Why do we need 'Legal Persons in contemplation of Law', when we have the 'Real Persons'.

Why do we need 'Legal Persons' in 'Contemplation of Law' when we have the 'Real Persons', and why do 'Legal Persons' need 'Constitutional Protection'? Doesn't sound right, doesn't look right and is 'not Right'. We have to ask, why do we need more Legal Fictions? 'Legal Fictions' may be necessary to connect Legal reasoning to its subject matter, like the Reasonable prudent Person, but why do we create a Legal Fiction in the Economy when it contributes to 'Monopoly' and 'Self-aggrandizing' and when it 'displaces the 'economic position', and value of the 'Real Working Person'? Most Individuals would agree that Legal Fictions do not belong in the Economy because economy deals with 'Production', Money, and Profits. A 'Business Corporation' is an 'economic entity' and should not be considered a 'Real Person'. A Business Corporation just makes Profits. Certainly, it provides the Socal with 'essential products' and 'contributes to their availability': but why does it need Constitutional Protection? Does an Economic Entity need protection so that it can contribute towards 'Monopoly', 'centralization of Monies', and the 'creation of Economic Classes'? If the Business Corporation is considered a 'Legal Person' and functions as a 'Real Human Person', namely; contributes towards 'Democracy', it may not be a bad idea. Of course, 'small changes' in the 'Structure' would have to occur. But, thats not the case; the 'structure' functions like an 'Autocrat', and it gets 'Constitutional protection'. We have to ask, Why?

The 'Business Corporation' is a Legal Fiction, that's its 'Nature'. But now the Supreme Court has made it a 'Person'.

The Business Corporation is a Legal Fiction. Its basically, an artificial creation of Law. Anything that is 'Fictional', in our language, is 'never the case'. A 'Fiction' cannot be 'made' 'truthful' or 'valid' or 'existent'. Anything 'fictional in nature' is 'Unreal' and 'remains' Unreal. Its 'legal nature' is merely a Linguistic Connection allowed for sole purpose of 'Legal Reasoning'. It serves no other function. It does occupy a 'Place' within our economy. But, 'we must ask', why does it have to be a 'Person in contemplation of Law'. Why is that necessary? Why not just consider it what it actually is; a Business Entity, in the Economy and not a 'Person in contemplation of Law'. 'Creating' a 'New Person' within the 'Economy' or in the 'Social' or 'anywhere else', is beyond the 'Power' of any 'Court' or 'any man made' Institution. The end-result is that its as protected by the Constitution, 'as if' it really was a 'Real-Person'. Persons, of all types are Real. Legal Fictions are Social and Legal Creations that must exist as 'Real Fictions' and contribute to Legal Reasoning but not to the 'sanctifying result' of being a 'Real Person'. How can a Supreme Court create a Real Person? It can't! But, the Court seems to be pre-occupied with the Economic-Ability of the Business Corporation to create huge amounts of Money and Capital to Itself and to the Corporate Structure; not the Social, but solely to an Unbalanced and lop-sided Economy. The 'Social' is left behind in its 'tatered conditions' of existence.

The weaknesses of a Democracy are Self-Induced.

The weakness of Democracy is 'self-induced'. It is not the 'nature' of Democracy that undermines it, but the Nature of the 'Bottom' of the Institution. By the Nature of the Bottom, I do not mean that its a charecteristic of Democracy, but the Nature of the 'Individuals' who populate the Bottom. Their first 'move' was to divide into Political Parties. Can you imagine, they create their own 'Political opposition'. Every Individual has a different appoaches to the 'Freedom' and 'Equality' of the Individual, but the division into Political Parties is a temptation to great to resist, so they Form into some kind of 'Political Power-Party'. Politics is Power, but why does Democracy need to have 'inducements' and 'enticements' to form into Groups to acquire 'Political Power'? Why can't Individuals implement Freedom and Equality? Freedom and Equality is a precious thing and needs to be implemented at the Bottom; implemented by the Individual for the Individual. The problems with Political Parties is that they are reduced to 'Political Platforms', and many times Individuals become Identified with the Platform. A Vote by an 'Individual' in a Party is a Vote for the 'Platform' and for the Party, hence the inducement to join One or the Other Party to have a Political Identity. 'Political Power' raises its ugly head. How sad, a 'Real living Human Being' becomes a Republican or a Democrat. Now they have a 'Political identity' and in that process, they have given up their Real 'Person-Hood'. Real Freedom and Equality is not implemented by the Individual and Institutional 'Creations'called 'Business Corporations' are given 'Personhood' and as a result, we become a 'Social' motivated by Money, Riches, and a 'Motor' guided and measured by 'More and More' of the same.

The division into 'Political Parties' at the Bottom is a 'fracturing' of the Democratic Ideology.

The division into 'Political Parties', at the Bottom, is a 'fracturing' of the Democratic Ideology. Why? Because the 'Freedom and Equality' afforded to the 'Individual' at the Bottom has 'crystalized' into separated divisions at the Bottom. The Bottom is no longer a 'Unified collectivity' of 'Separate Individuals'. Its become a 'divided Bottom' that furhtur creates a contest between the very thing a Democracy should insure, namely 'Real' Freedom and Equality of the 'Individual'. It will be said that the Individual is free to choose between the 'Two' Party System. But, think about it: is that a 'Real Choice' or is that a 'limitation' between two 'Opposing Indeologies'. How about a 'Real Choice' between 'Real Freedom and Equality' that conforms with the 'Democratic Spirit' and any 'subsequent clarification' and 'focus' of the 'exercise' of 'Real Freedom and Equality'. Choosing betwen Two separate Party Ideologies is 'not per se Democratic'. That not the only choices available and thats actualy placing a 'limit' on 'Freedom and Equality'. Our Two Party Political System augments and furthur creates a division between 'Rich and Poor', Haves and Have-nots, Real Individuals and Legal Corporate 'Persons' or 'Legal Fictions'. It 'transmutates' into an underlying 'Economic System' instead of a 'Political System' of Freedom and Equality of the Individual.

We are witnessing the 'self-destruction' of Democratic Politics.

We are witnessing the 'self-destruction' of Democratic Politics. The most harmfull thing to a Democracy that is Free and Equal at the Bottom or in the so-called 'Social', is the disfunctional aspects of the Bottom. Unfortunately, we must ask Why is that the case? The only answer has to be its division into the two-Party System. The problematic is not only 'that aspect' of the 'Social', but the fact that both Parties are at each others throat. The Two- Party System has become as antagonistic towards each other as 'Two Warring political Ideologies. Each wants to litterally destroy the 'Other'. It doesn't have to be that way. Both Parties can compete with each Other and they can each invoke a 'Democratic manner' of resolving differences. But the attempted Resolution must be democratic. It should not be a mere 'striving' for Political Power based on Authoritatism, or Rich vs. Poor, and should not be led by incompetent Politicians. When the very system that allows participation in Politics is 'overrun' by Incompetence, by seekers of Power, by Money, and is aided by division into a Two Party System that does not 'implement' a 'Two Party Democratic Spirit', we are in trouble. We need more Rules for the participants of 'Politics'. It can't continue uncontrolled in such a manner that the Freedoms and Equalities that characterize the Bottom are abused by the very same participants in Politics. Where is the control? Is an Individual qualified simply because She/He is Rich, Socially Powerful, Famous, or is just seeking more Power? Where is the Control?

How sad; the 'problems of Governing' are no longer just the 'People' at the 'Bottom', 'they' are at the Top.

How sad; the problems of Governing are no longer just the People at the Bottom, they are concentrated at the Top. Of course, the Bottom has its troubles, with all the Racial discrimination and the efforts to Control the vote, etc. That will always be the case. But, when the Top, the Ideology begins to unravel, one has to find the cause for that. Several publications have stated that Trump and Putin are 'very friendly' and that Putin said it was to Russia's advantage to have Trump in Office because of his 'incompetence'. Thats dangerous and the cause is probably the 'lack of qualifications' for Running for Office. Anyone can Run. Also, the fact that we have 'Two Political Parties' that differ in their 'politics' simply on the basis of being a member of the opposing Party. Why cant we have One Party based on the the 'Constitution' and just 'differ' on how to accomplish the same democratic Political Goal? The division into a Two Party system doesnt seem to be working. Of course there will always be discussions on various ways of achieving the same Democratic goal. Nothing wrong with that. Are both Parties democratic? If political candidates want to monopolize the political landscape with a Party Ideology, why not just say it. Both Parties claim to be democratic, yet the two parties are 'replete with disagreements' and the competition between them is 'fierce'. It appears that the difference is about Money and that Money and the big Corporations determine the Policy and that 'Governing' should become 'Rule' and should be based on that and not on a 'Democratic Ideology'. Why should there be a 'Political' Connection between an Autocracy and a Democracy? Could that be some kind of attempt to merge or overcome 'One' or the 'Other' Ideology? Should'nt 'Each' be Independent from the Other? Could that lead to an antagonistic relation between Ideologies that could lead to War? What is wrong with our Politics?

Economic 'values' are essential, but 'not definitive' of a 'Social System' of 'Freedom and Equality'.

Certainly 'Economic values' are essential, but 'not definitive' of a Social System of 'Freedom and Equality'. Economic values are descriptive of a 'Social' but it does not create a Bottom or an Economy that is determinative of Democratic values. The Bottom of a Democracy does require 'Economic Values' but it does not shift the Democratic Value System of 'Freedom and Equality' to an 'Economy descriptive' of an 'Autocratic System'. Certainly an 'Autocratic System' can monopolize its Economy and subsistute, a value system that emphasizes the Economic as its strong-point at the Bottom, but it does not emphasize 'Freedom and Equality' of the 'Individual' as the strong Point of a Democratic 'Bottom'. All Bottoms need economies, but that aspect of all Socials is not the only defining parts of a Democratic Social. If the economy was the sole factor we would be 'inching' closer to a 'Plutocracy', not a Democracy. Hence, great care must be exercised when defining a Successful Economy. 'Corporate Persons' create a 'Lopsided Economy' and a 'Lopsided Social'. The Constitution applies to every 'Real Individual' and should not include 'Legal Fictional Persons' or 'legal Fictions. They 'may be' necesary 'Legal Constructions', but they are 'Fictional' and hence have no 'direct connection' to 'Constitutional Rights' which 'adhere' to 'Real Individuals' at the 'Bottom' of a Political Entity.

Of course, 'Economic Values' and accomplishments are essential to a 'Successful Economy'.

Of course, 'Economic Values' and accomplishments are essential to a 'Successful Economy'. A well developed 'Corporate Structure' and its 'protection' as such is 'essential' to the 'productivity' of the Structure. But, being 'essential' in the Economy is 'different' from placing it in the 'Higest Rung' of the 'Social Value' system. The 'Economy is essential because the Social is essential'. One could not imagine a Tribe of Indians creating 'Corporate Indians' to 'merely exist' alongside the 'Real members' of the 'Tribe'. There's a reason for the 'Corporate System' but our Corporate Creations can not 'free themselves' from the purpose for which they were created. We must remember that our Corporate Creations were created for the purpose of 'contributing' to the economic aspects of the 'Social System'; of the 'Condition of Togetherness'; or of the so-called 'Many'. The 'One and the Many' is a 'Form' that must be 'filled-in' with 'different value systems' that help 'integrate' the 'Social Aspects' of the So-called, 'Many'. The creation of 'a Person in Contemplation of Law' is understandable. But, that 'Person' is not the same as a Real Living Person and it should not usurp or dominate the function of the 'Real Human Worker'. It 'can be Huge' and it can also be a 'Fiction' but it should 'not Function' as an 'Autocrat'. Our 'Social is Democratic' so why not require the 'Corporate Structure' to also function as a 'Democrat'. 'Require it' to 'Contribute towards Democracy'!

If all 'Political Activity' is 'knowledgeable activity', of 'what' must it 'consist'?

If all 'Political Activity' is 'knowledgeable activity', of 'what' must it 'consist'? Well, we can't forget that 'Knowledge is knowledge'. Its a 'Knowing of sorts'. That's kinda vague, but in this case, its a knowing of the 'Relation' between the 'One and the Many'. Why do we need a 'Relation' there? Simply because the 'One' is 'Institutional' and the 'Many' or 'Bottom' of the 'Activity' is 'Real'. The 'Bottom' is 'Real' like in a statement that a 'Human Being' is a 'Real Person' or a 'Real Human Being'. If thats the case, why do we say that a 'Business Corporation' is a 'Person' in 'Contemplation of Law'. We certainly must give credit to the 'Law' that it 'admits' that a 'Person' in 'contemplation of Law' is a 'legal Fiction'. Of course, that leads to the further question, 'why' do we need 'Fictional Persons' when we already have 'Real Persons' who constitute the 'Bottom' of the 'Political Activity'? That would be the Social. Why do we need to 'create' 'Fictional Entities' at the 'Bottom of Social Activity' or, more precicely, at the 'Bottom' where the Economy becomes an 'important aspect' of the 'Social'? Of course, thats why we are called a 'Corporate Society'. But a Society is composed of 'Human Beings' not 'Fictional Beings'. If the 'Social' was composed of 'Fictions', even one 'lone Individual' on an 'Island' would never be 'lonely'. Unfortunately, the 'misplaced' 'Social Value' system of 'Money' and 'More and More of the same' ( pofits) has created an 'imbalance' in the structure of the 'Social and the Economy'. 'Legal Fictions' have become 'more valueable than the 'Human Condition'.

How does one evaluate the different Forms of Government?

How does one evaluate the different Forms of Governemnt? Not an easy task because Governemnt depends on a 'proper Relation' between the 'Top' and the 'Bottom'. That proper 'Relation' has to 'consider' 'both aspects' of the 'basic structure' of 'Government'. Why must it do so? Simply because 'Governing' is a 'Relation' between a 'Top and a Bottom' and not a difference in the 'Human Condition'. Humans are alike, yet different. A 'structure' that 'does not consider 'both ends' of the One and the Many does not consider the 'connection' that constitutes the 'Governing or Ruling' process. A 'Tribe' has a Top and a Bottom, even a 'Group', no matter its 'function' or its 'goal', has a 'Top and a Bottom'. The 'important aspect' of the 'structure' is the 'Relation' that 'flows', or 'doesnt flow', from the 'One' and the 'Many'. The larger the Group the more difficult to relate to a 'Top and a Bottom'. Of course, the difference in the 'Governing process' is not a 'Human Difference', but a difference between the 'Means' by which any 'One' or 'Group' of 'Individuals' 'ascends' to the Top of the 'Governing Relation'. A 'Ruling Relation' is different from a 'Governing Relation'. Since, Individuals are all 'Alike', i.e. 'equally Human', there must be some 'qualifications' for 'occupying' the 'Top' rung of a 'Governing Relation'. All 'Political activity' must be 'knowledgeable' activity.

Is the 'Democratic Form' of 'Government', the Best Form ?

Is the 'Democratic Form' of 'Government', the Best Form? All 'Governemntal Forms' are about a 'Political Top' and a 'Political Bottom'. There are no alternatives because all Governmental Forms are about a 'Top' that 'Governs' and 'its relation' to a 'Bottom' that is 'Governed'. The so-called the 'One and the Many' is a very basic structure, but it 'creates a Relation' that 'connects' a 'Top to a Bottom'. That 'Relation' can be 'Arbitrary' and 'function' only from the 'Top down'; but the 'Relation' can also function from the 'Bottom Up'. From the 'Top down' is 'Rule'. From Both, the 'Top down' and 'from the Bottom up' is 'Governing'. A Democratic Form functions from both ends of the spectrum and the Relation of the 'One' and the 'Many'. In simular words, it functions both ways. Hence, it allows for a Two-way type of Functitoning. Actually, in the 'Democratic Form' the 'Bottom' helped craft the 'Top'. Hence, change is possible at both ends of the Relation. The Top can modify the 'Institutional structure' at the Bottom and the Bottom can 'modify' or 'Amend' the Political Structure of the Top. Of course, not all Political Structures function in that manner. One could say that the 'Democratic Form' has 'Both Doors' open for 'valid criticism'.

The 'Democratic Top' is slowly becoming 'Ideologically Weak'.

The 'Democratic Top' is slowly becoming 'Ideologically weak'. A Political TOP should be Ideologically Strong. Of course, some Political Ideologies are stronger than Others because the Ideology is held together by 'fewer' Political 'Ideals'. For example, an 'Autocracy' is strong at the 'Top' because the 'Top Rules the Bottom'. The Issue is not about 'Governing', or the 'Rules of Governing', its about 'Ruling' and that means that 'Rule' is 'just Rule'. End of Story. In such cases, the Top has all the 'political principles' of 'Rule' and it is up to the 'Top' to 'Rule' in a 'Proper Manner'. The so-called 'Divine Right of Kings' could have been a Good Ideology if, and only if, Divinity permeated the Top and the Bottom. But, it didn't work. The Top had as many variations as did the 'Bottom in the Divine Right of Kings Government. Of course, the same problem attaches to all Autocratic Forms. If the Autocrat is 'Wise', even 'Divine', or 'thoughtful of the Individuals' at the 'Bottom', that could also 'have worked'. But, that seems to ask for too much. The 'Human Top', of any Ideology, is as 'good and efficient' as the 'Human Being' at the Top. Hence the Democratic Form. All 'Political Forms' have a 'Bottom' and all Bottoms are 'Real' and consist of 'Human Beings', or 'Human Persons'. There is no distinctions between Race, Color, or Creed and they all live together in a 'Condition of Togetherness'. The problematic is the Human Condition. Why?, Because, all Tops are occupied by a 'Human Being'. Hence the 'Democratic Ideal' of a Governemnt 'of the People', 'by the People' and 'for the People'. The end-result is still a Top with Humans in Political Positions of 'Power'.

Tensions in a 'Real Democracy' are inevitable. Both the 'Top' and the 'Bottom' have to 'Balance the Equities'.

In a Real Democracy there will be 'Social Tensions'. Both the Top and the Bottom must work 'Together' to balance the Equities. A 'Form' of 'Social Equity' arises only in a Democracy. The reason is that each 'Real Individual' is 'Free and Equal'. Each has 'His, Her' Life and is 'entitled' and 'expected' to live in 'Freedom and Equality'. Notice, I say, each 'Real Individual' and by that I exclude 'Corporate Persons'. A 'Corporate Person in contemplation of Law' is 'not' a 'Real Person'. This viewpoint does not take away any 'advantages' that it gets from its 'Situation' in the 'Economy' as a 'Business Corporation'; it merely Identifies it for what it is, a 'Legal Fiction' and allows it to 'function' 'only in the Economy' as a Fiction. Thats an economic classification, 'not' a 'New Human Creation' in the Social. The Real Individuals at the Bottom are expected to 'work out' there own Inequities and Inbalances. A Political Top has Power at the Top but, an 'Institutional Political Top' has an 'Attributed Power' not a 'Natural Power'. All 'Governing Agencies' are 'Institutional' and hence posseses 'only what they are 'Given' and never 'something' that they get from 'Nature'. In a 'Real Democracy' the 'Real Individual' is 'expected' to work out His, Her, own Social Equities.

The Abstract Top must 'Govern' the 'Real Individuals' in their 'Condition of Togetherness' at the 'Bottom'.

The 'Abstract Top' must 'Govern' the 'Real Individuals' in their 'Condition of Togetherness'at the Bottom. Thats 'one Reason' why the 'Nature' of the 'Top'( all Political Tops) is an 'Abstraction' and the Condition of the Bottom is a 'Condition of Togetherness'. The Bottoms 'Condition' is not 'One', 'Unified Condition', or 'Social Entity'. It is composed of a 'Multiplicity' of 'Real Individuals' living in their 'Freedom and Equality'. As such, Each 'Individual' is 'His'/'Her', own 'Person' and is 'Individually Free and Equal'. No Human Being 'lives on behalf' of 'Another'. Each is Unique. In this 'Isolation' the 'Individual' seeks for 'Another' to share his 'Life' and establish a 'Family'. A 'Democratic Top' respects this condition of Freedom and Equality and a 'democratic Bottom' should also contribute to the 'Solidity' and 'Stability' of the 'Political Entity'. The Top must Govern, not Rule and the Bottom must contribute to that 'Government' by 'Living without Tensions' in its 'Condition of Togetherness'. Of course, Democracy has its 'Problems'. The 'Political Parties' divide into a 'Two Party System'. (they Both claim to be Democratic, but are they?) Very often the 'Free and Equal' Individuals at the Bottom 'form their own Ideas and Opinions' as to what 'Democracy really means'. Some 'descriminate' on the basis of 'Race', others on the basis of 'Money' and 'economic class', and some on the basis of 'Religion'. Can a Democracy survive 'Tensions' in the 'Ideology' and at the 'Bottom'?

The 'Ideological Top' is abstract; the 'Generalized' Bottom is 'Individualistic' and 'Real'.

The 'Ideological Top' is 'Abstract'; the 'Generalized' Bottom is 'Individualistic' and 'Real'. The 'Top' can be easily 'distorted', but it remains Abstract; the 'Bottom' can also be changed, but it 'remains Real'. It cannot be otherwise. Each Individual has an opportunity to 'express' and 'Live' 'His', 'Her' Individuality and 'Today', even to change their Sex, but never their 'Humanity'. The Top is just as easy to change as is the Bottom. But, a change in the 'abstract Top' would change the 'nature' of the 'Top'because it is 'Ideological' and it would also 'effect' the 'Bottom' because the Ideology 'relates' to all the 'Individuals' at the Bottom. Hence, an Ideological Top Governs 'Everyone' and the 'Bottom' which consists of all the Individuals is 'Free and Equal'. Hence, the Bottom in its 'condition of Togetherness and Multiplicity' must be 'constrained' by Reasonable, Cultural, and Social 'Laws'. Hence, the Top 'relates' to the Bottom and the Bottom 'relates' to the Top. Hence, both 'Institutions' must relate to 'each other', to keep Democracy 'viable'.

The Problems at the Top are usually the Implementations of the Ideology.

The Problems at the Top are usually the 'implementations' of the Ideology. Most Ideologies are designed to Control the 'Bottom' in a variety of ways and most use Language that implies 'Fairness and Equity'. Some even use the word 'Democracy'. But, sometimes 'that Language' can be abused and can be 'justified' in the 'wrong manner'. As a general Rule the Top becomes 'fixed' and the exercize of Power is considered as a 'strong' political place of Power; one that Individuals dare not criticize. A Democracy will not allow Autocratic behavior by its Office Holders but, the Top merely shifts the definitions at the Top to justify some shift in the acquisition of Power or 'economic advantage' and then re-defines its 'Political Policies' to fit the Legal Definition. For Example, calling a Business Corporation a 'Person in contemplation of Law' solidifies the 'Corporate Function'. Everyone knows a Corporation is 'not a Person' so why called it that? What does the Court or Polity hope to accomplish by so-doing? Well, for one thing it will extend the 'Protection' of the Corporation just by calling it 'a Person'. All of a sudden, an 'acknowledged Legal Fiction' acquires 'more protection' than 'other Businesses. An 'acknowledged' Legal Fiction that is 'Legally considered' to have the 'Same Rights' as a 'Real Person'. Some will say, thats not what they said. Then why call it that? If it 'hasn't been elaborated upon', why not hold it to the same standards as any other 'Corporation'? If it hasn't been clarified, it soon will be. How sad, even the 'Courts' are involved in 'undermining' the Human Condition.

Being called a 'Democracy' does not, in and of itself, constitute its 'Integrity' as a 'Political Entity'.

Being called a 'Democracy does not, in and of itself, constitute its 'Integrity' as a 'Political Entity'. The 'Top' has a 'Name', as does the 'Bottom', but the 'actual circulation' of 'Political Ideology' and the 'People at the Bottom', must determine its 'Real Identity' as a Political Entity. A 'Real Democracy' cannot arise from the 'creation' of 'artificial' Human Beings, or stated differently, a 'Bottom' cannot exist if its not a 'Human Condition'. All 'Political Tops' are 'Institutional', but never 'Natural'. The 'Human Condition' cannot be 'artificially created'. A Robot, no matter what it accomplishes, is never a 'Human Being'. A Robot is a Robot, end of argument. We must not confuse the creations of the 'Human Race' with the creations of 'Nature'. A 'Political Top' is a 'Political Institution' and 'all' the 'Bottoms' of such Institutions, are 'Human Beings'. Humanity in its 'Totality', is the 'same', yet every 'Individual Human Being' is 'different', and 'each' has a 'Personal, but 'Human Integrity'. When a Political Entity Governs or, refers to the Human Condition, it must understand that it, the Political Entity, is 'Institutional' and 'not Natural'. It must govern the Natural, but not Rule it, the Divine Right of Kings no longer exists. 'Political Ideologies' differ, but their 'Integrity' is determined by the 'actual harmonizing practices' of the 'Human Condition' under their care. The 'Name', of the Polity, in and of itself, is not the 'Ideology', nor its 'Practices'.

Can 'Democracy' be diminished by the Functioning of its Ideology ?

Can 'Democracy' be 'diminished' by the functioning of its 'Ideology'? Can an 'Ideology' be 'diluted and 'reconstructed' as a different 'Ideology' supporting a 'False Democracy'? Yes, Real Democracy can be 'diminished' by weakening and transforming the basis of 'Real Democracy' at the 'Bottom'. Any 'generalized weakening' of 'Freedom and Equality' by the 'Polity', as well as by the establishment of 'different Institutions' in the 'Social' can provide 'differences' that can be 'called false democracy'. For example, the creation of a 'Legal Fiction' as also being a 'Person in contemplation of Law' can, and 'has', created an 'unbalanced Economy' because of their 'Productive Superiority' that elevates the 'Business Corporation' or Legal Fiction as a very 'important aspect' of the 'Social'. We're already called a 'Corporate Society'. Do we address the Legal Fiction as a 'Who' or a 'What'? Do we say 'She' or 'He' doesnt pay any Taxes? Once a 'Verbal Inroad' has been 'created', its relatively easy to create other 'Misnomers'. A 'Business Corporation' being called a 'Person in contemplation of Law', not only creates the 'potential' for 'other Misnomers', it also creates a 'haven' for the 'basis' of a 'Plutocracy'. How many 'Autocratic' Nations call themselves Democracies?

The Top of a 'Democratic Polity' should be 'Intelligent'; and 'Compassionate' of the 'Individuals' at the Bottom.

The Top of a 'Democratic Polity' should be 'Intelligent; and 'Conpassionate' to the 'Individuals' at the Bottom. After all, the Top is a 'Democratic Institution' crafted to 'Serve' the 'Real Individuals' at the Bottom. It has no other 'Structural Function'. By the words 'Structual Function', I refer to its 'democratic nature'. Its function at the Top is the result of electoral-votes and the Representatives at the Top only serve in 'Office' for a 'Prescribed Period' of Time. The 'Political Office' is the 'Only Source' of 'Political Power'. The 'Democratic Top' Never has a justification for the exercise of 'Power' other than the 'Political One'. 'Money' is not a 'Source', 'Race' is not a Source nor is 'Creed'. Political Power is 'Electoral Power' and that is dependent on a 'Process' that is truly 'Democratic'. When the Bottom divided up into Political Parties, they established a 'Political Tension' that should not be there. Although, both Parties claim to be democratic, that 'Political Tension' is not really between 'Parties', its between 'Ideologies' which is 'used' to 'cement' their Power. Both Parties compete for 'ascension' to the Top where they can 'generate and exercise' their 'Political Power'. 'Politics' becomes a contest between Parties about which Party will 'Govern'. Govern they must, but the 'Institutions' and 'Laws' they promalgate will determine if they are being democratic or leaning towards Autocratic Rule. An 'Autocratic' or 'Semi-Autocratic Lean' will diminish 'Real Democracy' at the Bottom.

The Top of a Political Entity is 'more or less' fixed, the Bottom is 'Malleable'.

The Top of a Political Entity is 'more or less' fixed, the Bottom is 'Malleable'. Of course, the Top can change certain aspects of its Political Structure. The Bottom is less predictable. The 'Millions' of 'Real Individuals' composing the 'Bottom' are all 'Free and Equal Human beings'. They are aspects of 'Nature'. As such, they can 'express' their Freedom and Equality as 'Human Beings' but 'cannot change' the 'Naturalness' of their 'Human Condition'. 'Freedom and Equality' can be 'constrained' and 'directed' by 'Laws' and 'Mores', but never 'Surpresseed'. Of course, there are 'Political Ideologys' that augment the 'Power' at the Top and 'constrain' the 'Legal' and 'Moral' arrangement at the 'Bottom'. But the 'Top' is 'Institutional' and the Bottom is 'Natural'. How much of the 'Natural' can an 'Institution' constrain or limit? The answer to that defines the different 'Political Ideologys. The 'difference' in the Ideologys exists mostly at the 'Top', not the Bottom. All 'Political Bottoms' are also 'Institutional', but are composed of the 'Human Condition'. As Humans, they each, reflect the 'Nature' of their 'composition'. As Individuals of 'Natural Kinds', each is 'Free and Equal'. Whatever limitations are placed on 'their existence' becomes an 'Institutional Thing' that depends on its 'Political Posture'. Politics is not 'Natural', its 'necessary'. Its a 'Political Institution' that tries to 'harmonise' the 'Relation' between the 'Top and the Bottom'.