Democracy must 'quantify'.

Rendering abstractions into real, practical results is not easy. Nevertheless, the only manner of 'giving' real results in government is to 'quantify'. This is not the same thing as quantification in mathematics, geometry or computer science. Here, we have to be careful. Human beings are NOT numbers. Computer science certainly involves a 'form' of quantification, but before that became possible, technologists had to create a 'new computer language'. Much like the language of science, computers had to formulate a basic quantification of the phonetic alphabet. Computer language is not subject to the so-called Linguistic Turn, but the triadic Governmental structures must circumvent the Linguistic turn because governing is a 'representational' process. Political 'language' or political obfuscation already used language for the sole purpose of 'misleading', even without the need to refer to the problems created by the Turn. We could say, 'political obfuscation' took a Linguistic Turn a long time ago. Politics was 'using' the 'Linguistic Turn' long before the origin of the Linguistic Turn. Hence, the political problematic. The relation between the Top and the Bottom of the governing process is similar to an individual 'thinking' of 'doing' something and then, either, doing it, or, not doing it. The road to implementation has a 'wide gap' and that gap is fraught with many 'difficulties','reasons', or 'obstacles'. Such is the case with the act of governing. Some of the intervening problems are divisions into Parties, 'Party loyalty', the need for 'new practices', the need for new 'institutions', and of course, the many linguistic, political shenanigans of political campaigning. Every policy or law has a 'receipt-iant', i.e. someone to whom it applies or who receives. That, or those, receipt-iants must be quantified, i.e., they must be 'counted'. If a policy applies to 'workers', it applies to all workers. Count them and insure they're all included. If a policy applies to all 'marriage', count them and insure all such institutions are included. Number is not subject to 'carving'. Quantify the results. 'Number' is never subject to the Linguistic Turn. Democracy is "for the People" and there's a lot of human beings in the world.

Governing is difficult because rendering abstractions into concrete results is difficult

The difficulty in governing 'enters' at the point where the relation between the Top and the Bottom must achieve concrete results. The Top formulates political abstractions and each and every individual,at the Bottom, awaits the 'reality' of those abstractions. Therefore, the problematic of governing by the direct relation of, the Government at the Top and the Many individuals at the Bottom, has an inherent difficulty. If you introduce, at this point, different Parties with different ideologies of what constitutes democracy, or even, a case of a miss-placed value-system, such as, economic values in lieu of democratic values, and you can form an 'appreciation' of the difficulty of administering democracy in a real way. The trajectory between the Top and the Bottom is fraught with inherent difficulties without the unnecessary introduction of obstacles by 'differing' Party ideologies and power struggles between Parties. I'm not saying we should not have political differences, I'm saying we should have a 'common' agreement on what constitutes democracy. Its simple. Its a government "of People, "by People" and, most important, "for the People". Unfortunately, the 'view' from the Top and the need for verbal generalizations and abstractions, renders the Many 'real' individuals at the Bottom into some sort of 'surrealistic configuration'. Try understanding a surrealistic painting by the use of 'realistic images' and you get the picture. There's already too much linguistic 'space' between the Top and the Bottom of government, without the unnecessary introduction of trivial values, of political opportunism, and political values inconsistent with real democratic values. We already have problems without the injection of misplaced economic values and 'basic' misunderstandings of what real democracy is all about. Where are the 'Statesmen'?

Why is governing so difficult?

Governing is not easy. So what is the problem? Many interpret the difficulty as one which lacks sufficient and efficient programs which would benefit the populace. But, what happens sometimes is not the inadequacy of programs or the lack of sincere intentions by those at the Top. Of course, the Top will always spell-out and campaign on their suggested programs or policies. To some that constitutes a sufficient effort to carry out the intended programs of the Top. But, oftentimes, even when every effort is made, the so-called implementation does not reach the Many people at the Bottom. Why? The real difficulty kicks in when a program conceived in abstraction (to include everyone intended) remains 'abstract' and fails to achieve concrete results. Too often, the different 'divided' States ( blue and red) do not help the transition from an abstract rendition to a concrete result, one that reaches every individual intended. This is a result of different Party loyalties and different Court interpretations of the intended program. Hence, we call such efforts, "symbolic" or the candidate or Leader, a "symbolic leader". The problem, in such a case, is that the relation between the Top and the Bottom in a Triadic or Three Branch Government, is not a 'real' relation; it remains abstract and is blocked at every step in its transition from abstraction to a 'reality' that 'touches' every intended individual at the Bottom. What is to be done? Unfortunately, democracy 'invites' too much 'obstructionism', and Party differences, the Top 1% ism. The Bottom has voted-in the Top. That should be sufficient to implement the suggested programs. Either we organize the Bottom in a manner that helps the transition from abstract to concrete or we invoke the First Amendment's right to "assemble". Unfortunately, we have to organize to get the right guy or gal in, and we also have to organize to implement 'abstractions' into 'concrete' results.

Government has a duty to govern

Government is for governing. There is no other function for a government. Its the most unnecessary 'function' for any one human being living in a condition of 'aloneness'. One human being does not need government. Sometimes we can see that 'phenomena' when we study the institution of marriage. Married people divorce because sometimes two human beings, for whatever reasons, either choose not to live together, or cannot live together. Now apply the same principle to millions of people 'living in a condition of togetherness' and you begin to see the necessity of Government and Law. Unfortunately, human beings require government and law lest they be at each others throat. The communal 'condition of togetherness' is much more complex than the institution of marriage between two people. Unfortunately, human nature is not such that it can exist in a 'condition of togetherness' without the help of government and law. That being said, a form of Government is given to us in the Constitution. but that form must be interpreted objectively by the Third Branch of government viz. the Judicial branch. The problems arise when the People at the Bottom of government begin to divide-up ( because there are millions of individuals) and begin to form into antagonistic political Parties and political 'groups' like Labor Unions, Teachers Unions, etc.. Labor Unions had to form because employers were not being fair in the distribution of wages, duties, and work hours. At one time 'child labor' was being used and exploited. My point is government is necessary and government must govern. It must govern all areas of the social where the 'freedom and equality' of the human individual is not being respected. A government has the right and duty to correct any known 'disrespect' and abuse of the human condition. Yes, we have Labor laws because they were necessary. But opposing Political Parties and ideologies are eroding those 'controlling mechanism' and the Supreme Court is complicit with them. A Democratic Government has a duty to the People it governs.

Corporations should not be in competition with the Government

Corporations are legal fictions created by State government. As such, they should not be in competition with the State or Federal government. It is said that some corporations hold more money than the government. True or not, the reason for their existence is to function in the economy and not the government. Corporate interests should remain within economic bounds and not extend into governmental functions. Corporations are fictitious, and hence not 'real'; that's a sufficient reason to exclude them completely from the operations of government. The fact that they are fictions already 'declares' that they, as such, are not real. They are fictional functionaries in the economy, not the government, and as such, should not have all the Constitutional protections that a 'real' individual has. Although they were originally given Constitutional protection, they cannot have all the Constitutional protections that a 'real' individual has. Obviously, since their creation, they have grown economically into economic giants. That's fantastic, but they are not 'democratic giants', and hence, should not be in competition with the government. Government has to remain within the principles established in the Constitution, and business functions, motives, should remain within the principles of a successful economy, viz. money and profits. A system of Democracy and a system of economic success should be kept separate and never should the twain meet. The reason being that government can never be operated on the principles of 'profits' and corporations can never be operated on the principles of 'freedom ' and 'equality'. If 'money and profits' ever creeps into our democratic structure, we are headed towards Plutocracy, or maybe Oligarchy. That would rob, the People of a Democracy, of their freedom and equality, and that, would cause the invocation of the First Amendment freedom "to assemble".

How can Capitalism help Democracy?

Capitalism received lots of help from government when it allowed businesses to incorporate. Business, in a Democracy, has always been a competitive affair. However, the freedom of citizens to compete with each other was rendered futile.( Although competition can still function on a smaller scale). The same can be said of the political concept of Equality. Once the corporate structure surfaced, equality between 'persons' in the economy, went out the window. Of course, any person who wishes, and has the 'where-with all', can form a corporation, but it has to have certain features, like a Board of Directors, a certain amount of capital, Articles of Incorporation, etc.. And even some individuals who use the corporate structure are not in the same 'economic boat'. There are small corporations that remain small. But, the problematic arises with huge corporations. The big corporation are 'small governments' within a larger National Government. But 'corporation-persons' only govern the functioning of the corporation within the economy. Nevertheless, because of the 'substitution' of money in place of the political values of 'freedom and equality', they have a large influence in the political aspects of the Nation. Since government, wittingly or unwittingly, helped create corporate structures, and by doing so, rendered freedom to compete and equality of 'personhood', relatively useless, why not impose a heavier tax-burden on them. ( originally, the Tax burden on profits was 90%, then 70%, and now is equal to that of the 'real individuals' in the social.) Also, couldn't they be required to contribute to so-called charitable work, as do 'real' persons who participate in 'social work'. The 'poorer' sections of cities could also stand some help. Whatever they do to contribute to real democracy could be a deductible item. They have to keep 'books' and 'records' of all activities they engage in, so keep track, get a deduction, etc., and contribute towards real democracy. It seems 'obscene' for a huge 'person' only to want to be 'more huge'.( in another 'language' that's called 'greed'. Corporations could play an 'equitable' and a 'balancing' role in society. They are the ones driving the government towards 'socialism'.

Party loyalty can 'limit' democracy

All Party ideology within a Democratic Nation should be 'designed' to benefit the People at the Bottom of Democratic Government. There're no such thing as a 'self-serving' party, nor any other politically, selfish factors, within a democratically structured government. The recent tensions between Democrats and Republicans seem to be ideological tensions, as distinguished from 'democratic tensions'. All tensions within a competing Party-system in a democratic government should be resolvable to the 'benefit' of the People. However, if either of the two parties is more concerned with Party ideology than with the millions of people in a democracy, its not a 'democratic' Party. It becomes a Party that was organized to benefit the political power within the structure of the Party-system, which can then be used as a means for self-aggrandizement. This is not the fault of the structure of government, but the 'failing' of the 'intent' of the individual within the Party system. If any Party is more concerned with perpetuating its position within the power structure of a democracy, it does not have the People 'at heart'. All 'political issues' or differences between Parties should be resolvable to the benefit of the People. That's what we are; we are a Democracy; a government of the People, by the People, and for the People; not a government of the 'rich'( Plutocracy), nor a government of a 'select few'( Oligarchy). Hence, the issues between most 'political antagonisms', can be resolved by asking oneself, " How can the people better benefit from a resolution of this antagonism". If the answer is, Well, "it will benefit me", or, "it will benefit corporations" or, "it will benefit the ideology within my Party", then the effort is not 'democratic'; it becomes a 'wasted effort' that could have benefited the People. If a sitting President says,"I'll by-pass Congress, if I have to, and benefit the People 'directly',(to avoid political maneuvering); that would be real democracy.

What party-loyalty 'brings forth'.

We have already mentioned the harmful effects of so-called Party loyalty. Party-loyalty by any name could be properly based on differing versions of what is good for Democracy. Of course, in a Democracy, no political party should be against Democracy, since that is the underlying political principle that permits, in the first place, those 'differing' Parties to exist. That's only common sense. The subtle injection of economic values into the political sphere is very easy, but that is not democratic, and can result in a common, but harmful mistake. Basically, the harmful result is a re-valuation of basic democratic values. Money and economic values do not constitute a 'democratic principle'. Although this is sometimes difficult to see, the substitution of economic values for Democratic values can result in the eventual transformation of Democracy into a Plutocracy. Money and economic success has no bearing on the basis of democratic values, viz. the Freedom and Equality of every individual. Democracy does not, and cannot, function on an economic or profit motive. The subtle substitution that only permits the wealthy or well-to-do to participate in political activity is harmful to democratic values. Freedom and equality are the only fundamental values of a democracy, otherwise we place money and possessions as a condition for being involved in politics. The economy in a democracy is important, but it can never be the driving force behind the political values of Freedom and Equality. The economy does not function on the basis of Freedom and Equality and Democracy does not function on the basis of profits and possessions. The principles underlying participation in political activity must recognize the Freedom and Equality of every individual, otherwise, we are just giving lip-service to Democracy, and practicing Plutocracy. That is not a 'democratic result'.

In Democracy, the Top comes from the Bottom

In a real democracy the Top of governing comes from the Bottom, or from the People. In other forms, the Top functions by a different principle. Of course, the other forms of government, are also 'run' by 'individuals from the bottom', but the 'claim' to power is different from that of Democracy. In the Divine Right of Kings form, the Top claims 'Divine guidance' in the establishment of 'Rule' or 'Government'. In Dictatorship, the 'Top' is 'assumed' or 'taken' by force. In Plutocracy, Government is rule by the 1%. In Oligarchy, Rule is by the 'select few' who are, apparently, guided by power( not necessarily money). In any case, in non-democratic forms of government, the People have, little to no, influence. But, in a democracy, the People are the very source of political power. In a real democracy, the People at the Bottom are considered the essence of government. It is they, by way of the Constitution, who confer power to Political Office. Elections are the means of selecting those who will assume the positions of power. But, unfortunately, even elections are subject to tampering. (Leave it to the ingenuity of human kind to find ways around anything, even elections.) For example, stuffing ballot boxes; tampering with voting machines; erroneous counting methods; requiring I.D.'s for voting; and the favorite , Gerrymandering; and, I'm sure, many other ways. The question, I have relates to the use of the computer to implement the voting process. Computers and science, both, have 'quantified' a 'language' that has led us into 'Quantum mechanics' and the 'Quantum Universe', but we still live in the 'everyday world'. We are told that we live in a 'quantum world', and we can't count 'votes' properly in a Democracy? How can our technology be used to properly count votes in the everyday world in which we live? We count the People( Census), why can't we count their votes without having to 'go to the polls'? In a Democracy the Top comes from the Bottom. Are the 'Polls' outdated?

Are 'demonstrations' democratic?

Yes, they are 'presumed' democratic because they are 'organized' and designed to bring about change. Is it the right kind of change? That will have to remain a 'presumption' until the reasons for the demonstration have been 'aired' and set out. If they have already been 'set out', and they relate to the freedom and equality of the individuals at the Bottom of government, the demonstration is democratic. The words 'is democratic', 'means' the right to "peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances". The People in every type of government, regardless the type, have an inherent right to demonstrate. If Government abuses its power to govern all the People under its jurisdiction, in an equal manner, 'demonstrations' are the only way to make known the 'wishes' of the Bottom. Of course, this presupposes that the 'demonstration' began as a 'request' and that, having failed, resort to Numbers becomes a necessity. The 'strength' of the 'condition of togetherness' of the People must be respected. Government can never be more important than the People it purports to 'govern'. A demonstration is not an election; but is the only way to let the Top know what has become necessary. The only solution for the Top is to 'listen', but if its not doing that, it is creating a tension between the Top and the Bottom. "Petitioning for Redress of grievances" becomes a necessity. 'Demonstration' is a tool of democracy, but demonstrations can be used within any form of government. The People cannot be ignored, its their world. The 'strength' is with Numbers and the Numbers are at the Bottom of government. Even so-called, Power at the Top or the One, has to listen to the Bottom. The people are the Many and its their world.

What should be the motive for becoming a States-Person?

Do individuals who seek political office have a reason or motive for seeking Office? Obviously, they must; but, what should that motive be? Of course, all Politicians and States-Persons come from the People who constitute that particular Nation. The individual at the Top is always a 'member' of the populace. But, what political values should such an individual 'possess' or what political values can justify the assumption of the political position? Of course, any 'political position' is a position of Power, because it purports to Rule, Govern, or Dictate. If the Top of government dictates, it's a Dictatorship and it dictates, period. No other considerations need to be addressed. If the Top rules, it Rules, period. But, if the Top Governs, it must have a 'platform' and a general idea of what it means 'to govern'. In a Democracy, the individual who ascends to the Top must do so to govern the People at the Bottom. There should not be any other motive for purporting to govern. The only reason or motive for 'running' for Office in a Democratic government should be to implement, or better perfect, democracy. This already requires the individual to be less selfish and to act in a 'representative' manner; in a selfless manner. This necessity should compel the candidate to embrace democratic, political values and to distance him/herself from economic values; simply put, from money as a motive or reason for seeking political Office. How is that to be done? By implementing policies and Laws that protect the Freedom and Equality of the individual at the Bottom of Government. A States-person protects the Freedoms and Equalities that allowed him/her to ascend to the position of power. This is already selfless. But, some of the policies and Laws already on the books have been changed and attenuated, in a manner designed to substitute economic values; i.e. , money, in place of political values, viz. Freedom and Equality. Democratic values must be strengthened, even if it means to change the 'changed' Law and Policies back to what they were and to do away with Citizens United. Where are our States-Persons?

"Government" is not necessary for one individual on an island.

If there's one individual stranded on an Island, all by him/her self, s/he would not need the institution of Government. It seems that the need for government arises when the Island gradually becomes more populated. Maybe ,even two individuals would not need Government, but as the number of individuals increases, the need arises. Why? Sadly, because people would not be able to get along, if there was no 'requirement' or 'institution' compelling them to live in a 'condition of togetherness' under Law. Idealism, or Utopianism, or Anarchy, is for daydreamers, they are not functional. Law must enter the picture in the establishment of Government. Of course, Dictatorships don't need Law, because they have 'force'. But, Democracy must have Law. Plutocracy or Oligarchy would also use Law, but it would always favor the established structure of the Government or the Social. Not so, with Democracy. The freedom and equality of each individual in a Democracy is held together by Law. Law is the integument of the Government and the Social in a Democracy. Without Law, no Nation is in a position to protect the Freedom and Equality of the Individual. Its sad to say that People would not know how to survive in any large 'grouping' of individuals. Sooner or later, there would occur the injection of 'personal points of view' into the 'grouping' or the 'condition of togetherness'. That's why Law is necessary to the individual, the government, and the Social. Law regulates the Bottom of Democracy, but it also regulates the Top of Government. Law applies to the One as well as to the Many. In todays world, we not only need Democratic Government, but we also need Law. That's the only way to protect the humanity, dignity and integrity of the human condition.

Is the "State" a "persona ficta"?

J.J. Rousseau said that "the State is a 'Persona Ficta', but, is that really the case? Well, the State is certainly not a "Persona", but it certainly is a fiction. Why is it a fiction, simply because it is a linguistic fiction or a high level abstraction that encompasses and includes all the real individuals under its jurisdiction. But that does not make it a Persona. Of course, the term "Persona' is also being used as a high level abstraction implying that its a Person. That's what happens when we reason from the Top to the Bottom. That's probably also the source of the so-called Linguistic Turn. But, the real people are at the Bottom of government and certainly not at the Top. In government, or the "State", the real people are at the Bottom and were there before the Top even came into existence. In formulating concepts of government, we usually address the structure of the Top first. That's what the 'generality' of abstractions do to us. But all that was before Triadic government or Three Branch Government. In todays concept, the Many at the Bottom ( the essence )are essential to the formation of government and to the function of government. The people at the Bottom are the individuals that 'confer' power to the functional Top. We would not have a Top if it were not for the People at the Bottom. Truly the concept of the State is a general, high level abstraction and in that sense is an abstraction, and hence, a Fiction, but it cannot be a "Persona". Persona implies 'person' and 'person' 'implies' real individuals. That's probably also why the 'corporation' is considered a 'person' or "legal fiction". Twisted reasoning. To be sure, Rousseau's concept of the State is a fiction, not a "persona"; that's also the way the status of the corporation was conceived. Neither, of these two 'misplaced fictions' can be more important than the real People at the Bottom of Democratic Government.

People need government, but government is only the 'form' required to govern.

People need Government, but Government is only the necessary form that 'governing' must take. The 'necessary' form I refer too is the Democratic form. Its a 'necessary form' because the structure gives all the People their rightful place in the governing process. The People constitute the essence of governing. Other forms of 'governing' do not consider the people as important to the form. In those forms, the people are there to be told what to do. Their views are unimportant and they do not participate in the process of governing; much like 'subjects' in the old Divine Right of Kings type of rule, or, like the absolute type of rule in Dictatorship. People do not select the type of 'governing' they wish to come under. Through no choice of their own, they're born into a form of government. ( "there, but for the Grace of God, go I" ) No One individual or, individuals, has a Right or the 'power' to govern 'others',much less, the Many at the Bottom of the relation of, the Top and the Bottom, of Government. Yes, People need Government; Government does not 'need' People; hell, government wouldn't even exist, if it were not for People. People are 'more' the products of an 'act of Divinity'(assuming there are such) than Government ever will. Governments are 'arbitrary set-ups' of certain individuals. ( 'Democracy' is fortunate in having had the 'right' Founding Fathers) All People need Government. Unfortunately, not all forms of government are democratic. But, we seem to be going in the right direction. Of course, this last statement takes us out into the International spheres of Government. Of course, and without a doubt, they are also 'Peoples', and they deserve Democratic governments, also. How is the United Nations handling democracy? People are important, Nationally, and equally important, Internationally.

The institution of 'governing' or Government has always been with us.

The institution of 'governing' has always been with us. It probably began with small groupings or 'tribes'. Of course, they had a 'chief' or leader. But, the individuals in the 'groupings' or tribes were also 'families', and may have been 'families', before they became tribes. Family, as a unit, was not problematic, because the 'relationship' between them was a 'blood' relationship. However, the 'social' or 'political' relation was another thing. As the number of individuals grew, the 'social unit' became larger. It's said that, in the Middle Ages, one of the Kings problems was the inability to exert individual control over a large populace. Authority had to be 'divided' up over areas which were governed by appointed 'leaders' within the area. After a while, those 'leaders' took over areas in competition with the Kings authority. Power at the Top was diluted and eventually dismantled. Early America and State entities had Governors ( still has them) until a Constitutional Federal authority was set up, which was called "President". But, States were, and are, governed by Governors; kind of similar to the 'problems' of the King in antiquity, but now that 'friction' is called "States Rights". To some extent, we still have that old problematic, now called Federal and local (State) authority. Well, the Constitution should have resolved that issue when it states, "We the People...". We have Federal and State jurisdictions, but we are a 'People government', "of People", "by People", and "for, the same 'of' and 'by', People". The 'People' referred too in the Constitution includes 'all' the People, including the People within the States. We are a 'People' government and the power to govern comes from all the People, at the Bottom of the 'relation' of governing.

In governing, the One and the Many became the Top and the Bottom of today

In governing, the One and the Many became the Top and the Bottom. The Bottom is where the People are, and the previous concepts about the One and the Many have been 'clarified' or at least, we have re-situated the 'essence' of the 'condition of togetherness'. Obviously, its not at the Top; its at the Bottom. The essence of 'governing' is not in the same place as in Dictatorship, or in Theocracy. Plutocracy, and Oligarchy are less 'individualized' or 'focused', at the Top, but they are not democratic. But, for some years now, we have had a new 'player' in the neighborhood, and that would be "Information". The Information Society has turned the relation between the Top and the Bottom topsy-turvy. Todays advances are in the 'information sphere' instead of the 'social' or technological spheres. Technology has brought us a long way, but our trajectory, in the direction of knowledge, now goes from manipulations within the 'sphere' of "knowing more and more about less and less", to an incrementally even 'lesser' sphere; that would be 'Information'. What happens to Freedom and Equality? Well, freedom and equality still remain freedom and equality. Within our Constitutional, political system, that will never change. Of course, the system has carved out a category to try to deal with this phenomena; its called the "public sphere" and the "private sphere". The relation of 'governing' is not effected by the information society. That relation is essential to governing and hence the Constitution preserves that relation along with the Freedom and Equality of every individual at the Bottom. The Constitution ensures that we have a democratic structure that governs Free and Equal individuals and is not concerned with 'governing' on an 'information level'. Individuals at the Bottom 'created' an information society, so that's just another thing that has to stay clear of the political structure designed to preserve Democracy. Human beings can never 'work' themselves 'free' of the Constitutional form that 'constitutes' us. Freedom and Equality has Dignity, Integrity, and Divinity.

Democracy works, if the Bottom actively persues Freedom and Equality

Democracy will work, but only if the Bottom actively pursues the Freedom and Equality protected by the Constitution. It's the Freedom and Equality at the Bottom that establishes the nature of real democracy. Truly, the Top of government is Democratic, but the essence of democracy is at the Bottom with the People. Without a democratic Bottom, the Top would only be a 'paper democracy'. The Top of a Democratic government is obliged to govern pursuant to the Constitutional requirements as set forth in the Constitution. In the same manner, the Bottom must exercise their Right to Freedom and Equality in a real way. This right demands that individuals participate in their government by becoming 'democratic' individuals that help consolidate the Bottom in a democratic fashion and to insure that the elected officials are performing their duties as true Representatives of the People. Representatives have a delegated duty to carry out the duties of their office; the Individual, a duty to live 'freely and equally' and to support the governmental structure that protects those Rights. Here we have a dilemma; government creates 'economic persons' called "legal fictions", viz. corporations, and then protects them as 'real people' under the Fourteenth Amendment. Its obvious that the corporate structure has been given an 'economic grasp' that no real individual can compete with.( There goes competition) Now, the social or the Bottom, has 'real' People and 'economic persons' living alongside each other. Well, we live in a 'real society', and don't have to live in a 'corporate society'. Don't get me wrong; Corporations per se are not 'bad', 'evil', or 'unnecessary', but the government that creates them should impose some duty that off-sets the advantage they have been given. For example; Why should they pay the same amount of taxes that real people do? They are not real, hence they should pay taxes like a "legal fiction", that has been given a larger economic grasp. Once upon a time, they paid 90%, then 70%, now the same as real human beings. The system is 'loaded' against real people. Where are our Economists and Statesmen?

They say, Democracy is the best form of Government; can that be demonstrated?

Everyone has heard that Democracy is the best form of government; can that fact be demonstrated? Well, lets try. Democracy is established and described in the Constitution as a Three Branch Government. The Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial. Of course, the Legislative is mentioned first, because its the most important Branch and because it has a method of selecting Representatives, for the people at the Bottom. The Representatives of the People are elevated to the Top, in a 'Representative capacity', and only in a Representative capacity. They legislate laws and policies. That pretty much situates power and authority at the Bottom with the People. At any point in time and under 'certain circumstances', the Bottom,(not the Representatives),can "peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances". Who can assemble? Everyone at the Bottom!; that's pretty much a Constitutional Right to revolution. Of course, the term "revolution" has acquired a bad connotation and is usually bantered about as a 'bad move', whether the assembly is 'peaceable, or not'. If the assembly happens to be 'peaceable', the authorities have many ways to make it appear 'un-peaceable', and hence, quash it. Autocracy, Plutocracy, and Oligarchy, are pretty much the same, they have their power at the Top; Autocracy, is rule by 'the One', Plutocracy is rule by 'the so-called 1 %', Oligarchy is rule by a 'select few'. And what about the millions at the Bottom? Well, they don't have much of a say-so. The government is pretty-much fixated at the Top and can't be changed. Democracy is not perfect; but, it's always in motion; Power and authority may be 'fixed' at the Top, but, only for a period of time, and, 'strength in numbers' and 'the authority of the vote' circulates at the Bottom, among all the People; ready to change and improve the government, if necessary. How can Democracy, not be the best form?

The People are at the Bottom; the Bottom is also called, the 'social'.

Today, the 'essence' of 'governing' is also known as the 'social'. That's where all the People are situated, in the ancient relation of the 'One' and the 'Many', or, to put it in more contemporary 'terms', that's where the People are situated in the relation of the Top and the Bottom of government. The ancients used to refer to this linguistic relation as the One and the Many. The two polies could not be reconciled because the 'linguistic source' of the terms was the same. The 'One' was at the Top and the 'Many' was at the Bottom of the governing relation. But, the power to govern had to come from somewhere, and I imagine they sought that 'power' somewhere 'above' the tern called 'the One'. Probably, that's why they came up with the concept of the "king" and eventually justified the concept with the 'quasi-religious' concept of the "Kings Two Bodies". One was Divine, the other was Mundane. That doesn't work anymore. They never went to the term, 'the Many' for the inspiration of government. In todays governing, the inspiration for the power of governing comes from the Bottom, viz. the social, all the individuals in their 'condition of togetherness'. If there is any divine components to todays government its the 'divinity' of each and every human being at the Bottom. But, we no longer need a 'divine concept' to govern the Many. The recognized concepts of the Freedom and Equality of each individual works perfectly. Today, we don't have those ancient problems, but, we do have problems. Contemporary problems deals with the many 'twisted versions' of what the term, "the social" means. The term 'social' has acquired an "ism", and just as the term "commune" ( which is a Biblical term) acquired an "ism' and became a much detested term, "communism", the term "social" has become "socialism", a much detested term. The essence of government i.e. the Bottom has become 'contaminated' by linguistic shenanigans.

The economy is important to Democracy; but Freedom and Equality is more important.

Don't get me wrong; the economy is a very important part of the 'condition of togetherness'. When I say, don't mix the value system of the economy with the value system of democracy, I do not mean that the economy is not an important part of democracy. My only contention is that the two value systems are 'motored' by different values. Democracy and democratic government is 'motored' by the freedom and equality of the individual, while the economy is 'motored' by profits. Democratic government cannot be 'motored' by means of the profit motive and the economy cannot be 'motored' by means of the freedom and equality of each individual. The two value systems apply to their respective domains within the social and its obvious that the two should be kept separate. Corporations are "legal fictions" and they are creatures of the economy and their activity must remain within economic activity. They should not get involved in political activity. Say good-by to Citizens United. There has to be a way to monitor the costs and expenditures of political campaigns in a manner that prevents the rich or the 'well heeled' from having an advantage over someone less fortunate. The Freedom and Equality of every individual should inspire individuals to run for public office, not profits. If we allow only the 'well-heeled' to run for public office we run the danger that those in office will solidify their advantage and favor policy that conserves that advantage. That's the royal-road to Plutocracy. No, politics must continue to be motored by the freedom and equality of every individual within the social. Although money plays an important part in politics, we cannot allow the 'profit motive' to be the 'motor' of our democracy. That would destroy democracy and without democracy, we run the risk of a 'fixed' form of government; one that favors the Top instead of the Bottom. If that does not result in a Plutocracy; it will result in an Oligarchy.