How to form a 'real' democracy

We have said democracy is theoretical. But we have also said democracy is 'real'. Real democracy applies to you and me, i.e. to every individual at the Bottom of triadic government. Of course, so does theoretical democracy. But, we, as individuals, can do 'both', we can 'talk' democracy, but we can also 'live' a democratic life. The Top of government needs theory in order to 'structure' the direct application of a democratic structure to the Many by an act of 'governing', viz. a real application of the freedom and equality of every individual. Of course, the Top has the power and authority given it, by virtue of being elected to the position. Nevertheless, the Top of government is mostly abstract ( in order to be inclusive) and hence linguistic and theoretical. Of course, it can always apply 'real' democracy by transforming theory into reality. However, the nature and the essence of the Bottom of government is that it is mostly 'real', although it can also 'talk' democracy. 'Politics', is a term that applies to the Top as well as the Bottom of government. But, the 'structure' and strength of the Bottom is not in its 'talk', it's in its Numbers. Every individual can come together and assert his/her individuality in a 'collective strength' of 'togetherness'. "Occupy" was doing that. To be sure it was effective. Keep in mind that each and every individual is an 'element' of a 'real' democracy. It is easy to 'talk' about abstract democracy and the abstract 'Rights' of the individual, but in such cases, its just 'talk' and theory. Too often, its just plain Party ideology. The Bottom has enormous strength in its 'condition of togetherness', but that strength lies in its numbers. Small groupings can be effective, but the 'whole group' or the Bottom, can be enormously effective. Keep in mind, the goal of a 'condition of togetherness' is to implement 'real' democracy, not to undermine it. Hence, 'politics' should implement 'democratic values', not 'economic values'.

Democracy, at the Top, may be abstract; at the Bottom, it's a life-style

Democracy at the Top may be abstract, but at the Bottom, it becomes a life-style. That is absolutely necessary when a government has a huge collection of individuals at the Bottom. In a way, the Top is not any different from the Bottom, except that the Top has a duty to govern those at the Bottom. But, the Top is held to certain democratic principles. That's the only way to 'enclose' a government with authority to govern others like themselves, and who also ascended from the very same Bottom. In a way, the Top is fortunate because it has a duty too keep the Bottom democratic. However, one cannot forget that the authority to govern is given by the Bottom. There is no 'superiority' in the mere activity of governing; only different duties. The Top has duties; the Bottom has duties. However, the Top is in a position to change the way of governing. That's unfortunate, because the only reason there can be for that, is greed. Government is about People, real People and 'greed' is about one individual self who has elevated' him/her-self to an 'unjustifiable' position of authority. The human condition cannot monopolize some of the 'good' that has been created by the institution of government. That's greed at its worst; and when the motive to monopolize relates to money and possessions, its a form of disrespect for the Others like him/her self. Money and possessions is not a measurement of the 'human' aspects of the human condition in a 'condition of togetherness'. That's our dilemma folks. We have to live together; there's no other way. So lets follow the Constitution and implore our Representatives to do the same. Abstract democracy can be rendered measureable if we can 'see' the individual at the Bottom. The only way to do that is Number, not just abstractions. A Number will always be what it is; so is an individual.

Government is 'motored' by democracy: the economy by 'profits' and competittion

The 'motor' for a Democracy is democratic principles; the motor for a successful economy is profits and competition. Although, both institutions are essential to a strong Nation, its a mistake to substitute economic principles in place of democratic principles. The end result of that would be Plutocracy or Oligarchy. Democracy cannot be 'motored' by profits or competition. That would destroy both the freedom and equality of the individual. The freedom and equality of the individual hold together a social motored by democratic principles; while the individuals who have succeeded in the economy can be thankful for the democratic principles that allowed them to function in the economy. It was democratic principles that lead to economic success. Without those principles, the economic activity would have been hampered because even the economy cannot operate at full steam without the principles of democracy. A successful economy can follow from democratic principles, but democracy cannot follow from economic principles of profits and competition. Its obvious, that Plutocratic or oligarchic principles would effect the freedom and equality of every individual, except those who were fortunate enough to be at the Top 1%. That would not last long because the 99% would not tolerate a plutocratic or oligarchic government. The best defense against Plutocracy is the First Amendment of the Constitution. The right to "assemble" is a Constitutional right. That was the very First Amendment because it protected the freedom and equality of the individual; not the economy. To substitute economic principles for democratic principles would undermine the freedom and equality guaranteed by democracy, hence the importance of having democratic principles in the social. The 'initial' democratic right to compete in the economy was devastated by the creation of corporations. No one can compete against a corporation, except another corporation. That pretty much leaves competition too corporations, not individuals.

'Language' at the Top is different from 'language ' at the Bottom.

The Top 'speaks' the language of democracy, while the Bottom, 'speaks' the language of everyday life. The language of the Top is general and abstract so as to include everyone to whom any one policy, law or practice applies. Of course, the Bottom also speaks abstractly, but their 'abstractions' apply to specifics. Nevertheless, the individual at the Bottom 'lives' and 'has a life' in the 'specifics' of the democratic social. The actual 'living', or 'having a life', in a democracy is never an abstraction. Unfortunately, that is the place where the 'clash' between a theory and a practice takes place. Theory always remains abstract; 'practice' requires some form of 'communion' or direct connection with everyday life. But, don't kid yourself, 'everyday life' can be as 'distant' from the real thing as is pure theory. Why is that? Simply because every individual has a different definition of what to him/her is 'every-day life'. A living, breathing, human being always participates, in a 'full sense', in his 'conditions' of life. The above distinctions are what requires, that the relation between the Top and the Bottom, be a real relation, not an abstract one. Democracy must relate, in a real way, with the individuals at the Bottom. If we look at the relation we are speaking about, we notice this is the ancient relation of the One and the Many. It seems that the ancients considered the One and the Many as a 'real' One and a 'real' Many. Of course, that makes the dilemmas of government that arises therefrom unsolvable. From the view of a democracy, it has no solution. Hence, the necessity that the Top be an abstract entity called the "State"( even though a fiction) or "government", and the necessity that the relation between the Top and the bottom be a real relation that transforms democratic abstractions into a real 'democratic life' of individual freedom and equality.

The transition from abstract democracy to actual democracy is complex

The transition from abstract democracy to actual democracy takes place within the individual. This includes the individuals who govern as well as those who are governed. This is not to say that the Top of democratic government has nothing to do with real democracy. The Top of government is institutionalized. It's a 'large' abstract, general, linguistic entity that includes all the specifics of a 'generalized' Bottom. As such, it governs 'itself' by structuring its functions, as a government, in the manner set out in the Constitution. But, it also 'governs' along those same lines i.e. in a triadic fashion. Democratic government is from the Top to the Bottom. Nevertheless, the relation from the Top to the Bottom is a real relation and must seep down to the Bottom as a genuine democratic experience; not as abstractions only. Only the individual, any and all, can experience real democracy or real freedom and equality. Try explaining that experience to some individual or class of individuals who are not free and equal and see what happens. They will never believe it. Why? Because the explanation is purely linguistic and they, as individuals, have never 'experienced' freedom and equality. The transition from abstract knowledge to actual experience of that knowledge is absolutely necessary. And the only way to do that is to actually 'engage' the fully functioning individual, in the only way he functions in everyday life, i.e. as an individual. In this way democracy must be experienced within the individual. Democracy can only be lived.

Democracy is a theoretical construct

Democracy is a theoretical construct, but so is autocracy, dictatorship and Kingship. But, if democracy 'goes' from the theoretical to the practical or actual, it must translate the theoretical into the 'real' or into actual activity. Therein enters many of the problems of democracy. The 'trip' from the Top to the Bottom is not always 'straight-forward' or 'straight down'. That is to say, the 'talk' is simple enough, but the implementation or the 'walk' is not so simple. Let me say it this way; it is simple enough, but 'political language' and demagoguery intentionally confuse the simple application of "Freedom" and "Equality" that grounds democracy. That's what happens when we allow Parties to form, some of which, are 'economic' instead of truly 'democratic'. Of course, Autocracies of every form, do not have this same problem. In Autocracy, the Top is 'law' and the Bottom better well go-with-it, or get 'straightened-out'. In democracy, the old conflict of 'States Rights" and 'Federal Rights' keep getting in the way. Although the Constitution formulated a Republic, it also begins with "We the People"... because its a Peoples Constitution. In other words, its a Constitution of the Bottom or "of the People", even though the Founding Fathers respected the existing integrity of already established Colonies. The People govern themselves by means of Constitutional Government. This included the Peoples already living within established States. While in Autocracies, the Top, governs the Bottom; end of story. But, the Republics division into existing local governments does not change the fact that it's still a Peoples Constitution. Hence, it becomes important that each and every individual, in a democracy, be included in Law, Policy and social practices. Number, is the only way democracy can work;.in other words, each and every individual is "Free" and "Equal" and each and every individual 'counts' within democratic laws, policies, and practices.

How can democratic principles become 'more real'?

Democratic principles are abstract principles that apply to the Bottom of triadic government. Understandably, they must be abstract to 'contain' all the individuals (when we 'talk' democracy) at the Bottom. However, the 'application' of an abstract principle must actually take place. Its necessary to render abstract 'talk' into actual 'doing'. That requires an actual application of an abstract principle to an actual 'happening'. The simplistic way of saying that is to say "you talk democracy" now implement it, by 'doing' it, in an actual occurrence. Damn, its still too abstract. The only way to 'capture' true democracy, i.e. "freedom" and "equality" of the individual human being, is by 'living it'. But, that requires that the Top of government ,as well as the Bottom of government, actually 'live' democratically. If the Top begins to understand that the political positions they hold are 'temporary' and merely 'functional' in a democratic form, or arrangement, of the so-called 'the One and the Many' i.e. the Top and the Bottom, maybe the Top will be more inclined to 'apply' Constitutional mandates 'justly', and the Judicial Branch will be inclined to be more objective in its interpretive practices. Oops, forgot the Legislative branch. They should respect the fact that they merely serve in a 'representative' capacity of all the people who has elected them, as well as those who have not elected them, and maybe the laws they pass will be more just. Oh well, there's still to much abstraction in the above. Lets face it, democracy is a 'way of life'. The 'freedom' and 'equality' of each and every human being has to be respected and protected. (That's the key). Why? Because the Top would not exist without a Bottom. It's dependent on the Bottom and both the Top and the Bottom must 'live' democratically. The Top has a 'function' to play and the Bottom has a 'life' to live. Please, help our leaders to understand that.

"Class" warfare is an oxymoron.

Its ridiculous to talk about "class warfare" because classes do not exist; although "warfare" can certainly be said to exist. Another, softer, term for "warfare" could well be called "competition". That's the case in the economic domain. But 'classes' of human beings do not exist. One human is just as human as another. Why classify those who have acquired more property and possessions, or even intelligence, into a 'higher' class. ( and these acquisitions are only possible because we are a democracy) The division onto higher classes has always existed. In the days of 'Kingship', the distinction was called 'bluebloods'. Well, they soon discovered that blood always flows red. As incorrect as that classification was, at least it referred to something all humans had, viz. blood. But, today it usually refers to possessions, money, or having previously held public office, or having being a 'driver' of a legal fiction; none of which has anything to do with the human condition. A human is a human, is a human. Wow, we create artificial lines of demarcation and then engage in 'everyday-life' with an economic principle and then call competition between People, 'warfare'. We create our own illusions and then we 'compete' with them. Well, the result of one illusion competing with another illusion is so far from actual 'life', that it can really be said that we 'live in illusion'. The end result of two illusions clashing with each other is just a 'further' illusion-far removed from actual life. I guess the sad part is that we not only 'talk' this way, we actually live this way. We fight non-winnable battles. Worst yet, is the fact that many political battles are on the level of the illusory. The battles are at the Top, on the level of language, but they 'hurt' the individual because they usually relate to policy, law, and the establishment of every-day practices. These practices need to relate to something 'real' in the human condition; they need to be less illusory and a bit more real.

Triadic government is a geometric configuration of Three Branch government.

The term "Triadic government" is not a substitute for Three Branch Government. It's a geometric configuration of the same Three Branch government elaborated in the Constitution. It's actually an attempt to simplify Three Branch government down to its geometric form for the purpose of better understanding the underlying forces at work in Constitutional government. You can even call it a "quantification" of governmental structure. Once we get under the verbal descriptions of what constitutes Three Branch government, we can better understand the relative importance of its underlying geometric form. We can actually 'see' why democracy is a form of government that emphasizes the importance of the People. Obviously, Democratic government is a government "of People","by People", and "for People". Verbally, we can appreciate the above description, but geometrically, we can 'see' how a triadic form cannot exist without a Bottom. The Bottom is the People, and the Bottom must be included in all democratic laws, policy, and practices. It cannot be selective about these institutions at the Bottom, because if it only includes the top 1%, the 'capitalist' people, the rich, and excludes common, everyday folk, the Bottom cracks or is not sufficient to support the Top of government. A democratic society can support the Top of government; but, a non-democratic society cannot support the Top because the divisions in the social, into classes, will cause the Bottom to crack and not be a good support for the Top. The Top of a 'democratic' government cannot exist without a democratic bottom. It's ridiculous to suppose that, if the 1% gets power, they can rule over the 99% at the Bottom. That's not going to work; if the top 1% gets power, it will foment a revolution and I don't mean a 'democratic' revolution like the one supported by the Constitution.

The Top of government is more subject to 'illusions of power' and feelings of 'self-importance' than the Bottom.

The Bottom of government has less illusions than the Top. Whatever illusions the Bottom has usually relates to illusions and misunderstandings of 'freedom and equality'. No one is free and equal in some kind of 'measurable way'. The parameters of 'Equality' is 'set' by Number; not language. The parameters of 'freedom' are circumscribed by law. Law circumscribes the parameters of non-acceptable behavior; it does not tell you how to 'behave'; it tells you how 'not to behave'. If you behave in that way, you violate the law and are punished. The term 'Equality' cannot be sufficiently described with words. 'Equality' of what; of possessions, money, physical strength, moral 'strength', 'health'( what is health?),etc. We go around in semantic circles, never reaching a precise description. That's why we have to use Number to determine the applicability of laws, policy, and 'political power'. Equality applies to the human condition; not the 'race' or the 'property or money owned' by an individual. Then we can include, exclude, and determine if the law and the policy is being applied 'equally' and 'fairly', because we can 'count'. Its the numbers stupid. The Top too easily is mesmerized by 'political power' and the function of the Office. The Top is more prone to make mistakes than the Bottom. The Top should function from democratic principles, not egotistical, selfish, or economic principles. Its easier for the Top to be in 'illusion' than for the Bottom to be in illusion. When the Bottom is not treated Equally or Freely, they get 'hurt' and they 'feel' the hurt; when the Top doesn't do its job, it misunderstands power, is under illusions of superiority, or principles of economics, or is being 'party-loyal' and is not applying democratic principles. When the Bottom doesn't act democratically, they get put in jail; when the Top doesn't function democratically, do they go to jail? what happens to them? Nothing! They just say, that's our Party-ideology. Who has misunderstood power and who is under illusion?

Another misused word in real democracy is "entitlements".

An 'entitlement" is not an entitlement, it's a direct result of the essence of democracy. You can call it that if you want, but it reflects a lack of knowledge of real democracy. The essence of real democracy is at the Bottom of triadic government; that's where all the People are. The representatives at the Top are merely carrying out their proper duties- in the case of Social Security- by returning to individuals what the individual has already paid out to the government in the form of withholding taxes.( But where are the jobs?) In the case of the 'poverty stricken', the government is merely carrying out its responsibilities to the less fortunate. Is the latter, a case of what is usually called a 'handout'? Hell No! Why do we have government, if not to 'govern' the 'condition of togetherness' at the Bottom of democratic structures? The form of democratic Government is not a 'structure' formed for the purpose of individuals' to ascend the ladder of opportunity and then abuse the 'office' and the political power that the Bottom has entrusted to them. The Top has democratic duties just as the Judiciary and the Bottom of democracy has democratic duties. Equally so, the Top, the judicial, and the Bottom get compensated for their contributions to a functional, democratic form of government. So why reduce the so-called 'entitlements' that only go to the Bottom of democracy, like Social Security, food Stamps, Welfare, etc.? If those are entitlements, in the sense used by politicians today, so is the salary, retirement, and other 'perks' enjoyed by the officeholders at the Top of government. Hey, I have an idea, why not reduce the 'entitlements' of the office holders? They get 'benefits' from the government for carrying out their duties. Corporations pay the same percentage of taxes as 'rich' Americans, and they're not even real. People are real, and their 'compensation' for existing and contributing to the 'condition of togetherness' should not be tampered with. Tamper with the Top; the economy: and the top 1%.

The distortions in language and democracy are not 'inherent' in language or democracy.

Language cannot function without generalities and specifics. It's within the nature of language to be able to refer to the 'specifics' of experience as well as to the huge, generalities of experience. In the 'politics' of democracy, this fact reduces to 'talking democracy' on very high levels of abstraction and sometimes, unfortunately, never reducing general principles 'down' to 'specific', 'real' facts. Law, policy, and 'social' programs are defined and established on very high levels of abstraction, because they apply to the Many individuals at the Bottom. Of course, they have to be reduced to specific, qualified cases of application, to be rendered efficient. This necessity calls for establishing 'byways', methods, and a 'structural relation' down the 'real' relation that connects the Top to the Bottom of government. Otherwise, we are stuck with the 'talk' of democracy and never get down to the 'walk' of democracy. Hence, the 'distortions' that arise in some political discourse are not necessarily inherent in language nor in democracy. Truly, many of the distortions inhere in the human condition of some politicians. Government is an absolute necessity; the use of language is also and absolute necessity; but the distorted, ambiguous, ranting's of some politicians is not necessary. To be sure, with some politicians, the distortions are intentional, but fortunately, not all human conditions are motivated by the same moral values. The substitution of economic values in lieu of democratic values in the 'governing process' is the most 'demoralizing' move that can be imposed on the human condition. We are all in a 'human condition' and we all need government, but, I assume, some of us don't have to be 'greedy for money or political power'. God help the 'conditions of togetherness'. Where are the Statesmen?

In a democracy, the People at the Bottom need to organize

The Bottom in a democracy 'houses' millions of People. But, each is an individual and has the right and privilege to live his/her life anyway s/he pleases; of course, according to his/her needs and within the parameters of law. The Top of a democratic form of government already has a structure; is very well organized; and its offices are occupied by representatives from the different Parties. The Top doesn't have to organize; it already is. Neither do the Party-politicians. The problem with the Party-politicians is that they constitute only a select few individuals from the Bottom who espouse some Party ideology and who want to participate in politics( for whatever reasons). Of course, they're supposed to be 'representatives', but that's another issue. However, not everyone wants to be a politician. That, in itself, already limits the playing field. Nevertheless, the Bottom of politics also needs to organize. The reason for that is, simply, to be heard. Each and every individual that is 'offended' by government structures is actually harmed, in a real way, and hence needs to make himself/herself heard. However, there are no 'connections' in the relation of the Top to the Bottom, that 'run' upwards. The government relation only runs from the Top to the Bottom; 'nothing' goes up the relation, except, maybe, the right to vote, but that is spread out over the tenure of office. But, in the meantime, what do we do? But, if the Bottom organizes into a 'substantial' group, it can be noticed. Being noticed means having some kind of 'influence' on the policies that emanate from the Top, at the time of the installation of the policy. Why wait till the next election. The First Amendment does not call for the 'right to assemble' only on election years. Its an ever-present right. However, that raises great issues. How do we control such organizations? So, why can't we just pass laws that compel the already existing Parties to be democratic in a 'real' way? That would compel every politician to respect the "freedom" and "equality" of each real individual and it would place corporations in their 'proper' place.

Language is essential to theoretical democracy, but DOING is essential to real democracy.

Language is essential to democracy. We cannot do without the language of democracy. Nevertheless, we have to remember that democracy is not just about 'talking' democracy. Democracy has its language, but it also has its practices. If democracy is just 'talk', its not real democracy; at best its theoretical democracy. Anyone can do that. As a matter of fact, many Nations already do that; they do the 'talk' but not the 'walk'. The Top of any government is always 'linguistic' and theoretical. However, every government has a direct line from the Top of government to the bottom of government. The Top, of necessity, must remain abstract. The direct line to the Bottom must be a line that extends from the abstract Top down to the concrete situation,( in a real way) or to the Bottom where each and every individual lives on a daily basis in a 'condition of togetherness'. Why?, because that closes the theoretical gap that exists between the One and the Many. The purpose of governing is to render the abstract concrete. Otherwise, the Top is not doing its job and the Bottom is without government. The Top can 'talk' democracy, but that is not sufficient; it must DO democracy. That's the purpose of policy, government programs, and laws. If anyone in politics wants "less government", they are making a big mistake. We have to ask ourselves, "then, who will govern us?" That would just place us at the mercy of the 'value system' and the 'moral system' of the leaders at the Top. That'll never work; it won't work, even for those who espouse such a position. Governing the 'condition of togetherness' requires a direct line to the Bottom where the essence of democracy is situated. Once, that relation is established in a 'real way', the Constitution becomes the Law of the land. The direct connection has to be kept or the Top will lose its connection to real democracy. The Top must listen to the Bottom; that's where life is lived; where people are hungry; where people need jobs; where suffering takes place; and those are the people who will serve in 'your military' when you declare war.

Language can be used to distort democracy

Probably, the most misused words in democracy are the words "Equal" and "Free". Truly, every individual in a democracy is "free" and "equal". Many people claim that we are not free because we cannot do whatever we please and because some have more than others. Hey, yes we can do whatever we please, but the requirement that we remain within the parameters of law are properly placed lines of allowable behavior designed to allow full interaction among millions of other human beings with the same rights and the same dignity. True, sometimes laws are unfair. In that case we have to change that particular law, but continue to live within a democratic framework delineated by just laws. With respect to the word "equal", some people say we are not equal because the Other has more money or owns more property and hence has more 'power'.("Power" is another word misused in democratic government). Well, 'equality' in a democratic context means equally human. The human condition identifies each and every individual living on the planet. In a real democracy that humanity and dignity is respected. "Equality" has nothing to do with the amount of money one has or the amount of property one owns. Of course, that has many advantages, but that's mostly because we have co-mingled economic values with democratic values. Everyone born is born into existing 'conditions of togetherness'. Although the 'condition of togetherness' we all find ourselves in is not of our choosing, in a democracy, government must 'protect' that 'condition of togetherness'. It must treat each and every individual as a 'dignified human being', hence every individual is equal to the Other individual. There are no distinctions in the human condition and the government should not make any. Now, why should government treat each individual as "Equal" and "Free"? Because government is the Top of an 'artificial body' created to govern the Many at the Bottom. (The "State" was called a fiction many years ago). The essence of democracy are the People at the Bottom and their "freedom", "Equality" and humanity must be protected. The "power" at the Top is a given of the structure; the individual who governs does not have more "power" than you or I, only his/her office has the power to govern. That power is accompanied by a job s/he has to perform. Failing that, in a democracy, s/he incurs the 'Constitutional wrath' of all the People at the Bottom.

Number is not Utopian nor a panacea

Number is not a panacea nor Utopian, but it sure helps to measure whether the beneficiaries of any policy, law, or other government activity or program is democratic or not. We already resort to 'counting' and 'Number' in Taxation, home ownership, jobs, employment, percentages, racial distributions, gender distributions, etc., so why not extend those practices to judge whether any governmental policy, program, or law, includes or excludes everyone who is supposed to be included or excluded? For example: A family man living in a small home earns $30,000 a year and pays taxes on that amount. Another, earns $200,000 a year and pays taxes on that amount. A corporation earns $500 million a year and pays taxes on that amount. Do all three pay the same percentage of taxes a year? Should the tax be equal or should it be increased among the more fortunate? Is it possible for a corporation not to pay any taxes at all. It sure is possible and to add salt to the wound, a corporation is a "legal fiction", which means its not human, not real, ( like Alice in Wonderland, its not real) and the law recognizes that fiction, and further treats it as a "person" under the Constitution. This 'legal move' increases a corporations 'economic grasp' tremendously. That, in of itself, should be considered a 'great gift' of government, so why increase the advantages of a corporate "fiction" to further create tax loop holes in the law that allows it not to pay taxes? Is that a 'fair playing field'? Do you see the advantage of quantifying democracy by using Number to balance "freedom" and "equality" of every individual(real ones)in a real way. If the essence of democracy is the real individual at the Bottom of government, why give tax advantages to 'fictional persons' and not to real persons. The same rules could apply to the availability of jobs, employment and home ownership. Democracy does not require that everyone earn the same amount of money, or that everyone own the same amount of property, but it does demand a 'fair playing field'.

Can democracy be quantified?

Is Number a language and is it possible to communicate with Number as can be done with language? The answer is No! Such communication is possible only with language. Although mathematics is a 'form' of language, it does not have the same function as communication with words. Communication with words deals with semantics or meaning. To be sure, mathematics does not deal with 'meaning' but, nevertheless, is a 'quantification' that gives to each number or concept a fixed quantity. We can add, subtract, and perform many complex transactions with these numerals and algebras. Similarly, science also functions with 'quantifications', except that science is based on the 'experimental' method. Of course, government and politics is not experimental. While number always remains the same, "words" carry meanings and the same word can mean many different things depending on the context and whether it is used metaphorically or not. But, we have said that Three Branch Constitutional government can be 'reduced' to a more simple triadic form of government to help us to better conceive the underlying basis of governmental power. We have concluded that the Bottom of the triad supports the Top of the triad and that the Top would not exist if it were not for the Bottom. There can be no Top without a Bottom. Hence, the Top is the Administration and the bottom are the millions of individuals who constitute the democracy. Democratic government must include each and every individual within its settings of policy and law or be judged not to be democratic. The best measure of that inclusion or exclusion is Number. Democracy must be subjected to an enumeration process that verifies the inclusion or exclusion of every individual within the stated category of governance. For example, the very general proposition, "every individual is free and equal", means Every Individual. No exceptions and no discriminatory classifications relating to gender, race, rich or poor. "Every" means every human being is "free", and "equal" means every human being is 'equally human'.

The only path to real democracy is Number.

Language is not working; by that, I mean political language suffices as a descriptive formulation of democracy as set out in the Three Branch structure of the Constitution and subsequent interpretations by the Supreme Court. Constitutional language is absolutely necessary. But, many of those formulations were all prior to the so-called Linguistic Turn. This is not to say that language was not problematic prior to the Linguistic Turn, but the Turn received its 'collective impetus' from Richard Rorty,s book, "The Linguistic Turn". Language as 'non-correspondence' with reality creates many gaps with respect to 'practical application' of democracy and democratic values. Of course, politicians were already adept at twisting language without the support and encouragement of the Turn. But, it may be useful for us to consider why in the economic sphere, language is not as important as it is in the political sphere. Basically, the reason is because 'language' as a medium of communication, does not refer, so much, to the 'organizational aspects' of the economy as it does to the 'end result' of economic activity, or medium of exchange of economic activity, which is money. (Of course, there is one case where it does refer to the 'organizational aspects' of the economy; i.e. "legal fictions"). Nevertheless, the economy is about profits and that means money and property. My point is that money is a quantification that can be counted. The 'counting' is important because it determines your 'class status' within a society. The 'status' of the individual is based on how much money or property s/he has. My point; why can't the Bottom of Constitutional government, which is "We the People...," also be quantified so as to determine whether any law or policy is sufficiently democratic to be Constitutional? I'm sure you heard the somewhat recent statement of an "ex-politician" say, (I paraphrase) " Look at the numbers". A good beginning point.

Well, the shut-down is almost over; or is it?

A government shut-down is the most ridiculous result that can be intentionally perpetuated by politicians against the People. It's not a 'political move' against the other Party; its a political move to get concessions at the expense of the People. But,that's a direct result of so-called Party loyalty; or just plain 'dirty politics'. The People always have to pay the price. Its such a basic realization; a shut-down does not harm the Parties, it harms the People. So, why do some politicians use the people as leverage and as a means of getting concessions. They should be proposing alternative solutions to problems of democracy; not 'damaging' the 'little democracy' that the Bottom enjoys. Both Parties should be democratic, only the means of 'practicing' democracy should be different. Obviously, one of the Parties is following an economic or 'money agenda'. When I say that we should not mix economic principles with democratic principles, I do not mean that the economy, as an important part of any Nation, is not important; I mean, the economy is 'driven' by 'profits' while democracy is 'driven' with "freedom and equality". There is no freedom and equality in economics. If there was, we wouldn't have a great economy; in the same manner, there is no 'profit' in democracy. If there was, we would be a Plutocracy. Oh, Oh, I just painted myself against the wall. Are we a Plutocracy? Well, we're not supposed to be. The Constitution says we are a democracy, " We the People...,. Then, why is there such a thing as the 1%? Were the 1% just more 'human' than any other 'human being'? No! They were more grasping and more greedy and they tapered laws to fit an economic agenda by requiring less duties from the 1% and corporations. They even fought against 'laborers' forming into Labor Unions and yet, protected corporations by creating a "fictional" entity and legally calling it a "legal fiction", which sounds more acceptable, but, in spite of all the trickery, remains 'mythological'. Our democratic values have become dislocated from their Constitutional base and, unfortunately, some Party loyalists love it. So much for Parties!

Democracy has been 'embarrassed' by power

The best government in the world has been 'embarrassed' by political power. To be sure, political offices are characterized by the exercise of power but, the most embarrassing aspect of its use is for so-called political leaders, divided by Party lines, to use it against each other as if it was some sort of 'game'. The undemocratic spirit of the 'Party mentality' that divides politicians is partly to blame (The autocracies are laughing at us). Another reason is the reduction of the 'democratic spirit', down to the level of a 'baseball game mentality'. Politics is serious business and anyone with a 'game' orientation should not be allowed to hold political office. Democratic politics is about People and about governing. Where did democracy go wrong? It was in assuming that only serious individuals that actually had a democratic spirit would want to hold political office. It certainly is not the compensation for holding office, but it was probably the opportunity of functioning on a level of power where self-aggrandizement could be better 'realized' by political maneuvering and by 'sleeping' with the lobbyists and the corporations. In actually, its the 1% shooting itself in the foot. Government is "for the People"; and maybe its time that the People begin to "assemble" and show their 'strength' in Numbers. After all, that was the reason for the First Amendment. The government belongs to the People, not the politicians. Any direct or indirect self-aggrandizement while in office should be prohibited by law and that law should be a standing law with 'teeth'. That Law should emanate directly from the Constitution. A government shut-down in a democracy is humiliating and should not be tolerated. The 1% has shot itself in the foot; it has demonstrated that 'politics' is more important than People. Since, government is about People, their politics is about creating shut-downs to get concessions that further work against the people.