The Bottom began as a complete state of disorganization.

The Bottom began as a complete state of disorganization. Everyone, every family, every small group were on their own until the formulation of a Top of authority or of Power. How does a multiplicity of Individuals organize themselves and manage to survive? Of course. the essentials are necessary: food, clothing, shelter, work, entertainment, and the 'means whereby' these commodities and activities can be accomplished. The 'means whereby' a 'Social' could be build and establihed had to include the participation of most everyone. Slowly, the 'Condition of Togetherness' became organized into a 'Mobile Social' with different Institutions. Of course, the basic 'Unity' was the 'Family'. Another basic Institution was an 'Economy'. A large 'Social' cannot exist without an Economy to help provide the above essentials and commodities. The Economy is only one part, albeit a very important part of a 'Mobile Social'. If we look at that closely, how was it that it became the most important part of the Social. Of course, the economy is the producing part of the Social. But, it wasn't just the producing part of the Social but the fact that products could never move without 'purchasing power' of Money and Money was cumulative. The bigger the Corporation, a legal Fiction, the more it produced. The more it produced, the richer the 'owners': and the owners are in the Economy. Now we have "have's and 'have-nots'. A Corporation is an artifically created 'Economic Person' that functions like a Human Person and is protected by Law and is legally defined as a 'Legal Fiction'. A 'Legal Fiction' that functions as a 'real person' and 'functions' like an 'Autocrat'. Have we created a Plutocracy? A Plutocrat in a Democracy? How does one 'control' a Plutocrat in a Democracy that legally defines the economic Corporation as a 'protected Legal Fiction?

It seems that the Problematic of the One and the Many has resurfaced.

It seems that the Poblematic of the One and The Many has resurfaced. In earlier civilizations the problem was always the One at the Top and the Many at the Bottom. The Top usually justified its Power to Rule by some form of Superiority from the Highest point of Authority usually the Divinity or acquired by force or conquest. The Bottom were just the Many individuals, without Individual Identity and without any form of individual Superiority. The Individuals at the Bottom were non-entities, just plain Individuals and had no source from where they could draw some Respect, Authoriy, or Power. Today, there are many ways an Individual can assert His/Her Individuality. He/She can be very Educated, (of course in the 'Right' Rich Universities), being born into a Political Family, or just very Rich, or just having being born into Wealth. Notice how the concepts 'circulate' around Money. Of course that, in itself, does not resolve the Issue. the Top had always been dependant on the concept of the Deity. It was said that the King had Two bodies, one like everyone else, the Other, a Devine Body. The Top resolved the Issue of the two bodies and the Top became dependent on a Top with Institutiional Power. The Top lost its Divine aspect and became political and powerfull. No Institutional Political body can claim Divinity as the source of Power. Religion and Politics were separated into Institutions. But, the Bottom was in a complete state of dis-organization.

There are many things against the Law. Society sifts them out and makes them Illegal.

There are many things that Society sifts and makes 'Illegal' or 'controls' them in its 'Condition of Togetherness'. Why? Simply because they do not 'serve' the 'General Welfare' of a Democratic Society or simply because they are 'dangerous' to the 'General Welfare'. Society sifts them out and passes a Law eliminating or controlling such phenomena. Since Democracy is 'basic' to the 'togetherness' of the Human Condition, it respects the 'Freedom and Equality' of each Individual regardless of Race, Color or Creed. Race and Color should not be a problem, yet one sees developements that point to a modification in the 'Social Structure'. Individual beleif systems can be dangerous; an Individual can own a Gun, but he or she has no Right to amass an arsenal. Individuals in the Social are Free and Equal and hence have a lot of freedom with respect to their behavior, of course, subject to Law and Order. Hence, the prohibitions against anything dangerous to the 'Condition of Togetherness'. Individuals cannot do anything against the Freedom and Equality of the Neighbor nor to the 'Condition of togetherness'. To do so is to violate the Law against Freedom and Equality and the Integrity of the Condition of Togetherness. The Top of Power has two basic functions; to protect the 'Conditions'in the Social and to protect the 'Individual'. The function of the Bottom is to be 'Law Abiding' and respect the Freedom and Equality of the Neighbor.

Can a form of Government exist that is neither Autocratic nor Democratic?

An Autocratic Government no matter what form it takes, has Power at the top. There are several forms of Autocracy, but since Capitalism has overpowered the Purely politivcal dichotomy of Power at the Top and People at the Bottom, the relation deserves a new Look. It appears that the concept of the Divine Right of Kings has been modified by Capitalism. Plutocracy is Government by the Wealthy, and in most cases, for the Wealthy. The Non-Wealthy, Poor, or Needy, are tolerated but excluded from Governmnt Office or Positions of Authority. All Autocracies, no matter what Form, have Power at the Top. Autocracies have little regard or consideration for those at the Bottom. The issue seems to always be how did Power at the Top get there. In most cases, it used to be Revolution. But Capitalism is not Revolutionary, its plain, simple Power. How do these questions effect todays Democracy? Present day Democracy has been overpowered by an Economic System, it has created a new Dichotomy of 'Haves and Have-nots'. The Economy has overpowered the Divine Right of Kings. What happened to Elections and the Democratic process. The Democratic Form of Government has been overpowered by the Economy and now the deciding factor is simply Money. Of course, its considered 'Property' whether in the Form of Money or Property. Is this the Divine Right of Kings in a different Garb. The Dine Right of Kings was based on Religion and the Power of Capitalism is based on the Economy. We do have Very Rich people who do not display a single sense for the Freedom and Equality of the Human Condition. Freedom and Equality at the Top does not work, Neither does Capitalism. Governmental Power has been reduced to a Capitalistic system in a different Garb.

Every Form of Government is a Power Structure that either Rules or Governs.

The best form of Governemnt is a Government of the People; by the People and for the People. All Governemnts have 'evolved Historically' into the Institutional Form they assume. They can remain 'Rulers' or they can remain 'Governors'. Isn't it strange that Individuals,then Families, first got together so they could work together in their struggles with Nature. They evolved into institutions and 'solidified' into Nations and now are at each others throat. Of course, not all Nations are like that, but the 'underlying force' seems to be Size and Political Powor. What other motive can there be to become Large other than to be Powerfull or to extend the Boundaries of their authority. Isn't it strange that the human Conditions, in their present Location, size, and Political Identities must assume the Political Posture of their Nation? Humanity will not change simply because it Identifies with a Political Posture. Nor, should the Political Posture change simply because of its size and so-called Political Identity and Political Power. Every Form of Government is a separate Political Unit. But, it should not attempt to modify Human Nature simply because of its Size and its so-called Political Power. Of course, I'm well aware that Human Nature is not perfect, but it should not Identify with its Polical Identity. To do so is a dual mistake, viz. to your 'humanity' and assuming the Identity of a 'Political Entity' simply based on its Political Power. Human Beings should be gratefull they're Human Beings. They should be 'more Human' and 'less Political'.

Initially, Democracy was a relation between a Top and the Bottom and a relation among the Many at the Bottom.

The relation between the Top and the Bottom refered to the Form of Government and the relation between the Many at the Bottom referred to the relationships of the Individuals constituting the Many. Individuals must follow the Institutional make up of the Government to live in a Democratic Manner. The Relations between the Many to each Other must respect the Freedom and Equality of each Individual to each Other. But, we no longer live in a 'tribal form' nor do we live in some 'Form' of 'Dictatorial relation' to the Top. Modern tecnology and 'Institutional mores' have modified the 'Initial establishment' of the begining of both the 'Form of government' and the 'Relations of Individuals' to each Other. The 'physical aspects' of the 'World' has shrunk and the 'tecnology' has expanded the parameters of control and even the 'distinctions' between the 'Real' and the 'Virtual'. Initally, it began with creating Atomic Weapons with the hope that Other Nations would be kept in place by the fear of retaliation. The bigger the weapon the more control of the Other Nations who may have 'aspirations' of 'dominance'. Now, one weapon can destroy the world to the point of self annilation. Every World moves in the Cosmos, destroy the shape or form of the Planet and possibly the earth would not be able to keep attuned to its Cosmic Movements. Initially, it was the Form of government that was the culprit, then the Relation between Individuals and the growth of Economic Giants. Now, its become the incomprehensibility of, so called 'Reality'. Science effects the 'Form' of Government and it effects the 'Individuals relation' to each Other.

Of course, the Economy does need 'periodic help', at least more than the Multi-Million business Corporations.

Of course, the 'Economy' does need 'periodic help' to keep a viable and sustainable Economy; at least more than the Multi-Billion Business Corporations. Multi-Million Corporations already fighting over a trip to the moon and 'business contracts' to build the 'means whereby' to accomplish it. Thats essential and Great; but why arn't the smaller businesses being helped to survive. The Big Corporations can be 'Bailed-Out', but the small ones can't even be kept viable. Why not. Small Businesses help to keep 'Neighborhoods'; 'small neighborhoods'; viable by 'contributing to their neighborhood' and hence the necessity of keeping them Functional. But whats happening, the 'Small Guys'are going bankrupt. If they can get a Loan, they have to pay it back. Do the 'People' that went out to 'Outer-Space' have to pay their 'opportunities' or 'loans' back? ( of course, some of them were already Millionairs and Billionairs, but there are a few 'common folks' that can't afford to pay for such trips.) Most Individuals can't afford to pay for a 'Re-location' of a 'Living -enviornment'. Will they be 'left behind' to start 'turning against each Other', just to survive. Look at the Social; People are already finding 'differences' in the Social that 'justify Demonstrations' and 'Violence' toward each Other. Isn't the Government suppossed to " form a more perfect Union;..... and promote the General Welfare"?

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.