Government is essential to the 'condition of togetherness', but; Government must govern the 'real individual'.

Government is essential to the 'condition of togetherness. But 'Government' and its functions can very easily be misunderstood and misconstrued. "To Govern" means to 'order', 'structure', and 'guide', on a daily basis, the 'condition of togetherness', in its governmental functions. Government is a 'guide' not a 'rule'. It passes 'Laws' to structure the movements of the populace and its Institutions. Of course, that includes the 'economy' and its Institutions, as well as the Institutions of Religion and of the so-called 'Social'. Government must govern the 'condition of togetherness. It has no other function. As we've said before, one man, maybe even two men, on an Island, do not need Government. They may need Morals, rules of behavior, but they do not need Government, nor Laws. But, unlike the 'term' "the social", the term the 'condition of togetherness' retains the 'Individuality' of each person. The Individual does not blend into some nebulous 'abstract term' devoid of 'the reality of each and every human being' constituting the 'condition'. As such, Government governs the 'real individual', not the 'social', in all its abstract, surreal, nebulous, manifestations. In other words, Government governs 'real People', not 'nebulous abstractions'. Its very easy to fool ourselves into believing the 'words', and ignoring the reality. We must also be very careful not to confuse the 'terms' of government with the terms of the economy. Government is 'motored' by 'Freedom and Equality', and the economy, is 'motored' by profits. Today, it appears, that even 'politics' is in danger. When politicians conduct a campaign according to the unwritten rules of a 'bar-room brawl', and 'personality assassination', Democracy is in trouble. Where are the 'Governors'; the 'States-persons'; where is 'real' Democracy?

What does 'Politically correct' really mean?

What does "politically correct" really mean. Today, obviously, the term is being thrown around as if being 'political' is, in itself, inappropriate. The problem with the term is that it is used in an 'empty vacuous' manner. In other words the term is used only as 'words' free-floating in social space and completely unfounded in the 'real level' of the social. Its empty talk that is designed to persuade, but that has no foundation in reality. That's the 'political correctness' that must be remedied. A real political 'program' or 'suggestion' must accompany any political suggestions about, for example, Freedom and Equality, and the 'empty terms' should not be allowed to free-float in empty social space. If 'racial discrimination' exists, it must be corrected. If 'economic discrimination' exists, it must be corrected with a 'real program' for improvement. Today 'some politicians' condemn 'political correctness' and apparently do not understand what the term means. That is obvious because the opposite of political correctness, to them, seems to mean 'economically correct', which just focuses on 'more of the same',or, promises of more money. Apparently, they do not have a real 'political vocabulary'. They, admittedly, are not political at all, and yet purport to 'correct' the political situations that need to be improved. A 1% er, running for office is motored by the economy, and money, and usually, has no political motives, for seeking office. Just listen to the terms being used and you will hear the 'language of the economy'. The Nation and the social cannot be nourished by money or the economy. What becomes necessary is 'real' political language; the language of democracy; a language that helps the Nation and the social to become more 'integrated', and more 'social'. Show me the 'meat'; the programs; the 'institutions; the elimination of all the 'faults' that still exist in our social. Show me, 'real' Freedom, and 'real' Equality. That's 'real' politics.

Lets face it; Democracy is not perfect, but its preferable to any other form of Government.

Democracy is not perfect, but neither is any other form of Government. Nevertheless, Democracy is Government "of the People", "by the People" and "for the People". No other form of government gives 'the People' at the Bottom of Government, the privilege of 'ascending' to the 'pinnacle of Power'. Its the 'Peoples Government'. However, great care must be exercised in designing the means by which any one Individual may ascend to power. Of course, a Government is as 'proper', practical, and 'Just', as the People who 'run' it. Some Individuals believe the 'vocabulary' of Government and, of elections, has lost its efficacy. That may be the case, but that vocabulary cannot be 're-established' from the terms and vocabulary of the economy. There's a reason for that; it being, that the economy runs on 'profits', and not on 'political' principles of Freedom and Equality. Freedom and Equality of the Individual, 'organizes' and 'structures' the 'condition of togetherness' that the Peoples live in. That 'condition of togetherness' is a National condition, not a State or 'local condition'. Democracy is not a State or local function only. Its National in scope and totally inclusive. To assume that States have a 'privilege' to set up there own Government is O.K., but a State cannot set up a Dictatorship form of Government. The reason for that is that the U.S. Constitution governs the 'condition of togetherness on a National scale. States must also comply, and not be antagonistic, to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States. A Democratic form of Government, governs the whole Nation, and all the States must also comply. A Democracy depends on 'its People'; other forms of Government depend on 'their Ruler'.

In a Democracy, the term 'Socialism" is an oxymoron.

In a Democracy, the term 'Socialism" is an oxymoron. Simply, a Democracy is Government, "of the People", "by the People", and "for the People". The essence of democracy is "People", real People. Democratic government 'governs' the 'Bottom' of the structure of Three Branch Government. It governs Individuals, not a 'whole block of thousands or millions of Individuals' living next to each Other, in the 'collective condition' called the 'social'. The term, 'social', is a 'very general abstract' term that includes the whole 'condition of togetherness'. Government cannot govern such a 'unit' in 'all' its 'particulars'. That is not real Government. In a democratic 'condition of togetherness', the individuals constituting such a 'condition' do not lose their 'Individuality' by being in the 'condition'. Hence, the abstract term 'Socialism', in a democracy, is an oxymoron. Government, in a democracy, 'governs' each, and every, Individual in the 'condition of togetherness', and should not 'exclude' any Individual, or 'group of Individuals', based on Race, Color, or Creed, economic status, or any other 'individual characteristic'. It should not consider the 'corporate nature', as if it was a 'real' person, nor should such a 'fictitious Person' be allowed to 'participate' in politics. The economy is separate from 'politics' and the 'condition of togetherness'. Government must help the 'real Individuals' that need help; the economy functions with a different 'motor', and never shall the twain meet. Government is not being 'Socialistic', if it helps the Individual, it is being Democratic. If Government cannot help the Individuals that 'established it', it is not doing its job as a 'Governor'. A 'condition of togetherness' that does not 'continue to grow' and to 'benefit from its condition', will soon deconstruct. How sad, we create 'economic monsters' and now they turn on us. They need to be 'controlled', and Politicians need to be 'reined in'.

Capitalism can endanger Democracy.

Capitalism can endanger Democracy. The Democratic political form is a Three Branch form that 'allows' the 'People' at the Bottom of Government to participate in politics. Democracy is motored by the 'Freedom and Equality' of 'each' and 'every' Individual at the Bottom of Government. Democracy insures that each and every Individual is Free and Equal. Freedom and Equality motors the Democratic spirit. Capitalism is the 'form' taken by the economy. The economy is an 'essential part' of the social in a democracy. But, the economy and Capitalism is driven by 'profits'. No economic institution can survive in Capitalism if its not making a 'profit'. Consequently, there is a huge difference in the spirit of Democracy and the spirit of Capitalism. The spirit of Capitalism cannot 'drive' a democratic society. Only, the 'values' of a democratic government can drive a 'democracy'. Its a terrible mistake to use an 'economic standard' to 'drive' democratic 'politics'. 'Profits' or 'money' cannot drive Democracy. Don't misunderstand this last statement. To be sure a Democracy has a duty to provide for the welfare and well being of its People; and that includes; jobs, fair wages, medical care, etc., or what is Constitutionally known as the 'General Welfare', which includes economic welfare. But, 'democratic politics' should not just focus on profits, and money; they drive the economy, not democracy. Democracy is driven by 'Freedom and Equality'; Capitalism is driven by profits; and never shall the twain meet. To be sure, both Institutions are important, but don't confuse the two; their 'motors' are different. Plutocracies and Oligarchies are driven by profits. Democracy is driven by the Freedom and Equality of every Individual at the Bottom of Government.

Freedom and Equality are human values.Democracy is Government,"of People", "by People" and "for People".

The Freedom and the Equality of every Individual must be protected in a Democracy. Democracy is a Government "of People", "by People" and "for the People". Governments would not exist but "for the People". The People themselves 'establish the Government' along Constitutional requirements. Governments cannot exist if there are no People to govern. Two Individuals on an Island need to 'live and work together'; 'respect each Other'; 'get along with each Other'; but, each one is Free and Equal. No Individual, regardless of Race, Color, or Creed, is 'lesser' than Another. One or Two Individuals on an Island do not need a Government. When the 'condition of togetherness' increases into the 'Many', or into thousands and millions, then the 'condition' needs Government. But, Government, which would not even exist, but for the size of the 'Condition of togetherness', has a 'legal obligation' to protect and preserve the 'Freedom' and 'Equality' of 'each' and 'every' Individual in the 'condition of togetherness'. Of course, there are many different types of Government; but all Governments 'should Preserve and Protect' the Freedom and Equality of every Individual within its Jurisdiction. Even an Autocracy or a Dictatorship should respect the 'human condition', and some do. But, the Democratic form of Government has a 'duty' to Protect and Preserve the Freedom and Equality of all Individuals. Its 'very constitution' is 'based' and 'founded' on the many 'Peoples' who are to be governed. The 'principle of Life' is inseparable from the 'human condition', but Governments are political 'Institutions' that have been 'established' by 'human beings'. Governments assume many different 'forms', but all are 'secondary' to the 'human condition'. Freedom and Equality are 'human values', inherent in the 'act of living', while Governments are 'political Institutions' with Power, but 'secondary' to the Human condition.

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.