Every Government needs an economy. Every economy needs a government. But, the economy is dependent on the form of government within which it evolved. An organized economy cannot exist without an already existing government. A form of government can 'hold' an economy together, while an economy cannot hold a form of government together. For example; a democratic Government has a Constitutional right to "peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances". Obviously, an economy cannot do that because it functions on the basis of "profits", which is not a democratic activity. Competition is democratic, whenever possible by real individuals, but profits are not democratic. The reason being that without profits there would be no competition; besides, competition between individuals has now become impossible with the creation of artificial human beings, to wit; "legal fictions". Hence,an economy needs a democratic government, but a democratic government does not need a capitalistic economy. So, what can be done with an already established, and effective capitalism that has encased itself within the democratic aspects of government. This requires an extended consideration. Generally, if government 'helped' create the natural evolution of economic entities that eventually led to undemocratic conditions, government must also correct them. Government created them; government fixes them. But how? The corporate entity owes its 'life' to government. Just as government allowed these "fictional entities" to function and amasss huge profits, it can assume more control over the entities. Of course, not complete control, but why allow corporate efficiency to be founded on a fiction called "the market"? Surely, the government is entitled to some leverage with respect to the so-called 'market', other than being totally at its mercy. Government could 'help' create 'markets' as well as 'help' create circulation of the medium of exchange that determines markets. In other words, government could help the economy to function in a more balanced manner by off-setting the tremendous advantage it gave to "legal fictions". All these economic changes to occur within a "soft" capitalism in the direction of a democracy of free and equal, competing individuals. Government must become more involved in economic matters as well as on the freedom and equality of its people.

Economic values have replaced democratic values. Democracy is about the Freedom and Equality of each individual. The economy is about making profits. The acquisition of money and possessions has become the goal of many individuals. There is no harm, per-se, in persuing the holy-dollar, so long as there is healthy democratic competition between individuals. That would be a matter of choice. But, that can no longer be the case. The economy has removed itself from government control by creating a fiction called "the Market". In a Capitalistic economy; one which hampers competition by individuals by creating "legal fictions", there can no longer be any democratic competition. Legal fictions don't really exist, yet they have been given a massive grasp over economic activity. The political problem arises when democratic values become dependent on economic values, or simply put, when money permeates every level of the governing process. Today, even the corporation( the richest, non-human, legal fiction ) has a grip on the political process. This "fiction" can now contribute to its favorite candidate. But how? The 'learned members' of the Supreme Court say, "because, although a fiction, it 'speaks'. Wow, democracy is rapidly becoming an "Alice-in-Wonderland" affair. Real humans are being ruled by artificial "persons" and "legal fictions". At the top of the economy are a few huge corporations. Its no longer a democracy, its an Oligarchy; or maybe a Plutocracy. Whats the difference? Well, it all revolves around money. A few corporations at the top of the social get together with a few rich individuals and together form a moneyed elite. Whatever the difference, if there is one, its not a government based on the freedom and equality of all real human beings. I keep using the word "real" because corporations are unreal; they're fictions; they don't exist. Yet, they are created by government. The real individual is replaced by a "fiction"; the economy distances itself from government control by another fiction called "the Market"; and polititians, including the Supreme Court, 'respond' to organized lobbyists or money. Does democracy have a chance in this political Alice-in-Wonderland? The Founding Fathers foresaw 'similar conditions' at the Top and crafted the First Amendment. The People have a Constitutional Right to "...peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances". Its time for real people to stand up.

Democracy was born from struggle, hardship, and sacrifice: the assurance of the Freedom and Equality of each human being was a revolutionary form of government. The digitalized world of the computer is also a revolution. Constitutional government is Triadic and insures the freedom and equality of each and every individual. Up to now, we have struggled with political language to clearly delineate the parameters of a true democracy. Needless to add, that the struggle still persists. The linguistic generalities of policy that apply to the governing process has not met with much success. Governing takes place within a social split into antagonistic political Parties that push-pull in different directions. Of course, much has been accomplished, but the complete assurances in the Constitution that refer to a government "for the people" still lacks direction. Economic principles and corporations have become too powerful. They have usurped democractic principles. But, the digital revolution has opened a means to combat the problematics of political language and the Linguistic Turn. The Triadic form of government places emphasis on the Bottom, where all "the people" reside. "We The people" is not a generalized abstraction that lacks bone and blood; the Constitutional phrase refers to each and every individual alluded to within the phrase, as a real, individual, human being. If we begin to refer to the social as Number, we can learn to 'include' each individual in a real way because every number counts in an equation. There are no 'general' human beings; they're individual and they're real. This fact immediately distinguishes them from the legal fiction(corporations). Corporations may be called "persons", but they don't bleed. The requirement that policy and law must become 'more algorithmic', can begin to include each and every individual within the class of the applicable policy or law. In this manner the 'digital' revolution can assist the 'democratic' revolution. In government, nothing is more important than the Freedom and Equality of each, real individual. In the digital revolution nothing is more important than quantification. The bottom of 'governing' must become quantified.

Democracy is a 'form' of government, while Capitalism is a form of economic activity established and protected by the structure of the government. An economy cannot hold together without government. An econony needs government. Of course, a government needs an economy also, but it does not necessarilly need a capitalistic economy. At one time, our economy was agrarian. The point being that Capitalism is by nature anti-democratic because government is about freedom and equality of all the individuals being governed, while Capitalism is a form of economic activity originally founded on competition between individuals. The freedom to compete automatically creates imbalances in economic activity because one competes by means of the medium of exchange to acquire profits and possessions. There is no other reason for a competitive economy. Hence, economic activity is not based on the same freedom and equality of the governing process. Certainly, competition between individuals is healthy, and in the early years one individual could compete with another,if he or she so desired. That is no longer the case. Its impossible for individuals to compete with the economic monsters created and protected by government. The corporate monster becomes the focal point of economic activity. Not only is it futile to compete with a corporate structure but the law even states that a corporation is a "legal fiction". How can a real person compete economically with a fiction? No way! The bottom line is s/he can't! But, keep in mind that economic principles are separate from governing principles. We are not governed by economic principles, we are governed by democratic principles. Hence, the government created its own monsters and now has become the victim of another fiction called "the Market". Wow, thats surreal! Complete control has been transfered to the economy. What happened to democratic values? The government needs to become more involved in economic matters. I hear someone in the background hollering, "Socialist". But, its not a case of socialism, its a case of having permitted legal fictions to interfere with the right of individuals to compete in the economy. Government created the barriers, now government must attenuate them. There is nothing wrong with governmental control of the corporate structure. Of course, I'm not saying complete control, but the imposition of democratic functions would not harm the social nor the corporation. Of course, those who have benefited the most from the corporate structure have done so because they live and work in a democracy. Government already complies( to some extent) with its Constitutional duties to the people, so why not include a few duties in the corporate charter. If they don't comply, dissolve them.

People must have a Democratic government. Every democracy must have an economy. In spite of the intricate relation between the two principles underlying those two facets of the social, the democratic principle of government is completely different and separate from the principle underlying the economy. Democracy functions because each individual is free and equal, while the economy functions under a capitalistic system where everyone is free to compete and engage in economic activity using a medium of exchange to earn money and acquire property. The freedom and equality of each individual holds a democratic social together, while competition in the economy allows individuals to earn money and acquire property. Obviously and historically some individuals got a head start in the amassing of monies and properties and will protect and increase said possessions with all their might. Once at the top of the economy, they will never relinquish their position of being in the Top Ten. While the Darwinian impulse of the survival of the fitest might apply to economic Capitalism, it does not apply to Democratic principles. Freedom and equality are the motors of Democratic government, while profits and possessions are the motors of economic capitalism. The new Information society has helped an economy that functions on a quantitative basis, while a democracy and the assured Freedom and Equality of each individual does not benefit from a computerized, digitalized social. Why not? Because those qualities cannot be measured. That is why the Bottom of Constitutional Government must be quantified. The Top of Government governs the Bottom, viz. the social where all the people work and live. The bottom of any democracy must be conceived as Number because attributing the characeteristics of Number to the bottom allows for quantification of the democratic process and eschews the confusions of political language. Capitalism has flurished in our democracy not because some individuals worked harder, longer hours,or better quality of work, but because of the creation of the corporate structure, which is one, great, big, Legal Fiction. It then got Constituional protection as a "person" and recently has been allowed to contribute to politics. How on earth did we let an economic principle override a democratic principle? Its not that corporations are not necessary, they are, but they cannot usurp a democratic principle. Once they do, we're headed towards a Plutocracy. Computers function because they work with digits and quantifications. Once democracy, which is at the bottom of government, becomes quantified as Number, maybe we can establish some sort of algorithm for democratic principles. Where are our statesmen?

Democracy is not a theory, its a life-style. Each and every human being has a life and is entitled to establish his or her life-style. This implies a freedom and an equality to choose the many different forms of life-style available within the culture. This life is expressed within a context described and protected by the Constitution. There is no compulsion to conform to ways of living set up by someone in authority. Of course, compliance with law and order is essential but if law is wrong,oppressive,or disorderly, it must be changed. The Top of a democratic form of government governs, the 'sides'(judicial) defines the parameters of the system and the people at the Bottom live their lives under the protection of the Top and the definitions of the 'sides'. The function of the Executive is to enforce the Constitution; the function of the Judiciary is to be objective about its interpretive practices and the 'function' of the people is to be law abiding. Up to this point, democracy is theoretical. But, democracy is more than just a theory. The democratic form works if all the parts of the triad are constantly in motion and in harmony with its triadic nature. The most important part of a democracy are the people at the Bottom. The reason for that is that the peoples lives are what is being governed. Without people, there is no need for government. The economy is also essential to a smooth running social but so are the freedoms and equality of the individuals in the social. Law created corporations and its no secret that the corporate form is an accepted 'legal fiction'. You can never shake-hands with a corporation. They exist only in "contemplation of law" and only for the purpose of increasing their huge 'economic grasp'. That's precisely why an individual is never in a position to compete with a corporation. And that's exactly why an individual is more important than a corporate structure. Now, democracy is a government "of people", "by people", "and for... people". Democracy is an equation. The unique-ness of human individuality is at the Bottom of the theoretical democratic structure and those individuals are real, not theoretical nor abstract. Each individual has a particular life style. Each is sacred. The importance of each individual life is why the bottom of theoretical democracy must be conceived as Number. Each number stands on its own integrity. Each is valuable as an individual number. Each is independent. Equations can be configured from individual quantities, but in an equation each number must retain its quantitative variable and must participate in the equation. In other words each number is important to the equation. Theoretical democracy is an equation and each individual life is vital to its success. Democracy is a life style. You choose your life style, but stay within theoretical democracy. Number never 'discriminates' against another number, they work with each other to configure the equation. In a similar manner, each individual must configure himself, herself, into the democratic equation.

Every government 'nudges' an economy and a social but, we must understand how they differ and in what way they are the same. Obviously, in a democracy, the government governs the people democratically and the economy attempts to stabilize itself by allowing for a healthy competition among individuals. Of course, to facilitate competition, a medium of exchange becomes necessary. Money is that medium of exchange. Without money we could not have exchange of goods and labor. Hence, in a healthy economy, money must circulate among the people at the Bottom, not at the top 1%. We know this, but there is no way to compete against the corporate structure. Hence, we are left at the mercy of corporate competition. But now, lets look at the conditions in the social. The social is also undergoing many changes. Great changes have been brought about by the information revolution and by computers. There appears to be a similarity in the attempt to control the circulation of money in the economy, to wit; the 1%; and the attempt to control the circulation of information; to wit; the recent prosecutorial zeal and subsequent suicide caused by 'info-leaks'. Could it be that the 1% want all the money at the Top and the government ( maybe we should say the Justice Department) wants to keep all the new information for itself. It seems that the same principle applies to both situations, viz. money must circulate in the economy at the bottom and information must also circulate in the social. I can understand real secret info being published but I understand that, in one case,what was leaked was not even "1% of the 92 million items the government classified last year". Wow, thats a lot of secrets. Maybe we should take another look at classification and the zeal with which we persue these matters. Democracy is about real individuals at the Bottom; the economy is about the circulation of money at the Bottom; the social is about the circulation of information among the individuals at the Bottom. Sure, the people need some form of government, but government needs people to even exist. People are never dependent on government, but government is entirely dependent on people. People are just trying to live their daily lives, its the government that places arbitrary limitations on the 'condition of togetherness' of the social. Democracy can work if its practiced.

Democracy follows the underlying form of the Constitution. The linguistic structure encapsulating the underlying form is the best that could have been done with language. Regardless its many limitations, it is amazingly clear that its a Peoples Constitution. The very begining states "We the People"; how can that be misunderstood? The current debate about gun control is an example of how interpretation can go wrong (especially from the point of view of so-called Party loyalty). One politicion compares a freedom with respect to the press(books) within the context of the First Amendment with the context of the Second Amendment dealing with the so-called freedom "to bear arms". It's a ridiculous comparison.( thank heavens there was an intelligent polititian responding to that suggestion. Lets hope people were listening) One needs only to read the Second Amendment within the context of when it was ratified (1791) to catch a glimpse of why it was necessary at the time. The Declaration of Independence was in 1776 and the Constitution drafted in 1787, the Bill of Rights was added in 1791. Those were 'wild days'. The debate between States Rights and Federal Rights was at its height. The Country was agrarian. Sure, the people needed weapons for self-protection. They still do! But, automatic weapons! Before long we're going to have one individual declaring war against his neighbor because he's amassing weapons of 'mass destruction'. Hey, don't laugh, one politician in office started a war with that same accusation. Lets engage in a little fantasy(the Supreme Court does). Imagine the 1% collecting weapons like they collect money and 'legal fictions'; now imagine that some twisted individual decides to produce and hoard automatic weapons and weapons of 'mass destruction'. Now, suppose that the 1% decides to fight the 99% ( sort of like South and North in the old days) with automatic weapons instead of with money and 'legal fictions'. You say, why, thats ludicrous and impossible! Is it? Comparing books to automatic weapons is also ludicrous. Oh well, enough imagination. Lets get real. Respect the Second Amendment, but view it withing the context of why and when it was ratified and what were the conditions existing at the time. Everyone wants to protect the Constitution, but don't use it to justify ridiculous outcomes. We should support the Second Amendment, but lets get real and forget so-called Party loyalty. We are a Country of Peoples; we are a democracy; everyone counts; we are Number; so don't let the children go unprotected. We can't keep the 'crazies' out, but we can keep weapons that mutilate and dismember out.

Democracy respects the uniqueness and integrity of each individual. Yet, individuals in a condition of togetherness,form a larger political entity called a "State" or a "government",or a "Nation". These larger entities are necessary because no individual lives alone; hence the need for government or a larger political entity like "State" or "Nation". Of course, historically the term "State" was considered a fiction by Rousseau. I'm sure, other thinkers, even contemporary ones, don't hesitate to consider it a fiction, but they are not going to make that particular thought a commonly used every-day term. Obviously, in some peoples minds, that would demoralize the binding nature of law and hence, would not be a very 'safe' way to conceptualize and govern the Nation through its laws. Our condition of togetherness is a large condition and hence must be referred too in very 'large' concepts. This is where the generality of linguistic terms (of necessity) comes into the picture. Of course, not far behind, lurked the so-called Linguistic Turn. The Linguistic Turn was a necessary stage in the evolution of the use of linguistic terms to relate to particular activities or particular phenomena. The Turn seemed to attack language from the 'top'(generalization) while computer science began its attack from the bottom( 'below' the individual); namely, bits, digitalization etc. Hell, we can't relate to either the 'top' of language or the 'bottom'! Language and science forgot about us and just left us to hobble in the middle. Well, the best way to talk about democracy and government is to look at the Constitution and study how the Founding Fathers constituted us. We are a 'condition of togetherness' that,(historically) has gradually formed, and is still forming, and which is constituted of individuals and every individual has a unique human integrity. Thats why politics can sometimes seem to be a lot of empty talk. Of course, the Top of government is entitled to 'talk politics' but the effect of the talk must relate to each individual in a real way. The only way to do that is to relate to the Bottom as Number; each individual is real and stands out as clear and as unconfused as a number. Democracy is an equation. Maybe what we need is an algorithm for democracy. The people at the Bottom of government are real; they are not just general concepts. Government is real power and that power effects real people in a real way; not just linguistically. Recently, a new Pope was selected. He's practicing humility, a characteristic of individuals who, as human beings, are 'free' of 'institutional glory'. With all the problems in the Church, he has a lot of work ahead of him. The same applies to politicians, practice democracy,( thats how you got 'up there' in the first place) but don't deny it to the people. Stop glorifying corporations and 'accumulated money'. Of course, humility has no place in politics, but the 'democratic spirit' does. If you want to govern, do so democratically and don't usurp the integrity and sanctity of the individual human condition.

If corporations are legally recognized as "legal fictions" and if they are to be protected by the Constitution, why not also enlarge the sphere of their duties. Of course, a corporation is an economic entity not a political entity. But, its an 'invented ' economic entity that only "exists in contemplation of law". Unlike a real human being who functions in both the economy and the polity, and who has economic duties and Constitutional duties in the polity, a corporation was fictionally created primarilly to increase its economic 'grasp'. It was given Constitutional protection, but it seems they forgot to give it Constitutional duties. Instead of extending their fictional nature and attributing speech to them, which is ridiculous, why not give it a few Constitutional duties. Of course, fictional "persons" cannot serve in the military, although they do help to manufacture and produce weapons. And of course, corporations can and do pay taxes. It used to be they had a 90% liability. Why was it originally 90% and why is it now 35%? Could it be that when it was 90%, 'someone' really understood that since their corporate nature tremendously increases their economic 'grasp' and economic activity, they should pay a 'fair' share of their newly acquired economic powers. So, why was their tax liability reduced? No human being, regardless how wealthy s/he might be, can compete with the corporate structure. As a matter of fact, the 1% use the 'structure' to increase their personal fortunes. Besides increasing the corporate tax obligation, how about requiring some contribution to the work force relative to 'fair wages' and/or the availability of 'jobs'. Why shouldn't 'out-sourcing' be outlawed? Of course, unless it meets a primary requirement of having made every effort to keep the activity within the confines of the Nation and only secondarily, it can go to other Nations, so long as some Constitutional duty is not being avoided. Surely some guidelines along these 'economic and legal paths' are possible. If we can create economic fictions, we can create Constitutional obligations commensurate with their fictional nature. They're not human, they cannot 'hurt'. The only people who 'hurt' are the real people 'behind' the corporate structure who are pocketing the money made by the entity. And generally, those people are the 1%. Real persons at the bottom of a triadic government are not benefiting from corporate activity and the 'fictional' person is laughing all the way to the bank.

Party loyalty sucks. It should be 'democratic loyalty'. Party preferences and party ideology have to many preferential perks. Democracy for the peoples is too often set aside in favor of Party loyalty or so-called market economics. Both have replaced loyalty to the political principles of democracy. Market economics, a fiction, is what governs us. Party loyalty has become economic loyalty. Economic loyalty is economic advantages for the Top 1%. Sure, economic principles are very important but they are not democratic principles and we are talking about governing, not about changing the basis of government from democracy to a market economy. Often, those advantages protect corporations or whitlle down so-called entitlements of real people. For example, the top 1% do not pay their "fair share"of taxes. Corporate rates used to be 90%, went down to 70%, now its 35%! Why? How can an economic "fiction" with a horrendous grasp of economic activity be compared with a real human being? As corporations become more efficient in the economy, they lessen or reduce their democratic responsibilities. A human being cannot do that. A human being cannot compete with a corporation. Even small corporations cannot compete with a large corporation. Why do we reduce a corporations democratic responsibilities as they become more efficient. Their responsibilities should be 'enlarged', not reduced. Look at the tax tables, is that happening? Of course not! As they monopolize government and governing, they get more breaks and they're fictions! How can that be. The truth is that there are a few people 'behind' the functioning of the corporation and as it becomes more efficient, they 'hog' the medium of exchange(another fiction). That applies to both Parties. Wow, Is this an Alice in Wonderland world? What has happened to the reality of work; the reality of living together with other human beings; the reality of 'sharing'; the reality of the human condition? Reality has been replaced by fictions, all around us and only the 1% are benefiting from our 'togetherness' and their corporate greed because they are Plutocrats, not democrats. Real people need to harness their strength and 'assemble'. That is their Constitutional right.

A triadic form of government must always be active. The Top governs; the Bottom is governed; and the 'sides' interpret the legal 'concrete' relation between the Top and the Bottom. No part of the Triad can survive without the other parts. However, in a democracy, the entire structure is entirely dependent on the 'bottom' of the structure and the relation between the Top and the Bottom must be interpreted in a concrete measurable manner. The measurability of policy and law is dependent on the particular classification of the activity governed. Law is order and policy is always a recognition of the sanctity of the human being living in a condition of togetherness. Individuals never exist in isolation. People living together in a condition of togetherness deserve a good government and why not?,if the people who governs them come from the same people who are being governed? A good government has integrity and keeps the social in the most productive and orderly manner possible. No government is perfect, but every government must work towards the freedom and equality of each and every individual; especially those accused of crime and those not included in governmental policy. The best way to establish this condition is to quantify the Bottom of government and submit policy and law to a strict quantification of the sub-categories being governed. The best way to measure success in policy and law is to quantify the process. The enactment of policy must establish the fact that those excluded from any particular policy is not a discrimination against their freedom and equality. Just as law cannot descriminate against an individual's freedom and equality, neither can governmental policy descriminate against freedom and equality.

Activity that emanates from the bottom can be democratic. Of course, not all activity from the bottom is democratic. However, activity that 'originates' from the top has a very high potential to be Autocratic even though it originates from some 'Representative capacity'. Emanations from the Top come 'packaged' in linguistic terms. Therein lies their problem. Political language was confusing well before the so-called Linguistic Turn. The reason for that confusion has been the absolute neccessity to allude to the bottom in a 'general' manner; hence, general formulations that lack democratic precision. Why? Because democracy is not just an abstract formulation, it embraces each and every living individual at the bottom in a real way. An 'un-democratic' rule or activity is 'felt' in a real way at the bottom. (emotionally) Its not a simple matter of accepting or not accepting an abstract formulation that 'registers' solely in the intellect. It 'registers in the emotions and the intellect and effects the physical activity of the real individual. Hence, the need for democracy to apply to 'everyone' at the bottom in the same manner and in a real way. Therefore, we need better methods of formulating democratic policy. The only alternative is to make political language more 'quantitative'. General 'Rights', like Freedom and Equality, do have to apply to everyone, but certain policies and laws that have a more limited application must be quantified with regard to the area of application. No one can be left out: we are talking about people governing People. Some amount of classification may become necessary, but that classification cannot be abusive of the sanctity of the human condition. There is nothing superior at the Top that does not first exist at the Bottom. In fact, all 'power' emanates from the Bottom in the form of 'strength in togetherness'. At the Top, its called 'power' and is dependent on an 'abstract condition', namely political language; at the Bottom it's actual strength in the 'condition of togetherness' and is only dependent on the relationship between you and your 'neighbor'. A good relationship with ones 'neighbor' is conducive to a good relationship with the 'Peoples' of the world. Change yourself, so you can change the world.

To expand and paraphrase the statement made by the President, "In a democracy, all the people deserve a vote". How can any Party in a democratic government step away from that. That's the only way to implement democracy and that's why, in a democracy, the people and their representatives are allowed to vote. It's the people at the bottom that need to be heard and if they've spoken and its democratic, they do indeed deserve a vote. Democracy is "of the people", "by the people", and "for the people". How can any Party, in a democracy, not vote or intentionally block a vote that originates from the bottom? Thats totally undemocratic. Thats the problematic with Party politics. A Party takes a position on some issue, properly before them, and immediately take issue that,in no way, reflects the peoples wishes. Of course, in a democracy, Party-politicians are free to differ on positions of policy, but, in no case, should the position be un-democratic. Who or what gains from such a position? Of course, in the above cited reference, the beneficiaries are some corporation and/or lobbyist. Corporations, guns, money, lobbyists, all these roll-up into an un-democratic position. The position assumes misplaced values that usurp democratic values (corporations are legal fictions, they're not real; the Second Amendment does not refer to weapons capable of 'mass-destruction'; money is an economic-fiction, not a democratic value; and lobbyists get paid to 'sleep' with their 'fictions'(thats 'economic prostitution'.)How can any of that be democratic? We suffer from mis-placed values. Democratic values are being usurped by economic values. Freedom and equality are being replaced by an economic and a legal fiction, to wit; money and corporations. I said earlier that the democratic value of freedom and equality are the values that we should organize around. No one is saying its easy, but anyone can see and feel the difference between a human being and an economic or legal fiction. Its about the people stupid. If a Party stands for Plutocracy, why doesn't it just say-so? I'll tell you why, because that Party would cause an 'assembling' of all the peoples in a democracy. No one wants a Plutocracy -only the 1%. Thats why they do in-directly what they can't do directly. Democracy is protected by the very First amendment. Don't you get it?

We are fortunate not to have to begin at the begining of the formation of 'togetherness' or government. We are all born into a political structure. In our case, the Founding Fathers gave us the form to follow in the establishment of the structure of democratic government. Clearly, democratic government begins to form from the bottom up. Begining at the Top does not work. Government from the bottom to the top must have a triadic structure. The reasons for a triadic nature is that the Top is given 'centralized' power with which to govern the bottom, but the power to govern is given to it by the bottom, and then only for a short time. The form at the Bottom is democratic and hence involves every single individual at the Bottom constituting the body politic. A democracy is about people, millions of people living together under the structure of a triadic government. Although the Top is granted power by virtue of office, there is nothing sacred about the Top. The Top is a function that has certain duties and responsibilities attached to it. The only aspect of a democracy that is sacred is the human individual. Each and every individual is sacred because government did not create the individual but, the individual created government. The strength of a democracy is in its people. The strength ( call it power, if you wish) is in the condition of togetherness that binds the bottom together. Thats the reason for the First Amendment. The Top and sides, as well as the representative bottom, only have duties; the Bottom, where the people are, has a Constitutional right to revolution. Properly executed, the right to "assemble" is the most powerful thing in the world. The Top of any government is powerless in the face of a properly 'assembled' bottom.

If we ask, "what is government?", we will get many definitions. Many answers will reduce to simple terms like, "its a political entity"; It's "encapsulated power"; it's rule by the One over the Many"; it's a "political condition we're born into"; it's "government by superior human beings",or its 'rule' by "Divine Edict"; etc. All these answers have an element of truth to them except for the last two. The last two have already been tried and they don't work to well, especially the second one's reference to Divinity. The first one still 'lingers' in our world in different forms; took the world by force and inherited the position at the Top, or the 'I'm special posture' of superiority( for whatever reason). How would you answer? I say, the basic skeletal condition(without ideology)is rule by the 'One over the Many'. It has to be that way, but the next query becomes necessary and that is what historically got us into trouble. How do you 'select' the One? Historically, one answer was "by Divine Edict, Divine Right," or whatever. That was a mistake because we need to determine what is 'Divine Right' and there will never be a consensus on that. The next query is equally deceptive, but not quite as obvious. The question, how do you select the One was historically answered by "conquest" or "the strongest", the "smartest", etc. Notice the emphasis in both approaches. The emphasis is on the wrong pole of the relation of the One and the Many. Why the wrong pole? How can anyone select One from the Many without some method for the selection? Divinity doesn't work nor does the issue of the superiority of someone within the Many. No! The process can only be democratic.( of course, at this point, I just 'sneaked' into the argument, the concept of ideology) But, lets not do that, in oreder to answer the question, lets get away from the ideological and venture into the more practical. I think we can and that is precisely why my blog is entitled "democracy for the bottom". Look, we must begin at the Bottom, not the Top. Thats where all the people reside. No individual can live alone! A lone individual on an isolated island does not need government. But, we do not live alone; an individual must come together with other individuals. There's no other solution. In this preferrable 'condition of togetherness', if its a mutual condition, an individual can continue to exist. The 'togetherness' becomes necessary in order to continue to exist in the condition and so does the organization of the condition. So, how do we organize the condition? (See forth-coming 'blog')

Governments, all governments, need to stop pushing human beings around. Some will say, thats what governing is all about; its about governing every human being within its jurisdiction. When I say 'pushing human beings around', I mean treating people like they are inferior or of lesser importance than government, or that government is more important than the human condition. How can that be? If people are the ones who create governments and, in fact, the only function of government is to 'rule'. There's no other reason for the existence of governments. Government does not create people. People create government. Government would not exist were it not for the people. Although some governments are arranged around their people, (I refer to democratic government)that's not, in itself, an automatic panacea, but its a move in the 'right direction'. All governments that claim to be democratic must measure that statement by means of a triadic form. The triadic form is the basis of a democratic form of government, i.e. a democracy must have power at the Top; the people of the democracy are at the Bottom; and the Judiciary on the sides is required to monitor the 'real' relation that connects the Top to the Bottom. The strength of the governmental triad is entirely at the Bottom. The Bottom supports the Top. Since the people are the source of the strength of the triad, the Bottom must be 'quantified' so we can better gauage the democratic tenor of the activities and wishes of the Top for the benefit of the Bottom. One individual's activity or wish does not determine the tenor of a democracy. The activity must benefit some of the people or most of the people at the Bottom. An activity or a wish has to be quantifiable and hence measureable with respect to its democratic tenor. The activity must benefit the people at the Bottom as a whole. Why is that? Because, just one isolated individual or small group of 'isolated'individuals' activity or wish can be easily guided by excessive self-interest. Isn't that what's happening to the 1%? Governments exist because people created them. Hence, government is not free to undermine and mistreat the hunman condition. Government should function for the benefit of the people; it has no other function.

How do human beings become better human beings and how do Nations become better democracies. Human beings can become better humans by realizing that every human, regardless the differences in race,color,creed,or Country of birth, is free and equal in a world divided into different political ideologies. Its one thing to change ones personal belief systems when relating to the ever-present conditions of immediate existence within ones own Country, its another to understand that in a world as large as ours one must respect the sanctity and equality of the human condition everywhere. Of course, one may do just that, but still be hampered by the political ideology of the Other. People usually adopt the ideology of their nation, although that is not necessarilly the case everytime. Some people differ from their Country's ideology. Differences in political ideology should apply to the political entity as a whole and not to the individuals within that entity. The political issue then becomes an issue for the United Nations. The individual issue would involve individuals who are equally human and equally free, but need to be politically equal and politically free to voice those qualities. So, individuals everywhere need to see the equality of everyone and the Nations need to recognize the sanctity of the human condition and the need to be politically democratic in their governing. Although issues between individuals are different from issues between nations, every Nation and every individual must recognize the sanctity of the human condition and the political need for the freedom and equality of everyone within their political boundaries. In that way, maybe we will not self-destruct the planet so easily. Nations must recognize that their strength in the International sphere depends on the integrity of their Nation, and that depends on the democratic nature of the Nation because they can only be as strong as their people.

A 'shrunken' International World actually enlarges the 'concerns' of the individual living on the planet. What we previously perceived( if we read the newspaper) as occurring in another far-away Country can now be 'seen' in ones living room.( if you are fortunate enough to own a TV set). We then relate to these activities in the same manner as we would have related to the same activities by a 'real' next-door neighbor. Proximity and the illusion of proximity begats personal feelings. So, is it possible not to relate in a 'personal' manner to International activities? Yes and No. Yes, one can merely not give a dam. No, we cannot exclude the human condition from the 'shrinking condition' of the International scene. Its one thing to say, "its just a TV image" and another, not too react as human beings. The TV and the newspaper are medias of communication that do in fact communicate 'something' across political boundaries right into your living room. Political boundaries separate millions of people from millions of peoples. Its potentially dangerous to mix 'personal feelings' across political boundaries. There will never be a consensus of life-style, but there can be a consensus of political frameworks that helps a consensus of basic human qualities. The political boundaries of the International sphere must come closer and closer to a real democratic condition of political existence. The governments can be different,but the human condition within political boundaries is never different. In a real democracy, individuals have real democratic values,i.e. individual Equality and individual Freedom. All other Rights circumnavigate around these two basic principles. The political framework is just the 'container' of these values. Governments can differ, but not the human condition. The human condition and these values are universal and can help 'blend' the International scene closer together by just recognizing the freedom and equality of everyone. All governments must protect themselves as well as their own peoples. But, they cannot 'fight' their own people and the other political entities on the international sphere at the same time. That's self-destructive. So, we need to become better human beings and Nations need to become better democracies.

The only form possible for a democracy is the Triadic form. The reason being that's the only form that allows and demands that all 'sides' of the triad function at maximum 'value'. At any one time, one or several of the sides could be functioning improperly. In other words,the Executive Branch could be against the 'interests' of 'the people' as a whole, individually, or as a class. The other side of that is that the Executive Branch has preferences that are selective and that do not reflect the democratic nature of the whole. The Legislative Branch could favor special areas of the social to the exclusion of all the people, or it could be legislating specific 'pet' areas of the social that excludes too many people;or it could not be 'representing' the people but only certain preferential areas of the polity. The Judiciary could have interpretive practices that favor certain parts of the social or parts of the polity, such as the economy. Obviously, its not a perfect government, but it has the potential to be the best in the world. The people elected to the Top are not perfect, but they assume a position of 'representation' and power that should not be abused. It's the only form where the people being governed are governed by individuals who were, previously, also at the Bottom of the triad. There is no superiority in the rulers and there is no Divine guidance. There is only a 'promise' to represent the whole and then only for a short time. It seems that the worst offense against democracy is the 'creation' of a 'person' that only exists in 'contemplation of law' and giving that 'fiction', the same human rights as those of a real person. How can we create something that didn't exist before and make it more important than a human being trying to organize his or her existence? A corporation is just a piece of paper called Articles of Incorporation and By Laws and having being approved, receives a Charter from the State and gets hung on the wall. Don't get me wrong, corporations are vital to the economy. But,we cannot have a polity of real human beings taking second chair to a fiction. Those fictions already get preferential treatment by giving them a perpetual existence,( hey, thats the closest thing to immortality), they can volutarilly dissolve themselves and re-emerge under different names,( hey, they 're-incarnate' on the spot); they don't 'hurt', they don't need medical care, and, in a way, that's a great 'economic invention', but don't 'replace' democracy with a fiction that has profits as its sole goal. 'Circulating money' is great, but it's not a democratic 'value', and its not even a democratic principle. We have never solved the basic 'mystery of creation', instead we create belief systems into 'Western Religions', 'Eastern Religions',and all kinds of other belief systems, and then, comes along a 'minor' inconsequential fiction called 'money' and we let it dominate our lives. We 'live' for it, we fight for it, we kill for it, and then we try to organize our democratic existence around it. What's happening?? What happened to Life and after Life, what happened to Democracy? We create our own problems. So much for the Human Condition.