Democracy is a basic political concept

Of course, everyone will say, "that's not novel, we all know that". But, what I wish to emphasize is that when we think about political values, we must entertain them within a political context or schema. We cannot mix them with psychological concepts, which are individual, or economic concepts, which relates to a different paradigm; viz. 'profits'. The reason for that is that its the relation of the One and the Many and the 'condition of togetherness' that gives rise to political concepts of democracy. Although the economy and the individual are 'housed' within the 'condition of togetherness', the concepts are different and should not become mixed. The Bottom of government or the 'social' are held together by the political values of "freedom" and "equality". Of course, there's much individual and social interaction within this 'value arrangement', but, without 'individual freedom' and 'individual equality', the Bottom of democracy will not 'hold' together. Of course, both, the individual and the economy are necessary to the 'condition of togetherness', nevertheless, mixing psychological and economic concepts with the basic orienting concepts of government, or politics, is a mistake. It has to be the "freedom and equality" of each and every individual, that holds the political concept together. Otherwise, we will emphasize 'personal', 'individual', or 'economic' values, no matter how skewed, into the 'condition of togetherness'. That's exactly what happens when we hear 'political talk' about "the 1%", "the corporate society", "plutocracy", "Autocracy", Citizens United, etc.. We're mixing, in the political domain, where the integrity and dignity of each individual should be the 'cement' that holds together the concept of democracy. Of course, we can 'talk' and discuss those concepts, but they don't mix with the 'cement' of Freedom and Equality.

The main problem with all forms of government is human beings

Democracy is the best form of government; the main reason being that 'governmental power' arises from the People by means of the vote, and is vested in the Administration at the Top. Nevertheless, democracy, like all other forms of government, has its problems. In general, it can be said that the main problem with any and all forms of government is the human condition. How unfortunate. We can change governments, but we cannot change the human condition. What do we do? As a beginning, the best thing to do is to develop and retain the best form of government available( that would be democracy ) and try to become more familiar with the way the human condition functions in its 'condition of togetherness'. I understand the almost utter impossibility of that quest. Nevertheless, if humans want 'government', they can only get it in a 'condition of togetherness'; there are no options. The unfortunate aspect of the human condition is that our 'humanity' is too often a 'humanity lite'. What does that mean? Well, generally, "I'm human and I'm free and equal, so I can do what I want within the confines of law and a political structure, I work hard, and I have lots of property and money, but I don't give a damn about the 'neighbor', or anyone else". 'Humanity lite' leads to 'political lite' ( which is 'lite democracy') in a 'condition of togetherness', which leads to social isolation. Can anyone imagine 'being isolated in a condition of togetherness'? Well, that's difficult, but not for long; it then leads to divisions into Parties and then a substitution of other values( economic values which only require 'possession') instead of real democratic values, of freedom and equality, within the 'condition of togetherness'. Wow, we have gone from real 'freedom and equality' in a democracy that requires respect for the 'dignity and integrity' of the Other, to a possessive 'economic-ism', that only requires possessiveness; sometimes referred too as 'greed'. Well, no one is perfect, but since we have to live in 'togetherness', we should at least try.

The term, socialism, is an oxymoron.

In Triadic government, the Bottom is the Many and the Top is the One. In the Democratic form of government, the essence of democracy is at the Bottom of the Triad. That's where millions of individuals are situated in the triad of government. In other words, that's where the social or society is situated. In a democracy, all governing is about governing the social or society. Unfortunately, any Party program designed to organize, help, or assist the Bottom of government is usually referred to as "socialism", but only by the opposing Party. The term is designed and used in a way that gives democracy a bad name. The term has no place in a real democracy. If the Top of government cannot be about 'helping' the Bottom of government, who is the Top supposed to govern? Democratic government is about the Bottom. The Bottom needs government and the Top is elected to provide that government. Obviously, if the Top doesn't govern the Bottom, the Top is just not doing its job. Yet, the opposing Party always hollers "socialism" as if, it was wrong or bad to organize a government of the Bottom by the Top. That's an oxymoron. If the Top legislates for the benefit of the Bottom, the opposition hollers "socialism" instead of "democracy". If the Top is not helping the Bottom, who is the Top supposed to help? What the opposition is actually saying is, "if the Top does its job, it must not help the social". If your confused, so am I. Now, that's an oxymoron. The term is designed to 'confuse'; that's not democracy; that's the kind of confusion introduced by so-called Party loyalty and skewed concepts of government. That's Party rigidity and linguistic ambiguity, used by Party members to 'blacken' democracy. If any policy or law is undemocratic, why not just point it out. Surely, that can be done. "Socialism" is an oxymoron, because government is for the Bottom and the Bottom is the social.

Democracy must 'establish' and 'retain' its democratic balance at all times.

Democracy, being essentially a 'Bottom' type of government, must work tirelessly to retain its democratic balance. Democracy 'comes' from the Bottom, i.e. from the exercise of the 'will' of the many individuals at the Bottom, through an act of voting. Autocracy, Plutocracy, and Oligarchy are not dependent on the People at all. In those forms of government, governing is what the Top declares; end of story. While the democratic form of government is always Legislating, Adjudicating, and Executing the many laws and policies designed to keep a Democracy; a democracy. There is always a continuous 'search' for qualified Statesmen. Actually, there is no 'search', the candidates arise from the democratic Bottom which allows all qualified individuals to participate in government. Anyone and everyone, that's qualified, can participate. After a brief campaign, submission to the 'voters', anyone can ascend the ladder of political power. Promises are made; promises must be kept; the voters are watching. Then the candidate assumes the most honorable of professions, an Office holder in a democratic form of government. But, that's not the end of the story. Those assuming positions in the Executive Branch, must execute the democratic policies and laws as stated in the Constitution. Those in the Legislative Branch, must act as representatives of the People, who elected them. Those appointed( some are elected) to the Judicial branch must interpret the Constitution in an Objective manner. All, must continue to perpetuate the 'ever-shifting' structure of a democracy at the Bottom; where the freedom and equality of the individual is always protected, and where the 'needy' and the 'less fortunate' can 'live in democracy'; a place where 'work', 'health', 'homestead', and 'help' are available and easily acquired. Like a ship at sea, everyone must do their part to stay 'afloat'.

This blog is about democracy, but the issue of money must be addressed.

Although this blog is about democracy, the issue of the economy, money, and capitalism, must also be addressed. Why?, when most political 'works' stick to the political aspects of government. The economy is an inseparable aspect of the 'condition of togetherness', which is a 'political entity', and cannot be separated from the 'condition', because the 'freedom and equality' of a democracy must be exercised within that same 'condition'. Neither issue can be treated in isolation. To do so is to ignore many factors that, directly and indirectly, influence the 'condition of togetherness' and hence, the 'political' aspects of democracy. Although, inextricably intertwined, the principles underlying the 'political' must be kept separate from the 'principles' underlying the economic. In the economy, 'profits' are cumulative and can be 'monopolized', and they can grow to enormous levels. There's even a form of government characterized by the excessive accumulation and hoarding of profits. Its called Plutocracy, Government by the 1%. Oligarchy only refers to government by a 'few'; no reference to money. Autocracy or Dictatorship also refers to government by the 'One' or the Top, again, no references to money. Democracy refers to government by the Bottom, i.e. "We the People...", no references to money. Only a Plutocrat is so close to his money, that s/he can never espouse a democratic form of government. Plutocracy, as well as the other forms of government, can never be democratic. The danger arises when the value system of the economy usurps the value system of democracy, which is the freedom and equality of every individual. Hence, Citizens United and 'cumulative' economic values cannot be headed in a 'democratic direction'. Its ok to make lots of money, but we must 're-orient' ourselves to the democracy we live in. Make your money, but lets retain our democratic government.

Political power and the influence of money must be kept separate.

If political power is the only real power in government, and hence within the Nation, why is having lots of money the ultimate goal for some people? Keep in mind, I'm not saying that only power or money should be the ultimate goals in a democracy, nor the only ones. However, its pretty obvious that these two goals seem to be dominant in the social. Of course, there are many other goals that can be achieved, such as an art form, a profession, a small business, a 'position' in the social, a writer, etc. But, the highly acclaimed goals seem to be political power, or money, or both. Of course, the above different positions or professions all earn 'good' money, not to mention, sports, entertainers, and God help us, lobbyists. And we can't forget the 'common folk' ( I hate that term ) who wish to eek out a 'living wage'. In other words, everyone is dependent on some amount of income. Its understandable, that in a 'commodity' culture, money becomes necessary to have a decent 'life'. But, the point is that money is a medium of exchange. This must be viewed very carefully because it allows us to 'exchange' economic values. We don't have to exchange apples for oranges; all we have to do is use the monetary 'exchange value' to acquire either. This cannot be done with political power. Political power cannot be 'exchanged' or 'given' to another politician or to anyone or 'anything' else. It comes from the People; its a vested power, and can only be exercised within the 'domain' and 'purpose' of Office. Money, being a medium of exchange, can be accumulated, hoarded, or used to monopolize 'production' or some such activity. Money is 'flexible', cumulative, 'expansive' and 'exchangeable'. But, its not 'power', its an abstract 'possession' with an 'attributive value'. And that's the problematic. Any hoarding, monopolizing, or accumulation of money to 'influence' political power is undemocratic. That influence must be kept out of government and politics and a good starting point is to reverse Citizens United. Money is not a democratic value.

Political Office is power

Political Office has political power. But, political power is a conferred power. In a democracy, it's conferred by the Bottom of government, viz. by the People who exercise their right to vote; and then only for a period of time. There is no other source of power within our political organization or our society. Our society is not organized in a fashion that grants power to any one individual or any one 'social class' of individuals. If, in a democracy, every individual is free and equal, there can be no 'preferential class' of individuals. The freedom and equality of each individual refers to his/her human dignity and integrity. It does not refer to possessions, money, or 'social class' or position in society. Of course, there are positions in the social that have 'authority', e.g. policemen, judges, teachers, presidents of organizations, leaders of groups, etc., but this is not power, its authority over certain individuals falling within a circumscribed area of activity. That activity only applies to certain areas within society, like; policeman( law violators); judges (accused violators), teachers(students), organizations(members of the organization) etc. That is authority, not power. This distinction helps people to separate 'influence' within the political and the economic fields. Notice, power does not extend to individuals that earn or have millions of dollars and lots of properties. The rich may have 'authority' or influence within a particular area of activity but, certainly not because of the amount of possessions or money they have. Money does not confer power. The fact that People consider someone with lots of money or possessions as being 'powerful', is a mistake. Those individuals may have lots of money, but they do not have power. Power is political and is conferred. Only a democratically conferred power is 'real power'.

The Third branch of government is very important

The Judicial Branch hears and resolves all cases involving the Constitution. It interprets the Constitution and resolves all cases and controversies in Law and Equity. In triadic government, the Judiciary is the 'sides' of the Triad. The Top is the Executive and the Bottom is the essence of the democracy, viz. the People. All three parts of the Triad must be continually active and all are important but, the Top of government would not exist, but for the Bottom. But, one cannot help but to notice the importance of the Supreme Court in determining the outcome of many Constitutional controversies. Who determines the different 'interpretive practices' of the Court and how are they arrived at? Well, a lot depends on Party-loyalty, and do the different Parties have different views of 'democracy'? Unfortunately, yes. The names of the Parties does not matter; its the dependence on the rigidity of the Party ideologies that can create problems. But, listen to this, the Executive and the members of Congress are all elected by the People and serve for a specific period of time, after which, elections are held again and so-forth. In other words, they are accountable to the People. But the members of the Judicial Branch are appointed by the Executive Branch. What is the standard of conduct that the appointee is held to? Article III states they shall "hold their Office during good Behavior". Wow, what is that? They hold Office for the rest of their lives, so long as they 'behave'? What kind of Constitutional standard is that? That's why Presidents "pack the Courts" etc. Party Loyalty creeps in and the Executive appoints a member of the ruling Party. There should be better ways to determine if an appointed Judge is interpreting the Constitution properly or injecting Party ideology and preferences. Constitutional Objectivity has no Party. Maybe, Supreme Court judges should also be made accountable to the People, just like the Executive and Legislative Branches. Where are our Statesmen?

The Constitution measures our trajectory around the Three Branches

Time, Number, and calendar 'measures' our trajectory around the sun;( Happy new year!), the Constitution and our institutions 'measures' our trajectory around the Triadic nature of our government. The ironic distinction is that the passage of time may make us 'wiser', but always makes us older and weaker. In government, the proper application of the Constitution can only improve our democracy, even if its for future generations. That should be the case; the problematic is that if we substitute, money or some other economic or even religious value, in place of democracy, the government system can become fixed into a different form of government. Stagnation of the democratic principals of government can only lead to Autocracy, Plutocracy, or Oligarchy. These are relatively fixed forms of government where the government is at the Top and the people are sometimes referred too as 'subjects'. In democracy, the 'government' is "We the People...", and the People are at the Bottom. The Top exists 'by the grace of the Bottom'. Governing is difficult and governing a democracy is probably the most difficult form of governing in the world. The rules and laws are relatively simple and are contained in the Constitution. The problem is the human condition and the usurpation of democratic values by economic values or other non-democratic values. We cannot live in a 'condition of togetherness' without respect for the freedom and equality of the Other. The guy or gal next to you is your 'Brother' or 'sister', like it or not. 'Togetherness' is a blessing and all real humans are free and equal. I say 'real', which does not include legal fictions. There are many 'kinks', 'gaps', and 'empty places' in our society and much dis-function in our government, hopefully our Statesmen will find them, plug them up, and improve our democracy this year. Happy New year.

Neither, money or Capitalism, is harmful, per se, to democracy

An oxymoron? No! the headnote may sound contradictory to the previous one, but its not. Let me explain. Money is just a medium of exchange and Capitalism is a 'profit venture'. Neither demands a monopolizing or hoarding of activity and money. Of course, at one time some of this activity was against the law, until legislators and Supreme Court decisions attenuated that. Hoarding money and property is a human activity; its not a necessary corporate activity. However, the real' humans behind it use the corporate structure to centralize activity and 'monopolize' it. As we have said, a corporation is a legal fiction and doesn't 'really' exist. However, behind every "legal fiction" there are a few 'real' human beings. They will say that the Board and the stockholders ( if its public ) rule the structure, but ask yourself, is the legal fiction operated democratically, where each real individual is 'free' and 'equal' within the corporate power structure? Of course not, most are concerned with struggles underscored by money and corporate power issues. The point is the corporate structure does, in fact, monopolize the economy. Have you ever heard of a 'real' individual, at the Bottom of government, competing with a corporation in the economic field? Never happen. We create our own 'economic monsters'. That wouldn't be so bad, if the government, who helps create them, would keep 'some' sense of control. State governments may issue corporate charters, but Constitutional government can control issues of interstate commerce, monopoly, and 'economic illegality'( not to mention taxation). Why is a legal fiction such a 'strong fiction'? Corporations may be necessary, but they don't govern the People. The People never granted any 'political power' to them; only the Top of democratic government has political power, and that's because its a 'democratic' ( comes from the Bottom) grant of power.

Why is money harmful to democracy?

Its not the money per-se that is harmful, its the 'possessiveness' of some human beings. Money is a medium of exchange that was 'designed' to allow for 'barter' and 'exchanges' and ,of course, profits, in the economy. It is a 'quantifiable' medium, and hence has 'monitory' value, the end result of all economic activity. In the political field, the 'value' in a democracy is the absolute respect and retention of every human individual, his/her dignity, and her/his integrity. Since politics is about governing, and governing is about the relation of the Top to the Bottom, the preservation of the human condition is vital to a democratic government. Hence, the importance of the 'value' of democratic principles. However, a capitalistic economy cannot function without a 'profit' engine. No one goes into business with the intent of 'not making a profit'. Hence, the initial making of profits leads to further efforts to generate more profits. Its a 'constitutive' aspect of working in the economy and it's cumulative and, we could even call it, 'contagious'. The problem arises when the 'profit motive' dominates the functioning and the thinking of the representatives of government or when the 'rich' want to get involved in government for the sole purpose of protecting or generating more 'profits'. The freedom and equality of every individual are the only values of a functioning democracy. Government should not concern itself with anything else. The two value systems must be kept separate from each other. Government will never function with profits as its engine; and the economy will never function with the principles of freedom and equality as it's engine. This division of 'labor' is easily perceived, so why is it so entangled with the activities of government? Obviously, and unfortunately, its the 'greedy' and 'possessive' nature of the human condition. We always seem to think that 'anything' and 'everything' can be accomplished if we only had lots of money. We should try living in an Autocracy, a Plutocracy, or an Oligarchy.

The biggest threats to a genuine democracy are economic in nature.

The biggest threat to basic democratic principles, i.e. Freedom and Equality, are economic principles. That may sound strange, because economies are necessary to democracies, but economic principles have nothing to do with democratic principles. Unfortunately, individuals become too attached to money and possessions. In and of itself, that is not so bad as is the greed that overwhelms them. Greed then becomes the underlying basis for living, working, and being influential in the democratic social. Of course, we know that the basic political principles of a democracy are the freedom and equality of each individual situated at the Bottom of government. We also know that our economy would not be functional without profits. Profits drive the economy; freedom and equality drives a democracy. There has never been a democratic principle that the Top of government must be occupied by the rich, the wealthy, or the top 1%. Most people at the Bottom are not rich. Yet, their freedom and equality is as sacred to them, as it might be to the 1%. I say, "might be to the 1%", because, for all we know, the money and possessions of the 1% might be the only thing important to them. Nevertheless, most of them would not have accumulated those amounts of money and possessions, if they had lived in an autocracy, or even in a Plutocracy. Its strange that the richest people should be the most thankful that they live in a democracy but, instead, try to influence government in such a way as too accumulate even more money. That's the threat to democracy; the substitution of an economic principle for the democratic principles of freedom and equality. The largest culprit in that 're-evaluation' of democratic principles is the corporation; and to boot, its not even a real individual; its a legal fiction.

Three branch Government must stay constantly in motion

A characteristic of Three Branch Government is that it must always be in motion. Autocracies have a definite 'form', but the activity of the Top and the Bottom is 'somewhat' fixed. The only 'activity' that must be kept in check is the activity at the Bottom. The 'form' of a Triadic Democracy is never fixated; it should be a constantly 'moving' organism. The big issue in democracies is the direction of the movement and the objective participation of the Representatives at the Top. All or most movements must contribute towards the 'organic' establishment of a democratic 'organism'. This political organism is an ever growing entity because the Peoples at the Bottom, as well as the Peoples at the Top, are constantly being 'shuffled' about. Hence, it's always 'struggling' to a better democracy. That's why its important for each individual at the Bottom of Democracy to be Free and Equal. Free and Equal to live democratically and Free and Equal to participate in the political entity. If the Top is ever limited to a select few, for whatever reasons, it would not be a democracy, for the simple reason that the Bottom of government is not allowed to participate if self-government. The main obstacle in a democracy is to be able to allow the 'institutions', the 'policies' and the 'law', instituted at the Top, as a category of democratic activity, to actually make contact with each individual at the Bottom. If this contact is not taking place, there is no Democracy at the Bottom. Its merely 'talk', to be sure, its democratic talk, but the 'talk' is not being implemented in a 'real' way. It's vacuous, empty, political jargon,(yes, politics has a jargon), used to confuse and mislead the Peoples at the Bottom, and too usurp the power at the Top. Unfortunately, the term, 'politically correct' has 'two prongs'; one may be correct, while the other is destructive of democracy. Nevertheless, both are just 'talk'. The important 'aspects' of a Democracy is not the 'talk'; its the 'walk'.

In a Democracy, the 'quality' of the Top is dependant on the 'quality' of the Bottom.

The functioning of the Top of a Democracy has 'many' variables. Similarly, the functioning of the Top of an Autocracy, has 'many' variables. However, the functioning of the Top of an Autocracy is more 'predictable' than that of a Democracy. The reason being that an Autocracy has less 'variables' to decide between than a Democracy. The Autocracy is 'more' concerned with the International picture than the local, obviously, because the 'ways' of the local is 'firmly' established. The only local occurrences it might be concerned with might be not to do anything, locally, that might cause a revolution. While a Democracy is also concerned with the International picture but must also concern itself with the duration s/he will be in Office as well as the 'exercise' of the vote. The 'quality' of the Bottom, in a Democracy, is related to the 'quality' of the Representatives that are available and those that are eventually selected, for a period of time, to sit at the Top. The individual at the Bottom is concerned with the 'quality' of his/her life and must be concerned with the 'quality' of the Representatives at the Top. Its not easy to live in a Democracy. But, personally, its more fulfilling. The Bottom has to know what the Top is doing. The Bottom must be 'well informed' in all aspects of life at the Bottom, in order to make well-founded judgments with respect to the Representatives at the Top and the 'direction' of the Nation on the International sphere. Of course, but somewhat unfortunately, this is where Political Parties come-in. If both Parties were truly democratic, Parties wouldn't be a problem. But, some Parties follow the 'money' and the corporate 'persons', instead of the 'real' democratic values of Freedom and Equality of each and every real individual.

In a Democracy, the People must live democratically

In a Democracy the essence of government is functionally at the Bottom. Why? Because the People at the Bottom are the ones who situate Representatives at the Top. However, once a representative, having ascended to the Top, the Bottom loses 'control' of the Representative. The individual who has ascended is now, for a particular period of time, in a position of power, but that individual is, in the first place, a human being who comes from the Bottom. Hence, the requirement that the people at the Bottom elect the 'best' representative to govern them. Its at this point that a democracy is faced with the problematic of Political Parties. Party ideologies differ, but its up to the individual who votes for them to determine which ideology is democratic. The extension of the Rights of the corporate "fiction" is not democratic. The economy and the corporations are not 'motored' by a democratic ideology. Their motivation is 'profits', not 'democracy'. Their goal is to provide a 'healthy economy' not a democratic social. Hence, the natural conflict between economies and governments. In democratic governments, the 'motor' is 'freedom' and 'equality' of each individual. In corporate economies, the motor is profits. If a real person values his/her freedom and equality, s/he must respect those values in the Other. Hence, the need to distinguish the difference between a real person and a 'Constitutional person'. Even though the Court saw a need for creating a "legal person", its not a requirement that the "persons" rights be extended. Enough is enough. This way of 'looking' at this matter would certainly weaken the influence of the 1%. If a person lived democratically, s/he would not discriminate against the human condition.

The Top of government is an essential part of a democracy.

The Top of government is essential to any form of government. Of course, that also applies to a democracy. Otherwise, the Bottom would be without any form of government. However, the relation between the Top of an Autocracy, and the Top of a Democracy, functions differently in relation to the Bottom. Obviously, the Top of an Autocracy 'says' how the Bottom is to live, behave, act, or whatnot. In such cases, the Bottom is not as "free" as should be the case in a democracy. However, in a Constitutional Democracy, the functions or duties of the Top are set forth in the Constitution and the "interpretive practices" of the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the Court is not always in accord with any one way of resolving an issue. That discord arises from 'forms of reasoning' supported by different Party ideologies. How, any Party ideology, can be so different from each other, is beyond comprehension. In a democratic Nation, the Parties should both be democratic. Hence, regardless the 'route' of the reasoning process, the end result may be different, but it should always be democratic. In other words, the end result should be 'favorable' to the Bottom of the Democracy. The Bottom, " We the People...", the governed, the human beings at the Bottom, the real individual, should be the beneficiary of Constitutional adjudication. Of course, there'll be intermediary issues to be resolved, but the essential Constitutional issues should benefit the real individual at the Bottom or should improve the implementation of the democratic structure issuing from the Top. The Top can only do what the Constitution and the People allows them to do. Their power is given by the Peoples; not even the Constitution gives power, it only gives the form of government. " We the People..." place these representatives, 'up' there. A Democracy is a "Peoples" government.

Living 'intelligently' does not only mean a 'school intelligence'.

Our use of the word "intelligently" does not only mean the abstract intelligence taught in our school systems. We have to be very careful with this 'label'. Within a democratic social, the word intelligent means a fully functioning "freedom and equality" by each individual: and that means an individual who respects his own 'equality', as well as, the 'equality' of the Other'; and his own 'freedom', as well as, the 'freedom' of the Other. In other words, a real, concrete freedom and equality, not some theoretical composition. Life is real, not abstract and a democratic social can only survive if the 'living' is intelligent. Of course, the 'abstract intelligence' taught in the educational systems is also good, but for another purpose. The intelligence I speak of is the intelligence of the 'human condition' in a 'condition of togetherness'. The simplicity of life; the simplicity of enjoying one's human freedom and equality which allows us to respect the freedom and equality of the Other. The real individual has a 'simplicity' that seeps through the human condition into his/her relations with Others. In a democracy no one can be left outside of the equation of democracy. In a democracy, everyone, the educated, the uneducated, the rich, the poor, the healthy, the unhealthy, the white, the red, the black, the brown, must live in freedom and as an equal. The intelligence of a democracy is the intelligence of a human condition living in a 'condition of togetherness'. Every individual is free to live as s/he wishes, but s/he can never compromise the Freedom and Equality of Others. We can live 'democratically', only if, we can live with the Others.

Democracy at the Bottom can only be 'lived' intelligently.

The essence of Democracy is the Bottom of the structure of Three Branch government. Although the Top of democracy is organized according to the Constitutional requirements, the organization of the Top is mostly theoretical; it still needs to be implemented, it needs to become practical, or stated differently, it needs to become a fully functioning democratic social. In order for the 'fully functioning social' to hold together the theoretical aspects of democracy, it must act democratically i.e. each individual must exercise his/her "Freedom and Equality" in an intelligent manner. The exercise of freedom by 'equals'( the Many) will result in a society 'saturated' by 'equal' individuals who are exercising their "freedom" among themselves. This requirement, of exercising their freedom among themselves, requires individual judgment that allows the Many to live in a 'condition of togetherness'. Living in a 'condition of togetherness' is not easy because it requires activity that is not individually 'selfish'. The life of an individual is a 'given', but the life of an individual 'in a condition of togetherness', requires some selfless activity. Why? Simply, because we have to live with each other. There is no other way. This selfless activity demands some concern with the manner in which we exercise our "freedom and equality" amongst ourselves. In every life, there is the freedom and equality demanded by the individual organism, as well as the organizational demands of a democratic government. These blended activities are what I call an "intelligent life"; a life that protects its own self as well as the existence of the democratic form of government within which s/he lives. If democracy is not lived intelligently, it will self-destruct. If Party-loyalty encourages democracy for the few, it is not a democracy; it already begins to self-destruct.

language 'suffices' for the Top, but accountability is necessary at the Bottom

Any form of government can be described and 'structured' as an ideological political entity. But, the Bottom is 'where' the individuals are situated, regardless the form. In earlier forms of government, one can say the Top is the One and the Bottom is the Many. All government structures have this same arrangement, but the ideologies are different. The general reason for that difference, in a democratic form of government, is that in a democracy the People, while still at the Bottom, nevertheless, are the ones who establish the ideology and the attribute of power. In other words, the People are the source of both, the ideology and the power attributed to the Top of the structure. The power at the Top is an attribution of Office which originates at the Bottom. In other words, in a democracy the People 'rule'. But, how can so many People rule? Simply by making the Offices at the Top, elected offices, that can only be occupied for a certain period of time, by Officials who have been elected by the Bottom, i.e. the People. All officials, in a democratic form of government, act as Representatives of the People. Representatives can 'act' in two different ways. They can act in their 'Representative' capacity or as ordinary people. They have been given power to act in a representative way but, in ordinary life, for all we know, they may not even have authority over their spouses. But, the point is that, in a democracy, the policies enacted must be democratic. If democratic, that means, that they apply to everyone within the selected category, on an equal basis. How can we be sure every intended individual is included or excluded? The best way is to consider the Bottom in a quantitative manner, or as Number. Then, it becomes a question of 'counting', instead of using the variability of definitions. That makes accountability easier.

All forms of government need an economy.

The economy is a vital aspect of the social within any form of governmental structure. An economy is also needed in a democratic structure of government. However, there is a great difference in the economies of autocracies and those of democracies. A democratic form of government encourages competition in the economy because the People at the Bottom constitute the essence of the democratic form. Everyone at the Bottom is free and equal in his/her striving for economic security. Hence, everyone is free and equal to compete with each other. The progress of technology contributed to the nature of competition and to the amount of accumulation of profits. This new technology and its 'enlargement' within the context of factories, businesses, etc. made possible a new class of 'worker'; s/he was called an 'employee'. Employers, with sufficient capital, continued to expand and employees continued to aid that expansion in exchange for a 'living wage'. Competition, at this stage, becomes less possible, but, nevertheless, still remained open to new technological advances and the establishment of small businesses within the economy. As businesses grew larger, the same 'freedom and equality' applied to the employer and the employee relationship. Of course, this required some 'control' by government to avoid abuses of the relationship. Hence, 'minimum wage scales', 'healthy' and 'safe' work conditions, etc. But, the rapid growth of the corporate structure into 'economic walruses' and the Constitutional protection afforded it, as a 'person', which is actually recognized by law as a legal fiction, completely quashed any possibility of competition by real persons. That, in and of itself, may be fair, so long as the relationship is monitored and regulated by law. So, where are the laws prohibiting the ascendancy of the 1%? Hey, we're protecting a fiction at the expense of a real human being. Our 'Alice in Wonderland' government needs to wake up. Life begins with 'needing to work' and now life is 'having more money than the Other'. Well, that's not too bad; until government invented "legal fictions".