The biggest 'linguistic sins', circulating in a Democracy, are the 'Legal Fictions' considered necessary.

Legal fictions, to some extent, are necessary. However, we cannot disregard their 'reach', nor the inevitable damage they can create. Fictions are artificial contrivances that do not 'really' exist. They occupy 'spaces' in 'reality' which have no 'real' foundation. Usually, they are high level, linguistic abstractions that 'free-float' in 'social space'. A corporation exists as a high level abstraction, but not as a 'real person'. 'Money' is another fiction. Necessary? absolutely, otherwise we would not have a 'medium of exchange'. A medium of exchange is necessary to 'measure' so called 'profits'. Without 'profits there would be no 'personal incentive' to 'create' and provide the 'necessities of life'. The result is the tensions created by 'corporations',( unreal persons), and money,( unreal medium of exchange) between the 'artificial' and the 'real'. Stated differently, 'tensions' between 'real persons' and 'artificial persons', (corporations) and between 'real value' ( land, Gold, Oil?) and 'artificial value', namely a 'medium of exchange'( the Holy Dollar). Are all these fictions necessary? The answer is Yes! So, whats the problem? The problem is that, even as they are necessary,- to hold together the 'condition of togetherness'-, human beings should not be unmindful of the artificiality of linguistic 'fabrications' necessary to hold the integrity of the 'condition of togetherness', as a 'political entity'. That's why Statesmen are necessary. But, the 'human condition' is never deprived of a 'personal integrity' founded on 'real' values of Freedom and Equality. There, an Individual can find 'real personal' values founded on his/her Individuality, as a living human Individual. Those Individuals who want to live in their Nation can do so; those who want to live in their own 'Alice in Wonderland', can also do so. But, give us 'Statesmen', don't govern us, as if, we lived in 'Alice in wonderland'.

In a real Democracy, Party-loyalty is not real Patriotism.

In a real Democracy, Party loyalty is not the same as Patriotism. 'Patriotism' involves a 'political' or an 'ideological' 'posture' which relates to the Nation or the Country as a Whole. Loyalty to the Nation, as a Nation, is a 'holistic' or 'complete act' by the 'condition of togetherness' as a whole, and, by Individuals who purport to Represent the Nation. Any Representative who purports to be loyal or patriotic to the Nation, must occupy a political position that involves the Nation as a whole. He or she cannot divide the 'patriotism' into Democratic or Republican. Its the People who have separated into different 'camps', and then, have divided the 'Ideology'. You are either 'Patriotic'; or 'Loyal', to the 'Nation', or 'Not'. Being Democrat or Republican does not identify a Patriot. Unfortunately, it merely relates to how the Individual Representative wants to 'play' the 'political game'. Equally unfortunate, the 'People' become victims of the language they use and fall prey to 'Ideological blindness' and ideological 'gamesmanship'. Political Ideologies and 'Party-loyalties' divides the political Power of the People. We need more 'guidelines' for the Representatives who wish to represent the People in the 'Offices' of the Nation. The People do not have to change; its the 'Individuals' who purport to Represent the People in a Democracy that need to change. They need more 'humanity' and less 'political Ideology'.

Democratic Politics, as being practiced today, needs to be 'cleaned-up'.

Democratic Politics, as being practiced today, needs to be expurgated. The Language of politics could use a thorough 'cleansing' of the so-called 'terms' being used today and the so-called 'political language' being used in campaigns today. Its completely 'obstructionist' to merely allude to 'personality traits', 'sexual escapades' as a condemnation of 'Other' candidates. Of course 'character' is important in seeking political Office, but more important is the contribution to democracy being suggested by the candidates. The focus of a campaign should be the democratic structure of the society and the 'gaps' and 'lacks' of democracy in the 'arrangements' of the Nation; the arrangements of its Social and Political Institutions. When 'campaign' language focuses on 'personality traits' or 'sexual exploits' to appeal to the 'populace', the campaign becomes more like an x-rated novel than a political campaign. Today, instead of picking up a copy of an x-rated novel, we read the political headlines. Now, lets be clear about this. To be sure, personalities and character are important, but the focus should be on 'political language' and on how candidates are going to 'contribute'; 'establish'; or, 'correct'; the 'democratic values' or the 'visions' of the candidate. Politics is about governing a democracy; and it should not be a 'popularity contest' nor, some kind of 'lurid novel'. A candidate that engages in such 'politicking' does not have political values at heart; he is merely striving for Office. Unfortunately, most Individuals at the 'Bottom' of Three Branch Government, are not in an 'educated position' to 'correctly evaluate', distinguish, and weigh, political language from purely 'antagonistic exchanges' that are not 'democratic' in nature. That's why the standards for political language should be set at the Top and the candidates that are not 'versed' in political language should not become 'politicians'. We need 'States-persons', not 'politicians'. Democracy is about 'governing' the Bottom and establishing 'political Institutions' and 'Social Institutions' in some 'viable democratic manner'. How sad; democracy is self-destructing.

Political candidates and Political Parties need 'guidelines' also.

It's ludicrous to assume that a Political Party will automatically implement Democracy. Since Political divisions always exist within a Democracy, it becomes important to begin setting guidelines for Political Parties. Otherwise, the Party becomes an empty vehicle that can be used for the propagation of non-political and non-democratic practices, ideologies, economies, or 'classes'. That basic process leads to Plutocratic 'thinking', or a Plutocratic social, or just Plutocratic Ideals which lead to the 1%. Of course, it would be great, if the People at the Bottom could exert some control over Party Ideologies, but that is not going to happen. People divide themselves into Groups that eventually become Parties. Each Party has its own Ideology and in most cases, opposes the Ideology of the other Party. Hence, conflict between Parties becomes what we call an "election". If we have learned anything from election 2016, its the fact that the 'electorate' can be influenced by 'common everyday language' that has absolutely nothing to do with a 'real democracy'. But, those who use these 'shifty methods' do not have 'political motives' or 'political goals'. That becomes obvious from 'statements' that the Vice- President selected will be a Politician. What do they really want? Some means, or Agency must be established to weigh the 'sincerity of the Candidates', and their 'intent to implement Democracy', or a 'Constitutional mandate' of some sort. Failing these, 'objective guidelines', ( and they must be Objective), they should not be allowed to 'run' for Office. Of course, great care must be exercised in establishing such an Agency. We have Laws for the Bottom, we need Laws for the Top. Not just any 1%-er can be a candidate; that's 'self-perpetuating'. That's Democracy leading itself into 'self-destruction'; that's 'Plutocracy' transforming into 'Oligarchy', or, into 'Dictatorship'; or into 'Autocracy'. The Bottom of Democracy has Laws; the Top of Democracy needs Laws also. It takes 'selfless' sincerity to guide a Nation "of People", "by People", and "for the People".

Democracy was the 'founding', underlying political theory of Three Branch Government.

Democracy was the 'underlying structure' of Three Branch Government. A 'Democratic form' of Government could only be formed, if the political structure was 'triadic', or, 'triune', in nature. In other words, in a Democracy, all Three Branches have to participate in the 'governing' process. ( each according to its 'function). At the same time all Three Branches have to be 'constituted' from the 'Peoples' who are being governed. Hence, elections became necessary. Without elections, there is no other way of 'getting' the 'People', at the Bottom of Government, to participate in the 'elective' process and to select candidates to ascend to the 'pinnacles of political power'. To be sure, 'political power' is an 'attribute' derived from the 'People', or the 'Bottom' of the governing process. Consequently, elections must be about the 'structure' of the democracy and the 'institutions'; social, political, and legal, that 'hold together', the actual form of the Government. It is also, about what the government can 'do for the democracy', i. e., how can it be 'improved', how can 'racial and 'religious' intolerance, be eliminated; and how can elections be made more 'Just'. When, the electoral process, reduces itself to 'personality attacks', racial slurs, 'Party-loyalty', disputes about Party ideology, or economic classes,( which is the same thing), it is no longer an 'election' based on democratic principles. Lest we forget, Democracies cannot survive on the economic engine of 'profits', nor on the economic principles of 'more and more' of the 'same'. Obviously, that leads to the 1%. That leads to Plutocracy. Only the underlying principle of a Democracy( freedom and equality) can help the 'People' at the Bottom, not the economic principles of the economy, nor an election based on personality attacks and the influence of 'big' money. Democracy is being threatened by the same Individuals that used its Principles to get to where they are.

The largest 'flaw' in the 'Democratic form' of Government is having an ideologically divided Supreme Court.

A Supreme Court in a Democracy, should be Objective. Even though the People might be divided into Political Parties, as are the Representatives, and the President, the Courts are obligated to remove themselves from the division into differing Party Ideologies. Of course, if both Parties were democratic in nature, that would not be problematic. But, is that the case? The Nation, as a form of Government, may be a Republic, but the Nation, as a whole, is a democracy; a Government, "of People"; "By people"; and "for the People". The division into Party Ideologies was prompted by the Republic form of Government. However, a 'democratic form' of Government 'of People' relates to the Nation as a whole. There is no distinction between a Central and a State form of Government when the underlying basis of the Form of the Democracy is 'the People". It time for Representatives, in whatever Office, to understand that they represent 'a People', and not a Government. Although, government Offices and their Representative, 'hold political Power', they 'represent' 'a People' and not an Agency, or, a Government even though it is designed to express the 'will of the People'. Its the 'People Stupid'. Well, the Supreme Court should be Objective and their decisions should reflect the 'democratic Ideology' and not the Party ideology which is divided into Liberal and Conservative. Maybe we should look closer into this 'division', to examine, if the division can also be a division between 'Haves' and 'Have-nots', or, maybe one between 'real People' and 'Legal Fictions', or, even between 'White' and 'Other'? People are never asked, if they want to be born; but, truly, they are very fortunate to be born into a Democracy. Its a shame when a Supreme Court cannot be Objective.

In a Three Branch Government (Triadic): the Top must 'listen'; the Bottom must 'speak'; the ( 'sides') Courts must judge the 'Democratic nature' of the discourse.

In a Triadic form of Government, the Top must 'listen' to the Bottom; the Bottom must 'speak' to the Top; the Courts must judge the Democratic nature of the 'discourse'. The Top is Institutional; the Bottom is real( Individuals are real, not 'corporations' or, legal fictions); and the sides are Institutional. The discourse is a 'genuine discourse' of the status of the democracy. A Government "of People", "by People", and "for People", can only indulge in democratic discourse. That's a 'Democratic politics'. If the dialogue engages other issues e.g. Personality attacks, etc., its not political discourse, and hence; cannot be about the 'democratic nature' of the 'condition of togetherness'. The 'condition of togetherness' is not an Institution; its a 'real condition' of 'real Individuals' living, side by side, 'next to each other'. No Individuals loses his uniqueness, nor his/her autonomy, by living in the 'condition of togetherness'. The 'human condition' is always real, whether existing autonomously, or, in the 'condition of togetherness'. Our 'human condition' is not 'dependent' on any Institution, or Institutional Government. We are real, our Institutions are only 'constructions' that should help the 'real Individual' as s/he exists in a democratic 'condition of togetherness'.( Of course, not all 'conditions of togetherness' are democratic.) Politics is about the 'institutional relation' between the Top and the Bottom of Government. The 'human condition', 'as such', can not be 'Institutionally governed', but, 'every' human being must learn to 'govern', 'his/her self' within the 'established Laws' of a Democratic 'condition of togetherness'. Hence, the Bottom has a 'responsibility' to the Top, and the Top has a 'responsibility' to the Bottom. The 'sides' (Courts or Third Branch) have a responsibility to be Objective in 'Constitutional Interpretation' and must fore-go Party Loyalty in their 'Interpretive Practices'.

Can Democracy, as a Political Institution, be quantified? Yes, it can and must be.

Can a Political Institution be quantified? Yes, it can and it should be. The different Political Institutions are a 'form' of quantification. For example; Autocracies, Dictatorships, and Kingdoms, with absolute Power at the Top, are a 'form of quantification'. All the 'Political Power' is at the Top. Only the Top can 'politic'. In such cases, the Bottom has no say-so. Socialism is an oxymoron. There is no such 'entity' as the 'social', which would include each and every Individual that is being Governed. The term 'Socialism' is very 'abstract' and excludes many of the 'real'Individuals in the 'Totality', of the 'condition of togetherness'. Of course, we must use 'abstractions' in the descriptions of a political Institution. In a Democracy, the situation is different. A democracy is a government 'of the People', 'by the People', and 'for the People'. Of course, these are abstractions also, but every aspect of the 'governing principle' is covered and includes all the 'real' People. Hence, few positions are appointments, most are elective, and the People who are being Governed, are the same ones who are doing the governing. When we say every Individual is Free and Equal, we mean every single Individual. That, is subject to a 'count'. No one should be excluded because of Race, Color, Creed, or economic standing, or 'class'. We have a 'census', we count individuals, and we can determine if anyone has been 'left out'. Democracies can, and must, 'count'; hence, they are 'accountable' to the People. A Democratic Government must 'listen' to its People; and the People must 'speak out' to its Government. The Top and the Bottom, in a democracy, need each other. Of course, the 'motor' of a Democracy is 'Freedom and Equality' of 'each' and 'every' real Individual in the 'condition of togetherness'. I say real Individual because the corporation is also a 'person' within the reach of the 14th Amendment, and hence, the tendency is to include it in all deliberations of democracy. But, the economy is not a Government; its a 'separate and different' Institution. The motor of Capitalism is 'money and profits', not 'Freedom and Equality'. Hence, success, in the economy is 'quantified'. Success in a democracy is 'accountability' and the inclusion of everyone within the 'condition of togetherness'. That 'inclusion' or 'exclusion' can be 'counted'; hence 'accountability', which is a form of 'quantification'.

Democracy is being emasculated by the economic system it created and protected.

Democracy is being emasculated by Capitalism. Normally, a 'successful economy' is a great achievement. But, since the 'political' and the 'economic' are driven by different engines, the two Institutions should not become 'inextricably' merged. Democracy is driven by Freedom and Equality; Capitalism is driven by 'money, the 'means of production', profits, and Legal fictional 'persons' who are protected by the Law of the Land. The creation of 'legal, fictitious persons' was a great 'increase' in the 'economic grasp' of the 'fictional corporation' and gave the corporation tremendous 'power' over its 'personage' and the economy. So called 'Freedom of Competition' by Individuals was rendered effete. Citizens United gave these 'fictitious persons' the right to 'participate' in politics. How sad. The 'Holy Dollar' is destroying Democracy. Most discussions about politics and campaigning is about the Millions required to run a campaign. Democracy must learn to control its economic monsters. The only source of help can only come from Law. Laws can require corporations to become more 'democratic'. Corporations need more 'democratic duties' and failing this, the Corporate Charters that gives them their 'existence' can be modified, or yanked. How can Government have the Power to create corporations and not have the Power to 'control them? Its 'fictional' to believe that once the State creates a Legal Fiction, that it loses its Power to control or to modify the corporate structure. That's ludicrous. A fiction is not real. Hence, it cannot claim the same Constitutional protections afforded the real human beings. However, the Supreme Court saw fit to extend the 'corporate involvement' in its own existence by allowing them to participate in Politics.( Citizens United ) Notice the connection with the Millions required to campaign. That creates a 'distortion' in 'political equilibrium'. It literally creates an 'Alice In Wonderland' in politics and the 1% in the economy. We need Statesmen, not economists.

A condition of togetherness, once formed, immediately divides itself into 'antagonistic groups'.

A condition of togetherness, once formed, immediately divides itself up into 'separate groups'; into 'antagonistic groups'; into Political Parties. That would not be so bad, if the divisions retained their 'democratic nature'. These divisions create problems for the 'condition of togetherness', as 'the condition' attempts to organize itself into a 'political system'. Then, if we add another 'value system' to the 'democratic political system', e.g., the values of an economic system, or, the values of a 'corporate system', we just add to the 'antagonistic nature' of the divisions of the 'condition of togetherness'. In fact, we create the 'problematic'. To be sure, it doesn't have to be that way, but human beings have a difficult time living as 'political Equals', and as 'politically Free', within the 'social'. That's why they divide up into Groups. Of course, the big problem that is injected into the 'political sphere' is the injection of 'economic' or 'corporate values' into the democratic 'condition of togetherness'. The end-result is that Individuals get Greedy and begin to hoard 'money and possessions'. Now, I am not arguing against having money and possessions. We all need them. I am arguing against 'greed' and the 'hoarding' of the means of production by 1% of individuals in the social. Among other things, this factor 'creates' economic classes; creates 'economic imbalances', and creates 'Haves and Have-nots', in the 'condition of togetherness', and has lead to the creation of 'Legal Fictions' or fictitious 'Persons', within the economy to increase the 'economic grasp' of the corporation and, indirectly, to transform a 'political system' into an 'economic system'. We create our own problems, and then we complain about the 1%. We need to keep the 1% out of Politics. Our present political situation demonstrates that some candidates can't even discuss 'political ideology', much less 'democratic ideology'. A politician is not trying to become a 'Representative' of the People, if s/he cannot 'talk politics'. Unfortunately, it seems that only the 'haves' are able to 'run' for Office, but I hope that does not mean that we have to become a Plutocracy. If we can't live 'Free and Equal' in a Democracy, can you imagine what living in a Plutocracy would be like?

The State is a necessity; Capitalism is essential; the People in a 'condition of togetherness' is essential.

A State cannot exist without a 'People'. A people cannot exist without an economy that provides the 'essential necessities' of existence in a 'condition of togetherness'. Without a 'condition of togetherness' a State cannot come into existence. Hence; the State exists only for the purpose of providing for its People. The State has no other reason for existing and cannot be said to have an existence separate and apart from the People. States are not created by nature; nor do they 'acquire' Political Power for any purpose, other than for the Political Institutions provided in a Constitutions. A Constitution 'constitutes' the concept of the State and delineates the 'States structure' and the ramifications of its Power. The State gets its political power from the 'Peoples' who have 'Constituted' it. Capitalism is essential in a 'condition of togetherness; an economy must provide for the necessities of the People; but both, 'Capitalism' and an 'Economy' are separate Institutions from the 'Institution of the State' and its Government. Government can pass Laws to regulate the economy and Capitalism, but Capitalism and an economy have no 'say-so' in governing a People. To be sure, they have a great influence on Politics, but they cannot 'Govern'. The influence of Money and the 1% must be kept separate from the 'duty to Govern' the 'condition of togetherness'. This problematic is not just a 'political problem'; its also a 'People' problem. We've said that the minute a 'condition of togetherness' comes about, the Individuals 'divide themselves' into Groups or factions. For example; Democrats and Republicans. Consider what is happening to the Republican Party today. Its 'self-destructing' and its members are saying they will not 'cross-over' and nominate a 'Democrat'. How 'mindless' and 'senseless' can the so-called, 'cream of the crop', or, 'Candidates', seeking Office get? Its not the 'Party' nor 'Party loyalty' that is important, its the real 'Individuals' in a 'condition of togetherness' that is important. How sad. When a 'condition of togetherness', divides up, it seems to lose its 'humanity'.

Capitalistic values are displacing Democratic values of Freedom and Equality.

The Capitalistic values of 'more and more of the same',viz., profits and money, are displacing the Democratic values of Freedom and Equality. Democratic values cannot be 'driven' by profits, money, and possessions. Democracy can only be driven by the democratic values of Freedom and Equality. Money, possessions, and profits cannot drive democracy; they can only 'drive' Capitalism. Its shameful and sad to think that money, profits, and possessions, or stated differently; the 1%, can drive democracy. The 1% can only produce more of the same, or more money, or, more Capital. The 1% cannot protect Freedom and Equality; the 1% can only destroy the Freedom and Equality that allowed Capitalism to flourish. Without Freedom and Equality, Capitalism would never have been able to survive. It was the Democratic values that allowed it to flourish. So why can't Capitalism be required to protect the very Freedom and Equality that allowed it to flourish. If Freedom and equality are 'abused', the Law 'curtails' their expression. For Example; 'Freedom of speech' does not allow an Individual to cry "fire" in a crowded theater. In the same manner, an Individual in the economy should not be allowed to 'hoard' the medium of exchange, to the point where most of the 'medium' is 'held' by the 1%. A 'medium of exchange' should do 'just that'; it must 'circulate' both 'Governmental' and 'economic values'. 'Rules' and Laws should be established to 'help' the circulation of the 'medium' in the economy. Otherwise, the 'end result' of profits as a 'motor', and, 'if left unchecked', is to generate 'more and more' of the same, or, stated differently, it 'generates Greed'. If Government can create economic Fictions, it can 'establish control' over the cumulative aspect of profits, or, 'that accumulation' called 'Greed'. After all, they are only Fictions; and if they do not comply, yank their Articles of Incorporation. Government must 'solve' that problem; if not, Government will be 'ruled' by Corporations. Its not too late to pass new Laws to 'clean up the economy', or, to curtail Plutocracy.

An economy is necessary to Democracy; but the division into 'haves' and 'have-not's' is not.

An economy is necessary to Democracy, and so is Capitalism, but the further division into 'haves' and 'have-not's' is not 'necessary'. Of course, the motor for Democracy is Freedom and Equality and the motor for Capitalism is profits. But, profits can function without 'Greed'. The accumulation at the Top 1% is not necessary to the 'Capitalistic Spirit'. The cause of that 'accumulation' is two-fold. One, personal Greed, which probably, cannot be overcome, or, at least, becomes a 'personal'matter'. Two, the Other is Institutional and Legal. By now, everyone knows that Corporations are considered as 'persons' withing the grasp of the Fourteenth Amendment. That's not 'too bad', but, the further 'humanization' of the fictional nature of the corporation into 'participants', in their own 'economic process' of 'self-evolution', or, 'self-inflation', i.e. into becoming 'fictional behemoths', in the economy, is certainly something that can be 'institutionally' and 'Legally' controlled. In a Democratic society, the human condition, itself, cannot be 'controlled'; i.e. the personal 'human emotions', and value systems, are not subject to 'control. But, most certainly, a 'Fictional creation', like the corporation, can be controlled. The fictional entities in our social need more democratic duties. If a fictional 'person' can be created, for the sake of giving it more 'economic permanence', more 'focus' and 'greater economic grasp', in the economy, why can't the corporation be given 'democratic duties'? If a corporation is a 'personal fiction', the Government should have more control over the democratic duties of the 'created fiction'. Why should a democratic Government create a 'despot', an Autocrat, a Dictator in its own Capitalistic economy? That does not make sense. The end result is 'haves' and 'have-not's', the 1%, and the further cultivation of a Plutocratic 'attitude' in the social that leads to 'economic classes', and the 'Deification' of 'profits and money'; a politics that becomes 'motored' by money, and the 'inching', closer and closer,( if not already there), to Plutocracy. Why has Capitalism taken over our social? where are our Leaders? and where is our Democracy?

There's a fine line between "news-worthy" events and "gossip".

In the Media, there's a fine line between "news-worthy" events and "gossip'. Most news-papers report 'political events', entertainment, 'every-day' occurrences, births, deaths, and even a 'comics' section.( of course, there's more) But when it comes to political events, the media must be objective. That's not easy, because the newspapers are owned by Individuals who have a political preference. Every daily 'news-paper' is a 'complete picture', or a 'micro-cosmos' of 'one day' in the continuum of Time. One has to look at a daily newspapers as a 'somewhat accurate' reflection of the occurrences within any 'one day' in the 'condition of togetherness'. Media must report the 'complete occurrences' of the day. That's why media is important to politics. Of course, its not easy to capture the 'whole day' in any 'form of completeness'. Nevertheless, the 'condition of togetherness' must be informed about the 'daily happenings' in the Nation. Hence, 'political reporting' becomes necessary. But, political reporting can easily slide into 'gossip', instead of the political issues of the day. Some newspapers are read for entertainment; some for 'information'; and some for a 'reflection' of the 'status' of the Freedom and Equality of the Peoples in the 'condition of togetherness'. That's the area where "politics" can descend into gossip. Obviously, 'Personality' is important to politicians, but politics must adhere to a level of discourse that 'elaborates' on democratic Ideals, and programs, that are being suggested by candidates, and which are designed to improve the democratic institutions in our social. Political language should be persuasive and convince the electorate, but it should not 'wallow' in the language of 'gossip' and 'Advertisement'; nor, should political language ascend to a 'vacuous level' of 'political correctness'. Empty, vacuous, linguistic generalizations, about the democratic status of the social are dangerous assertions. Democratic Institutions are essential to a social that purports to be democratic. The People are Real; the Governmental structure is real; Democracy is real; 'political language' should also be real.

The Media is important in any 'condition of togetherness'; it's also vital in a democracy.

The media is important in any 'condition of togetherness' because there is no other way that Individuals can be 'privy' to all or most 'happenings' within the 'condition. At best, Individuals can communicate individually, or be privy to 'information' within a small area of mutual influence. Hence. the necessity of Media to report and make available, so-called, 'news-worthy' events and activities. Reporting on such events, to the 'condition of togetherness', becomes necessary because 'the Peoples' need to be informed about anything happening within the condition, or threatening the condition. However, within the context of 'Politics', the media should not wallow in 'personality attacks'; 'preferential reportage'; or information that is unrelated to the 'qualifications', or, 'intentions' of prospective candidates for political Office. Office holders in a 'condition of togetherness', serve in a 'representative capacity' and only the essential aspects of that capacity should be made available to the 'Peoples' by means of the Media. When Media picks an irrelevant 'fact' or 'incident' and continually focuses on it, and repeats it, it creates a 'preoccupation with it'; which can be 'unhealthy' to the 'condition of togetherness', and which destroys its 'coherence', and contributes to its 'self destruction'. The Media's influence can be devastating to the 'condition of togetherness'. That's why, Media should report the Ideals of real Democracy. These Ideals help Democracy to keep the democratic structure together; enables the Ideals of Freedom and Equality to circulate at the 'Bottom' of the structure; which serves as a 'real foundation', for the abstract Top of the structure. That establishes a real foundation at the Bottom of a 'Peoples Government'. Democracy is a 'Peoples' Government, but the People must 'take care' of it; and the Media must report the democratic Ideals of the Government, to help 'solidify the Bottom' of Government. Democracy is "of the People"; "by the People"; and "for the People". You do not need a Government, if you don't have a 'People'. But, if you are a 'People', you need a Democratic Government.

A 'State'; a 'Nation'; a 'Country', is a political Institution that exists only for the purpose of exercising political 'Power'.

A Nation or a State only exists for the 'sole purpose' of 'exercising' political Power. The 'condition of togetherness' cannot govern itself without the postulation of a political institution with Power. Of course, there are many ways in which to organize a political Institution. Those distinguishable forms, situate the 'form' for 'exercising political Power'. Only Government, in this 'political' context, has power. The 'condition of togetherness', i.e. 'the Peoples', only have the 'Rights' attributed to the 'condition of togetherness' by the Government. The 'political forms' organize the relation, perceived politically, as the Top and the Bottom. That relation distinguishes the Autocratic Forms, the Aristocratic Forms, the Plutocratic forms' the Oligarchic forms, and the Democratic forms. Each form can become a 'mixture' with other forms and hence, not be a 'pure form'; in other words, there are many variables in the construction of political Institutions. However, in every case, its an Institutional form and in every case, its a form by which the Many (Peoples) are governed. Government is an arrangement of the Bottom by the Top, and regardless the arrangement, its always about the 'exercise of political power'. Since the 'condition of togetherness' cannot govern itself, a political Institution becomes necessary, but the sole and only reason for its existence, is the 'condition of togetherness'. Individuals have no 'say-so' about the 'Life' they have; about the Life they're 'immersed' in; they can only organize it as best as possible. Its never about 'living' or 'not living', its always about 'how to live'. We are 'already here', and so are 'Others'; hence, the 'condition of togetherness'. But, in a 'constructed political Institution', each Individual is 'Free and Equal', as is the 'Other'. Consequently, all political Institutions should 'respect' and 'never interfere' with the 'political Right' of Freedom and Equality of all Individuals within any Political Organization. We're all in the same boat; hence, we must learn to live with each Other; and Government must 'learn' to respect and protect the Freedom and Equality of each and every Individual living within its political Institution. All Life is sacred; Government is just a 'construction'.

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.