Government requires 'Service'; the Economy requires 'Profits'.

Governing requires 'Service', but the Economy requires 'Profits'. Unfortunately, its 'very easy' to slip from 'Service' into 'Profits', but 'almost impossible' to slip from 'Profits' into 'Service'. A Politician or more correctly, an Office Holder 'Represents' the 'People at the Bottom'. He or She functions as a 'Representative' of the People. But, the 'Business-Person' does not represent 'anyone' or 'anything'. He or She merely establishes a 'Legal Fiction' called a 'Corporation' for the sole purpose of making a 'Profit'. He or She functions as a Profit making Machine. Now there is absolutely nothing wrong to function as a 'Business Person' within a Society because every Nation needs an Economy. Running a 'Business Corporate Entity' is 'difficult work' and requires dedication and a personal orientation towards making a Profit. Nobody establishes a Corporation so that it can fail, that's insane, and don't mistake the kind of dedication required. Governing a Nation also requires a certain kind of 'Person'. He or She must be 'relatively Selfless'. Now, understand this, nobody is 'completely Selfless'. But, such an Individual must have the 'General Welfare' of the 'People' who are situated at the 'Bottom' in mind. He or She functions as a 'Representative of the People' and He or She functions in a 'Representative capacity'. He or She 'Serves the Bottom'. Not everyone can do that. 'Good Politicians' know that they can only serve for a 'short time' and during that time can help the 'Freedom and Equality' and 'the General Welfare' of Every Individual at the Bottom. Most business persons are 'ill equipped' to be 'Good Politicians' and probably, most good Politicians are 'ill equipped' to be good 'business-persons'. However, the 'Problematic' arises when CEO's, Business-persons, or Billionaires, enter the Political Field. It then becomes very easy to 'slip' into the 'Autocratic', 'Profit- Making' attitude of 'More and More' of the 'Same'( Money) and from there into that common ailment called 'Greed'. If you ask someone making 'Billions' why she or He wants to make 'more Billions', She or He will not 'Honestly' be able to answer. Of course, the Answer is 'Greed', a 'never ending Quest' to get 'More' and 'More' of that 'Medium of Exchange', which is 'no longer' 'founded' on anything of 'Value', and which has 'flown loose' from a Real 'Social Reality' into a 'Hyper-Reality'. We need 'Real Politicians' who can 'keep' our 'Democracy viable'. Where are the 'Real Politicians'?

Governments are designed to Govern; Economies are designed to make profits. Why can't we keep them separate?

Governments are designed to Govern; Economies are designed to make Profits. Why can't we keep them separate? Simple. So-called 'Politicians' get entangled with the Profit making function and then greed takes over and they become 'Greedy'. Then 'Democratic Government' forgets its about Governing Democratically and with Freedom and Equality and 'replaces' a 'Government function' with an 'Economic Function'. Its so easy for an 'Economic Thinker' to see Government as a means of making 'Money'. That's what 'non-politicians' do when they get involved with Governing. Of course, not all Economic thinkers do that, but look at the Top and notice how many very 'wealthy People' are at the Top and how quickly they turn- over. They turn-over quickly because they are 'not interested' in 'Governing', they are interested in 'making Profits' and when they aren't making Profits, they actually don't know 'how to Govern'. Look at the Top and see what happens there almost on a daily basis. All Business Corporations had their tax Liability 'greatly reduced'. A real Person with a Family makes several Thousand Dollars at work and has to pay Taxes; a Corporation makes Billions and Millions of dollars and doesn't have to pay Taxes. The Individual is a Real, striving, human Being with Medical Bills and family obligations and the Corporation is also a 'Person' considered as a 'Legal Fiction', which exists only in 'contemplation of Law', with no 'Medical problems' and no 'Real' Personal Obligations', so whats wrong with this picture? Simple, the Human Being is Real and works and suffers and the Corporation is an 'Economic Entity' protected by the Constitution and which does not contribute to the Democracy which gave it its 'Fictional arising'. Its an Economic Entity, its a 'Money making Machine', that does not care about Freedom and Equality. Is that Democracy or is that the Economic world taking over the Democratic World? Are we becoming a Plutocracy, or are we already a Plutocracy? Where are the Real Politicians?

How can an Elected Official in a Democracy, 'shut down' the Government he was 'elected' to Govern?

How can an Official elected in a Democracy, shut down the Government he was elected to Govern? Does that make sense? A Democratic Nation and its Government is a Political 'Institution' that exists by virtue of its 'Constitution' and not by virtue of some High 'Political Office'. No Person elected to High Political Office has the Power to shut down the very Government he or she is supposed to be 'Governing'; particularly in a Democracy. Certainly, an 'Autocrat' can 'shut down' his Government, if he chooses, but that never happens because Autocracies 'nourish' the 'Ego' of the Autocrat. 'Office Holders', in a Democracy, are 'elected' by the 'People' at the 'Bottom of Government', to Govern, not to shut down the Government. In a Democracy, no one can shut down a Government that 'exists' by virtue of a 'Written Constitution' that is still in existence. The 'Constitution constitutes us'. All Politicians, in a Democracy, know or should know, that a 'Shut-Down' of Government cannot be used as a 'threat' to force an 'adverse' Political Party to accept some 'adverse' Political Ideology. That is not a 'Political Act', that's destructive. The Government at the Top is unraveling. Shutting down Government cannot be used to acquire some 'Economic advantage'. A 'Revolution' that 'could' be occurring at the Bottom, is occurring at the Top. That's unheard of. How sad, there's an Official at the very 'Top' that is not a 'Real Politician' and does not know what he's doing. Of course, the 'Bottom' is also 'effected' because the 'Form of Government' is 'Democratic' and the 'Will of the People' is really at the 'Bottom', not the 'Top'. The Top 'serves' the 'Bottom', and even allowing for different 'Ideological', or Party Differences', that does 'not mean' He can 'shut down' Government. We need a 'Real Politician' at the 'Top', not an 'Economist', nor a 'Billionaire', nor a CEO, that does not know what he's doing. A 'Real Politician' is 'motored' by the 'Equality and Freedom' of 'each' and 'every' 'Real Individual' at the 'Bottom' of Government. Where are the Real Politicians?

Can a Democracy be Shut-Down? Does that mean we no longer have a functional Government?

Can a Democracy be Shut-Down? Does that mean we no longer have a 'Functional' Government? We still have a Constitution, but is anyone 'working' it? In the past, it usually meant there was an 'insufficient amount' of Money to Operate it, and a 'hurried seeking' and 'shuffling' of Funds to 'Run it' resulted. But, when the 'Office Holder' in the 'Highest Office' in the Land 'Shuts it Down', an intentional, willful, act; what 'Effect' does this create in all 'Governmental Activity'? The Highest Civil Servants are not Being Paid to operate Agencies and enforce Laws, so does this also effect the 'Lower Rungs' of 'Government Operations'? Governments Govern. If the Federal Government is inoperable, does that mean that State Governments are also shut down or inoperable. Are we still a Nation under Law? Are Court case set for Trial in Federal Court and in State Courts also 'shut down'? Remember, the 'Shut Down' is 'Intentional'; its not the result of 'lack of funds', so 'We Have To Ask', 'Is all Government Shut Down'? In other words, are we still 'Under Government'? Are we still under Law? If a 'Corporation' shuts Down, will there still be People working it and producing products for Sale by the Corporation? Whats the difference in the Two? You see why we need 'Office Holders' who are 'experienced' in 'Governing' and not just anyone with Lots of Money. Economic threats do not constitute 'Governing' and neither do 'Political Threats'. And why should anyone, in 'Office', have the 'Political Power' to 'shut down' a 'Constitutional Government'? The 'Nation' and its 'Government' is not His! Its the 'Peoples Government'. What has happened to 'Real Governing' and 'Real Freedom and Equality'? Where are the Leaders who serve 'Real Governing' and who serve the 'Peoples Welfare'; who serve the 'Freedom and Equality' of the Bottom of a Democratic Nation. Where are the Real Leaders? When the 'Top' of 'Democracy' begins to 'quibble' with 'itself', Democracy is in 'Shatters'.

The only 'Individual' who can prevent a take-over by Autocratic, Plutocratic and Oligarchic 'Thinking' is a 'Real Democrat'.

The only Individual who can 'prevent' a 'Take-Over' by Autocratic, Plutocratic, and Oligarchic 'Thinking' is a 'Real Democrat'. And what kind of Individual is that? First, he's a 'Real Human Being' and not a 'Legal Fiction'; he genuinely believes in 'Democracy' as an Ideology of the 'Real People', an not an 'Ideology' of a 'Particular Political Party'. The Bottom of a Political Entity is Peopled by 'Real People'. A 'Corporation' is also a 'Person', but only in 'Contemplation of Law' and is not, admittedly, a 'Real Human Person'. I'm sorry, but that's the only way to 'formulate' that 'sentence'. That 'Person' is an 'Economic entity' and not 'Real' like you and I. ( Actually, they should not be allowed to fund Political Campaigns either; (that would be the Citizens United Case.). You see how we 'exist' in a Democracy that is 'Peopled' by an elusive, nebulous, 'Social Ambient' designed to be 'relaxing' and 'non-critical'. Unfortunately, at the beginning, the 'Many' at the 'Bottom' divided into Political Parties. That already meant 'different' Political Ideologies, and that meant 'antagonism' between 'Parties'. How sad. Once a Bottom, a Social, is 'Identified', it begins to 'Divide'; the Bottom cannot 'agree' or 'live' harmoniously. Then Laws become necessary. But, then again, Laws can only be enacted by Political Entities and all Political Entities and Office Holders in those 'Entities' belong to a Political Party or an already 'Organized Political Entity' viz., a Democracy, Autocracy, Oligarchy, or Plutocracy. There, we've gone 'Full Circle'. Only a 'Real Individual' who lives in a 'Real Democracy' and who has 'Experienced' and 'Tasted' Real deprivation' of 'Equality and Freedom' and 'Understands' the 'elusive' Social Ambient that's Peopled by 'Real Persons' and 'Manufactured Persons' in the 'Economy' can prevent a 'Take-Over' or a 'Shift' into a 'Different' Political Entity. We need Politicians who have 'Lived; with 'Politics', understands the 'Ins and Outs', and who has not been seduced by 'Power', 'Money', 'fame', an 'Political Isolationism'. Where are the Real Politicians?

Can a Democracy become an Autocracy: a Plutocracy; or an Oligarchy?

Can a Democracy become an Autocracy; a Plutocracy; or an Oligarchy? The answer is 'Yes', but its not so easy. Certainly an 'Individual' who comes from the 'Many' in a Democracy who is 'Equal' and 'Free' has a Right to exercise his/her 'Political Judgement' in whatever 'Direction' or manner that He/She pleases. 'They' also have a Constitutional Right to live in 'Equality and Freedom'. A Real 'Democracy' exercises these Freedoms and Rights in a 'genuine manner', and the People at the Bottom, enjoy their Equality and Freedoms and they will miss them if they are ever taken away. However, the 'Political Positions' of 'Power', at the Top, are 'Open' or 'Available' to anyone or everyone who wishes to participate in Government and that's the 'basic reason' why Political Candidates should be well qualified to 'Govern'. If someone wants to be CEO of a 'Major Corporation', will that be permitted, if the candidate is a 'nice Guy' or 'Women' and is a 'popular' candidate. The answer is No! Of course, you will say, but that's not an 'Elective Position'. True, although there is an element of 'Electoral-ness' as well as an element of 'Qualification'. But, I guarantee you, the 'Qualifications' must be there, or the Board will not choose 'him' or 'her'. The Individual must be 'knowledgeable' in the area in which She or He 'will function'. Governing a 'Corporate Entity' is not a 'Democratic Process'; its more of an 'Autocratic Process', with a little bit of 'Nice Guy' thrown in. That's exactly why a successful CEO cannot just 'Govern' a Democracy, unless he is also qualified to 'Govern' a 'Political Entity'. So why don't we, somehow, monitor or 'set qualifications' for those who want 'Political Positions of Power'? Of course, at this point, you will say, hey, we live in a Democracy and anyone who wants to Run can Run for Office. So, does that mean that if your a Billionaire, or, a successful Businessman you are also 'qualified', by that fact alone, for Political Office? I don't think so! If you don't believe me 'look around'. Today,the 'Top' has been 'taken over' by 'Millionaires and Billionaires'; the 'turn-over' at the Top is unbelievable, and that creates 'instability'. 'Political Instability' in the 'Halls of Power' is never Good. In such a case, the Top becomes 'Dictatorial' and the Social becomes as unstable as the Top. Where are the Real Politicians? Only a 'Real Politician' can restore 'Stability' in 'Democratic Government' and 'Freedom and Equality' in the Social.

Economic threats cannot be the basis for Political Decisions.

Economic threats cannot be the basis for Political Decisions. A Political Decision reflects a particular Political Ideology while an Economic decision reflects a 'Move' designed to make a 'Profit'. Economics is about Profits, Politics is about the General Welfare. Instead of 'crossing' Disciplines, i.e., Politics and Economics, it would be easier to 'Order' the Five or Ten Richest, largest, Corporations to create a 'Fund' to build 'whatever is necessary' to insure the Safety and 'General Welfare' of the People at the Bottom in their 'Condition of Togetherness'. But, why a Wall? The 'Peoples' of the World have already crossed 'Political Boundaries' and 'National Boundaries'. The Internet has 'meshed' all of 'Humanity' 'together'. The 'Internet' and the 'Cloud' have brought Individuals together for the First Time in History. Walls and National Boundaries are less important then ever. Of course, we still need Laws to 'control' improper entries into Other National Boundaries, but the People can 'communicate' and 'enter' via the Internet and the Cloud. Humanity has never been more 'Integrated'. Why are we building Walls? 'Social Cohesion' becomes possible with the 'tearing down' of existing 'Walls', and we are Building Walls? How many 'Walls' have come down? We no longer live in a World that builds 'Walls'. We need more Integration of 'Peoples' and we need to 'benefit', as a Nation, from our 'Entry' into the 'World of Technology'. Our Technology can and should be used to bring 'Peoples together' and stop building Walls where they are not necessary. Its not too smart to build Walls in the Age of the Computer. If a Political Decision needs to be made, it should be based on Political Ideology and the basis of the Ideology needs to be made 'Clear'. Of course, our 'Split-Ideology' has different perspectives on the 'Equality' and 'Freedom' of the 'Real Individual' Guaranteed by the 'Constitution', but it sure doesn't include the 'Building of Walls'. Where are the Real Politicians, not the CEO's and Economists who are concerned with building 'Walls' to separate the 'Haves' from the 'Have-nots'.

The Top of every Nation is a source of Political Power.

The 'Top' of every 'Nation' is a 'Source of Political Power'. The Political Issue is always, how does the Top 'arranges' or 'distributes' its Power. The 'answer' to that question determines the 'Form' that 'Government' will assume. It will be an 'Autocracy', a 'Plutocracy', an 'Oligarchy', or a 'Democracy'; or, whatever 'else' People can 'Make-Up'. I say 'Make-Up' because 'all' Political Entities are 'Social Constructions'. It probably began with the 'Family' because that's a 'Grouping' with Family-Ties that 'Had' to 'remain Together'. Soon, the Family Groupings were 'out-paced' by Larger Groups which led to 'just plain Groupings', and then 'Tribes', and then Groupings which Identified themselves to a 'Family Origin' or a 'Race' or to a particular 'Territory'. The point being that at some 'place' in this evolution, Governments became necessary. The issue then becomes how are we to 'organize' that 'Government' and from where will the 'Top' get its 'Power to Govern'. The Old problematic of the 'One and the Many'. The 'older Groupings' picked the 'Strongest', the 'Oldest', or the 'Wisest'. Later, came The Divine Right of Kings. Giving a Leader a Divine Right to Govern certainly contributes an 'Aura' otherwise missing from the Human Condition. But, even they had to Rationalize that 'Aura' into "the King has Two Bodies". That worked for awhile. No more. Now, the issue becomes from where does the Top get its Political Power? A Top cannot get Power from anywhere, except from the Bottom, the 'condition of togetherness', a 'cohesive condition' of Humans 'Living next to each Other'. Once a procedure to 'transfer Authority' from the Bottom to the Top, was formulated, the Bottom was prepared to 'select' or 'Elect' a Leader. Now the Real Issue needs to be answered. It takes a Politically inclined Individual who is prepared to 'Lead' and who is 'not selfish', and who is 'capable' of 'Leading and Organizing' the 'Bottom' into a 'Free and Equal Condition'. The Top does have Power, but it got it from the Bottom and only for awhile. The Top must be 'experienced' and 'prepared' to lead the 'Many' into a 'Real Democracy'. Where are the Real Politicians?

The Term 'Socialism' acquired a 'Bad Connotation'; now, the 'Top' is becoming 'Autocratic'.

The Term 'Socialism' acquired a 'Bad Connotation'; now the Top of Democracy is acquiring a 'Bad Reputation' also; its 'becoming' 'Autocratic'. The term 'Socialism' probably arose from the term the 'Social', which is just another term meaning the 'Bottom' of a Polity'or a Democratic Polity. A 'Social' is a 'People', millions of them. It has nothing to do with the 'Top' owning the 'means of Production', The Top doesn't own anything; it Governs and it gets its Power to Govern from the Peoples at the Bottom. Without People at the Bottom, a Polity has no need 'to Exist' and it 'cannot own anything'. Its just a 'Political Point' of Power with the 'Duty' to 'Govern' Millions of 'Real People'. The Top 'Serves' the 'People' at the 'Bottom'. The Top, as a position of Power is the 'Biggest Fiction' in the 'World'. Just like a Corporation, which is a 'Recognized' and 'Accepted' Legal Fiction and exists 'only' in contemplation of Law. As a Result, the Corporation was 'Given' a huge Economic 'Grasp' that has created an 'Unbalanced Economy' and many 'Billionaires'. Now, Money 'talks' and Bullshit Walks. Now, Big Money tells Government how to Govern. We have replaced the 'Divinity' in the 'Divine Right' of Kings with 'Money', 'Profits', and 'Properties'. When the Candidate for the 'Highest Office' in the 'Land' was asked, and what have you accomplished? He replied, "I build Big Buildings." That's documented. Now, the Top uses 'economic threats' to Dictate to 'Political Policy'; and recently threatened to stop 'funding' the fighting of Forrest Fires. From a 'Political Position' of 'Economic mischief' to a position 'endangering property' and 'Human Life'. What happened to 'Equality and Freedom' for the 'Bottom' of a 'Democratic Polity'? The 'Real Bottom' of 'Real Individuals' got 'forgotten' and that's where the term 'Socialism' got its 'Taint'; and that's where Democracy is being 'transformed' into an 'Autocracy'. Where are the 'Real Politicians'?

Holding a Government hostage is not a 'Political Maneuver'.

Holding a Government 'Hostage' is not a Political Maneuver, its an Economic Maneuver and a very 'poor One'. Unfortunately, that's an example of 'Economic Leadership' that is 'self-destructive'. Will a Corporation say, 'I'll close the Corporation' if you don't elect a 'Republican' or a 'Democrat'? Of course, not. To be sure, that's poor 'economic thinking' trying to 'relate' to 'Political Structures'. I've said, Politics and Economics are different and although every Polity 'needs' an Economy, the 'thinking required' of 'each' is 'different' from the Other. 'Political Thinking' is for 'Governing', and 'Governing only', and in compliance with the Constitution, i.e. in 'Freedom' and 'Equality'; while the Economic is simply to 'make a Profit'. The Two separate Institutions need each Other, but their 'functions' cannot be mixed. Every 'Polity' needs an 'Economy', but, not every 'Economic Structure' needs a 'Government'. Did the 'Divine Right of Kings' need an 'Economy'? No!, and it didn't have an economy, nor Ownership of property. But, that 'changed' and 'evolved' into a 'Mix' for the 'Polity' and for 'its People'. But, that's History. Government was established so that it could 'Govern'; not make a Profit. The Two Principles must be kept separate and can function optimally, if each keeps to its proper Domain. That's why Economic Principles 'cannot Govern'; and that's why Governments cannot exist to make a Profit. Economic Principles do not belong in 'Politics' and Political principles should protect its Economy; after all it even created a 'Person', that 'only exists' in 'contemplation of Law'. 'Politics' is different from 'Capitalism'. The 'Two' are different. Where are the 'Selfless' Politicians that know 'how' to 'Govern' the 'Condition of Togetherness.'

Articulated Political Power Structures are necessary; but they should not encroach on the Human Condition.

Articulated Political Power Structures are necessary; but they should not encroach on the Human Condition. The Human Condition is Natural, while the Political Structures are Constructions. That's why we have 'Founding Fathers'. The Founding of America is not without its Problems, but the Structure or Constitution is a viable Instrument; sometimes referred too as a 'Living Constitution'. But, other Political Entities seem to construct a Top with Power, and at the same time, 'limit' or 'curtail' the 'importance' of the 'Human Condition'at the Bottom. The Human Condition, in a Democracy, is respected and it is understood that, if it was not for the Millions of Humans at the Bottom, there would be no need for a Political Top with Political Power. The Essence of Governments is always the 'People' in their 'Condition of Togetherness'. Sometimes the Problematic in Democracies are the People who do not respect the Government that protects their 'Equality and Freedom'. Without People; no Government, without Government no Political Equality and Freedom. A Social or gathering of the Many cannot Govern themselves without some Institution at the Top to Govern the Bottom. Of course, we call that 'Institution' the 'Government' or the 'Top'; the 'Source' of all 'Constructed Political Power'. The Bottom always remains in its 'Natural Condition' while it 'conforms' to the 'delineations' of a 'Particular Social'. The Bottom conforms to the Social 'structure' as it conforms to 'Law', which delineates the 'acceptable and the unacceptable'. but, The Government, once Elected, must be Democratic. Democracy can achieve its Goals with Political Strategies, but it cannot shut down the Government. That is not 'Political', nor 'Democratic'. Actually, that's 'Autocratic'. Democracies should 'not' be Ruled by 'Autocrats'. Somethings wrong. Where are the Real Politicians.

A Democratic Form of Government is 'Real". Many Other 'Forms' are 'Articulated Power Structures'.

Democracy is Real Government; Other Forms are 'Articulated Power Structures' that have been Institutionalized. The Latter 'reduces' the Human Condition to a 'condition of subservience'. In such cases the Government claims to Govern the People but, in reality, its the People who serve the Government. The Human Qualities of Equality and Freedom are misplaced. The People at the Bottom do not have Equality and Freedom. If they did, it would be the People who grant the Top the power it needs. The People in their condition of togetherness have the Power. In a Democracy the Government is "of the People", "by the People" and "for the People". Political Power originates at the Bottom and the Bottom grants Political power to Govern. Political Office has Power because the Bottom grants it to the Top so the Top can Govern. The Bottom of 'every Polity' is a 'Condition of Togetherness'. The Top of 'every Polity' is only a 'Political Position', or, a position in a 'constructed Political Condition'; to be sure, an 'essential Institution'. Hence the 'Top' of every Polity is essential, but it should respect the 'Equality and Freedom' of every 'Real Individual' at the 'Bottom'. The reason for that is that all Political Positions are occupied by 'Real Individuals' who come from the Bottom. Of course, not every Government is a Democracy. Nevertheless, a Form of Government should be 'structured' to 'house Political Power' at the Top but not to disregard the 'Equality and Freedom' of the 'Real Individual' at the Bottom. Recently, an interesting political statement about the Federal Reserve was made. I paraphrase, 'a powerful Golfer will not score if he doesn't know how to Putt'. Actually that applies to a 'Political Leader' who does not know how to 'Politic'. A Political problem requires a Political answer. But, if the Political Leader is an Economic thinkers, and Rich, he will not know how to give a 'Political Answer' because he is not a Politician versed in Political Structures. An Autocratic Thinker will think like an Autocrat, and does not care about 'Equality and Freedom' of the 'Real Individual'. An 'Autocratic mentality' is a 'One Person Government' and that 'Person considers himself a 'Superior Human being', and claims 'Personal Power', and 'Institutional Power' over 'all Individuals' within the Politys Jurisdiction. She or He is an 'Autocrat'; she or He 'Rules'. Governments Organize themselves any way the want, but they should not disregard the 'Equality' and 'Freedom' of the 'Human condition'. The Individual Right to have a 'Just Leader' who knows 'How' to Govern and who Governs every Individual in the 'Condition of Togetherness' and Respects the Equality and Freedom of the Real Individual is a 'Just Government'. Governments are 'Political Institutions', and hence only have the Power that they are 'Given'. 'Political Institutions' are not 'Natural Entities'. All Human Beings are creations of 'Nature'; hence, all Human Beings are the 'Same'. But, all 'Political Entities' are not 'Natural' but their construction should respect the Equality and Freedom of the human Condition. Democracy requires that. If that is not provided for, are we back to the Divine Right of Kings 'Form of Government'? Have we just given up 'Divinity' and now claim 'Personal Power'? No One Human Being has 'Real Personal Power'. He or She has 'Institutional Power' but only because its provided for, and only for a short period of Time. Where are the Real Politicians?

A Democratic Government is a Government "of the People", "by the People" and "for the People".

A Democratic Government is a Government "of the People", "by the People", and "for the People". That's why 'the People' or the 'Bottom' of the 'Polity' are very important. The essence and function of Government is 'to Govern'. It has no 'other' function. But, consider the 'importance' of People to a 'Government', particularly to a 'Democratic Form' of Government, and you begin to see the 'importance' of 'democracy' as a 'Manner' of Governing. The Bottom, or, The Many, or the 'Condition of Togetherness' which 'constitutes it', includes 'Millions of Individuals', or, to say it 'differently', includes the 'so-called', 'Many'. The different Forms of Government is an attempt to resolve the 'Ancient Problematic' of the 'One' and 'the Many', but they are all 'partial solutions'. I say 'partial' because that's not the 'end' of the Problem; that's the 'beginning'. Why? It seems that the Problematic is in creating a 'difference' between a 'Top' and a 'Bottom' and then questioning the 'competence', or 'authority' of the Top to Govern the Bottom, which happens to be the 'same' as the 'Millions of Individuals' at the Bottom. The Problematic creates a relation between 'One Individual' at the Top of 'Power'and the 'Many Individuals' at the Bottom, who are to be Governed. But, it seems that the Problem is to recognize that something is 'missing' or that something is 'needed' to justify 'Governing'. That missing link is that 'something must be created by Human Beings' to justify 'One' or 'Several Individuals' Governing the 'whole Bottom' of the Polity. Governments are 'not Natural', they are 'creations' by 'Unique Human Beings', or, if I may, the 'Unique Human Spirit'. Government is a man made 'Political Institution'. Government is not Natural, in the sense that its established by Nature. It must be 'Crafted' and as a 'construction' all 'Unique Human Characteristics'and all Political Factors' must be included. That means, the 'Uniqueness' of the 'Human Condition' and the 'Similarity and Equality' of each and every real Individual in the Polity. If all Individuals are the 'Same' and 'Unique', no 'One Individual' is 'Superior' to the 'Other'. Hence, no 'One' has a 'Natural Right' to 'Govern' and 'all Governments' should consider the 'Unique Human Condition' in their 'Construction' of a 'Polity'. That means all Political Entities should be Democratic. Where are the Real Politicians?

'All' Political Entities govern a 'Large Group of Human Beings'.

All Political Entities Govern a Large Group of Human Beings. The Political Entity must be 'organized and set-up' by an Individual, or a Group of Individuals. It cannot be set-up by a Computer or a 'previously organized' Corporation. 'Someone' must establish 'Government'. We can no longer rely on some form of 'Divine Intervention', although, that 'used to be' a 'Reality'. But, it didn't work. Hence, the necessity of establishing a Political Entity by an Individual, or a group of Individuals. Nature cannot establish Nationhood, Government, or any 'Collective sense' of 'controlling' a 'Collection of Humans'. Why not? The most simple way of approaching that issue is 'because each Real Individual is born into a World where 'Every-One' that is 'born' is the 'Same', or, 'Politically Equal'. If we look at 'Sameness' in Nature, no-one Individual can claim 'Superiority' of the 'Human Condition' or of having 'Power' to 'govern another'. In other words, Humans are the Same' and all are 'Equal', and 'Free' to 'Express', 'Implement', and 'Defend' that 'Equality'. One Individual could possible establish a 'Fair Constitution', but 'unlikely' because already He/She 'senses' the 'Feelings' of Superiority. Hence, the better approach is a 'Group of Individuals'. But, if the Group creates Political Offices that have 'Power' over Individuals that begins to smell like the 'Divine Right of Kings'. That Divine Right had to come up with the Argument that the King had 'Two Bodies', the 'Divine Body' and the 'Normal,' every-day Body. That didn't Fly. No, Political Offices have Duties to the Governed. Hence 'Political Office' has 'Knowledgeable Duties' to 'Govern'. Of course, the next issue is the 'Form of Government'. Well, there's Autocracy, Plutocracy, Oligarchy, or Democracy. If all the 'Same' Individuals must be 'Governed', it should be a 'Political Form' that Recognizes and Protects the 'Uniqueness' of the 'Individual Human Condition'. Hence, 'Political Power' of the Individual or, the 'Individuals' in the 'Condition of Togetherness', called 'The Many', is transferred to the Institutional Top, or to the 'One', by way of the 'Electoral Process', but only for a short period of Time. In this way, we can continue to learn about the Democratic Process and begin to see why a CEO or Businessman cannot Govern a Political Entity. A Political Entity should be established to Govern Equal and Free Individuals and not to make a Profit. Profits are for Businesses, Government is for Governing. Where are the Real Politicians?

All Political Entities have Power, but not every Political Entity has Real Individuals at the Bottom with Natural and Political Rights,.

In a Democracy, the Top has Political Power, but each and every Real Individual, at the Bottom, has Freedom and Equality. We often hear this description of democracy. So, how does the Bottom 'influence' the Top in a Democracy. If the Bottom does not have Power, how can it 'influence' the Top. Simply, each Real Individual at the Bottom counts as a 'Number'. Each Real Individual perceived as a Number is Natural and has the same Rights as every other Real Human being. Now, the Top is 'not Number' nor is it a 'Real Human Being'. Its just a Political Institution. The Top of every Political Entity has Power because it is a 'Political Institution'. Of course, the Top of Power is occupied by a Real Individual and we consider Him,Her as an Individual with Power, so long as, He or She, occupies the 'Institution of the Top'. But, Institutions of Power are 'human made' and not 'Natural Entities'. 'Humans', or, the Bottom, are 'Natural', but the Top is a Political Institution. Its not a Natural Entity, that's why every Top or Government can be different. For example, an Autocracy has Power at the Top also, but the Bottom is not considered 'Natural' in the 'Political Sense' that each 'Real Individual' has certain 'Rights' such as 'Freedom and Equality'. They are usually considered 'Subjects' like in the phrase, 'The Kings Subjects'. The Kings Subjects are always subject to the Power of the King. All Political Entities have Power at the Top. Autocracy, Oligarchy, Plutocracy, or Democracy. They all have Power. But, only Democracy has a Bottom that considers the Real Individuals at the Bottom as having 'Rights', by virtue of being Human and having 'Freedom and Equality'. That's why 'Governing' in a Democracy does not mean the Top can do whatever it wants. The Top must 'Respect', and 'Defend' the Rights of all Real Individuals at the Bottom. It must Govern in a Politically 'Just Manner'; alleviate the suffering of the Bottom, provide housing, medical attention, and socially organize the Individual's Freedom and Equality in a Politically 'Just Manner'. It has no 'Other' Political Functions. Politically, the Bottom has a Number that can be 'counted' and be provided for; there can be no Racial Discrimination; no economic discrimination; no 'class' discrimination; and all Real Human Beings must be 'counted' and included in the distribution of all Social 'Freedoms and Equalities'. A Political Institution has no 'Other' purpose for existing. Where are the Real Politicians?

In a Democracy, the Top has Institutional Power, but the Bottom has Many Individuals who have Freedom and Equality.

In a Democracy, the 'Top' has Institutional Power, but the 'Bottom' has 'Many Real Individuals' who have Freedom and Equality. There's that old dilemma of the One and the Many. Of course, the first thing that comes to Mind is why should any 'One' or, for that matter, 'Several Persons' have Power while the Bottom is 'Powerless'. The Individual at the Bottom has 'Freedom and Equality', but that is not 'Power'. Well, lets call them 'Rights'. But, why 'Rights', if not for the fact, that everyone is 'Equally Human', including those who serve at the 'Top'. If the Top is 'Superior' in some manner or another, the 'Rights' become 'unimportant'. Or we could say, the Top 'houses' a 'Superior Human Being' that is more Powerful than any 'Other Human Being'. We, some of us, know better than that. The Human Condition is Equally the same. If Equality 'reins' over the Human Condition, how are we to determine who will Govern the Bottom? Of course, 'Election' is a Possibility, hence electoral Politics. But, Elections, a process that appears relatively 'efficient' and 'innocent' was soon made 'Problematic'. Is there some 'different manner' of 'electing', 'selecting', or 'appointing', the Top. Of course, we now live in the Computer Age, so, is there some way to transfer the electoral process to the Computer? Or, can that also be Problematic? It soon appears that the 'old problem' of the 'One and the Many' that was, at that time, resolved by selecting the 'Strongest' or the 'Wisest', no longer 'Works' as the basis for selecting a Leader. But, now we have access to computers. So, can we vote with our computer? How can everyone have access to a computer? Can Electoral Politics become 'Computerized', or is that also Problematic. Well, consider how the Computer has 'torn down' 'National Boundaries' that allows communication between Individuals of different Nations. The computer has done more to 'Unify' the 'Human Condition' than all the Politicians rolled up into a 'Political Ball'. Do we build Walls or do we knock down Walls? At this point enters the Real Individual and the Morality of the Human Condition. All 'Real Individuals' are not 'Corporations', not 'Legal Fictions', and have 'Equal Rights' and 'Political Freedom'. Maybe the Computer can help us? Where are the 'Real' Politicians?

A 'Top', that begins to disintegrate Morally, can also 'effect' the 'Integrity of the International Sphere'.

The disintegrating 'Top' of any Nation will effect the International Sphere. If the Nation is a Democratic Nation, the International Sphere will begin to take notice. Especially, if the disintegration at the Top reflects a moral Issue. The reason being that a Democratic Nation that is disintegrating with respect to Moral Issues will not be expected to defend its own Moral Integrity, and hence will not be expected to defend the same or similar Moral Issues of Other Nations. When Morality flies out the window in a Democracy, the Human Condition will not be respected and hence the Freedom and Equality that should hold the Bottom together will weaken. Consequently, a Nation with 'weak' morals, at the Top, will create a 'weakness' and a 'disintegration' of the 'Integrity' of the 'International Bond'. This National 'lack of concern' for 'Human Life' will not sit well with Other Nations that are also Democracies that respect the 'Life' of the 'Human Condition'. Of course, Autocracies, Plutocracies and Oligarchies will not be expected to be too 'concerned' about a National Morality because the integrity of their Nation-Hood is organized differently. In their case, all the Political Power is at the Top of the Polity and not at the Bottom, hence Moral Issues that involve the Human Condition at the Bottom are out of the question. Of course, to them, the 'Bottom' is also important, but only with respect to 'Obedience and Allegiance' to the Top. Some Nations treat their Leaders like 'Gods'. Morality never enters the picture, only an 'enforced' National Obedience. That is not the case in a Democracy. In a Real Democracy, the 'Moral' and 'Knowledgeable Stature' of the Highest Office Holder becomes very important because the 'Freedom and Equality' of 'all Citizens' must also be 'respected' and 'protected'. Of course, on the International Sphere, the United Nations also has a 'Political Integrity' but that Integrity is a 'Political Integrity' of Powerful Nations. On the International Sphere, all Nations are 'Equally Powerful' and 'Independent' regardless their 'Geographical Size' and 'Population'. Hence, when a 'Democratic Nation' begins to 'reflect' a 'Moral laxity', the other 'Equal Nations' become 'concerned'. They become concerned because, suddenly, 'Equal Nations' become 'Morally lax' and begin to show 'little respect' for the 'Human Condition'. Politics is not a science, but 'Office Holders' should respect the 'Freedom and Equality' of the 'Human Condition'. After all, without 'Humans', there's 'no need' for 'Nations or Governments'. Without Nations or Governments, there's no need for a 'United Nations'.

A 'Changing Social' is unpredictable, but a 'solid' Democratic Top can hold it together.

A 'Social' is never some solid entity that never changes. Its always in movement and seldom becomes a 'solid', 'fixated', unchanging Entity. Of course, that's referred too as the 'Bottom' of all Political Entities. But, every Bottom has a Top and a 'Democratic Top' can keep a Real Democracy, at the Bottom, viable. Obviously, a Democracy of the 'Many' requires a 'Top' that is both 'Democratic' and 'efficient'. In other words, a Top that acts like an Autocracy, or an Oligarchy, or a Plutocracy cannot 'Govern' a Democracy of the 'Many'. Why not? Simply, because Democracy is a 'Government', "of the People", "By the People", and "For the People". In more 'functional' words, the People 'Govern', not the 'ONE', not the 'Select Few', and not the 'Rich'. But notice, I also said 'Efficient' and that requires a 'knowledgeable' Top. That is very important because a candidate for the Top Office in a Democracy can very easily 'run' for election and not be 'qualified' to hold the Top Office. Once in Office, He or She will remain in Office and that's exactly the problem. Once in Office, the People have to wait it out, unless they take drastic 'Constitutional action' and remove him or her from Office. Remember, a candidate can 'think and behave' like a Dictator, or, like an Oligarch, or, like a Plutocrat, or just plain egotistical, selfish, or 'completely unfamiliar' with the 'Governing process'. He or She can remain fixated on 'Economics', or some other aspect of 'Power' and not know how to 'Govern' a Democracy. Freedom and Equality of the Individual is important in a Democracy. Without Freedom and Equality a Social in a Democracy will not hold together. Where are the Knowledgeable Democratic candidates?

When the Top of a Political Entity begins to 'disintegrate', the Bottom also changes its 'Personality'.

When the Top of a Political Entity begins to 'disintegrate', the 'Bottom' also changes its 'Personality'. The Bottom is always a huge collective of Equal and Free Individuals and even though its 'conditions of existence', as 'Real Individuals', remains as a 'condition of togetherness', the Individual retains his/her 'Identity', as a Real 'human Being'. Politically, Individuals are the 'same'( Equal and Free), but 'Individually', they assert the 'qualities' of their 'Independent Personality'. Fortunately, or Unfortunately, that means that the 'Bottom' also begins to 'disintegrate'. The 'antagonisms' begin as 'mere' Political 'Party Disagreement' that rapidly 'crescendos' into the 'lower rungs' of the Human Condition- from mere Party antagonisms that don't have to exist, to violent behaviors. Its very sad, when the animosities and disagreements at the Bottom have been partially caused, by the 'Representatives' at the Top of Power. The Political Entity 'initiates' the 'causes' of its 'own demise'. The 'Representative' at the Top has failed the People. When the Top fails; the Bottom fails. When the Bottom fails Democracy fails. When Democracy fails the Bottom becomes unruly, disorganized, and at the 'mercy' of the more 'dominant Citizens', i.e. those who stand to Gain by that unruly behavior, viz., the Rich, the Corporations, the 'Big', the 1%. Unfortunately, Democracy cannot survive without a knowledgeable Leader and a 'Real Politician'. 'Real Political Leaders' are essential. Real Economic Leaders are essential also, but they have to stay in their 'Arena' and never should they 'confuse' the 'differences' in 'their disciplines'. It may be possible for a Real Politician to also be a real Businessman, or a Real Businessman to be a Real Politician, and if that's the case, it should be made manifest in the Political Campaign. Barring those qualifications and conditions, don't listen to promises that you will make 'lots of money' (they don't even increase the Minimum Wage) that you will be rich ( only the 1% will get 'Fatter'), that you will ascend to a 'Higher Social Class' in Society ( can you see a Social where the 99% will be as Rich as the 1%, 'economic equality'?) If you hear that, that's not Politics, that's Bullshit! Sorry, lost it for a moment. Where are the Real Politicians? We need Real Selfless Politicians.

A Flexible Ideology allows for a changing, transformable Social.

A flexible Ideology allows for a changing, 'transformable' Social. A 'Social' is never a fixed entity. Its always changing and the external relations between the Individuals in the 'condition of togetherness' can undergo changes. The Individuals do not undergo changes, they remain 'Politically Equal' and 'Politically Free'. As 'Individuals' they are always Equal and Free, but in the 'condition of togetherness', there can be variations. The reason for that is that the 'Social' is always in motion, in activity, 'Institutionally' and 'Individually', and can be subject to variations. Advances in Technology and Institutions can create subtle changes in the Social. Hence, a Political Entity must become aware of those changes and modify its 'political attitude', but always within the 'context' of its Political Identity. For Example, a Democracy allows for the proper Political Response; one that usually expands and changes the Social. Of course, an Autocracy does the same thing but within limits. The Social in a Democracy is 'wide open' to new advances and a proper Democratic Political response. An Autocracy usually suppresses Social Changes to protect its Authoritarian Regime. It only allows those changes that do not threaten its Authority. An Autocracy is an Example of a Rigid unchanging Ideology, while the Social in a Democracy can be modified by new advances in science. That's why Ideology must be Flexible in a Democracy. The People can change within a Democracy, but its Ideology needs Flexibility. A Rigid Ideology or strict Party loyalty only creates political Problems between the Parties or the People and even in the Democratic Principles that maintains the integrity of the Entity.