of course, many issues are involved in the integrity of a Nation, but, the essential one is the manner in which it holds together the 'condition of togetherness' of its own People. Without People of a 'similar disposition' towards the Polity, it cannot hold together. Hence the importance of the 'mode of governing'. To 'govern' is to 'hold together', without adverse effect towards the 'individuals' in the polity. A Government can be 'weak' on a National basis (because it doesn't treat its People right) and, of course, still be strong on the International scene, because every Nation, as an established Nation, has Power on the International scene. On the International scene, Power is a 'given'. Nevertheless, the Human being is the most essential aspect of both the National, as well as the International scene. The human race will always exist; political entities or Nations, may not.

'Political' Freedom and 'Universal' Equality should be the essential elements of a Nation.

'Freedom' of the Individual, in a 'condition of togetherness', is a 'political value'. But, 'Equality' of the Individual is a Universal value. It has no political boundaries. The 'Many Individuals', living in a 'condition of togetherness', need political values that help hold the Nation together. Nevertheless, the Individual in the 'political state' of 'togetherness', is a Universal element, i.e. the human condition, as such, is the same everywhere. Human beings are human beings, and as such, are Equal, within any, and all, political entities. This fact, already makes the human condition of Equality, a Universal value. The end result of this attitude towards the human condition is that, no Nation can restrict or restrain the expression of humanity to some limiting political standard or political value. The values of a 'Political entity' are different from the values of the 'human condition', and, to be sure, and to put it very generally, politics cannot limit the expressions of Humanity. To do so, is to place political values on a higher level than human values. Of course, political values are absolutely necessary, because we all live in a 'condition of togetherness'. By the same token, all Individuals have 'political preferences'. But, if the Individual cannot tolerate, the guy next to him, or his 'neighbor', as being Free and Equal as s/he is, s/he cannot help to 'establish' or 'structure' a political entity. It is a 'twisted' form of politics, to claim to be 'revolutionary', when in fact, the motivations for a 'revolt' are simply acts of violence against the human condition. That, would be, plain and simple, Terrorism.

A Real Revolution must have National principles that serve to Unify a Nation.

A Real Revolution must have National principles that serve to unify a Nation. A 'revolt' cannot be a Revolution if it does not purport to replace certain 'principles' with other more 'National' principles. Its relatively easy to be against 'something' without having 'something else' to replace it. That kind of activity 'reduces down' to a mere activity without underlying principles. The principles that justify a real revolution must be 'Political' in nature or 'National'. They cannot be 'religious' because religion is not a 'political principle'. Religion is a Universal Principle and cannot serve to Unify a Nation, because a Nation is a Political entity. Of course, a Nation can have a 'Religious preference', but that is entirely different from trying to unify a Nation with Religious Principles. That 'mistake' can be justifiably viewed as a return to the 'Divine Right of Kings' concept of Government. It didn't work in the past, and it cannot work in the future. If that 'mistake' also involves the destruction of the human condition, it can never be a real revolution because the 'human condition' is the very basis of a National Identity. A National Identity should be characterized by National principles that also characterize the Individuals living within that Nation. All Individuals are Free and Equal and are free to 'grant Power' to their National identity. The bottom line is that no Nation can hold together without its People. To destroy 'a People', any People, is to 'destroy' a Nation. A real revolution needs 'National principles' and 'humane principles' that 'help' hold a Nation together. At best an 'unreal Revolution' is just a 'small War' and no number of Individuals have the 'Power' to declare War.

Nations have Power, because they 'must'!

Nations have Power, because they must have Power. Obviously, a Nation 'without Power' is non-existent, and cannot exist as a political entity. Power is commensurable with Nation-hood. But, no Nation comes into existence from some 'invisible source', or 'place' that grants it Power. No! Every nation has a history. Every nation evolved into a political 'posture' that attributed power to the Top of the political organization. In order to determine from where any one Nation gets its power, it is sufficient to determine a 'certain point' in its historical past. That particular past will reflect that 'inexorable relation' called a 'political relation', or, that 'ancient relation' of the One and the Many. The Many, or, the multitudes, will become the Bottom of the relation and the Top of the relation will become the Nation or Government. But, it is important to understand that the 'occupants' at the Top of the relation are 'the same', or as 'Equal', as the 'occupants' at the Bottom, or, the multitudes, of the relation. All Individuals, or stated differently, all human beings, regardless their 'seeming differences', are Free, in nature, and particularly, within any political entity, and, in the same manner, all are 'Equally human'. National histories reflect the point where a Nation 'gets' its power. Democracies should reflect, in their history, where the 'People' grants power to the Top. Non-democracies should wonder and ponder, why they never got a 'grant of power' from the People they purport to govern. Nations cannot exist without political power, and they can't get power from some 'invisible source'; hence, real Power, only exists, where the Peoples of the World, have granted it.

Nations have Power; but they also have People, and People have Freedom and Equality.

All Nations have Power, because its an essential element of the 'condition of togetherness'. But, the individual who exists in the 'condition of togetherness' has Freedom and Equality. Of course, Power can be misused by a Nation, as can Freedom and Equality by the Individual. Hence, we must make a distinction between the 'exercise of Power' and the 'act of governing'. Power; 'demands', it compels; it orders; it Rules. Governing; arranges with Law; it structures 'relations'; it educates; it provides for the general Welfare of the Individual, as well as the economic well-being of the Individual. In other words, Governing 'serves' the People, while Power rules 'arbitrarily'. To be more specific, democratic government 'serves' those who created Democratic Government and those who elected the leaders into a 'place' of 'leadership and Power'. Non-Democratic Governments rule the people. Nevertheless, all 'Peoples' have the Right to 'Revolution'. In Non-Democratic Governments, revolts can occur because the People feel abused or want new Leadership. In Democratic Governments, Revolution is a 'Right' that is enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution. The 'Right of assembly' and the 'Right to petition for redress of grievances' are Constitutionally protected. Hence, the structure of Democratic Government renders possible, a harmonizing of the 'Power at the Top' and the 'Rights at the Bottom'. But, this cannot be accomplished, without the 'cooperation' of the People; those at the Top, and those, at the Bottom. We need more Statesmen, and less 'unhappy' People, at the 'helms', and at the 'Bottoms' of Government. GHU.(God Help Us)

The essence of a democracy is the Individual.

The essence of a democracy is the Individual. To be sure, the form of Government must be structured democratically. But, even a Democratic 'political structure', cannot long-live, without the help, or the cooperation, of the Individuals who created it, and the same People, that it purports to govern. The reason is clearly because the form of Government is only an 'abstract structure'. Its a 'verbal generalization' that must be filled with democratic 'activity'. The generalization becomes a 'governmental institution', that continues to exist as a 'theoretical structure' that must be 'imbued' with 'life'. That 'life' is the 'life' of the Individual. Only the human being is 'alive'; the Government structure is only a 'political institution'. The 'theory' of Government is enlivened with 'democratic activity'. That becomes possible only because the Individual in a Democracy is considered to be Free and Equal. That's also why non-democracies that do not consider the Individual Free and Equal, cannot benefit from 'democratic input'. Those Governments survive only as long, as the Individuals they govern, permit it. All Institutions continue to exist, so long as the People participate and permit it. An 'ignored Institution' cannot long survive. Human beings must have Government, and Governments must have Power, but Government cannot ignore the human beings it purports to Govern.

Power is a 'given' in the constitution of every Nation: Competition is the essence of an Economy.

Power 'drives' every Nation. The economy is always important in the 'welfare and the well-being' of every Individual within any Nation. But, the Freedom and Equality of the individual is the essence of Democracy. Hence, the power of every Nation depends on the Freedom and Equality of the Individuals. In a Democracy, the Individuals 'grant' to the Nation, its democratic Power, therefore, the 'general welfare' and the 'economic well-being' of every Individual becomes important to a democratic Nation. The problematic arises when the economy attempts to 'inject' an economic value system, into the Political domain. Politics cannot be driven by the profits engine. The success or failure of the economy will always depend on competition within the economy. The question, then becomes, how can the Individual, who is Free and Equal, compete within a corporate economy. Unfortunately, competition is dead within a corporate economy. The Individual can still compete on a 'lower level', but not on a 'National level' and not, with a corporation. Hence, Government begins to rely and depend on the corporate structure more than on a Free and Equal Individual. Before long, the Government will become 'dependent' on corporations instead of the Individual. That's Oligarchy, on its 'way' to Plutocracy. The Individual creates a Democratic form of Government; and then, the economy and 'greed' ( the 1%) take over the 'creation'. If this keeps up, were right back to the 'Kingdom form of Government'. Corporations need to be regulated and the Freedom and Equality of every Individual needs to be respected.

All Nations function with Power; some Individuals function with Reason.

All Nations have Power at the Top, i.e., "institutional Power, while all Individuals, at the Bottom, have Reason. Since the Top must govern, it needs Power, even though its 'only' an Institutional Power. Meantime, the Individuals at the Bottom have reason. Reason is the 'guiding aspect' of their individual lives. Individuals do not have Power; they may have 'influence, but that is a completely different thing. Only the political entity, called 'Nation', has Power. Hence, on the International sphere, Nations function and interact on an equal basis with Institutional Power. That 'international relation' clarifies the distinction between the function of the Individual and the function of a Nation. The question is, can 'Power' be reasonable or unreasonable? The answer is No! Power is Power. But, the 'exercise' of that Power can be reasonable or unreasonable. Of course, the problematic arises when the Top of any, or all, Nations, becomes occupied, as they must, by an Individual. Individuals function with 'ego' and reason and 'unreason'; Political entities function with Power. What a mess. When Individuals, begin to think they 'have Power', we're in trouble. When the 1% begins to think that 'money and possessions' is power, we're in trouble. To be sure, money has 'influence', but its never a guidepost for Power. When the 'economy' or 'Money' is equated with 'Democracy', we're all in deep trouble. I have bad news for the Plutocrats; if we become a Plutocracy, we're in trouble; the reason for that is that a Plutocracy always strives to become a Kingship. In such cases, even the 1% are not safe.

A Nation can be a 'vacuous abstraction', or it can be a strong 'embodied' Nation of 'flesh and bone'.

A Nation can be a vacuous abstraction, or, a strong, embodied Nation of flesh and bone. All Nations are abstractions, yet, can be an 'embodiment' of their People. The only way to achieve that political status is to 'represent' each and every individual under its care, in a real way. All Nations purport to 'represent' their People, yet neglect their 'basic necessities'. People who lack food, jobs, work, opportunities, homes, health, medical and daily necessities, are not being properly represented by their governments. Governments are strong, because they have Power at the Top of the so-called 'relation of the One and the Many'. They are institutions who exist only by virtue of the People who elected them or selected them. Of course, their are the Ones that were never elected or selected to serve in that position. Those Nations are weak, because they don't have the 'heart and spirit', or the support of the People they should be representing. In the same manner, even a Democracy that does not properly represent the People under its 'care' is also weak; for the same reasons. Government, or Governing a People, is always a two-way street. No Government Leader is 'strong' or 'powerful', of him or herself; s/he is strong because of all the People who support and obey the Government and its Leader. A weak Nation runs the risk of not getting the support of its People, when it becomes necessary; or, a weak Nation runs the risk of begetting a home-grown revolution within its own borders. 'Government and Governing' is about People and it's only they who can 'embody' a Nation with a real Identity, and a 'real' Political Power. Don't kid your-self's, there are more People in this World than Governments.

Big problems arise when National Governemnts 'go' International.

The relation of the One and the Many is a Governmental relation that applies to all forms of Government. We know that; and we also know that not all Governments are alike, but that 'all humanity' is, or ,should be, the same. So the problematic on the International sphere, can be described as, " how does a 'Democratic form' of Government, relate, to other Governments that do not consider the human condition in the same manner? Governments can only relate to other Governments on the level of 'established Governments' of Equal power. A Government never relates directly to the 'Peoples' of that 'other Government'. So, how does a Democracy relate to an Autocracy, an Autocracy that does not accept the 'equality of the Human Condition'? All governments are 'political Institutions'. They are 'abstract structures' that give practical form to the relation of the One to the Many. Nevertheless, all People, or, human beings, are real; they are 'not institutions'. The so-called, 'social' in any form of Government, is a general abstraction, but the 'Peoples', regardless the 'form' of Government, are all real. Hence, can a Democracy relate to an Autocracy; a Socialistic; or a Dictatorial form of Government, in a 'moral manner'? Or, is there such a thing as 'Morality' in International Relations? Can Governmental Institutions be 'Moral' or 'Immoral'? If 'Morality' does not apply to 'Political Institutions' on the International sphere, what is 'political correctness' on the International sphere? Where do we 'look' for a 'fundamental basis' for International Relations? Is the 'fundamental relation' a relation of Government to Government, or, Government to 'all People'? Obviously, no Government can exist in isolation. Equally obvious, is the fact that the human condition is sacred.

Human beings who live in a Democracy; an Autocracy; a Dictatorship; or any other 'form' of Government, are all the 'same'.

A human being, regardless the nature of the Government s/he lives within, is still a human being, and will always be a human being, and hence it can be said that 'Humanity' is all the same. All humans have the same amount of 'life' within them. There are no exceptions. Truly, they may have different, individual qualities, color of skin, languages, but their 'humanity' is all the same. All are 'Equally Human'. However, not all live under the same form of Government. The sad part is that all Governments are 'operated' by individuals who have ascended to the pinnacles of political power, and who, apparently, 'forget' their humanity and embrace Political Power. That's a big problem in Politics. 'Governing' is not 'ruling', its not 'demanding', its not substituting the 'Equality' of the human condition, for the Power that is granted by the 'condition of togetherness that characterizes the 'life force' of the Bottom of Government. 'Humanity' is 'real', 'Government' is an Institution that arises out of necessity. Each has its place but, unfortunately, that's not the only problem in politics. One other problem, is that economic values are being substituted for Democratic values. Now, economic values determine, who gets to 'ascend to the pinnacles' of political power. Hence, human beings 'forget their humanity'; embrace 'political power', possessions, and money, and hence, sabotage their own Governmental Institutions. Governments can be a problem, but so can Humanity.

A real Democracy is only possible in a Government that 'implements' it, and a 'Social' that 'practices' it.

A 'real' Democracy is only possible in a Government, that implements it, and a Social, that 'practices' it. Unfortunately, a real democracy can go wrong, at either end, or at both ends, of the 'relation' of Governing. A Government or a Branch of Government can fail in its 'application' of democratic 'principles', as well as, Individuals living within a Democratic form of Government, can fail to 'live democratically'. Examples of failure, at the Top of 'the relation' of 'government', are those that take a different form. The Governments that assume a 'Triadic form', or a Democratic form, but fail in the implementation of one or another of the Three Branches, are those that have 'abuses' in the Executive Branch; those that have 'abuses' in the Legislative Branch; and those that have 'abuses' in the Judicial Branch. Of course, all the previous, lead to imperfections in the 'forms' of Government, or in the 'implementation' of the relation of 'Governing'. But, the most 'glaring' and 'destructive' problematic in Government, occurs at the 'Bottom' of Government, or in the 'Social', where the Individual 'resides'. Why is that 'more destructive' and more glaring? Because, its 'disorderly' and 'revolutionary'. Of course, sometimes there are 'good reasons' for Revolutions. But, unfortunately, sometimes the so-called Revolutions, are just a 'complete failure' of the 'human condition'. When humans revolt for no apparent reason, or no justifiable reason, its a human failure, not a government failure. Democracy is possible, but only when the Government, and the Governed, both, can live in 'Freedom' and 'Equality' of the Individual. How sad, the Individual does not understand the 'necessary relation' of Government and the 'necessity' of living with each Other.

Every Nation, and its Government, is an 'artificial', political entity.

Every Nation and its 'Government', is an artificial, political entity. Does that mean, they're not 'real'? Absolutely not. But, we must recognize that every political entity is a 'construct', an 'institution', in most cases, with a 'history'. Human beings born within an established political entity, sometimes assume that the entity is 'theirs', is 'perfect', or ' the only one', and that the humans in some 'other political entity', are the 'strangers', the 'foreigners', or 'the Enemy'. The truth of the matter, is that all human beings are 'equally human'. Their is no human being that has less 'life', less 'humanity', or less 'Right' to exist as a human being, regardless of where s/he was born. 'Technology' will differ; the 'social' will differ; the political structure will differ; the 'economy' will differ; but the 'humanity' never differs. So, why are the 'Peoples' of Other Nations, 'friends','enemies', or 'strangers'? The Human Race is the same; every human is 'Equally' Human; every human is 'Free' to exercise his/her Humanity; Nations, and Governments, were 'created' to 'serve' the Human condition, to 'serve' their People; all People; not to 'rule' them; not to oppress them. The biggest problem in politics is that political power belongs to the Top, to the Government, but the Top of each and every Government, cannot function without a human being at the helm. In other words, Nations are political Institutions; without a human being at the helm, they're mere 'vacuous abstractions'. So, where do we go wrong, in our Governments, or in our Humanity?

'Gains in Technology' should never 'create losses' in human values.

Governing a 'People' is different from 'governing' a Nation. Of course, the International sphere relates to government of Many Nations. When a government governs Many People, it governs human beings. When an International Government governs many Nations, it governs 'established political entities' that are Equal in Power. One large political entity governing Many other political entities, must achieve a political 'balance' between Political entities of Equal Power. There is no such thing as a Nation, or a United Nations, governing the 'Peoples' of another Nation, or even, having an 'influence' on the 'individuals' living in another Nation? How then can 'drone attacks' that injure and kill civilians, women, and children, be justified, especially in cases where War has not been officially declared? The truth of the matter is, it can't. Individuals killing other individuals, for whatever reasons, cannot justify, so-called, 'collateral damage'. When any individual perpetuates 'damage or injury' on another individual, that act is punished by law. If,in that process, s/he injures someone else, someone just 'standing around', s/he is also punished for that injury; by the same law that punishes the 'damage or injury', to the first victim. That's common-sense. So how can so-called, 'collateral damage', be justified in a situation where War has not been declared. The problematic is one of values; values that apply to Individuals, are different, from values that apply to Nations. If Nations are not at War, why should innocents suffer? The advances of technology now 'permit' the killing of innocents. How sad. We gain in 'technology' and lose in 'humanity'.

Freedom and Equality drive Democracy, while profits drive Capitalism.

Freedom and Equality 'drive' Democracy; and profits drive Capitalism. The value system of a democracy is a political constant, i.e. always remains the same. The People, at the Bottom, in a democracy are always Free and Equal, and if there are changes in a Democracy, its always towards the realization of more Freedom and Equality. In Capitalism, the 'profits motor' is always in motion and 'changes' are always towards the realization of more and more profits. Of course, a 'stable economy' always contributes towards a 'successful' Democracy. Obviously, the goals of the two systems are different. Nevertheless, the two systems must keep their 'political distance'. If the economy gets too close to the political system, it could transform into a Plutocracy. If that happens, it transforms government of the People, into a government by the rich, and for the rich. That would be a Plutocracy. Capitalism can survive in a Democracy, but it cannot survive in an Autocratic form of Government. Why? because all natural resources and profit making ventures, are State owned. Hence, the best 'soil' for the flourishing of Capitalism is always a Democratic form of Government. However, that, in itself, does not solve all 'democratic problems'. In a Democracy, the medium of exchange should circulate among all the 'real People'. I say real People because the Corporation is not a 'real person', and yet, it is the greatest 'profit making' motor in Capitalism. That's why, Corporations need to 'contribute more' to the very governmental structure that creates them and allows them to exist, that facilitates, and increases, its 'economic grasp' and 'productivity'. A corporation is just an economic 'institution' that exists in the Social, as does, marriage, family, and Freedom and Equality of the Individual. Its time for the corporation to become 'more democratic' and 'less autocratic', and 'give back', or, as they say now-days "pay it forward".

The 'Linguistic Turn' has caused much political mischief.

The term, "The Linguistic Turn" is mostly a literary term. Its not a simple term, and there is much dispute about its application, use, and accuracy. However, and generally, it mostly refers to the fact that a linguistic term or "word", does not encapsulate the phenomena that it 'refers' too. In different words, the 'map' is never the 'territory', or 'that' to which the map refers too. Hence, terms tend to 'float in air' and are not necessarily 'grounded' in 'real phenomena'. Generally, it refers to the fact that the 'word' does not correspond to the 'reality'. That may be the case, when the 'word' or term refers to a 'natural phenomena'. However, I wish to make a distinction between the "Natural" and the "social, or political". Why is this distinction necessary? because it answers too the fact that the Top and the Bottom of the relation between the One and the Many, is a social or political phenomena and not a Natural one. That's why many Nations have become organized around different 'Governmental structures' for the 'sole purpose' of 'governing' the Bottom. That's why we have, or have had, Kingdoms, Autocracies, Plutocracies, Oligarchies, Democracies, or even different 'tribal' arrangements. My point is that the Top of any Government is a 'Governor' of the 'Governed'. Its a 'political arrangement' and hence not Natural; its 'artificial'; a political entity. Therefore, the Linguistic Turn notwithstanding, 'political language' does refer to 'real' political phenomena and is well grounded in the 'established relation' of the One and the Many. Of course, much political language is intentionally convoluted; that's 'politics', but the so-called Turn, does not apply to our political structures. Furthermore, and more important, every human being, every Individual, who lives within a political entity, any political entity, has his/her Freedom and Equality,( as a real, living, human Individual), and that's a 'qualitative political variable' that should never be abused or compromised by Government.

Can the computer help "voter apathy"? How 'modern' is Democracy?

Computers have changed the 'face' of the world. Today, we speak of 'voter apathy' in Democratic societies. One of the key considerations in elections, is always, "will this issue bring the voters out"? Of course, the populace is already 'divided' by vying 'Party ideologies'; add to that; Gerrymandering, weather conditions, distance, means of transportation, expenses, etc. to get to the Polls, stand in line for long hours, and eventually, getting back home. I believe, that this year, in some States, the people have been asked to Vote in 8 different elections already. ( and its not Election Year) Is it any wonder that the People are apathetic? Of course, in a Democratic society, its only proper to ask the populace for their vote. Nevertheless, in a technologically advanced, Democratic society, a society that can get a man on the moon, etc., it becomes imperative that the Government establish more modern means of 'recording the Vote'. I speak about computerizing the voting process, to avoid the political 'gerrymandering' of vying political Parties; not to mention the other inconveniences. Lets change the political slogans of, "a car in every garage": to "a computer in every registered voters home", or, You can 'exercise' your Right to vote, by means of the computer. In our technologically advanced society, the Individual should not be required to be a victim of 'gerrymandering'; of having to avoid all the obstacles 'stacked' against the exercise of the Right to Vote, or, even of having to stand in long lines. The Executive, the Senators, the Representatives, and the Judiciary, do not have to, 'stand in line'; why should the People that put them in Office. No, a "computer in every registered voters home"; even if, the computer has to be returned, after the vote. Of course, as usual, there will be many 'kinks' that need to be worked out, but, at least, 'modern voters' will not be 'Gerrymandered about' by politicians; or be required to stand in long lines, and if some Rich Citizens get to take a vacation on the Moon, why can't the "Voters" vote by computer?

'Orderliness' must permeate every aspect of society, except for the Freedom and Equality of the Individual.

Orderliness is the key to Legality. It must permeate every aspect of the Social and the Economy, except, the Freedom and Equality of every Individual. Freedom and Equality in the Individual cannot be 'ordered'. The Freedom and the Equality of each Individual remains the essence of a Democratic society. That freedom and that Equality must not be interfered with. Why? because, an Individual must always be free to choose his 'activities' and 'behaviors', while existing within the 'condition of togetherness'. Another way of saying that, is, s/he must act within the confines of a democratic, structured, Legal System; or, the orderly arrangement of a democratic, 'condition of togetherness'. Democracy is more than just a belief system. Its an 'implemented orderliness'. Religion is also a belief system, but the goal of its way of life applies to another world. That's why it cannot work in this world. Religious beliefs cannot be 'imposed' on every Individual. Whereas, Freedom and Equality in a polity is 'imposed' and must be exercised by each and every individual within a 'condition of togetherness'. An Individual in a Democratic society must 'choose'. That choice must be in accordance with the Freedom and Equality of the guy next to you. If you step on his toes, s/he will not like it. Such is the methodic arrangement of a just legal system in a democratic, 'condition of togetherness'. Man is Free, is free to 'choose', and to act, but, s/he must respect the Freedom and Equality of the 'guy next to you'. Being 'Free and Equal' within a political entity is no 'small thing'. In a Democracy, all the Individuals at the Bottom of Government, have a tremendous duty.

Law is essential to Democratic government, but it is also essential to Capitalism.

Law 'binds' a Democracy at the Top, as well as at the Bottom. The Top is the Government and the Bottom are the People. But the Bottom, where all the individuals in their 'condition of togetherness', are situated is also referred to as the 'social' and the economic. Of course, the 'social' includes every 'individual' at the Bottom and cannot be 'separated' from their 'condition of togetherness', nor can any particular 'race' or 'nationality' be favored or excluded. In the same way, neither can any accepted democratic institution. In other words, the social, the economic, ( Capitalism) and the democratic institutions, are all under Law. Of course, the 'essential' and 'central' impulse in a democracy, is the Freedom and Equality of every Individual in the social, the economy, the institutions, and the Government. Democracy is a Peoples Government, not a Capitalistic Government. That is the primary reason why Capitalism, with all its economic values, can not get involved in the governing of the People. The People must be governed by principles of Freedom and Equality and not by the 'profit principles' of a successful economy. Economic values, money, profits, cannot govern a People. To be sure, the economy is important, but it cannot govern. To the contrary, Government must pass Laws that insure that a successful economy has to contribute to the 'democratic' values of the Peoples at the Bottom of Government. After all, its the People who work, buy, and produce in the economy. Hence, government must acquire more control over economic institutions, primarily, the corporate structure, and the 'false attribution' of 'personhood'. If the Government 'creates' corporations, it can have more control over them.

Law is essential to every Political entity.

Law is essential to every Political entity. Regardless, the nature of the entity, Law becomes essential. Why?, because every political entity 'houses' the Many, or many human individuals. To be sure, all human interactions, whether between Individuals, or between Nations, must be 'governed'. That's why we need Nations,( to govern the individual) as well as, a "United Nations"(to govern the separate Nations). Both, Nations and a United Nations, are Political Entities, and as such, houses Many Individuals, all of whom need to be Governed. But, Law is more essential in a Democracy, than an Autocracy. Of course, the reason is obvious. The only Law in an Autocracy, is that of the Autocrat. In a Democracy, the Law must be arranged in such form as to apply to each and every Individual in an Equal manner. Look, Law is just Order, and Order is essential to the 'condition of togetherness' of the People at the Bottom of Democratic Government. But, that is not the end of the story. The Order 'required' is the 'Free and Equal' order of 'each and every' Individual at the Bottom of Government. Someone has to legislate Law, someone has to enforce Law, and someone has to adjudicate Law. That's why, the Triadic Form is the only form for a Democracy. If no-one Legislates the 'right kind' of Law, democracy will not work; if no-one enforces 'all' of the right-kind of law, democracy will not work; If the Supreme Court does not 'adjudicate' the Law according to Constitutional Values of the Top, as well as Constitutional Values, of the Bottom, democracy will not work. So, it becomes obvious, that some Democracies enforce the Law, in a 'preferential' manner. It is also obvious, that the 'interpretive practices' of the Supreme Court, are 'divided' by party-loyalty, and hence do not serve an 'integrated' unity, of Free and Equal, that should characterize the Bottom of Democratic Government. In other words, being Democratic is not the political end of things; we have to work at it on a daily basis. Supreme Court Justices who assert their power, based on a divided political ideology, are no different than Policemen who assert their 'power' of enforcement, with clubs, guns, gases, and tanks. Neither is Democratic.

Computers have 'punctured' National Boundaries, but, that's only 'Linguistic'.

The Internet has facilitated the 'penetration' of National boundaries, but, the penetration is purely Linguistic. Communication can now take place between Individuals in different Nations. Sure, it makes the exchange of knowledge possible; an exchange between many different cultures. But, each Nation has its own Identification; an identification that has definite geographical parameters. Each Nation has its Boundaries, and each has an 'equal amount' of 'political integrity' and hence, political Power. Hence, the penetration of communication between individuals in different Nations, does not really serve any political advantage. To be sure, it helps in clearing up many 'distinctions' in the way of life of different peoples. But, each Nation being its own Political Entity, must be respected as an equal Political entity. A 'physically', or 'geographically' small, Nation, has the same Power and Integrity as a 'Nation, with its own Identity', as the Largest Nation in the world. Just as there are no 'superior human beings', in the world, there are no superior National organizations in the World. All human beings are Free and Equal, i.e., each is, or should be, 'politically free', and 'equally human'. In the same manner, each Nation is Free, as a Nation, and each Nation, as a political entity, houses Equal Power, within the International sphere. Individuals must learn to get along with the 'guy next door', as Nations must learn to get along with other Political entities in the World. Political 'history, or Politics, has reached the point where all the 'space' and 'territory' in the world has been 'taken up', or occupied, and now, we just have to learn to 'get along'. There is no fear of 'falling off' the Planet; only the fear of 'blowing' it up.

The 'issue' of the One and the Many is a 'political' issue.

The 'issue' of the One and the Many is a 'political issue'. However, the problematic is not one of contraries, or, opposites, or some 'dualism'. For Government purposes, the problematic can be further described as a relation between a Top and a Bottom. The Top is Linguistic, or abstract, or a 'Map, the Bottom is 'real'. Whether, a Democracy, an Autocracy, a Dictatorship, or a Divine Right of Kings, form of Government, the real issue is always from where does the Top get its authority to 'govern'. 'To Govern', is a 'Power', that must exist at the Top, or be granted, to the Top. But, from where does the Top get the Power? In the Divine Right of Kings, the Power came from God. In an Autocracy or a Dictatorship, the Top is 'assumed' by some Individual, or Individuals. In some cases, the 'assumption' is by force, fear, or some 'continuing line' of authority. Of course, in a real Democracy, the authority comes from the Bottom, or, stated differently, it comes from the 'Governed'; it is they who grant to the Top the 'Institutional', or, 'political', Power to 'govern'. Power cannot exist in the Individual, whether the Individual is at the Bottom, or the Top. Power, 'emanates' from the 'condition of togetherness', that characterizes the Bottom. That's the only Power that can exist in a Political entity. Once, vested, no matter how, the Power is an 'equal characteristic' of each and every 'Nation' in the World. That's why, the United Nations 'government' works, and that's why, the Internet, which crosses political boundaries, and goes into every individuals 'living room', cannot 'organize' or 'effect' the International community. The National autonomy of every Nation, must be recognized and respected. Only a World Government, or a United Nations, can govern the International scene. Of course, Individuals can bring about Revolutions, but only within their own Nation. If they bring about changes in their own Nation, it might be possible, for that Nation to effect another Nation, but only through the United Nations, never through the Internet. The Internet may facilitate International Communication between 'Individuals', but it does not 'house Power'.

A 'Capitalocracy' is a Capitalism with democratic goals.

A 'Capital-ocracy' is a form of Capitalism with some Democratic goals. Its can be called an "oxymoron", but only if we limit the reference of the term to the purely abstract level. Obviously, each word is a separate political term, but we have already clarified the fact that neither term replaces the other in a Democratic Government or a Democratic society. They both function separately, though jointly, in 'independent' political terrains, hence, their separate nature is appreciated and respected. Nevertheless, Democracy must govern and Capitalism must 'produce profits'. Together, they can probably, accomplish more, but, only if they work together. If Capitalism infiltrates Government and becomes self-serving, we will have a Plutocracy. But, its clear that the job and engine of Capitalism is not to govern, but to produce Profits . The 'motor' of the economy is separate from the Democratic spirit. In the same way, Democracy must govern, and it must 'Govern democratically', and hence, 'profits' is not a 'motor' in the governing. Profits belong in the 'economy', and the Freedom and Equality of each individual, belong in a 'Democratic Social'. Never should the two principles be confused. Obviously, and by definition, Democracy cannot thrive in a Plutocracy, and a Plutocracy cannot 'govern' Democratically. The essence of Democratic Government is the Freedom and Equality of the People, and that principle of governing, cannot be replaced by anything else. However, it is possible to require, re-define, and establish, new 'democratic ideals', in the economy, so that Capitalism can become more 'Democratic' and less 'Plutocratic'. Those new Ideals could 'help' combat, Greed, monopoly, and a 'corporate society', and it can help to 'de-centralize' the 1%. Government needs to become more involved in the establishment of 'democratic' economic ideals. If not, the 1% will continue to grow stronger, and eventually, divide, split up, and self-destruct Democracy. The result wouldn't even be a Plutocracy; it would be 'something' like a 'Dictatorship by Wealth'.

Democratic government needs more 'control' over its 'legal fictions'.

Democratic government needs more control over the Legal Fictions it has created. Of course, I speak about the 'Corporations'. Corporations do not 'exist', except as 'entities' in the 'Universe of Legal Discourse'. They are pure abstractions, and as such, have been 'given' an economic 'grasp', that is 'incomparable'. I do not mean that government needs to 'control' its 'profits engine', but it does need some kind of 'management' over the 'results' of a successful Capitalistic economy; viz., the management of the 'medium of exchange'( money) that needs to be kept in circulation. Money is a 'medium of exchange', and as such, it needs to circulate among the Many Peoples at the Bottom. Look, there is no excuse for a 'hoarding' of the medium of exchange by only the Top 1% of the Population. (Remember, corporations are now 'persons' within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.) Real Individuals have many 'duties' in a Democracy, so, why not impose more democratic duties on these 'surrealistic economic entities' called corporations. When a successful economy 'runs' a Government, we call it a Plutocracy. We don't need that! When the real People at the Bottom, runs a Government, we call it a Democracy. That's what we need; a Peoples democracy. In such a case, the people need to keep the 'medium of exchange' in 'circulation', and if 'Legal Fictions' exist in 'contemplation of Law', they must also have legal duties, as 'real People' do. They must also help the 'medium of exchange' to 'circulate' among the 'real individuals' at the Bottom; provide a 'fair wage'; help the 'poor'; the needy; the sick; the elderly; who have already contributed to the economy. In other words, the corporations must become 'democratic'. The fact, that they are Legal Fictions, should not 'shield' them from having 'democratic ideals', as all other real human beings are expected to have. Sure, they can benefit from their economic success, but, not to the point of 'Greed' and 'hoarding' by a mere 1%. In the case of 'legal Fictions', if the Government 'gives'; the Government can also 'take away'.

Every Government deserves a successful economy; every economy deserves a Democratic Government.

Every Democratic Government deserves a 'successful economy'; every 'economy' deserves a Democratic Government. Every Government, regardless the type of government, must have a means of existence, and that means, some 'economic system' by which it furnishes or supplies, the 'means of subsistence' to its People. Obviously, a Government, or the Top, governs the 'Many' People, situated at the Bottom of the structure of the Government. The Bottom is always the 'population', in its totality. The Bottom is also the 'governed' and hence, subject to the 'exercises of power' by the Top. A Government needs an economy to survive; but, an economy also needs a Government to monitor the 'progress' of the economy. The two systems work in tandem. Nevertheless, the Freedom and Equality of each Individual at the Bottom, is the 'motor' of a Democracy; while the 'profits motive' is the 'motor' of the economy. The two motors must be kept separate. If we mingle one with the other, we may still get a 'well functioning economy', but we will lose the Democratic spirit, or stated differently, the 'motor' that drives our Democracy. Freedom and Equality has no chance of surviving in a Government driven by the 'Profits' motor. Why not? because, the 'profits' motor is 'completely unrelated', to Freedom and Equality of each Individual. Economic competition is dead. Competition between real Individuals may have, once, been a 'good motor', but today, there is no way a real Individual can 'compete', in the business world, with the 'surreal', Legal Fiction, created by Government. Obviously, a balance between the two systems must be struck. But, the 'initiation' of the 'balance' cannot be from the economy, because that would destroy Democracy. It must arise from a Governmental control of the economy. Stated differently, Government needs 'more control' over the surreal, 'legal Fictions', it has created.

The benefits of Government Office is Power and influence; the benefits of 'economic activity' is money.

The only benefit for Individuals that run for political Office is the exercise of Power during the time spent in Office. The benefits that accrue to someone well situated in the 'Corporate World', or the economy, is money, and possessions. The retired politician enjoys his/her 'reputation', 'fame', and a comfortable existence. But, he/she loses his/her power. The 'retired' businessman never 'loses' the benefits of his/her labor, and gets to enjoy being on the Forbes list. The 'retired', corporate businessman is 'never really' retired, because she/he has full ownership of whatever 'benefits' or values accrued to him/her, while in business. Of course, the imbalances that has resulted between 'politics' and the 'economy' is the difference in the end-results of the 'corporate world', and the end-results of the political world. The unfortunate aspect of this whole scenario is that the 'corporation' is a 'legal fiction', its not a real individual, and has a tremendous advantage, in economic competition, between 'real Individuals' and 'corporate fictions'. It was created by Government, to protect the economy, and the end result, is that the economy has assumed a very powerful position in 'social life'. Everyone wants money; Politicians, Corporations, and citizens, all want more money. In other words, the 'value system' of a viable democracy, i.e., the Freedom and Equality of the Individual, has been replaced by the value system of a viable economy, (of course, helped by the 'legal fiction'), or simply, money. If Government creates Corporations, why can't it have more control over them? Why do successful corporations,( that have been given a 'greater economic grasp') not pay any taxes?

There is no 'perfect' Government; only the 'best form' of Government.

When it comes to Government, 'perfection' is out of the question. The best, that 'Government' can strive for, is to be the 'best form' of Government. Why should that be the case? Obviously, we are talking about the 'act of governing', 'Many' 'Individuals', and that means that only a 'few', or 'One', can assume the 'institutional position' of 'Governor'. Its obvious that a 'multitude' of Individuals cannot be governed by the Multitude. Why is that?, because the result would be chaotic. Some critics of Democracy, wrongfully call democracy, 'mob Rule'. But, that's an oxymoron; there is no such thing as 'Mob Rule'. A Mob cannot be 'ruled', because it has no 'Ruler'. The ancient problematic of the 'One and the Many', is the problematic of 'Government'. History is replete with instances of Rule by the One; viz., when the One was considered of 'Divine' origin; or Rule by the 'strongest'; or Rule by the 'smartest'; or Rule by the 'most influential'; or Rule by the 'richest'; or simply, Rule by force, cruelty and mayhem. All these examples give sufficient validity, to the fact, that 'whosoever' purports to Rule or Govern, must have 'Power'. 'Power' is essential to both, 'arbitrary Rule', or 'Government'. But, be assured, there's a difference in the two. The former is truly 'arbitrary', and does not consider the Many at the Bottom; the latter is 'Representative' and only gets 'Power' from the Bottom; i.e., a Government, "of the people", "by the People", and "for the People". The ancient problematic of the One and the Many has gone 'full circle'. The 'One' truly has 'Power', but its Institutional, and is 'granted' by the very People who are the Governed. The 'Top' is different from the 'Bottom'; the Top is Institutional, linguistic, and abstract; the Bottom is not 'an abstract generality' nor, a 'Mob', not even an 'abstract specificity'; its REAL. You and I are real, I know that, and you know that; and neither of us wants to be 'Ruled', we want to be 'Governed'. Of course, the unfortunate part of all this, is that 'neither' of us is 'perfect', but we can hope for the 'best'.

"Veterans Day" is the 'starkest' declaration against War.

Veterans Day is the starkest Declaration against War. Its a Day when Nations 'celebrate' their warriors. Regardless the Nation, and regardless the nature of the Government, whether Democratic, Autocratic, Dictatorship, or whatever form of Government, Nations should become acutely aware of the 'loss' of their People. Some are mutilated for life; some are crippled, some cannot go on living, and some are dead. Real human beings fighting for a 'political entity', an abstraction, an intangible, an unreal entity. And yet, we say "what a great service" they rendered. Why is reality upside down? Its the Nations that should be 'fighting' for their People. Human life is sacred; its more sacred than National Identity. No Nation can 'fight' another Nation. But, they get their People to fight each other. What a cheap way to justify 'National strength". Nations cannot exist without People, and Nations should protect their People, and not put them in harms way. Of course, we all know that crime, violence, and mayhem on a National, domestic level is somewhat inevitable. Its in every Nation. So, we conclude that War is the fault of the human condition. But, that's not true. If our Leaders represent all their People, why should Leaders act on an International scale, in the same manner as the Individuals act on a domestic scale? International 'disagreements' are 'abstract disagreements' on an International scale. Usually, no real Individual, other than the Leaders, are involved in an International dispute; the disagreement is usually between Two Nations, with equal Power, that are disagreeing about some International issue. The problematic is, that an argument between two real individuals, results in a fight of some sort between the same two Individuals. Whereas, a disagreement between two Nations, with equal political power, results in War. But, the two Nations don't fight each other, they send their People. Its the People who are maimed, crippled, and who lose their lives. We call them Veterans. If 'Nations and Leaders' could learn to get along, 'Veterans' wouldn't have to fight. How sad; the World is upside-down.

The 'Legal fiction' is the source of much abuse.

The corporation is legally held to be a 'legal fiction'. As such, it has 'gained' protection as a 'person' under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. A 'human being' can only be 'real'. Can you name or 'point' to a human being that is 'unreal'. If s/he is a human being, regardless of sex, color, race, or creed, s/he is 'real'. Only the "corporation" has the distinction of being a "legal fiction", hence, admittedly 'unreal'. The 'legal fiction', apparently, has a right to exist, even though it can't be put in jail, can't be 'touched', doesn't get 'sick', doesn't have to 'eat', and if you ask someone to point out the so-called, "person", they can't do that either. Its a Fiction. Of course, some say there's a whole set of laws that governs their existence. But, that's not so. The Law describes how they function, i.e., the Board of Directors, the shareholders, their capitalization, etc., but the law does not say how long, or, how they are to 'exist', only, how they are to function as Legal Fictions. Of course, they must be 'law abiding' and not 'violate any laws'. But, corporations, that don't exist can't 'violate any Laws', because they don't exist. They can't be put in jail, as real people who violate laws. They even have immortality, i.e., they have a "perpetual existence". If they are shut-down, for some reason or another, the owners, just 'create' a new "legal fiction" with the same perpetual existence. In other words, they don't really die, they just 'change names'. The only way the Law can punish a corporation, is by "involuntary dissolution". But, that's temporary, and in order to do that, the Law has to 'pierce the corporate veil', to get to the 'owner' wrongdoers. I don't have to tell you how difficult that is. How sad; Government 'creates' corporations, and then, loses control over them. Corporations are great economic institutions, but Government needs more control over them.

Democracy was not 'born' overnight.

Democracy was not 'born' overnight. To be sure, it went through many stages of 'political integrity', i.e., 'Individuals Integrating', before it became the best possible 'form of government'. Ancient people did not have 'Government' per se, but they had Myths. Of course, the modern tendency is to hold those belief systems as 'imaginary', 'superstitious', or 'Religious'. To be sure, they were religious in nature, but they 'helped' to keep the People together. That's why, Myths were about 'Gods' and that's why those beliefs held the Peoples in a 'condition of togetherness'. From Myths, the People went to Kingships, i.e., the Divine Right of Kings. Obviously, that system was 'part' Divine, and 'part' secular. That's why the concept of The Divine Right of Kings eventually came up with the concept of the Two Bodies of the King; which, of course led to the statement, "The King is dead, long live the King". From the times of 'Kingship', we slowly went through the Middle Ages, wherein, the 'center of gravity' at the Top, i.e. the authority of the King, slowly began to disintegrate. He could not control all those People. At that point, the concept of the 'Many', and the problematic of the One and the Many, was born. Nevertheless, Authority and Power were conceived as attributes of the Top. The Bottom, or, the Many, at that time, played no part in the act of Governing. Of course, that's how Autocracies were 'born'. There have been many different types of Autocracies. But, slowly, the 'absolute power' at the top also began to disintegrate, and the Individuals, at the Bottom, became more 'vociferous'. Many Centuries passed. Eventually, the People 'realized' that it was 'they', who created Governments, and not Governments who created 'them'. Of course, that constitutes the 'Separation of Church and State'. Democracy, in its present form, was born when the Many, understood, that they 'needed Governing'. But, it had to be a 'Peoples Government'; a Government "of the People", "by the People", and most importantly, "for the People". We cannot live in the Past, we must live in the Present, and we must prepare for the Future.

Clear distinctions between Democracy and Capitalism need to be made.

Clear distinctions between Democracy and Capitalism need to be made. The reason for that is that each system is different and functions with a different 'motor'. Of course, all Democracies need an 'economy'. But, all economies, don't necessarily have to be Democratic. Why is that? Autocracies also need an economy. Both, Democracies and Autocracies, are 'forms' of Government, and Capitalism, is an economic form that is 'motored' by the 'profit motive'. Capitalism can survive, and thrive, in a Democracy, but not necessarily in an Autocracy. In an Autocracy, the Government is Top-heavy and may not tolerate freedom of movement within the economy. All Governments are 'motored' by the Top, but Autocracies don't insure the Freedom and Equality of all Individuals at the Bottom and Autocracies 'own' or 'control' the Top as well as the Bottom. Democracy insures the Freedom and Equality at the Bottom. The Individual at the Bottom is Free and Equal to pursue economic activity. But, one of the biggest problems with Democracies, is that the Individuals at the Bottom, are 'free' to Incorporate a business. By so doing, they, whether directly or indirectly, create a 'large entity' that can do business. Of course, it wasn't long before the Supreme Court considered the 'corporate structure' as a 'person' within the protection of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Hence, now we have "legal fictions", recognized by Law, who are protected, 'as if', they were 'real persons'. In the 'economy' no human being can compete with a corporation. Now, they can even contribute to a Political Campaign. Is it any wonder that the 1% is trying to get more 'control'? I wonder if 'corporations' are counted as 'individuals' in the census? Some say, they are to 'Big' to fail. 'Democracy' doesn't want them to 'fail'; but, now that Government has created these "fictions", Government needs to get more CONTROL. Children always play with 'toys', but the 'toys' never take control of the children.

The 'inherent tension' between the Top and the Bottom, is different from the unnecessary 'tensions', created by Political Parties.

The inherent tension between the Top and the Bottom of Government is an 'institutional tension', created by the difference in the 'nature' of the Top and the Bottom of Government. The tensions and oppositions created by the 'ideologically' different, Political Parties, are tensions that have their arising from the different perspectives about 'Governing'. Of course, the Parties vie for Office, and hence will try to prevail, by anything they can get away with. The proposals about the so-called 'best policy' for the Bottom, are easily forgotten in the skirmish. Politics, unfortunately, is all about winning Office. How sad. Even if the differences were actual differences in implementing Democratic Policy ( which they seldom are)the welfare of the Nation, or the People at the Bottom, is soon forgotten, in the 'struggle' for political victory. It would seem that in a Democratic society, the differences in implementing 'democracy' should not vary that much. There could well be some disagreement on how to implement a Policy, but a complete disagreement, with the Democratic value of the Policy, is absurd. The purpose of all Democratic policies is the 'freedom and equality' of the individuals, or, it could be, the more 'smooth functioning' of the 'machinery' of Democracy. Political Office, has no other function. Its only a 'Representative' position. Politicians should have political goals, not personal goals. Of course, its a well known fact that 'power' corrupts many politicians by transforming political, Representative, aspirations into greedy pursuits for 'more' power, and for a place on the Forbes list. How unfortunate. Democracy 'gives' them a job to perform, and their greed takes over, and they puff-up, with self-importance.

All Governments, or Nations, have an inherent tension between their Top and their Bottom.

All Nations have an inherent tension between the Top and the Bottom of Government. The 'necessary relation' of Government, the relation that must exist, is always a relation between a Top and a Bottom. The Top is a 'linguistic generality', that must house political power; by that, I mean, a Nation has Power at the Top and that power must be used for the process of 'governing' and for no other reason. Of course, that power is an attribute of all existing Nations, but that power must also have a 'source'. It cannot be said, that, 'political power', ipso facto, comes into existence, by the simple act of some sort of 'self-declaration' as a 'relatively new' Political Institution. Political Institutions must be 'created', and 'organized', and since their only purpose for existing is 'to govern'; they must be 'created' and 'organized' by the very people, who are in need of Governing. One of the biggest problems of Governments, is that the Top, is always 'described and organized' in linguistic terms, because language can have a 'generality of description' that includes all the 'Individuals' at the Bottom. Of course, language can also be used in direct 'specific' terms, but, it still remains 'abstract', because language is always about 'something else'; language has a referential power that refers to 'something', 'other than itself'. Consequently, political language is a 'type of Map', whose sole function is to 'reference' a 'territory'; the territory being 'very real', because, You and I, know that we are 'equally real'; hence, 'every individual', at the Bottom, is also 'equally real'. That dichotomy; language at the Top, reality at the Bottom, renders politics into an 'art-form' that must bridge the gap, between the Word and the Territory. Unfortunately, this is the place where political 'double-talk' is born.