The 'will of the Peoples' is determined by 'voters' who vote for the 'Freedom and Equality' of each and every real Individual.

The 'will of the Peoples' is a human problem. It should be a problematic of each and every human Individuals 'weighing' and 'elaborating' on the Freedom and Equality of 'all human beings' living in a 'condition of togetherness', within a Democratic 'Society, or Nation'. The terms "Society or Nation" includes every Human Being in the Nation; and not just in one or another State. What is Constitutionally valid for the Nation, also applies, to each and every State. The nature of a 'human problematic' automatically excludes the 'economic Legal Fiction' of the Corporation. The Corporation, considered as a 'person', is a Legal Fiction that exists only in contemplation of Law. In other, less 'juristic terms', its not 'real', like a human Being is real. A Corporation, as a 'fictional persona', cannot discriminate racially like an Individual. The 'real Individuals' that 'own' and who 'incorporated' the Corporation, certainly can. But that's another matter. Corporations are 'not real', and hence, do not have to 'weigh' and 'elaborate' along the lines of Freedom and Equality of each and 'every' human being, at the 'Bottom' of Government. This 'weighing' and 'elaborating' is the function of the real Individuals at the 'Bottom of Government'. Only a 'deliberation' by all the 'real human beings', at the Bottom of Government, can establish the 'will of the Peoples'. Those 'deliberations' must consider the Freedom and Equality of all the 'human beings' at the Bottom of Government, but it cannot include the Legal Fictions. That is a different function; its an economic function that does not 'live' or 'exists' by 'Freedom and Equality'; it lives and exists only for the 'economic purpose' of 'Profits'. In other words, the Corporation is 'driven' by profits, and not, by Freedom and Equality. The 'will of the Peoples' is driven by 'Freedom and Equality' of the real Individuals in the 'condition of togetherness', not by 'profits', the 1%, or the so-called 'corporate nature' of the social. The Peoples live in a 'real social', not a 'corporate social'. The so-called, Corporate Society is just as 'fictional' as the Corporation. How sad; Society, the Nation, have been taken over by 'an economy' of Legal Fictions. Its time for 'real Democracy' to 'wake-up'.

The biggest problematic in a Democracy is establishing the 'will of the People'.

The biggest problematic in a Democracy is trying to 'establish' the 'will of the People'. A 'Peoples' Government must determine the 'will of the People', and then it must implement it through the machinery and structure of democratic Government. But, how is that to be done? The Government is a democratically 'fixed', stable, entity, but the 'will of the People' is an 'elusive and variable' phenomena. The 'Peoples' have divided themselves into 'apposing Parties'. If the competing Parties were both 'democratic' in nature, then the 'end result' would just be a 'variable' in the 'concept of democracy'. Either result would be a 'kind of democracy'. The only difference would be in the 'means' by which democracy is to be implemented. But, the 'divided' Party ideologies are so different, that one Party member who may be unhappy with their Party's choice, will not, in the alternative, vote for the other Party's choice. Is that politically possible in a 'true democracy', where both Parties are supposed to be democratic, and one Party differs from the other Party merely 'in the means by which democracy will achieve a desired democratic result'? Of course, not! A choice between Two Parties, may be different, but the difference should not affect the 'democratic nature' of the choice. If it does effect the democratic nature of the choice; then it 'cannot' be said that both Parties are democratic. That's the problem with so-called divided loyalties. The division between Party-ideologies often leads to the embracing of 'non-democratic' political ideas. Hence, Parties can both be democratic; or, both can be undemocratic; or, one Party can be democratic, while the Other is not. Hence, establishing the 'will of the People', at the Bottom of Government, becomes a real problematic. Of course, many problems can arise from the the 'relation' between the Top and the Bottom. But, the biggest problematic is in trying to determine the will of 'all the People' at the Bottom. At this point, it is vital that the Individuals at the Bottom become very interested in their Government, and contribute to the implementation of Democracy. The Top of Government has a duty to its People; but, the Bottom of Government also has a duty to its Government. 'One' cannot fly without the help of the Other.

A Democratic Government cannot exist without its People.

A Democratic Government cannot exist without its People. However, other forms of Government can exist without the participation of its People. Actually, an Autocratic form of Government exists because 'someone', or a few Individuals have 'assumed' the control of the Top of the Institution. Then, they have managed to give, or 'pass', through inheritance,'control', to preferred Individuals at the Top of Government. This 'passage' of control becomes a function of the Top and is the result of Individual families, or, even Party members. The prominent characteristic of the passage of control is that it is not a function of all the People who are governed, but instead, of only a 'few' selected Individuals. Its not the result of the 'vote', but the result of 'Plutocratic' or 'Oligarchic' control. The main problematic is that the People as a whole, do not get to participate. Hence, in such a 'social', democracy is dying or dead. A Government "by the People" and "for the People"( especially 'for the People') has been taken over by the 'economy' and the 'Institutions', motored by 'Greed'. How sad. The economy flourishes because it exists in a democracy and the 'opportunistic results' of such a successful economy ( hoarding profits and greed) begins to 'run' and operate the government. Money and Greed takes over; and what began as a democratic economy 'turns' a Capitalistic economy into a 'Plutocratic Institution' that 'motors' the Government. It appears that 'money and greed' has become 'more important' than democracy. Where are the Statesmen and where is Democracy?

A Democratic Government needs a Politics; but the 'politics' cannot deviate from Democracy.

In a Democracy a 'politics' must be about Democracy. It would be ludicrous to state that a democratic government could transform into an Autocracy by means of the 'electoral' or 'democratic process'. That's impossible, because democracy is about the Equality and Freedom of each and every individual in the social. In a Democracy, the People 'empower' the institution of Government. Without People, there is no need for Government. Hence, Democracy is about its People; and politics should be about the Equality and Freedom of the People. Economies are necessary; but economic values cannot 'drive' a democracy because it is based on a 'profit motive', and not on an Equality motive. Economies cannot survive on a basis of Equality and Freedom; but a Capitalistic economy in a Democracy can. A 'Capitalistic economy' could never survive in an Autocracy. That's why they call it a Plutocracy or an Oligarchy. Its just another 'verbal Label' that describes the center of gravity of the 'Form' of the Government. Its a Government of the 1%, the 'few', or some Autocrat with lots of money and property. When a 'Capitalistic economy' begins to campaign on 'any basis' other than a 'Democratic basis', its headed for trouble. To do so is to under mine the very 'democratic principles' that allowed it to thrive. That's what happens when 'politics' and elections become 'based' on, personality attacks; prejudices; discrimination; so-called, 'class-consciousness'; and plain buffoonery. Democracy needs Equality and Freedom; only a democracy that emphasizes those qualities of Life can survive. Anything, short of that is ludicrous.

'Politics' is about 'governing' all the 'Peoples' at the Bottom. It should be driven by Equality and Freedom; not Money and Greed.

Politics is about 'governing' the millions of People at the Bottom of Government. That's what it should be. It is strongly related to what the People must do. Of course, they must work, and work should be available and well compensated. They should also 'live democratically'and 'think democratically'. The thinking part is more difficult. Hence, the Bottom is often subject to 'sweeping political generalities' that are 'insincere' and that politicians use to 'persuade and trick' the Bottom. How sad. That's why voting should become more 'fair' and less circumscribed by rules and maybe the rules for campaigning should also change. As it is now, only the wealthy and well-to-do can run for office. This years campaigning hasn't exhibited one single, 'genuine' political slogan. Oh sure, its about getting votes, but no 'genuine commitments' have been made. They're all empty and vacuous generalities, and most are 'personality attacks' on each other. How did this come about? Simple, candidates that belong to the so-called 1% are 'talking' to the Bottom as if the candidates were really going to help 'democracy'; the poor; the needy; and yet, some candidates have said that they would not increase the minimum wage. Does that make sense? Of course not. The main issue that should be addressed is that a democracy is not motored by the economy nor by economic values; nor by 'class distinctions'. it is motored by the Equality and Freedom of the individual. Economic inequality, Racial injustice; Racial discrimination; the 'Plutocratic and Oligarchic' nature of our Institutions and our politics; that is what should be addressed. Democracy as a political institution has become dis-functional and in its place we find a social motored by economic values instead of democratic political values. Genuine human values are being replaced by 'economic values' driven by money, greed, and political power. How sad. Democracy is 'dying' and Plutocracy is 'flourishing'.

Politics is about 'organizing' the structure of the 'Political Institution of the State' and protecting the 'Freedom and Equality' of the Individual.

The 'State' or the Nation is an Institution. The organization of the functions of the State is what we call "Democracy or democratic". A Democracy is a government "of the People, by the People, and for the people". Politics relates to the 'means' by which democratic principles are instituted into the everyday functions of the State. The 'People as a whole', and 'Individually', benefit from the institution of democratic principles into the 'Bottom" of the Institution of the State. Politics is a competition between Individuals. Who will occupy the 'Offices' that 'represent' the People? Hence, politics should be a 'political means' by which to educate the People about the many 'democratic improvements' to be instilled into the social; to better 'perfect, and or, improve democratic structures'. Today, unfortunately, Politics has been reduced to personality attacks between candidates for Office. Of course, 'political correctness' has long used democratic language to 'compete' for election, but the terminology was too 'general', and 'abstract' and 'never really registered' in the psyche of the People. That's why the People welcomed an election that 'strikes' at so called 'political correctness'. However, candidates are too concerned with personality attacks, instead of improving the Democratic structure. How sad; that reflects on the 'mentality of politics' in a democracy. When candidates become 'insincere' about occupying political Offices, democracy is in trouble. Every candidate should propose 'improvements of the democracy', in a clear understandable manner. Lacking that, he or she should not be in 'politics'. The Freedom and Equality of every Individual is at stake. Democracy is about 'the People'; and the Individuals who strive to 'represent' the People, should be 'strongly aware' of the 'Representative nature' of the Office they seek. All Individuals should be acutely aware that we 'must live' in a 'condition of togetherness' ( that makes politics necessary) and that the State exists only because it 'has a People'. Without 'People', the State has no need to exist. Without the State, we have no need for 'Politics'.

The Media is important in Democratic politics, but 'politics' does not 'truck' in Truth.

The media play a very important part in political campaigns. Recent news that some candidates " lie, and do not tell the truth", is ridiculous. There is no "truth" in politics, there is 'only', or 'maybe', or 'possibly', a 'political correctness', but the question of "Truth" plays no part in politics. Even Philosophy, psychology, cosmology, Religion, and many other 'disciplines, are still trying to determine what 'formulations' within there 'belief system', may constitute the 'Truth'. To accuse a politician of not telling the 'Truth', and lying, is ridiculous, and can only be attributed to the media coverage, of those events, as highly prejudicial. The media is doing what they are accusing the candidate of doing. The level of language-use in politics can only be 'correct or incorrect'; and even 'that' has become highly suspicious. But 'political correctness' and 'political language' does not 'truck' in Truth. Media is very important in a Democracy, but it cannot twist words around to create a specific effect that causes damage to 'Politics' or to 'political candidates'. Certainly 'honesty' is necessary in a Politics but, it must be kept within the domain of the "political sphere". Politics is about 'Representation'; a politician can only 'represent' the People. The 'Peoples' concern is with the "representative ethics' of the Politician and not with a 'candidates' ability to answer questions about "Truth". That's the most difficult and confusing question that anyone can be asked. What kind of 'truth' is being referred too? Politics does not truck with 'Truth' as a philosophical quest. What kind of question is that? The question can be asked in a political manner, but it should not be asked in a 'confusing' manner. Even the questioner does no know what the Truth is; hence the question is 'intentionally deceptive' and 'prepared' to cause damage. The Media has a duty to be as 'Objective' as possible. hence, it must use language to report both sides of the political spectrum, but it must use a grammar and a language that reflects the 'antagonistic nature' of the exchange, especially in 'Politics'.

The 'essence' of Democracy is 'its People'; hence, they have a Right to vote. Make voting easier.

The essence of Democracy is 'its People'; its essence includes 'each and every Individual' that constitutes 'the Governed'. Democracy is inseparable from the People it governs. The Government itself is constituted of 'its People'; the Legislature is constituted of 'its People'; and the Judiciary is constituted of 'its People'. Autocracy 'rules' people; Democracy doesn't rule, it 'governs people', or stated differently, it governs 'itself'. Hence, the electoral process becomes an important part of the Democratic process. That's why elections and the Right to vote is vital. Of course, everyone will say they know that. Well, then why not make the electoral process more democratic by allowing all those who have a Right to vote, to do so by mail or by computer. This would 'soften' the effects of 'gerrymandering'( that should be outlawed), and would allow all the qualified voters to express their preference from the 'safety' of their home. Some States allow voting by mail, so why not extend that 'privilege' to all States, and also include, voting by 'computer'. This would eliminate 'inconveniences' at the polls; traveling to the polls; and fighting inclement weather. Instead of the citizen finding 'a way' to vote, the Government must 'insure' that every citizen has expressed his/her preferences. Many States make voting difficult; the Government has a duty to 'facilitate' the exercise of that privilege; not to create difficulties. Democracy is Government "of the People"; "by the People", and "for the People"; hence Government is duty bound to use every new 'technology' to facilitate the voting process, and not to make it problematic. Government already requires voters to be 'registered'. Well, then allow the registered voters to vote by mail, by computer, by phone, or any other manner made possible by the advances in technology. Instead, 'Democracy' is still using the 'old fashion manner' of 'voting',i.e., citizens are required to overcome physical difficulties; health problems; age problems; storms, floods; tornado; snow; property damage; and 'getting' to the Polls'; where they are 'met' with 'other difficulties'. If Democracy is the best form of Government, let the People speak. Voting should not be 'old fashioned', in a modern, technologically advanced, Democracy.

Society, may advance technologically; but, the Individuals Constitutional Rights cannot be circumvented.

Society has made great technological advances in media, phones, and computers. Individuals rely on these 'advances' to 'store', send, and use personal and private information. Lately, many business institutions have been illegally 'hacked', to the detriment of the business, and also to the loss of personal information, credit card information, social security numbers, etc., of the clients involved. Clearly, an illegal act and that's understood by everyone; even by law-enforcement. Government has a duty to 'govern' but not to violate the Constitutional Rights of its citizens. But, the question arises, is anyone, especially Government, entitled to get behind the 'privacy' provided by these advances in technology? It should be obvious to everyone, especially Government, that if enforcement agencies cannot 'Unconstitutionally search' a human individual, it 'cannot' be acceptable to 'search' the technologies being used by the Individuals to store private information. So how can Government; or the F.B.I.; or the Courts, compel a business Institution that deals in these technological 'advances', compel that business to provide a 'back door' in the technology, for the purpose of unlawfully 'searching' for personal information? How can 'unlawful searches' of an Individual be 'Constitutionally prohibited', and unlawful searches of 'technology', 'not be' prohibited? That's ludicrous; not to mention Unconstitutional. Government has Power, but its a Power granted by the People. The People do not grant Government the Power to violate the Constitution; nor to allow encroachment into 'personal matters stored and encrypted' within the 'advances of technology'. Government cannot compel 'Unlawful Searches and Seizures' of the Individual; nor Unlawful Searches and Seizures of the 'technology' used by the individual; and it can't compel the building of 'back doors' in the technology, to facilitate illegal acts by the Government. Its all the 'same' and its all Unconstitutional. Government has Power; but, not Unconstitutional Power.

"Socialism" will not work; Equality and Freedom of the Individual, in a 'condition of togetherness', will work.

"Socialism", as a form of Government, will not work. The term is a misnomer; and an Oxymoron, because the Top of Government governs the human Individual, as an Individual, living in 'a condition of togetherness'. A 'condition of togetherness' always retains the 'individual elements' who are real, and who 'constitute' the 'togetherness' of the condition. Government cannot govern a general abstraction called the 'social' in its condition of 'abstraction'. The abstract nature of the term leaves too much 'wiggle room', at the Bottom of Government, among the real Individuals who are being governed, and leads to much abuse of power. If such was the case, racial discrimination could be justified by saying, "we have a socialistic form of government", where everyone is Equal and Free; when, in fact, Government discriminates between the individuals constituting the 'different' human races; or, sets standards that benefit one group of Individuals, but, discriminates against the Other groups. A "Social", in its 'condition of abstraction', cannot be governed; whereas a 'condition of togetherness' can be governed if each and every real Individual is included in the 'condition'. Governing is not easy, because it requires an Individual Representative who is capable of respecting the uniqueness of the individual human condition; and is able to govern the 'condition of togetherness', in its 'collective' condition without 'forgetting' and eliminating the Individual as a unique human being. Government must never forget that 'its a People' that is being governed.

Democracy is about each and every 'real' Individuals Equality and Freedom. Capitalism is about profits.

Democracy is about each and every 'real' Individual's Equality and Freedom. The Top 'governs' in a Democracy and every Individual counts; nobody can be left out and everyone must be included. Capitalism is about profits and competition between Individuals and Corporations. Everyone is Free to engage in Capitalistic activity, but only the 'Large' and the 'Rich' can compete with the other 'Large' and 'Rich'. Hence there is no such thing as Equality in the Economy and the so-called Freedom to engage in economic activity is a farce. Capitalism and its underlying Economic activity is an entirely different 'value system' from the 'value system' of a Democratic 'Political Institution'. Capitalism cannot be motored by Freedom and Equality and a Government cannot be motored by the profits motor. Hence, it becomes important to keep them separate. Unfortunately, the two value systems are intermingled; this becomes glaringly obvious during elections. Many other 'terms' also creep into the electoral process. For example, the term 'Socialism'. The term is an oxymoron. There is no such 'thing' as governing a 'social'. The term is an abstract generalization that applies to the 'entire Bottom' of the governing process, and which does not 'compute' the real individuals that constitute the 'condition of togetherness'. The 'condition of togetherness' is not an abstract term; and the condition 'includes' each and every 'real Individual' in the 'condition'. Hence, everyone is included and nobody can be left out of the so-called 'social' in a democratic government. Of course, it is said, that corporations are to big to fail. That's baloney. If Corporations are not 'doing' their democratic duties; or if they 'violate Law', ( A Fictions cannot be put in jail) they can be dismantled, and, by Law, their Articles of Incorporation can be 'involuntarily dissolved' until they comply and exist by the rules of a Democracy. You say that's extreme; isn't being a 'member' of the 1% being extreme?

A democratic Government is a necessity; a Capitalistic economy is also a necessity.

A Democratic form of Government is necessary because democracy is a Government of the People; by the People, and most important, for the People. A Capitalistic economy is necessary because 'competition' among the Individuals is a necessary component of the 'drive', or 'energy' towards profits that must be a necessary attribute of a successful economy. However, corporations are legal fictions and exist only in 'contemplation of law'. Otherwise, they do not exist. They are not real. Democracy 'for the People' can never lose sight of the fact that Freedom and Equality is always an 'Individual thing' and must always be 'for the People', or better yet, 'for the Individual' in the 'condition of togetherness'. Otherwise, the concept of freedom and equality becomes a, 'too general, abstract, concept' and becomes, in a practical sense, meaningless. Equally important, is the economic 'drive' towards profits which can be easily transformed into 'capital', ownership, or just 'huge profits'. However, this 'drive' ,if left uncontrolled, can become 'greed', which is not 'good' when it is based on a 'medium of exchange'. How can 'greed' be controlled? The only way is to establish more 'democratic obligations', or, 'official duties' on the part of the 'corporate structure'. This huge fictional, legal structure generates the profits and some Individual keeps the profits. That would be the 1%. Although, both Democracy and Capitalism are essential, the competitive nature of the economy is impossible where one of the competing Parties is 'real' and the other is a 'legal fiction'. More control over the legal fictions, in the form of 'democratic duties', becomes imperative. Democracy requires Freedom and Equality with respect to every 'real Individual'; this does not include 'legal fictions'. Legal Fictions are not real, they are 'constructions', and as such, they can be democratically controlled, or, in the alternative, be terminated.

A new concept of the State, or, how the One governs the Many.

The old concept of the "State" was considered a " persona ficta, because not a man". Obviously, "man"(also women) is real in a sense that the State is 'not real'. The State became recognized as a "legal fiction" which existed only in "contemplation of Law". Everyone now accepts, the fact that the State is a "political Institution" and "must exist". A "State", 'any State', 'all States' are 'political Institutions', whether organized as Autocracies, differing 'variations' of Autocracy, Kingdoms, Plutocracies, or Democracies. All of the above were historically instituted by an Individual or Individuals to serve as a 'Pivotal Point' for the 'Authority to Govern'. Of course, that is the source of all political power. But, a fiction, in whatever disguise it might assume, soon becomes obvious as a non-existent 'thing'. A 'fiction'cannot hold together the integrity of Government, especially when the 'governing' is real. To be sure, its a very important political concept, but that must not distract us from attempting to establish a more 'valid description' of the 'actual thing' called The state or the Government. Of course, it has to be an Political Institution and it 'must govern' the 'Many People' at the 'Bottom' of the established structure. That 'need' creates a relation between a Top and a Bottom. Of course, the 'Top' is the State, and the 'Bottom', are the millions of People, that are the 'Governed'. But that primitive structure, alone, is inadequate. It needs another 'aspect'; one that determines the correctness of the Governing. Of course, this would be a Judiciary that determines the Constitutionality of the 'Institutionalized Laws'. That is a 'Triadic form of government' where the Top governs according to the Constitution and the Bottom is governed by Law. The Top must govern according to Law; the Bottom must follow the law; and the sides must clearly 'define' the Law, i.e., keep the triadic nature of the Governing process in 'constant motion'. This relation is real; the form of Government is real, and the People governed are real. There are no 'fictional components' to the triadic nature of the Governing process.

The 'condition of togetherness' must retain the 'Individuality' of the human condition.

Obviously, we must live in a 'condition of togetherness'. The general formulation of 'the social' has created many problems. Our use of the terms,'Social', or, 'society', creates a huge linguistic generalization which can, too often, be said to 'signify' a term that is 'vacuous', and 'empty'. The concept is not grounded in a real, human 'individuality'. Too often we use the term 'social' as if it was inclusive of the human condition. Of course, we may be using 'the term' to include the human condition, but it actually neglects the 'specific', nature of 'individuality', which is the essence of Democracy. Democracy, in actuality, is a Government, 'of the Individual' in a 'condition of togetherness'; a Government, 'by the Individual', and most importantly, a Government 'for the Individual' in said condition. That description is a little different from the sweeping generalizations of 'political correctness' which, to be sure, rises to high levels of abstraction, but never seems to 'come down' to the every-day nature of the real, human, individual. That's the problematic. The solution must lie in a sphere where Legislation touches each and every human being, as the Individual s/he is, in the 'condition of togetherness'. Not easy, but worth struggling towards. Regardless the outcomes, the Individual cannot be forgotten. 'Peoples', 'individuals', 'human beings' need Government, but Government cannot and must not abuse the 'political power' that accrues to every 'political Institution', that becomes necessary, because we must live in a 'condition of togetherness'. Government is about 'governing', about legislating, about enforcing laws, in the 'condition of togetherness'; but Government must understand that it only exists because the 'People' were here first. People 'create governments'; Governments exist only for the purpose of governing, otherwise, they would not even exist.

An economy is essential; but a 'democratic economy' can 'fly' loose from its 'moorings'.

An economy in the 'condition of togetherness' is essential; but, it cannot 'fly loose' from its moorings. Although, an economy is 'more' quantifiable than Equality and Freedom, it must have a 'foundation' that keeps it in check. That foundation used to be the 'gold standard', but, that no longer applies. Its difficult to conceptualize, but Money, the 'ultimate fiction', has flown into a 'fictitious realm' labeled as 'derivatives'; once referred to as "financial weapons of mass destruction". The 'unchecked' ascendancy of a 'fiction' into a 'higher level of abstraction', one that 'tramples' on the line separating 'morals' from 'economics'. It cannot be kept in check unless the Government begins to require more democratic duties from corporations. How sad, the fictitious realm has taken over a 'genuine life' of human Equality and Freedom. Of course, the 'Individual' in a democracy also has 'duties',but, fortunately and unfortunately, the Equality and Freedom of the human condition can become 'greedy'. That's real sad; because, in the economic realm, that 'greed' is 'motored' by a fiction that is totally empty. The bottom line is that both Government and the Individual must learn not to give up their 'real life' for a 'fictitious life'. Maybe some 'degree' of so called 'Socialism' is needed. I say 'so-called' because the term, in a political context, is misunderstood. The term is on so high a level of abstraction, that it is 'dis-functional'. The term needs to become 'more connected' to the act of governing (less abstract) that it actualizes the duty of Government to 'really govern' the 'condition of togetherness', and each and every Individual 'in' the 'said condition'.

The 'tensions' in Democracy 'generate' Law; the 'tensions' in Capitalism 'generates' greed.

The 'tensions' in Democracy generates Law; the tensions in Capitalism generates Greed. Democracy demands Freedom and Equality and the freedom and equality of each and every Individual, subject to democratic Government, brings about the necessity of Law to 'regulate' and monitor' the exercise of that assured freedom and equality. Individuals are prone to 'individualism' or 'self-rule' and very often that individual attitude 'overflows' into the 'governing aspects', within the social, or the 'government', into some form of Autocratic-rule. Individuals do not distinguish between individual-self-rule and 'social' or 'government rule'. Stated differently, 'control'over 'ones-self' and 'power' over the condition of togetherness are two entirely different matters. Hence, established rules for the interactions of an individual living within the 'condition of togetherness' becomes essential, hence the necessity of Law. Of course, Law regulates and controls interactions of Individuals, in such a manner, as to hold the 'condition' together, without violating anyone's basic 'human rights'. Capitalism is different. The motor that drives Capitalism is not the freedom and equality of the Individual. Capitalism is driven by profits. No profits, no chance of survival in the economy. Hence, the 'self-rule' of 'democratic freedom' translates into 'more and more' of the same, or Greed. Capitalism creates Greed, and Greed establishes the 1%. It has become necessary for Government to establish institutions and possibly Laws, that require the 'fair' 'circulation' of the 'medium of exchange'. After all, the reason we have 'money' is because it is a 'medium of exchange'. If it was 'not' a medium of exchange, it would be a worthless piece of paper. Hence, it shouldn't be 'locket' up, or kept from circulating. Of course, the 'biggest culprit' that creates Greed is the Corporation; that 'legal fiction' that only exists in 'contemplation of law'. We create our own monsters and then we lose control over them.

Government is a political Institution; as such, it has a 'Persona'.

Democratic Government is a Political Institution, as such, it has a 'public persona'. Many Governments call themselves Democratic, but, not all so-called Democratic governments have a 'public posture' that practices the 'essential elements' of 'equality' and 'freedom' of the Individual. Many Nations can be judged to be 'democratic or not', by the 'social practices' acceptable within their 'established' political structures or, stated differently, by their 'Public Persona'. Of course, what is normally called an 'established' Democracy often-times fails the test of a 'true democracy'. How many Nations can say their practices do not, in fact, allow 'racial', religious, or economic', discrimination? Often-times, these so-called 'tolerable' public practices merely tolerate Individual, personality, characteristics with 'plutocratic leanings'. We all have 'plutocratic leanings'. Fortunately, or, unfortunately, every Individual needs a certain amount of 'money' to survive in our society. The problematic, arises when the so-called essential 'need for money' accelerates itself into the Plutocratic, public domain. At that point, an essential striving translates itself into a 'more and more of the same' type of striving characteristic of the 'Plutocratic Leanings' that lead to Plutocracy. How sad, we cannot live 'alone' and we cannot live in a 'condition of togetherness'.

A Democracy should 'unify' Equality and Freedom, not 'nickles and dimes'.

A Democracy should have a political system that 'unifies' the values of Equality and Freedom, instead, it unifies an economic system driven by profits. Why? Because, most Individuals are driven by 'money' or a quantified system of acquisitions. 'Money', a 'quantified system' of measurement 'motors' Capitalism and hence, easy to measure. Unfortunately, most Individuals don't value Equality and Freedom, of course, unless it effects the economic returns of their investments; viz., 'profits'. It's easy to determine if one is at the 'Top 1%', or not. It should be just as easy to determine if one is 'Equal" or 'Free'. But, the political value system of a Democracy has become so distorted, that it becomes easier to determine whether one is successful by measuring the 'nickels and dimes' that one owns. How sad! 'money' replaces Equality and Freedom. We should try living in a Nation that does not respect 'human life'. What has lead to this distorted view of the 'values of a Democracy'? Simply and unfortunately; we give 'lip service' to 'Equality and Freedom', but do not in fact practice it. Even the Top 1% provides for a 'proper distribution' of their 'net worth' among his/her heirs. Have you ever heard of someone in the Top 1% leaving their 'money' to the lower 99%? Of course not, and you never will. Why not? Of course, most will say, that's stupid, or silly! But, some of those assets could be used to 'institutionalize' the Bottom more democratically. Lets be clear about this. I don't mean, to leave it to any 'one Individual' in the 99%, I mean to some Institution that can create more Equal and Free opportunities at the Bottom of Government; like health care; just wages; more jobs, the homeless, etc. In other words, lets 'free' that locked in 'medium of exchange', that is meant to 'circulate' and stop 'hoarding' it.

The basic 'tension' between Democratic Government and its People is the Equality and Freedom of the Individual.

The basic 'tension' between the Institution of Democracy and the People is the careful, political, delineation, of the 'social principles' of the Equality and Freedom of the Individual. Equality and Freedom of the Individual must be carefully crafted into a political institution that protects and defends the 'human condition' as a unique 'expression of Life'. The question is always, "does Government 'allow' or 'tolerate' discrimination between different 'Races'; are all races 'politically Equal'?, are all races 'politically Free'?; and does Government allow and defend the 'preferential treatment' of different 'economic levels'; and even between different levels of 'so called education', and between the 'providing of the 'basic necessities' of a 'healthy Life'. Does it have 'homeless' veterans? If government does not, in reality, protect these 'characteristics' in the human condition, then Democracy is failing its people. How can Government say its doing its job, if it doesn't even provide for those who 'fought' and 'died' for its very existence. How easy it is for 'politicians' to 'claim' to fulfill these basic necessities, when in fact the 'sad basis' for seeking political Office is actually some kind of 'self-aggrandizement'. How sad! 'Power' runs amok; and the Office-holders cannot, or, do not, know how to handle it. It immediately takes a form of self-aggrandizement. Democratic Government must defend and protect the basic Equality and Freedom of each and every human being living within its 'territorial and political' boundaries.

One cannot equate 'Equality and Freedom' within a political institution with the 'same' in a human being.

The Equality and Freedom guaranteed by a political Institution is not the same as the Equality and Freedom inherent in the human condition. Obviously, the equality and freedom of the human condition is without limit, because it is 'Life itself', and yet, if the human beings live in a 'condition of togetherness', it must be subject to rules and regulations. That's why the 'condition of togetherness' needs Government. Hence, political Freedom and Equality becomes a political and social institution that governs and regulates, by means of Law, mores, and social structures, the expression of the said Freedom and Equality within the political institution. It does not 'limit' any one individuals freedom and equality but, it governs and limits the expression of 'it' within the 'condition of togetherness'; a condition that human beings must live within. One Individual on an Island does not need Government; the 'condition of togetherness' needs and requires Government. Hence, the duty of a political structure to organize, install, and regulate, the interaction of the human beings within its social and political institutions. Nevertheless, some individuals view laws, institutions, social regulations, as being limitations placed on themselves, 'personally' as 'individuals'. That's a 'mistaken', 'socially unhealthy' view of the 'condition of togetherness' and its 'mandatory structures'. The Individual, as a unique Individual, is not the 'subject of Government; the 'condition of togetherness' is the subject of Government. The 'Obligations' run both ways; Government respects protects, and defends the Rights, of Individuals; and Individuals respect, protects, and helps defend, the Power of Government.