The 'Business Corporation' helps provide for the 'General Welfare'; The 'Polity' is necessary to 'Govern' the Individuals at the Bottom.

The 'Business Corporation' helps provide for the 'General Welfare'; the 'Polity' is 'necessary' to Govern the Individuals at the 'Bottom'. The 'Polity' Governs and provides for the 'Social' and 'Economic Needs' of the 'Individuals' at the 'Bottom'. As the 'Polity' Governs and provides for the 'Needs and Necessities' of the 'Bottom' viz. the 'Real Persons' that exist within the 'Nation-State'; the 'Business Corporation' contributes by providing for the 'Products, Housing, Foods, Clothing', and the 'Medical Necessities' that arise in the daily-struggle to 'live' in the 'Condition of Togetherness'. Of course, the Nation is just as 'Responsible' for the provision of 'Agencies' that 'Preserve' and 'Protect' the 'Populace' as a 'Whole' as the 'Individuals' are responsible to provide for the necessities of the 'Family Unit'. An Individual or 'Person' that does not provide for His/her 'Family Unit' is as derelict as the 'Nation' that does not provide for the 'General Welfare' as well as the 'Health and Prosperity' of the 'Bottom'. So where are the Agencies that should be handling National Problems like 'Pandemics'? The Top 'serves' the Bottom. To say it differently; the Nation is responsible for the Bottom and serves the 'Health and Welfare' of the Many 'Peoples at the Bottom'. The Agencies necessary to provide for such 'health catastrophes' should be the 'Governmental Agencies' most 'prominent and conspicuous' in the 'Polity'. To change the function of those 'Agencies' or to 'not provide' funds for such 'Agencies' and 'catastrophes' is to change the 'Nature' of a Democracy.

The sole reason for the existence of the 'Business Corporation' is 'Profits'.

The sole reason for the existence of the 'Business Corporation' is 'Profits'. No Profits; no Corporation. The 'Corporate Person' 'expands', grows 'Larger', as it generates 'more Profits'. The 'Corporate Person' 'Grows' as it becomes 'more Productive'. The more 'Profits' the 'Larger' the Corporation. More Profits equals more Growth; Larger Buildings. A Human Being can become 'more Rich' but he cannot 'Grow' as can the 'Corporate Person'. Corporate Growth is 'commensurable' with their Profits. The More Profits the Larger the 'Entity'. Humans can't do that, the 'More Profits' the 'Richer the Owners', but they are never 'Larger'. The Human Condition can acquire 'different characteristics', and can get 'Rich and Richer', but S/He cannot become a 'Larger Human Being'. Once a Human Being, always a Human Being. All Human Beings at the Bottom of any Political Entity are 'Free and Equal'. But, 'Corporate Persons' are 'Economic Entities'. Hence, 'small business' equals small profits; 'larger Business', equals large Profits; Larger Buildings equals 'larger Profits'. The 'Huge Buildings' now becomes a 'Money Making Machine' by producing 'things', 'materials', 'necessities' that 'everyone' at the Bottom of a 'Political Entity' needs. The end result? 'Too Big to fail'. We become dependent on our own 'necessities','Illusions', and 'Creations'. We create our Heavens and our Hells.

The Business Corporation or 'Constitutional Person' can be 'modified' by Enlarging Its Purpose Clause.

The 'Business Corporation' or 'Constitutional Person' can be modified by 'Enlarging' its 'Purpose clause'. 'Human Nature' or 'The Human Condition' cannot be Modified. A 'Human Being' will always be a 'Human Being'; but, his 'Personality' or 'Persona' are 'acquired characteristics' and hence, can be 'Constituted', or 'Modified', for 'Better' or 'Worst'. 'Personalities' are multitudinous, but their underlying 'Humanity' always remains intact. A Personality can change and become 'better' adjusted to its surroundings. But, it will always be an 'Expression of the Human Condition'. The Nature of the 'Constitutional Person' is determined by its 'Purpose Clause'. If its a 'Business Corporation' it will always be a 'Business Corporation', but its 'Specific Function' is set out in its 'Purpose Clause'. The only way to modify or change its Purpose Clause is dependent on the Owners or Stock-Holders. It takes a 'Real Human Being', or a 'Few Human Beings' to change a 'Constitutional Person' or a 'Person in contemplation of Law'. But, such a change is Possible. Of course, the change can be in the direction of its becoming a 'better expression' of the 'General Welfare'. As it exists now, its sole Purpose is the 'making of Profits'. It should expand its 'Purpose' to include subsidiary Branches that include 'Non-Monetary Contributions' to the "General Welfare" and the "Blessings of Liberty".

The Human Condition can be 'Improved'; Corporate 'Personhood' can be 'Changed' and 'Improved'.

The Human Condition 'cannot' be 'Changed' but, it can be 'Improved'; Corporate 'Personhood' can be 'Changed' and 'Improved'. The Function of the Political Top is to 'Govern' and to 'provide for the 'general Welfare' and help 'secure the Blessings of Liberty'; but, Human Beings will be Human Beings, hence an 'added incentive' becomes important. Of course, the Top has 'Power, but it also has a 'Responsibility to its Citizens'. The 'Social' and 'Economic conditions' can be a 'very important' inducement to 'change' one's 'Persona'. This is a where a 'Corporate Person' can provide some kind of 'Inducement'. Instead of just being a 'Profits Machine', it can become more 'Functional' and can 'Participate' in the 'Functioning' and the 'attainment' of the 'General Welfare Clause'. In this way, the 'Corporate Powers' are 'expanded' and the 'results' can be included in a more 'Proper Functioning' and to 'help' towards the 'achievement' of the 'General Welfare Clause'. In this way, we can have a 'Corporate Person' also included in the 'Functioning' and the 'Attainment' of the 'General Welfare'. But, we must be careful. This aspect of 'Corporate Personhood' cannot be 'mistaken' for 'governing'. 'Corporations cannot Govern'. But, their 'Functions' can be modified by modifying their 'Purpose Clause'. If a Corporation can be a 'Person' in 'contemplation of Law', it can also be a 'Good Citizens'. Human Beings can compete with other Human Beings, but they cannot compete with a 'Business Corporation'.

The Human Condition cannot be 'changed'; Corporate 'Person-Hood' can.

The 'Human Condition' cannot be changed; Corporate 'Person Hood' can. A Human Being will always be a 'Human being', or a 'Real Person', but a 'Corporate Entity' can be 'changed' or 'created' by merely 'modifying' the 'Corporate Charter'. Corporate Person-Hood is a Legal Entity created by Human Beings. We already have 'Many Different Corporate Structures' that exist and that function in many 'different areas' of the 'Social'. Each has its 'particular function' and is pretty much 'tied' to that Function. A Corporate Entity that is not successful 'does not exist'. Its Legally Dissolved. Corporate Entities do not have a 'Life' of their own. Their 'solitary existence' serves a 'certain purpose' and if that 'Purpose' is no longer 'Socially Necessary'; neither is the Corporate Entity. A Corporate Entity does not have a 'Personality'; it has a 'Specific Purpose' for Existence. Hence, if a 'Corporate Entity' is too 'serve another Function' it, on its own, cannot change or improve the direction or character of its 'Charter' or 'Person-Hood'. That's why a 'Business Corporation's Charter' can be changed to include other 'Social Necessities'. Instead of just being a 'Person' in Contemplation of Law, one that just Produces, Manufacture's, and 'Makes Profits', it can be a 'Better Citizen'. Why and what for? Business Corporations create an unbalanced Economy by being a 'money Making Machine'. But, they can also contribute to the "general Welfare" of the Social as well as the Economy. If they're going to be 'Persons', they might as well be 'better Citizens'.

People can 'change'; Business Corporations need to be 'changed'.

'People' can change their behavior; Business Corporations cannot. 'Human Beings' are capable of 'change', whereas Business Corporations need to be 'changed' by 'Real Persons'. Those 'Real Persons' are the 'Owners' or 'Stock-holders' of the 'Business Corporation'. Although a Business Corporation is considered as 'a Person' in 'contemplation of Law', it has no 'volition of its own'. Its a 'Legal fiction' which means its a 'Legally Fabricated Fiction'. Consequently, we have the 'Social' and the 'Legal Requirements' that it be 'treated as a Person'. The 'Business Corporate Entity' is an ingenious 'Invention'; an Invention that helps perpetuate 'Profits' by enlarging and enhancing their 'Corporate Grasp', and at the same time, by being 'Protected' by the 'Constitution'. 'Real Persons' have 'volition' and can 'Create' or 'Destroy', be 'Successful' or a 'Failure', or 'Greedy. 'Corporate Persons' cannot create or destroy. They can only 'Produce', 'manufacture', and make 'Profits'. They are 'Money Making Machines' and no Natural Human Being can compete with them. Hence, the 'appearance' is created that its the 'Corporate Structure' that is 'Greedy' and not the Humans who operate it. This separates 'economic success' from 'Human Striving'. Of course, the Corporation is a 'Success' because its the 'Largest Economic Entity' in the World; an Economic Entity that can 'Make Profits', or be 'Dissolved'. It cannot help, but to do what it does. So, 'What' or 'Who' is Greedy?

Business Corporations contribute to the Economic Welfare of the Political Entity.

'Business Corporations' contribute to the 'Economic Welfare' of a Political Entity. But there sole function is to Manufacture, Produce, and make Profits. They have no other 'Democratic Duties'. Of course, there are other types of 'Corporations' that serve more 'Humanitarian Functions' in the 'Social'; but, they are not 'Profit Making machines'. Their Function is 'more Humanitarian'. Their 'particular function' is also a 'sole Function' and limits the activity of the Corporation, which is set out in the 'Purpose Clause' of the 'Articles of Incorporation'. All these Corporations 'populate' the 'Bottom' of a Political Entity and give the Entity its 'Political Tenor'. The 'Corporate Persons' 'live' among the 'Real Persons' at the 'Bottom' of the Political Entity. But, the 'Business Corporation' is the one that generates the most 'Profits' because 'Business' is about 'Staying in 'Business', and because it has no 'Other Democratic Function'. Economic Language 'replaces' Political Language of 'Freedom and Equality' as the 'Dominant' Political language. The 'Language of Politics' is replaced by 'Economic Principles' and 'Economic Language' of the 'Haves and the Have-Nots'. The 'Economy' in the 'Social' becomes 'Lop-sided'; it becomes dominated by 'Profits' and the 'Haves and Have-Nots', and the 'Language of Democracy'; the 'Political Language' of 'Freedom and Equality' is 'Forgotten' and 'Replaced' by 'Money'..... Where are the 'Real Politicians'?

How do 'Corporate Persons' become more 'Democratic' ? By helping to "Form a more perfect Union".

How do 'Corporate Persons become more 'Democratic'? By helping to "Form a more perfect Union"; and helping to promote 'the general Welfare', and helping to "secure the Blessings of Liberty". Of course, these provisions are already in the Constitution. True. But the 'Economic Person' or Business Corporation is not a 'Political Entity'; nor a 'Natural Person'; and it does not have to 'carry out' 'Constitutional Duties'. Its an 'Economic Entity' and it has been declared a 'Person in contemplation of Law'. A Business Economic Entity is not a Political Entity and its 'sole Function' is to 'Produce', 'Manufacture' and 'make Profits'; which it does in exemplary fashion. Its an Economic, 'Profit Making' Machine. A 'Real Person' cannot compete with a 'Constitutional Person'; but, a 'Constitutional Person' can help 'Real Persons'. How? By helping to "promote the General Welfare"; and "Secure the Blessings of Liberty". In other words, other than just 'Producing', 'selling' and 'making Profits', it can contribute to the 'General Welfare' by establishing 'Departments' within its 'Incorporated Nature', that 'contributes', 'helps' and 'assists' those 'Real Persons' who are unable to help themselves. They can help to 'Promote the general Welfare', while 'securing the Blessings of Liberty' for the 'most unfortunate'. I'm not referring to 'Equality' and 'Hand-outs'; only a 'Nudge' in the 'Direction' of a 'More compassionate' work effort and not just as a 'Profit Making Machine'.

Law is 'Essential'. Business Corporations are also 'Essential'.

Law is 'Essential'. Business Corporations are also 'Essential'. Without 'Law and Order' the 'Many' at the 'Bottom' would be in a State of 'Chaos'. Without 'Business Corporations', the 'Many' at the Bottom would not get the necessary 'Products', 'Goods', and 'Shelter' for a 'Normal Healthy and Social life'. But, the Corporation is a 'Legal Fiction' that exists only in 'Contemplation of Law' and the 'Many' at the Bottom are Natural Born Humans. We have 'Incorporated Persons' 'Socially' situated alongside 'Real Human Persons'. Of course, Corporations and Real Persons are both Under Law' in 'some fashion'. But, does that mean that 'Both' are 'Human'? Of course not, the Corporation is an 'acknowledged Legal Fiction' that exists only in Contemplation of law. Nevertheless, 'Both' come under 'Legal Scrutiny'. But, the 'Nature' of the Corporation is different from the 'Nature' of the Human. The Business Corporation exist as a 'Person', but doesn't seem to have any 'Legal Duties' as Natural Born 'Citizens' do. 'Real Persons' are under 'Many Laws' and no one can know them all. Laws relating to 'Education, Driving, walking, working'. A 'Human Being' is alive and requires many activities to survive in a 'Civilized Nation'. But all a Corporation does is limited to the 'Production or Manufacturing' of certain 'Items and Goods'. Their sole 'Function' and hence, 'focus' is 'described' in their 'Purpose Clause'. They need More Public, Democratic, Duties. If they want the 'Constitutional Protection' as 'Persons in contemplation of Law', that's fine, but be more 'Realistic' and assume more 'Democratic Duties'.

If a Business Corporation produces a Lot, its successful; if a Human Being acquires a Lot, its Greed.

If a Business Corporation 'produces' or 'makes a 'Lot'; its called Successful; if a Human Being 'produces' or makes a 'Lot', including 'Money', it can be called 'Greed'. Of course, 'some Humans' are called 'Successful'. But, Why does the 'Human Quest' for 'More and More of the Same' usually constitute 'Greed' and the Corporate quest for 'More and More of the Same', is called 'Success'? After all, Corporations are also called 'Persons' in 'Contemplation of Law'. Has the Law injected into Economic Discourse terms, or Legal Characterizations, which are demeaning to the 'Human Condition', yet compliments the Corporate Structure. Does this produce some kind of inferiority in the 'Human Condition' and 'superiority' in the 'Economic Status'. After all, it declared the 'Producers' of More and more of the same, as 'Persons in contemplation of Law'. Can we then say that its the 'Economy' that's lopsided; not the 'quest' for 'success' by the 'Human Condition'. After all, there 'has to have been' a time when Humans 'shared' their 'Resources'. But, later the 'Social' created 'Rigid Divisions' that distinguished between 'Sharing' and 'Buying'. Here enters the Linguistic Terms, 'Mine' and 'Yours'; now, we have something to Fight about. Do we create our own Problems?

The 'Business Corporation' is a 'Person'; A Human being is a 'Person'.

The 'Business Corporation', at its 'Inception', is an 'Incorporated Entity'; The 'Birth' of the Corporation is attributable to a 'Charter of Incorporation' that spells out its functions and sets out what it can do; A 'Charter of Incorporation' is a Document filed with the Secretary of State. Up to that point, the Corporation is just a Corporation. Subsequently, the Highest Court in the Land holds that the 'Business Corporation' is 'a Person' in 'Contemplation of Law'. 'Human Beings' are 'Persons'. What's the Difference? A 'Human Being' is a 'Natural Born' Person, who constitutes 'The Many' at the 'Bottom' of the 'Polity'. They are all 'Human Beings'; 'they' are all 'Natural' and they constitute the Governed. But the 'Business Corporation', for some 'economic reason' is 'declared' a 'Person in Contemplation of Law'. They are 'Legal Fictions' and they can constitute 'Huge Economic Persons', because they can become as 'Large' as they want; but, the 'Natural Born Persons' always remain 'Natural Born' Humans. A 'Human Person' can 'never compete' with an 'Incorporated Person' and that creates a 'lop-sided Economy'. It also creates 'profit making' Machines, whose 'sole Function' is to make 'Profits' and 'nothing else'. Humans can also make Profits but on a much smaller scale. Corporations should not just be 'Persons, in contemplation of Law'; they should be 'Citizens' who should be 'required' to have 'Democratic Duties'. It may surprise you but, that may change the 'Lop-sided Economy' and the 'Nature' of the 'Corporate society'.

Human Greed is based on a 'Human Decision'; Constitutional 'Persons' just 'function'; they dont 'decide'.

Human 'Greed' is based on a 'Human Decision'; Constitutional 'Persons' just 'function'; they don't 'decide'. A Human Being has to 'choose', to some extent, what She/he will do next. Business Corporations can only function as 'Huge Producers' of 'Products, Goods, and Items'. 'Failing to Produce Profits' is to fail 'to function'. That does not have anything to do with 'Decisions'! Of course, we all know that they 'Exist only' in 'Contemplation of Law', and what does that mean?..... that they exist only within 'Legal Discourse', or 'legal Talk', and not 'Discourse as Humans know 'Ordinary, 'everyday talk'? We live in a 'Social' populated with 'Economic Giants'. Now, please don't get me wrong. Corporations are necessary, but they must also have 'Other attributes' that make them 'more like a Person'. A 'Business Corporation' must also have 'characteristics', or 'Departments', that deal with functional 'Democratic Principles' in Society. To say it differently, they must recognize that in a Democratic Society, the 'Freedom and Equality' of all 'Real Persons' is very important; that does not mean that they must stop producing as 'Economic Giants'; only that, that is 'not' their 'sole function' and that 'Other aspects' of 'Personhood' are equally important. They must 'contribute' to the 'Freedom and Equality' of 'all Real Persons' within the Social... that too is their 'Constitutional Duty'. They must have 'Departments, and Functions' within their 'Corporate Nature' that contribute towards the realization of The 'Freedom and Equality' of 'Everyone' in the 'Social'.

"Greed" is a characteristic of Human Nature; "Power" is a characteristic of Democracy.

"Greed" is a characteristic of Human Nature; "Power" is a characteristic of Democracy. 'Greed', to a Human Being, means 'More and more of a relentless quest for the 'same'; and that usually means something of 'Value' or 'Money'. 'Democracy' is characterized by the 'Freedom and Equality' of The 'Bottom', or the 'Real Individuals' of that 'Political Entity'. Those Individuals are 'Free' and can 'Equally' strive for 'Public Office'. Occupying 'Public Office' is 'Political Power', and occupying the 'Highest Office' in the Land is the 'Peak' of 'Political Power'. Of course, other Political Entities, like Autocracy, Plutocracy; and Oligarchy also have 'Political Power' at the Top. I don't know from where Autocracies get their Political Power, but Plutocracy is Government by the 'Rich' or 'Wealthy'; whereas 'Oligarchy' is Government by a 'few Individuals' who 'Monopolize' the Top, like a 'Family'. But, having lots of Money; being Rich, a Millionaire, a Billionaire may be Influential, but its not 'Power'. If Money was Power, Billionaires would not be running for Office. They already have Money. 'Public Office' in a 'Democracy' is 'Power', but only for a short while. So, if the Business Corporations 'sole, relentless function' is to make 'Profits', the Business Corporation is a 'Greed Machine'. Not only does it make profits, but that's the only thing it does. Hence, it would not be improper for the 'Business Corporation' to 'extend' its 'Function' and include 'other Democratic Functions,' or Duties. Why not require that 'Business Corporations', or 'Profit Machines', or 'Greed Machines' also function as Democratic Citizens? The Supreme Court so fit to declare them 'Persons' in 'contemplation of law'; so why not declare them 'Citizens', with all the 'attendant' Democratic Duties, and functions.

We Live among 'Economic Giants' that create 'Haves' and 'Have-nots'.

We Live among 'Economic Giants' that create 'Haves' and 'Have-nots'. They are 'Persons' in 'Contemplation of Law' and are protected by the 'Constitution'. They are 'Persons' but, not like 'You' or 'I'. They do not 'Hurt', have Pain, diseases, hungers, require sleep, and they do not need Education, or a Roof over their 'heads'. They are the 'Business Corporations'; the 'greatest producers' and Manufacturers of 'Everything' Humans need to 'Survive' and then 'Some'. The 'Some' refers to 'really' unnecessary Items but, which produce 'Profits' and that's the 'name of the Game'. 'Business Corporations' are 'Profit Making machines'. If a Corporation is not making a Profit its immediately 'Dissolved','Killed', and maybe even 'Resurrected' with another 'Name'. We are Persons also but without the 'economic advantages' of 'Corporate Life'. Everyday a Business Corporation must produce, sell, and makes a 'Profit'. But, do all Human Beings, as Persons, have that advantage. We used to ride in 'Carts', 'Wagons', and Horses. Now we ride in Automobiles, but with different 'Horse-power'. We got the 'Auto' but kept the 'Horse-Power'. Human Values have been 'attenuated' and replaced by Corporate Values and the 'height' of Corporate value is 'More and more of the same', viz., Profits. I asked if greed was the result of 'Democracy' or the 'Human Condition'. Maybe its the result of our 'Corporate Economy'? Hey, in todays World, Corporations are necessary but maybe they should also have 'Democratic Duties' within the 'structure' of their 'Nature' as 'Constitutional Personhood' and not just make 'Profits'. If they don't want to be Democratic, just Dissolve them.

Is 'Greed' a characteristic of 'Democracy' or is it characteristic of the 'Human Condition'?

Is 'Greed' a characteristic of 'Democracy' or is it a characteristic of the 'Human Condition'; and does it make any difference? It does make a difference because 'Greed' is 'not necessary'; 'More and More of the Same' is unnecessary. 'Governments' are 'necessary' and so are 'Social and Economic Conditions' that 'contribute' to the 'General Welfare' of the 'Many' at the 'Bottom'. Why? Because the 'Many' cannot be controlled to just 'a Few'; or 'limited' to a certain 'Number'. Hence, we have to live with the 'Other'. The 'Human Condition' is not a Man-Made Institution. But, Government is 'Man-Made' and the 'different Types' of 'Government' are 'Institutions'. Hence, 'Institutions' can be subjected to 'Institutional Conditions' that the 'Human Condition' cannot. In other words, the 'One', as Polity, can be designed in such a manner that the 'Benefits' of the 'Social' and the 'Economy' contributes to the 'General Welfare' of 'everyone' in the Polity. I'm not suggesting that 'every Polity' should be a 'Democracy' or that everyone at the 'Bottom' should have 'Equal Benefits'. Even an 'Autocratic Government', or 'any Other Type of Government' can certainly have such a 'Great Leader' that He/she contributes towards the 'General Welfare' of 'all its People'. Back to Democracy. Democratic Government has organized its 'Economy' in 'Capitalistic Fashion'. It has protected the 'Business Corporation' by declaring it a 'Person in contemplation of Law'. The Constitution protects the Business Corporation. That 'helps the Economy' but, does that help 'Everyone' at the Bottom, or the 'Many' at the Bottom? Does 'Capitalism' generate the 'Materials', 'Matter', or even the 'opportunity' for 'Greed'?

The 'Real Issue' that exists between 'Political Parties' is that of the 'Haves'and the 'Have Nots'.

The Real Issue that exists between adversarial 'Political Parties' is that of the adversarial 'Haves' and the 'Have-Nots'. A Line can be drawn between 'Political Adversaries' and you will find that the 'Rich' and the 'not so Rich' and the 'Poor' covers the 'Entire Bottom' as well as the Top of the 'Polity'. Of course, if one were to ask 'What are they fighting about?' one would have to conclude that, in the last analysis, the 'Rich want more'; the 'not-so Rich' want more; and the 'Poor want more'; but, the Poor 'might be satisfied', if they had enough to 'live on' and to cover necessary expenses. Why has 'Democracy' and 'Capitalism' created a 'Bottom', and of course, a 'Representational Top' that's mobilized by 'Greed'? Of course, you always have those at the 'Bottom' that says, 'Just Leave Me Alone' and get on as best they can. Why Greed, or, better yet, is that the 'normal' for a 'Human Being'. Do 'all Humans' get 'Greedy' when they find themselves in 'Favorable' and 'Prosperous circumstances'? Some will say, that's not a Political Issue, that's a 'Human Issue'; a 'Psychological' Issue; an 'Economic Issue'; or a 'Social Issue'. No! That's precisely the Issue. That's why the 'Democratic Structure of Government' was set up as it was. Government and Politics is absolutely necessary, if the 'Human Race' is to survive. The 'Top' must 'Represent' and 'Serve' 'all the Bottom'. I think, what I'm asking, is if the Top really Represented all the Bottom in a 'Fair manner', would there be 'Greed', or is 'Greed' a 'necessary Aspect' of all Governmental Collectivities?

No 'Political Entity' can have a 'Top' without a 'Real Individual' to occupy its 'Post'.

No 'Political Entity' can have a 'Top of Power' without a 'Real Individual' to occupy its 'Political Post'. A 'Political Top', or an Institution of Government are not 'Natural Phenomena'; they are 'Man Made'. If something 'goes wrong' in a 'Government' or a 'Political Entity', its usually the 'fault' or 'Responsibility' of the 'Human Condition'. 'Institutions' can do no wrong because the 'Responsible aspects' are the 'Humans' that 'Mobilize' it. One cannot have a 'Top with Power' without 'Someone' to operate it. Of course, there's always the issue of 'Whose Institution' is it and 'Who created it'? But those are 'Historical Questions' and cannot be answered without a more clear 'definition' and 'understanding' of 'History' and How 'compelling' it should be. Hence, most 'Political Questions' are reduced to the question of 'Who occupies the Top' and what are his or Her opinions of the 'History' and the 'Political Function' of the 'Entity'. These 'factors' make Democracy 'more difficult' to Govern than Autocracies. In Autocracy, the top 'does not listen' to the 'Bottom'. In 'Democracy' the Top 'must listen' to the 'Bottom' because they are the 'source' of the 'Power at the Top'. But, the 'Bottom' must also 'listen to the Top' because that's their Government.

A 'Democratic Top' can degenerate into an' Autocratic Top'.

A 'Democratic Top' can degenerate into an Autocratic Top. All it takes is a Selfish Individual at the 'Very Top' occupying that 'Public Office'. But, its never the 'Office' that 'compels' it, its the 'Individual' or the 'Personality', or the 'Psychological State' of that 'Individual'. That's why we need 'Real Politicians' at the 'Helm'. A 'Politically Correct' Politician is likely to be influenced by the 'Power' in the 'Highest Office' in the Land. At that Point, Political Issues change to 'Personality Issues'. That's why we need a 'Real Politician' who possess 'selfless traits' and has the 'General Welfare' of the 'Bottom' and not his/ her own 'Personal Welfare' in mind. That's also why a candidate should file his/her own Tax Returns after being elected to Office. Why should 'that issue' go 'unexplored'? 'Power seduces' but not in the same manner, as when its tied to the 'General Welfare'. A 'Real Politician' is concerned with the 'General Welfare' of the 'Bottom'. A 'Public Office' serves the 'Bottom', never the 'Occupant' of the Office. Where are the Real Politicians?

'Governing' can easily be reduced to 'Rule'; but, 'Rule' is 'unlikely' to become 'Governing'.

'Governing' can easily be 'reduced' to 'Rule'; but, an established 'Rule' is unlikely to become 'Governing'. For 'Governing' to be 'reduced' to Rule, the only requirement is that the 'Top of Power' becomes occupied by someone that's not a 'Real Politician'; at best, is only 'Politically Correct'; or, someone 'unfamiliar' with the meaning of a 'Selfless Leader'; i.e. a Leader concerned with the 'General Welfare of the People' and not with His/her 'Personal Welfare'. Of course, this 'Personal Welfare Switch' can occur 'after Election'. If so, there will be attempts to 'modify' and 're-structure' the 'Top of Power' instead of the 'General Welfare of the People' at the 'Bottom'. Since, in a Democracy, the Real Source of Power is 'in the People', the People will be 'appealed too' but, by the 'Persuasive Rules of Advertising', and not with the 'General Principles of Governing'. 'Persuasion' is easy once one knows who one's appealing too; and then, come the 'empty promises' of the 'Politically Correct'. Another characteristic of changing from 'Governing' to 'Rule' is an attempt to 'Modify the Top of Power'; e.g. an attempt to 'Pack the Courts' and change the 'Judicial Structure' into a 'Reflection' of 'Party loyalty'. If that happens, the only result is a 'Lop Sided' Democracy. I say, 'Lop Sided' only because there is a 'Possibility' that so-called 'Party Loyalty' is not 'founded' on the 'People' at the 'Bottom'. Instead, its a division based on the 'Corporate Nature' of the 'Social' and its 'Productivity'. We're 'headed' towards 'Plutocracy'.

The 'Bottom' gave rise to the 'Top'; the Top can only 'Govern' or 'Rule'.

The 'Bottom' gave rise to the 'Top'; the 'Top' can only 'Govern or Rule'. If the Top is Autocratic; Plutocratic; or Oligarchic, it has 'imbued' itself with 'Power of Rule'. In such cases, the 'Top' becomes 'more important' than the 'Bottom'. But, if the 'Top' is 'Democratic', the 'Bottom' is more important than the 'Top' and that means that the Top must 'Govern' the Bottom. It cannot Rule. More importantly, it also means that the 'Essence of Democracy' are the 'Real People' at the Bottom. In all Political Entities, its the 'People' who are the important ones. But, not all Political Entities accept that. In a Democracy, it was the 'People' who 'Constituted' the 'Polity' and they 'Committed it to Writing in a 'Constitution'. The Constitution 'constitutes' the 'People' and the 'Government'. The Government is structured as a 'Government' 'Of the People', 'By the People' and 'For the People'. The 'Democratic Institution' assumes its 'proper place' and 'Structure' within the 'Political Entity'. This is not to say that Democracies do not have their 'Problems'. They do, but the problems are 'resolved Democratically'. When an 'Autocracy' has a Problem, the 'Polity' can get 'rid' of the Problem. Of course, all 'Polities' have Problems. One of the biggest Problems in a Democracy is when a Candidate assumes 'Leadership' and She/He is 'unqualified' to 'Govern'. 'Leadership' in a Democracy can be more Problematic than leading an Autocracy. One Reason for that is that solving a 'problem' or a 'Political Issue' is not as 'Simplistic' as using 'Democratic Ideology' or 'Republican Ideology'. It can be a 'Human Problem' and hence, not 'completely Ideological'. Where are the Real Politicians?

Democracy has 'Power at the Top'; like any 'Other Form' of 'Governemnt'.

'Democracy', as a Political Entity, has 'Power at the Top'; just like any 'Other Form' of 'Government'. A 'Form of Government' is a 'Political Institution' and consequently, one must ask, "from where does a 'Form of Government' get its Power? All 'Political Entities', Large or Small, are 'Created or established' 'Political Institutions'. Early Tribes, Groupings, etc. usually had 'Leaders', 'Chiefs', who were 'selected' from the 'Wisest', 'Strongest', 'Fastest', or the 'Most Cruel'. Some just 'took' the Position by 'Force' and some 'Inherited it' by being a 'member' of a 'Powerful Family'. Later came the 'Divine Right of Kings' which 'attributed' their 'Right' to Rule to the 'Divinity'. All these Forms are now 'Obsolete' except, and just in case, there still exists, a few 'Isolated Groupings'. 'Every Grouping' had its manner of deciding who would Lead them. Of Course, today, every 'Government' has a 'Top of Power' and a 'Bottom of People'. That was the source of the so-called 'dilemma' of the 'One and the Many', or 'How to Organize an 'Institutional Political Entity' with a 'Top with Political Power' and a Bottom with the 'Many' Human Individuals. If 'Human Individuals' are 'Free' and Equal', as in a Democracy, 'Law and Order' must exist. If 'Law and Order' exists, 'The Many' need to be Governed. But, 'Governing' is different from 'Ruling', hence, the 'basic difference' in the 'Forms' of Autocracies, Plutocracies, Oligarchies, and Democracies. But, 'Democracy' is the only Form that emphasizes the importance of the 'Many People' at the 'Bottom'. The Essence of Democracy are the 'Many Peoples' at the 'Bottom' and the 'Top of Power' is there to 'Serve the General Welfare'.

Democratic 'Government' is a 'Form' of Government; 'Real Democracy' is the 'Nature' of the 'Bottom''.

Democratic 'Government' is a 'Form' of Government; "Real Democracy" is the Nature of the 'Bottom' of a 'Form of Government'. The Top of Power follows 'Democratic Principles' as it 'Governs' and the Bottom of Government is where all the 'Real People Reside' next to each Other. The People are 'Real', not Constitutionally created "Persons" like 'Business Corporations'. The 'Real Persons' Live, Die, and Suffer. They are not 'Institutions' and if they are included as 'Citizens' of a 'Nation' they should be properly 'Governed' and not 'Ruled'. All Political 'Positions' are of a 'Representative Nature'. That means, the Positions were created to allow a 'Representative' from the Bottom to serve and only for a short Period of Time, in some 'Functional and Democratic Capacity'. The 'essence of Democracy' is 'all the Real People' at the Bottom. Without Real Individuals, i.e. 'Real People' there is no Democracy.

That was no 'Trial'; it was a 'contest' between 'Ideologies' and 'Party loyaly'.

That was no Trial; it was a contest between Ideologues and Party Loyalty. How did anyone expect 'Party Ideology' to vote against itself? The 'Representatives' have already 'separated' and each has formed their own 'Party Preferences'. It should have been a search for the 'Truth' and for 'Competence' and that doesn't have anything to do with 'Party Lines'. I don't mean 'Political Preferences', I mean 'Truth'. How could an 'Ideologue' go against His/Her own Party Ideology? Some did. The Highest Political Offices in the Land and they turned it into some 'Political Contest' about voting along 'Party Line' instead of voting for the 'Truth'. Even the 'United Nations' appears to know the Truth. 'Party Loyalty' had no part to play in this scenario. It was not supposed to be a Political Contest between the 'Parties', it dealt with Political 'Behavior', human behavior. Usually, Politics 'seeps' into 'Normal Conversations'; this was a case where 'Human Behavior seeped' into 'Politics' and that 'says more' than any 'Party Ideology'. A perfect example that 'Human Behavior'; 'Decency'; and 'competence' qualifies a 'Representative' for 'Public Office', not Party Ideology. Politicians consider 'Party Ideology' as some 'inflexible criteria' for putting 'Public labels on themselves' and then refusing to step outside the Label. Being 'locked' into 'Party Loyalty' destroys 'Human Decency' and 'Real Political Understanding'. Where are the Real Politicians?

Party Loyalty has just demonstrated its 'Frivolus' nature.

Party Loyalty has just demonstrated its 'frivolity'. Imagine Two of the Highest Political Institutions in the Nation have 'divided' along Party Lines. Each Party Line has its own 'Ideology', yet neither could see that the real issue was not an Ideological Issue; it was more of an 'Incompetence issue'. It was a 'Personality Issue' not an 'Ideological one'. The Issue dealt more with 'behavior' than with Political Ideology. The behavior was an attempt to extract a 'Deal', more so than a 'Political Solution' among 'Nations'. A 'Nations' Ideologies apply to 'National Issues', more so than 'International Issues' After all the 'Party division' is about 'National' and 'Local Government', not about 'International Relations'. That's a horse of a different color. Nevertheless, a 'Leader' must be 'competent' in both the National and the International Arena. Dividing among Party-Lines and voting among Party Lines is frivolous. It demonstrates a 'lack' of 'Personal Flexibility' between 'National and International' modes of behavior. How sad, 'Leaders' unable to distinguish between mere 'Ideological Party Issues' and 'Real Political Issues' on the International Sphere. 'Voting' along 'Party Lines' is 'childish'; 'inflexible'; and 'demonstrates a weak reason' for 'Serving' in a 'Representative Capacity' in a 'Democracy'. Where are the Real Politicians?

A Political Campaign for the Higest Office in the Land has descended into 'name calling' and "sheer Mockery".

A Political Campaign for the 'Highest Office' in the 'Land' has 'descended' into "Name Calling", Insults, and Sheer Mockery. What has happened to 'Political Language'? Even a Movie made in Hollywood where the Language is 'comparable' would be 'distasteful', 'Mockery', or a 'Comedy'. Of course, if the 'Opposition' does not reply with 'equal distaste', it places itself at a 'disadvantage'. That's what happened in the first Debate. The 'Appeal' was made to the 'Back-yard Barbeque Crowd' and it was 'never challenged'. Has Politics descended to that level? Can Political Language still refer to the "Constitution"; "the General Welfare" and "Freedom and Equality" of the 'Individual' at the Bottom, or has Politics 'lost' its Language? A 'Politics' without a 'Proper Language' cannot survive. Of course, I do not speak of 'Political Correctness'. That's Empty, Vacuous, 'Insincere', and 'Hypocritical'. A Proper Language is Important, but I speak of a 'genuinely Proper One'. Insults and Name Calling will not work. Especially at the 'Highest Level' of 'Public Service'. What Kind of leaders do we have? A 'Top' should always set an 'Example' for the 'Bottom'. But, when the 'Top' talks like the 'Bottom'; and 'without Political Discipline', its only 'Natural' to 'worry' about the 'Quality of Leadership' driving the Ship of State. Where are the Real Politicians?

Many Political Entities call themselves 'Socialist':and 'Republics': but 'Govern' like 'Autocrats'.

Many Political Entities call themselves 'Socialist': 'Republics': and even 'Democratic', but 'Govern' like 'Autocrats'. The Real Difference is in the 'Form of Government', or the 'manner' in which they 'Govern'. But, they do not seem to 'hide that difference'. But, an actual 'Democratic Leader' that tries to 'Rule' instead of 'Govern' stands out in His/Her preoccupation with 'Economic Issues' and 'other Issues', instead of 'Civil Issues' like 'Freedom and Equality'. For Example, how long does it take to 'eliminate', or at least, 'to address' 'Racial Inequality' in the 'Social'? It was done in the 'Educational System'. In a Democracy, the 'essence' of any 'Social Institution' is to address the 'condition and status' of the 'Bottom'. Otherwise , its not a Democracy and its 'not Governing'. All Political Entities exist only for the Purpose of 'Governing' or 'Ruling'. They are 'Social Institutions', not 'products of Nature'. If a Nation purports to be 'Democratic', it must serve the 'Bottom' or the 'Peoples'. 'Democracies' Govern, they don't Rule. One doesn't have too look far to see some of the 'Atrocities' perpetuated by 'Autocratic Rule'. But, the problem in a Democracy is that, 'Someone' can be 'Elected' to the 'Top', who then attempts to 'Rule'. When that happens, the 'Top of Power' is in turmoil. Most 'Revolutionary activity' occurs at the 'Bottom'. When it occurs at the 'Top', 'Democratic Ideology' is being destroyed, and when that goes, the 'Democratic structure' unravels and 'cannot hold together'. The 'Top of Power', becomes 'unhinged'. Where are the Real Politicians?

In a Political Entity, the 'Top' is 'necessary'; How is the 'Form' of Government justified?

In a Political Entity,the 'Top of Power' is 'Necessary'; all Political Entities have their own 'Top' and 'Form' of Government. Why is there a difference? There are many Forms of 'Government'; some 'Forms' don't even 'look like' or resemble a 'Government', as we know it. Some, like the Family; we must surmise, grew out of a 'Closeness' between the 'Individuals'; and some among other Individuals being born in 'proximity' to each Other; like a 'Tribe or Group'. Then something must have happened; a particular 'land area' began to 'Feel' like 'Home' and then 'began' to be considered 'as Home'. My Land; our land; It was 'Given a Name' and whether 'mental' or 'actual', the 'circumference and size' was 'delineated' and called 'Our Home'. The above 'sequence' can't be justified, but the process must have been 'similar'. Different 'Races' came into being and different 'Areas' acquired a certain 'Identity' and 'Independence'. The 'Immigrant was Born'. A Human Being who will never understand the trajectory, acquires an 'Identify' and 'must survive' in the World. Of course, 'Human Kind' begins to establish control over his /her Land and 'Nations' are Born. 'Identifies' come into existence, then 'control', then 'Power at the Top'. Politics is Born. Since all Human Beings are Equally Human; 'no 'One' is 'Superior' to Another. Of course, 'Nations' are 'Institutions' and justify their 'existence' and their 'authority' differently. A 'Political Entity' takes 'Form' and the 'Institutional Power' at the 'Top' becomes defined; Monarchy; Autocracy', Oligarchy; Plutocracy, and much later, 'Democracy'. 'Power' at the 'Top' and the 'Many Peoples' at the 'Bottom'. From the 'Divine Right of Kings' to 'Government of the People', 'by the People' and 'For the People'. Only a Democracy respects the 'Freedom and Equality' of 'each and every' Real Individual at the Bottom. Hence the need to 'transfer authority' to 'Govern' to the 'Top'; 'Representative Government is Born', but 'only' for a 'short period of time'. The Center of Gravity of 'Governing' in a 'Democracy' is always the 'Many Peoples' at the 'Bottom'. The 'Top' is always 'Representative'. Where are the Real Politicians?

The Relation of the Top and the Bottom arose from 'Necessity' and the 'Need for Government'.

The Relation of the Top and the Bottom arose from 'Necessity' and 'Eventually' for the 'need of a 'Political Entity'. Obviously. 'Many Peoples' cannot 'Govern themselves'. The 'Political Entity' must be 'organized' in a manner where the 'Many' or the 'Governed' have a say-so in the 'Form' of Government. That's a Democracy. Since all 'Real Human Beings' are 'Equal and Free', no one Human Being is more qualified by virtue of just being Human to become a Leader. Hence, some criteria by which a Leader is 'chosen' must exist. But, where is it? Anyone can Run for Office, but what are the qualifications of that Person. Of course, everyone knows that's the 'Purpose' of a 'Campaign', but most Campaigns' are reduced to 'empty Promises'. But, that's what we call 'Politically Correct'. That's 'Empty' and 'Insincere'. That's not what I'm saying. If one listens to the arguments of the Senate and House, the Language and Motivations for such 'Leadership' are not being discussed. The motivations have to be 'relatively selfless' and a Leader must have a 'comprehensive' knowledge of the 'Real Political situation', and, very important, the possession of a 'Political Vocabulary'. How can an 'Economic Dialogue' be used to 'make comprehensive' Political moves? It can't. That's an Economic move and Politics does include 'Economics', but 'not to the exclusion' of a 'Political Vocabulary'. The 'basis and Nature' of a 'Political Entity' is Governed by a Political 'Vocabulary' and not 'solely' by an 'Economic One'. Leadership in the 'Business World' differs from Leadership in the 'Political World'. Where are the Real Politicians?

The 'Relation' of the Top to the Bottom does not always include the 'Many Peoples' at the Bottom.

The 'Relation' of the Top to the Bottom does not always 'include' the 'Many Peoples' at the Bottom. All Governments have a 'Top with Power' and a Bottom with the 'Many'. The Relation of the 'One' and the 'Many' exists in all 'Forms of Governments'. But, many distinctions arise when it comes to the Form of the 'Political Entity' and the 'Many Peoples' at the 'Bottom'. All 'Tops' have Power to Govern. One cannot have a 'Top' of Power without a 'Bottom' of 'Peoples'. But again, the Peoples are the 'Governed', and one must ask, do they have any 'Political Rights' and if so. from where do they get these Rights? Of course, a Government is an 'Institution' and not a 'Natural Phenomena' but, the 'Peoples', whether at the Top or the Bottom are equally 'Human'. As Human Beings, all are the 'same' and one 'cannot assume' that any 'One' Human is 'Greater' than the 'Other'. Again, Power to 'Rule' is 'different' from 'Power to Govern'. One important feature is that 'Power' is an 'Institutional Phenomena' and in the 'Democratic Form', the Top gets its Power to 'Govern' from the 'Peoples at the Bottom', through the 'Ballad Box'. The 'Institution of Government' is 'authorized to Govern' by the 'Constitution' and the 'Many Peoples' at the 'Bottom'. An Autocratic Form of Government does not Govern; it Rules. That means the 'Peoples' at the Bottom do not have any 'Political Rights' to participate in the act of 'Institutional Rule'. Of course, 'Democratic forms' can also 'fall' into that quandary. An Individual, 'unsophisticated and unqualified' in the workings of Government can be voted into Office and She/He may try to 'Rule' instead of 'Govern'. Simply from his lack of knowledge of Politics. This happens when an individual does not 'understand', or simply doesn't care, that 'Democratic Government' is about 'serving the Peoples' at the Bottom and not about the 'mere exercise' of 'Political Power'. Political Power does not exist except as an Institution and in the Democratic Form of Government, the 'Peoples' at the 'Bottom' transfers that 'Institutional Right' to Govern by means of the Ballad Box. Of course, many things could go wrong, but there should be some sort of qualifications to run for Public Office. When Trump was asked what qualified him to Run; he said "I build big Buildings". Governing establishes a 'Relation' between the Top and the Bottom and that Relation must be used to 'Serve the People'.

The most important Relation in a Political Entity is the relation of the Top to the Bottom.

The most important Relation in a 'Political Entity' is the 'Relation' of the 'Top to the Bottom'. If we are talking 'Politics' or 'Political Entities', we are talking about a 'Structure' or a 'Form of Organization' that allows for 'Governing' the 'Many' by 'One' or the 'Few'. The Top always has 'Power' and the 'Bottom' is the 'Governed' or the 'Ruled'. But, many other 'factors' enter into the Relation. Every Political Entity must also have a 'Social' and an 'Economy'. No 'large group' of 'Human Beings' can 'hold together' without some 'form' of 'Political Organization' and it has gotten to the point where the 'Economic Arena' has acquired importance. These 'factors' all 'effect the Social', and the 'Political'. The importance of the Economic is unquestioned. But, one must ask, why? Simply, the Political is under authority of the 'Political Form' of the Nation, while the Economic is 'Capitalistic' and whose 'Unique Productive Form' is somewhat 'unrestrained'. A Nation cannot survive without an 'Economy' and therein lies a subtle 'danger'. The 'Economic' permeates all the 'Real Individuals' at the Bottom. That's why the Supreme Court created a 'Person" in contemplation of Law' protected by the Constitution. An Individual lives within the 'political Form' of the Government, but is not always in contact with its 'Institutional Nature'; while the 'Economic' permeates every 'moment' of an 'Individuals Life'. We cannot survive without Government, but we cannot survive 'one day' without the 'Economic'. Its very easy for a 'Political Entity' to be dominated by the 'Nature' of a 'Capitalistic Economy'. If the Economy is Capitalistic, 'economic production' becomes 'very important' and the 'Corporate Nature' seeps into the 'Political' and acquires 'dominance'. No 'Real Individual' can compete with a Social formed by 'Corporate Structures' or 'Legal Persons' or 'Legal Fictions'. So now, we use our Time to Count our Money and forget about our Freedom and Equality. We literally 'create' a 'Class Society' by 'embracing abstract Fictions' called Money. The Economic 'Pours in' and the 'Freedom and Equality' goes out the Window. Where are the Real Politicians?

In a Political Entity, the Media and its Objectivity is very important.

In any Political Entity, the 'Media' and its 'Objectivity' is very important. Without a 'Media', the 'Bottom' would never know what the Top is doing, and often times, there are things that the 'Top' does not want the 'Bottom' to know. All Political Entities create a 'Relationship' between the Top and the Bottom and the proper function of the Media is to keep the Bottom informed about the 'functions of the Top of Power'. Its a very important 'Political Relation' and one that establishes a certain 'Political Relationship'; in a Democracy, between the 'Representatives' at the Top and the 'Many Peoples' at the Bottom. The function of the media is to monitor this 'Relation' and report it to the People at the Bottom. Without the Media, the Bottom would never know what is happening at the Top of Power and the Top would never know what the Bottom is thinking or doing. Of course, the most important Requirement the Media has is to be 'Objective' about the Reportage. But, the Problem that inheres in such a Relation is that the Top is the 'One' and the Bottom is the 'Many'. There's that old, 'ancient Problematic' about the 'relation' between the 'One and the Many'. The One and the Many is an essential relation of Government. It must exist. But we've discovered that in the formation of our Democracy, the first thing the Representatives did was to divide into 'Political Parties' each with a different 'Political Ideology'. Already we have a difference. Now, ask yourself, if the division was a "Party Division" into Democratic Political Ideology, why cant the Parties act 'Democratically'. Why is there so much animosity between the 'Parties' that they argue about 'Procedures' instead of Substance? The quest is for the 'Truth' of purported 'Political activity' and not about what can be 'withheld' from the 'Peoples at the Bottom'. Who do the Parties Represent? Why are the 'People' confused by shifting 'Political Talk' that does not address the 'Real Issues'. The Real Issue is about 'Competency' and 'Leadership'. A Nation cannot be 'driven' with 'Economic Principles'. Where are the 'Real Politicians'.

In a Democracy: when the 'Top' acts arbitrarily; it no longer represents the Bottom.

In a Democracy: when the 'Top' acts arbitrarily: it no longer represents the 'Bottom'. Democracy is a 'Representative' Government and 'Leaders at the Top should Represent all the 'Peoples at the Bottom'. 'Shuffling Government Funds' from Military Funds, to build a 'Wall' that contributes to 'Isolationism' is not only, not Democratic; its dangerous. How can a Leader of the People who gets 'all his Political Power', only as a 'Representative of the People', endanger the 'very People' who elected him to 'Office'. That is not 'Democratic'; nor 'Republican'; that's not even 'Governing'; its closer to 'Ruling' a Nation. In a Democracy, 'Leaders' who do not have the 'Peoples Welfare' in mind should not be in 'positions of Leadership'. All 'Democratic Politics' is about 'Representing the People'. In a Democracy, there is no other reason for 'Politics' to exist. In a Democracy, the Bottom is Free and Equal and for that reason, 'Democratic Politics' becomes necessary. But, its 'Political Principles' that become necessary; not 'Economic Principles' and not 'Arbitrary' and 'Pet Projects' of 'so-called Leadership'. To use 'Political Office' for 'Personal Gains' and 'Personal Projects' is clearly a misuse of Political Power. In such cases, either a 'Representative Leader' does 'not Understand' or She/he is 'clearly using' the Elected Office for 'Political Gain'. In the first case, the 'So called' Leader does not 'Understand' Political Principles at all, and in the Other, the Leader does not have the 'Selflessness' required for 'Leadership'. In either case, that kind of 'Politics' leads to a 'Disorganized Bottom' and that raises the issue whether the 'Political Parties', will 'cling' to their 'Ideology' or whether they will try to 'benefit' from the 'mayhem and confusion' caused be the 'Top of Power'.

When the Top of Power 'destabilizes' in a Democracy, the 'Bottom' begins to 'splatter'.

When the Top of Power 'destabilizes' in a 'Democracy', the Bottom begins to 'splatter' in every direction. No longer a 'cohesive Bottom' of 'Freedom and Equality', the bottom becomes 'unmanageable and antagonistic'. The general sense of stability weakens and the different 'Races' and 'belief systems' begin to 'turn' against each other. Democracy has Power at the Top, but if the Top does not exercise its Power in a 'proper way', there is 'nothing' to hold the Bottom together. That occurs when the Top is governed by 'economic Principles' or when there's a lack of 'Political Knowledge' at the helm. Governments, all Governments, whether Democratic or Not, are 'Political Entities' and when they are not 'Governed' or 'Ruled' by their 'Political Ideology', they 'weaken' and 'eventually disintegrate'. But, if the Political Ideology holds together, there is a possibility for their 'Bottom' to hold together. Governments as 'Political Entities', or 'Real Governing Agencies' have a better chance of 'living in a Condition of 'Political Togetherness' then 'Billions of Individuals' living without any kind of Governing Principles. Why is it that Different Political Ideologies can live together in the World, while Billions of Individuals cannot. The answer is Politics. But Political Leaders must learn to hold their Nations together and 'resolve' Political Differences with 'Political Principles' and not 'Economic Principles' or 'Personal Inclinations'. 'Political Entities' are 'Huge' and should be 'disciplined Entities', while Individuals have 'less' Political Inclinations then do 'Political Entities'. An 'Individuals' 'immediate concerns' are more attuned to 'Personal Life-Styles' and they leave 'Political Concerns' to the 'Political Realm'. An Individual cannot hold together a Political Entity, while a Political Entity can hold together the 'Many' Individuals at the Bottom. The Issues are issues of 'Political Entities', 'Political Power', and 'Politics'. In a Democracy, that requires a 'thorough Knowledge' of Political Principles and the 'Right Spirit' for 'Governing'. In a Democracy a 'Leader' cannot 'Govern' with 'Personal Inclinations'. A 'Leader' needs a thorough Knowledge of 'Political Principles' and 'Politics'. Where are the Real Politicians?

Democracy is a 'functional discipline' that 'Institutionalizes' the 'Bottom' as an expresseion of 'Freedom and Equality'.

Democracy is a 'functional discipline' that 'Institutionalizes' the 'Bottom' as an expression of 'Freedom and Equality'. How is this to be accomplished? Of course, 'Political Discipline' is the discipline that must be made 'functional'. No other discipline will suffice. Economic disciplines are also necessary aspects of a 'Democratic Social'. But, economic discipline 'cannot drive' a democracy of 'Freedom and Equality'. It can drive, and does, the 'Corporate Economy' of 'Legal Fictions'. But, it has no control. The Corporate Society has torn loose from governmental Control and is pretty much on its own. Legal Fictions were created, as 'Persons' in 'contemplation of Law', for 'protection', but now they run 'amok'. Abusing their status as 'Constitutional Persons', their sole concern is always 'more and more' of the 'same'. But, the availability of their 'products' or 'services' never comes into view. The 'Business Corporation' needs to be re-designed. They need to be more responsible and they need to be 'more democratic'. After all, they got 'Constitutional Protection'; why not 'Democratic Duties' as all other 'Persons' in the 'Social' have. How can a Person at the Bottom, without any technical knowledge, participate in 'economic activity' ( work) if they are not equipped to function as 'technicians'. They say, many 'new jobs' are available, but only the 'Few' can 'function there'. The Business Corporation is not a 'Real Person' like you and I, so why should it get 'special treatment', or Constitutional Protection? Since, the Law has created the Business Corporation, why shouldn't they become 'more democratic'. Business Corporations are 'necessary', but so are 'Democratic Duties' of 'Freedom and Equality'. After all we are a 'Democracy'. Where are the Real Politicians?

In a Democracy, the problematic is 'how to enable the 'Institutions' at the 'Bottom' to reach the 'Many'.

IN a Democracy, the problematic is 'how to establish 'Social Institutions' at the 'Bottom', that actually 'reach' and 'benefit' the 'Many'. Its relatively easy for the 'Top' to say the 'Bottom' is 'Free and Equal'. Many 'Autocracies' claim to be 'Democracies'. Of course along with the statement that everyone is 'Free and Equal' is the understanding that 'Law and Order' is also an absolute necessity. No 'One' can Govern 'Many' without there being in place the 'Social Institutions' and 'Law and Order'. Law and Order spells out the 'activities' that are 'prohibited' so as to allow the 'Acceptable' to become 'Institutionalized'. Those 'Acceptable Acts' become the 'Basic Activities' that becomes 'Institutionalized' into the 'Social'. Indirectly, 'Law and Order' establishes 'Social Mores' that become 'Socially acceptable' by prohibiting 'unlawful activity' among the 'Many'. The 'Individual' at the 'Bottom' is 'Free and Equal' and anyone who chooses to Run for 'Public Office' is 'Free' to do so. But, shouldn't there be some 'Requirements and Qualifications' to do so? At present, there is nothing to prohibit someone with 'Autocratic tendencies' from 'Running' for Public Office. Of course, such a tendency is not as obvious as one would think and that is not the 'sole characteristic' to 'guard' against. As we have pointed out, a '100% businessman' will possess certain 'Autocratic Tendencies' to operate a 'Corporate Fiction' successfully. Individuals who have never served the 'Public Good' can also have 'Autocratic tendencies'. No Individual who is a 'Corporate Success' is free from such 'unconscious motivations'. They all 'talk' about improving the 'Economy' but, in most cases, that ambition is limited to some 'favorable treatment' of some favorite 'Legal Fiction' or to giving 'Tax reductions' to the 'biggest Income Producers' in the 'Social'. What about Freedom and Equality, Racial Discrimination, or Class Discrimination? It never includes 'those Individuals' who need it the most or those activities that will 'Balance Out' the 'Social' into a more 'Healthy Social', or that 'Serves the "general Welfare", as provided by the Constitution. Where are the Real Politicians?

The Ancient Problematic of 'The One and the Many' has evolved into the 'Few and the Many'.

The Ancient Problematic of 'The One and the Many' has evolved into the 'Few and the Many'. There has always been an Issue as to how any 'One Individual' can Govern the 'Many Individuals' at the Bottom. What does He or She posses that the Others do not. Of course, The Divine Right of Kings Form of Government relied on the fact that the King was Divine. At first, I imagine, their was a belief that the 'King and the Divine' were in touch with each Other. Later, there evolved a concept that the King had 'Two Bodies'. One was Divine and the other was 'Like Everyone Else'. The 'Divine Right of Kings' concept of 'Rule' comes from this arrangement. Other 'Forms of Government' evolved from this 'basic Concept'. The 'Autocratic' concept retained the idea that the 'Top Ruled the Bottom'. It didn't Govern, it Ruled. There are 'Many' different forms of Governing that retained this 'Line of Authority', but 'thinned it out' by creating 'Agencies' at the 'Top'. But, it was the 'Democratic Form' that really changed the 'Ancient Styles of Governing. Power was in the 'People' and they 'transferred it to the Top' by the Ballad Box and created a 'Three Branch Form' of Government. The Bottom are 'the People' or, the Legislative Branch; The Top is the Executive Branch; and the Third Branch is the Judiciary. This 'Form' allows 'Movement' from the 'Bottom' to the 'Top' of 'Power'. Hence, there was a limitation placed on how long any one Individual could serve in the 'Highest Office' in the Land. But, since any Individual at the Bottom could try to Serve in the Highest Office in the Land, other problems evolved. Was the 'Intent of the Individual' to 'Serve' the People, or to 'Rule' the People, or to 'Govern' the People in accordance with the 'Constitution'. As you can see, the 'Problematic' of the 'One and the Many' still 'visits us', but in a more 'Diluted Form'. It seems that if the 'Intent' is to 'Govern' according to the 'Constitution' and the 'Freedom and Equality' of 'every one Real Individual' at the Bottom, there would be no 'Racial Discrimination'. Real Freedom and Equality would reign. Legal Fictions ( Fictional 'Persons') like Corporations would not be 'favored' over 'Freedoms and Equalities'. Where are the Real Politicians?

The only thing that can be more powerfull than 'Political Correctness' is 'Creativity'.

The only thing that can be more 'Powerful' than 'Political Correctness' is a 'Creative Politics'. A Creative Politics can really tackle the Old Problematic of the 'One and the Many'; 'Power' at the 'Top' and 'The Many' at the 'Bottom'. An 'Autocratic Government' has 'Power at the Top' and 'People at the Bottom', but the formula is much 'simpler' than a 'Democratic Form'. In such cases, the 'Top has Power' and the 'Bottom' has no 'Freedom and Equality'; and if it does, its never spelled out. Hence, the Autocrat is Free to 'Rule' as he 'wishes'. A 'Real Democracy' has a 'Written Constitution' and the 'Organization of the Triadic Form of Governing' is spelled out in clear language. In a Democracy the Power is in the People at the Bottom and that Power is transferred to the Top via the ballot Box. Any one serving in High Office 'serves' the 'People at the bottom'. Of course, that creates many Problems, because that 'Ancient Problematic' raises its ugly head, viz: the One and the Many. But, that only allows room for the 'Creative Spirit'. Instead of 'just following' the Letter of the Constitution, the approach to Governing becomes 'Creative'; a Creativity that does not depart from the terms of the Constitution. No Longer just 'Politically Correct', but a 'True Spirit' to 'Serve' the People at the Bottom. A Political Entity that actually 'Serves' the People. Of Course, the Bottom is a Multiplicity of Peoples and that makes the Political Task of the 'Top' much more Difficult. No easy Task, the Top must become 'Creative', but within the 'Bounds' established by the Constitution. 'Political Correctness' is mere compliance with certain 'Political Practices'. Its 'empty', 'vacuous', and 'insincere'. 'True Politics' 'serves' the People and tries to establish 'Institutions' at the 'Bottom' that will 'protect and 'develop' the 'Freedom and Equality' of the 'Individual'. Where are the Real Politicians?

Politics is 'not Science'; nor Art, but it's 'Creative' and hence 'closer' to an 'Art form'.

Politics is 'not Science', nor Art, but it's 'Creative' and hence 'closer' to an 'Art Form'. The 'Creative aspect' of Politics requires that the 'Top of Power' should exercise a little 'creativity' to 'Serve' the 'Needs' of the 'Social' and every 'Real Individual' that 'constitutes it'. Of course, that's a 'Tall Order'. How can an 'Institutional Top' possibly 'Serve Millions of Individuals'. We must be careful not to confuse 'Real Individuals' with the 'Condition of Togetherness' in which the 'Social' exists. The 'needs' of the Social does not necessarily mean the 'Needs' of Each and 'every' 'Real Individual' in the 'Social'. Of course, all Real Individuals are Free and Equal and that does mean 'all' 'Real Individuals'. But the Term 'Social' does have its 'definitions' and 'applications'. The 'function' of 'Power at the Top' is to 'create Social conditions' and 'Institutions' that help the 'Real Individuals' at the Bottom 'realize' their 'Freedom and Equality. Of course, the Top has other functions, but none is more important than to 'realize' and 'help' actualize the 'Individuals Freedom and Equality'. That factor is what makes a Democracy a Democracy. But, its important that Each and Every Real Individual situated at the Bottom also realize and understand the 'Function' that 'they' must play. A democracy needs 'Law and Order' and the manner by which 'Individuals' comply with 'Law' helps to create 'Order'. That's the Purpose of Law and that's what 'creates Order' in the Social. Neither exists without the 'Other'. A Top that helps establish Law is a Top that Governs with Democratic Principles, not Economic principles. The reason for that is that Economic Principles are Dictatorial in Nature. An Economy strives in one direction and one direction only; towards 'Profits' and 'More and more of the Same'. A Polity must be governed by 'Democratic Political Principles'. Where are the Real Politicians?

Politics is closer to an 'Art Form' than to a Political Science.

Politics is closer to an Art than to a Science. Obviously, a Two Party System has different ways of Politic-ing. Of course, Two ways of doing the same thing is not very scientific, nevertheless the Goal is the Same and that is that Both Parties should be 'Governing' the 'Peoples' of a Nation or one of the States of that Nation. So, why the Difference. Well, each Party of a Two Party System has its Ideology. But, each Party 'Governs' the same 'Territories'. The Parties have introduced into these Territories a different approach to the establishment of a Democratic Form of Government. But, our Government, whether Federal or State is a Democracy, a Government "Of the People", "by the People", and "For the People". Its a 'Peoples Government' and it has a 'Written Constitution'. The 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' Tag alludes towards an 'attitude' towards 'Governing', but 'Constitutional Governing', it must. The 'Political Stance' of each 'Party' refers to 'different attitudes' towards 'Governing'. But, they must 'Govern', not 'Rule'. At the moment, our Democracy is unraveling. Sad but True. The 'seat of Power' is occupied by an 'Autocrat' that cannot 'understand' what Democracy is. 'Led' by 'Principles of Economics', 'Freedom and Equality' has been 'sacrificed' to the 'Holy Dollar'. We have never been so close to a 'Plutocracy'. Unfortunately, its the 'Top of Power' that is 'unraveled' and the 'Lack of Democratic Principles' is disrupting the 'Freedom and Equality' situated at the Bottom. We have never needed more 'Sanity' in 'Governing' and 'True Leadership' at the 'Top of Power'. Where are the 'Real Politicians'? Its their 'Job' to correct the 'unraveling' of 'Real Democracy'.

A Political Entity is a 'Political Institution' and hence not a 'Natural Phenomena'.

A Political Entity is a 'Political Institution' and hence not a 'Natural Phenomena'. As a Human Institution, it is a 'Creation' and as a Creation, it must have its Institutional 'Component Parts', and its Institutional 'Motor'. In a Democracy, its 'Parts' are the 'Three Branches of Government' and its 'Motor' is the 'Freedom and Equality' of 'Each' and Every 'Real' Human Being under its 'Political Authority'. The Bottom, the People in their 'condition of togetherness' empower the Top. The only reason I say 'Real' is because the 'Social' and its 'Economy' is now populated with 'Real Persons' and 'Legal Persons'( 'Legal Fictions' called Corporations). Of course, they are recognized as 'Fictions' and as 'existing' only in 'contemplation of Law'. An Economic Institution( Business Corporation) created by Law as a Legal Fiction which contributes towards the creation of 'Economic Classes' better known as 'Haves and Have-Nots'. A 'Democratic Economy' becomes 'Politically Empowered' by the Law that protects a Business Corporation as a 'Person', hence a Legal Fiction. BUT, a 'Fiction' is a Fiction, whether Legal or Otherwise. Nevertheless, it 'establishes' the 'Corporate Nature' as 'Fundamental' and hence, its 'Size' and 'Productivity' becomes 'Fundamental'. A Fundamental 'Legal Person', or 'Fiction' that helps create 'economic classes', or 'Haves' and 'Have-Nots'. How, then, can a Democracy strive towards Equality. Don't mistake 'Social Equality' with 'Economic Equality'. The two are different. All 'Real Individuals' are 'Equal' and 'Free' and hence it can be said they have 'Social Equality', but not 'Economic Equality' because we live in a 'Capitalistic Economy' where Competition is Basic. Of course, when Constitutional Law holds that a 'Business Corporation' is a 'Person' in 'contemplation of Law', its creating an Economic 'imbalance' because Business Corporations can be as Large as they want and some are 'Huge'. Of course, they can be Taxed 'accordingly', but they are not. The Corporate Tax was reduced thereby augmenting the Imbalance. A Democracy where the Taxes are further reduced to augment already existing economic Imbalances in the Social further creates a 'Capitalistic Economy' that creates 'Haves' and 'Have-nots'. That's getting pretty close to a 'Corporate Society' or a 'Plutocracy'. A 'Business Corporation' can be protected without it having to become a 'Legal Fiction'. A 'Fiction' is a 'Fiction', anyway you cut it. 'Business Corporations' need more 'Democratic Duties' to 'offset' their 'Economic Autocratic Powers'. Where are the Real Politicians?

Why do 'Business Corporations' need to be Considered as 'Persons', in 'contemplation of law'?

Why do Business Corporations need to be Considered as 'Persons' in 'Contemplation of Law', and why only in 'Contemplation of Law'? Does that mean, that they are not really 'Persons'. How can a Constitution create a 'Person'? Of course, everyone knows they are 'Legal Fictions' and hence not 'Real Persons'. So, why consider them 'Persons' and give them the same 'Constitutional Rights' that 'Real Human beings' have? Of course, they are 'Economic Money Making Machines', and hence huge and very productive. No 'Real Human Being', or 'Real Person' can compete with a 'legal fiction' that is 'protected' by the Constitution. Of course, if corporations really 'need Protection', they are 'certainly entitled' to it, but why 'Personhood'. That move places it right alongside a 'Real Person' who is entitled to 'His, Her' 'Human Rights' as a 'Member' of the 'Condition of Togetherness' in which they exist. 'Real Human Beings', at the 'Bottom' of a 'Political Democracy' need protection from the 'Institutional Government' established by the 'Constitution'. Of course, the question arises, Why? Simply because no Human Being or 'Real Individual' can protect 'Himself or Herself' from an 'Institutionalized Political Power'. 'Government' is too Powerful and the 'Bottom' of the 'Political Entity' has split into 'opposing Parties' and the question 'always arises', why can't a 'Government' agree that 'Human Beings' are Natural, Real,( not Institutional) and hence 'more valuable' then 'Business Economic Institutions' established by a 'Social' or a 'Government', deployed by a 'system of Political Power' that is 'Split' along Business Power distributions set in motion by the 'Different Adversarial Parties'. Evidently, there are Politicians who seek to protect the 'Corporate Motor' instead of the 'innate Human Rights' of 'Real Individuals'. That 'establishes' a 'Polity motored' by Money and 'Economic Principles' instead of a Polity motored by 'Political Principles' of 'Freedom and Equality'. Creating Legal Fictions and giving them 'Constitutional Protection' creates an 'Economic Institution' instead of a Political Institution. Its O.K. to protect Business Corporations but, its ridiculous to call them 'Persons' and then simply to say 'Oh, they are 'Legal Fictions' and then giving them the 'same' or 'similar' 'Protections' that a 'Real Human Being' has. No Law can create a 'Real Human Being', or a 'Real Person'. We live in a Real World and we don't need 'Imaginary Persons' alongside us. Its O.K to protect Business Corporations, but why augment our already existing 'Computerized Hyper-Reality'? Where are the real Politicians?

When a 'Top of Power' fractures, and substitutes 'business Principles' for Governmental Principles , it begins to 'behave' like a 'Plutocracy'.

When a Top of Power 'Fractures', it begins to 'behave' like a 'Bottom' without 'Political Principles'. A 'Political Top' is very 'Organized' and, of course, has its own 'Political Language' and 'Ideology' that 'holds it together'. It is a very 'Coherent Political Institution'. All 'Different Forms' of 'Government' use their 'particular Language' and follow their 'particular Ideology'. Their 'Identity' as 'Governmental Agencies' is characterized by their use of a 'specific Language' with an 'Identifiable Power'. An 'Individual' in a 'High Position of Power' must use that 'Political Language' to 'Govern' or to 'Rule', depending on whether its a 'Democracy' or an 'Autocracy'. When a 'Top' uses the 'Language of a 'Bottom', it has 'lost' its bearings and its 'coherence'. It is floundering, and is 'drowning' in a 'Language of impropriety'. The Top becomes 'Institutionally Weak' and condemns the Bottom to a 'chaotic Condition'. In such a case, the Top loses 'control' and the Bottom becomes 'disorganized', 'confused', and loses its sense of 'propriety' and its sense of 'direction'. A Democratic 'Top' of Power 'must Govern' its 'Democratic Bottom with Political Principles of Freedom and Equality. If the Political Top loses 'control' of its 'Government', the Bottom will misuse its 'Economic Principles' and 'transfer' 'Autocratic Mechanism', and 'chains of control' to the Bottom. If a 'Democratic Bottom' mixes or misuses the 'Principles of Business' with the 'Principles of Government', it will transform into a 'Plutocracy' and that's a Government 'Of the Rich', 'By the Rich' and 'For the Rich'. Where are the Real Politicians?

'Political Science' is not a Science; then what is it?

'Political Science' is not a 'Science'; then what is it? Well, its kinda difficult to say what it is but we can certainly give it a try. Does a 'Democracy' need to be a Science? Well, no because 'Politics' deals more with 'Human Behavior' than with the 'Hard Sciences', like 'Physics' or 'Anatomy' or 'Chemistry'. Of course, 'Psychology' is considered a 'Science', but then, its 'behavioral' in nature, and its not a 'Hard Science', which, I think, means that it has many 'variables'. Obviously, there's no 'definite way' to 'do Politics', but that does not mean a Politician can do 'whatever he pleases' and still be considered a 'Politician'. Every 'Person' is a 'World'; and, by that, I mean 'Everyone' becomes what 'She or He' takes in through his 'Five Senses' and 'organizes it' into a 'Personality' or 'Persona'. I know that's an 'oversimplification', but that's why its not a 'Hard Science'. But, then a Person who 'chooses' to 'do Politics' comes from a certain definite 'Background' and is a definite 'Persona'. So, what are the 'Constraints' that characterize 'behavior' to be 'Political in Nature'. 'Politics' is about 'ascending' to the 'Pinnacles of Political Power' and 'Governing'. Its not 'Natural' in the sense that 'something' is Part of 'Nature', like 'Physics', 'Anatomy', or 'Chemistry'; but, its 'Constitutional'. The 'Constitution' 'Constitutes Us' as a 'Political Entity' with 'Power at the Top' and 'Three Branches' of 'Governmental Activity' that 'connects' the 'Bottom', constituted of the 'Many Peoples', with the 'Top Representatives' of Power. This 'Human Institution' relates the 'Top to the bottom', and the 'Bottom to the Top', hence a 'Democratic Institution'. 'Politics' is the 'activity' within that 'Relation' and every 'Democratic Relation' 'Runs' 'Both Ways'. Of course, that is not the case in every 'Polity'. For example, in an 'Autocratic Institution' the 'Relation' runs from the 'Top to the Bottom', but 'not' from the 'Bottom to the Top'. Why not? Because, an 'Autocracy 'Rules' its 'People'; it does not 'Govern'; end of story. Unfortunately, not to many Individuals can cope with an 'ascension to Political Power'. In some Individuals, there seems to occur an 'unbalancing' of the 'Power' and the 'Humane' in the 'Persona'. 'Power' takes over and the 'Humane' goes out the Window. Sad but True. The 'Fake' Politician becomes an exploiter of 'Political Power'. That's why 'Democratic Institutions' establish Democratic 'forms' of 'Institutions' and 'Laws' that 'structure' and 'helps' the 'Top of Power' to 'Govern the Many' at the Bottom. But, 'Govern' it must; it cannot 'Rule' because the 'Real Individuals' at the 'Bottom' of a Democracy retain their 'Freedom and Equality'. That makes the Democratic Form of Government, the Best. But, we cannot forget the 'Duties' and 'Responsibilities' of the 'Real Individuals' at the 'Bottom'; they must 'understand' and 'cherish' that 'Freedom' and 'Equality'. If they don't, it can be 'taken' away. 'Political Science' may not be a 'Science' but, it behooves us to be 'familiar' with it, 'lest we be deprived of our Equality and Freedom'. Where are the Real Politicians?

Theres always a 'Relation' between a 'Political Top' and a 'Political Bottom'.

There's always a 'Relation' between a 'Political Top' and a 'Political Bottom'. That relation is a 'Top/Bottom' Relation, but it also Runs from the 'Bottom' to the 'Top'. That Relation establishes a 'Form of Government'. That 'Form of Government' determines how the 'Relation Functions' and the 'distribution of Political Power' in the 'Form of Government'. For Example, an Autocracy has 'Power' at the Top and the Bottom is Governed by that Power. But, the Bottom does not have any power. In a 'Democratic Form' the 'People' at the Bottom are the 'essence of Government' and the 'essence' determines where the 'Power' is situated. In other words; the Relation of an Institutional Government is from the Top to the Bottom , but that same Relation also runs from the Bottom to the Top. The Relation runs both ways. The 'Bottom', or the People, exist in a 'Condition of togetherness'. But, The Bottom 'elects' a Representative to the Top who will Govern and authorizes Him/Her to 'Govern in accordance with the Structure established by the 'Constitution'. That's the Power of the Top. The 'Electoral Vote' transfers 'Political Power' from the 'Bottom to the Top', but only for a certain Period of Time. The Structure of the Government is established by the Constitution as a 'Three Branch' Form of Government and the Relation from the Top of that Structure to the Bottom of the Structure is the 'Relation that Governs'. In a Democracy, the Bottom relies on the Character, Qualifications, and the Political Knowledge of the Elected Top Officeholder. A Politician must be qualified to Govern. He, She, must posses the Qualifications of a 'Democratic Leader'. Since no Human Being, regardless Race, Color, or Creed, is 'Superior' to 'Another' Human Being, the Institution of Government 'becomes necessary', and the 'qualifications of the Leader' at the Top becomes 'very Important'. Political Knowledge of Democracy is vital to a Democratic Leader. A Leader who is not familiar with 'Political Ideology' cannot function as a Political Leader. That's the Problem with electing some 'CEO's and Businessmen' whose Lives 'solely function' with 'Business Principles'. There's nothing wrong with having knowledge of Business Principles, but they simply are not 'Political Principles', and that's the 'Problematic'. The 'Economic Motor' cannot 'Motor' a 'Political Entity'. They are separate functions and they 'Motor' different value systems. 'Money' must be kept out of 'Politics'. Where are the Real Politicians?

A 'Political Problematic' always involves that 'Ancient Problematic' known as the "One and the Many".

A Political Problem always involves that ancient 'Problematic' known as the "One and the Many". The Top of 'Political Power' has to be filled in with 'Political Institutions of Power'. Of course, there are many 'forms' a 'Governing Institution' can assume. In all cases 'The Top' is designed to either 'Govern' or 'Rule' the 'Bottom'. In a Democracy, the 'Bottom' is 'Governed', hence the Bottom is 'Institutionalized' into a 'Body Politic' that reflects the 'Institutions of a Democracy viz., Institutions of 'Freedom and Equality'. Its at that point, that the 'Power' issue is raised; how can a 'Political Top' govern a 'Multitudinous Bottom'; or, in historical terminology, which is that 'Ancient Problematic of the 'One' and the 'Many'. It took a long time for 'Social Institutions' to evolve. The earliest was the 'Family', 'a Group', 'a Tribe', 'larger Groups' and 'larger Tribes', until the stage was reached where 'States' and 'Nations' were established by 'Human Beings' and 'Constitutions'. They are 'described and Defined' as 'Political Entities' with 'Political Power' at the 'Top' that could 'Rule', or 'Govern'. Autocracy or 'Diluted Forms' of 'Autocracy', Rule; whereas; 'Democracies Govern'. Neither 'Ruling' nor 'Governing' is easy. But, the 'resolution' of a 'Political Problem' is always different. An Autocracy usually 'quashes' the Problem; a Democracy tries to 'Resolve' the problem, which also raises different issues. If a Democracy is being Driven by 'Economic Principles', how can that be 'transformed' back to being 'driven' by Political Principles of 'Freedom and Equality'? 'Democracy' cannot be 'driven' by 'Economic Principles' of 'More and More of the same', or by the 'Haves and the Have-Nots'. That's closer to Plutocracy, not Democracy. But, When that happens one begins to see 'Political Conflicts' occurring at the 'Top' between 'Officials' instead of at the 'Bottom' among the 'Many Peoples'. When 'Political Conflicts' ascend to the 'Top of Power', the 'Political Entity' is 'beginning' to 'unravel' and the 'Democratic form' of Government, Suffers. 'Petty Quarrels' and 'Maneuvers' begin to dominate the 'High Levels' of 'Political Language'. The Top 'lowers itself' to a 'Language and maneuvers' of a 'Backyard Barbeque' with its 'Backyard Language'. The 'Top' is no longer a 'Representative of the Bottom'; the 'Top' is transformed into a 'Few Individuals' that want to stay in 'Political Power'. 'Pettiness' overcomes 'Power'; and 'Real' Political Power 'weakens'. 'Plutocratic Egos' overcome 'Political Principles' and 'Political Language' and destroy Democracy. Where are the Real Politicians?

A Political Top of Power without a 'Political Language' cannot Govern. Is there such a thing as a 'Political Algorithm'?

A 'Political Top of Power' without a 'Political Language' cannot 'Govern'; its Top will not be 'Cohesive'. But, 'The People' at the Bottom need 'Governing', and the 'Language of Economics' will not suffice. Why not? Simply because that will 'launch' the 'Bottom' of the 'Political', or Social, into 'Economic Principles' of 'Haves' and 'Have-nots', or, more generally, 'economic Principles' that 'characterize' a 'Plutocracy' and that have 'no business' being utilized in a 'Political Democracy'. Well, a 'Top without control' is a 'Political Situation', and 'must be' corrected; a Social cannot be 'Governed' or 'stratified' solely by 'Economic Principles' and 'still claim' to be 'Democratic'. The 'Two systems', Government and Economics' are 'motored' differently and hence, will never have the 'same result'. Hence, we must be very careful. Is there such a thing as a 'Political Algorithm'? 'Algorithms' work, function, in the 'Universe of Computers'; can they work, function, in the 'Universe of Politics'? I have to admit, I'm not a 'Computer Geek' by any stretch of the Imagination, but Algorithms do work in conducting searches for Knowledge in a Computer. In a Democracy the Top of Power 'Represents' all the 'Real Individuals' at the Bottom and certainly that can be 'quantified'. That resolves that ancient problematic of the 'One' and the 'Many'( The Top and the Bottom). Hence, a 'properly formulated' Algorithm. But, it must Govern with Equality and Freedom. Certainly, the Bottom can include 'each' and 'every' 'Real Individual' in its computation; that should also be easy to quantify. But, can 'Equality and Freedom' be computerized? That probably requires an algorithm that includes some kind of 'Institutional Set-Up' that 'insures' that 'Individual Freedom and Equality' to each 'Real Individual'. Oh well; I'll just leave this to someone else more versed in Computer Languages. Lets do it the 'old fashion' way, Where are the 'Real Politicians'? We need 'Real Politicians' versed in 'Democratic Principles' and not 'Economic Principles'. We need Politicians that can do the 'Talk' and the 'Walk'.

When the 'Political Top of Power' begins to unravel, 'Political language' 'loses' its 'Grip'.

When the 'Political Top of Power' begins to 'unravel', that's a sign that the 'Political Language' of Power is losing its 'Grip'. The only language that can hold the 'Integrity' of the 'Political', at the Top, is the 'Language of the Political'. In a Democracy, the Language of the Bottom 'cannot', or rather, 'should not', be used. Words like, "He's Toast'; 'Name Calling'; 'Rat infested Countries', Racial references; etc. all sound like 'Back Yard Barbeque' terms. That is not the Language of 'Democracy' and that is not 'Political in nature'. It may be 'proper' at the 'Bottom' at the 'level' of 'Common every day talk'. But, the language of Politics requires the Language of the Political. Governing is not the same thing as 'existing' and 'functioning' at the Bottom in the so-called 'daily Grind'. A Democracy needs the 'Political Language' of 'Real Democracy' and it must be spoken 'properly' and 'knowledgeably.'. 'Real Politicians' are, or 'should be', knowledgeable of the 'Language of Democracy'. If they can't 'talk it' chances are they 'can't 'do it'. Are You reminded of that 'comical quip', 'If you can't do the 'Talk' you can't do the Walk'. (there's many different ways of saying the same thing) When it comes to 'Politics' and the 'Language of Politics', the saying is 'not so comical'. Knowing the 'Language' of Politics is 'vitally important' for a 'Real Politician'; but He or She must also do the 'Walk' because they are 'Representatives' of the 'Peoples' at the 'Bottom'. Of course, I've already discussed the so-called 'Politically Correctness' that exists in Politics. That's an 'Empty Politics', a Politics that is 'Empty, Vacuous, and Insincere'. That can also be singled out in the so-called 'Doing the Talk'. But, political Language is essential to the 'Real Politician', so not being able to do the 'Talk' is already a 'disqualification' from being a 'Real Politician'. Someone like that, should not be in Office. There is no 'way' She or He can possibly do the 'Walk'. If they cant do the Talk, they cant do the Walk. When common every-day Language is used to 'attempt to Govern' a Nation, the 'Politics' of that 'Nation' is going to 'unravel'; not the 'Bottom' of the Nation, but the 'Top of Power' of the Nation. Of course, that will weaken the Nation as a 'whole'. The 'Top' will lose its 'Integrity' and when that 'goes', so will its Bottom. How sad; a Nation loses its Integrity because those who are at the Top of Power do not know 'how to Govern'. Where are the Real Politicians?

Governing a 'Democracy' is not easy; neither is living 'democratically'.

Governing a 'Democracy' is not easy; neither is Living 'democratically'. Its a 'Two-fold' effort. A Political 'Top' Governs according to the Constitutional Requirements and subsequent Political Institutions established by the Social and the Bottom lives and interacts in Equality and Freedom. Of course, the Political Parties have 'divided' the 'Political tensions' at the Bottom into two separate Political Ideologies. These Two Parties are 'more adversarial' than 'Complementary'; nevertheless, its an established system that 'attempts' to be Democratic. That's not too bad so long as the efforts remain in the direction of Democracy. Of course, a lot could be said about 'improving' the 'Political Process' but, the issue at this point is the 'Bottom of Democracy' and the 'efforts' made by 'Real Individuals' to live 'Democratically' at the Bottom. Its not easy because a normal 'Human Being' 'Feels and Knows' that 'She/he' are 'Equal' to all Other 'Humans' and 'Free' to do as She/he perceives and Understands Her/his Life. Of course, there are Laws and that means 'conforming conduct' to the 'acceptable' way of expressing that Equality and Freedom. If Laws do not conform to the 'very general' Constitutional Description of a democratic Society, they have to be changed and that change has to be 'Constitutional'. The Laws protect the Democratic Way of life and the Real Individuals have to live within the 'descriptive range' of a Democracy described by 'Linguistic Labels'. For this to occur, there must be an understanding of a Democratic Life. The Bottom can't just do anything it wants. That's why the Economy deserves close scrutiny at the 'Autocratic nature' of the Business Corporation. I do not mean that The Business corporation should function as a Democracy, and hence, not productive, but I do mean that Autocracy in the Business World must be accompanied by Governing of the 'Corporate nature' to insure its 'participation' in the 'Democratic Society' of which it is part. After all, its the Democratic nature of the Government and the Social that allows the Corporate Nature to be very Productive and hence Business Corporations should participate in the Democratic Spirit that allows them to exist. After all, there's a big difference between Democracy and Plutocracy. A Democratic Government should not allow 'Autocratic Principles' to 'seep' into 'Democratic Government' by allowing only the Rich, Millionaires, and Billionaires, to Run for Office. Where are the 'Real' Political Parties and where are the 'Real' Politicians?

If all 'Real Individuals' at the 'Bottom' are 'Equal', there cannot be any 'Racial Discrimination'.

If all 'Real' Individuals at the Bottom are 'Equal', there cannot be any 'Racial Discrimination'. Since 'Equality' is a reference to the 'Human Condition' everyone is considered to be equally 'Human'. There may be 'differences' in the Human Races but, in that case, the 'differences' do not apply to the 'Humanity' of the 'Real' Individual. 'Differences' apply to the 'color of skin', language, place of birth, or Other 'Sociological Traits' or characteristics . If 'all Human Beings' are 'Politically Equal', they are also 'Politically Free'. 'Equality and Freedom' are 'Political Terms' that apply to all 'Human Beings' living within the Political Entity. A Political Entity is a 'Human Institution' and as such cannot be Superior to a 'Natural Condition'. A Political Institution is merely an 'opportunity' to live with 'Others' in a 'Condition of Togetherness'. Regardless the differences in the 'characteristics' of the 'Human Condition', Racial Discrimination should not be tolerated. Racial Differences are not sociologically 'Superior' or 'Inferior'. We are all Politically 'Equal' and hence Politically 'Free'. 'Freedom and Equality', or, 'Equality and Freedom', characterizes the 'Social Conditions' of 'Living next to each Other' in a 'Condition of Togetherness' at the Bottom of a Political Entity. Of course, Political Freedom means Freedom within the 'confines' and 'directives' of 'Law'. A Political Entity must have Law to regulate the Interactions of its Citizens in the 'Social'. Hence, in a Democracy all Real Individuals are considered 'Equal and Free' and as such, cannot discriminate 'Racially' against each 'Other'. Equality and Freedom are 'characteristics' of every 'Real' Individual living within a 'Real' Democracy. But, a 'Real Democracy' needs 'Real Politicians'. Where are the 'Real Politicians'?

Have you ever heard of an 'Autocracy' tolerating 'Democratic activity' at the Bottom?

Have you ever heard of an Autocracy tolerating 'Democratic Activity' at the Bottom? If you have, Ill bet it didn't last long. Autocracy 'Rules' the Bottom and that usually means it 'demands' complete 'Fidelity'. Of course, one could always argue about degrees of 'Fidelity', but the fact is that when a 'Ruler Rules' 'She' or 'He' says what is 'acceptable' and what is not. In a 'Democracy' the 'Bottom' enjoys 'Equality and Freedom' in the 'Social'. Notice, that I put 'Equality' first and 'Freedom' second. Of course, the 'habituated form' of the words are usually 'Freedom and Equality'. I use that 'format' also but I'm being a little cautious, by placing 'Equality First'. Actually, the two Words are 'inseparable' and do not exist 'separately' in Political Discourse. If 'anyone' and 'everyone' is 'Equal' then each 'Equal Real Individual' is also 'Free'. My caution lies in the fact that 'Corporations' are accepted as being 'Legal Fictions', that exist 'only in contemplation of Law'. That means they're not Real. Hence, how can a 'Legal Fiction' be in the same 'Linguistic Category' as a 'Real Human Being' or a 'Real Individual'? And why are we to consider them as 'Persons' in 'contemplation of Law'. A Legal Structure(Corporation) is not 'even close' to being a 'Real Human Being'. Of course, they are 'Economic Entities' and do need 'some protections' as 'such'. But, the 'nature and function' of an 'Imaginary Legal Business Structure' is Autocratic to the core. They are not 'successful' because they're Democratic; They are successful because they're Autocratic. But the organization of the Economy is 'different' from the organization of the 'Democratic Polity'. Why not organize the Economy in 'Economic Terms' and 'Protect' the 'Business Corporation' in 'Economic terms' and stop calling Business Corporations 'Persons'. They are not even 'close' to being 'Real' and they certainly are not 'Persons'. If 'Autocracies' do not tolerate 'Democratic activity' at the 'Bottom', should 'Democracies' tolerate 'Autocratic activity' in the 'Economy' at the 'Bottom'? Its one thing to protect an 'Economic structure' by calling it a Legal Fiction, its 'another' to call that 'Fiction' a 'Person' in 'contemplation of Law' and give it Constitutional Protection. Where are the Real Politicians?

The 'Bottom' of a 'Democratic Polity' can divide into 'Political Parties', but both must be 'Democratic'.

The 'Bottom' of a 'Democratic Polity' can divide into 'Political Parties', but they must be 'Democratic'. Why is that the case? Simply because the Bottom can not be 'aspiring' to become 'Autocratic', or to 'transform' into any 'Other Form of Government'. But, how can a 'Real Democracy' become 'Autocratic'? Theoretically, it can't, but a Bottom of 'Freedom and Equality' is only 'Possible', because the 'Bottom' exists in a 'Real Democracy'. Hence, only a 'Real' Democratic Bottom of 'Freedom and Equality' can exist in a 'Real Democracy'. Hence 'No Division' into a 'Political Party' at the 'Bottom' can 'house' a 'Party' that 'espouses' 'Autocratic Rule' because 'Rule' is the 'anti-thesis' of 'Governing'. Democracies 'Govern'; they do not 'Rule'. But, the issue is not that simple. All Political Entities have an Economy and an Economy can be 'motored' by 'Capitalistic ends'. This is the 'place' where 'subtle' distinctions between 'Governing' and 'Ruling' begins to 'accumulate'. One 'Accumulation' favors 'Governing', the other 'Ruling'. If the 'Social focus' is on 'Economic Principles', to the 'exclusion' of 'Democratic Political Principles', the end result will be 'Autocratic'. Why?, because economic Principles in Capitalistic activities are solely 'motored' by 'Profits'. No Business Corporation will survive for long in a Capitalistic Social if that Corporation is not making a Profit. A Business Corporation must be driven by Profits. It 'must be' Profitable. However, if economic activity is 'kept separate' from Political Activity, then a Democratic Government of Freedom and Equality can continue to exist. Otherwise, it will be replaced by 'Capitalistic profits' which 'pushes' 'Democratic activity' into 'Autocratic activity' or an Autocratic Form of Rule. A Corporation 'Rules' its employees, it does not 'Govern' them. Governing is one thing, being Motored by Profits is another, and never should the 'twain' be confused. Both 'Entities', Government and Economy, need each Other, but they must be kept separate. A Government 'contains' an Economy and if an Economy ever 'contains' a Government, it will be Autocratic. But, how 'easily' do Political Principles 'slide' into Economic Principles and 'making more and more of the same', or Money? How easy is it to 'throw away' Freedom and Equality and transform it into the 'Motor' of 'having more and more of the same'? That's why, 'Political Parties' need to 'define themselves' and define the area of 'democratic activity' in which they are allowed to function. Any 'other approach' will be disastrous. If a Democratic Bottom continues to exist, we'll be ok, but if the 'Economy' takes over the 'Bottom', we're in trouble. Where are the 'Real Politicians'?

There is nothing 'inherently' wrong with dividing the Bottom into Political Parties,.....but....

There is nothing inherently wrong with dividing the Bottom of a Political Entity into Political Parties. But, in a Democracy, the division must constitute two 'different approaches' to 'doing Democracy'. Hence, the Parties would just have to justify the 'different approaches' to a 'Democratic Social'. A Real Democracy should actually have a 'multiplicity of approaches' to the constitution of a 'Democratic social'. However, if the Division is 'inherently' one between 'Haves' and 'Have-nots', or 'Racial' in Nature, the Division is not a proper division of a 'Democratic Bottom'. The Bottom of a Democracy is a 'Social' constituted by the democratic 'political values' of 'Freedom and Equality' among 'all' the 'constituents' at the 'Bottom'. Otherwise, the Parties are just 'hiding' the 'real significance' of the 'Division'. A 'Social' is unstable if it has 'Plutocratic' tendencies. Both 'Democratic terms' and 'Plutocratic terms' are references to 'Political Structures'. Of course, the 'Bottom' of these 'two structures' are different i.e. the Social in them is constituted differently. A 'Democracy' does not have a 'Plutocratic Top'. However, if the Top of a Democracy has a Bottom that is a 'plutocratic Social' i.e. a social 'motored' by 'Monies', 'Haves', Corporate Business Fictions, and a 'value system' of 'more and more of the same', it runs the 'danger' of becoming a 'Plutocracy'. In such cases, the 'subsequent election' becomes very important. Why? Because it could transform the 'Democratic Top' into a 'Plutocratic Top', or a 'Plutocratic Government'. The 'Irony' of this phenomena is that what makes this phenomena possible is the 'Freedom and Equality' of the Democratic Social. Said Freedom and Equality must be 'Appreciated' and 'Lived'. An individual should not claim to live in 'Freedom and Equality' and then only 'chase' the 'Holy Dollar' as if it was the 'cement' that holds the 'Social' together. Freedom and Equality are just as 'Real' as the 'Dollar'. One cannot 'buy things' and 'own things' with 'Them', but they make 'buying' and 'owning' possible and the 'Social Structuring' of the 'Top and the Bottom' in a 'Real Democracy'. But, it is important to 'value' and 'implement' this 'Freedom and Equality' to protect the 'existing Democracy'. For this to occur, we must implement 'Both' in our Governmental System and we must 'Govern' with Political Principles of Democracy and not with 'Economic Principles' of the Economy. Hence, all Political Parties in a Democracy must emphasize 'democratic Principles' and not 'Economic Principles'. We are not 'Plutocratic', we are 'Democratic'. Where are the Real Politicians?

The 'Bottom' of our 'Democratic Entity' has been splintered into 'Political Parties', and an 'Inhuman Condition'.

The 'Bottom' of our 'Democratic Political Entity' has been 'splintered' into 'Political Parties' and an 'Inhuman Condition'. The first aspect of the splinter is Political in Nature. Of course, this 'Cleft' could have been between the 'Differences' and the 'best manner' of achieving a 'True Democracy'. Both Parties could have stuck to the 'nature' of the Cleavage, which was purely Political and which might have really helped the 'achievement of a Real Democracy'. But, was that the case? Take an Example; the issue of some kind of Gun Control. The 'news' clearly shows that Individuals are shooting other 'Individuals', but not only that, but also shooting Individuals within 'Large Groups', and including 'Bystanders'. Well, that's not good and 'completely prohibiting Individuals from owning Guns for their own 'self and Home-protection' would not be a solution. In all cases the evidence shows that the Perpetrators have 'Automatic Weapons', or 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'. These weapons are weapons of War, not weapons of Individual self-defense. How does an Individual acquire weapons of War in a Democratic Social? Where are the Political Parties? All attempts to limit these killings has failed. If these weapons are allowed in the 'Social' and at 'Home', they should not be 'Weapons of War' or Automatic Weapons of Mass Destruction' and the attempt to treat 'mental illness' and the 'Personalities' of the 'Perpetrators', 'early', is ridiculous and silly. Any Individual can get a hold of a weapon and hurt someone. But, the fact that an 'Individual' can be 'armed' so as to shoot 'large groups' or 'Twenty Individuals' or 'Bystanders' within 'Seconds' is absurd. Those weapons are for 'War and Mayhem' and treating 'mental Illness' is not the solution. The only solution is to limit the 'Production' and 'Availability' of those Weapons to 'Law Enforcement Departments' and 'Military Departments'. The solution is simple. Don't sell to just any Individual. Those weapons are not necessary for 'Target Shooting', 'Hunting', or 'Personal Defense' or 'Self-Defense', and their availability to just 'anyone' 'who wants one' is ridiculous and motivated by 'Economic Motives' and not by 'Democratic' or 'Moral Motives'. Where are the Political Parties? It would be simple for them to enact Laws prohibiting the 'availability' and 'sale' of these Weapons to any 'Tom, Dick, or Harry' who just wants one. If the availability of these weapons is not controlled, these atrocities will continue. That is 'Inhumane' and 'Asinine'. Why don't the Political Parties do something that is not completely motivated by 'Economic considerations? Where are the Real Politicians? Is it really possible that our 'Leaders' do not know how to limit the circulation of these Weapons? I don't think so. But, that's what happens when we are 'Governed' by 'Economic Principles', or an 'Economic Motor' instead of 'Democratic' Political Principles. Politics is not a 'Business' and should be motivated by 'Political Principles' of 'Freedom and Equality' and not by the 'Profit Principle'. Where are the Real Politicians?