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.

A Civilization needs 'solid Nations; solid Nations need 'human beings'; human beings need Compassion.

A Civilization needs solid Nations; solid Nations need Human beings. Advanced Civilizations cannot exist without advanced Nations. Advanced Nations cannot exist without the human condition living in Freedom and Equality. The bottom line for an advanced Civilization is the human condition living in Freedom and Equality. Another way of saying the same thing is, without the human condition living in Freedom and Equality, there can be no advanced Civilizations. We can have much technological advances, but, without an equal advancement in Freedom and Equality in the 'human condition', Civilizations 'die slowly'. The human condition living in a 'condition of togetherness', and in Freedom and Equality, is the foundation of all Nations, and the foundation of Civilization. Without the human condition, there is no need for Nations nor for Civilization. Its only because the human condition 'needs' Government, and Nation-hood, that Civilizations come into being. When a Nation declares war against another Nation; its the 'same thing' as if an Individual decides to 'hack-away at his own body' and sets out to destroy his/her 'own self'. How absurd. If we could only 'live' with our 'neighbor', or with 'each Other', we could hope, in the near future, to bring about an Advanced Civilization. Today, the 'human condition', especially the Leaders of all Nations, need more 'human compassion', and to cultivate a less 'hunger' for political power. 'Political power' is 'empty' without human beings.

A Capitalistic economy could not survive without 'economic fictions'; but, they need more duties and responsibilities..

A Nations Capitalistic economy needs economic fictions. Of course, the fictions are the 'corporate structures' that it created. We call those economic structures 'persons' and extend Constitutional protection to them. 'Economic persons' have an economic grasp that is incomparable. No human being can compete with a corporate structure. This creates a social with two types of 'persons'; an 'economic person' and a 'real person'. Both are under Constitutional protection. However, a real persons has definite 'moral', 'social', 'economic' and 'political' duties, while a corporate person has only the protection it needs to 'exist' as a fictional person so that it can have an increased economic 'grasp', and to make a 'profit'. Its only duties are to exist and to make a profit. If it does not make a profit, its existence can be terminated by those who incorporated it or it can blend with other corporate structures. That is not the case with real human beings. The problem is that real human beings have many social, family, financial, and political duties and the corporation has none. A corporation only exists too make a profit and has no other duties in the social or the political spheres. To be sure, it also pays taxes, but even that, is not on a basis that reflects the 'increased economic grasp' it has been given. It has no duties, and no social, or political, responsibilities. The indirect result of all that, is that it allows for the existence of the Top 1%. How sad; we create 'economic fictions' and the 'owners', who are real people, 'hoard' all the money at the Top 1% of the economy. The 'corporate fictions', if they are to exist, need more 'duties and responsibilities'.

A Nations economy is quantifiable. Why can't democracy be quantified?

The economy of all Nations are quantifiable institutions. An economy can be 'quantified'. As a matter of fact all major aspects of an economy can be measured. The engine (profits) of an economy must be quantified to determine whether that economy is profitable or not. Profits is the engine; 'capital' is quantified; 'wages' are quantified; 'economic value' is a quantification; 'interest' is a quantification; 'losses' are quantifications, 'money' is a quantifiable 'medium of exchange'. etc.. My point is the essence of an economy is a quantification. Can democracy be quantified? Yes and No. No!, Freedom and Equality cannot be quantified in an Individual. Every Individual is Free and Equal in a Democracy, and hence, is 'free' within the institutional complexities of the social. S/he can do as s/he pleases within the confines of Law; Law being a kind-of-measure of 'social order'. Every Individual is also an 'Equal human being' within the 'condition of togetherness'. No one is 'special' and no 'classifications' of the human condition can be established. Human is Human. Equality means 'equal human being'. So, how can we quantify Democracy? The only aspect of a democracy that can be quantified is the unique status of each Individual as a 'human entity' that 'counts' within a 'condition of togetherness' and is included in all democratic political 'institutions'. In other words; everyone 'counts' and hence is subject to 'inclusion' or 'exclusion'. In a Democracy everyone 'counts' and hence is entitled to the same freedoms as all others and must be include in all 'population counts' as a 'free' and 'equal' Individual. In other words, only the Individual 'as a whole' can be 'counted' and hence, that can be considered as a 'form of quantification'. But, notice, its the Individual as a whole i.e. as a 'human entity', i.e., from Nature, that is 'free and equal'. Political structures have nothing to do with the Freedom and Equality of the 'human condition', except to 'respect' and 'protect' it within the political. 'Leave no human being behind'.

'Peoples' need each Other; but, they do not need 'despotic' governments.

People have always needed each other. They formed into 'conditions of togetherness', and formed Governments. Governments were authorized to represent the 'different conditions' as separate political entities. People needed to 'stick together' and to organize politically to 'simplify' the search for food, shelter, clothing, and the general welfare of all. But, the 'condition of togetherness' also needed an 'economy' to exploit the many possibilities in the 'search for food', the manufacturing of 'goods', shelters, or homes, clothing, and to provide for the general welfare. Hence, an economy was 'born' and that economy needed an 'engine' for the creation of a continuous 'stream of necessities' for the general Welfare. That engine was the 'profits engine'. An economy cannot survive without profits. No profits; no business, no business corporations; no work, no work; no wages nor salaries, no wages; no food, no shelter, no clothing, no 'economic welfare'. An Economy is very different from a Government and the 'motor' of a Democratic Government. Democracy cannot function without Freedom and Equality while an economy cannot function without profits. The engine for Democracy is Freedom and Equality; the engine for a successful economy is Profits. Never shall the twain meet. We cannot mix the two. To be sure, they are 'intertwined' in the social, but the 'engines' of the two activities must be kept separate. We cannot have a 1%. We cannot have racial discrimination; we cannot have 'classes' of human beings; and we cannot elevate the 'importance of Government' over the 'importance of the human condition'. The Human condition, in a condition of 'Freedom' and 'Equality', is far superior than 'any' form of Government. That's why the Divine Right of Kings type of Government did not survive; neither will a Plutocracy.

Governments cannot govern 'life'; but, they must govern the 'condition of togetherness'.

Although there are 'Many' human beings on the planet, Governments cannot govern 'Life'. This fact should not need an explanation. Governments are necessary, as places of Authority, in the 'condition of togetherness. Human beings in the 'condition of togetherness' need Government. That's an absolute necessity; however, each human being has his/her own 'life' and that's a 'gift of Nature' and has no relation to the government in which she/he was born; hence, Government has no authority over 'that life'. Nevertheless, no individual can long live in isolation; they must live in a 'condition of togetherness'. Hence; the need for Government. Every Government is a human political 'construction', and the 'value system' of that institution of Government is determined by the respect for the Freedom and Equality shown to the human beings under its governing authority. A Government cannot abuse 'those' that give it the right to exist. 'Peoples' come first; then, comes Government. So, it would seem that the question is what's wrong with Government? Unfortunately, Governments cannot function without People. OK, so what's wrong with People? Well, it seems that 'Leaders of Governments' cannot handle political Power. How sad. People 'create' Governments, and then, succumb to its 'Power'.

Government is essential to the 'condition of togetherness' but, it should never suppress 'life'.

The 'condition of togetherness' requires that Governments exist. Governments are duty bound to mandate legal rules for the protection of all. So, where do we 'look' to examine whether a law offends the 'requirements' of Law, as distinguished from the suppression of Life? That's not an easy task, yet, we can examine the 'generality' of the requirement in such manner as to determine the 'generality of application'. Obviously, the Law must apply to all in an equal manner, and that means in a non-discriminatory manner. To be sure, there will be categories of application, but the generality or essence of its application cannot suppress the basic 'life impulse'. That's where the problems kick-in. 'Governing' and 'Law' applies to the 'condition of togetherness' in its essential 'condition of togetherness', i.e., as a 'whole', in its 'completeness', or, in its 'inclusivity'. Contrary to that is the fact that "each and every individual matters"; "everyone counts", everyone 'is a life'. The 'life' of the human individual is sacred. At this point enters the problematic. Government does not and cannot 'govern' Life. It governs the 'condition of togetherness'. It has already been pointed out, one solitary human being on an island does not need the institution of Government. Of course, that's the other end of the problem. An individual can live any way s/he pleases. The clash between the requirements of living in a 'condition of togetherness', and the natural Right to live 'as one pleases' becomes the 'basic clash' of civilizations. Sometimes, we have to face the fact that our problems are not 'all' government problems; they are 'human problems'. How sad; we don't know what we want.

Democracy is being 'overpowered' by economics.

The democratic spirit is being overpowered by the economic spirit. Stated differently, the values of democracy are being overpowered by the values of the economy; even more clearly, freedom and equality are undervalued, while 'money' is so over-valued that its becoming our God. How sad. The greatest motivation for human activity is an 'artifact'. Why do we undervalue freedom and equality? Why has a 'medium of exchange' become so valuable that we greedily hoard and collect it, to the point of aspiring to be on the Forbes List, or the Top 1%. Where are we going? The answer is not that money is more valuable than freedom and equality, but that the human condition is so weak that it pursues money and its substitutes, because, in actuality, it does not seem to understand that freedom and equality is a 'natural phenomena' of the human condition. It does not come from Government; it comes from Nature, but Government has a duty to protect it in the 'condition of togetherness'. That's what makes us 'civilized'. How sad. Of course, the 'human condition' has been 'down-sized' by the legal corporate structure, to the point, that a corporation is more 'protected' by Government than the human condition. Government comes to the rescue of 'suffering' corporations, with billions of dollars, while it helps the 'retired', the 'worker', the sick, the suffering, with a measly 'few dollars'. Then, it has the gall to label one as 'necessary' and the other as 'welfare'. Sad and sick; Plutocrats are at the helm. But, they will soon discover that their 'enemy' are not the 'common folk' at the Bottom of Government, but the other Plutocrats, that 'will vie' for that 'top position'. Try to understand, 'greed' can never be satisfied. How sad and stupid.

The "State" or "Nation" are necessary politiical concepts that are rendered into Institutions.

The Nation is a necessary Institution. The reason for that is that there are an infinite number of human beings in the World and humanity could not survive without Government. However, all Human beings are born in Nature, and Governments are 'constructed' or set-up, by the very human beings who are to be 'the governed'. Hence, the different types of Governments have been constructed in the 'historical context' of their 'beginnings'. That should be an obvious fact to every governing Institution. Stated differently, humans have no choice in the matter of being born, while Governments are mere constructions by the human beings. Nevertheless, Governments need 'Power' in order to Govern. Hence, the Power of Government over the human condition. This should be clear to every Government in the world. Hence, Governments and Nations are dependent on the human condition. Hence, the Human condition is entitled to its 'natural' freedom and equality, while s/he exists within a 'constructed political framework'. Of course, in todays World, People are born into an 'already constructed' political structure, and hence have some 'inferior sense' that Government is a 'superior entity'. But, that is never the case. People born into a natural freedom and equality are entitled to a 'political Freedom and Equality' as a necessary 'construction'. People need Government, but Government should never abuse its 'powerful artificial nature'. People create Government; Government does not create People.

The concept of the 'State' or 'Nation' is real because it's an 'embodied concept'.

When we say the State is a "persona ficta", we mostly imply that the concept is a fiction. When we use the term "fiction" we usually imply its 'unreal'. The fact is that the concept of the State or a concept of 'Nation' is 'real'. By real, I mean, its nature is not 'fictional'. Its a 'real political institution'. This fact can be ratified by anyone who is incarcerated or compelled to pay taxes. To be sure, the concept is a 'general linguistic term' that encompasses a huge geographical area with a specific 'political Identity' with 'Power'. To say that its a 'fiction', in whatever form, is ludicrous. The State or Nation is real and that term includes each and every 'real' human individual, living within the 'political limits' of its Identity. The geographical area may not be 'continuous' or 'contiguous', but its political 'Identity' is 'One' and has political 'Power. To be sure, a political concept is a linguistic generalization, but it encompasses real human beings. A political entity. or State' or Nation, cannot exist but for its People. Without 'real people', a 'verbal generalization' is empty, vacuous, insignificant, and has no power. But, as a political Institution with People, it is Powerful, and has a duty to the People that created it. Every Nation has inherent Power and every Nation must learn to get along with other Nations. Of course, the 'People of the World' must also learn to get along with each 'Other', but it becomes easier when 'their Nations' learn to get along with 'other Nations'.

A 'People' must support their Governemnt; but, a Governemnt must support 'the People'.

Its absolutely necessary to say that 'a People' must support their Government. Its equally necessary that a Government must support their People. Of course, neither of the two 'somewhat similar' ways of 'support' are the same. A people usually supports their Government by paying taxes, serving in the Military, serving in 'Government and social' positions of authority, by running for election, and by following established 'mores' of social behavior, etc.. In return, the Government provides for the 'general welfare' of its People, by helping provide jobs, establishing rules (laws) of interaction between the Peoples, providing some system of 'social security', making homes available, establishing medical care, etc. Obviously, the Governments 'relation' to the People must be exercised through the established social and political institutions between the Top and the Bottom. To the contrary, the Bottom or the People relate to the Government by participating in the established social or political institutions of the form of Government. Some of the Individuals duties may be unpleasant, e.g., participation in War; paying taxes, etc.. Although the 'relation' between the Bottom to the Top may sometimes be 'disagreeable', the Individual at the Bottom has a duty to his/her Government. However, that same relation also 'flows' from the Top to the Bottom. That's the relation that must acknowledge that the Top is performing an obligation to govern the Bottom and that it must do so in a 'just manner'. This requires that the social and political institutions respect and protect the 'freedom and equality' of each individual. Otherwise, Who needs Government?

Political Parties are usually 'oppositional'; but, they don't have to be.

Political Parties are usually oppositional; but they don't have to be. If both Parties exist within a Democracy, the difference could well be a difference in approach, and not a difference in 'less' or 'more' democracy. Obviously, the difference in approach would just be a different way of bringing about the 'same' or 'similar' result, but in no case would it be a non-democratic result. But, the usual differences in the Ideology of the Parties, create a 'result' that cannot be considered completely Democratic. The problematic then becomes, "how can political parties in a democracy be non-democratic"? The term "party" in a political context means "a collection of similar minded individuals that have a particular way of viewing and doing something", that applies to everyone under Government. Unfortunately, that makes 'democratic problems' into personal 'human problems'. How can that be surmounted in the political sphere? The truth? It can't. The only approach available is to really understand what democracy means i.e., the Freedom and Equality of each Individual, and to compute into the 'democratic critique' of the 'democratic social status', a real mathematical perspective that includes every real individual, and which leaves no one out. Notice, that I leave corporations out, because they are not real persons, and I refer to the Individuals as 'real'. A 'social', contemplated as a political unity, must exclude the 'artificial'. I do not mean that they are never considered, to the contrary, they are very important. But, lets get 'real' about our situation. The 'human problematic' is a 'real' problem. First, lets sort out the human problematic, the artificial can work itself out.

The Party system, rightfully implemented, could be a blessing to Democracy.

The Party system could be a blessing to a Democratic political structure. The reason for that, is that different approaches can generate change in the direction to 'perfecting' the 'political concepts' of Freedom and Equality. However, if the differences in the so-called ideology of the Parties is not so much a 'political difference' as it is an 'economic difference', the result will be catastrophic. Why catastrophic? Mostly, because one Party emphasizes the 'political aspects' while the other emphasizes the economic aspects, or, both Parties emphasize the economic aspect, and everybody knows, that democracy has nothing to do with economics. Its true that Capitalism can flourish in a Democracy, but we must be careful that, it not be, at the expense of Freedom and Equality of the Individual. The political ideal of Freedom and Equality cannot 'motor' an economy; while the economic ideal of 'profits cannot motor a Democracy. In such cases, the economic Ideal causes damage to the political ideal by substituting economic values in place of political values. The political values of Freedom and Equality cannot be replaced by profits. Then, we must ask, why do we have institutions about the 1%; the Forbes list; whose number One; who's the richest man in America?, in the World? Economics and money are essential to everyone, but we must be careful that we don't create a 'lop-sided' economic monstrosity, in place of, a living, democratic, economy; i.e., a viable Democracy. We are sacrificing freedom and equality, for a pocket-full of money. Try 'Incorporating' your 'diurnal-personal-life' into a 'corporate life' and discover that there is no such thing. You don't have a 'corporate life'. We are destroying our own lives by replacing the political values of freedom and equality with money. How sad, we 'die' in 'castles'.

The political term "Revolution" is a much misunderstood term.

The political term "Revolution" is a much misunderstood term. The 'term' does not include such 'flare-ups', or, 'set of contraries' postulated by 'antagonistic' political Parties'; nor, does it include 'minor' physical skirmishes such as 'demonstrations' sit-ins, etc.. No; revolutions are against the 'political foundations' of the very form of Government under which a People live. Its an attempt to change the 'rules of the Game' and to establish a 'new foundation' for political activity. Since the basis of a Democracy are the Freedom and Equality of every individual, it is impossible to have a 'political revolution' in a Democracy. Why is that? Well, simply, the form of Government is already instituted as a Democracy, and hence all a democracy can do is to try to 'compel' a more accurate definition of Freedom and Equality. Hence, most political Parties can not be 'revolutionary', they can only compel 'adherence' and 'recognition' of a proper understanding of Freedom and Equality. That is precisely the case with 'racial discrimination' and 'economic imbalances'. A democracy cannot have both of these 'problems' and claim to be democratic. Why? Because real 'Freedom and Equality' cannot exist in a 'social' that has 'racial discrimination' and 'economic imbalances'. Democracies should not tolerate 'racial discrimination' nor the '1%'. So, lets change the political rules in the case of the 'discrimination'; and lets change the 'economic rules' in the case of the 1%. That may not be revolutionary, but it certainly is a much better understanding of 'real democracy'.

The 'State' or Nation is not a Persona Ficta.

The State, or, the Nation, is not a 'Persona Ficta', if by 'Persona Ficta', is meant a fictional entity; the State cannot be fictional. The Concept of the State or the Nation is real and is the 'verbal tag' attributed to the 'condition of togetherness' in which every Individual finds him/herself in. In other words, the Nation is as real as the Individuals within it, viz., you and I are real and so is the 'condition of togetherness' in which we find ourselves. It is 'not possible' to say that we, as Individuals, are not real- I am real and I think you are too- and hence we, in a 'condition of togetherness', must also be real. If one Individual is real, so must all Individuals. The only difference would be the 'size' of the 'condition of togetherness', or stated differently, the size of the "State" or "Nation". The verbal tag, "State" or "Nation" is merely a notion that identifies all of us in the 'condition of togetherness'. It merely gives us a 'political Identity'. This political Identity describes the political affiliations, type of Government, Nationality, etc., of the citizens within the geographical and legal parameters of a "State" or "Nation". Nevertheless, and in spite of political differences, every real human being has the same 'human nature' as all other human beings. "National", or, "political" differences, does not, and cannot, attribute 'more or less' humanity to the human condition. We are all in the same boat. How often we hear that statement and yet we do not appreciate what it states. States and Nations are different by virtue of 'political Identity' and type of Government, but the 'human condition' is the same in every living Individual, regardless of the difference in the State or the Nation, in which s/he finds him/herself in. The sad part of all this is that, a "State" or "Nation" has 'power' and cannot function without the 'human element'.

Capitalism can flourish in a Democracy; but, it can also lead to Plutocracy.

Capitalism is an economic system that can flourish in a Democracy, but it can also lead to Plutocracy. One of the problems of Capitalism, is that it can attempt to substitute itself in place of democratic principles. I mean, it can consider "money", the end result of organizing in a manner to solely make profits, in lieu of contributing to the general welfare of the Bottom of Government, or, the People at the Bottom of Government. Capitalism is a form of economic organization that must be arranged in a 'right manner', viz., to make profits. Well that's ok, but it must never 'substitute' for the freedom and equality that makes it possible. Without Freedom and Equality, capitalism cannot exist. Yet, it attempts to replace the very spirit that made its existence possible. What happened? Simply, Money and 'making a profit' became 'personal values' to real individuals, that became more important than the Freedom and Equality of every 'real human being' within the Nation. As we know, it even invented' new 'economic persons', viz., corporations, that are protected by the Constitution. The Top 1% hold most of the economic value in existence in the whole economy. Maybe we already live, in a Plutocracy, or, an Oligarchy? Of course, every real Individual in the social is Free to run for Political Office, or, is s/he? Then, why do the candidates need to raise Millions, or Billions, to even think of running for Office? Oh, its simple. Our so-called Democracy has been 'bought' by 'Corporate Governments', and money, and 'real Freedom and Equality' has been burned at the stake, by the inextinguishable fires, of the Profits engine. Democracy is dying; Freedom and Equality no longer matter; what matters now is your Bank Account.