If corporations are legally recognized as "legal fictions" and if they are to be protected by the Constitution, why not also enlarge the sphere of their duties. Of course, a corporation is an economic entity not a political entity. But, its an 'invented ' economic entity that only "exists in contemplation of law". Unlike a real human being who functions in both the economy and the polity, and who has economic duties and Constitutional duties in the polity, a corporation was fictionally created primarilly to increase its economic 'grasp'. It was given Constitutional protection, but it seems they forgot to give it Constitutional duties. Instead of extending their fictional nature and attributing speech to them, which is ridiculous, why not give it a few Constitutional duties. Of course, fictional "persons" cannot serve in the military, although they do help to manufacture and produce weapons. And of course, corporations can and do pay taxes. It used to be they had a 90% liability. Why was it originally 90% and why is it now 35%? Could it be that when it was 90%, 'someone' really understood that since their corporate nature tremendously increases their economic 'grasp' and economic activity, they should pay a 'fair' share of their newly acquired economic powers. So, why was their tax liability reduced? No human being, regardless how wealthy s/he might be, can compete with the corporate structure. As a matter of fact, the 1% use the 'structure' to increase their personal fortunes. Besides increasing the corporate tax obligation, how about requiring some contribution to the work force relative to 'fair wages' and/or the availability of 'jobs'. Why shouldn't 'out-sourcing' be outlawed? Of course, unless it meets a primary requirement of having made every effort to keep the activity within the confines of the Nation and only secondarily, it can go to other Nations, so long as some Constitutional duty is not being avoided. Surely some guidelines along these 'economic and legal paths' are possible. If we can create economic fictions, we can create Constitutional obligations commensurate with their fictional nature. They're not human, they cannot 'hurt'. The only people who 'hurt' are the real people 'behind' the corporate structure who are pocketing the money made by the entity. And generally, those people are the 1%. Real persons at the bottom of a triadic government are not benefiting from corporate activity and the 'fictional' person is laughing all the way to the bank.

Party loyalty sucks. It should be 'democratic loyalty'. Party preferences and party ideology have to many preferential perks. Democracy for the peoples is too often set aside in favor of Party loyalty or so-called market economics. Both have replaced loyalty to the political principles of democracy. Market economics, a fiction, is what governs us. Party loyalty has become economic loyalty. Economic loyalty is economic advantages for the Top 1%. Sure, economic principles are very important but they are not democratic principles and we are talking about governing, not about changing the basis of government from democracy to a market economy. Often, those advantages protect corporations or whitlle down so-called entitlements of real people. For example, the top 1% do not pay their "fair share"of taxes. Corporate rates used to be 90%, went down to 70%, now its 35%! Why? How can an economic "fiction" with a horrendous grasp of economic activity be compared with a real human being? As corporations become more efficient in the economy, they lessen or reduce their democratic responsibilities. A human being cannot do that. A human being cannot compete with a corporation. Even small corporations cannot compete with a large corporation. Why do we reduce a corporations democratic responsibilities as they become more efficient. Their responsibilities should be 'enlarged', not reduced. Look at the tax tables, is that happening? Of course not! As they monopolize government and governing, they get more breaks and they're fictions! How can that be. The truth is that there are a few people 'behind' the functioning of the corporation and as it becomes more efficient, they 'hog' the medium of exchange(another fiction). That applies to both Parties. Wow, Is this an Alice in Wonderland world? What has happened to the reality of work; the reality of living together with other human beings; the reality of 'sharing'; the reality of the human condition? Reality has been replaced by fictions, all around us and only the 1% are benefiting from our 'togetherness' and their corporate greed because they are Plutocrats, not democrats. Real people need to harness their strength and 'assemble'. That is their Constitutional right.

A triadic form of government must always be active. The Top governs; the Bottom is governed; and the 'sides' interpret the legal 'concrete' relation between the Top and the Bottom. No part of the Triad can survive without the other parts. However, in a democracy, the entire structure is entirely dependent on the 'bottom' of the structure and the relation between the Top and the Bottom must be interpreted in a concrete measurable manner. The measurability of policy and law is dependent on the particular classification of the activity governed. Law is order and policy is always a recognition of the sanctity of the human being living in a condition of togetherness. Individuals never exist in isolation. People living together in a condition of togetherness deserve a good government and why not?,if the people who governs them come from the same people who are being governed? A good government has integrity and keeps the social in the most productive and orderly manner possible. No government is perfect, but every government must work towards the freedom and equality of each and every individual; especially those accused of crime and those not included in governmental policy. The best way to establish this condition is to quantify the Bottom of government and submit policy and law to a strict quantification of the sub-categories being governed. The best way to measure success in policy and law is to quantify the process. The enactment of policy must establish the fact that those excluded from any particular policy is not a discrimination against their freedom and equality. Just as law cannot descriminate against an individual's freedom and equality, neither can governmental policy descriminate against freedom and equality.

Activity that emanates from the bottom can be democratic. Of course, not all activity from the bottom is democratic. However, activity that 'originates' from the top has a very high potential to be Autocratic even though it originates from some 'Representative capacity'. Emanations from the Top come 'packaged' in linguistic terms. Therein lies their problem. Political language was confusing well before the so-called Linguistic Turn. The reason for that confusion has been the absolute neccessity to allude to the bottom in a 'general' manner; hence, general formulations that lack democratic precision. Why? Because democracy is not just an abstract formulation, it embraces each and every living individual at the bottom in a real way. An 'un-democratic' rule or activity is 'felt' in a real way at the bottom. (emotionally) Its not a simple matter of accepting or not accepting an abstract formulation that 'registers' solely in the intellect. It 'registers in the emotions and the intellect and effects the physical activity of the real individual. Hence, the need for democracy to apply to 'everyone' at the bottom in the same manner and in a real way. Therefore, we need better methods of formulating democratic policy. The only alternative is to make political language more 'quantitative'. General 'Rights', like Freedom and Equality, do have to apply to everyone, but certain policies and laws that have a more limited application must be quantified with regard to the area of application. No one can be left out: we are talking about people governing People. Some amount of classification may become necessary, but that classification cannot be abusive of the sanctity of the human condition. There is nothing superior at the Top that does not first exist at the Bottom. In fact, all 'power' emanates from the Bottom in the form of 'strength in togetherness'. At the Top, its called 'power' and is dependent on an 'abstract condition', namely political language; at the Bottom it's actual strength in the 'condition of togetherness' and is only dependent on the relationship between you and your 'neighbor'. A good relationship with ones 'neighbor' is conducive to a good relationship with the 'Peoples' of the world. Change yourself, so you can change the world.

To expand and paraphrase the statement made by the President, "In a democracy, all the people deserve a vote". How can any Party in a democratic government step away from that. That's the only way to implement democracy and that's why, in a democracy, the people and their representatives are allowed to vote. It's the people at the bottom that need to be heard and if they've spoken and its democratic, they do indeed deserve a vote. Democracy is "of the people", "by the people", and "for the people". How can any Party, in a democracy, not vote or intentionally block a vote that originates from the bottom? Thats totally undemocratic. Thats the problematic with Party politics. A Party takes a position on some issue, properly before them, and immediately take issue that,in no way, reflects the peoples wishes. Of course, in a democracy, Party-politicians are free to differ on positions of policy, but, in no case, should the position be un-democratic. Who or what gains from such a position? Of course, in the above cited reference, the beneficiaries are some corporation and/or lobbyist. Corporations, guns, money, lobbyists, all these roll-up into an un-democratic position. The position assumes misplaced values that usurp democratic values (corporations are legal fictions, they're not real; the Second Amendment does not refer to weapons capable of 'mass-destruction'; money is an economic-fiction, not a democratic value; and lobbyists get paid to 'sleep' with their 'fictions'(thats 'economic prostitution'.)How can any of that be democratic? We suffer from mis-placed values. Democratic values are being usurped by economic values. Freedom and equality are being replaced by an economic and a legal fiction, to wit; money and corporations. I said earlier that the democratic value of freedom and equality are the values that we should organize around. No one is saying its easy, but anyone can see and feel the difference between a human being and an economic or legal fiction. Its about the people stupid. If a Party stands for Plutocracy, why doesn't it just say-so? I'll tell you why, because that Party would cause an 'assembling' of all the peoples in a democracy. No one wants a Plutocracy -only the 1%. Thats why they do in-directly what they can't do directly. Democracy is protected by the very First amendment. Don't you get it?

We are fortunate not to have to begin at the begining of the formation of 'togetherness' or government. We are all born into a political structure. In our case, the Founding Fathers gave us the form to follow in the establishment of the structure of democratic government. Clearly, democratic government begins to form from the bottom up. Begining at the Top does not work. Government from the bottom to the top must have a triadic structure. The reasons for a triadic nature is that the Top is given 'centralized' power with which to govern the bottom, but the power to govern is given to it by the bottom, and then only for a short time. The form at the Bottom is democratic and hence involves every single individual at the Bottom constituting the body politic. A democracy is about people, millions of people living together under the structure of a triadic government. Although the Top is granted power by virtue of office, there is nothing sacred about the Top. The Top is a function that has certain duties and responsibilities attached to it. The only aspect of a democracy that is sacred is the human individual. Each and every individual is sacred because government did not create the individual but, the individual created government. The strength of a democracy is in its people. The strength ( call it power, if you wish) is in the condition of togetherness that binds the bottom together. Thats the reason for the First Amendment. The Top and sides, as well as the representative bottom, only have duties; the Bottom, where the people are, has a Constitutional right to revolution. Properly executed, the right to "assemble" is the most powerful thing in the world. The Top of any government is powerless in the face of a properly 'assembled' bottom.

If we ask, "what is government?", we will get many definitions. Many answers will reduce to simple terms like, "its a political entity"; It's "encapsulated power"; it's rule by the One over the Many"; it's a "political condition we're born into"; it's "government by superior human beings",or its 'rule' by "Divine Edict"; etc. All these answers have an element of truth to them except for the last two. The last two have already been tried and they don't work to well, especially the second one's reference to Divinity. The first one still 'lingers' in our world in different forms; took the world by force and inherited the position at the Top, or the 'I'm special posture' of superiority( for whatever reason). How would you answer? I say, the basic skeletal condition(without ideology)is rule by the 'One over the Many'. It has to be that way, but the next query becomes necessary and that is what historically got us into trouble. How do you 'select' the One? Historically, one answer was "by Divine Edict, Divine Right," or whatever. That was a mistake because we need to determine what is 'Divine Right' and there will never be a consensus on that. The next query is equally deceptive, but not quite as obvious. The question, how do you select the One was historically answered by "conquest" or "the strongest", the "smartest", etc. Notice the emphasis in both approaches. The emphasis is on the wrong pole of the relation of the One and the Many. Why the wrong pole? How can anyone select One from the Many without some method for the selection? Divinity doesn't work nor does the issue of the superiority of someone within the Many. No! The process can only be democratic.( of course, at this point, I just 'sneaked' into the argument, the concept of ideology) But, lets not do that, in oreder to answer the question, lets get away from the ideological and venture into the more practical. I think we can and that is precisely why my blog is entitled "democracy for the bottom". Look, we must begin at the Bottom, not the Top. Thats where all the people reside. No individual can live alone! A lone individual on an isolated island does not need government. But, we do not live alone; an individual must come together with other individuals. There's no other solution. In this preferrable 'condition of togetherness', if its a mutual condition, an individual can continue to exist. The 'togetherness' becomes necessary in order to continue to exist in the condition and so does the organization of the condition. So, how do we organize the condition? (See forth-coming 'blog')

Governments, all governments, need to stop pushing human beings around. Some will say, thats what governing is all about; its about governing every human being within its jurisdiction. When I say 'pushing human beings around', I mean treating people like they are inferior or of lesser importance than government, or that government is more important than the human condition. How can that be? If people are the ones who create governments and, in fact, the only function of government is to 'rule'. There's no other reason for the existence of governments. Government does not create people. People create government. Government would not exist were it not for the people. Although some governments are arranged around their people, (I refer to democratic government)that's not, in itself, an automatic panacea, but its a move in the 'right direction'. All governments that claim to be democratic must measure that statement by means of a triadic form. The triadic form is the basis of a democratic form of government, i.e. a democracy must have power at the Top; the people of the democracy are at the Bottom; and the Judiciary on the sides is required to monitor the 'real' relation that connects the Top to the Bottom. The strength of the governmental triad is entirely at the Bottom. The Bottom supports the Top. Since the people are the source of the strength of the triad, the Bottom must be 'quantified' so we can better gauage the democratic tenor of the activities and wishes of the Top for the benefit of the Bottom. One individual's activity or wish does not determine the tenor of a democracy. The activity must benefit some of the people or most of the people at the Bottom. An activity or a wish has to be quantifiable and hence measureable with respect to its democratic tenor. The activity must benefit the people at the Bottom as a whole. Why is that? Because, just one isolated individual or small group of 'isolated'individuals' activity or wish can be easily guided by excessive self-interest. Isn't that what's happening to the 1%? Governments exist because people created them. Hence, government is not free to undermine and mistreat the hunman condition. Government should function for the benefit of the people; it has no other function.

How do human beings become better human beings and how do Nations become better democracies. Human beings can become better humans by realizing that every human, regardless the differences in race,color,creed,or Country of birth, is free and equal in a world divided into different political ideologies. Its one thing to change ones personal belief systems when relating to the ever-present conditions of immediate existence within ones own Country, its another to understand that in a world as large as ours one must respect the sanctity and equality of the human condition everywhere. Of course, one may do just that, but still be hampered by the political ideology of the Other. People usually adopt the ideology of their nation, although that is not necessarilly the case everytime. Some people differ from their Country's ideology. Differences in political ideology should apply to the political entity as a whole and not to the individuals within that entity. The political issue then becomes an issue for the United Nations. The individual issue would involve individuals who are equally human and equally free, but need to be politically equal and politically free to voice those qualities. So, individuals everywhere need to see the equality of everyone and the Nations need to recognize the sanctity of the human condition and the need to be politically democratic in their governing. Although issues between individuals are different from issues between nations, every Nation and every individual must recognize the sanctity of the human condition and the political need for the freedom and equality of everyone within their political boundaries. In that way, maybe we will not self-destruct the planet so easily. Nations must recognize that their strength in the International sphere depends on the integrity of their Nation, and that depends on the democratic nature of the Nation because they can only be as strong as their people.

A 'shrunken' International World actually enlarges the 'concerns' of the individual living on the planet. What we previously perceived( if we read the newspaper) as occurring in another far-away Country can now be 'seen' in ones living room.( if you are fortunate enough to own a TV set). We then relate to these activities in the same manner as we would have related to the same activities by a 'real' next-door neighbor. Proximity and the illusion of proximity begats personal feelings. So, is it possible not to relate in a 'personal' manner to International activities? Yes and No. Yes, one can merely not give a dam. No, we cannot exclude the human condition from the 'shrinking condition' of the International scene. Its one thing to say, "its just a TV image" and another, not too react as human beings. The TV and the newspaper are medias of communication that do in fact communicate 'something' across political boundaries right into your living room. Political boundaries separate millions of people from millions of peoples. Its potentially dangerous to mix 'personal feelings' across political boundaries. There will never be a consensus of life-style, but there can be a consensus of political frameworks that helps a consensus of basic human qualities. The political boundaries of the International sphere must come closer and closer to a real democratic condition of political existence. The governments can be different,but the human condition within political boundaries is never different. In a real democracy, individuals have real democratic values,i.e. individual Equality and individual Freedom. All other Rights circumnavigate around these two basic principles. The political framework is just the 'container' of these values. Governments can differ, but not the human condition. The human condition and these values are universal and can help 'blend' the International scene closer together by just recognizing the freedom and equality of everyone. All governments must protect themselves as well as their own peoples. But, they cannot 'fight' their own people and the other political entities on the international sphere at the same time. That's self-destructive. So, we need to become better human beings and Nations need to become better democracies.

The only form possible for a democracy is the Triadic form. The reason being that's the only form that allows and demands that all 'sides' of the triad function at maximum 'value'. At any one time, one or several of the sides could be functioning improperly. In other words,the Executive Branch could be against the 'interests' of 'the people' as a whole, individually, or as a class. The other side of that is that the Executive Branch has preferences that are selective and that do not reflect the democratic nature of the whole. The Legislative Branch could favor special areas of the social to the exclusion of all the people, or it could be legislating specific 'pet' areas of the social that excludes too many people;or it could not be 'representing' the people but only certain preferential areas of the polity. The Judiciary could have interpretive practices that favor certain parts of the social or parts of the polity, such as the economy. Obviously, its not a perfect government, but it has the potential to be the best in the world. The people elected to the Top are not perfect, but they assume a position of 'representation' and power that should not be abused. It's the only form where the people being governed are governed by individuals who were, previously, also at the Bottom of the triad. There is no superiority in the rulers and there is no Divine guidance. There is only a 'promise' to represent the whole and then only for a short time. It seems that the worst offense against democracy is the 'creation' of a 'person' that only exists in 'contemplation of law' and giving that 'fiction', the same human rights as those of a real person. How can we create something that didn't exist before and make it more important than a human being trying to organize his or her existence? A corporation is just a piece of paper called Articles of Incorporation and By Laws and having being approved, receives a Charter from the State and gets hung on the wall. Don't get me wrong, corporations are vital to the economy. But,we cannot have a polity of real human beings taking second chair to a fiction. Those fictions already get preferential treatment by giving them a perpetual existence,( hey, thats the closest thing to immortality), they can volutarilly dissolve themselves and re-emerge under different names,( hey, they 're-incarnate' on the spot); they don't 'hurt', they don't need medical care, and, in a way, that's a great 'economic invention', but don't 'replace' democracy with a fiction that has profits as its sole goal. 'Circulating money' is great, but it's not a democratic 'value', and its not even a democratic principle. We have never solved the basic 'mystery of creation', instead we create belief systems into 'Western Religions', 'Eastern Religions',and all kinds of other belief systems, and then, comes along a 'minor' inconsequential fiction called 'money' and we let it dominate our lives. We 'live' for it, we fight for it, we kill for it, and then we try to organize our democratic existence around it. What's happening?? What happened to Life and after Life, what happened to Democracy? We create our own problems. So much for the Human Condition.

Corporations are important to the economy of a Nation. But, we must never forget that they are legally considered as "fictions that exist only in contemplation of law". Why and what does that mean? Well,human beings in a democracy are not fictions, they're as real as you can get. They 'live' they suffer and they die. Hence, side by side, a human being should be more important to a democracy than a "fiction". That does not mean that we discriminate against corporations, only that we distinguish between an economic principle and a political principle. Not only do we make a distinction between them but we do not co-mingle them. OK, so what does that mean? It means that the goal and purpose of having a healthy economy should not be the sole criteria of a democracy. To be sure, its very important, but never at the risk of relaxing democratic principles. We do not switch from democratic principles to economic principles. Democracy must remain democracy, it never changes. Thats why we have the First Amendment. The economy must continue to grow within the context of the democracy within which it is realizing its full potential. When economic principles begin to effect democratic principles, that means that the 'motor'and goal(profits)begins to replace the Freedom and Equality of a true democracy.That means that instead of freedom and equality as a 'motor' for democracy, that money,the medium of exchange that must circulate, becomes a 'value'. That means money replaces freedom and equality as the 'motor' of the Nation.When money replaces freedom and equality, we go from Democracy to Plutocracy; We go from a 'freedom and equality' to a 1%. When the 1% rules, we create a Country with 'riches',instead of a country with freedom and equality of those who, in the first place, created it. Come-on guys, money is necessary;like you,I like it too, but don't let it replace democracy, especially when the main culprit is a "legal fiction". You know, legal fictions can't function on their own, they are 'run' by real people, so who is benefiting? We're back to the 1%.

Remember when you were in the military? Among many other things ,they issued you an M1 and a bayonet, also a whole slew of magazines with 30 caliber rounds. Heavens, do they still issue bayonets? I know they don't issue M1's. I guess killing has become more efficient. We now have "weapons of mass- destruction". Its no longer a one on one situation. The more we can kill with just one 'weapon' the better. That means automatic weapons with as many bullets as you can carry. Well, if your in a war situation, I guess that makes some sense( not addressing the sense-lessness of war). The Second Amendment also allows the people "to bear arms". When was that Amendment passed? Oh, 1791. Hell those were wild times. The American Revolution was just over, the Constituion was just 'approved', and maybe there were even indians and wild animals all over the place. But, I betcha they didn't have assault weapons. At that time, it was also necessary that a State have a "well regulated Militia" to prevent enchroachment into the State. For sure, everyone was entitled to protect his family and his home. And, face it, everyone is still entitled to self-protection, so having a weapon for that purpose is as Constitutional as you can get. But, a "well regulated Militia" to the security of the State? Thats the States business! And for self-defense, hunting, or collecting, do we need "weapons of mass destruction"? Some will say ,"you exaggerate". OK,lets just say automatic weapons with many magazines for killing dozens of individuals who are attacking your family or home? As unlikely as that scenario is, its not unlikely that some 'crazy' will do just that in a crowded auditorium or a school building. Isn't that whats happening? Well, those victims were someone's family. Your family is your family whether your at home or going about your business. They need protection just as you and your home need protection. So, lets control the availability and misuse of these automatic weapons. We don't need them for self-defense at home and we don't need them for hunting and we don't have to collect them. If you do collect them, then just remove the firing pins on those suckers. I guess we no longer issue bayonets but we do issue automatic weapons because unfortunately they have become necessary in war. Production and manufacture of weapons for war is still necessary. But that is unrelated to running a business designed to make the availability of these weapons to just anyone. Sell to the government, or is there a 'profit' issue lurking in the background? We need to keep the Second Amendment but lets not use it to justify the taking of innocent lives. People govern themselves so how can people allow the taking of innocent lives. Some control is imperative.

All human beings are 'unique' expressions of life. Regardless of the color of their skin, gender,place of birth,life style or belief system. Human life is sacred. No political entity can claim to have 'given'or 'issued' that life and no political entity has 'control' of the sacred. A political entity is merely a 'coming together' to form a general organization designed to better protect, the uniqueness of that life. Some called it a "Divine Right", others 'took it' by conquest or force. It can be called a 'State', a 'Nation' or a 'Country'. Its a political entity and as such does not come into existence in the same manner as human beings. It has a purpose and a goal and that goal is predominant and sovereign and each political entity has to establish the form and structure by which it will govern those lives. In a democracy, the people themselves organize the form and structure by which one or several of them will govern the rest. This method of forming a political entity does not claim to select the 'governors' that are superior in any respect. Interested individuals campaign to be elected into offices.(who knows if they're being honest?) The people do their best to choose a candidate that will respect the sanctity of life. The 'chosen' have a political 'job' to perform. That job is to protect and defend the general welfare of those who have placed him or her in a position of 'political' power. The so-called 'Top of power' is a political power and never an individual power. So-called 'power' can come wrapped in many 'social wrappings'. Some individuals are strong, some are rich, some are poor, some are smart, some are dumb, and some of these can get elected to serve at the Top, but regardless, what has been conferred is political power,not individual power. No one individual in office can claim to have given life or claim to have a right to manipulate the life of any 'Other' individual. An individual in office can only claim the right to better the general welfare of those whom he or she governs. There is no other purpose for government. I know about the tensions between States and Nations but that's another matter. Thats about Nations relating to each other not people dealing with the form and structure of their own particular government. Every human being has a right to his or her life and to demand that 'the general welfare' of the people be addressed by those in power. The Top has no other function. The 'Bottom' of government must be conceived 'quantitatively', if one is to judge, whether democracy is true Democracy or whether only a few are benefiting from the organization into a political entity. Why should only 1% benefit from politics? Why do you think the First Amendment was passed? Thats a Right to your religion, to 'free' speech, and the right to 'revolution'.

Democracy is about the freedom and equality of human beings: the economy is about making a profit. Have you ever seen a business, whether incorporated or not, that is not making a profit, remain in business? Or for that matter, an individual that works for a living, continue to work if s/he will not get paid? The economy functions on a principle of 'monetary growth'. Of course, the economy of a Country must be stable and must show signs of growth. However, Democracy will continue to be a democracy and the only 'growth' it will experience is where the parts of the social that were previously left out, can now be included. Government is a democratic arrangement into three parts of the social that will hold the underlying form in a true 'democratic' reciprocity. Democracy will always be democracy; the only question that arises is, "is it a true democracy?" If not, then that's the direction of change. Democracy does not grow, it just finds its true center. That is why democratic principles of government cannot, and should not, be co-mingled with economic principles of growth. Sure, they're related. However, the individual is the very basis of democracy. If any individual or class of individuals is left out of the 'reckoning' of a democratic policy or law, we have failed. Democracy will never change; it is to be achieved. To the contrary, the economy is based on the profit motive which can very easily become motored by greed. Therein lies its problematic. Individual greed may be morally wrong(maybe not), but, in the political sphere, it's clearly wrong. If the medium of exchange is 'hogged' by the 1%,a very important part(that should circulate) of the economy is being held hostage in a democracy based on freedom and equality. The 'top' of the social is not the same as the Top of government. The two are different and must remain separate in a democratic government. Why change the principle of democracy to a principle of the economy? Thats not democracy, thats Plutocracy. Why do 'democrats' who have used the principles of democracy to get to the 'top' of the economic ladder, all of a sudden, want to be Plutocrats? You know the answer to that.

Democracy is about human beings. Although a democratic government functions democratically, true democracy is at the bottom where all the people reside in a condition of togetherness. The Top, or the government is able to function because it has Constitutional power. The power at the Top comes from the Constitution. The Top is not per se a democratic form. It is a triadic nature that allows the people at the bottom to elect someone to sit in the 'seats of power' situated at the Top. The Top cannot demand anything as a democratic right. The only right it has is to act according to the delineation of power granted in the Constitution and to act for the general welfare and that must pass scrutiny by the Supreme Court. The point is that all power and law comes from the Constitution and the Constitution comes from the People. The people are at the bottom. The previledge of governing extends only for a few years. So, unquestionably we live in a Country where the people rule. True, they rule indirectly but, without people there would be no need for government. The point is that one duty of government is to serve the general welfare. So, how on earth can we have a classification of peoples called "homeless"? Is the government doing its job? Recently, one State introduced the "Homeless Person's Bill of Rights and Fairness Act.( California). Assemblyman Tom Ammiano is right. There are just as many reasons for being 'unfortunate' or 'unlucky' as there are for being 'fortunate' or 'lucky'. The homeless can only go around in circles and never be able to ascend up the scale to the level of the 'fortunate'. Where is democracy in all this? Why can't government help them? The economy is not going to help. In spite of their conditions, they are human beings and they ,admit it or not, have human dignity. Why is that sector of the social completely ignored. Could it be that they are just to poor and unfortunate to be helped by democracy? Its true, in a democracy people have to do their share and they do; they work, earn money, pay taxes own homes and property, serve their Country, and sometimes many die for their Country. Could it be that democracy has no place for the poor, unfortunate, or homeless, only because they don't pay taxes, etc.. What kind of democracy is that?

People are entitled to own and possess any thing they wish, so long as its not against the law. Of course, I refer to gun control. The second Amendment protects that right. But, we must also consider when the Amendment was passed and when it was ratified; 1791. This occurred a few years after the end of the American Revolution and after the drafting of the Constitution. Certainly, conditions of daily existence have changed tremendously from the conditions existing at that time. Of course, the Amendment was passed at that time for a reason and a purpose. Hence, I say lets not tamper with the Amendment and lets keep it. But,that Amendment does not have anything to do with the right to easily acquire automatic weapons, normally used in war-like situations, for use by 'crazies' to kill innocent children. Sure, we can't control the 'crazies'. Sure, people have a right to own a gun and to use it to protect their homes and families, but what does that have to do with making them available to anyone who wants an automatic weapon to just slaughter other human beings? That doesn't make any sense. The issue is availability and the potential for mis-use. I'm sure that people who do not want gun control are not saying, "Well, let them get those guns 'over-the-counter' and slaughter whomever they want"; At least I hope not. But, thats the effect of not controlling availability of war-like weapons. Sure, the bad guys will always be able to get them, but is that a reason for just neglecting the problem. We're not talking about normal people were talking about a few crazies who have no respect for the human condition. Easy availability! Some amount of control has become necessary! Don't eliminate guns in homes used for self-defense, defense of property, guns used for hunting and target practice, but please get them out of the hands of the crazies! It used to be that a man could walk down main street with his pistol wrapped around his waist, but you can't do that anymore: those days are over. Some clear thinking must be done and some degree of control must be implemented. We cannot ignore the problem! To ignore the problem is to not care about innocent lives.

The novelty of the problem on the International community is caused by the revolution in the communication media. The internet has brought a spread-out collection of different peoples in different Countries a lot closer together.Its easy to reach out from ones living room into another living room separated by many miles and Political boundaries. The world has shrunk and the "togetherness" of peoples of all races and belief systems is now possible. Of course, there will always be the insistense of the superiority of one Nation over the other. Maybe, that's necessary for political purposes, but its not necessary for human reasons. I understand the philosophic perspective which states that there is no such thing as a Human Nature which binds all humans together. The problematic that arises from that concept is the issue of equality. The argument seems to be that we are all more different than we are alike; that there is no such thing as human equality. In other words, some of us are superior to others. But, that argument falls when we consider that we all need to live together in order to be individually and politically free. If we live in isolation and don't live together, after awhile, each individual will be pitted against the other individual. Unfortunately, thats just the way people live, always anxious to assert their individual superiority. Thats why all individuals need to be controlled politically. Not in the sense of controlling everyday activities, but in the sense of a 'political togetherness' with a National identity that protects its citizens and, not only that, but also governs the general welfare of the constituted political entity. If we do not have political equality, we will never have human equality. Although, human equality gives rise to political equality, the polity, in return, protects everyone's human equality by legislating laws of order. The people need government, but government also needs the people. In a democracy of people, by people, and for people, the government depends on all its people; not on just 1% nor on some preferred political party.

The 'International Community' has created a novel problem. First; can there be a 'community' on the International sphere? Well, much like a 'National community' cuts through States' lines to form a more National Community of people, maybe a political National community can also cut across other National lines to form a more global community where the different peoples of the world are sovereign. They would be sovereign as a 'formed unit of humanity' as contrasted and differentiated from the organized political entities they inhabit. Stated differently, the 'peoples of the world' would be a democracy. Each Political entity has its people who are 'together or united' and who live and communicate with each other on a daily basis. In todays world, the Internet and Media companies have brought together Nations as well as the individuals in the different Nations. The new communication medias have made the world more 'neighborly'. An International 'unity' of Nations has become possible as has the individual 'unity' of the human race. If Nations can and should communicate with each other to better 'unify' different Nations, why can't individuals from the different nations also attempt to unify the mass of humanity in the world? Now, more specifically, if individuals attempt to 'unify' the peoples into a democracy, they will have to cross National markers. But, thats not a reason to stop communication. If some individual from the Arab 'world', or any other 'world', is trying to get a foothold into a different media, National market, why shouldn't that be allowed? The same legal constraints for the local media world would, of course, be applicable to the 'outside' medias trying to enter. Of course, many issues on Freedom of Speech and ,of course, ideology come into play. But, we've dealt with those issues before. Not only do real humans have a freedom of speech, we have even extended that freedom to legal fictions. Of course, a real human can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre, (we don't have to worry about Corporations yelling 'fire', since they don't talk, but then again, they can support their favorite candidate) but you can express differences of opinion. Every human being should have a freedom of speech; a freedom to express themselves, regardless the ideology. But, how about through the media of TV? Why not?, we allow violence, sex, mayhem, etc. on TV. How about different ideologies? Well,we already have access to them in our libraries and University courses. Within a well-regulated legal presentation, anything should be allowed expression via the media. There will always be 'abusers', but we should be able to handle that. The interesting thing about the new media and the Internet is that I can always pull the plug. Democracy is about people; its about human beings being entitled to their life. Whether you know where life comes from or whether you can explain it to yourself, or whether it remains a mystery to you, for sure, we know it doesn't come from the State, the Nation, nor any other form of political entity. Every individual is entitled to his/her life and to express their thoughts and feelings. Otherwise, how can we claim to live in a democracy? Language cannot be a taboo.

The biggest problem with established governments is the distribution of power. The act of coming together into a huge 'togetherness' and assuming an identity as a Nation or Country is an act of conferring 'political power' to the Top of the political entity. There is no 'natural power' that inures to the Top just by virtue of being on Top of any political entity. The power at the Top that the entity posseses is a 'conferred power'. Historically, it was by 'divine right' or 'inheritance', in others, a position taken by force. In a democracy of people, by people, and for people, that conferring of power comes from the bottom where all the people reside. By virtue of 'placing' one of their own at the Top of government for a period of time, grants the authority and power to govern 'for the general welfare',each and every person within the 'togetherness', and also to relate to other global political entities. The issue of political power is not simple. There is a clear distinction between political power and personal power and never shall the two meet. The political and the personal must be kept at a respectable distance. The Top has political power, but only by virtue of office. The Bottom(the people) have personal power, or better yet, they have strength in Numbers. Yet, there comes a time when political issues mix with personal issues. Gun control is such an issue. Obviously, we cannot control the individuals who periodically go crazy and massacre others. Of course, we have to try. However,we can control( to some degree) the availability of guns particularly so-called combat weapons. Of course we have an Amendment that protects the right of people to protect themselves and their homes. The gun issue is not about the Amendment, which was passed for a different reason and at a different time, and which should remain intact; its about personally having 'weapons of mass destruction'. (sounds familiar?) If we can justify begining a war by creating a wrong impression about the 'potential' possession of weapons of mass destruction(a political issue that involved killing women and children)surely we can instigate some form of actual gun control, particularly when it involves 'helpless' children( a personal issue). We can't control the 'crazies', but we can control the availability of guns. Maybe we should be glad to have a statesman at the Top who really cares about the Bottom; particularly, the helpless children and the families being effected.