The Bottom needs the Top of Government; but the Top also needs the 'Social' that Instituted it.

The Bottom needs the Top of Government; but, the Top also needs the 'Social' that Instituted it. The Bottom needs Governing; and that's precisely why the 'Bottom', in the first place, 'Instituted' the Top. Without a 'Bottom', you cannot have a 'Top'. Who can Institute a Top, if its not the Bottom? We have run out of the 'Divine Right of Kings', as a 'source of Power'. Historically, the Bottom 'did need' the 'Top' to 'Govern it' and the Top needed the 'Divine Right of Kings' to acquire 'Power to Govern'. Today, in a Democracy, Political Power 'emanates' from the 'Bottom' in a 'Condition of togetherness' and 'through the Electoral Process'. Hence, the Top 'must' Govern, but it must 'Govern Democratically'. Why?, because that's from where it gets its 'Political Power', and such a Top cannot Rule. No Bottom, no Top. If a Political Entity has a Top, it needs a 'Bottom' to grant it the 'Right' to 'Govern' as a Political Entity. In a Democracy, the Top Governs 'democratically' because it cannot Rule. A Political Entity that Rules, does not need a 'Bottom' to authorize 'Rule'. But, a Democracy that 'Governs' needs a Bottom that authorizes 'Governing'. 'Governing' is different from 'Ruling'. In a Democracy, 'Governing' is by a Government "of the People", "by the People", and "for the People".

Governing ' The Many' is not easy, but a 'properly Organized' Top can do it.

Governing 'The Many', at the Bottom is not easy; but a 'properly Organized One', or 'Top', can do it. The Top is a 'Political Institution' and can be organized in various ways. All Governments of 'State Entities', or Nations, are 'Political Institutions'. As Institutions they had to be established. The issue becomes, "'who' or 'what' established it?", for what 'purpose'? and how does it acquire 'Political Power'? Of course, in a Democracy, the 'Bottom', or 'the People', transfers their Individual 'Power', which is at the Bottom, by means of the 'Electoral Process', thereby establishing the 'Top' and its 'Organization'. But, the Organization, or 'Political Agencies' are also Political Institutions. In a Democracy, the Top only exists for the 'sole purpose' of Governing the 'Bottom'. Hence, the Top, including its Agencies, must participate in the process of 'Governing'. Hence, the Top is required, under 'Constitutional Law', to Govern according to the Constitution, and the Bottom is also required to live 'under Law'. The Bottom must obey Law in the exercise of the 'Freedom and Equality' guaranteed by the Constitution.

How can a 'Dis-Functional Democracy' regain its 'Political values'?

How can a 'Dis-Functional Democracy' regain its 'Political Values'? The truly 'Democratic values' of a Democracy are the 'Freedom and Equality' of every 'Real Individual' at the 'Bottom of the Political Entity'. The Bottom is the reservoir of Power and it is the 'Bottom' that grants Power to the Top. There is no other way to create a 'Political Top' with 'Political Power'. The Bottom establishes a 'Form of Government' to 'Govern the bottom'. Its 'never' 'Someone' are 'Some Few Individuals' that create the Top. The Top comes into 'Institutional Being' as a result of the 'Bottom' and the 'Constitution'. The 'Power Structure' at the Top is established by the 'Many Individuals' at the Bottom. Otherwise, a 'Top' would just be a 'Powerless Institution' that does not get its 'Power' from the People it Governs. Governments are not 'required' or 'needed' for 'Human Beings' to Exist; but 'Many' Human Beings are required and needed for 'Democratic Governments' to Exist. There is no 'dilemma' between the 'One and the Many'; the 'One' never 'creates' the 'Many' but the 'Many' can create the 'One' as an Institution of 'Democratic Government' with 'Power'. Once established, the 'Basic Structure' of Democracy 'must be' Protected; hence, 'Political Parties' are just 'Ideological Parties' that are 'not bound' to the Ideology; but they are 'Constitutionally bound' to 'Protect' the 'Integrity of the Democracy.' That 'Integrity' is the Political 'Freedom' and 'Equality' of 'each and every' Human Being within its Political Jurisdiction. A Democratic Institution must recognize its dependence on the 'Bottom', and the 'realization' that the Top is the 'Result' of the 'Bottom'. The Bottom, in a 'Condition of Togetherness' has 'Power' and 'transfers' it to the 'Top' by the 'Electoral Process'. A 'Dis-Functional Democracy' regains its 'Political values' when the 'Freedom and Equality' of Each and Every 'Real' Human Being at the Bottom is respected, re-instated, and implemented into its Political Ideology.

Government requires 'Service'; the Economy requires 'Profits'.

Governing requires 'Service', but the Economy requires 'Profits'. Unfortunately, its 'very easy' to slip from 'Service' into 'Profits', but 'almost impossible' to slip from 'Profits' into 'Service'. A Politician or more correctly, an Office Holder 'Represents' the 'People at the Bottom'. He or She functions as a 'Representative' of the People. But, the 'Business-Person' does not represent 'anyone' or 'anything'. He or She merely establishes a 'Legal Fiction' called a 'Corporation' for the sole purpose of making a 'Profit'. He or She functions as a Profit making Machine. Now there is absolutely nothing wrong to function as a 'Business Person' within a Society because every Nation needs an Economy. Running a 'Business Corporate Entity' is 'difficult work' and requires dedication and a personal orientation towards making a Profit. Nobody establishes a Corporation so that it can fail, that's insane, and don't mistake the kind of dedication required. Governing a Nation also requires a certain kind of 'Person'. He or She must be 'relatively Selfless'. Now, understand this, nobody is 'completely Selfless'. But, such an Individual must have the 'General Welfare' of the 'People' who are situated at the 'Bottom' in mind. He or She functions as a 'Representative of the People' and He or She functions in a 'Representative capacity'. He or She 'Serves the Bottom'. Not everyone can do that. 'Good Politicians' know that they can only serve for a 'short time' and during that time can help the 'Freedom and Equality' and 'the General Welfare' of Every Individual at the Bottom. Most business persons are 'ill equipped' to be 'Good Politicians' and probably, most good Politicians are 'ill equipped' to be good 'business-persons'. However, the 'Problematic' arises when CEO's, Business-persons, or Billionaires, enter the Political Field. It then becomes very easy to 'slip' into the 'Autocratic', 'Profit- Making' attitude of 'More and More' of the 'Same'( Money) and from there into that common ailment called 'Greed'. If you ask someone making 'Billions' why she or He wants to make 'more Billions', She or He will not 'Honestly' be able to answer. Of course, the Answer is 'Greed', a 'never ending Quest' to get 'More' and 'More' of that 'Medium of Exchange', which is 'no longer' 'founded' on anything of 'Value', and which has 'flown loose' from a Real 'Social Reality' into a 'Hyper-Reality'. We need 'Real Politicians' who can 'keep' our 'Democracy viable'. Where are the 'Real Politicians'?

Governments are designed to Govern; Economies are designed to make profits. Why can't we keep them separate?

Governments are designed to Govern; Economies are designed to make Profits. Why can't we keep them separate? Simple. So-called 'Politicians' get entangled with the Profit making function and then greed takes over and they become 'Greedy'. Then 'Democratic Government' forgets its about Governing Democratically and with Freedom and Equality and 'replaces' a 'Government function' with an 'Economic Function'. Its so easy for an 'Economic Thinker' to see Government as a means of making 'Money'. That's what 'non-politicians' do when they get involved with Governing. Of course, not all Economic thinkers do that, but look at the Top and notice how many very 'wealthy People' are at the Top and how quickly they turn- over. They turn-over quickly because they are 'not interested' in 'Governing', they are interested in 'making Profits' and when they aren't making Profits, they actually don't know 'how to Govern'. Look at the Top and see what happens there almost on a daily basis. All Business Corporations had their tax Liability 'greatly reduced'. A real Person with a Family makes several Thousand Dollars at work and has to pay Taxes; a Corporation makes Billions and Millions of dollars and doesn't have to pay Taxes. The Individual is a Real, striving, human Being with Medical Bills and family obligations and the Corporation is also a 'Person' considered as a 'Legal Fiction', which exists only in 'contemplation of Law', with no 'Medical problems' and no 'Real' Personal Obligations', so whats wrong with this picture? Simple, the Human Being is Real and works and suffers and the Corporation is an 'Economic Entity' protected by the Constitution and which does not contribute to the Democracy which gave it its 'Fictional arising'. Its an Economic Entity, its a 'Money making Machine', that does not care about Freedom and Equality. Is that Democracy or is that the Economic world taking over the Democratic World? Are we becoming a Plutocracy, or are we already a Plutocracy? Where are the Real Politicians?

How can an Elected Official in a Democracy, 'shut down' the Government he was 'elected' to Govern?

How can an Official elected in a Democracy, shut down the Government he was elected to Govern? Does that make sense? A Democratic Nation and its Government is a Political 'Institution' that exists by virtue of its 'Constitution' and not by virtue of some High 'Political Office'. No Person elected to High Political Office has the Power to shut down the very Government he or she is supposed to be 'Governing'; particularly in a Democracy. Certainly, an 'Autocrat' can 'shut down' his Government, if he chooses, but that never happens because Autocracies 'nourish' the 'Ego' of the Autocrat. 'Office Holders', in a Democracy, are 'elected' by the 'People' at the 'Bottom of Government', to Govern, not to shut down the Government. In a Democracy, no one can shut down a Government that 'exists' by virtue of a 'Written Constitution' that is still in existence. The 'Constitution constitutes us'. All Politicians, in a Democracy, know or should know, that a 'Shut-Down' of Government cannot be used as a 'threat' to force an 'adverse' Political Party to accept some 'adverse' Political Ideology. That is not a 'Political Act', that's destructive. The Government at the Top is unraveling. Shutting down Government cannot be used to acquire some 'Economic advantage'. A 'Revolution' that 'could' be occurring at the Bottom, is occurring at the Top. That's unheard of. How sad, there's an Official at the very 'Top' that is not a 'Real Politician' and does not know what he's doing. Of course, the 'Bottom' is also 'effected' because the 'Form of Government' is 'Democratic' and the 'Will of the People' is really at the 'Bottom', not the 'Top'. The Top 'serves' the 'Bottom', and even allowing for different 'Ideological', or Party Differences', that does 'not mean' He can 'shut down' Government. We need a 'Real Politician' at the 'Top', not an 'Economist', nor a 'Billionaire', nor a CEO, that does not know what he's doing. A 'Real Politician' is 'motored' by the 'Equality and Freedom' of 'each' and 'every' 'Real Individual' at the 'Bottom' of Government. Where are the Real Politicians?

Can a Democracy be Shut-Down? Does that mean we no longer have a functional Government?

Can a Democracy be Shut-Down? Does that mean we no longer have a 'Functional' Government? We still have a Constitution, but is anyone 'working' it? In the past, it usually meant there was an 'insufficient amount' of Money to Operate it, and a 'hurried seeking' and 'shuffling' of Funds to 'Run it' resulted. But, when the 'Office Holder' in the 'Highest Office' in the Land 'Shuts it Down', an intentional, willful, act; what 'Effect' does this create in all 'Governmental Activity'? The Highest Civil Servants are not Being Paid to operate Agencies and enforce Laws, so does this also effect the 'Lower Rungs' of 'Government Operations'? Governments Govern. If the Federal Government is inoperable, does that mean that State Governments are also shut down or inoperable. Are we still a Nation under Law? Are Court case set for Trial in Federal Court and in State Courts also 'shut down'? Remember, the 'Shut Down' is 'Intentional'; its not the result of 'lack of funds', so 'We Have To Ask', 'Is all Government Shut Down'? In other words, are we still 'Under Government'? Are we still under Law? If a 'Corporation' shuts Down, will there still be People working it and producing products for Sale by the Corporation? Whats the difference in the Two? You see why we need 'Office Holders' who are 'experienced' in 'Governing' and not just anyone with Lots of Money. Economic threats do not constitute 'Governing' and neither do 'Political Threats'. And why should anyone, in 'Office', have the 'Political Power' to 'shut down' a 'Constitutional Government'? The 'Nation' and its 'Government' is not His! Its the 'Peoples Government'. What has happened to 'Real Governing' and 'Real Freedom and Equality'? Where are the Leaders who serve 'Real Governing' and who serve the 'Peoples Welfare'; who serve the 'Freedom and Equality' of the Bottom of a Democratic Nation. Where are the Real Leaders? When the 'Top' of 'Democracy' begins to 'quibble' with 'itself', Democracy is in 'Shatters'.

The only 'Individual' who can prevent a take-over by Autocratic, Plutocratic and Oligarchic 'Thinking' is a 'Real Democrat'.

The only Individual who can 'prevent' a 'Take-Over' by Autocratic, Plutocratic, and Oligarchic 'Thinking' is a 'Real Democrat'. And what kind of Individual is that? First, he's a 'Real Human Being' and not a 'Legal Fiction'; he genuinely believes in 'Democracy' as an Ideology of the 'Real People', an not an 'Ideology' of a 'Particular Political Party'. The Bottom of a Political Entity is Peopled by 'Real People'. A 'Corporation' is also a 'Person', but only in 'Contemplation of Law' and is not, admittedly, a 'Real Human Person'. I'm sorry, but that's the only way to 'formulate' that 'sentence'. That 'Person' is an 'Economic entity' and not 'Real' like you and I. ( Actually, they should not be allowed to fund Political Campaigns either; (that would be the Citizens United Case.). You see how we 'exist' in a Democracy that is 'Peopled' by an elusive, nebulous, 'Social Ambient' designed to be 'relaxing' and 'non-critical'. Unfortunately, at the beginning, the 'Many' at the 'Bottom' divided into Political Parties. That already meant 'different' Political Ideologies, and that meant 'antagonism' between 'Parties'. How sad. Once a Bottom, a Social, is 'Identified', it begins to 'Divide'; the Bottom cannot 'agree' or 'live' harmoniously. Then Laws become necessary. But, then again, Laws can only be enacted by Political Entities and all Political Entities and Office Holders in those 'Entities' belong to a Political Party or an already 'Organized Political Entity' viz., a Democracy, Autocracy, Oligarchy, or Plutocracy. There, we've gone 'Full Circle'. Only a 'Real Individual' who lives in a 'Real Democracy' and who has 'Experienced' and 'Tasted' Real deprivation' of 'Equality and Freedom' and 'Understands' the 'elusive' Social Ambient that's Peopled by 'Real Persons' and 'Manufactured Persons' in the 'Economy' can prevent a 'Take-Over' or a 'Shift' into a 'Different' Political Entity. We need Politicians who have 'Lived; with 'Politics', understands the 'Ins and Outs', and who has not been seduced by 'Power', 'Money', 'fame', an 'Political Isolationism'. Where are the Real Politicians?

Can a Democracy become an Autocracy: a Plutocracy; or an Oligarchy?

Can a Democracy become an Autocracy; a Plutocracy; or an Oligarchy? The answer is 'Yes', but its not so easy. Certainly an 'Individual' who comes from the 'Many' in a Democracy who is 'Equal' and 'Free' has a Right to exercise his/her 'Political Judgement' in whatever 'Direction' or manner that He/She pleases. 'They' also have a Constitutional Right to live in 'Equality and Freedom'. A Real 'Democracy' exercises these Freedoms and Rights in a 'genuine manner', and the People at the Bottom, enjoy their Equality and Freedoms and they will miss them if they are ever taken away. However, the 'Political Positions' of 'Power', at the Top, are 'Open' or 'Available' to anyone or everyone who wishes to participate in Government and that's the 'basic reason' why Political Candidates should be well qualified to 'Govern'. If someone wants to be CEO of a 'Major Corporation', will that be permitted, if the candidate is a 'nice Guy' or 'Women' and is a 'popular' candidate. The answer is No! Of course, you will say, but that's not an 'Elective Position'. True, although there is an element of 'Electoral-ness' as well as an element of 'Qualification'. But, I guarantee you, the 'Qualifications' must be there, or the Board will not choose 'him' or 'her'. The Individual must be 'knowledgeable' in the area in which She or He 'will function'. Governing a 'Corporate Entity' is not a 'Democratic Process'; its more of an 'Autocratic Process', with a little bit of 'Nice Guy' thrown in. That's exactly why a successful CEO cannot just 'Govern' a Democracy, unless he is also qualified to 'Govern' a 'Political Entity'. So why don't we, somehow, monitor or 'set qualifications' for those who want 'Political Positions of Power'? Of course, at this point, you will say, hey, we live in a Democracy and anyone who wants to Run can Run for Office. So, does that mean that if your a Billionaire, or, a successful Businessman you are also 'qualified', by that fact alone, for Political Office? I don't think so! If you don't believe me 'look around'. Today,the 'Top' has been 'taken over' by 'Millionaires and Billionaires'; the 'turn-over' at the Top is unbelievable, and that creates 'instability'. 'Political Instability' in the 'Halls of Power' is never Good. In such a case, the Top becomes 'Dictatorial' and the Social becomes as unstable as the Top. Where are the Real Politicians? Only a 'Real Politician' can restore 'Stability' in 'Democratic Government' and 'Freedom and Equality' in the Social.

Economic threats cannot be the basis for Political Decisions.

Economic threats cannot be the basis for Political Decisions. A Political Decision reflects a particular Political Ideology while an Economic decision reflects a 'Move' designed to make a 'Profit'. Economics is about Profits, Politics is about the General Welfare. Instead of 'crossing' Disciplines, i.e., Politics and Economics, it would be easier to 'Order' the Five or Ten Richest, largest, Corporations to create a 'Fund' to build 'whatever is necessary' to insure the Safety and 'General Welfare' of the People at the Bottom in their 'Condition of Togetherness'. But, why a Wall? The 'Peoples' of the World have already crossed 'Political Boundaries' and 'National Boundaries'. The Internet has 'meshed' all of 'Humanity' 'together'. The 'Internet' and the 'Cloud' have brought Individuals together for the First Time in History. Walls and National Boundaries are less important then ever. Of course, we still need Laws to 'control' improper entries into Other National Boundaries, but the People can 'communicate' and 'enter' via the Internet and the Cloud. Humanity has never been more 'Integrated'. Why are we building Walls? 'Social Cohesion' becomes possible with the 'tearing down' of existing 'Walls', and we are Building Walls? How many 'Walls' have come down? We no longer live in a World that builds 'Walls'. We need more Integration of 'Peoples' and we need to 'benefit', as a Nation, from our 'Entry' into the 'World of Technology'. Our Technology can and should be used to bring 'Peoples together' and stop building Walls where they are not necessary. Its not too smart to build Walls in the Age of the Computer. If a Political Decision needs to be made, it should be based on Political Ideology and the basis of the Ideology needs to be made 'Clear'. Of course, our 'Split-Ideology' has different perspectives on the 'Equality' and 'Freedom' of the 'Real Individual' Guaranteed by the 'Constitution', but it sure doesn't include the 'Building of Walls'. Where are the Real Politicians, not the CEO's and Economists who are concerned with building 'Walls' to separate the 'Haves' from the 'Have-nots'.

The Top of every Nation is a source of Political Power.

The 'Top' of every 'Nation' is a 'Source of Political Power'. The Political Issue is always, how does the Top 'arranges' or 'distributes' its Power. The 'answer' to that question determines the 'Form' that 'Government' will assume. It will be an 'Autocracy', a 'Plutocracy', an 'Oligarchy', or a 'Democracy'; or, whatever 'else' People can 'Make-Up'. I say 'Make-Up' because 'all' Political Entities are 'Social Constructions'. It probably began with the 'Family' because that's a 'Grouping' with Family-Ties that 'Had' to 'remain Together'. Soon, the Family Groupings were 'out-paced' by Larger Groups which led to 'just plain Groupings', and then 'Tribes', and then Groupings which Identified themselves to a 'Family Origin' or a 'Race' or to a particular 'Territory'. The point being that at some 'place' in this evolution, Governments became necessary. The issue then becomes how are we to 'organize' that 'Government' and from where will the 'Top' get its 'Power to Govern'. The Old problematic of the 'One and the Many'. The 'older Groupings' picked the 'Strongest', the 'Oldest', or the 'Wisest'. Later, came The Divine Right of Kings. Giving a Leader a Divine Right to Govern certainly contributes an 'Aura' otherwise missing from the Human Condition. But, even they had to Rationalize that 'Aura' into "the King has Two Bodies". That worked for awhile. No more. Now, the issue becomes from where does the Top get its Political Power? A Top cannot get Power from anywhere, except from the Bottom, the 'condition of togetherness', a 'cohesive condition' of Humans 'Living next to each Other'. Once a procedure to 'transfer Authority' from the Bottom to the Top, was formulated, the Bottom was prepared to 'select' or 'Elect' a Leader. Now the Real Issue needs to be answered. It takes a Politically inclined Individual who is prepared to 'Lead' and who is 'not selfish', and who is 'capable' of 'Leading and Organizing' the 'Bottom' into a 'Free and Equal Condition'. The Top does have Power, but it got it from the Bottom and only for awhile. The Top must be 'experienced' and 'prepared' to lead the 'Many' into a 'Real Democracy'. Where are the Real Politicians?

The Term 'Socialism' acquired a 'Bad Connotation'; now, the 'Top' is becoming 'Autocratic'.

The Term 'Socialism' acquired a 'Bad Connotation'; now the Top of Democracy is acquiring a 'Bad Reputation' also; its 'becoming' 'Autocratic'. The term 'Socialism' probably arose from the term the 'Social', which is just another term meaning the 'Bottom' of a Polity'or a Democratic Polity. A 'Social' is a 'People', millions of them. It has nothing to do with the 'Top' owning the 'means of Production', The Top doesn't own anything; it Governs and it gets its Power to Govern from the Peoples at the Bottom. Without People at the Bottom, a Polity has no need 'to Exist' and it 'cannot own anything'. Its just a 'Political Point' of Power with the 'Duty' to 'Govern' Millions of 'Real People'. The Top 'Serves' the 'People' at the 'Bottom'. The Top, as a position of Power is the 'Biggest Fiction' in the 'World'. Just like a Corporation, which is a 'Recognized' and 'Accepted' Legal Fiction and exists 'only' in contemplation of Law. As a Result, the Corporation was 'Given' a huge Economic 'Grasp' that has created an 'Unbalanced Economy' and many 'Billionaires'. Now, Money 'talks' and Bullshit Walks. Now, Big Money tells Government how to Govern. We have replaced the 'Divinity' in the 'Divine Right' of Kings with 'Money', 'Profits', and 'Properties'. When the Candidate for the 'Highest Office' in the 'Land' was asked, and what have you accomplished? He replied, "I build Big Buildings." That's documented. Now, the Top uses 'economic threats' to Dictate to 'Political Policy'; and recently threatened to stop 'funding' the fighting of Forrest Fires. From a 'Political Position' of 'Economic mischief' to a position 'endangering property' and 'Human Life'. What happened to 'Equality and Freedom' for the 'Bottom' of a 'Democratic Polity'? The 'Real Bottom' of 'Real Individuals' got 'forgotten' and that's where the term 'Socialism' got its 'Taint'; and that's where Democracy is being 'transformed' into an 'Autocracy'. Where are the 'Real Politicians'?

Holding a Government hostage is not a 'Political Maneuver'.

Holding a Government 'Hostage' is not a Political Maneuver, its an Economic Maneuver and a very 'poor One'. Unfortunately, that's an example of 'Economic Leadership' that is 'self-destructive'. Will a Corporation say, 'I'll close the Corporation' if you don't elect a 'Republican' or a 'Democrat'? Of course, not. To be sure, that's poor 'economic thinking' trying to 'relate' to 'Political Structures'. I've said, Politics and Economics are different and although every Polity 'needs' an Economy, the 'thinking required' of 'each' is 'different' from the Other. 'Political Thinking' is for 'Governing', and 'Governing only', and in compliance with the Constitution, i.e. in 'Freedom' and 'Equality'; while the Economic is simply to 'make a Profit'. The Two separate Institutions need each Other, but their 'functions' cannot be mixed. Every 'Polity' needs an 'Economy', but, not every 'Economic Structure' needs a 'Government'. Did the 'Divine Right of Kings' need an 'Economy'? No!, and it didn't have an economy, nor Ownership of property. But, that 'changed' and 'evolved' into a 'Mix' for the 'Polity' and for 'its People'. But, that's History. Government was established so that it could 'Govern'; not make a Profit. The Two Principles must be kept separate and can function optimally, if each keeps to its proper Domain. That's why Economic Principles 'cannot Govern'; and that's why Governments cannot exist to make a Profit. Economic Principles do not belong in 'Politics' and Political principles should protect its Economy; after all it even created a 'Person', that 'only exists' in 'contemplation of Law'. 'Politics' is different from 'Capitalism'. The 'Two' are different. Where are the 'Selfless' Politicians that know 'how' to 'Govern' the 'Condition of Togetherness.'

Articulated Political Power Structures are necessary; but they should not encroach on the Human Condition.

Articulated Political Power Structures are necessary; but they should not encroach on the Human Condition. The Human Condition is Natural, while the Political Structures are Constructions. That's why we have 'Founding Fathers'. The Founding of America is not without its Problems, but the Structure or Constitution is a viable Instrument; sometimes referred too as a 'Living Constitution'. But, other Political Entities seem to construct a Top with Power, and at the same time, 'limit' or 'curtail' the 'importance' of the 'Human Condition'at the Bottom. The Human Condition, in a Democracy, is respected and it is understood that, if it was not for the Millions of Humans at the Bottom, there would be no need for a Political Top with Political Power. The Essence of Governments is always the 'People' in their 'Condition of Togetherness'. Sometimes the Problematic in Democracies are the People who do not respect the Government that protects their 'Equality and Freedom'. Without People; no Government, without Government no Political Equality and Freedom. A Social or gathering of the Many cannot Govern themselves without some Institution at the Top to Govern the Bottom. Of course, we call that 'Institution' the 'Government' or the 'Top'; the 'Source' of all 'Constructed Political Power'. The Bottom always remains in its 'Natural Condition' while it 'conforms' to the 'delineations' of a 'Particular Social'. The Bottom conforms to the Social 'structure' as it conforms to 'Law', which delineates the 'acceptable and the unacceptable'. but, The Government, once Elected, must be Democratic. Democracy can achieve its Goals with Political Strategies, but it cannot shut down the Government. That is not 'Political', nor 'Democratic'. Actually, that's 'Autocratic'. Democracies should 'not' be Ruled by 'Autocrats'. Somethings wrong. Where are the Real Politicians.

A Democratic Form of Government is 'Real". Many Other 'Forms' are 'Articulated Power Structures'.

Democracy is Real Government; Other Forms are 'Articulated Power Structures' that have been Institutionalized. The Latter 'reduces' the Human Condition to a 'condition of subservience'. In such cases the Government claims to Govern the People but, in reality, its the People who serve the Government. The Human Qualities of Equality and Freedom are misplaced. The People at the Bottom do not have Equality and Freedom. If they did, it would be the People who grant the Top the power it needs. The People in their condition of togetherness have the Power. In a Democracy the Government is "of the People", "by the People" and "for the People". Political Power originates at the Bottom and the Bottom grants Political power to Govern. Political Office has Power because the Bottom grants it to the Top so the Top can Govern. The Bottom of 'every Polity' is a 'Condition of Togetherness'. The Top of 'every Polity' is only a 'Political Position', or, a position in a 'constructed Political Condition'; to be sure, an 'essential Institution'. Hence the 'Top' of every Polity is essential, but it should respect the 'Equality and Freedom' of every 'Real Individual' at the 'Bottom'. The reason for that is that all Political Positions are occupied by 'Real Individuals' who come from the Bottom. Of course, not every Government is a Democracy. Nevertheless, a Form of Government should be 'structured' to 'house Political Power' at the Top but not to disregard the 'Equality and Freedom' of the 'Real Individual' at the Bottom. Recently, an interesting political statement about the Federal Reserve was made. I paraphrase, 'a powerful Golfer will not score if he doesn't know how to Putt'. Actually that applies to a 'Political Leader' who does not know how to 'Politic'. A Political problem requires a Political answer. But, if the Political Leader is an Economic thinkers, and Rich, he will not know how to give a 'Political Answer' because he is not a Politician versed in Political Structures. An Autocratic Thinker will think like an Autocrat, and does not care about 'Equality and Freedom' of the 'Real Individual'. An 'Autocratic mentality' is a 'One Person Government' and that 'Person considers himself a 'Superior Human being', and claims 'Personal Power', and 'Institutional Power' over 'all Individuals' within the Politys Jurisdiction. She or He is an 'Autocrat'; she or He 'Rules'. Governments Organize themselves any way the want, but they should not disregard the 'Equality' and 'Freedom' of the 'Human condition'. The Individual Right to have a 'Just Leader' who knows 'How' to Govern and who Governs every Individual in the 'Condition of Togetherness' and Respects the Equality and Freedom of the Real Individual is a 'Just Government'. Governments are 'Political Institutions', and hence only have the Power that they are 'Given'. 'Political Institutions' are not 'Natural Entities'. All Human Beings are creations of 'Nature'; hence, all Human Beings are the 'Same'. But, all 'Political Entities' are not 'Natural' but their construction should respect the Equality and Freedom of the human Condition. Democracy requires that. If that is not provided for, are we back to the Divine Right of Kings 'Form of Government'? Have we just given up 'Divinity' and now claim 'Personal Power'? No One Human Being has 'Real Personal Power'. He or She has 'Institutional Power' but only because its provided for, and only for a short period of Time. Where are the Real Politicians?

A Democratic Government is a Government "of the People", "by the People" and "for the People".

A Democratic Government is a Government "of the People", "by the People", and "for the People". That's why 'the People' or the 'Bottom' of the 'Polity' are very important. The essence and function of Government is 'to Govern'. It has no 'other' function. But, consider the 'importance' of People to a 'Government', particularly to a 'Democratic Form' of Government, and you begin to see the 'importance' of 'democracy' as a 'Manner' of Governing. The Bottom, or, The Many, or the 'Condition of Togetherness' which 'constitutes it', includes 'Millions of Individuals', or, to say it 'differently', includes the 'so-called', 'Many'. The different Forms of Government is an attempt to resolve the 'Ancient Problematic' of the 'One' and 'the Many', but they are all 'partial solutions'. I say 'partial' because that's not the 'end' of the Problem; that's the 'beginning'. Why? It seems that the Problematic is in creating a 'difference' between a 'Top' and a 'Bottom' and then questioning the 'competence', or 'authority' of the Top to Govern the Bottom, which happens to be the 'same' as the 'Millions of Individuals' at the Bottom. The Problematic creates a relation between 'One Individual' at the Top of 'Power'and the 'Many Individuals' at the Bottom, who are to be Governed. But, it seems that the Problem is to recognize that something is 'missing' or that something is 'needed' to justify 'Governing'. That missing link is that 'something must be created by Human Beings' to justify 'One' or 'Several Individuals' Governing the 'whole Bottom' of the Polity. Governments are 'not Natural', they are 'creations' by 'Unique Human Beings', or, if I may, the 'Unique Human Spirit'. Government is a man made 'Political Institution'. Government is not Natural, in the sense that its established by Nature. It must be 'Crafted' and as a 'construction' all 'Unique Human Characteristics'and all Political Factors' must be included. That means, the 'Uniqueness' of the 'Human Condition' and the 'Similarity and Equality' of each and every real Individual in the Polity. If all Individuals are the 'Same' and 'Unique', no 'One Individual' is 'Superior' to the 'Other'. Hence, no 'One' has a 'Natural Right' to 'Govern' and 'all Governments' should consider the 'Unique Human Condition' in their 'Construction' of a 'Polity'. That means all Political Entities should be Democratic. Where are the Real Politicians?

'All' Political Entities govern a 'Large Group of Human Beings'.

All Political Entities Govern a Large Group of Human Beings. The Political Entity must be 'organized and set-up' by an Individual, or a Group of Individuals. It cannot be set-up by a Computer or a 'previously organized' Corporation. 'Someone' must establish 'Government'. We can no longer rely on some form of 'Divine Intervention', although, that 'used to be' a 'Reality'. But, it didn't work. Hence, the necessity of establishing a Political Entity by an Individual, or a group of Individuals. Nature cannot establish Nationhood, Government, or any 'Collective sense' of 'controlling' a 'Collection of Humans'. Why not? The most simple way of approaching that issue is 'because each Real Individual is born into a World where 'Every-One' that is 'born' is the 'Same', or, 'Politically Equal'. If we look at 'Sameness' in Nature, no-one Individual can claim 'Superiority' of the 'Human Condition' or of having 'Power' to 'govern another'. In other words, Humans are the Same' and all are 'Equal', and 'Free' to 'Express', 'Implement', and 'Defend' that 'Equality'. One Individual could possible establish a 'Fair Constitution', but 'unlikely' because already He/She 'senses' the 'Feelings' of Superiority. Hence, the better approach is a 'Group of Individuals'. But, if the Group creates Political Offices that have 'Power' over Individuals that begins to smell like the 'Divine Right of Kings'. That Divine Right had to come up with the Argument that the King had 'Two Bodies', the 'Divine Body' and the 'Normal,' every-day Body. That didn't Fly. No, Political Offices have Duties to the Governed. Hence 'Political Office' has 'Knowledgeable Duties' to 'Govern'. Of course, the next issue is the 'Form of Government'. Well, there's Autocracy, Plutocracy, Oligarchy, or Democracy. If all the 'Same' Individuals must be 'Governed', it should be a 'Political Form' that Recognizes and Protects the 'Uniqueness' of the 'Individual Human Condition'. Hence, 'Political Power' of the Individual or, the 'Individuals' in the 'Condition of Togetherness', called 'The Many', is transferred to the Institutional Top, or to the 'One', by way of the 'Electoral Process', but only for a short period of Time. In this way, we can continue to learn about the Democratic Process and begin to see why a CEO or Businessman cannot Govern a Political Entity. A Political Entity should be established to Govern Equal and Free Individuals and not to make a Profit. Profits are for Businesses, Government is for Governing. Where are the Real Politicians?

All Political Entities have Power, but not every Political Entity has Real Individuals at the Bottom with Natural and Political Rights,.

In a Democracy, the Top has Political Power, but each and every Real Individual, at the Bottom, has Freedom and Equality. We often hear this description of democracy. So, how does the Bottom 'influence' the Top in a Democracy. If the Bottom does not have Power, how can it 'influence' the Top. Simply, each Real Individual at the Bottom counts as a 'Number'. Each Real Individual perceived as a Number is Natural and has the same Rights as every other Real Human being. Now, the Top is 'not Number' nor is it a 'Real Human Being'. Its just a Political Institution. The Top of every Political Entity has Power because it is a 'Political Institution'. Of course, the Top of Power is occupied by a Real Individual and we consider Him,Her as an Individual with Power, so long as, He or She, occupies the 'Institution of the Top'. But, Institutions of Power are 'human made' and not 'Natural Entities'. 'Humans', or, the Bottom, are 'Natural', but the Top is a Political Institution. Its not a Natural Entity, that's why every Top or Government can be different. For example, an Autocracy has Power at the Top also, but the Bottom is not considered 'Natural' in the 'Political Sense' that each 'Real Individual' has certain 'Rights' such as 'Freedom and Equality'. They are usually considered 'Subjects' like in the phrase, 'The Kings Subjects'. The Kings Subjects are always subject to the Power of the King. All Political Entities have Power at the Top. Autocracy, Oligarchy, Plutocracy, or Democracy. They all have Power. But, only Democracy has a Bottom that considers the Real Individuals at the Bottom as having 'Rights', by virtue of being Human and having 'Freedom and Equality'. That's why 'Governing' in a Democracy does not mean the Top can do whatever it wants. The Top must 'Respect', and 'Defend' the Rights of all Real Individuals at the Bottom. It must Govern in a Politically 'Just Manner'; alleviate the suffering of the Bottom, provide housing, medical attention, and socially organize the Individual's Freedom and Equality in a Politically 'Just Manner'. It has no 'Other' Political Functions. Politically, the Bottom has a Number that can be 'counted' and be provided for; there can be no Racial Discrimination; no economic discrimination; no 'class' discrimination; and all Real Human Beings must be 'counted' and included in the distribution of all Social 'Freedoms and Equalities'. A Political Institution has no 'Other' purpose for existing. Where are the Real Politicians?

In a Democracy, the Top has Institutional Power, but the Bottom has Many Individuals who have Freedom and Equality.

In a Democracy, the 'Top' has Institutional Power, but the 'Bottom' has 'Many Real Individuals' who have Freedom and Equality. There's that old dilemma of the One and the Many. Of course, the first thing that comes to Mind is why should any 'One' or, for that matter, 'Several Persons' have Power while the Bottom is 'Powerless'. The Individual at the Bottom has 'Freedom and Equality', but that is not 'Power'. Well, lets call them 'Rights'. But, why 'Rights', if not for the fact, that everyone is 'Equally Human', including those who serve at the 'Top'. If the Top is 'Superior' in some manner or another, the 'Rights' become 'unimportant'. Or we could say, the Top 'houses' a 'Superior Human Being' that is more Powerful than any 'Other Human Being'. We, some of us, know better than that. The Human Condition is Equally the same. If Equality 'reins' over the Human Condition, how are we to determine who will Govern the Bottom? Of course, 'Election' is a Possibility, hence electoral Politics. But, Elections, a process that appears relatively 'efficient' and 'innocent' was soon made 'Problematic'. Is there some 'different manner' of 'electing', 'selecting', or 'appointing', the Top. Of course, we now live in the Computer Age, so, is there some way to transfer the electoral process to the Computer? Or, can that also be Problematic? It soon appears that the 'old problem' of the 'One and the Many' that was, at that time, resolved by selecting the 'Strongest' or the 'Wisest', no longer 'Works' as the basis for selecting a Leader. But, now we have access to computers. So, can we vote with our computer? How can everyone have access to a computer? Can Electoral Politics become 'Computerized', or is that also Problematic. Well, consider how the Computer has 'torn down' 'National Boundaries' that allows communication between Individuals of different Nations. The computer has done more to 'Unify' the 'Human Condition' than all the Politicians rolled up into a 'Political Ball'. Do we build Walls or do we knock down Walls? At this point enters the Real Individual and the Morality of the Human Condition. All 'Real Individuals' are not 'Corporations', not 'Legal Fictions', and have 'Equal Rights' and 'Political Freedom'. Maybe the Computer can help us? Where are the 'Real' Politicians?

A 'Top', that begins to disintegrate Morally, can also 'effect' the 'Integrity of the International Sphere'.

The disintegrating 'Top' of any Nation will effect the International Sphere. If the Nation is a Democratic Nation, the International Sphere will begin to take notice. Especially, if the disintegration at the Top reflects a moral Issue. The reason being that a Democratic Nation that is disintegrating with respect to Moral Issues will not be expected to defend its own Moral Integrity, and hence will not be expected to defend the same or similar Moral Issues of Other Nations. When Morality flies out the window in a Democracy, the Human Condition will not be respected and hence the Freedom and Equality that should hold the Bottom together will weaken. Consequently, a Nation with 'weak' morals, at the Top, will create a 'weakness' and a 'disintegration' of the 'Integrity' of the 'International Bond'. This National 'lack of concern' for 'Human Life' will not sit well with Other Nations that are also Democracies that respect the 'Life' of the 'Human Condition'. Of course, Autocracies, Plutocracies and Oligarchies will not be expected to be too 'concerned' about a National Morality because the integrity of their Nation-Hood is organized differently. In their case, all the Political Power is at the Top of the Polity and not at the Bottom, hence Moral Issues that involve the Human Condition at the Bottom are out of the question. Of course, to them, the 'Bottom' is also important, but only with respect to 'Obedience and Allegiance' to the Top. Some Nations treat their Leaders like 'Gods'. Morality never enters the picture, only an 'enforced' National Obedience. That is not the case in a Democracy. In a Real Democracy, the 'Moral' and 'Knowledgeable Stature' of the Highest Office Holder becomes very important because the 'Freedom and Equality' of 'all Citizens' must also be 'respected' and 'protected'. Of course, on the International Sphere, the United Nations also has a 'Political Integrity' but that Integrity is a 'Political Integrity' of Powerful Nations. On the International Sphere, all Nations are 'Equally Powerful' and 'Independent' regardless their 'Geographical Size' and 'Population'. Hence, when a 'Democratic Nation' begins to 'reflect' a 'Moral laxity', the other 'Equal Nations' become 'concerned'. They become concerned because, suddenly, 'Equal Nations' become 'Morally lax' and begin to show 'little respect' for the 'Human Condition'. Politics is not a science, but 'Office Holders' should respect the 'Freedom and Equality' of the 'Human Condition'. After all, without 'Humans', there's 'no need' for 'Nations or Governments'. Without Nations or Governments, there's no need for a 'United Nations'.

A 'Changing Social' is unpredictable, but a 'solid' Democratic Top can hold it together.

A 'Social' is never some solid entity that never changes. Its always in movement and seldom becomes a 'solid', 'fixated', unchanging Entity. Of course, that's referred too as the 'Bottom' of all Political Entities. But, every Bottom has a Top and a 'Democratic Top' can keep a Real Democracy, at the Bottom, viable. Obviously, a Democracy of the 'Many' requires a 'Top' that is both 'Democratic' and 'efficient'. In other words, a Top that acts like an Autocracy, or an Oligarchy, or a Plutocracy cannot 'Govern' a Democracy of the 'Many'. Why not? Simply, because Democracy is a 'Government', "of the People", "By the People", and "For the People". In more 'functional' words, the People 'Govern', not the 'ONE', not the 'Select Few', and not the 'Rich'. But notice, I also said 'Efficient' and that requires a 'knowledgeable' Top. That is very important because a candidate for the Top Office in a Democracy can very easily 'run' for election and not be 'qualified' to hold the Top Office. Once in Office, He or She will remain in Office and that's exactly the problem. Once in Office, the People have to wait it out, unless they take drastic 'Constitutional action' and remove him or her from Office. Remember, a candidate can 'think and behave' like a Dictator, or, like an Oligarch, or, like a Plutocrat, or just plain egotistical, selfish, or 'completely unfamiliar' with the 'Governing process'. He or She can remain fixated on 'Economics', or some other aspect of 'Power' and not know how to 'Govern' a Democracy. Freedom and Equality of the Individual is important in a Democracy. Without Freedom and Equality a Social in a Democracy will not hold together. Where are the Knowledgeable Democratic candidates?

When the Top of a Political Entity begins to 'disintegrate', the Bottom also changes its 'Personality'.

When the Top of a Political Entity begins to 'disintegrate', the 'Bottom' also changes its 'Personality'. The Bottom is always a huge collective of Equal and Free Individuals and even though its 'conditions of existence', as 'Real Individuals', remains as a 'condition of togetherness', the Individual retains his/her 'Identity', as a Real 'human Being'. Politically, Individuals are the 'same'( Equal and Free), but 'Individually', they assert the 'qualities' of their 'Independent Personality'. Fortunately, or Unfortunately, that means that the 'Bottom' also begins to 'disintegrate'. The 'antagonisms' begin as 'mere' Political 'Party Disagreement' that rapidly 'crescendos' into the 'lower rungs' of the Human Condition- from mere Party antagonisms that don't have to exist, to violent behaviors. Its very sad, when the animosities and disagreements at the Bottom have been partially caused, by the 'Representatives' at the Top of Power. The Political Entity 'initiates' the 'causes' of its 'own demise'. The 'Representative' at the Top has failed the People. When the Top fails; the Bottom fails. When the Bottom fails Democracy fails. When Democracy fails the Bottom becomes unruly, disorganized, and at the 'mercy' of the more 'dominant Citizens', i.e. those who stand to Gain by that unruly behavior, viz., the Rich, the Corporations, the 'Big', the 1%. Unfortunately, Democracy cannot survive without a knowledgeable Leader and a 'Real Politician'. 'Real Political Leaders' are essential. Real Economic Leaders are essential also, but they have to stay in their 'Arena' and never should they 'confuse' the 'differences' in 'their disciplines'. It may be possible for a Real Politician to also be a real Businessman, or a Real Businessman to be a Real Politician, and if that's the case, it should be made manifest in the Political Campaign. Barring those qualifications and conditions, don't listen to promises that you will make 'lots of money' (they don't even increase the Minimum Wage) that you will be rich ( only the 1% will get 'Fatter'), that you will ascend to a 'Higher Social Class' in Society ( can you see a Social where the 99% will be as Rich as the 1%, 'economic equality'?) If you hear that, that's not Politics, that's Bullshit! Sorry, lost it for a moment. Where are the Real Politicians? We need Real Selfless Politicians.

A Flexible Ideology allows for a changing, transformable Social.

A flexible Ideology allows for a changing, 'transformable' Social. A 'Social' is never a fixed entity. Its always changing and the external relations between the Individuals in the 'condition of togetherness' can undergo changes. The Individuals do not undergo changes, they remain 'Politically Equal' and 'Politically Free'. As 'Individuals' they are always Equal and Free, but in the 'condition of togetherness', there can be variations. The reason for that is that the 'Social' is always in motion, in activity, 'Institutionally' and 'Individually', and can be subject to variations. Advances in Technology and Institutions can create subtle changes in the Social. Hence, a Political Entity must become aware of those changes and modify its 'political attitude', but always within the 'context' of its Political Identity. For Example, a Democracy allows for the proper Political Response; one that usually expands and changes the Social. Of course, an Autocracy does the same thing but within limits. The Social in a Democracy is 'wide open' to new advances and a proper Democratic Political response. An Autocracy usually suppresses Social Changes to protect its Authoritarian Regime. It only allows those changes that do not threaten its Authority. An Autocracy is an Example of a Rigid unchanging Ideology, while the Social in a Democracy can be modified by new advances in science. That's why Ideology must be Flexible in a Democracy. The People can change within a Democracy, but its Ideology needs Flexibility. A Rigid Ideology or strict Party loyalty only creates political Problems between the Parties or the People and even in the Democratic Principles that maintains the integrity of the Entity.

Political Ideology should not be 'fixed'; it should allow 'flexibility'.

Political Ideology should not be 'fixed' or 'rigid'; it should allow 'flexibility'. Instead, Political Ideology 'divides' the Bottom into 'opposing forces', or, stated differently, it divides the 'Social', and most political campaigns, follow the so-called 'Party Line'. Most campaigns seldom allows a 'crossing' of the 'Line' that divides the 'parameters' of what constitutes 'One', or, the 'Other', 'Party Ideology'. That is a very 'narrow minded' and 'restrictive' view of the 'vastness' of the 'Social' or the 'Condition of Togetherness'. Initially, the 'Bottom' should not have divided but, each 'Real Individual' being so 'Individuated' and clinging to His/Her sense of 'really being an existing, Real Individual', seems to always exclude the fact that S/He lives in a 'Social', i.e. a 'Condition of Togetherness', and His/Her concept of 'Self' becomes too arbitrary or 'Inclusive'. I realize the difficulty of what I'm suggesting but, the 'effort' should be 'enlightening'. We are too 'ego-centered' in our own 'Individuality' to allow the 'elusive concepts' of 'Equality' and 'Freedom' to creep into our 'own sense' of being a 'Real Individual'. It seems that our 'sense' of being a 'strong Individual' is 'intimidated' or 'threatened' by the 'Other'. How strange; we are all Real Individuals, yet our 'egos' will not allow a 'common feeling' of 'Equality and Freedom' in a 'Crowd'. That's why it is important to perceive ourselves as Real Individuals 'Living in a Condition of Togetherness', which is a 'Political Structure', or 'Polity'. As we all know, a 'Polity' is a 'Man Made Structure' or 'Institution' that has 'Political Power' at the 'Top' and 'The Many People' at the 'Bottom'. Its a 'Social configuration', not a 'Natural Phenomena' like the 'Family'. If the People at the Bottom need to 'Divide', they must understand that any formation into 'Political Parties' must remain 'flexible' because 'political situations' are always 'changing' and its 'important' to 'retain flexibility' to confront such situations. A 'Rigid Ideology' cannot do that. Where are the Real Politicians?

In a Democracy, the 'Top' must be 'Politically' and 'Morally' qualified.

In a Democracy, the 'Top' must be 'Politically' and 'Morally' qualified. Of course, that applies to any 'Form' of Government. The Top of a Political Entity is always the 'Driver' of the 'Entity'. As Driver, the 'Leader' should posses the 'Political knowledge' to 'drive' the 'Ship of State' and should also show 'some concern' for its 'People'. Of course, 'the Peoples' or 'Subjects' are all 'Human Beings'. All Human Beings are the 'Same' and deserve some 'concern' from the Top, regardless its 'Form of Government'. The reason for that is that a 'Form of Government' is a 'Man-made' Institution'. The 'Human Condition' is not 'Man-made'. Of course, some will think that's naive; how can a 'Dictatorship' be concerned with 'its People'? I'm suggesting 'some concern', not a 'complete change' in the 'Form of Government'. After all, weren't some 'Kings' more 'humane' than 'Others'? Are some 'Dictators' more 'humanitarian' than Others? I'm not trying to draw a 'new Line' between 'Form of Government' and 'degrees' of Morality. The fact remains, a 'human being' will always be a 'human being' and every 'Leader' who serves in 'Office' is a Human Being. In a Democracy, the Top is always expected to be 'Politically qualified' and also 'Morally Qualified'. But, lately, has 'Morality' been separated from Democratic Politics? Recently, a Supreme Court Appointee was accused of 'very violent sexual behavior' in a 'Hearing' before the 'Judiciary Committee'. Of course, a Committee, is not qualified to 'try an accusation' like that. That requires a 'Jury Trial' in a 'Proper Court'. Yet, the Committee, after a 'squabble' with the 'Opposing Party', and accusations of 'Political Party Sabotage', went on an approved the Appointment. Now, we have, on the Highest Court in the Land, a 'Tainted' Justice. The Truth is no one is qualified to judge the Justice. So why did a 'Vote' based on 'Party Loyalty' 'settle' the issue and advanced him to the Highest Court in the Land? What happens to 'Objectivity'? In a Democracy, 'Objectivity' is necessary in the Highest Court in the Land. Many, Many, years ago, the 'Bottom of Democracy' split into 'Political Parties'. So now, instead of trying to achieve 'Judicial Objectivity' in 'Constitutional Adjudication', we 'stack' the 'Courts' with 'Party Preferences' in 'Constitutional Interpretation'. Isn't it time we improve the 'selection process' of the Highest Court in the Land? Where are the Real Politicians?

Governing is not a simple matter; its a complex factor.

'Governing' is not a simple matter; its a complex factor. Of course, there are 'different forms' of Government; hence, different 'forms' of Governing. An Autocratic Government is not about to be told 'how it should' Govern. One would think, that a certain 'Political Mono-Idealism' 'should' give Autocracies a certain 'stability', which is not present in 'Democracies'. Of course, the stability is at the Top, not the Bottom. Also, consider the 'Moral' or 'Ethical Values' of the Dictator? After all, its all up to Him/Her. Well, isn't it just as difficult to 'arrange' and 're-arrange' a 'Political Entity' in a proper 'Ideological Manner', as it is for an 'Individual', at the Top, to change 'Himself/herself' to fit into the proper 'Moral Stature' to 'Govern' an 'Autocracy', or, even a 'Democracy'? Doesn't 'Governing' require a certain 'Selflessness' and 'Aloofness' to be able to 'relate' to "Huge Groups of Peoples' and to 'Established Institutions. After all, being at the 'Top' of any 'form of Government' requires, both, an 'Ideological Stance' as well as a 'Moral Stance'. Every 'Human Being' at the 'Top' has a 'Political Ideology' and a 'Morality', or 'Personality'. It seems more likely that a 'Top' can change the 'Ideology' easier than His/ Her Personality. 'Manipulating Others' is always 'easier' than 'Manipulating Oneself'. Hence, we must be careful whom we place in 'Political Office'. That's one of the reasons why a 'CEO' or 'Business Mentality' should not be in an 'Office' of 'Political Power'. All, if not, 'most' of the changes we can expect will relate to 'Profits', and 'Economic Moves'. And heaven knows, 'economic changes' are necessary, but not just changes that benefit the 'Legal Fictions' and the 'Rich'. What happens to 'Freedom and Equality'? They go out the Political Window. A 'Real Politician' should have 'Real Values', both 'Political' and 'Moral'. Where are the Real Politicians?

All Nations have a Judicial System.

All Nations have a Judicial System. Of course, not all Nations are Democratic and hence their Judicial System 'reflects' their Political Orientation. A 'Democracy' usually has a 'Constitution' and the 'Constitution' is either 'Written' or 'Unwritten'. We have a 'Written Constitution' and a hierarchy of Courts that extends from the City level up to the National Level. The Highest Court in the land is the Supreme Court of the United States; it decides what is 'Constitutional' and what is 'Unconstitutional'. It is, or should be , the 'Pinnacle of Political Objectivity'. But, is it Objective? The 'Peoples at the Bottom', a long time ago, divided into 'Democrats' and 'Republicans'? At present, and with the latest addition of a new Justice, the Court is Conservative, as opposed to Liberal, or, in different words, Republican. The Judiciary Committee examines the qualifications of the appointees and inquires into His/Her 'Objectivity' in 'Interpretive Practices'. Will the Justice follow Party ideology or The Constitution. Of course, they always say they will follow the 'Constitution'. The question becomes, will a Decision be the same if it is 'decided' or 'written' by a Democrat or a Republican? Will Party Loyalty or 'preferences' 'lean' a decision towards 'Party Ideology' as opposed to some sort of 'Objective Reasoning' solely with the 'Terms of the Constitution'? The Constitution 'constitutes us'. Is Objectivity possible in a Nation 'cleaved' by Party Ideology? Can a Justice be so conscious of his/her 'thinking processes' that 'S/He' will not 'factor-in' the 'Ideological Preferences' of the Political Party that appointed him/her to the Highest court in the Land? What about His/ Her 'Moral Character'? More of that later. Where are the Real Politicians?

A 'Business' or 'Corporate Mentality' cannot Govern a Democracy.

A Business or Corporate mentality cannot Govern a Democracy. The reason for that is that the Motor of a successful Business or successful Corporation is Profits and Size. Neither can succeed without the 'proper Motor'. Of course, a Democracy cannot be successful without Freedom and Equality of the Individual. The difference between a Business Entity and a Political Entity must be continually emphasized. Of course, one of the major distinctions between the Two is that a Business and a Corporation must both make Profits and the manner of functioning of the Top is more closely related to an 'Autocratic Form of Government', whereas, a Democracy cannot function without 'Freedom and Equality of 'all' the Real Individuals at the Bottom. A Democracy must organize its 'Social' and 'Economy' along lines of the Freedom and Equality of the Individuals at the Bottom. But, a Corporation is not 'connected' with the 'Peoples at the Bottom'. They are 'disconnected' and considered as 'potential customers' and hence, also subject to the 'maleficent influence' of 'Advertising Campaigns'. Even the Employees or Managers of the Corporation are considered as 'helpers' in the creation of 'Profits'. Their function is to 'work' for the Corporation and 'often', at a 'wage' intentionally established to 'generate' a profit. The 'Freedom and Equality' of their 'workforce', and in some cases, the fair compensation for their Labor, is completely out of the picture. Democratic Government is even required to pass Laws governing 'Minimum Wages', to avoid abuses. In a Democracy the Bottom should always be part of the Top and the Top should always be part of the Bottom and the whole purpose of Government is to 'govern' the 'Bottom' with 'Freedom and Equality'. Now, place a CEO, or Business oriented Individual to drive the Ship of State and what do you get?... A Governmental Entity driven with 'Economic Principles', hence emphasizing some 'economic changes', but driving 'Freedom and Equality' out the 'Window'. The end result is a 'Political Entity' that's 'part Autocratic'( Dictatorial), 'part Plutocratic'( Rich), and 'part Oligarchic'( select Few). Where are the Real Politicians?

In a Democracy, the Peoples at the Bottom are of the 'utmost Importance'.

In a Democracy the 'Peoples at the Bottom' are of the 'utmost importance'. In any Political Entity, the 'People' are the 'Governed' and the Political Entity is there 'only' to Govern. Of course, its at 'that point' that the different 'Political Entities can be 'distinguished'. How and by what means does it 'Govern' and what are the 'practical', 'everyday characteristics' of the 'Governing process', on the 'Peoples' that it Governs. In Autocracies, Plutocracies, and Oligarchies, the 'Peoples at the Bottom' lead a 'more or less' tolerable existence. Their 'participation' and 'say-so' is not that important. However, in a 'Democracy' the importance of the 'knowledge', 'insights', and 'sensitivity' to the 'manner of Governing' becomes very important. Why? Because, they are the 'Governed' and the 'Government' is established to be a 'Strong Government' and it does that by promoting their 'Freedom and Equality'. The importance of Democratic Government is not the 'lesser' because its 'sole purpose' for existing is to 'Govern Democratically', which means to organize the 'Social' and the 'Economy' and to 'promote the Freedom and Equality' of 'all' the 'Real Individuals' at the Bottom. 'Democracy' is 'very strong' because it has the 'support' and 'participation' of the 'Real Individuals' at the 'Bottom'. In a Democracy, the 'Peoples' are as 'important' as the 'Political Entity'. In an Autocracy, or similar Forms, the Power at the Top is 'Independent' from the 'Peoples at the Bottom'. Hence, the Peoples are not 'that important' and hence 'not the focus' of the 'Governing Power'. An 'Autocracy' is also a strong 'Form of Government', but 'all its strength' is at the 'Top' and not at the 'Bottom'. A 'Democracy serves' the 'Bottom' and the 'Bottom' 'serves' the 'Top', when necessary, and 'Protects it'. Democracies cannot be 'separated' from its 'Peoples at the Bottom'. That's why, the 'attitudes' of the 'Individuals' at the Bottom is 'as important' as the 'attitudes' of the 'Office Holders', or Government, towards the Bottom. 'Democracy' must work with its 'Peoples', as the 'Peoples' at the 'Bottom', must work with their 'Democratic Government'. Where are the 'Real Politicians'?

In a Democracy , 'Revolutions' at the 'Top' are 'Electoral Revolutions'.

In a Democracy, 'Revolutions' at the 'Top' are 'Electoral Revolutions'. The reason for that is that the Top has been 'elected' by the 'Bottom' and has undergone 'Political Scrutiny' by all the 'Peoples' at the 'Bottom'. In a Democracy, the 'People' elect the Top and place him/her in 'Office' at the Top. So long as the Bottom is 'alert' and 'cognizant' of 'subtle changes' in the 'manner' of Governing, the peoples at the Bottom still have 'control'. They never lose 'control'. That 'control' is 'always' at the 'Bottom'. Its called, the 'Power of Election'. Although that 'Power' doesn't come along on a daily basis, at least it comes along every 'Four' years. But, the electorate must remain alert to 'subtle changes' in the 'Social' and the manner of 'Governing'. In an Autocracy, the 'whole process' is different. We have to ask, how did the 'Autocrat', in the first place, get the 'Office' at the Top? Was it 'Force', 'Trickery', 'Familial', Inherited like in the 'Divine Right of Kings', or 'Oligarchic'. Whatever the process, if it was not a 'proper election' held by the 'Peoples' at the Bottom the end result was not 'Democratic'. In an Autocracy, all the 'Power' is at the Top hence, the Top can change whenever it wants but, 'unlikely' because of the 'seductive embrace' of Power. In an Autocracy, the 'Top' usually changes the 'Top'. In a Democracy, 'Power' is 'always' at the 'Bottom' and is 'funneled' to the 'Representatives' at the Top, who 'only Represent' the Peoples at the Bottom by holding 'proper elections' every 'four years'. In a Democracy, the 'Bottom' changes the 'Top'. In an Autocracy, Plutocracy or Oligarchy all Power is in the hands of the 'One', or the 'Select Few'. In a Democracy, 'all' the Peoples at the Bottom hold the Power. Hence, in a Democracy, if we are talking about 'Revolutions', we are talking about 'Electoral Revolutions'. Hence, in a Democracy, the Peoples must be aware of the 'subtle changes' in the exercise of Power. Is the Top using 'Business Principles', 'Autocratic Principles', 'Plutocratic Principles', or 'Oligarchic Principles', to Govern? If so, its time for an 'Electoral Revolution'.

In a Democracy, 'Power to Govern' means Government must use 'Democratic Political Principles' to Govern.

In a Democracy, 'Power to Govern' means 'Government must use 'Democratic Political Principles' to 'Govern'. Of course, 'To Govern' means that the Top must 'Govern' the 'Social' or the 'Bottom' where all the 'Peoples' and the 'social Institutions' are situated. A Democracy cannot use Autocratic Principles, Plutocratic Principles, or Oligarchic Principles to Govern the Social. Well, some will say, that is obvious. Yes, that is obvious, because we live in a Democracy. But, consider the fact that behind every 'Political Office' there is a definite 'Personality' or 'Persona' who holds the 'Office'. I know that 'Persona' or 'Personality' is still somewhat vague. But, every Candidate who 'aspires to Govern' or 'purports to Govern' must be 'very familiar' with 'Democratic Political Principles' to 'feel' the 'urge' to 'Represent' all the 'Real Individuals' in the Social and to respect and Protect their 'Individual Freedom and Equality'. The Constitution begins with "We the People..." and applies to the 'Real People' in that phrase and not to 'invented Persons' who are actually considered as "Legal Fictions" and who only exist "in contemplation of Law". The point is that Corporations are 'Economic Entities' and are already protected by Law and do not need further protections, since they cannot go to Jail, nor Vote, nor 'go hungry', nor 'get sick' and they should not be able to 'participate', by contributing to 'Political Campaigns'. An Economic Entity is part of the Economy but, it is considered by Law as a Legal Fiction that exists only in contemplation of Law. Hence it cannot have the same 'Rights' that a 'Real Individual' enjoys in a Democracy. Its one thing to protect an 'economic entity' and 'another' to turn it into a 'Person'. That's why, in a democracy, the Office Holder, especially in the 'Highest Office in the Land' should be familiar with Democratic Principles. A CEO, an Economist, or a Businessman, is steeped in 'Profit making ventures' and is familiar with economic Principles. Hence, all his changes could well relate to the 'Economy' and not to the 'Freedom and Equality' of the 'Real Individual'. Democracies must be very careful who they choose to 'drive' the 'Ship of State', its very easy to 'slide, unknowingly', into 'Plutocracy', 'Oligarchy', or even 'Autocracy'. One 'incremental change', at a time, could 'add up' to 'Plutocracy' or 'Oligarchy'. Where are the 'Real Politicians'?

In a Democracy, Power to Govern is 'Granted' by the 'Peoples' at the Bottom.

In a Democracy, 'Power to Govern' is Granted to a 'Representative' by the 'Peoples' at the Bottom. All Governments have Power at the Top. In other words, in a Democracy, if the 'Peoples' at the Bottom do not 'grant' that Power, the Top has 'no Power' to 'Govern'. Stated differently, no 'Human Being' or 'Individual' has a Right to just walk into the 'Top' and assume the 'Right' to be a 'Representative of the Bottom'. 'Representatives' 'run' for Office and the 'electorate' votes. Once in Office the 'Representative' has 'Power of Office', but only for the duration. Then the 'cycle' repeats itself. Its not a perfect system, because all Human Beings are 'different', and no 'one Individual' is 'Perfect'. But, certainly an Office Holder understands that if S/He does not 'exercise' the Power of Office in some 'tolerable manner', S/He will not be 'Returned to Office'. 'Individuals' can also 'discipline themselves' to accomplish 'some Political Goal'. Hence, the importance of the Voting System. But, our Democracy must also contend with the 'Electoral College', a 'Process' that is neither a 'Place' nor a 'College'. When a 'Candidate' for Office receives 'Millions of Popular Votes' more that the 'Other Candidate', and the 'Other candidate' wins the Election, something is wrong with the 'System'. It must be changed. It must be changed in a manner that the 'results' reflect the 'Popular Vote' and not the 'Electoral College' Vote. Hey, all the 'qualified Voters' at the Bottom are 'allowed to cast a popular vote' and even 'encouraged' to vote, and millions are spend by Candidates to get the Vote out, so why don't the 'end- results' reflect the 'Popular Vote'? Its not the Vote that is problematic, its the System. 'Voting' must be made more meaningful. So, Democracy must make 'some changes'. How about Autocracy? No problem, The Ruler 'rules'. Plutocracy? No problem, The Rich Rule; Oligarchy? No problem, The 'select few' Rule. In the latter cases, its not so much the 'Vote' as the System of Government. That's another Story.

Government is 'Essential' but, what kind of Government?

Government is 'Essential' but, what kind of Government? The 'basic reason' for Government is the huge amount of Population in the World. As I've stated earlier, all one has to do is conduct a 'Thought Experiment', to wit; 'One sole, Individual living on an Island all by Him/Her-Self, does not need 'Government'. Why not? Because there's no 'Natural' need for it, and because its a 'Human Institution' established by the different 'Peoples' in the World. Humans may be born within an established 'Political Entity', but even that, is not a 'personal choice'. No one 'being born' has made such a 'choice'. Yet, all Human Beings need Government. Well, what kind of Government? Well, fortunately or unfortunately, everyone is born into an already existing Government; a Democracy, an Autocracy, a Plutocracy, or an Oligarchy and I'm sure there are other 'Smaller forms', even 'Tribes', or 'Families' established by 'smaller numbers' of Human Beings. Every 'Political Entity' and Smaller Forms of 'Government' has a 'History' and a study of that History can tell you how their 'particular Form' of Government came about. In the World today, 'Governments' are well-established, and some are members of the 'United Nations'. Of course, each 'Government' has 'Power at the Top' and 'People at the Bottom'. The Power at the Top must be 'respected' but, so must the 'People' at the 'Bottom'. After all, it was 'People' who established 'Governments' of all kinds. Hence, it appears that all Governments must acknowledge their purpose as being a 'Government of their People', hence, all Governments should be 'Representative' i.e. Governments of all 'stripes', should 'Represent' or 'Serve' the 'Peoples' under their care. But, you cannot tell an Autocracy that; nor a Plutocracy; nor an Oligarchy; and sometimes, not even a Democracy, because Democrats have become too 'Politically Correct'. The 'Politically Correct' can 'speak' the language of Democracy but their 'Words' and 'Talk' is 'empty and vacuous'. They're insincere. Hence, what is needed are 'Sincere Politicians' who actually serve the 'Peoples at the Bottom'. I understand that 'Political Science' is not a 'Science', but shouldn't it be 'less' a "Power Grab", and 'more' a 'Public Service'. Where are the Real Politicians?

'Revolutions' at the 'Top' are Ideological.

Revolutions at the Top are Ideological. In a Democracy, they involve the very essence of Democracy. The problematic is that the Bottom is already divided into Two Parties and never shall the twain meet. In such cases, the end result will probably be a 'weakening' of Democracy. If Democratic government is a Government "of the People", "by the People", and "for the People", the tensions in the Ideological dispute will create a rift among the Individuals at the 'Top' as well as at the 'Bottom'. The 'Top' should know and should resolve such disputes in favor of the 'People' at the Bottom and not in accordance with 'either Ideology'. But, how is that to happen in a Supreme Court that is also 'Ideological' in Nature. Where is the 'Objectivity' and what happens to the 'People'. The best way is simply not to be too 'Party Loyal' with Majority/Minority 'leverages' in the formations of the Committees, and most important, in the formation of the Supreme Court. If the Committee or Court Majority belong to one Party and the Minority belongs to another, the arguments will 'hold' along 'Ideological lines'. But, in a Democracy its always about the 'People' and not about the 'Party' and the different 'Ideologies'. A Judge in the highest Court of the Land should be a 'Peoples Judge' and not an 'Ideological Judge'. Parties may be 'acceptable', but 'Democracy' is 'essential'. Democracy is about the 'People', not about 'Ideologies' or 'Party Loyalty'. So, how is this to be implemented? Well, it may also be a little too 'simplistic' to say 'forget the Ideology' and 'remember the People', but that is the 'essence of Democracy'. Although its never about 'complete forgetting' the Ideology, but its always about 'being Human' and no 'Human Being' should 'forget' His or Her 'Humanity'. When a 'Representative' or 'Office Holder' forgets his or her Humanity, Democracy is 'never served'. When the Top of a Political Entity is compelled to 'act' from 'Party Loyalty', humanity is 'attenuated'. When the Highest Court in the Land 'decides' from Party Loyalty, 'Humanity' goes out the window. Although Party affiliations are 'normal', there is 'no need' to give up our 'Humanity'. There comes a time when our 'Party affiliations' should be 'Weaker' than our 'Humanity'. We are always 'Human' First, 'Ideologues' Second. Where are the 'Real Politicians'?

Political activity is different from Economic activity. Each must occupy their respective Place within a Polity.

Political activity is different from economic activity. Both are essential aspects of a Political Entity. Yet, a political entity must be governed with Political Principles and an Economy must be 'governed' or 'controlled' with 'economic principles'. The two activities are different and they each are essential to the Integrity of their 'proper Object'. Its 'Object' is dependent on the 'unique function' of the Two Different Motors that propels the Activity. Nevertheless, the two cannot become 'mixed'. It takes a well disciplined Politician to occupy Political Office and Govern a Political Entity and its multiplicity of 'aspects'. The biggest problem is the 'mixing' of Political Principles and Economic Principles. An Economy is vital to every Polity, but great care must be taken not to inextricably mix the two. Look, its one thing for a political entity to have a successful,fully functional, Economy; its another for the Polity to attempt to 'Govern' using Economic Principles. The ultimate goal of any economy is to be 'successful' and generate many 'Profits'. But, that is not the 'sole goal' of a Political Entity. When a Political Entity gets 'enmeshed' with 'economic principles', it can very easily transform into an 'Autocracy', or a 'Plutocracy', or even an 'Oligarchy'. Most Democracies will be oblivious of the transition because of the 'important part' that 'economic Principles' and the economy play in the 'daily routine'. Economic Principles cannot 'Govern' a Democracy; only Political Principles can be used to 'Govern' in a 'Democracy'. But the 'undetectable slippage' will not be perceived until its too late. This phenomena can cause revolts or Revolutions in a Polity that is accustomed to Democratic Government. In such cases, its 'Real Individuals' that must come 'to the Fore' against Autocratic Rule, Plutocratic Rule, and Oligarchic Rule or just simply against 'Rule by the Economy'. As important as an Economy has become, it cannot 'Govern'. Where are the Real Politicians?

Most Revolutions begin at the Bottom; but, today we are witnessing a Revolution at the Top.

Most revolutions begin at the Bottom; but 'Today' we are witnessing a 'Revolution at the Top'; the 'Seat of Power'. The Top is unraveling. One has to ask, how did this happen? Obviously, the Top is not a Centralized Seat of Power. When the Top or the Highest office of Power cannot control the other People in Offices of Power, although of the same Party, it becomes evident that the Top is not doing its Job. That, is somewhat unheard of, but at the same time it becomes evident that the Occupant of the Highest Office is not qualified to occupy the office. That is also, somewhat unheard of, but it demonstrates that a 'Business mentality', without Political Principles, cannot hold a Political Office. We must ask, how did that happen. A 'Non-Politician', whether a Billionaire, or a CEO cannot Govern a Political Entity. Of course, one of the Problems that arises in a Democracy is that the 'Bottom' has already 'split' into opposing Parties. That further 'muddies the water' because the People cannot be 'One'. The result will be that some 'Members of the Party' or, the Top will still support the 'Office' and are hoping for the best. But, it can only get worse. When the 'source' of Power fractures, or becomes diffused, it becomes 'attenuated' and lacks 'Force', 'stability', 'Integrity', or simply, Power. An 'unconsolidated Top' is Confusion. One can already begin to 'see' the 'consequences' on the 'National Sphere' as well as the 'International Sphere'. But, a Democracy has a built-in Structure to resolve that kind of Issue. If something renders the Highest Office dis-functional, there is always an Elected Official to take His or Her Place. Fortunately, or Unfortunately, one will begin to 'see' the 'revolutionary spirit' 'sift' from the 'Top' to the 'Bottom'. What can one expect at the Bottom; a continuation of the Revolution, or possibly a re-evaluation of some kind of 'standards' for Political Office? 'Politics' requires 'Political Knowledge'; 'Democratic Politics' requires 'Political knowledge' of 'Democracy'. But wait, it also requires 'selfless service' to a Democratic Nation. Where are the Real Politicians?

All Political Entities have Political Power; but, we must ask, from where do they get the Power?

All political Entities have Political Power at the 'Top'; but we must ask, from where do they get their Power? A Democracy gets it from the People at the Bottom. An Autocracy or any Other Type of Government, whether Autocratic or some blend of Autocratic, has power at the Top also. All Governments or Nations have Power at the Top. The Question as to from where do they get the Power probably has many Unique Answers. There are some 'apparent' or 'Known' answers. For Example; the Divine Right of Kings, a historical and well known Form of Government, received its 'Authority' to Govern from the 'Divinity'. The King was said to have 'Two Bodies'; the Divine Body and the Natural body. Of course, that doesn't work any more. As for other forms of Power, it doesn't make much difference. The Top Rules and that's it. Notice, the Top in Autocratic Forms, 'Rule', they don't 'Govern'. The Democratic form does not 'Rule', it Governs, and it must 'Govern' because its 'Nature' is a 'Representative Form of Government'. So what are the characteristics of a 'Representative Form' of Government. Well, no one in 'Office' is in 'Office' for 'Himself' or 'Herself'. 'He' or 'She' is there to 'Represent' someone 'else'. The 'Office' and the 'Representative' represents the 'People at the 'Bottom' and then, only for a short period of Time. A 'Rare Quality' of 'Selflessness' and 'Great Knowledge' of the 'Democratic process' is required. Notice how 'Ex-Representatives' appear as 'Helpless' and 'Powerless' as You and I. In a Democracy 'Service to your Nation' is a 'Sacrifice'; not a 'Personal Quest' for 'Personal Power'. Its not about self-aggrandizement, its a 'Service' in Political Office; and for that 'We The People' are Eternally Grateful. So, what happens at the 'Bottom of a Democracy', before the formation of the 'Democratic Government', or, one can say, before the Constitution that 'constitutes us' is 'written'? Well, the 'People' 'split' and 'form' Political Parties and 'Politics is Born'. God help us. Where are the Real Politicians?

How does a Political Entity acquire control over an Economy?

How does a Political entity acquire Control over its Economy? In other words, how does a Democracy acquire Control over Capitalism? The word 'Control' is not a very good term. It implies some kind of 'Power' to give 'direction' to 'Economic Activity'. That's not 'possible'; its not 'permissible' in a Democracy. Economic Activity is a 'pure' Corporate activity, but so is Democratic Activity. Hence, the Two activities are Autonomous. Democracy can 'allow' the passage of Laws to 'create' Corporations and to give some sort of 'direction' to Corporate activity. It does this by passage of 'Articles of Incorporation' and establishing 'Corporate Law'. Hence the 'Business Entity' exists within the 'Social' of the Political Entity. Of course, the Law considers the 'Corporate Nature' as a 'Person' in 'Contemplation of Law' within the protection of the 'Constitution'. Hence its 'Person-ality' is considered as a 'Legal Fiction'. Of course, a Fiction is a Fiction, no matter how you 'wrap' it. A Democratic Political Entity is a 'Real Entity' 'constituted' by the Real 'People' it purports to Govern. Hence, its a 'Written Constitution' and any Human Being can read it; study it; and acquire 'knowledge' of 'Constitutional' Law and 'Democratic activity'. The Highest Court in the Land chose to protect the 'Nature' of the 'Corporate Fiction', but it did not give it any 'control' or 'Power' 'over' the 'Political Entity' that Governs the 'Social' in the 'Nation'. Hence, most CEO's are very knowledgeable about 'Capitalism' or 'Business Principles' which 'motor' a Business Entity. But, that does not mean they have knowledge of the 'kind of thinking' that can 'motor' a Democracy: that requires 'Democratic Political Thinking'. Hence, a Political Entity cannot control its Economy but it can require knowledge of democratic Political Activity that allows its Economy to function within a Democratic Social. It can require that all Candidates for Higher Office, be qualified to 'Motor' a Political Entity. Sure, anyone can Run, but why Run if your only interested in 'Economic Activity' and not 'Democratic Activity; or why Run if your qualifications are only 'having lots of Money'? We need 'Real Politicians'; and, 'Political Knowledge' of Democracy should be a 'requirement' for 'eligibility'. If Candidates do not have knowledge of Democracy, they should not be allowed to Run. We do not need 'CEO's' at the 'Political Helm'; nor Dictatorial Principles; nor 'Politically Correct' Politicians; we need 'Real Politicians'. Where are the Real Politicians?

Every 'Political Entity' needs an 'Economy', but not every 'Economy' needs a 'Political Entity'.

Every 'Political Entity' needs an 'Economy', but not every 'Economy' needs a 'Political Entity'. An 'established' Political Entity needs to perpetuate its 'existence' and hence is required to provide for its 'Needs'. One of those 'Needs' is to 'provide' for the 'daily subsistence' of its 'Members' and 'Social Institutions'. Hence, it becomes necessary for the 'Individuals', in the Social, to form Institutions that furnish, create, make, and produce these 'Needs'. The end-result is an 'Economy'. That Economy can take many Forms. Capitalism is an important form. But, not every Economy needs a Government. Capitalism functions because of 'Capital' and 'Profits' and Capital is 'Monies and Properties'. It sustains itself by Profits and without Profits it will crumble. Individuals apply to the Government and the Government issues a Charter and that Charter creates a 'Business Corporations'. The Reverse is not possible. In other words a Corporation or an Economy do not create a Government, its a Government that allows the 'creation' of a Corporation and the corporation 'functions' within the Governments 'Social' which becomes Institutionalized as an 'Economy'. An Economy cannot 'Institutionalize' a Government. 'If' an Economy were to Institutionalize a Government, the Government would have to be a 'Dictatorship'. In 'such a case' the 'Dictatorship' could govern the 'Economy' and the 'Government'. However,in a Democracy, the Economy is 'an aspect' or a 'Part' of the 'Democracy' which Democracy functions with Political Principles of 'Freedom and Equality'. Government 'First', Economy 'Second'. That's why a Democracy protects a 'Business Corporation' by considering it as a 'Person', in 'contemplation of Law'. To be sure, a 'Legal Fiction' is not a 'Real Person', but Government protects the 'Legal Fiction' and the 'Capitalistic economy'. Keep in mind, a 'Democracy'; a 'Democratic Social' 'First', Economic 'entities' and Economic 'Fictions', 'Next'. A Business Corporation 'cannot' Govern, it can only make Profits. In a similar manner, a CEO 'cannot Govern' with 'Business Principles'. He or She needs 'Political, Democratic Principles' to 'Govern' a Political Entity. Democracy First. Where are the Real Politicians?

When Politics and Capitalism become entangled, Democracy is endangered.

When Politics and Capitalism become entangled, Democracy is endangered. Capitalism is about making Profits and about making Business Decisions. Business decisions are not 'Democratic' in nature, nor are they considered a 'Governing Process'. Business is Business. Its about 'Profits'. Politics is about 'Real Individuals' being 'elected' to Political Offices that require a 'Representation Of The People' that elected them. The 'Representative' must be a 'Real Individual', not a 'Legal Fiction' that exists as a 'Person' only in 'Contemplation of Law'. In other words a Political Entity cannot be 'Represented' by a 'Business Corporation', because its a Legal Fiction. Of course, some 'Political Offices' also make 'Economic Decisions', but, those decisions refer to a 'stable Economy' within the Social, which every Nation needs. Economies do not need 'Governing', they need 'Autocratic Principles' to function. In Politics, an elected Official must use 'Governing Principles' to Govern, not 'Business Principles', 'designed' to make a Profit. A Government cannot be 'Motored' by Business Principles; Government requires 'Political Principles' of 'Freedom and Equality'. That's why a CEO, 'untrained' in Political Principles, cannot 'Govern' a Political Entity. Government by Business Principles will 'deconstruct' the Political Entity; it will deconstruct the Democratic Process. Instead of Ideological Political arguments on how 'best to Govern', you have 'childish arguments' about 'who's the Boss; I do it my way; if we lose the elections there will be 'rioting' in the streets; 'if we 'lose', 'everyone will be poorer', etc.. The 'End Result' will be a Nation that 'deconstructs Democracy at the Bottom' where Real Democracy should be 'thriving'. Democracy 'deconstructed' by 'Autocratic Business Principles' at the Top. CEO'S can 'run' Business Corporations, but they cannot 'Govern' a 'Political Entity'. Now, please understand, there probably are 'Business People' who can be 'efficient Politicians', but that should 'reflect' and be made 'manifest' in the 'Political Campaign' leading to 'Election'. Failing that, a CEO cannot 'Govern' a Democratic Nation. Where are the Real Politicians?

Politics and Capitalism should not become entangled.

Politics and Capitalism should not become 'entangled'. 'Each' 'needs' each Other but they can function independent of each other. That is possible so long as each keeps its ultimate 'Purpose' in Mind. But, it also needs to modify its structure 'a little'. The ultimate purpose of Politics is to Govern; whereas the ultimate purpose of Capitalism is to produce 'more and more of the same', or stated differently, to 'generate Profits'. A business Corporation cannot exist if it doesn't make a Profit. Its Size and existence is dependent on its 'Profits'. In that respect, its success is purely 'financial in nature'. A Political Entity, becomes fixed when its 'Created'. Its created as, either a 'Democracy' or an 'Autocracy', or a 'variation' of the Two. The Political Principles that Govern a Democracy are always the Same. They do not change although they can improve the function of its Political principles by becoming more 'inclusive', whereas, Capitalism, being motored by the amount of 'Monies' it generates, can grow 'Larger', by becoming more 'efficient' as a producer of 'more and more of the Same', Profits. But, a Democracy can improve its 'efficiency', or 'Governance' by including 'more People' within its 'Democratic Fold'. In other words, if the case is that it discriminates on certain Individuals, or Races, or Economic Groups, or Religious Groups, it must 'desist' and include them within its implementation of 'Equality and Freedom'. It does not become more 'Democratic'; its already Democratic, but it must become more 'inclusive'. Whereas a Corporate or Capitalistic 'Entity' becomes 'Larger' and 'Larger' by making more 'Profits'. 'Size' is important to a Capitalistic entity; that makes it more 'successful'. A Democratic Government never changes; you either 'have it' or 'you don't'. A Democracy improves its 'status' by 'correcting' its 'already existing Political Nature', by Governing more 'Inclusively'. The 'Natures' of the two entities is very different. A Corporate Society can exist within a Democratic Nation, but it should structure some of its 'practices' and Departments to allow it to 'function', a little more, as a 'Democracy'. The present structure of Corporate existence is solely to 'generate' Profits and that 'contributes' to the pursuit of 'Greed'. Business Corporations are Greed machines. But, they can change and become more 'Democratic' by using its Profits to create 'in house' Departments that 'help' the 'Democratic process'.

Its very important to 'See' and 'Understand' the difference between a 'Political Entity' and an 'Economic Entity'.

Its very important to 'See' the difference between a 'Political Entity' and a 'Business Economic Entity'. A Political Entity has 'Power'-a Power to Govern- an Economic Entity is a Corporation that has 'major influence' in the Social, but not Power. Its influence comes from its ability to create Profits; huge Profits. Its driven by Profits; it has its 'Being' in the 'Profits and Size' it generates. it has no other Reasons for existing. It can be Voluntarily Dissolved by the Individuals who Incorporated or Involuntarily Dissolved -if it violates law- by the Political Entity that allows it to be 'created' and to 'flourish in the Social'. Government allows Corporations to be created. But, a Corporation must keep its 'place' and 'function' in the 'Social'. It cannot 'compete' with Democratic Government because Government is 'Of', 'By', and 'For' the 'People', not for the 'Legal Fictions'. Of course, the 'problematic' is Money. The 1% have taken control of the Government and its Agencies. Hence, the Government functions with CEO's and Economic principles. A CEO is not interested in 'Governing'. He is interested in 'making' and 'manipulating' Money. Hence his focus is on Economic Principles and those who benefit from the Economy are all 'supportive'; especially the Big Business Corporations. The Top of 'Democratic Government' has been taken over by the 'Economy', the '1%', and 'those' who 'temporarily' benefit from new 'Monetary Schemes'. Today, we are no different from a Nation that is in the 'Throes' of 'Revolution'. But, listen carefully, the revolution is 'economic' in nature. The 'Legal Fictions' 'took over' the Nation; the legal Fictions' 'Tax Liability' was reduced so that the 1% could get 'Fatter'; Government has become a 'Business' and those in 'Office' are the 'beneficiaries'. The Individuals in Office 'argue' and 'fight' like 'school children' in a 'Play Yard'. ( Forgive me Children) People, or, Corporations with Lots of Money are 'Right' and the 'Poor and Needy' are 'Lazy' or 'Wrong'. 'Government' and the 'Social' has never been at such a 'Low Level'. Where are the real Politicians? Maybe, a 'much oppressed Group', 'Women', can provide some 'Real Leadership'.

Yes, Democracy can exist in a Corporate Society.

Yes, Democracy can exist in a Corporate Society, but the 'nature' or 'purpose' for Incorporation must be 'modified'. The Business Corporation is a tremendous 'Engine' for generating 'profits'. That's the 'sole purpose' for the 'Business Corporate Structure'. But, its corporate nature is not 'intended' to be a 'Competitor' with the 'Democratic Political Entity'. A Corporation cannot Govern and its purpose for existing in the Economy is not for the purpose of 'Governing'; only the 'State', the 'Nation', a 'Political Entity' can 'Govern', and in a Democracy, it must Govern with Democratic Principles. The 'Motor' of the Corporate Nature or the 'Legal Fiction' cannot be changed or modified. But, the 'utility' and 'organization' of its 'own structure' and some of the 'end results', (Profits), of the Corporate Nature can be re-directed to it's own Structure and hence, make its own Corporate Structure more democratic. Examples; all Business Corporations can establish Departments to do 'medical research', help eliminate 'medical Illnesses'; poverty; it can 'help' the 'stability' of the 'Social' in which it exists and it can help with reference to 'jobs', 'work', and other 'functions' of 'Democracy'; it can help make the Social more 'self-functioning'. Remember, the Political Entity is required to 'enhance' and 'structure' the 'Freedom and Equality' of its 'Real Members' in the Social; that's its 'function' and the Corporation must 'continue' making Profits 'for the Economy'. But, every 'Business Corporate Structure should be modified by creating 'Departments' and 'Sections' within the Business Corporation itself, whose functions are to 'help' and 'contribute' to the 'Democratic Social' in which it exists. After all, it does not have that Freedom in an Autocratic Government. Hence, the Corporate Structure can enhance the strength of the Democratic Social by contributing to its 'stability' and help to 'stabilize' the 'Freedom and Equality' of all 'Real' Human Beings in the 'Democratic Social'. Hence it can still make 'more and more' Profits and at the same time participate in the democratic function of 'contributing to the 'Freedom and Equality' of all Real Individuals'. In other words, it 'cannot Govern'; 'Business Principles' can never Govern, but it can contribute to Government by helping a 'Democratic Social' to be more 'viable'. Why should 'Business Corporations' only create a 'Greedy accumulation' and never help the 'Social' within which they exist?

Can Democracy exist in a Capitalistic Corporate Society?

Can a viable Democracy exist in a Capitalistic Corporate Society? Sounds like an Oxymoron, yet both a Democracy and a Corporate economy exist within a Social. The Social is constituted by both Real Individuals and Legal Fictions to wit; the 'Business Corporation'. Of course, everyone knows that Corporations are not 'Real Persons' and are protected by the 'Constitution'. The Constitution also 'protects' the Real Individual, but the Real Individual is 'born' in Freedom and Equality and that Freedom and Equality must be protected by the Constitution. The Corporation is not a Natural Entity, its an 'Economic Construction' and it cannot 'function', cannot be 'Motored', with Freedom and Equality. If the Corporate Structure was 'Motored' with Freedom and Equality, it would 'self-destruct'. A Business Corporation must make a 'Profit' and 'Grow Larger' in Size to remain viable. Its a 'Machine' that generates 'Greed'. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court thought it prudent to protect its 'Legal Fiction'. At this point, we must go from there. The Business Corporation is a 'Construction' and it seems possible that it can be constructed to be more Democratic. Why not? Why create an 'Autocratic' Economic Construction in a Democratic Social and protect it with the Constitution? Now, be careful, I'm not saying that the 'entire Construction' should be 'Democratic', but certainly, some of its functions should also serve the 'Democratic Social'. For instance, every Business Corporate Structure should be required to have its own Department where some of its 'own Profits' are used to serve 'Medical Needs' and 'Medical Research'. Why should all Profits just generate 'Greed', 'Size', and 'More and More of the Same' and just make the 1% fatter and fatter? And there are many other areas where a 'Democratic Social' needs 'Help'. And these and 'similar changes' should also be required by 'Law' and by our 'Esteemed Supreme Court'. If the Supreme Court can create an 'economic entity' that 'exists' only 'in Contemplation of Law', it can also create a more 'Democratic Corporate Structure'.

Capitalism( the Business World, Corporate World, Social) functions Great in the Economy; but it cannot 'Govern'.

Capitalism ( the Business World, Corporate Society, the Social), functions great in the Economy but, it cannot 'Govern'. A Corporate Society must have Power, or Control, at the Top, but it 'rules' the Bottom of the 'Legal Fiction' with 'Autocratic' Principles. It does not 'Govern' the Bottom with 'Equality and Freedom'. Its purpose for existing is to have 'Size'; to make Profits, to Grow, 'more and more of the same', and if it should fail, it is 'dismantled' and 'Re-Incorporated'; sometimes under a 'different name'. Of course, a 'Democratic Nation' is not a 'Business Corporation' and it cannot do that. If such a Nation 'dares' to 'try to Govern', it will use 'Autocratic Principles', not 'Democratic Principles' of Equality and Freedom. An 'Economist' or 'CEO' who tries to 'Govern' a 'Democracy' must be 'well-versed' and 'familiar' with 'Democratic Principles' or the 'Nation' will 'Flounder'. Unfortunately, most Individuals in the so-called "1% category" do not seem to have the 'character', 'knowledge', or 'inclination' to 'Govern'; they can try to 'Rule', but Democracy is not about 'being Ruled'. 'Governing' is about 'Service' for a limited Period of Time. 'Ruling' is about Autocratic Principles of Government that endure for as long as the 'Autocrat' 'endures'. There's a big difference between a Democracy and an Autocracy. Democracy 'Governs', Autocracies 'Rule'. In a Democracy 'run' by a 'Business Autocrat' one can begin to 'check the pulse' of the 'Social' and detect elements of 'Control' creeping in. The 'Saving Grace' in such a Democracy is the 'Tenure' of Service. Of course, 'Democracy' is not perfect, but neither is Autocracy. Democracy has Millions of 'Real Individuals' ( not Legal Fictions) at the Bottom who 'yearn' for 'Equality and Freedom' and 'Proper Representation'; Autocracy is 'Pure Power' and has only 'One Real Individual' at the Top who must 'continue Control' of the 'Millions at the Bottom'. Where are the Real Politicians?

The 'Political World', 'Nation-Hood', governs the 'Real People', the 'Social' Institutions, and the Economy.

The 'Political World', 'Nation-Hood', governs the 'Real People', the 'Social', the Institutions, and the Economy situated at the Bottom of 'State-Hood'. Politics Governs all the Real Individuals at the Bottom. The Real Individuals are situated in a 'Condition of Togetherness' at the Bottom of the 'Political World' together with a more 'global Conception', or Abstraction, of the 'Condition' referred to as 'the Social', which includes 'Institutions' of an 'Economic nature' and a 'Religious nature'. The Top, or the 'One', only exists for the purpose of 'Governing the Bottom', or, the 'Many' with all its 'Social Components'. It has no 'Other Purpose' for Existing. The Top can only 'Govern'; it cannot function as an 'Economic Entity', nor a 'Social Entity', nor a 'Religious Entity' and its purpose does not include Social Status, Economic Status, nor Religious Status. The Top only Governs. The 'Many' Real People, or 'Real Individuals', at the Bottom, can achieve a 'Social Status'; an 'Economic Status'; or a 'Religious Status' because they are 'Equal and Free'. It is the Real Individuals who 'create' the Social, the Economic, and the Religious Sphere. In a Democracy, those same Individuals who create the 'Social' etc., are also elected to 'Political Positions' at the Top, for a period of time, and they 'Represent' the People at the Bottom. They only 'Represent' the People at the Bottom and they, as Individuals, do not have Power, only the 'Political Office' or Position they occupy has 'Institutional Power', and only for a short Period of Time. Once their Political Tenure is over, they are as 'politically helpless' as you and I. Every Real Individual in the Social, in Business, in Religious Office, or in the Military who chooses to Run for Political Office, must be 'well versed' in 'Democracy' and 'Politics'. If not, they should not be allowed to 'Run'. A Real Politician 'serves' the People; 'Politics' is about 'Service' and Political Office serves the 'Real People', not the Corporations. Where are the Real Politicians?