If corporations are legally recognized as "legal fictions" and if they are to be protected by the Constitution, why not also enlarge the sphere of their duties. Of course, a corporation is an economic entity not a political entity. But, its an 'invented ' economic entity that only "exists in contemplation of law". Unlike a real human being who functions in both the economy and the polity, and who has economic duties and Constitutional duties in the polity, a corporation was fictionally created primarilly to increase its economic 'grasp'. It was given Constitutional protection, but it seems they forgot to give it Constitutional duties. Instead of extending their fictional nature and attributing speech to them, which is ridiculous, why not give it a few Constitutional duties. Of course, fictional "persons" cannot serve in the military, although they do help to manufacture and produce weapons. And of course, corporations can and do pay taxes. It used to be they had a 90% liability. Why was it originally 90% and why is it now 35%? Could it be that when it was 90%, 'someone' really understood that since their corporate nature tremendously increases their economic 'grasp' and economic activity, they should pay a 'fair' share of their newly acquired economic powers. So, why was their tax liability reduced? No human being, regardless how wealthy s/he might be, can compete with the corporate structure. As a matter of fact, the 1% use the 'structure' to increase their personal fortunes. Besides increasing the corporate tax obligation, how about requiring some contribution to the work force relative to 'fair wages' and/or the availability of 'jobs'. Why shouldn't 'out-sourcing' be outlawed? Of course, unless it meets a primary requirement of having made every effort to keep the activity within the confines of the Nation and only secondarily, it can go to other Nations, so long as some Constitutional duty is not being avoided. Surely some guidelines along these 'economic and legal paths' are possible. If we can create economic fictions, we can create Constitutional obligations commensurate with their fictional nature. They're not human, they cannot 'hurt'. The only people who 'hurt' are the real people 'behind' the corporate structure who are pocketing the money made by the entity. And generally, those people are the 1%. Real persons at the bottom of a triadic government are not benefiting from corporate activity and the 'fictional' person is laughing all the way to the bank.

Party loyalty sucks. It should be 'democratic loyalty'. Party preferences and party ideology have to many preferential perks. Democracy for the peoples is too often set aside in favor of Party loyalty or so-called market economics. Both have replaced loyalty to the political principles of democracy. Market economics, a fiction, is what governs us. Party loyalty has become economic loyalty. Economic loyalty is economic advantages for the Top 1%. Sure, economic principles are very important but they are not democratic principles and we are talking about governing, not about changing the basis of government from democracy to a market economy. Often, those advantages protect corporations or whitlle down so-called entitlements of real people. For example, the top 1% do not pay their "fair share"of taxes. Corporate rates used to be 90%, went down to 70%, now its 35%! Why? How can an economic "fiction" with a horrendous grasp of economic activity be compared with a real human being? As corporations become more efficient in the economy, they lessen or reduce their democratic responsibilities. A human being cannot do that. A human being cannot compete with a corporation. Even small corporations cannot compete with a large corporation. Why do we reduce a corporations democratic responsibilities as they become more efficient. Their responsibilities should be 'enlarged', not reduced. Look at the tax tables, is that happening? Of course not! As they monopolize government and governing, they get more breaks and they're fictions! How can that be. The truth is that there are a few people 'behind' the functioning of the corporation and as it becomes more efficient, they 'hog' the medium of exchange(another fiction). That applies to both Parties. Wow, Is this an Alice in Wonderland world? What has happened to the reality of work; the reality of living together with other human beings; the reality of 'sharing'; the reality of the human condition? Reality has been replaced by fictions, all around us and only the 1% are benefiting from our 'togetherness' and their corporate greed because they are Plutocrats, not democrats. Real people need to harness their strength and 'assemble'. That is their Constitutional right.

A triadic form of government must always be active. The Top governs; the Bottom is governed; and the 'sides' interpret the legal 'concrete' relation between the Top and the Bottom. No part of the Triad can survive without the other parts. However, in a democracy, the entire structure is entirely dependent on the 'bottom' of the structure and the relation between the Top and the Bottom must be interpreted in a concrete measurable manner. The measurability of policy and law is dependent on the particular classification of the activity governed. Law is order and policy is always a recognition of the sanctity of the human being living in a condition of togetherness. Individuals never exist in isolation. People living together in a condition of togetherness deserve a good government and why not?,if the people who governs them come from the same people who are being governed? A good government has integrity and keeps the social in the most productive and orderly manner possible. No government is perfect, but every government must work towards the freedom and equality of each and every individual; especially those accused of crime and those not included in governmental policy. The best way to establish this condition is to quantify the Bottom of government and submit policy and law to a strict quantification of the sub-categories being governed. The best way to measure success in policy and law is to quantify the process. The enactment of policy must establish the fact that those excluded from any particular policy is not a discrimination against their freedom and equality. Just as law cannot descriminate against an individual's freedom and equality, neither can governmental policy descriminate against freedom and equality.

Activity that emanates from the bottom can be democratic. Of course, not all activity from the bottom is democratic. However, activity that 'originates' from the top has a very high potential to be Autocratic even though it originates from some 'Representative capacity'. Emanations from the Top come 'packaged' in linguistic terms. Therein lies their problem. Political language was confusing well before the so-called Linguistic Turn. The reason for that confusion has been the absolute neccessity to allude to the bottom in a 'general' manner; hence, general formulations that lack democratic precision. Why? Because democracy is not just an abstract formulation, it embraces each and every living individual at the bottom in a real way. An 'un-democratic' rule or activity is 'felt' in a real way at the bottom. (emotionally) Its not a simple matter of accepting or not accepting an abstract formulation that 'registers' solely in the intellect. It 'registers in the emotions and the intellect and effects the physical activity of the real individual. Hence, the need for democracy to apply to 'everyone' at the bottom in the same manner and in a real way. Therefore, we need better methods of formulating democratic policy. The only alternative is to make political language more 'quantitative'. General 'Rights', like Freedom and Equality, do have to apply to everyone, but certain policies and laws that have a more limited application must be quantified with regard to the area of application. No one can be left out: we are talking about people governing People. Some amount of classification may become necessary, but that classification cannot be abusive of the sanctity of the human condition. There is nothing superior at the Top that does not first exist at the Bottom. In fact, all 'power' emanates from the Bottom in the form of 'strength in togetherness'. At the Top, its called 'power' and is dependent on an 'abstract condition', namely political language; at the Bottom it's actual strength in the 'condition of togetherness' and is only dependent on the relationship between you and your 'neighbor'. A good relationship with ones 'neighbor' is conducive to a good relationship with the 'Peoples' of the world. Change yourself, so you can change the world.

To expand and paraphrase the statement made by the President, "In a democracy, all the people deserve a vote". How can any Party in a democratic government step away from that. That's the only way to implement democracy and that's why, in a democracy, the people and their representatives are allowed to vote. It's the people at the bottom that need to be heard and if they've spoken and its democratic, they do indeed deserve a vote. Democracy is "of the people", "by the people", and "for the people". How can any Party, in a democracy, not vote or intentionally block a vote that originates from the bottom? Thats totally undemocratic. Thats the problematic with Party politics. A Party takes a position on some issue, properly before them, and immediately take issue that,in no way, reflects the peoples wishes. Of course, in a democracy, Party-politicians are free to differ on positions of policy, but, in no case, should the position be un-democratic. Who or what gains from such a position? Of course, in the above cited reference, the beneficiaries are some corporation and/or lobbyist. Corporations, guns, money, lobbyists, all these roll-up into an un-democratic position. The position assumes misplaced values that usurp democratic values (corporations are legal fictions, they're not real; the Second Amendment does not refer to weapons capable of 'mass-destruction'; money is an economic-fiction, not a democratic value; and lobbyists get paid to 'sleep' with their 'fictions'(thats 'economic prostitution'.)How can any of that be democratic? We suffer from mis-placed values. Democratic values are being usurped by economic values. Freedom and equality are being replaced by an economic and a legal fiction, to wit; money and corporations. I said earlier that the democratic value of freedom and equality are the values that we should organize around. No one is saying its easy, but anyone can see and feel the difference between a human being and an economic or legal fiction. Its about the people stupid. If a Party stands for Plutocracy, why doesn't it just say-so? I'll tell you why, because that Party would cause an 'assembling' of all the peoples in a democracy. No one wants a Plutocracy -only the 1%. Thats why they do in-directly what they can't do directly. Democracy is protected by the very First amendment. Don't you get it?

We are fortunate not to have to begin at the begining of the formation of 'togetherness' or government. We are all born into a political structure. In our case, the Founding Fathers gave us the form to follow in the establishment of the structure of democratic government. Clearly, democratic government begins to form from the bottom up. Begining at the Top does not work. Government from the bottom to the top must have a triadic structure. The reasons for a triadic nature is that the Top is given 'centralized' power with which to govern the bottom, but the power to govern is given to it by the bottom, and then only for a short time. The form at the Bottom is democratic and hence involves every single individual at the Bottom constituting the body politic. A democracy is about people, millions of people living together under the structure of a triadic government. Although the Top is granted power by virtue of office, there is nothing sacred about the Top. The Top is a function that has certain duties and responsibilities attached to it. The only aspect of a democracy that is sacred is the human individual. Each and every individual is sacred because government did not create the individual but, the individual created government. The strength of a democracy is in its people. The strength ( call it power, if you wish) is in the condition of togetherness that binds the bottom together. Thats the reason for the First Amendment. The Top and sides, as well as the representative bottom, only have duties; the Bottom, where the people are, has a Constitutional right to revolution. Properly executed, the right to "assemble" is the most powerful thing in the world. The Top of any government is powerless in the face of a properly 'assembled' bottom.

If we ask, "what is government?", we will get many definitions. Many answers will reduce to simple terms like, "its a political entity"; It's "encapsulated power"; it's rule by the One over the Many"; it's a "political condition we're born into"; it's "government by superior human beings",or its 'rule' by "Divine Edict"; etc. All these answers have an element of truth to them except for the last two. The last two have already been tried and they don't work to well, especially the second one's reference to Divinity. The first one still 'lingers' in our world in different forms; took the world by force and inherited the position at the Top, or the 'I'm special posture' of superiority( for whatever reason). How would you answer? I say, the basic skeletal condition(without ideology)is rule by the 'One over the Many'. It has to be that way, but the next query becomes necessary and that is what historically got us into trouble. How do you 'select' the One? Historically, one answer was "by Divine Edict, Divine Right," or whatever. That was a mistake because we need to determine what is 'Divine Right' and there will never be a consensus on that. The next query is equally deceptive, but not quite as obvious. The question, how do you select the One was historically answered by "conquest" or "the strongest", the "smartest", etc. Notice the emphasis in both approaches. The emphasis is on the wrong pole of the relation of the One and the Many. Why the wrong pole? How can anyone select One from the Many without some method for the selection? Divinity doesn't work nor does the issue of the superiority of someone within the Many. No! The process can only be democratic.( of course, at this point, I just 'sneaked' into the argument, the concept of ideology) But, lets not do that, in oreder to answer the question, lets get away from the ideological and venture into the more practical. I think we can and that is precisely why my blog is entitled "democracy for the bottom". Look, we must begin at the Bottom, not the Top. Thats where all the people reside. No individual can live alone! A lone individual on an isolated island does not need government. But, we do not live alone; an individual must come together with other individuals. There's no other solution. In this preferrable 'condition of togetherness', if its a mutual condition, an individual can continue to exist. The 'togetherness' becomes necessary in order to continue to exist in the condition and so does the organization of the condition. So, how do we organize the condition? (See forth-coming 'blog')

Governments, all governments, need to stop pushing human beings around. Some will say, thats what governing is all about; its about governing every human being within its jurisdiction. When I say 'pushing human beings around', I mean treating people like they are inferior or of lesser importance than government, or that government is more important than the human condition. How can that be? If people are the ones who create governments and, in fact, the only function of government is to 'rule'. There's no other reason for the existence of governments. Government does not create people. People create government. Government would not exist were it not for the people. Although some governments are arranged around their people, (I refer to democratic government)that's not, in itself, an automatic panacea, but its a move in the 'right direction'. All governments that claim to be democratic must measure that statement by means of a triadic form. The triadic form is the basis of a democratic form of government, i.e. a democracy must have power at the Top; the people of the democracy are at the Bottom; and the Judiciary on the sides is required to monitor the 'real' relation that connects the Top to the Bottom. The strength of the governmental triad is entirely at the Bottom. The Bottom supports the Top. Since the people are the source of the strength of the triad, the Bottom must be 'quantified' so we can better gauage the democratic tenor of the activities and wishes of the Top for the benefit of the Bottom. One individual's activity or wish does not determine the tenor of a democracy. The activity must benefit some of the people or most of the people at the Bottom. An activity or a wish has to be quantifiable and hence measureable with respect to its democratic tenor. The activity must benefit the people at the Bottom as a whole. Why is that? Because, just one isolated individual or small group of 'isolated'individuals' activity or wish can be easily guided by excessive self-interest. Isn't that what's happening to the 1%? Governments exist because people created them. Hence, government is not free to undermine and mistreat the hunman condition. Government should function for the benefit of the people; it has no other function.

How do human beings become better human beings and how do Nations become better democracies. Human beings can become better humans by realizing that every human, regardless the differences in race,color,creed,or Country of birth, is free and equal in a world divided into different political ideologies. Its one thing to change ones personal belief systems when relating to the ever-present conditions of immediate existence within ones own Country, its another to understand that in a world as large as ours one must respect the sanctity and equality of the human condition everywhere. Of course, one may do just that, but still be hampered by the political ideology of the Other. People usually adopt the ideology of their nation, although that is not necessarilly the case everytime. Some people differ from their Country's ideology. Differences in political ideology should apply to the political entity as a whole and not to the individuals within that entity. The political issue then becomes an issue for the United Nations. The individual issue would involve individuals who are equally human and equally free, but need to be politically equal and politically free to voice those qualities. So, individuals everywhere need to see the equality of everyone and the Nations need to recognize the sanctity of the human condition and the need to be politically democratic in their governing. Although issues between individuals are different from issues between nations, every Nation and every individual must recognize the sanctity of the human condition and the political need for the freedom and equality of everyone within their political boundaries. In that way, maybe we will not self-destruct the planet so easily. Nations must recognize that their strength in the International sphere depends on the integrity of their Nation, and that depends on the democratic nature of the Nation because they can only be as strong as their people.

A 'shrunken' International World actually enlarges the 'concerns' of the individual living on the planet. What we previously perceived( if we read the newspaper) as occurring in another far-away Country can now be 'seen' in ones living room.( if you are fortunate enough to own a TV set). We then relate to these activities in the same manner as we would have related to the same activities by a 'real' next-door neighbor. Proximity and the illusion of proximity begats personal feelings. So, is it possible not to relate in a 'personal' manner to International activities? Yes and No. Yes, one can merely not give a dam. No, we cannot exclude the human condition from the 'shrinking condition' of the International scene. Its one thing to say, "its just a TV image" and another, not too react as human beings. The TV and the newspaper are medias of communication that do in fact communicate 'something' across political boundaries right into your living room. Political boundaries separate millions of people from millions of peoples. Its potentially dangerous to mix 'personal feelings' across political boundaries. There will never be a consensus of life-style, but there can be a consensus of political frameworks that helps a consensus of basic human qualities. The political boundaries of the International sphere must come closer and closer to a real democratic condition of political existence. The governments can be different,but the human condition within political boundaries is never different. In a real democracy, individuals have real democratic values,i.e. individual Equality and individual Freedom. All other Rights circumnavigate around these two basic principles. The political framework is just the 'container' of these values. Governments can differ, but not the human condition. The human condition and these values are universal and can help 'blend' the International scene closer together by just recognizing the freedom and equality of everyone. All governments must protect themselves as well as their own peoples. But, they cannot 'fight' their own people and the other political entities on the international sphere at the same time. That's self-destructive. So, we need to become better human beings and Nations need to become better democracies.

The only form possible for a democracy is the Triadic form. The reason being that's the only form that allows and demands that all 'sides' of the triad function at maximum 'value'. At any one time, one or several of the sides could be functioning improperly. In other words,the Executive Branch could be against the 'interests' of 'the people' as a whole, individually, or as a class. The other side of that is that the Executive Branch has preferences that are selective and that do not reflect the democratic nature of the whole. The Legislative Branch could favor special areas of the social to the exclusion of all the people, or it could be legislating specific 'pet' areas of the social that excludes too many people;or it could not be 'representing' the people but only certain preferential areas of the polity. The Judiciary could have interpretive practices that favor certain parts of the social or parts of the polity, such as the economy. Obviously, its not a perfect government, but it has the potential to be the best in the world. The people elected to the Top are not perfect, but they assume a position of 'representation' and power that should not be abused. It's the only form where the people being governed are governed by individuals who were, previously, also at the Bottom of the triad. There is no superiority in the rulers and there is no Divine guidance. There is only a 'promise' to represent the whole and then only for a short time. It seems that the worst offense against democracy is the 'creation' of a 'person' that only exists in 'contemplation of law' and giving that 'fiction', the same human rights as those of a real person. How can we create something that didn't exist before and make it more important than a human being trying to organize his or her existence? A corporation is just a piece of paper called Articles of Incorporation and By Laws and having being approved, receives a Charter from the State and gets hung on the wall. Don't get me wrong, corporations are vital to the economy. But,we cannot have a polity of real human beings taking second chair to a fiction. Those fictions already get preferential treatment by giving them a perpetual existence,( hey, thats the closest thing to immortality), they can volutarilly dissolve themselves and re-emerge under different names,( hey, they 're-incarnate' on the spot); they don't 'hurt', they don't need medical care, and, in a way, that's a great 'economic invention', but don't 'replace' democracy with a fiction that has profits as its sole goal. 'Circulating money' is great, but it's not a democratic 'value', and its not even a democratic principle. We have never solved the basic 'mystery of creation', instead we create belief systems into 'Western Religions', 'Eastern Religions',and all kinds of other belief systems, and then, comes along a 'minor' inconsequential fiction called 'money' and we let it dominate our lives. We 'live' for it, we fight for it, we kill for it, and then we try to organize our democratic existence around it. What's happening?? What happened to Life and after Life, what happened to Democracy? We create our own problems. So much for the Human Condition.

Corporations are important to the economy of a Nation. But, we must never forget that they are legally considered as "fictions that exist only in contemplation of law". Why and what does that mean? Well,human beings in a democracy are not fictions, they're as real as you can get. They 'live' they suffer and they die. Hence, side by side, a human being should be more important to a democracy than a "fiction". That does not mean that we discriminate against corporations, only that we distinguish between an economic principle and a political principle. Not only do we make a distinction between them but we do not co-mingle them. OK, so what does that mean? It means that the goal and purpose of having a healthy economy should not be the sole criteria of a democracy. To be sure, its very important, but never at the risk of relaxing democratic principles. We do not switch from democratic principles to economic principles. Democracy must remain democracy, it never changes. Thats why we have the First Amendment. The economy must continue to grow within the context of the democracy within which it is realizing its full potential. When economic principles begin to effect democratic principles, that means that the 'motor'and goal(profits)begins to replace the Freedom and Equality of a true democracy.That means that instead of freedom and equality as a 'motor' for democracy, that money,the medium of exchange that must circulate, becomes a 'value'. That means money replaces freedom and equality as the 'motor' of the Nation.When money replaces freedom and equality, we go from Democracy to Plutocracy; We go from a 'freedom and equality' to a 1%. When the 1% rules, we create a Country with 'riches',instead of a country with freedom and equality of those who, in the first place, created it. Come-on guys, money is necessary;like you,I like it too, but don't let it replace democracy, especially when the main culprit is a "legal fiction". You know, legal fictions can't function on their own, they are 'run' by real people, so who is benefiting? We're back to the 1%.

Remember when you were in the military? Among many other things ,they issued you an M1 and a bayonet, also a whole slew of magazines with 30 caliber rounds. Heavens, do they still issue bayonets? I know they don't issue M1's. I guess killing has become more efficient. We now have "weapons of mass- destruction". Its no longer a one on one situation. The more we can kill with just one 'weapon' the better. That means automatic weapons with as many bullets as you can carry. Well, if your in a war situation, I guess that makes some sense( not addressing the sense-lessness of war). The Second Amendment also allows the people "to bear arms". When was that Amendment passed? Oh, 1791. Hell those were wild times. The American Revolution was just over, the Constituion was just 'approved', and maybe there were even indians and wild animals all over the place. But, I betcha they didn't have assault weapons. At that time, it was also necessary that a State have a "well regulated Militia" to prevent enchroachment into the State. For sure, everyone was entitled to protect his family and his home. And, face it, everyone is still entitled to self-protection, so having a weapon for that purpose is as Constitutional as you can get. But, a "well regulated Militia" to the security of the State? Thats the States business! And for self-defense, hunting, or collecting, do we need "weapons of mass destruction"? Some will say ,"you exaggerate". OK,lets just say automatic weapons with many magazines for killing dozens of individuals who are attacking your family or home? As unlikely as that scenario is, its not unlikely that some 'crazy' will do just that in a crowded auditorium or a school building. Isn't that whats happening? Well, those victims were someone's family. Your family is your family whether your at home or going about your business. They need protection just as you and your home need protection. So, lets control the availability and misuse of these automatic weapons. We don't need them for self-defense at home and we don't need them for hunting and we don't have to collect them. If you do collect them, then just remove the firing pins on those suckers. I guess we no longer issue bayonets but we do issue automatic weapons because unfortunately they have become necessary in war. Production and manufacture of weapons for war is still necessary. But that is unrelated to running a business designed to make the availability of these weapons to just anyone. Sell to the government, or is there a 'profit' issue lurking in the background? We need to keep the Second Amendment but lets not use it to justify the taking of innocent lives. People govern themselves so how can people allow the taking of innocent lives. Some control is imperative.

All human beings are 'unique' expressions of life. Regardless of the color of their skin, gender,place of birth,life style or belief system. Human life is sacred. No political entity can claim to have 'given'or 'issued' that life and no political entity has 'control' of the sacred. A political entity is merely a 'coming together' to form a general organization designed to better protect, the uniqueness of that life. Some called it a "Divine Right", others 'took it' by conquest or force. It can be called a 'State', a 'Nation' or a 'Country'. Its a political entity and as such does not come into existence in the same manner as human beings. It has a purpose and a goal and that goal is predominant and sovereign and each political entity has to establish the form and structure by which it will govern those lives. In a democracy, the people themselves organize the form and structure by which one or several of them will govern the rest. This method of forming a political entity does not claim to select the 'governors' that are superior in any respect. Interested individuals campaign to be elected into offices.(who knows if they're being honest?) The people do their best to choose a candidate that will respect the sanctity of life. The 'chosen' have a political 'job' to perform. That job is to protect and defend the general welfare of those who have placed him or her in a position of 'political' power. The so-called 'Top of power' is a political power and never an individual power. So-called 'power' can come wrapped in many 'social wrappings'. Some individuals are strong, some are rich, some are poor, some are smart, some are dumb, and some of these can get elected to serve at the Top, but regardless, what has been conferred is political power,not individual power. No one individual in office can claim to have given life or claim to have a right to manipulate the life of any 'Other' individual. An individual in office can only claim the right to better the general welfare of those whom he or she governs. There is no other purpose for government. I know about the tensions between States and Nations but that's another matter. Thats about Nations relating to each other not people dealing with the form and structure of their own particular government. Every human being has a right to his or her life and to demand that 'the general welfare' of the people be addressed by those in power. The Top has no other function. The 'Bottom' of government must be conceived 'quantitatively', if one is to judge, whether democracy is true Democracy or whether only a few are benefiting from the organization into a political entity. Why should only 1% benefit from politics? Why do you think the First Amendment was passed? Thats a Right to your religion, to 'free' speech, and the right to 'revolution'.

Democracy is about the freedom and equality of human beings: the economy is about making a profit. Have you ever seen a business, whether incorporated or not, that is not making a profit, remain in business? Or for that matter, an individual that works for a living, continue to work if s/he will not get paid? The economy functions on a principle of 'monetary growth'. Of course, the economy of a Country must be stable and must show signs of growth. However, Democracy will continue to be a democracy and the only 'growth' it will experience is where the parts of the social that were previously left out, can now be included. Government is a democratic arrangement into three parts of the social that will hold the underlying form in a true 'democratic' reciprocity. Democracy will always be democracy; the only question that arises is, "is it a true democracy?" If not, then that's the direction of change. Democracy does not grow, it just finds its true center. That is why democratic principles of government cannot, and should not, be co-mingled with economic principles of growth. Sure, they're related. However, the individual is the very basis of democracy. If any individual or class of individuals is left out of the 'reckoning' of a democratic policy or law, we have failed. Democracy will never change; it is to be achieved. To the contrary, the economy is based on the profit motive which can very easily become motored by greed. Therein lies its problematic. Individual greed may be morally wrong(maybe not), but, in the political sphere, it's clearly wrong. If the medium of exchange is 'hogged' by the 1%,a very important part(that should circulate) of the economy is being held hostage in a democracy based on freedom and equality. The 'top' of the social is not the same as the Top of government. The two are different and must remain separate in a democratic government. Why change the principle of democracy to a principle of the economy? Thats not democracy, thats Plutocracy. Why do 'democrats' who have used the principles of democracy to get to the 'top' of the economic ladder, all of a sudden, want to be Plutocrats? You know the answer to that.

Democracy is about human beings. Although a democratic government functions democratically, true democracy is at the bottom where all the people reside in a condition of togetherness. The Top, or the government is able to function because it has Constitutional power. The power at the Top comes from the Constitution. The Top is not per se a democratic form. It is a triadic nature that allows the people at the bottom to elect someone to sit in the 'seats of power' situated at the Top. The Top cannot demand anything as a democratic right. The only right it has is to act according to the delineation of power granted in the Constitution and to act for the general welfare and that must pass scrutiny by the Supreme Court. The point is that all power and law comes from the Constitution and the Constitution comes from the People. The people are at the bottom. The previledge of governing extends only for a few years. So, unquestionably we live in a Country where the people rule. True, they rule indirectly but, without people there would be no need for government. The point is that one duty of government is to serve the general welfare. So, how on earth can we have a classification of peoples called "homeless"? Is the government doing its job? Recently, one State introduced the "Homeless Person's Bill of Rights and Fairness Act.( California). Assemblyman Tom Ammiano is right. There are just as many reasons for being 'unfortunate' or 'unlucky' as there are for being 'fortunate' or 'lucky'. The homeless can only go around in circles and never be able to ascend up the scale to the level of the 'fortunate'. Where is democracy in all this? Why can't government help them? The economy is not going to help. In spite of their conditions, they are human beings and they ,admit it or not, have human dignity. Why is that sector of the social completely ignored. Could it be that they are just to poor and unfortunate to be helped by democracy? Its true, in a democracy people have to do their share and they do; they work, earn money, pay taxes own homes and property, serve their Country, and sometimes many die for their Country. Could it be that democracy has no place for the poor, unfortunate, or homeless, only because they don't pay taxes, etc.. What kind of democracy is that?

People are entitled to own and possess any thing they wish, so long as its not against the law. Of course, I refer to gun control. The second Amendment protects that right. But, we must also consider when the Amendment was passed and when it was ratified; 1791. This occurred a few years after the end of the American Revolution and after the drafting of the Constitution. Certainly, conditions of daily existence have changed tremendously from the conditions existing at that time. Of course, the Amendment was passed at that time for a reason and a purpose. Hence, I say lets not tamper with the Amendment and lets keep it. But,that Amendment does not have anything to do with the right to easily acquire automatic weapons, normally used in war-like situations, for use by 'crazies' to kill innocent children. Sure, we can't control the 'crazies'. Sure, people have a right to own a gun and to use it to protect their homes and families, but what does that have to do with making them available to anyone who wants an automatic weapon to just slaughter other human beings? That doesn't make any sense. The issue is availability and the potential for mis-use. I'm sure that people who do not want gun control are not saying, "Well, let them get those guns 'over-the-counter' and slaughter whomever they want"; At least I hope not. But, thats the effect of not controlling availability of war-like weapons. Sure, the bad guys will always be able to get them, but is that a reason for just neglecting the problem. We're not talking about normal people were talking about a few crazies who have no respect for the human condition. Easy availability! Some amount of control has become necessary! Don't eliminate guns in homes used for self-defense, defense of property, guns used for hunting and target practice, but please get them out of the hands of the crazies! It used to be that a man could walk down main street with his pistol wrapped around his waist, but you can't do that anymore: those days are over. Some clear thinking must be done and some degree of control must be implemented. We cannot ignore the problem! To ignore the problem is to not care about innocent lives.

The novelty of the problem on the International community is caused by the revolution in the communication media. The internet has brought a spread-out collection of different peoples in different Countries a lot closer together.Its easy to reach out from ones living room into another living room separated by many miles and Political boundaries. The world has shrunk and the "togetherness" of peoples of all races and belief systems is now possible. Of course, there will always be the insistense of the superiority of one Nation over the other. Maybe, that's necessary for political purposes, but its not necessary for human reasons. I understand the philosophic perspective which states that there is no such thing as a Human Nature which binds all humans together. The problematic that arises from that concept is the issue of equality. The argument seems to be that we are all more different than we are alike; that there is no such thing as human equality. In other words, some of us are superior to others. But, that argument falls when we consider that we all need to live together in order to be individually and politically free. If we live in isolation and don't live together, after awhile, each individual will be pitted against the other individual. Unfortunately, thats just the way people live, always anxious to assert their individual superiority. Thats why all individuals need to be controlled politically. Not in the sense of controlling everyday activities, but in the sense of a 'political togetherness' with a National identity that protects its citizens and, not only that, but also governs the general welfare of the constituted political entity. If we do not have political equality, we will never have human equality. Although, human equality gives rise to political equality, the polity, in return, protects everyone's human equality by legislating laws of order. The people need government, but government also needs the people. In a democracy of people, by people, and for people, the government depends on all its people; not on just 1% nor on some preferred political party.

The 'International Community' has created a novel problem. First; can there be a 'community' on the International sphere? Well, much like a 'National community' cuts through States' lines to form a more National Community of people, maybe a political National community can also cut across other National lines to form a more global community where the different peoples of the world are sovereign. They would be sovereign as a 'formed unit of humanity' as contrasted and differentiated from the organized political entities they inhabit. Stated differently, the 'peoples of the world' would be a democracy. Each Political entity has its people who are 'together or united' and who live and communicate with each other on a daily basis. In todays world, the Internet and Media companies have brought together Nations as well as the individuals in the different Nations. The new communication medias have made the world more 'neighborly'. An International 'unity' of Nations has become possible as has the individual 'unity' of the human race. If Nations can and should communicate with each other to better 'unify' different Nations, why can't individuals from the different nations also attempt to unify the mass of humanity in the world? Now, more specifically, if individuals attempt to 'unify' the peoples into a democracy, they will have to cross National markers. But, thats not a reason to stop communication. If some individual from the Arab 'world', or any other 'world', is trying to get a foothold into a different media, National market, why shouldn't that be allowed? The same legal constraints for the local media world would, of course, be applicable to the 'outside' medias trying to enter. Of course, many issues on Freedom of Speech and ,of course, ideology come into play. But, we've dealt with those issues before. Not only do real humans have a freedom of speech, we have even extended that freedom to legal fictions. Of course, a real human can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre, (we don't have to worry about Corporations yelling 'fire', since they don't talk, but then again, they can support their favorite candidate) but you can express differences of opinion. Every human being should have a freedom of speech; a freedom to express themselves, regardless the ideology. But, how about through the media of TV? Why not?, we allow violence, sex, mayhem, etc. on TV. How about different ideologies? Well,we already have access to them in our libraries and University courses. Within a well-regulated legal presentation, anything should be allowed expression via the media. There will always be 'abusers', but we should be able to handle that. The interesting thing about the new media and the Internet is that I can always pull the plug. Democracy is about people; its about human beings being entitled to their life. Whether you know where life comes from or whether you can explain it to yourself, or whether it remains a mystery to you, for sure, we know it doesn't come from the State, the Nation, nor any other form of political entity. Every individual is entitled to his/her life and to express their thoughts and feelings. Otherwise, how can we claim to live in a democracy? Language cannot be a taboo.

The biggest problem with established governments is the distribution of power. The act of coming together into a huge 'togetherness' and assuming an identity as a Nation or Country is an act of conferring 'political power' to the Top of the political entity. There is no 'natural power' that inures to the Top just by virtue of being on Top of any political entity. The power at the Top that the entity posseses is a 'conferred power'. Historically, it was by 'divine right' or 'inheritance', in others, a position taken by force. In a democracy of people, by people, and for people, that conferring of power comes from the bottom where all the people reside. By virtue of 'placing' one of their own at the Top of government for a period of time, grants the authority and power to govern 'for the general welfare',each and every person within the 'togetherness', and also to relate to other global political entities. The issue of political power is not simple. There is a clear distinction between political power and personal power and never shall the two meet. The political and the personal must be kept at a respectable distance. The Top has political power, but only by virtue of office. The Bottom(the people) have personal power, or better yet, they have strength in Numbers. Yet, there comes a time when political issues mix with personal issues. Gun control is such an issue. Obviously, we cannot control the individuals who periodically go crazy and massacre others. Of course, we have to try. However,we can control( to some degree) the availability of guns particularly so-called combat weapons. Of course we have an Amendment that protects the right of people to protect themselves and their homes. The gun issue is not about the Amendment, which was passed for a different reason and at a different time, and which should remain intact; its about personally having 'weapons of mass destruction'. (sounds familiar?) If we can justify begining a war by creating a wrong impression about the 'potential' possession of weapons of mass destruction(a political issue that involved killing women and children)surely we can instigate some form of actual gun control, particularly when it involves 'helpless' children( a personal issue). We can't control the 'crazies', but we can control the availability of guns. Maybe we should be glad to have a statesman at the Top who really cares about the Bottom; particularly, the helpless children and the families being effected.

As governments become 'larger', more 'expansive',it would seem that governing would become more efficient and the 'condition' of people in the Nation and the world would improve. After all, the Top of every government has, or should have, the general welfare of its people as its primary concern. Then, why is it that as soon as a government acquires more strength, individual human emotions about killing, conquering and overcoming other governments, come to the fore? Those emotions are 'individual' emotions, not 'governmental emotions'. Government is an 'arrangement' of people in a manner best suited to govern many individuals. Its independent of the people it governs. Its completely separate from human individuality and the 'emotional tenor' of any government should be the 'general welfare' of its people, not the welfare of any one individual at the Top, or of any group of individuals within the governmental structure. Why else become established as a government? Understandably, a government, as an individual, must protect itself. A government can become 'stronger', but that 'governmental strength' does not transfer to any individual within the political entity. The same is true of human emotions; human emotions remain individual emotions and its a mistake to transfer any one individual emotion 'into' the 'emotional tenor' of any 'act of governing'. How ridiculous; we form governments to keep millions of individuals within a structure of 'law and order'( which keeps them from 'killing' each other) and then,once we form into such governmental structures, 'governments' insist on 'killing' each other (on the National as well as on the International sphere).Wow. Even a child could see how ridiculous that is. I guess, that would be a job for the United Nations or similar groupings(whatever). A Nation must govern itself with 'governmental emotion', not the human emotion of the individual at the Top of power. I understand the difficulty of defining any such emotion, but governing means governing the Nation, not any other governmental system on the International sphere. So lets keep human emotions where they belong and lets govern with the 'broader emotional tenor' of a statesman and not the 'misplaced' individual emotions of a politician.

Government cannot measure success or failure because words and language are to unmanageable. Semantics and multiplicity of meanings renders language duplicitous. That is not the fault of language, its the fault of government. Government needs to organize along the lines of the triadic nature crafted in the Constitution. Certainly a government of people, by people and for people can be structured along quantifiable lines. (Separate Parties are OK, if both are democratic.) In that way, policy and legal mandates can be measured for accomplishment. Otherwise,we are left with sweeping generalities completely unfounded on the bottom of the triad or the people. The economy is totally quantified because it uses money as its measureing stick. Government can use each individual as a measure of democracy. If it just uses semantics, the results can be chaotic. If, when policy or law declares, "everyone is free and equal" it's actually meant, the solution is simple. Everyone means everyone. Where's the problem? Instead, when we use language or semantics , we begin to make distinctions like, "Oh,I'm free to do anything I please". Well yes, but, of course, you have to stay within the law. And don't step on your neighbors toes, cause he's not going to like it. Remember, he's free also. My favorite,of course, is "what are we doing in Afghanistan?" Ans: " we're bringing them democracy". Right. The other is equality. It's the popular belief that someone is unequal if s/he is not white or belongs to a different race, or, s/he is poor, or is on welfare, or is to old to be useful,etc. Has anyone heard of the human race? Being human is all thats required to be equal. There's no other measure. Government Office is a priviledge that should not be abused. Don't forget, your up there only for a short while. Democratic rule is the only form of government that can be imposed on a human being. Thats why all people have the Constitutional right to revolution. The human condition has a right to protect itself, even against government.

The economy must help fortify the Nation, but the Nation does not have to fortify the economy at the expense of democracy. Don't get me wrong.Government needs to help create a 'healthy, strong, National economy', but it does not have to sacrifice democratic principles. In no case do democratic principles take second chair to economic principles. Government is operated on democratic principles, not economic ones. Just making profits is never a democratic principle. However, economic considerations should not exclude democratic considerations. Although the two principles function by means of separate paradigms and, of course, for separate purposes, yet they can and should support each other. The problematics with a so-called 'Market' economy is that the sole engine is to make a profit and not to promote democracy. Little, if any, consideration goes into the realization that the so-called Market is constituted by the same people that constitute the democracy. Of course, thats why some "out-source". ( Thats another story) Democracy is governed by the basic principle of "free and equal", whereas the 'market' is founded on making a profit. Consequently, government could well contribute to a stable market by establishing programs that create a 'value' that helps circulation of money within the market and hence, the economy. However, under no circumstances is government entitled to step outside the political principles of democratic government. Government has many duties to its citizens as citizens have duties to their government. The cry for stopping entitlements is ridiculous. Helping the poor; the 'needy', senior citizens, the retired,etc with Social security, medicare, welfare, is not an entitlement,its a duty and they better well provide it. ( Who fights their wars, if not the people at the bottom)The only entitlement in a democracy is the priviledge and entitlements attributed to those normal human beings who were lifted into offices-of-power by the people at the bottom. Once out of office, the top is free to join us at the bottom. I dare say, without the 'power of office', they seem pretty normal.

The economy has a standard of value that measures its success or failure.Democracy can also have a standard of value with which to measures its success or failure. The value standard of the economy is money which is a medium of exchange. Of course money must circulate in order to accomplish its 'exchange function'. Since that medium is a quantification, it can be changed, modified, or accumulated as number does in mathmatics. If, at present, that medium is accumulated in the top 1%, and if it is not circulating or exchanging, something is very wrong with an economy designed to circulate. But, the value system of a democracy is different from that of the economy and must be kept separate. The value system of government relates to the freedom and equality of each individual in the polity. If the freedom and equality are important, the form of government has to be democratic, or stated differently, a government "of people", "by people" and "for people". But, our democracy relies on constitutional interpretive practices and hence is subject to many linguistic variables. Of course, that's necessary and there's nothing wrong with that. But, if these practices were to include 'quantification', the efficiency or effect of any policy or law could be more easily measured. Otherwise, unfounded generalizations will 'free-float' in abstract space completely unfounded on anything real. By 'quantification' we mean to 'extend' our discourse into the geometric and mathmatical field. Of course, I don't refer to a geometry and math that follows the basic paradigm of those disciplines. But, I do mean that we switch to those disciplines when the results of some political concept involves some degree of measurement. After all, math and geometry are languages also and more precise. They also 'move' or 'communicate' from 'here' to 'there'; they 'include' and 'exclude'; and 'Number' never changes; in its quantified state, its always the same. So is the individual in a democracy. In quantification we can more easily measure the 'democratic tenor' of any policy or law. Hence its need. The relation between the One and the Many at the bottom is real and that relation can change the applicability of the 'discourse' from one replete with variables to one more certain and quantifiable. Power in its descend from the Top to the Bottom must be applied democratically.It must be tempered quantifiably.

Why has the Linguistic Turn disorganized and unsettled language-usage? Well, language was already subject to many variables in meaning, which led to many disagreements and arguments but, the Turn completely destroyed the effectiveness of language by claiming that no 'word' corresponded to the thing it referred too, or more generally, the 'Map does not correspond to reality". Since language is always about something other than itself, it inhabits two different domains. Grammatical usage is one domain and that to which it refers is the other. Nevertheless, and in spite of its limitations, language is essential to the human condition. But, the Turn has caused a restructuring of many linguistic disciplines and thats why the Constitution must be perceived in its underlying form. That form has to be geometric and mathmatical. Those two disciplines have not been confused or disorganized. Why not? Because they deal with 'direction' and quantities and not meaning. Why should democracy be quantitative? Because each individual in a democracy is important as a living human being and democracy refers to each and every individual at the Bottom. A triadic government best protects the sanctity of each individual. It has three different sides with three different functions to 'hold' the integrity of the triad and the integrity of democracy. Also math and geometry,being quantitative,are 'what they are' and cannot be otherwise. Language, to the contrary, has many meanings and can be interpreted in many different ways. Hence, government must have form and structure. The structure is in the language of the Constitution and the form underlies it. The structure may be arguable, but the form is not. The form is a government 'of people','by people', and 'for people'. That speaks for itself and that is as quantitative as can be. Otherwise,how can One or a few govern a multitude without the multitude's decision in the matter? Its impossible.The problematics with language arises when terms like,'all', 'everyone', 'free','equal',and many other general terms, remain on an abstract level and never really sink down to the real human beings to whom they apply. Abstraction can lead to political double talk and heaven only knows we hear it daily. The essense of the democratic spirit must be quantified. No one says its easy, only that it's a must. Where are our statesmen?

Some say the term "democracy" is meaningless. Thanks to the so-called Linguistic turn, even that important term has been compromised. There is much argument about the term. Most critiques go back to the origin of the term and try to evaluate the semantics and the historical evolution of the term. But, hey listen, thats the kind of confusions brought about by the Linguistic Turn. But,why go back an evaluate the historical progress of the term? Analysing Language has become a favorite pastime but, why not take a closer look at how the term came about and what it is suppossed to do. Just looking at 'word' changes doesn't change anything. That process just keeps going in circles. Language is always changing, even without the novel changes of the Linguistic turn. Terms and words will change meaning but that doesn't mean the actual activity changes. We need to go to basics i.e. the underlying forms of the term. Our organized existence and our governmental structure are entirely dependent on the Constitution. The Founding Fathers organized it for us. Stop quibbling over linguistic meaning and try to understand what they did. The Constitution houses the form and the structure of a real democracy. Why is that? Because it establishes a triadic form of representative government that is functional on all sides of the triad. But, make no mistake, all the sides must function properly and towards the goal of democratic government,i.e. a government "of people", "by people" and "for people". Does that ever take place? Not often enough! But, the true underlying form are "The People". Its not about "central control" or about "State control". Its about People control; thats why elections are necessary. One big problem underlying politics, which is out of hand and which is probably irremediable, is that after the Constitution was approved, the People immediately divided themselves into Partys. Our whole Congress is a herd of differing representatives with Party loyalties. Look at whats happening with the so-called "Fiscal Cliff". Different Partys create different views and that creates antagonisms which one hopes can be settled. Look, the only entitlements in this world are the ones we give to the representatives at the Top. Other than those, there are no entitlements. What the people get as a result of living in a condition of togetherness is what they disserve in exchange for giving entitlements of power to the Top. Sure, we need to be governed, but it must be democratic because no individual at the Top is superior to any other human being at the Bottom. No, we're all the same. Those that speak about inequality being pervasive in our society will have to show me how their being human differs from me and you being human. Its not about economics, its not about 'social class', its not about possessions, its not about money,its not about education, its about human beings living in a condition of togetherness. The bottom does not owe the Top anything but the Top owes the bottom everything. Don't you think the Founding Fathers knew that? Thats why they passed the First Amendment; if all is not right at the Top, the people have the right "peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances". The people have a right to 'revolution'. Forget language, look at the underlying form. When I 'see' the form of democratic government, I see the 'Bottom' at the 'Top'.

There is much talk about gun control and there is always someone who says, "what good will that do, the bad guys will always know how to get them". Of course, there's some truth in that. But lets apply that same principle or way of thinking to politics. If our Nation is a recognized Democracy where the people govern, and some office holder decides to pass laws and policy that will benefit only one segment of the social or, lets say, will benefit corporations, which are artificial entities, what can we do? Of course, nothing until the next election comes along in four long years and that may be too late. By then, the 'evils' contemplated may have already congealed. Promises were made at election time but evidently were not kept. Can we say that every politician has democratic principles in mind when he suggests laws and policies? Very unlikely. So,there is as much need for controlling the bad guys with guns as there is in controlling the bad guys in politics that are interested in some form of preferential treatment that excludes democratic principles or excludes the people. How else can you explain the 1%? Do you dare say, as some people do, that they're actually very hard workers and that they are not lazy? Thats ridiculous! They will find a way to make money generate more money without any effort on their part other then knowing how to 'play' with economic principles. Of course, there's also talk about psychological studies of unsocial behavior,crimes of violence, etc. with respect to gun control. Without a doubt,we need those studies, but that does not exclude gun control nor controlling the availability of 'weapons of war'. Wow,that sound so much like "weapons of mass destruction". Well, looks like we need people who really know when and how to use a weapon for self-defense only and God only knows, we also need a real Statesman at the helm.

If all the money circulates at the Top only and if government is run on economic principles and if corporations continue to get 'extensions' of Constitutional rights that real human beings are entitled too, we will soon become a plutocracy.Of course, government has to know how to operate with economic principles in order to stabilize the economy, but government,as such, is operated on democratic principles. Governing is not about making a profit, its about governing and protecting the people that established Constitutional government, in the first place, and that means governing democratically. Governing democratically also means that the benefits, direct and indirect, of economic activity inures to the benefit of all the people. It is imperative that we clarify the relationshps between the two disiplines and that we not conflate them. The economy and money is essential to any Nation, particularlly on the international sphere, but the economy operates on separate and different principles. We cannot confuse the two; if we do we're headed towards a Plutocracy. On a practical level, that means the 1% will govern the people. Economic principles are essential to the economy, but if we apply economic principles to governing we are creating a government that favors the 1% and before long, the bottom might as well be called, as in the Middle Ages, subjects and serfs. Economic principles conflated with government is the most undemocratic manner of government. It takes us back to the 'elastic' and historical transition between Kingdoms and the Middle Ages; when the Authority of the Top began to loosen and the rights of the individual began to take root. In government, there is no higher source of authority for 'whatever' than the People. Stop talking about entitlements. The only entitlements that exist are those the people give to those they select to govern. But, they have those entitlements only for a limited number of years. But when that time is up, they must join all of us human beings at the bottom of government and they better hope its democratic.

The relation between the Top and the Bottom could function algorithmically. Policy and law at the Top must reach the real individuals at the Bottom in a real way and the best way to do that is algorithmically. Since the top is linguistic in nature, it must bridge the 'middle ground' to relate to the the proper real area at the Bottom. It must do so in a more 'mathmatical manner', which is less abstract and more realistic. The top may be linguistic and hence subject to manipulation as is apparent with the so-called "fiscal cliff", but since the bottom is number, policy and laws have to fit into the democratic equation to make it real. If all the data is collected, an algorithmic approach can apply to the particular logical class that is being controlled or governed. It may not be a panacea, but it makes the results a lot more controllable. Certainly, corporations are out of the picture as 'real' human beings. They're fictions and hence can be 'manipulated' or "involuntarilly dissolved". If they do not want to pay their fair share of taxes, why give them more economic advantages. The same approach would seem to apply to the gun issue. Certainly every homeowner should have a means to protect his home,but s/he doesn't need an arsenal for that purpose. A hunter has a right to a 'gun' that corresponds to the kind of game he hunts. If he hunts elephants, he'd better have a big gun. But, neither is the hunter entitled to an arsenal. Weapons for war are not an issue, only a Constitutional right to 'bear arms' for self-defense. The gun lobby will probably want their own tanks and artillary pieces, but that is not the issue nor is the issue one of a right to accumulate. Every Constitutional right has its sphere of application. The Constitutional rights of 'freedom' and 'equality' are universal within the polity and hence apply to each and every human being in the Nation. Of course, corporations, are not human and while they are entitled to protection, they don't have the rights of humans. The rights that apply to humans have their particular logical class and hence can be identified more easily within a 'logorithmic model'. Of course, I speak of logical classes not economic classes. As real as 'economic classes' are, they are part of the economy and play no part in the governing process. Their only duty is the part they play in the payment of taxes within a governmental system that gave corporations their right to exist as a legal and economic entity. Actually, its not the corporations that seek all these unfair economic advantages( because they're fictions), its the people who run them. Its the 1%.

Democratic principles and economic principles must be kept separate. Both are important to any Nation, but democratic principles apply to the governmental form and to all the people. Economic principles apply to the economy, capitalization, production and consumption. No corporation or industry follows democratic principles in its operational mode, i.e. in its goal to make a profit. Corporations and small and large business entities follow economic principles dealing with their own organization, capitalization, production, consumption, etc.. Democracy has no meaning in economic sustainability and economics should have no meaning in democratic governing. Of course the two theories overlap because its human beings who are engaged in economic activity and it is they who are governed. So, questions of fairnes, wages, work hours, job availability, etc arise. Nevertheless, each discipline functions within its own paradigm and should remain there. That's why no one agrees with the Citizens United decision. The entanglement between government and economics was already complex without the extension of individual Constitutional freedoms into the economic sphere. Corporations were already protected under the 14th Amendment and they were already involved in political matters without any further unnecessary injection into the political framework by attributing to them Constitutional freedoms that only real individuals enjoy. A corporate freedom of speech is completely unjustifiable. Any move in that direction has to be perceived as a move by the rich to solidify their economic position. The final note is that corporations are recognized by law as being "legal fictions". They are not real and hence cannot possibly have a Constitutional freedom of speech. When the Courts start to play party-politics we're in trouble.

The relation between the One and the Many is an insidious relation. As simple as it looks, it can create many confusions. Most, if not all , are linguistic. Once we enter the linguistic domain we enter the linguistic, orderly and logical, albeit, insidous domain of abstraction. The insidious aspect of abstraction is its 'removal' from the real or concrete. Of course,abstraction is an important aspect of the thinking brain. We cannot survive without it, but it should not remove us from reality. How do we struggle against this? It must be done on an individual basis. If not, we fall into linguistic generalities that free-float in the social and the body politic. Of course, for organizational purposes these generalities are necessary. Nevertheless, they should not transport us into a 'social imaginary' that produces social inertia. We all recognize the tendency to 'live' removed from reality. But, we cannot fall victims to abstract and definitional 'party politics'. You and I are real. The 'social and polity' are high level abstractions. The 'word play' between the Top and the Bottom is tremendous. It becomes important to 'look for' a candidate for the Top rung of the political that is the most 'sincere'.A careful analysis of the terms used by politicions can help us determine the 'sincerity' of a candidate or the democratic nature of a Party position. We are at the Bottom of the 'ship of state' but that doesn't mean we can't keep a critical eye on the navigators. We put them there, and we can remove them. Thats democracy. Its important that the Third Branch of government use 'interpretive practices' that are impartial. Thats not a frivolous suggestion. The 'interpretive' branch must become more exacting in their interpretation of the relation between the Top and the Bottom. Surely, they understand the insiduous nature of linguistic abstractions. Surely, they understand the triadic nature of government. Surely they understand that the Top is dependent on the Bottom. The Bottom is not only 'real' ,it is constituted by millions of 'real' people. In their condition of togethernes, not a single one losses or compromises his/her 'life' or integrity as a human being. Its time the Top begins to understand that its the Bottom that matters. And it's time the Third Branch begins to see that they must be impartial. Don't get me wrong, linguistic abstractions are necessary and very important but no human being can 'live' in them. Sh/he can only formulate them. Lets use them in our condition of togetherness, but 'lets get a life'.

The structure of a governmental system or the so-called relation of the One and the Many presents many problems. The Founding fathers had to face some of those problems. Although they attempted to resolve some of the issues that arises from that ancient relation, they were not concerned with a simple relation of the One and the Many. Instead, they had to weld together thirteen colonies, each already exercizing power and having a separate 'identity' from each other. The Confederation was not working. Hence, their greatest problem was the States determination to retain their independence and their power. Of course, no one wanted to relinquish their power as independent States. Hence, the central problematic was between a centralized source of power versus the separate power of each State. Neither prevailed. Instead the result was a Republic, where 'power' was held by the 'Representatives of the People'. Hence, the Constitution recognized a "Union of people" not States and organized the Government as a three branch government. However, language at the time of crafting was not problematic. Today, language is problematic and the Constitution is entirely written. It becomes imperative to conceive the Constitution in an accurate manner yet, differently. Its easy to see it as written because we understand its language.( which is not to under-rate the importance of interpretive practices) But, there is an underlying form that exists before it was given its linguistic structure. That's the underlying form. That form is geometric and mathmatical and that gives it its underlying geometric and mathmatical conception as Triadic. A government of Three Branches is triadic. A triadic government is dependent on the people at the bottom of the triad. In a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, the people are sovereign. Hence, problems of democracy can be approached mathmatically. Of course, we will always be dependent on language, but, in evaluating democratic policy we cannor discard the mathmatics of the problem. Language must conform to mathmatics and mathmatics must conform to the language.

The ancient problematic of the relation of the One to the Many can be resolved. In order to do so, we must discard the abstraction in which the problem is formulated. The question arises, "why are we so concerned with such an ancient problem?". The short answer is because that formulation reflects the essential problematics of government. The statement "the One" is a linguistic abstraction and the statement "the Many" is also linguistic. Hence, the relation between the One and the Many must also be linguistic. These abstractions create many linguistic confusions. But, the confusions are linguistic and hence confusions of logic. But, logic and mathmatics are related and if we switch to the 'language' of "Number", the One is a Number and the Many are also Number(many numbers). However, in mathmatics, One is just One and can never be anything else. Likewise, the Many are number but each and every one in the collectivity called Many is an integrity unto itself and together with the other 'integritys', they constitute the inclusive abstraction "Many". If we are talking about individuals, this phenomena does not threaten or encroach into the integrity of any One individual in their condition of "togetherness", which identifies their abstract collective existence. It merely sets out the problematics of authority and political power. If the One or one of the Many is going to assume the political position at the Top, s/he must have a source from which to claim it. Most Ancient 'governments' claimed authority and power to be at the Top from sources outside themselves. In the Kingship form, the source was 'Divine',the so-called, Divine Right of Kings. In Dictatorships and forms of Autocracy, the source was usually force or strength. There's many different forms of government, but they can be reduced to variations of this form. Now, we can deal with the problematics of Democracy. Democracy, as we have said, is government "of the people", "by the people" and "for the people". In other words, democracy is "the people" governing themselves. No power or authority or superiority of any individual is required. The sole source of power and authority is the Constitution of the United States. A proper interpretation being required, the Judicial Branch must be impartial, free from Party loyalty,and must use "interpretive practices" that follow the structure of the Constitution. That structure is a Triadic structure: the Legislative being at the bottom, the Executive at the Top and the Judicial at the sides of the Triad of government. Any deviation from this form would be unconstitutional. The millions of people at the Bottom remain sovereign. That's recognized in the First Amendment which states that the people have a right to "peaceably... assemble and to petition the Government for redress of grievances". That!,is the Constitutional Right to revolution.

Certainly, the power to tax the people is necessary to operate a democratic government an democratic society. The whole issue reduces itself to "how much" and since we've divided humanity and society into 'classes', based on an economic principle,the question is which class gets to pay. The poor or lower class - well they don't even have a job, decent wages or medical care, but they still pay. Middle class, well they should pay taxes also if they could get a job. Even college graduates can't find a job. How about upper class and corporations? Well, upper class has gotten lots of tax advantages lately, like the death of the so-called 'death tax',( no pun intended) but,in all fairness, they also pay taxes. Hey! how about corporations? They can't 'hurt' from an increase because they are " legal fictions" and hence only exist "in contemplation of law". They're 'economic paper monsters'. They used to pay 70%. Now,I believe,they only pay 35%. Wow, thats a big reduction. Well, since they're not real and since the Courts protect them maybe they could be convinced to be a little more democratic. Since they owe their existence to the law, why not persuade them to give their "fair share" of taxes in exchange for having been given their fictional existence.(not to mention, bail-outs) If they don't want to cooporate, "involuntarily terminate" their corporate charter. Since they're fictions, how can that effect their "personal" existence? Just consider the "termination" as an economic manoeuvre to balance the economy. In fact, they're "money making machines". There is nothing wrong with making governments own economic creations more democratic. Government has lost control of its own creations. It's time government gets more control over what corporations do. Corporations should share in the equilibration of the economy by making a fair and just payment of taxes, and also, by helping to create jobs, fair wages, benefits for their employees, and other democratic necessities. Why pick on small businesses? Lets get the big "fictions". All government has to do is make the democratic spirit an essential part of their Articles of Incorporation. If they fail to comply, terminate them.

Its ridiculous to state or imply that individuals are not created equal and hence government must protect the equality of all individuals within the jurisdiction of the State or Nation. I'll bet you a dollar that every human being is just as human as the other. Fancy housing, fancy clothing, more'talent',fancy cars, big boats, more money, all the so-called benefits of society amount too just more 'toys' to play with. What does any of that have to do with being human. Take another look, everyone is equally human. Those individuals that hold offices at the top of government are not superior than those who are governed. They are up there because the bottom voted for them and only for a short period of time. Take away their office, their money, their cars, their boats, etc. and whats left. In some cases, very,very, nasty human beings. Wow, "I'm better than you because I have more toys than you"; its not the 'toys', its the human condition stupid! Government exists because millions of people living together cannot and will not get along otherwise. Thats sad, but true. Individuals will always look for ways to find 'weaknesses' in the Other and power in themselves. Hence, democratic government is the fairest arrangement of power because its 'open' to everyone. Unfortunately, the end result is that humans divide themselves into opposing Parties and try to find weaknesses in the Other Party and power in themselves. Everyone wants to be superior and have power. Admittedly, we're in a mess. So, what do we do? The only thing we can do is try to form a democratic Party that will represent all the individuals at the bottom. If a democracy has two Parties, then both must be democratic, no matter what they call themselves. Surely, there's different ways of doing things, but none can be un-democratic. It's really very simple. If a politician is not going to represent "the people", he or she has no business being in office. All governments were created by people; government has never created any "people". Thats ridiculous! Who created the people? Regardless your answer, you can see that all human beings are equally human. People do not need government to give them equality: they are already equal, besides they were the ones who created government. Government, all Office holders and politicians should be grateful that "the people" has given them a job. Human beings are equally human and that equality is protected by the Constitution; thats why the First Amendment gives the people the right to peaceably assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances. That, my friend, is the right to revolution.

Apply democratic principles to the present 'fiscal cliff' debate instead of economic principles and what do you get? Well, it seems that the hold-up (literally) are the 'haves' refusal to pay their just amount of taxes. 'Corporate America', capitalism, millionaires and billionaires refuse to pay a tax that is even lower than what they previously paid. Corporate taxes were lots higher, before, than what they presently are. Estate taxes no longer apply to the wealthy. The so-called 'haves' accepted a 'bail out' which is just a different word than the word applied to the needy and to those who paid the government from their hard earned wages. Of course, the so-called needy get'entitlements' but rich corporations that are 'too big to fail' get bailouts.I swear that seems like the same thing. What is 'too big to fail'? Is it more important to help a legal fiction than a real human being? Not if you are applying democratic principles instead of economic ones. You see, democratic principles apply to real human beings and economic principles apply to 'legal fictions'.Those who are fortunate got that way because of democratic principles. Now they want more and more instead of protecting the very principles that helped them out when they were 'needy' and needed protection and a bailout. The human condition is more important than 'fictional persons'. What could possibly be the motivation for the 'haves' to want more? Everyone knows( and they also know) that its greed. Plain economic greed. The engine for corporations is the profit motive which, in some cases, leads to greed. The profit motive is not so bad, but greed? Come-on, whats fair is fair. Its really simple. But those who benefited from democratic principles are now wanting to apply economic principles and want an 'equal' situation after they used democratic principles and acquired a tremendous amount of economic 'inequality'. The 1% wants to remain 1%. The convolutions of language usage in the present situation is a glaring case of 'word prostitution'. What better case for the inadequacy of language and the need to perceive government in triadic form. Its really simple democracy and simple math.

We should not conflate political theory and economic theory. Even though both are necessary, they should be kept separate. Political theory relates to the form and structure of a government and the means by which political power is exercized. In a democracy, the form and structure of government is that of "a people" governing themselves viz. a government "of the people", "by the people", and "for the people". Of course, "the people" need housing, work, food, clothing, etc. to subsist on a day to day basis. Both these needs are provided by the form of the social and that of the economy. Its at this point where the two disciplines can be easily conflated. Politics relates to governing by means of the Constitutional form and structure of government. The economy and capitalism relates to the circulation of money in such manner that the economic and social institutions are made more and more productive and efficient. The economy can evolve and become more 'modernistic', but government is stable and is not subject to evolution like other social and economic institutions. If government 'changes'it must be towards better democracy.It cannot change form, it can only improve the structure by which it implements its democratic form. Democracy is forever. An economy needs a medium of exchange that circulates among the busineses and the people,viz.money. Of course, all the people and the busineses are at the bottom of triadic government( Constitutional Government). Hence, circulation has to be kept at the bottom. If the money stays at the top, it will not circulate at the bottom.If thats the case, there will not be sufficient circulation to keep the social institutions viable. Work will break down, wages will break down, and so will home ownership, medical care, and social security, etc.. As important as money is in our social and our economy, it cannot serve as a political value. Political principles are the engines of a democracy. Money cannot and should not drive democracy. The constitution and a political theory that conforms to the principles of a democracy are the sole criteria for political theory. Human history has not come to the end and it never will, nor will the need for government, nor will the need of an economy. Todays' democracy, todays' economy, and todays life, will be tommorrows, next months, and next years history. Capitalism should feed the people, not rule; capitalism is not government. Capitalism is driven by the profit motive and, unfortunately, greed. Democracy is driven "by the people" and more importantly, "for the people". Capitalism needs democracy; democracy does not need capitalism. Lets keep both of them, but lets keep them separate.

The need for the Top to establish a real relation to the Bottom of government i.e. where the people live their lifes, is not an easy matter. What makes it difficult is the need to bridge the 'meaning dimension' of language usage. Those different meanings inherent in usage is what allows 'political language' to have a multiplicity of meaning-variables. Those variables are what allows language to 'play games' on a multiplicity of levels of abstraction. Add to that,the many convolutions of the 'Linguistic Turn' and that renders language into a vacuous exercise. Together, a certain 'word magic' becomes possible, which can become a political tool for misleading the people at the Bottom. Ask any politician. In order to avoid the free-floating nature of language, the Top must use quantitative terms that are more exact than the linguistic terms. Of course, mathmatical and geometric terms are also 'language'. However, they are not concerned with 'meaning' as such as with the postulation of a quantity and a sense of direction. Of course, we all know those disciplines use 'number' and we all know number is always what it is and nothing else. You can't play around with numbers like you can with words. A real relation between the Top and the Bottom must, of necessity, use both languages.I repeat: that is not an easy matter. Nevertheless, if democracy is going to work, we are going to need such a language. Another difficulty, are the individuals who occupy the offices at the Top and their serious attempt to do democracy. Plain Governing is easy. Its like ruling by Kings or dictators,if anyone gets in the way,just eliminate them. Thats not the kind of governing we are talking about. No! Governing in a democratic manner requires establishing that real relation between the Top and the Bottom. It also stops the empty talk and gets things done. Recently, an ex-President said , and I paraphrase and elaborate a little, "do the math"; "Its simple arithmetic"; "Its number stupid". Number does not lie, it doesnt play politics either. We need creative, sincere people in office to establish a real bridge between the Top and the Bottom. Democracy is an equation.

People living in a 'condition of togetherness' need government. Human beings are first then arises the need for government. Historically, it took a long time for the different forms of government to evolve. A good history book can survey the many transitions. But,its unquestionable that a true democratic form of government came to be the best.Of course, the only way to achieve a true democratic government is with a three-prong approach to governing. And that further assumes that the Top will do its job and that the sides will be impartial in its "interpretive practices" and that the people at the bottom will stay within the confines of law. But, if the Top does not implement Constitutional government and if the sides refuse to interpret the Constitution impartially, why not just turn it over to the people? Hey,its their government. Of course, the Bottom could just invoke their right to "assemble" but, better yet ( since their just too many of them) why not provide them with jobs, just wages, medical care, Social Security, opportunities to own their own home, acquire a savings account,and opportunities to raise a healthy family. And the most important part, stop organizing the economy on the backs of "legal fictions". Those 'fictional persons' are immortal besides they are very stupid, because they can't do anything of themselves. They need a few real human beings at the helm. The only problem is that the human beings 'driving' these "fictions' have to be greedy. (I'm sure, thats a prerequisite.) These 'mythological' fictions don't eat; if it does something illegal, it doesn't go to jail; if it gets economically 'sick', its just dissolved and then immediately enjoys a 'resurrection' of course, with a different name but, (listen carefully) with the same drivers. The economy is a very important part of any Nation and corporations are important parts of the economy. But, if the whole well being of any democratic Nation is built on 'the backs of fictions', what happens to the real basis of government and the economy? That approch alienates the people and keeps the money that should circulate at the bottom, at the top 1%. Why not build an economy on the backs of real human beings, they could use the work and I'm positive that they and their families would be grateful. Anyway, we always select someone from the Bottom to occupy the Executive, Judicial and Legislative Offices of government. Maybe we can be lucky and get a real worker,a real family person, who loves the human condition more than some effete fictional 'person' with a huge economic grasp and who only produces money. We may have such a person. Time will tell. Of course, the Bottom can always exercise its right to 'assemble' and petition the government... .

Why was government established in triadic form? What other forms of government are possible? Well, historically we know about the Divine route, but that didn't work. We also know about the dictator route and that doesn't work either. Why don't these forms work? Thats simple:because there's no divine guidance involved in one and there's no superior human condition to govern in the other. Variations of these two characteristics of superiority also failed. The truth is that the One can never govern the Many. Every human being is free and equal. The only way around that problematic is a three-pronged approach to government. That is why the Constitution of the United States and similar governments in all other parts of the world have proven to be the ideal form. Its simple, those forms just cover all the bases. One branch rules; a representative branch represents all the people; and the third branch uses "interpretive practices" to implement a democratic government 'of people', 'by people' and 'for people'. So, why do we have problems in government? Thats simple also! Because of the unhealthy persuit of political power and the greedy accumulation of money. Power is necessary, but the improper exercise of it, is not. Money also is necessary ,but thats an economic principle, not a political one and money is a medium of exchange and needs to circulate among all the people at the bottom. The greedy accumulation of money is never a political goal. The powerfull in government must be kept within the perimeters of the Constitution. The interpreters of the Constitution must be impartial. The representatives of the people must represent the people and not themselves or lobbyists. So how can we correct all that is wrong with government. The only way is to point out the problem area and to "be heard". Government belongs to the people, nobody else! The First Amendment gives the people the right "peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grieviances". Thats the Constitutional right to revolution. The people at the bottom have the strength of 'numbers'. In a condition of togetherness, the bottom is stronger than all the power at the Top. But, that right must also be excercized properly. Any Constitution that does not have a First Amendment should get one and then should learn to use it.

The structure of government should be a relatively stable structure. I say "relatively stable" because government is an ever-moving process. Its never inert. It must always be in motion and functioning. Sometime it comes close to stability and sometimes its just moving in the direction of the latest National or International 'crises'. The point is that it always seeks stability. "Unstable times" compel stablization of whatever the crises might be. The question that arises is, "how can a real democratic government achieve stability"? It cannot be stable in the same sense as a dictatorship or Kingdom. Those 'governments' were fixated and the stability was only at the Top. Those 'governments' don't care about the people at the bottom. Stability in a democracy is an achievable state that requires the top to respect the real individuality of the bottom i.e.the people at the bottom. There is no preferential categorizing-in general linguistic terms- when 'applying' democracy. Democracy must have a foundation and that foundation is the real individual at the bottom. Many factors enter the governing of the Many by the One. But, the main criteria is that the language used in governing does not "free-float" at such a high level of abstraction, that it denotes nothing at the concrete bottom. For example: "Why are we in Iraq?" The ans;"we're bringing them democracy". The answer must be a real answer; one that makes contact with the appropriate parts of the bottom. If government is to be democratic, it must include the real people in the act of governing. The Top relates to the Bottom in a real way. No 'free-floating' politicians allowed. It's OK for conversational and didactic purposes, but not for governing. Academically,it can be taught abstractly, but in the real world, governing has to be real.The only way of achieving this is to keep the triadic nature of governing ever in motion. The Top governs; the sides apply "interpretive practices" impartially and constitutionally; and the Bottom obeys the law. In this manner, the One relates efficientlly to the Many at the bottom without encroacing on the freedom and equality of each and every individual that has 'entitled' the Top to the right of exercizing power. The only entitlement in this world is the right of the Top to exercize power. The only reason there's power at the Top is because the law compels it. If law didn't exist, we would all just be free and equal human beings.

Democratic government is a government "of people","by people",and "for people". There is no other form of government that can approach democracy as a functional concept. The triadic form(a reduction of the Constitutional form) is potentially the most democratic form that can exist, provided that the three sides of the triad are constantly kept in a motion that preserves its triadic nature. Any other form would have to assume that the human condition of one or a few individuals, viz. the rulers at the top, are superior to that of the others at the bottom or the sides. That cannot be the case. In a government of humans, all humans are free and equal; unlike the antiquated "Divine Right of Kings", dictatorships, or any government established by force. These latter will never achieve democracy. People must govern themselves, and the only way to posit anyone of its members at the Top, is by a process of election. Of course, many things can go wrong in the electoral process. These problems must be studied, monitored and corrected, but we cannot neglect their different natures. The only way that the Many or millions of people can be governed is where they themselves set out the structure of government and that can only be done with language and in writing. Of course, that can be problematic, but that was what was accomplished at the Constitutional Convention. Nevertheless,that fact does not mean that the Many or "the People" will always be contained or 'captured' in a general linguistic formulation. No, the nature of the top and that of the bottom must always be respected. Instead of just using words to describe democratic activity, we must use something more stable and fixed. This step is required because the bottom is a 'community' of real indidviduals, each having its own individuality and sanctity. Hence, we must use a different language viz. the language of Number. Each is different and hence 'number' and must be included in any 'democratic formulation'. The different nature of the top and the bottom compels a real approach to governing, i.e. it cannot be just 'empty talk'. The bottom 'wants and likes' to hear democratic talk, but it wants real contact; real inclusion and exclusion. Bridging the gap between the One and the Many is not easy, but every 'social' is entitled to it. It has a Right to it. If our leaders are as brilliant as they claim to be, they must figure it out. After all they want power.( which, of course, they are entitled too) But, the top must never forget the people who put them in that position. Difficulties abound,but surely, we, the people, have evolved in our 'democratic thinking' and 'democratic doing' to a level easilly distinguished from a stupid 1% at the top and a 99% at the bottom 'way of thinking'. Also, from an equally stupid position of allowing fictitous entities to participate in elections. That is not democracy, thats pure 'egoism' ( a false center of self-importance that blocks out everyone else). Egoism is very 'undemocratic'.