The importance of 'Equality' and 'Freedom'.

The importance of Equality and Freedom can be better appreciated if we examine both concepts. "Equality" means 'equally human'; 'Freedom' means a real living human being, at the Bottom of Government, is 'free' to live a 'democratic life'. Freedom usually means, an individual can do anything s/he wishes to do. In politics; this perception 'appears' to allow an individual to create 'mayhem', 'break laws', and do just about anything s/he wishes. After all, we are 'Free'. But, that is not the case; political freedom does mean one can do 'just about' anything s/he wishes, but, withing a 'political Institution' regulated by Law. That makes a big difference. If I am Free first, I am free to consider the Other, not as 'free' as myself. That's the reason I say, 'Equality first' and 'Freedom second'. If I am 'Equal' so is every 'Other' human being. Once that's understood, the concept of 'freedom' can enter the 'political picture'. The sequence and order in which these inalienable Rights are realized within a political structure becomes important. If I am Free 'first', I am in danger of considering myself 'free' to consider myself 'more Equal' than the Other; hence I 'imagine myself' free to 'racially discriminate'. If I am 'Equal' first, I am just as 'equal' as anyone else, 'then' I am 'Free' to live within a political Institution governed by democratic laws. If I choose not to abide by Law, I can do that also, but will have to pay the price. Hence, Equality first; Freedom second. Political 'Freedom' is a question of 'choice'; Political 'Equality' belongs to every 'living human being' within any political system. Please notice, I do not include Corporations within the inalienable Right of Political Equality, because they are not 'human'; hence, cannot be 'Equally Human'. They are 'mere' legal fictions that exist only 'in contemplation of law'.

'Democracy' has Three 'Branches', but the Third Branch is creating an 'imbalance'.

Democracy has Three Branches and one of those Branches is creating an imbalance. Of course, I refer to the Judicial Branch. The other two Branches also have their 'imbalances', but with elections and 'time limits' on service, those can be, with time, 'potentially balanced'. The Third Branch was created as a 'stabilizer' i.e. a Branch that balances-out the ideological differences, so as to implement democratic Institutions. However, the Justices are appointed for their life-time; that aspect of the judicial function merely allows a Justice to 'fixate or cement' his/her ideological stance or, to decide one-way 'today' with a view of changing it 'tomorrow'. The end-result is that many hard fought victories about 'Equality and Freedom' are being rendered 'unstable' and effete. (Of course, this would not have been possible if the ideologues had not separated into so called Liberals and Conservatives, but its too late to change that.) Public service for a life-time may have been designed to 'enunciate' some sort of stability to 'democratic institutions' and to that particular Branch, but, lets face it, that's too long for a 'diverse' Judiciary. 'Good behavior' is not a 'controlling factor', and neither is 'one or the other' ideology. Now, maybe what has 'become necessary' is that they serve for 20 or 30 years only.( a life-time is too long.) Certainly, a limit on the time-factor would be a sufficient time to establish an Institutional ideology that is Democratic. The Court's function is too stabilize, not to separate and 'create', 'temporary change', for 'later modifications' that will destroy democratic Institutions. That is where its heading. The Court is using Law to destroy democracy.

Politicians differ from Statesmen.

Politicians differ from Statesmen as Political Values differ from Economic values. Most Politicians don't know the difference between Economic values and Political values. Political values are driven by the Equality and Freedom of every Individual living in the 'Condition of Togetherness'. Economic values are driven by profits. Politicians 'acknowledge' that a good economy must make 'profits' and organize their perceptions of 'public office' on a foundation of a 'healthy economy'. In other words, most Politicians are 'motored' by economic values which underlie their political perceptions; the political values of Democracy, or, Equality and Freedom, are 'driven underground'. They don't have to confront the problematic because the problematic is 'elusive' and 'underground'. Where-as, a States-Person acknowledges the importance of the economy, but motors his political activity on a basis of 'Equality and Freedom'; in other words, the economy is important but economic values do not motor his political perceptions or agenda. The 'politicians' never seem to confront the 'vacuous', 'nebulous', position of their 'politics', because they just 'don't get it'. But, this year they have been confronted with a candidate of their own, who is 'the Ideal' of 'economic accomplishment' and activity; and what do they do?; they instruct him to 'tone it down'; which he refuses. They should thank him for 'clarifying the 'Big Picture', and for giving them data for a 'real' political, self-analysis. They have a real problem. Unfortunately, the 'candidate' is completely unfamiliar with 'political values', or, with political values as 'motor'. This year, the political landscape has been 'lit up' with the unfortunate fact that politics is driven by 'economic values' instead of 'political values'. How sad. This is a complete verification that democracy is 'dying' and that Plutocracy is 'ascending'. In other words, even the 'politicians' are confused, while the 'economic motors' continue to proliferate in the 'condition of togetherness'. Where are the States-persons?

The difference between the National scene and the International scene is the Locus of Power.

There's a huge difference between National Governments and the International scene. International 'Government' or the United Nations purportedly governs the Many Nations within its jurisdiction. However, each member Nation does not relinquish its Power. Each Nation has power and the International 'Government' cannot deprive any of its member Nations of its inherent Power. In other words, Power is at the Bottom of the Governing Body. In the National scene, Institutional Power is at the Top of the governing body, and the people at the Bottom do not have power. To be sure, in a democracy, they have the Constitutional Right to a vote. But, that is more of a 'privilege' than a power. Of course, its a valuable Right, but the people do not have Power. To be sure, they can influence the exercise of Power, but, nevertheless, they as Individuals do not have Power. Power is solely a function of the Top. Well, those political arrangements raise many questions. One could say, that a National Government has the Power to Constitutionally insure the Equality and Freedom of all its People. In such a case, Equality and Freedom is 'potentially' possible. But, that Nation can never be assured of being in a 'World' where all the Nations have Equality and Freedom. Why? Simply, because the International Government or the United Nations does not have the Power to rule its 'Bottom' or, its member Nations. In other words, Internationally, Government is 'politically weak'. Nationally, Governments are strong. Obviously, we have not resolved that historical dilemma, of the One and the Many. A suggestion; the human condition is all the same, regardless of location, place of birth, or form of government into which one is born. Governments are man-made Institutions; they are 'given' Power by the Many, or the people; so why can't our political Institutions have more 'respect' for the Equality and Freedom of every human being. After all, 'Peoples' create Governments; Governments don't create People. They only exist to serve the People.

Democracy is 'flexible'; an economy is 'rigid'.

A democratic value system is flexible because Equality and Freedom are flexible. I do not mean they can be one thing, then, another thing. The Individual always retains his/her Equality and Freedom but can maneuver within that Equality and that Freedom. That's a 'democratic Life'. However an 'Economy' is a quantification and is measured 'all along the way'. A 'good' economy is a 'quantification' of sorts. The economy depends on the circulation of a 'medium of exchange' and the formation of Institutions in the social that help the circulation process. It should never become 'static' and should always be in motion. In other words, the 'medium of exchange' must always be in motion. But that 'valued mobility' is a quantified 'fiction'. Hence, the 'rigidity' of money. It's a 'fiction' that has been given a 'social value' that can 'accumulate'. That gives rise to Greed and massive accumulations. That value is entirely separate from the 'political values' of Equality and Freedom. Equality and Freedom are 'not cumulative'. You either have them or you don't. In the meantime, 'money' is accumulated by the top 1% to the point where it does not circulate 'freely' or 'democratically' within democratic Institutions. The sad part is that these results were made possible by the creation of 'legal fictions', called corporations. Corporations are purely imaginary, unreal, and exist only in contemplation of Law. In simpler language, if they 'misbehave', you can't put them in jail. What a set-up; the damage done to the Equality and Freedom in the 'condition of togetherness' cannot be remedied. The Corporate World needs 'more democratic duties'. If Government can create them, it can require that they 'participate in democracy' or have their Articles of Incorporation terminated. Individuals are 'not governed' by an 'economy'; they are governed by a Democratic government. Maybe 'someone'or 'something' will 'awaken' us, to what the "haves" are doing to the "have-nots".

A democracy is a 'value system'; an economy is a 'quantified system'.

A Democracy is a 'political value system' that functions by means of the "Equality" and "Freedom" of every Individual in the Social. An economy is also a value system 'of sorts', but functions 'specifically' by means of 'quantification'. In other words, economies are measured by means of 'Number'. Number is always what it is. It cannot signify 'one thing' in one case and 'another thing' in another case. Whereas, Words, language, 'meaning', varies in the different manners of use. Language conveys 'meaning', and Number, has 'precise signification'; that's why we can "add", "subtract", "multiply" and "divide" Number. That is always why an economy can be measured by its 'medium of exchange', Money, Capital, etc.. We cannot confuse the value systems between an economy and a political system. When Money, being rich, etc. dominates a political system, we're in trouble. Politics should first be about Equality and Freedom and then economic concepts can come into the picture. To be sure, the economy is important, but if the goal of one's life is 'money', property, and being on the Forbes list, or the 1%, then the issue of real democracy becomes secondary, and dare I add, Plutocratic. How sad, political entities exist to help the 'human condition' in its 'condition of togetherness' and the 1% is 'grabbing' and 'hoarding' all the medium of exchange. The 'medium of exchange' is 'just that', a 'medium', and the 1% 'denies' it to the Other, at the Bottom, of the Government relation. Corporations need more legal, democratic goals, and the 1%, and Other 'greedy Individuals', need to be 'less greedy'. Apparently, its more difficult to really be Human, than it is to be 'rich' and on the Forbes' List. Well, I guess, the next step is for some rich guy or corporation to buy the Moon, Mars, or some Planet, and then we're really in trouble.

A 'real' Government should have 'Three Branches'; Each Branch should be occupied by a 'States-Person'.

A 'real' Government should have 'Three Branches; that would be an Executive Branch; a Legislative Branch, and a Judicial branch. Of course, governments are political Institutions. They were not 'born' Institutions; they were established by a People. The establishment of such Institutions is for the purpose of giving a 'structure' to the ancient dilemma of the 'One and the Many'. The Many 'need' Government and they can only be Governed by the 'One' or the 'Few', and hence, need 'Law' and a 'political structure'. The major way of insuring that the 'One' does not go over-board in its 'governing' is to establish a structure that allows all the participants in the 'Condition of Togetherness' to be represented in the Political Institution. The executive Branch would govern and execute the Laws established by the Many; the Judicial would help interpret the Law and insure that the Law was not against the established political Institution; and the Many would legislate Laws. Certainly, a 'balanced form' for a Government. So, whats the problem with Politics? The problem is the 'Human condition' or the Individuals who 'seek' and those that 'acquire' Public office. The difference between a 'States-Person' and a Politician is the States-Person has the 'general welfare' of the 'Many' or the 'People' in mind, and the Politician has 'political power' in mind. Don't be fooled, most Politicians don't care about the General Welfare and enjoy 'wallowing in the accouterments' of Political Office; and that would be 'Power'. Why can't Human Beings 'handle Power? Where are our States-Persons, and when are we going to stop fighting each Other?

Democracy has 'created' an economic system that has, in turn, almost destroyed 'real democracy'.

Democracy and the Freedom and Equality of 'everyone' has given rise to an economy that is trying to undo the very 'freedom' and 'equality' that made it possible. The first thing it did was to create the 'corporate monsters'. This completely destroyed the 'competitive edge' of every single individual competing in 'economic activity'. That not only rendered economic competition between Individuals, impossible, but further, and slowly, reduced the tax liability of the Legal Fiction to be the same as that of a real human being. "Whamo", there goes competition between 'equals' and there arises the 'economic behemoths'. Now, our esteemed Supreme Court has given them the Constitutional Right to participate in elections. Truly, 'money talks' and bullshit walks. Politics has been reduced to the level of 'bullshit', and money has been 'elevated' to the level of a 'democratic value'. How sad. First, politics is leveled to some kind of inefficient level, and money, becomes a prerequisite of 'political participation'. Even Billionaires can now run for office. But, try to get some 'poor' guy at the Bottom of the 'condition of togetherness', with good political principles, to run, and s/he would be laughed out of the 'race'. But, no one laughs at a billionaire. What we need is more Individual participation by 'real Individuals' who have somehow become 'real Statesmen'. What we are witnessing today, is an 'over-crowding' of political candidates. Lets hope the people can see through that and sift-out the 'politicians' from the 'Statesmen'. It's becoming more apparent, that Statesmen-ship is a lost art, and in its place is, more and more of the same, or, simply, Money. If we're not a Plutocracy, we're pretty dam close to it. A 'medium of exchange' has become a 'huge sore' in the Body Politic.

'Politics' is about Governing; not about 'feeding' and strengthening legal fictions.

'Politics' is not a science, but it should be more 'disciplined'. Instead, politics has become an economic 'mores', or practice. Of course, there's the saying," If you want to become rich, run for political office." Obviously, politicians don't become rich because of the salary they receive. They become rich because they 'befriend' huge corporations and legislate 'favorably'. The biggest 'fiction' in the world is not found in Theology, Philosophy, or Psychology'; Its the 'legal fictions' we created in the economy; the Corporation. The corporation does not exist; even the Law considers it a 'legal fiction' and an entity that exists only 'in contemplation of Law'. Other than that, it does not exist. Yet, it is more protected than the human bring and the reason for that is its 'economic grasp'. No real, living, human being can have an economic grasp as that of the corporate structure. Corporations are 'greed machines'. We have developed a 'science of advertising' that completely overcomes the 'will' of the human being. All advertisements are about selling and buying economic products and services of the corporations. The problems that arise relate to 'income inequality' and the Top 1%. No one addresses those issues; instead the politicians 'buy' into the economic products and services and 'sleep' with the corporations. How sad. Our economy is motored by 'greed' and 'corporate fictions'. Our politicians are 'motored' by the economy, the corporate 'elite', money, and a 'complete lack' for a genuine democratic spirit. Corporations need more democratic duties. We have succeeded in creating 'economic monsters' that create a 'lopsided economy'; where the result can only be an 'income inequality'.

Some political terms have acquired a 'bad taste'. Its time we left them behind.

Some political terms have acquired a bad taste. For example, the Bottom of the political structure has always been referred too as the 'social'. The term is a 'collective' term and when expressed within a 'political framework' has always been called 'Socialism'. That's bad nomenclature; to be sure an acquired one, but nevertheless has bad 'political baggage'. The 'Socialist' type of Governments that have existed have never really been 'Social' and have tended more in the direction of Autocratic forms of Government; certainly, not Democratic forms. That's why, I prefer to call the Bottom of Government ( where all the People live) a 'condition of togetherness'. You see, such a 'condition of togetherness' can more easily assimilate into itself the Equality and the Freedom of each Individual at the Bottom. The term, as defined, preserves the equality and Freedom of each Individual and hence avoids terms like 'socialistic', etc. Of course, we can still use the term 'Social', but when referring to the Bottom of the relation of Government, we must preserve the Integrity of the 'Human Being', who constitutes the 'essence of Governing'. A Human being does not lose his Independence, nor his reality as a real human being, nor the fact that s/he created Government and not the reverse. Humanity is real, powerful Governments, are 'constructed political Institutions'. Regardless, that in all Governmental structures, the 'institutionalized power' is always at the Top, we cannot lose the fact that humanity is more important than Government. No God or Gods created Governments ( The Divine Right of Kings is no longer a viable form), it was the 'condition of togetherness' ( the Many) that required Governments to be created 'by the people'; the same People, who were 'to be Governed'. We must be very careful, how we use Political terms; and never forget that the human condition can never be 'lesser' than the Institutions it creates.

A Nation should be a 'unifying force' of the 'condition of togetherness'.

A Nation should be a 'unifying force' of the 'condition of togetherness'. Always remembering that a Nation is 'of People', by People' and 'for People'. A Nation does not have an existence, separate from its People. The important element of Nationhood is the "Equality" and "freedom" of every Individual within the 'geographical' and 'political entity'. Hence, a Nation is formed by the Peoples it Governs. Every Nation is an institution and every 'People' are real. Hence, every Political Institution should be for the benefit of its People. Of course, on the International sphere, the political picture changes because of the number of separate Nations in the World. 'Politics' on the International sphere is different from politics on the National sphere. Yet all Nations have 'real' Peoples. The people are the same; it cannot be claimed that some people are 'better' or 'different' from the other peoples. The human condition is the same. But, the Institutions of the different Governments have the same power over their people as any other Nation. There's the dilemma that arises in a 'local politics'. When local politicians start making policy or demands of other Nations; that is, in effect, an extension of the local into the International. The 'political differences' must be respected. Of course, that is not to say that violence on the International sphere is condoned. Only that great caution must be exercised when it comes to making demands of other Nations. That's what causes Wars. Yet, its not the Institutions that fight the Wars, it's always the People withing the Nations that have to 'give' their lives. God save us from 'narrow minds' and 'bad politics'.

All Nations need Government; all Governments need a political structure; and, an economy, a social, and a legal structure.

All Nations need a Government with a 'political structure'; an economy, a social, and a legal structure. Nations are very large and have 'Many peoples', hence a 'social', and an economy becomes essential, to care for the General Welfare, social as well as economic, of 'all' of it's People. Hence the necessity of Law to help implement the 'organization' of the 'condition of togetherness'. That 'organizing Power' is what is generally called "Law and Order". One can't have one without the other. Without Law there is no Order; without Order there is no Law. However, each Government is different. Democratic Governments are usually referred too as 'People Governments', because they are Governments 'of the People', 'by the People', and 'for the people'. ( a 'circular affair') Autocratic Governments, or, the 'different shades' found in 'similar' forms of Government, are also 'Forms of Governments, but their Power is exercised 'from the Top-down', and differ from the Democratic forms, by the lack of participation of the individuals at the Bottom of Government. To be sure, there are many forms of Government, but the essential characteristic of all governments is that "all Governments must govern." Obviously, there is a need for Law, because Law can help organize the social. Law can 'emanate' from the People at the Bottom of Government, or, it can 'emanate' from the very Top of Government. The exercise of Power is essential to all forms of Government, but if the Power comes from the Top, its up to the Top of government to exercise that power. Whats the likelihood of that? If the Power comes from the People, or, from the Bottom of Government, its up to the 'People' to bring about political change. Democracy needs more 'responsible human beings' at the Bottom, to serve as 'Representatives' at the Top; Autocracies need 'more responsible human beings' to serve as 'Leaders' at the Top. Regardless what they call themselves, all 'Institutional Political Power' is 'Representative' in Nature.

"Political rigidity" is a 'blindness', unacceptable in a 'real' Democracy.

'Political rigidity' in a democracy is an oxymoron. The political condition to which the term 'political rigidity' is applied, implies a sole and rigid way of doing something. The politicians further divide that 'way' into two Parties or 'two ways' of doing the same thing. It leaves no room for 'flex-ability' or changes within the system and instead creates the semblance of two different ways. Political Democracy is not a binary-system. If the political system is democratic, it implies a freedom and equal( as it relates to the other party) ability to adjust to future modifications of the social, the economy, and the structure of a free political form. What remains constant is the Equality and Freedom of the Peoples. The social; the political; the legal; and the institutional undergo many 'changes' and 'modifications'; all designed to protect the Equality and Freedom of every individual in the social. It cannot be otherwise! Democracy must be socially, legally, and institutionally flexible. It cannot be 'Rigid'. Its an 'open system' of living and allowing for changes in the many social institutions of the 'One and the Many'. Democracy is not rigid; its an open-ended political system that welcomes changes into the 'future' of Society and Politics. Rigidity, to the contrary, blocks growth and 'social maturation'. If the ideology of the two Parties stands for two 'different ways' of doing democracy, they are wrong. Political rigidity like 'political correctness' is not 'real politics'; it spells the 'death pangs' of 'real' democracy and the further 'crystallization' into a binary-system of the "haves and the have-not's". 'To Hell' with Party loyalty; lets do Democracy!

The Party-System should be beneficial to a Democracy; but, is it?

The Party-System should be beneficial to a Democracy. But, is that the case? Both Parties should have the general, common goal, of implementing Democracy; but, again, is that the case? Why is there so much 'strife' between the parties? If the goal is, generally, the same why should the 'way' to its accomplishment be so different and so 'competitive'. Of course, many party-candidates see 'politics' as a means of 'getting rich' and 'wallowing' in their own self-importance. But, there are 'underlying elements' that also affects the nature of democracy. Politics involves 'power' because its the only way to 'effect' the system as a whole. The power to represent millions is a tremendous power. That same power can re-shuffle democratic institutions to the point where Equality and Freedom are replaced by economic institutions, or simply by the 1%. In such a case, we are headed towards a Plutocracy. Some say we are already a Plutocracy; notice the dominance of candidates from the 'same families' or, 'group' of Party members. Its a cycle!, or 'bicycle' because it only has 2 wheels. That's why its so 'refreshing' to see a 'political candidate' that seems to have little to no political ambitions. But, beware! 'Money' could be replacing democracy! ( if it hasn't already done so) Nevertheless, the refreshing aspects of such a candidate is that he has breached a hole in all this so-called 'political correctness' of the Party System. Its a welcome 'insight' into 'political rigidity'. Lets face it; its not possible by someone, no matter how intelligent, from the Bottom of society. Lets wake up, human beings are not destined to go in circles. Our destiny can only be to help the 'helpless'. There's no other goal for a 'condition of togetherness'.

Governments need economies; but, not all economies need government.

All Governments need an economy, but not all economies need Government. One must be very careful how one ponders these two separate, different social institutions. Government needs an economy to help provide for its People. But, the motor of an economy is different from the motor of a democracy. The motor of a democracy is the Equality and Freedom of the people within the Institution. The motor of a capitalistic economy is 'profits'. Without profits, an economy will not grow, hence the 'equality and freedom' that motors a political institution, or, stated differently, 'democracy', goes out the window. Why? Because, Capitalistic economies require 'competition' to generate larger profits, and 'Equality and Freedom' the motor for democracy, are not matters of competition. In a Democracy each Individual 'is' politically 'Equal and Free'. Equality and Freedom are not matters of competition, or profits. They are 'inherent' in the Individual living in the 'condition of togetherness'. That's politics! The issue of an Individual having 'money to get included in the 'Forbes list'; that's economics!, and never shall the twain meet. When Democracy functions properly, an economy can function properly; when an economy 'dominates' or overwhelms the democratic function, Democracy dies and gives birth to Plutocracy. Plutocrats can never be Democrats; but Democrats can use a 'viable economy' to provide for the 'general welfare of the People'.

Millions of 'Peoples' need Governments; but the People were here before the Governments.

Millions of 'Peoples' need Governments, but 'the People' are here before the Governments. Governments were then 'created' by the Peoples. So why does Government assume an Institutional 'posture' of being more important than the peoples it should serve? Of course, governments must have 'Institutional Power' in order to 'govern'. That's their 'job'. This fact is obvious to most Individuals. So, why is it that When individuals are born within any form of Government, the Government begins to act as if they had 'created' that individual and had given him/her everything he/she possesses. How strange. People create an Institution and then the institution becomes 'superior to the people'. The Institution exists for a purpose and that can only be to 'serve its People'. A Government cannot function and act 'by and from itself', except by the same People that 'created' it. The people in positions of power act on behalf of, and as, representatives of the Government. The Institution of Government is a vacuous, hallow, Institution, if it does not have 'a People'. If it has a People its an 'embodied Institution' that is as Noble and Strong as the People that embody it. How sad. When Nations cannot get along, it's actually 'the People' that cant get along. The Human Condition is the same everywhere. Everyone is 'equally human' and no one is born with 'more humanity' or 'less humanity' than some other human being. Then, what is our problem? Power and Greed. The human condition cannot handle 'political power' and 'economic Greed'.

Capitalism needs to 'mature'.

Capitalism needs to become more responsible. It needs to mature. Some will say, "but, it works, so why change anything?" Well the truth is that Capitalism is an economic institution and not a political Institution; its an economic function, and the goal of all economies is to produce 'more and more of the same'. Profits drives capitalism. Lots of activity of 'more and more', 'concentration', and then that 'human failure' called " its mine". The 1%. One of the problems with Capitalism is that it is founded on a Fiction(the Corporation), to begin with, and then, it never 'considers' the Other, even though the Other is a real human being and was instrumental in creating the corporate fiction. The welfare of the Other is more important than the welfare of the Corporate fiction. Yet, Corporate fictions received so-called 'Welfare' just as real human beings do. The truth is that Government does have a duty to its economy, but its primary duty is to Democracy. Real human beings have lots of duties; why can't, corporations be required to have more 'democratic'duties? After all, the corporate entity is considered a 'person', and is protected by the Constitution as are all other 'real persons'. One example of the 'imbalances' the corporation creates is the fact that, originally, corporations used to pay a 70% tax instead of the same tax a real individual pays. Corporations are not real 'Persons'. The corporate nature 'increases' the 'economic grasp' of the entity, hence rendering 'competition' with 'real persons' more problematic. The human individual cannot compete with a 'corporate fiction'. Hence, economic activity 'frees' or 'distances' itself from the 'democratic control' of the real Individual. The economy becomes 'self-functioning' alongside the governmental, democratic, 'control' of the real Individual, but under a 'different value system'. The motor of the economic value system, viz., profits, can only lead to 'more and more of the same' and hence, creates a form of Plutocracy instead of a form of Democracy. Plutocracy seems to be the closest thing we have to "Kingship". Plutocrats, Kings, and Autocrats need to realize that if it were not for the People in a 'condition of togetherness', there would be 'no need' for them to exist.

The essence of Democracy is Freedom and Equality. It would be better if it was Equality and Freedom.

Freedom and Equality is the essence of a Democratic government. However, it would seem preferable, if we instead referred to those basic principles as "Equality and Freedom". Why should that different arrangement make a difference? Simply, because if "Freedom" is first or basic it might be interpreted as " Primarily, I am Free to consider Others as Free or not" or, "I am free to consider Others as Equal or not", or, I am free to discriminate, if I so wish". Accepting 'Freedom' as primary can be a dangerous way of thinking. However, if we make "Equality", primary, than after being considered Equal, one can consider "Him/Herself" as Free, but, obviously, not "free" to discriminate against the Other, because everyone is "Equal". That may seem convoluted, but remember, the human Individual is more important than the Institutional Government, and the Individuals create Government. Governments also establish Law, which is an institutional structure that protects social Order, hence, Law and Order. Government has a duty to protect the Equality and Freedom of each and every Individual in the 'condition of togetherness', which creates a need for Government. A Government is duty bound to protect the 'sacred nature' of the human individual. If it doesn't do that, who needs Government. Governments are not 'Natural"( they are necessary) and they can, and should be "Just". An "unjust Government" has no Right to exist. A "Just Government" has every Right to exist and every Individual, under that Government, will fight for that Right.

The basic relation between Government and people is one of a 'Top' and a 'Bottom'.

The basic relation between Government and 'a People' is one characterized as an 'institutional Top' and a 'real Bottom'. The Top needs and has institutional Power.Regardless the form of Government the Top always has Power otherwise it could not govern. But, the Top is only a man-made political Institution subject to change every so-often. The Bottom is always real and a 'National Reflection' of the relation between a Government and its People. Wars are 'started' by the Top, and are 'fought' by the Bottom. The Top 'speaks' politics and the Bottom lives or dies as a result of political agreements or disagreements. The International problems in Government are created or resolved by real People serving as leaders and in dialogue with Other leaders. Needless to say, Leaders are People who must have a grasp of the Big Picture and not get involved with petty disagreements nor 'personal emotions'. The Institution of Politics on the International scene, unfortunately, is also 'motored' by economic values instead of political, real, human values of Freedom and Equality. Nations disagree and real human beings have to kill each other because their Leaders 'disagree'. A larger 'motor' for International politics is that fictitious 'Arms Race'. There is no 'race', only a fictitious scenario of the old childish game known as 'My father can beat up your father'. Sad but true. What can we do? How do we get Individual Leaders to understand that the Human Condition on the International sphere is the same as the human condition on the National scale? Political Institutions can never have more value than the 'Human condition'. Politics may be essential, but the human condition, under any banner, is Sacred.

Nations are Institutions that cannot survive long without their People.

A Nation is a political institution of Power. Make no mistake, its the most powerful institution in the world. But, all nations are 'constructed' institutions and hence, dependent on how the 'Top' uses its political Power. It was People who originated the Institution and its People who 'operate' it. All Nations have a history, and in most cases, a Nation is its history. A History has become a political Institution, but its an Institution that can be changed, for the better, or, for the worst; and that change can be brought about from the Top or the Bottom. The Top has Power as a product of its Institutionalized nature; but the Bottom does not have Power as an Institution; nevertheless, each Individual has individual Power over him/herself. The only way for the Bottom to have a direct influence on the Top is for the Bottom to organize. Workers Unions have understood this aspect of institutional power. But, how can all the Individuals in a Nation organize at the Bottom, if they are 'splintered' into 'different parties', or, if they are influenced by 'value systems' ( economic value system) that 'should be unrelated' to the 'political value system' (freedom and Equality)? The 'economic' cannot function in the 'Political'. It must be kept separate. Every single Individual is ( or should be)Free and Equal. In the economy, not every single Individual is 'rich'; not everyone has a job; not everyone has a home; not everyone has food to eat; not everyone has medical care; etc.. I am not advocating some sort of distribution scheme!! I'm advocating a democratic scheme of opportunity; where every Individual at the bottom is, in fact, Free and Equal; where corporations(legal fictions) have democratic duties, just like every human Individual; and where Government is ,in fact, Democratic.