Democracy cannot be 'changed'. Capitalism can be 'influenced' and hence 'changed'.

Democracy cannot be changed, because the 'People' in their 'condition of togetherness', constitute the 'underlying' essence of the political principle of Democracy. Capitalism can be changed because the 'basic functionary' is the Corporation. As we all know, corporations are recognized as Legal Fictions and are protected by the Constitution. That means corporations are not actually 'real human beings', as are the 'real People' that constitute the essence of democracy. A corporation is constituted by its Articles of Incorporation, that spells out the nature of the Corporation, and which functions by means of its by-laws, and in accordance with corporate laws. Well, Capitalism is a form of economic activity that is driven by the profits engine. Corporations are the creation of the State. Hence, the way to influence economic activity is to influence the manner in which the corporation functions. Of course, we 'cannot influence' the 'profit engine' because that is its main 'motor'. It can't function without it. Hence, we must structure the corporation in such manner that it becomes a 'good citizen' and functions as a 'real individual' functions in a democracy. This would make corporations more democratic. Hence, corporations would be more 'citizen-like' and less 'greedy'. The 'centerpiece' of most corporate activity is greed. If they are 'given' more democratic principles (after all they are creatures of the State), its possible to 'modify' the 'profits engine', and hence, to make corporations more democratic. A Capital-ocracy can replace a 'meritocracy', or a pure Capitalism that leads to 'greed' by the 1%, and hence, Plutocracy. You can't do away with Capitalism, or the Corporation, but you can influence corporate activity at the very basis of its existence. Government needs more control over its 'Legal Fictions'

Individuals living in a Nation have 'privacy', Nations do not 'need' nor 'have' privacy.

Individuals, or human beings, all have a 'right to privacy'. That's should be obvious to everyone. Nations, being verbal abstractions and having a 'National Identity', do not have privacy, nor do they need privacy. Their activities are completely 'representational', and hence, have political value only to the extent that they 'represent the Individuals'. Following the same line of reasoning, that the individual is more important than the Nation; the Individual constitutes the 'flesh and bone' of the 'abstract Nation'. Don't get me wrong, the Nation is important, even 'very important'. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the fact that its an 'abstract entity' with tremendous power. But, the individuals 'compose' the Nation; they create a Nation to 'protect', 'provide' and 'organize politically', 'socially', 'legally', and 'institutionally', the General Welfare of the Individual. Nations are 'not' living entities, and since their function is a 'representational one', they cannot have a 'right to privacy'. What does that mean? It means that complete political transparency is essential to the 'representative' function. Nations don't have 'secrets'. They're 'transparent vehicles' for the 'abstract function' of political 'representation' of the human condition. Hence, Nations cannot 'spy' on their own constituents. That would entail an attribution of 'having its own existence' as some 'independent' political entity, with its own 'life' principle. That is ludicrous and cannot be. Sure Nations are important and even, very important, but lets not go overboard. Nations exist because 'real' individuals 'created' them. Nations need to understand the 'political part' they 'play' in the 'representational function' of the political 'condition of togetherness'. Nations cannot 'spy' on the 'privacy' of the Individual. That's a 'wrong use' of 'political power'.

Another problem of democracy are the People themselves.

The most basic problem of Democracy are the People themselves. Its very easy to 'live' in a Democracy, but the People are also obligated to live democratically. What does it mean, to live a democratic life? Living in Freedom and Equality requires that the individuals treat the Other Individual as Free and Equal. I don't mean to give 'lip service' to the slogan, I mean to actually treat your neighbor as equally Free and Equal, as one considers ones own self. One problematic in that area is the issue of racial discrimination. There are no inferior races; nor superior races. There are only human beings. All Human beings are Equally Free and Equally Equal. No Race can claim superiority, and hence, no Race should discriminate against another Race. Racial discrimination in any social manner, is wrong. And since, we must live in a 'condition of togetherness', which means we need Government, no Governmental Institution can, nor should, discriminate against the human condition. A Government that supports social institutions that are discriminatory, should not exist. That's why the Right to assemble is allowed to be in the Constitution. Its no wonder that there are Revolutions. Why is the human condition so weak? Why does it consider its own self, as superior, or better, than the Other. Its obvious that we are all the 'same', and in the 'same boat'. What happened? What happened was that we 'silently' and relentlessly 'slipped' into 'economic standards' that have nothing to do with Political standards. As 'Individuals' we 'became Plutocrats'. We are 'Plutocratic individuals'; hence, no wonder the 'powers that be', want a Plutocratic Government. That would be discrimination by the 'Haves' against the 'Have-nots'. That would not be racial, but equally as harmful. Unfortunately, the problem with people, is People.

A danger to Democracy is a Capitalism that succumbs to its own value system.

A big danger to Democracy is the substitution of the 'political value system' by the 'economic value system' of Capitalism. It goes without saying, that in order for Capitalism to 'work', individuals involved in economic activity must devote themselves to its many functions. Of course, the 'main economic activity' is that of 'making a profit'. Huge 'profits' equals, economic success. However, the success of the economy is dependent on the political value system that encourages economic activity and allows it the 'freedom to function'. The profits are made by 'economic actors', not 'political actors'. Of course, the main difference in the two, is that 'Political actors' are concerned with the Democratic values of Freedom and Equality, while 'economic actors' are concerned with 'making a profit'. Capitalism can thrive in a Democracy. But, and its at this point where the danger arises, Capitalism must not 'substitute' economic values for political values of Freedom and Equality. Its very easy, for the 'rich' to 'feel' that they are in control of the Government. But, the truth is, that its the other way around. Its the political values of Freedom and Equality, that afford it the freedoms of function without obstructions. That is the 'political posture' that grants to corporations their 'fictional existence', and the privilege to 'keep their profits', not to mention, being taxed like a 'real human being' and not as a 'fictitious entity'; Tax 'avoidances' and 'evasions'; and having been 'granted' an 'immortality', free of 'medical problems', not available to real human beings. A successful economy is a great thing, but a Free and Equal Democracy is greater.

A Nation is just an 'abstract political entity' that must exist.

A Nation is an abstraction; its an abstract 'political entity' that must exist. It must exist because it has within its geographical boundaries, many Individuals, or, stated differently, many human beings who exist 'naturally'. Nations are 'power points' on the surface of the World. They embrace a geographical area that has acquired a 'Political Identity', and henceforth, become a Nation. Nevertheless, they are mere 'linguistic abstractions' that have a political Identity and hence, have an 'attribution' of Power. All Nations have Power. However, Political Power is not a Power that should be used to destroy the 'individual' human condition, or the human condition in its 'condition of political togetherness'. Humans are real; Nations are abstractions. To be sure, they are necessary abstractions, but they were established by human beings, and not, the reverse. Nations have a tremendous duty to their own People, as well as to the other Nations, which also have the same duty. Of course, duty to ones own People is 'domestic politics' while, duty to other Nations, is International Politics. In either case, the human condition exists as a 'real condition', while the Political entities exist, as 'necessary political abstractions' with Power. On the International sphere, Individuals do not interact with each Other. Only Nations interact with Other Nations. Nations are the entities that can cause War, not Individuals. Yet, Individuals can cause 'revolutions' within their own 'political areas'. But, these 'revolutions' should not 'spill over' into the International domain. If they do, they're not Revolutions; its the destruction of the human condition, or, 'pure violence'. How sad; instead of coming together, human beings destroy each other.

A Democracy must have 'Law and Order', but not 'all' Law and Order is acceptable.

A Democracy must have Law and Order; of course, not just 'any kind' of Law, nor just 'any kind' of Order. The Law and Order must apply to the Individuals situated at the Bottom of the Democracy. The Top of Government always has Power and hence, can impose Order in a Social. Of course, the Law must also apply to the 'social and economic' institutions, as well as the 'interactions' between Individuals. Nevertheless, the Law and the Order imposed cannot limit the 'Freedom and Equality' of the Individual. To do so, is to limit the very essence of Democracy. Individuals must live in a 'condition of togetherness'. They cannot survive alone. But, to live 'together' does not require that they give up their individual 'freedom and equality'. The human condition creates Government: Government does not create the human condition. Hence, on a 'scale of Equalities', all Governments must know that the human condition is 'more important' than any form of Governmental Institution. Government is a 'necessary Institution', but its 'value' as a necessary Institution does not equate to the value of human life. Of course, Government must have Power, but, the power to Govern is not the power to 'destroy' or 'abuse' the human condition. Human Life is sacred, unfortunately, not all human beings respect the Freedom and Equality of their political 'brothers and sisters' or their political 'neighbors'. Hence, not all human beings are qualified to serve as Leaders in their own Government. How sad, 'Governments' abuse their power, and human beings cannot 'handle' the power 'granted them' by their own political institution.

Capitalism without constraints leads to Plutocracy

Capitalism without constraints leads to Plutocracy. Plutocracy; a Government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich, is not Democratic. At best, its a Government that uses the People, at the Bottom of Government, to make more profits, but the profits benefit 'a few', and never the Population as a 'whole'. Plutocracy results from the concentration of profits, money, or property, at the Top, or the 1%. Some will say that Capitalists work hard and hence, are entitled to the benefits of their labor. That, may be true, but don't kid yourself, the basic reason Capitalism works, is because the 'corporate structure' is protected by the Constitution. Without Constitutional protection, the corporation would not survive. The corporation is considered 'a person' by the Constitution. Of course, everybody knows that a corporation is not a 'person'. A corporation is just an Article of Incorporation issued by a Government. Its no wonder, they are 'too big to fail'; they're not real, you can't put it in jail. But, that, in itself, is not the problem. The problem is that they have been given a 'fictional nature', and also the potential for a huge, incomparable, 'economic grasp'. But, that's O.K.. The problem is, they have not been given 'democratic duties'. It seems fair that in exchange for having been given such a big advantage in economic activity, that they would also have 'democratic duties'. As it is, they are completely motivated by the profit instinct. Their sole goal is 'to have a good year', and the People be damned. Government needs more control over its 'fictional population'. The Government, literally, created them, so why not control them.

'Political values' are essential to the 'strength' of a Nation.

'Political values' are essential to the 'strength' of a Nation. Political values are the values that help 'structure' and 'hold' together the polity. A 'Polity', or, a Nation, must have 'cohesive principles' that mold the 'integrity', or, stated differently, the 'integrated nature' of the Polity. Those principles are commonly called 'political values'. They differ from 'economic values' and 'moral values'. Economic values apply to the economy. Moral values apply to the Individuals within the Polity and the economy. As essential as economic and moral values are, to the human condition, they cannot be inter-mixed with the political values. The reason for that is that political values apply to the Nation, 'as a whole', or, as a 'political entity'. The Polity or Nation must hold together 'as a Polity'. Of course, many issues are involved in the integrity of a Nation, but, the essential one is the manner in which it holds together the 'condition of togetherness' of its own People. Without People of a 'similar disposition' towards the Polity, it cannot hold together. Hence the importance of the 'mode of governing'. To 'govern' is to 'hold together', without adverse effect towards the 'individuals' in the polity. A Government can be 'weak' on a National basis (because it doesn't treat its People right) and, of course, still be strong on the International scene, because every Nation, as an established Nation, has Power on the International scene. On the International scene, Power is a 'given'. Nevertheless, the Human being is the most essential aspect of both the National, as well as the International scene. The human race will always exist; political entities or Nations, may not.

'Political' Freedom and 'Universal' Equality should be the essential elements of a Nation.

'Freedom' of the Individual, in a 'condition of togetherness', is a 'political value'. But, 'Equality' of the Individual is a Universal value. It has no political boundaries. The 'Many Individuals', living in a 'condition of togetherness', need political values that help hold the Nation together. Nevertheless, the Individual in the 'political state' of 'togetherness', is a Universal element, i.e. the human condition, as such, is the same everywhere. Human beings are human beings, and as such, are Equal, within any, and all, political entities. This fact, already makes the human condition of Equality, a Universal value. The end result of this attitude towards the human condition is that, no Nation can restrict or restrain the expression of humanity to some limiting political standard or political value. The values of a 'Political entity' are different from the values of the 'human condition', and, to be sure, and to put it very generally, politics cannot limit the expressions of Humanity. To do so, is to place political values on a higher level than human values. Of course, political values are absolutely necessary, because we all live in a 'condition of togetherness'. By the same token, all Individuals have 'political preferences'. But, if the Individual cannot tolerate, the guy next to him, or his 'neighbor', as being Free and Equal as s/he is, s/he cannot help to 'establish' or 'structure' a political entity. It is a 'twisted' form of politics, to claim to be 'revolutionary', when in fact, the motivations for a 'revolt' are simply acts of violence against the human condition. That, would be, plain and simple, Terrorism.

A Real Revolution must have National principles that serve to Unify a Nation.

A Real Revolution must have National principles that serve to unify a Nation. A 'revolt' cannot be a Revolution if it does not purport to replace certain 'principles' with other more 'National' principles. Its relatively easy to be against 'something' without having 'something else' to replace it. That kind of activity 'reduces down' to a mere activity without underlying principles. The principles that justify a real revolution must be 'Political' in nature or 'National'. They cannot be 'religious' because religion is not a 'political principle'. Religion is a Universal Principle and cannot serve to Unify a Nation, because a Nation is a Political entity. Of course, a Nation can have a 'Religious preference', but that is entirely different from trying to unify a Nation with Religious Principles. That 'mistake' can be justifiably viewed as a return to the 'Divine Right of Kings' concept of Government. It didn't work in the past, and it cannot work in the future. If that 'mistake' also involves the destruction of the human condition, it can never be a real revolution because the 'human condition' is the very basis of a National Identity. A National Identity should be characterized by National principles that also characterize the Individuals living within that Nation. All Individuals are Free and Equal and are free to 'grant Power' to their National identity. The bottom line is that no Nation can hold together without its People. To destroy 'a People', any People, is to 'destroy' a Nation. A real revolution needs 'National principles' and 'humane principles' that 'help' hold a Nation together. At best an 'unreal Revolution' is just a 'small War' and no number of Individuals have the 'Power' to declare War.

Nations have Power, because they 'must'!

Nations have Power, because they must have Power. Obviously, a Nation 'without Power' is non-existent, and cannot exist as a political entity. Power is commensurable with Nation-hood. But, no Nation comes into existence from some 'invisible source', or 'place' that grants it Power. No! Every nation has a history. Every nation evolved into a political 'posture' that attributed power to the Top of the political organization. In order to determine from where any one Nation gets its power, it is sufficient to determine a 'certain point' in its historical past. That particular past will reflect that 'inexorable relation' called a 'political relation', or, that 'ancient relation' of the One and the Many. The Many, or, the multitudes, will become the Bottom of the relation and the Top of the relation will become the Nation or Government. But, it is important to understand that the 'occupants' at the Top of the relation are 'the same', or as 'Equal', as the 'occupants' at the Bottom, or, the multitudes, of the relation. All Individuals, or stated differently, all human beings, regardless their 'seeming differences', are Free, in nature, and particularly, within any political entity, and, in the same manner, all are 'Equally human'. National histories reflect the point where a Nation 'gets' its power. Democracies should reflect, in their history, where the 'People' grants power to the Top. Non-democracies should wonder and ponder, why they never got a 'grant of power' from the People they purport to govern. Nations cannot exist without political power, and they can't get power from some 'invisible source'; hence, real Power, only exists, where the Peoples of the World, have granted it.

Nations have Power; but they also have People, and People have Freedom and Equality.

All Nations have Power, because its an essential element of the 'condition of togetherness'. But, the individual who exists in the 'condition of togetherness' has Freedom and Equality. Of course, Power can be misused by a Nation, as can Freedom and Equality by the Individual. Hence, we must make a distinction between the 'exercise of Power' and the 'act of governing'. Power; 'demands', it compels; it orders; it Rules. Governing; arranges with Law; it structures 'relations'; it educates; it provides for the general Welfare of the Individual, as well as the economic well-being of the Individual. In other words, Governing 'serves' the People, while Power rules 'arbitrarily'. To be more specific, democratic government 'serves' those who created Democratic Government and those who elected the leaders into a 'place' of 'leadership and Power'. Non-Democratic Governments rule the people. Nevertheless, all 'Peoples' have the Right to 'Revolution'. In Non-Democratic Governments, revolts can occur because the People feel abused or want new Leadership. In Democratic Governments, Revolution is a 'Right' that is enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution. The 'Right of assembly' and the 'Right to petition for redress of grievances' are Constitutionally protected. Hence, the structure of Democratic Government renders possible, a harmonizing of the 'Power at the Top' and the 'Rights at the Bottom'. But, this cannot be accomplished, without the 'cooperation' of the People; those at the Top, and those, at the Bottom. We need more Statesmen, and less 'unhappy' People, at the 'helms', and at the 'Bottoms' of Government. GHU.(God Help Us)

The essence of a democracy is the Individual.

The essence of a democracy is the Individual. To be sure, the form of Government must be structured democratically. But, even a Democratic 'political structure', cannot long-live, without the help, or the cooperation, of the Individuals who created it, and the same People, that it purports to govern. The reason is clearly because the form of Government is only an 'abstract structure'. Its a 'verbal generalization' that must be filled with democratic 'activity'. The generalization becomes a 'governmental institution', that continues to exist as a 'theoretical structure' that must be 'imbued' with 'life'. That 'life' is the 'life' of the Individual. Only the human being is 'alive'; the Government structure is only a 'political institution'. The 'theory' of Government is enlivened with 'democratic activity'. That becomes possible only because the Individual in a Democracy is considered to be Free and Equal. That's also why non-democracies that do not consider the Individual Free and Equal, cannot benefit from 'democratic input'. Those Governments survive only as long, as the Individuals they govern, permit it. All Institutions continue to exist, so long as the People participate and permit it. An 'ignored Institution' cannot long survive. Human beings must have Government, and Governments must have Power, but Government cannot ignore the human beings it purports to Govern.

Power is a 'given' in the constitution of every Nation: Competition is the essence of an Economy.

Power 'drives' every Nation. The economy is always important in the 'welfare and the well-being' of every Individual within any Nation. But, the Freedom and Equality of the individual is the essence of Democracy. Hence, the power of every Nation depends on the Freedom and Equality of the Individuals. In a Democracy, the Individuals 'grant' to the Nation, its democratic Power, therefore, the 'general welfare' and the 'economic well-being' of every Individual becomes important to a democratic Nation. The problematic arises when the economy attempts to 'inject' an economic value system, into the Political domain. Politics cannot be driven by the profits engine. The success or failure of the economy will always depend on competition within the economy. The question, then becomes, how can the Individual, who is Free and Equal, compete within a corporate economy. Unfortunately, competition is dead within a corporate economy. The Individual can still compete on a 'lower level', but not on a 'National level' and not, with a corporation. Hence, Government begins to rely and depend on the corporate structure more than on a Free and Equal Individual. Before long, the Government will become 'dependent' on corporations instead of the Individual. That's Oligarchy, on its 'way' to Plutocracy. The Individual creates a Democratic form of Government; and then, the economy and 'greed' ( the 1%) take over the 'creation'. If this keeps up, were right back to the 'Kingdom form of Government'. Corporations need to be regulated and the Freedom and Equality of every Individual needs to be respected.

All Nations function with Power; some Individuals function with Reason.

All Nations have Power at the Top, i.e., "institutional Power, while all Individuals, at the Bottom, have Reason. Since the Top must govern, it needs Power, even though its 'only' an Institutional Power. Meantime, the Individuals at the Bottom have reason. Reason is the 'guiding aspect' of their individual lives. Individuals do not have Power; they may have 'influence, but that is a completely different thing. Only the political entity, called 'Nation', has Power. Hence, on the International sphere, Nations function and interact on an equal basis with Institutional Power. That 'international relation' clarifies the distinction between the function of the Individual and the function of a Nation. The question is, can 'Power' be reasonable or unreasonable? The answer is No! Power is Power. But, the 'exercise' of that Power can be reasonable or unreasonable. Of course, the problematic arises when the Top of any, or all, Nations, becomes occupied, as they must, by an Individual. Individuals function with 'ego' and reason and 'unreason'; Political entities function with Power. What a mess. When Individuals, begin to think they 'have Power', we're in trouble. When the 1% begins to think that 'money and possessions' is power, we're in trouble. To be sure, money has 'influence', but its never a guidepost for Power. When the 'economy' or 'Money' is equated with 'Democracy', we're all in deep trouble. I have bad news for the Plutocrats; if we become a Plutocracy, we're in trouble; the reason for that is that a Plutocracy always strives to become a Kingship. In such cases, even the 1% are not safe.

A Nation can be a 'vacuous abstraction', or it can be a strong 'embodied' Nation of 'flesh and bone'.

A Nation can be a vacuous abstraction, or, a strong, embodied Nation of flesh and bone. All Nations are abstractions, yet, can be an 'embodiment' of their People. The only way to achieve that political status is to 'represent' each and every individual under its care, in a real way. All Nations purport to 'represent' their People, yet neglect their 'basic necessities'. People who lack food, jobs, work, opportunities, homes, health, medical and daily necessities, are not being properly represented by their governments. Governments are strong, because they have Power at the Top of the so-called 'relation of the One and the Many'. They are institutions who exist only by virtue of the People who elected them or selected them. Of course, their are the Ones that were never elected or selected to serve in that position. Those Nations are weak, because they don't have the 'heart and spirit', or the support of the People they should be representing. In the same manner, even a Democracy that does not properly represent the People under its 'care' is also weak; for the same reasons. Government, or Governing a People, is always a two-way street. No Government Leader is 'strong' or 'powerful', of him or herself; s/he is strong because of all the People who support and obey the Government and its Leader. A weak Nation runs the risk of not getting the support of its People, when it becomes necessary; or, a weak Nation runs the risk of begetting a home-grown revolution within its own borders. 'Government and Governing' is about People and it's only they who can 'embody' a Nation with a real Identity, and a 'real' Political Power. Don't kid your-self's, there are more People in this World than Governments.

Big problems arise when National Governemnts 'go' International.

The relation of the One and the Many is a Governmental relation that applies to all forms of Government. We know that; and we also know that not all Governments are alike, but that 'all humanity' is, or ,should be, the same. So the problematic on the International sphere, can be described as, " how does a 'Democratic form' of Government, relate, to other Governments that do not consider the human condition in the same manner? Governments can only relate to other Governments on the level of 'established Governments' of Equal power. A Government never relates directly to the 'Peoples' of that 'other Government'. So, how does a Democracy relate to an Autocracy, an Autocracy that does not accept the 'equality of the Human Condition'? All governments are 'political Institutions'. They are 'abstract structures' that give practical form to the relation of the One to the Many. Nevertheless, all People, or, human beings, are real; they are 'not institutions'. The so-called, 'social' in any form of Government, is a general abstraction, but the 'Peoples', regardless the 'form' of Government, are all real. Hence, can a Democracy relate to an Autocracy; a Socialistic; or a Dictatorial form of Government, in a 'moral manner'? Or, is there such a thing as 'Morality' in International Relations? Can Governmental Institutions be 'Moral' or 'Immoral'? If 'Morality' does not apply to 'Political Institutions' on the International sphere, what is 'political correctness' on the International sphere? Where do we 'look' for a 'fundamental basis' for International Relations? Is the 'fundamental relation' a relation of Government to Government, or, Government to 'all People'? Obviously, no Government can exist in isolation. Equally obvious, is the fact that the human condition is sacred.

Human beings who live in a Democracy; an Autocracy; a Dictatorship; or any other 'form' of Government, are all the 'same'.

A human being, regardless the nature of the Government s/he lives within, is still a human being, and will always be a human being, and hence it can be said that 'Humanity' is all the same. All humans have the same amount of 'life' within them. There are no exceptions. Truly, they may have different, individual qualities, color of skin, languages, but their 'humanity' is all the same. All are 'Equally Human'. However, not all live under the same form of Government. The sad part is that all Governments are 'operated' by individuals who have ascended to the pinnacles of political power, and who, apparently, 'forget' their humanity and embrace Political Power. That's a big problem in Politics. 'Governing' is not 'ruling', its not 'demanding', its not substituting the 'Equality' of the human condition, for the Power that is granted by the 'condition of togetherness that characterizes the 'life force' of the Bottom of Government. 'Humanity' is 'real', 'Government' is an Institution that arises out of necessity. Each has its place but, unfortunately, that's not the only problem in politics. One other problem, is that economic values are being substituted for Democratic values. Now, economic values determine, who gets to 'ascend to the pinnacles' of political power. Hence, human beings 'forget their humanity'; embrace 'political power', possessions, and money, and hence, sabotage their own Governmental Institutions. Governments can be a problem, but so can Humanity.

A real Democracy is only possible in a Government that 'implements' it, and a 'Social' that 'practices' it.

A 'real' Democracy is only possible in a Government, that implements it, and a Social, that 'practices' it. Unfortunately, a real democracy can go wrong, at either end, or at both ends, of the 'relation' of Governing. A Government or a Branch of Government can fail in its 'application' of democratic 'principles', as well as, Individuals living within a Democratic form of Government, can fail to 'live democratically'. Examples of failure, at the Top of 'the relation' of 'government', are those that take a different form. The Governments that assume a 'Triadic form', or a Democratic form, but fail in the implementation of one or another of the Three Branches, are those that have 'abuses' in the Executive Branch; those that have 'abuses' in the Legislative Branch; and those that have 'abuses' in the Judicial Branch. Of course, all the previous, lead to imperfections in the 'forms' of Government, or in the 'implementation' of the relation of 'Governing'. But, the most 'glaring' and 'destructive' problematic in Government, occurs at the 'Bottom' of Government, or in the 'Social', where the Individual 'resides'. Why is that 'more destructive' and more glaring? Because, its 'disorderly' and 'revolutionary'. Of course, sometimes there are 'good reasons' for Revolutions. But, unfortunately, sometimes the so-called Revolutions, are just a 'complete failure' of the 'human condition'. When humans revolt for no apparent reason, or no justifiable reason, its a human failure, not a government failure. Democracy is possible, but only when the Government, and the Governed, both, can live in 'Freedom' and 'Equality' of the Individual. How sad, the Individual does not understand the 'necessary relation' of Government and the 'necessity' of living with each Other.

Every Nation, and its Government, is an 'artificial', political entity.

Every Nation and its 'Government', is an artificial, political entity. Does that mean, they're not 'real'? Absolutely not. But, we must recognize that every political entity is a 'construct', an 'institution', in most cases, with a 'history'. Human beings born within an established political entity, sometimes assume that the entity is 'theirs', is 'perfect', or ' the only one', and that the humans in some 'other political entity', are the 'strangers', the 'foreigners', or 'the Enemy'. The truth of the matter, is that all human beings are 'equally human'. Their is no human being that has less 'life', less 'humanity', or less 'Right' to exist as a human being, regardless of where s/he was born. 'Technology' will differ; the 'social' will differ; the political structure will differ; the 'economy' will differ; but the 'humanity' never differs. So, why are the 'Peoples' of Other Nations, 'friends','enemies', or 'strangers'? The Human Race is the same; every human is 'Equally' Human; every human is 'Free' to exercise his/her Humanity; Nations, and Governments, were 'created' to 'serve' the Human condition, to 'serve' their People; all People; not to 'rule' them; not to oppress them. The biggest problem in politics is that political power belongs to the Top, to the Government, but the Top of each and every Government, cannot function without a human being at the helm. In other words, Nations are political Institutions; without a human being at the helm, they're mere 'vacuous abstractions'. So, where do we go wrong, in our Governments, or in our Humanity?