A democracy of 'People' has an absolute right to vote.

We have said that in a democratic form of government the Bottom or the People constitute the essence of democracy. A democracy is a government "of People" and "for people", so how on earth can voting laws be held not to be necessary? If the right to vote is impaired in any way ,shape or form, its not a democracy. To justify the vitiation of a voting law by saying " times have changed, we don't need them any longer" or similar words to that same effect, is like saying "we don't need laws or decisions that "declare that we are Free and Equal" either, because " times have changed " and we now "live in a different world. Laws declaring that we are Free and Equal are no longer necessary". Wow, and this from the "learned brethren of the Supreme Court"? That's what happens with Party loyalists who are more attuned to their Party ideology than to real democratic values. We still have problems with Freedom and Equality and we will continue to have them. We will also have problems with voting rights. Notice the immediate implementation of new voting regulations in some states and the 'invitation' to Gerrymander. How can we be an example of a free democratic Nation if our legal concentration is focused on Party conflicts or conflicts between Federal power and State power? How can we be an example to the International community? Unfortunately, the problem is a human problem. Its the people in positions of power that seem to lose their humanity when it comes to politics, power and money. Someone asked, "do states have a right to be treated Equally"? Hell, states are not people, they are not natural human beings. Rousseau said they were "fictions". That question really misses the boat. Its not about State power and its not about Federal power, its about human beings in a 'condition of togetherness' and their absolute right to vote and to be Free and Equal. Where are our Statesmen?

governments are artficial constructs

Governments are artificial. They would not exist, if it were not for 'Many' People. If only one, or maybe two, people exist on an Island, they do not need government. What for? Of course, we are not on an island and we are not alone on the planet. That condition gave rise to the ancient problematic of the One and the Many. Hence, some sort of governing becomes necessary. But, the undeniable fact is that human beings were 'here first'. Then came government and the need to govern. The point is that government is not natural, but it's necessary. However necessity does not confer 'power' and it does not create 'superiors'. Its the People at the Bottom of the government structure that should determine who will govern them. Its similar to a corporation. A corporation has real humans behind the corporate fiction. But, the corporation is a fiction, it really doesn't exist, and is recognized as such by the law. Even the concept of the State was called a fiction. Nevertheless, artificial things are not 'born' with 'power'. They only have the 'power' that is conferred upon them by individuals and the social conditions in which they exist. In the same manner, government being artificial, only has power that was conferred to it by the instrument that constituted it, viz. the Constitution. We are fortunate to have a Constitution in triadic form. Of course, it has to function properly and no one Branch is less important than the other. Unfortunately, everything created by humans is subject to the imperfections of the human condition behind the 'Offices' that are operative. We have been given the form and structure of government; we only have to practice it. But what happens? We divide into Parties! Sure, there's ways to govern and also better ways to govern, but the issue is never about the Fiction, its about the People and their rights. You and I need to be governed, but we need to be governed in the right manner.

Democracy doesn' just happen

Its important to know that democracy doesn't just happen. Governments, unlike the human condition, are not natural. They have to be established. North America is fortunate to have had a 'Founding event'. The basic argument among the Founding Fathers seems to have been the establishment and locus of political power. Since the colonies already existed and had jurisdiction over their inhabitants, the question was how is political power to be distributed between a Federal centralized power and the already existing State power. The result was a Republic which was something of a compromise. Its ridiculous to hear that the Supreme court is still making distinctions based on that compromise. The high court seems unaware of the fact that the basic consideration of the Constitutionality of a statute is the human condition. Humans set up the Constitutional Convention, humans gave both the Federal government and the State governments their right to be a sovereign political entity. They did this by exercising their right to vote. If anything impairs the people of their right to vote, it must be removed because that is what grants every political entity its sovereign power. The issue is the right to vote, not the power of the state vs. the power of the central government. Its not a contest between two autocratic rulers, its a contest among a Republic about the right to vote and the attempt to exert control over that right. A State may have certain powers but it cannot impair the Freedom and Equality of any individual within its jurisdiction; neither does the federal government. The human condition is natural and no government has the power to discriminate politically against it. No State government and no Federal government can be allowed to abuse the rights of the human condition. If the Supreme Court is setting a predicate to 'open the door' for later abuses, its not doing its job. Its 'playing politics'.

What is the human condition?

The individual is the essence of democracy and the human condition is the essence of the individual. Each individual is 'sacred' or, better yet, each individual is a mystery. Why a mystery? Because we have attempted to define and describe, by different means, what it means to be human. We have developed Psychologies, Philosophies, Sciences, Theologies, literature, Poetry, and many other disciplines and what have we come up with? Each discipline has a limited explanation within its own paradigm; one that usually excludes the limited explanation of the other disciplines. They can't even agree that we are all members of the same human race. They always apply a different criteria to the Other. They never agree. Can we say that we just don't know the answer? I certainly don't have a descriptive answer, but I can tell you that both, you and I, are an expression of the human condition and no one is going to tell me or you, that we are not like Other humans. We are Free humans and we are Equal humans. End of story! Of course, there will be differences, but not in the human condition. Maybe in possessions, money, property, prosperity, social status, and other cultural artifacts, but certainly not in our humanity. Another difference is the so-called 'political difference' that exists in the different Nations. Sure, we're born into a Nation that allows certain things that other Nations don't allow. But, all Nations are what they are because the People allow it. Leaders don't 'possess' power, leaders have been 'granted power' by the People. Whether the 'grant' of power was institutional and intentional, as in a democracy, or whether it arose through some default or neglect, political leaders are in positions of power because the People are allowing it. Truly, real strength is in Numbers and not in 'institutional power'. The mystery of life at the bottom of all political structures is what life is all about and no one can hold that back.

The essence of democracy.

The essence of democracy is 'the People'. 'The people' are constituted by each individual. Individuals, each and every one, are all human beings and each human being is a unique expression of life. Everyone is in the same unique situation on this earth viz., how do we survive? If there were only three or four human beings on the planet, it may not have been necessary to have governments. Who needs government? Better yet, who needs institutionalized government? Well, the case is that there are millions and millions of people on the planet and hence there has to be some kind of order among the multitudes. At this stage of life, everyone is born within an established Nation or Country and no one, really, has a choice as to where that will be. As someone said of the 'soul', "we are born in a dying animal". Similarly, we are born into a Nation or a political entity. 'Life' is not a choice, its an 'expression'. Each Nation may be politically different, but there seems to be a move in the direction of the democratic form of government. Why is that? Simply, because the 'condition of togetherness' has become necessary in order for any one individual to continue in his/her life on this planet; hence its necessary to come together. The many different forms of government become necessary in order to protect the individual within their jurisdiction. But, what is, or what should be, the unifying principle behind the formation of any government? Simply; the individual human being. Democratic government is a triadic form where power sits on Top and the Judicial interprets the expression and uses of that power and everything that is done is for the benefit of the individual at the Bottom who exists and continues to exist, in the 'condition of togetherness'. Without the 'condition of togetherness', we cannot survive. But, keep in mind; the most important aspect of any and all government, especially the democratic form, is that all government should be "for the People".

A real relation between the Top and the Bottom

Democracy works if the relation between the Top of government and the Bottom of government is kept 'real'. There can be no transcending of the relation by the use of words and 'meaning'. Language and meaning are abstract and unanchored in the 'real' world. That is an off-shoot of the so-called Linguistic turn. Of course, language doesn't have to be completely unanchored, but meaning free-floats in abstraction and is subject to political shenanigans. Political language has always been used to cause confusion. The so-called Linguistic Turn just confirmed its many inaccuracies and described its 'weak' referential aspects. Nevertheless, language can come under more control by referencing the 'object' of discourse in a mathematical manner. Reference can still work fine, but the object of the reference must be categorized numerically. Number does not lie nor does it misrepresent. If democracy is about the People and policy and law are introduced to keep democracy viable and functional, then the Bottom of government must be quantified. A government "for the People" must be for the benefit and protection of the People. There can be no other reason for having an institution called "government". The Constitution sets out its triadic nature. Of course, each Branch must do its share, but the Judicial Branch must, of necessity, be kept objective. Its "interpretive practices" must be objective and if there is any part of government that should not be subject to a Party ideology, it's the Judicial Branch. The Constitution is not a 'Party document'. Its an objective classification of what must take place in any purported democracy. That's why the People are given the Constitutional right to "assemble" and petition the government for "redress of grievances". The Constitution protects the People. That's why the People have a right to revolution.

Party loyalty!? Parties separate or divide-up the essence of democracy i.e. they fracture the Bottom of a triadic form of government which is the essential support of the Top of a democratic form of government. The Bottom may have parties but that's only to gather the individuals around the voting booths to support any one candidate. If an individual is a good worker, a good father, mother, a good tax payer, a good supporter of his, her, family, what difference does belonging to one Party or another make? Parties would be ok if they both supported democratic values. Unfortunately, Parties do not support the Constitution as written. In our form of government only the candidates for the Supreme Court are asked if they will support the Constitution before they are selected. This is supposedly to insure objectivity in implementing interpretive practices. (so much for that) Party has no place in Constitutional adjudication. Party loyalty only weakens the underlying form of a democratic government i.e. it weakens a government "for the people". Parties that say "less government" don't know what they are talking about. Equally the case, Parties that say "more government" is not the answer either. Real "less" invites anarchy while real "more" invites autocracy. Surely, power is necessary at the Top of government, but just plain "less" or "more" government is not going to work. Power must be exercised "for the People", if its a democratic form of government. Parties just 'fracture' the unity of the Bottom of government into factions that acquire an "imaginary" feeling of being in control of the political aspects of the social. "Party" divides the People. Democracy unifies the People at the bottom into a "strength" that emphasizes the Freedom and Equality of each individual. The strength of the Bottom is in Numbers. "Strength", in the social and in politics, comes from a political beginning point that celebrates the Freedom and Equality of each individual.

How can political power be confined to the political sphere. A democratic government gets its power from the Bottom or the People. There is no other source for political power. Autocrats don't have power, they use fear and violence to govern. The economy does not house power, it only houses 'buying power', which is not political power. 'Buying power' is merely a medium of exchange that allows for the purchase and ownership of whatever one wants. Buying power is economic power and that is separate from political power. Economic buying power should not be co-mingled with political power. Political power arises from the masses at the bottom, while economic power relates to the profit engine. No amount of economic power should be allowed to 'buy' or contaminate democratic political values. The economy is not democratic and the values of democracy have nothing to do with profits. One way of keeping political power and economic power within their respective domains is to eliminate all economic conditions from the exercise of democratic values required to run for office. The economic status of the individual running for office is not important in a democracy. No individual seeking political office should be hampered by economic demands. Hence, the process by which any individual can participate in a democracy must be purified. Another way to keep the democratic values pure is to eliminate all corporate influences from the political structure. Corporations are legal fictions and as such are not 'persons' nor 'citizens'. They may need protection within the economy but they have no business in the democratic process. Politics needs to purge itself from the 'corporate economy'. This does not mean that politics would be against all matters corporate, only that the corporate economy should not intervene within the democratic value system. One can visualize a healthier economic system without the interference of democratic values and a healthier democratic system without the interference of economic values.

Please understand, the democratic form of government is not a panacea; its not some universal cure-all. The problematic with government, all governments, is that they are 'arrangements' where-by a Top(the locus of power) purports to govern the millions of People at the Bottom. In order for the arrangement to function, the Top must house power. Of course, the Top, in all cases, is also constituted by one or several individuals that are exercising the power. Of course, it can be said that a government is probably as 'good' and 'effective' as the individual at the Top that wields the power. But this, should we make it a requirement, only changes the locus of power from the structure or form of government to the 'nature' of the individual at the Top. This does not work! Consider the Kingdom and autocratic forms. The problematic in the relation of the Power of One over the Many arises from the fact that the One ( at the Top )that rules the Many( at the Bottom) is always equal in his 'humanness' to each of the individuals constituting the Many(at the Bottom). There is never any superior human quality in the One. Nevertheless, it's also true that power can corrupt and absolute power can corrupt absolutely. Unfortunately, the human condition seems unable to wield 'power' in a 'healthy' manner. Hence the necessity, at the time that government is being formed, for the establishment of basic laws to form and structure the government. These laws should define the parameters and limit the exercise of political power. Political power should always take the form of a government of three Branches. One Branch exercises power, the other defines it, and the millions of people legislate the laws through their representatives. These basic laws delineate the parameters of political power. Of course, its at this point that we can renew our statement that democracy is not a panacea, (the fact should be obvious) viz. each of the Branches is occupied by some individual that is equal in his or her humanity as those s/he purports to govern. But, remember, power corrupts.... How can we attenuate this conundrum?

Any form of government can be changed or modified except the democratic form. A government that is established or determined by the Top i.e. from the place that houses power, is instantiated at the Top, defined by the Top and governed by the Top. Hence the source of power determines the forms power will take and the means by which it will enforce its laws or policies. Not so with a democratic form. A democratic form originates at the Bottom where the people reside. It is a government "of People" ( of course, other forms are also governments of People, but in those cases some group or individual acquires power, whether through conquest, fear, or violence, except, maybe, the so-called Divine Right of Kings.) A democracy is also a government "by the People" i.e. by the same People who are going to be governed. All elements in a democracy are important, but the most important is the third element: a government "for the People". Hence, a democracy is a government "of People", "by People" and "for the People". If a government " of People" and "by People" is formed but, if it is not "for the People", it is not a democracy. Even a government that purports to be a democracy; i.e. a government "for the People", but, in fact, is not, that government is a purported democracy, but not a real democracy. A real democracy also has political power at the Top, but its a granted power; a power granted by the electoral process exercised by the People at the Bottom of Triadic government. The Constitution describes a Three Branch form of government. That's a triadic form of government. The essence of any triad is the bottom of the triad because the Bottom supports the Top. Without a bottom there is no need for a Top. Furthermore, the Top does not create its own self and it sure can't create the Bottom. No government ever created you or I.( that's another subject matter) A democratic Government is created by the People and the bottom line is it is created "for the People". A real democracy "of the People" can never be changed. A non-democratic government that does not 'help' its People should be dismantled.

How can a democratic Country be changed? The truth is that it can't. A democratic Country cannot change itself from the Top of government, nor by means of the 'interpretive practices' implemented by the Judicial branch. Neither the Top, nor the Sides of Triadic government can change the nature of democratic government. Why? Its obvious that a government "of People", " by People", and "for People", can only be changed by the People at the Bottom. Hence, any real change in government must originate at the Bottom where the voters are. Of course, the Bottom is constituted by voters who are Constitutionally considered Free and Equal and hence are not about to impose limitations on their Freedom and Equality. Democracy is about the sanctity of the individual and hence voters will not limit access to the polls. Any statement about changes at the Bottom that are made by the Top or the sides of triadic government are at best vacuous. A democracy does not change except by force or political chicanery. Any attempt to change a law with respect to voting rights is an example of political chicanery and only the Top, and/or, the Sides can seek to implement that. The Bottom will never limit its own Right to the polls. Its impossible. To attack a law because 'the Country has changed' is to misunderstand the very basis of democracy. An Autocracy, a Dictatorship, or a Kingship, can make such a statement because in those forms of government, the Top defines the nature of the Country. Not so in a democracy. The Bottom defines the nature of the Country. The laws with respect to voting rights are good descriptions of the history of a Country's past practices. Those practices may be cultural aspects of a Country, but they are not legal aspects. The legal aspects are simply a Country "of People", "by People" and "for People". Hence, a law that reflects a cultural aspect must be kept intact, because it reflects historical practices and sets the foundation of present practices. To remove those laws is to remove the very foundations of the particular law and to open the door to future undemocratic practices. It's a move backwards instead of forward.

If 'conditions of Justice' on the National level are to escalate into the International level, they must be well established on the National level. Otherwise, the escalation into other Nations is not acceptable. It would not be acceptable because it would be more of an encroachment than an escalation of the dignity of the human condition. It is very important that the origins of the escalation into other levels have a method by which to objectively judge the success of the 'conditions of Justice'. Lets face it, economics has no place in this determination. Nor does political ideology, if the ideology is founded solely on linguistic definitions. That's what makes it a different ideology. Never shall the twain meet. When referencing 'the People' in a democracy, we must be very careful how we categorize the particular class of individuals referenced. Of course, the class "all" should not be problematic. Hence, we have to be careful not to 'carve' out certain individuals from the class because that would not be inclusive enough to be democratic. In other words, we must use Number in our category and not a nebulous verbal definition. "All" is all. If we use Number its signification does not change. It's application remains fixed for all time( no pun intended). Of course, other categories are not as easy as the category "all". But, the essential characteristics of a democracy is that it's a Peoples government and that means a government "by" and "for all" the People. The two essential ingredients of a democracy are the Freedom and Equality of each individual. That's one hell of a good beginning point for crafting a viable democracy. Sub-classes may be problematic, but if the two essential aspects of a democracy are kept in mind, the solutions are less problematic than if we use verbal definitions. Hence, we have to configure a methodology for applying democracy by using some kind of algorithm for democracy. Where are the Statesmen?

The sanctity of the human condition has always been the primary reason for forming governments. If it was not for the fact that millions exist in the world, there would be no necessity for governments. It was the People who created government and it was because they saw the need for Law and Order among the millions of People. Truly, we cannot live without government, nor without Law and Order. It was necessary that government be granted the power to govern. This became political power. If it was not for that particular grant of power, no one individual would have political power and everyone would be Free and Equal. The Freedom and Equality of all individuals is a condition of the Natural world. No one human being can be, nor should s/he be, superior to another. The only power in the world is that granted by the people of a political system. Hence, political leaders should govern by Law and Order and should not abuse the power that has been granted to them by the system. Political power is not greater than the Freedom and equality of the individual; the sanctity of the human condition is the paramount consideration. Of course, historically there have been different kinds of government. For example, there was The Divine Right of Kings; there were those who took power by force or conquest; or, those who just rule by brute force or fear. That is not political power; that's plain and arbitrary 'rule'. Government today is government "of People", "by People" and "for people". The most important part is the latter; "for the People". Government is no good, if it does not serve the People. The People are the sole beneficiaries of government, not the 'governors'; they are just doing their 'jobs' and usually only for a short time. The human condition can only survive if it's justly governed on a National level and ,eventually, one hopes, on an International level. Truly, Justice can escalate into the International Sphere, but it must first exist on the National sphere.

Values of Land, Gold, and Oil unified the 'old world' into one vast planetary world. Now, the electro-magnetic spectrum has made the planet more 'intact' and has connected everything closer together. Now, we can communicate on a personal level as well as on a political level. The political level is ideologically different. Can there be consensus and agreement across National political boundaries even if it's just to live together peaceably? Individual political difference and cultural difference can and should be protected even while there is some agreement on some aspects of 'peaceably living together' on the same planet. Its only right that any and all Nations should insist on their individual political and cultural differences and identities. Where, then do we go for some common element to help bring different peoples, different cultures, and different political identities together? It certainly cannot be an economic value. Economic value or capitalism is motored by profits and the struggle to upstage the Other. Capitalism is adversarial from its inception. There can be no economy and no capitalism without competition and competition is just another word for deconstruction. Call it what you like, but competition is just deconstruction on the level of the adversary and the level of the economy. So, is that bad? Absolutely not! Not for the economy. We need healthy competition. But can an individual compete with a huge corporation. Hell no! So, the smaller parts of our economy may still have a healthy competition, but the big corporations, at the top, still control the 'small' at the bottom. Hence we cannot look at the economy to furnish us with some binding values for the unification of the peoples of the world. The problem has to be perceived from the individual perspective. What does the individual human condition possess that is common to it, regardless a Nations political identity and its cultural difference? We have to look for a political system that incorporates into its structure the common values of the human condition. The answer is the democratic form. A government "of People", "by People" and "for People". People are people. Their Freedom and Equality is a universal quality of life that brings together every living human being within all political systems. The Freedom and Equality of each individual is what can unify us into a human race. we cannot be 'governed' by economic values; only by democratic values.

Today, there is less concern with land, gold or oil (although oil its still there and gold has been reduced to a 'collectible') than with the 'digital'. Computers, the Internet, the digital world has shown us that we no longer have our feet on the ground and that our concepts free-float across National boundaries on any one day. ( of course, we have to learn how to 'feet-float' instead of 'free-float) The land areas of the world expanded and connected with other areas and cultures. They made connections where there hadn't been any connections before. The world became larger so that it could later become 'smaller'. We now live in a 'smaller' world; a world connected by the electro-magnetic spectrum. Anyone can now communicate across National boundaries. Before the revolution with the electro-magnetic spectrum, the great motivators were land, gold and oil. From the Westward expansion, to the 'gold rush', then to the 'oil rush', those were reasons to go 'elsewhere'; even to go International. Now, the conditions and reasons for 'expanding' have greatly changed. The 'digital' moves in the 'opposite' direction. It moves to the 'integrity of the human condition'. At the same time it 'opens the door' to communicating with other human conditions. Of course, it also allows for just eliminating the 'Other' by focusing on the creation of weapons of mass-destruction. But, think of the possibility! If we could succeed in communicating the value system of a democracy i.e. the values of Freedom and Equality, how much 'better' we could form (across National boundaries) a "more perfect Union" of People. Of course, its not that simple! I know that! But the digital revolution has opened the door to 'expand' the lives of all human beings. And this process is not limited to politicians and Statesmen. No, all of us can play a part in the process because now, all of us can cross National boundaries with our 'talk'. Now, we can improve our own lives as well as the lives of 'Others'.

First, there was the 'land rush', then there was the 'gold rush', then there was the 'oil rush'; now, the oil rush spills over into the International scene. When the oil rush spilled into the International scene, the persuit of oil became an International issue. No longer did an individual or a Country have to be the 'owners' of the land to justify it's acquisition. Economic 'Value' immediately trumps democracy; the 'desire' for economic 'value' goes outside the National boundaries. In some cases, it lead to war. In contrast, Democratic values are personal values that are inherent in each and every individual. They never 'leave' the individual. The individual can interact with other individuals, even across National boundaries, but the individual always retains his personal integrity and dignity. That dignity is what the Constitution protects and that dignity resides at the Bottom of the democratic structure of government. Equally dignified and sacred, are all the individuals across all National boundaries. Where did it go wrong? Where and when did economic value foreground democratic values. Governments are upside-down. They emphasize economics over personal freedoms and equalities. Governments are more concerned with economic values(money and possessions) and 'weapons of mass destruction' than with democratic values. Yet, its democratic values that 'holds' a Nation together, The Nation also has a dignity and an integrity( or should have)and that integrity is determined by the cohesiveness of its people; not by economic values under the soil. Any government that does not respect, protect, and support the integrity and sacredness of its individuals is slowly, but surely, self-destructing. Lets remember that 'life' and human dignity does not come from government. Government merely has a duty to organize, respect, protect, and support the cohesiveness of human dignity. Otherwise, there would be no need for government.

There is something inherently wrong when a medium of exchange is not used as such. Money is a medium of exchange and if it is to function as it should within a capitalistic economy, it should circulate. The goal of such an economy is to make a "profit" and to provide the essentials for the People at the same time. But, what happens when money is hoarded or kept in the hands of just a few people? Money can be hoarded, in which case, it is kept from circulating. How does this phenomena compare with democracy? Democracy is a government "of People", "by People" and "for People". If money does not circulate, profits suffer and so does providing jobs, wages, homes, etc. "for the People". How can such an economy be brought under some control to insure the 'up-keep' of the social? Well, controlling a Mom & Pop business will not help, but controlling a huge corporate giant will. Mom & Pop businesses are 'people business'. They are run by actual people, whereas a corporate business is a collection of real people operating behind a fictitious entity. The sole purpose for organizing a corporate structure is to increase its 'economic grasp' and to protect the real people behind it. Well, if the structure is a fiction, it obviously cannot reap the rewards awarded by the fiction. But, the real people behind the fiction can reap the rewards. So who, then, benefits? of course, the 'owners' do. If there is to be any control exerted by government, to provide for the social, it seems that government should control corporations and not 'Mom and Pop stores". The 'economy' is using fictions to amass huge profits and either hoarding the profits or keeping profits 'centralized' to increase its size and strive for even greater profits and greater 'hoarding'. For a democracy, its a no-win situation. Its understandable why corporations are said to be 'to big to fail'. But, the dilemma is they are not providing for the 'social'. Why? Is it because they are hoarding all the benefits derived from the corporate structure? If capitalism is about profits, maybe its time to control the use of some of those profits. Example; Corporate tax rates used to be 90%, then reduced to 70%, and now 35%! Why? Its a case of the rich taking care of the rich and the government isn't helping when it changes from the value system of democracy to the value system of profits.

The power that exists at the Top of the triadic structure of government can never give-in to other value systems. The economy exists to create profits, it can never be a substitute for governing in a triadic fashion. Economics is not about governing and hence its value system can never replace government. Government can only be replaced by other governmental forms and that is not going to happen in a governmental form where the people have had a taste of Freedom and Equality. That's why Plutocracy doesn't have a chance in a democracy and that's why other forms are also at a loss. The only way that a 'Plutocracy' can govern is for some individual to hold all the cards(money) of a government. Of course, that assumes that economic values have been substituted for democratic values. In this way, that individual would have all the power. But, If that should happen or if 1% of the populace is hoarding most of the money, it wouldn't be long before the 1% begins to fight against the others within the remaining 1%. Lets face it, the motor for profits 'gone wild' is greed and if greed characterizes the top 1%, it wouldn't be long before the 1% is at war with itself. The same holds for other forms of Autocratic rule. Change from democracy to Plutocracy or Autocracy is not possible. Democratic rule is people rule and the people at the Bottom of triadic government are too many and too strong; especially in a democracy where it is Constitutional to rebel against a 'dis-functional' government. The First Amendment has given the people an 'insight' into their importance in the governmental structure of a real democracy. Consider it carefully; why should the governed have a Constitutional right to revolution? All the People have this Right because it was 'they' who granted the power to exist at the Top of government. 'They' select who 'sits with power' at the Top. Democracy will reign supreme so long as there are a few People at the Bottom. People with money do not have political power; they just have lots of money! ( thanks to democracy).

If the economy, capitalism, corporations and money are becoming the new value system of the social to the extent that government is influenced by it, maybe its time for government to get more involved in the economy, in capitalism, and in re-defining the proper place that money has in politics. By this, I mean its time to redefine the part that the economy, especially corporations, play in the governing process. Corporations are "fictions", yet, they are the largest most efficient producers of profits. At the same time, there are real human beings behind the 'corporate veil'. Corporations were created by government; they were defined by the Supreme Court; and they were afforded protection under the Constitution. Yet, corporations are not real human beings. How can they deserve better treatment than a real human being or how can they work to the detriment of real people? How can government protect the real human beings that lurk behind the corporate veil? How can the Courts continue to enlarge the corporate power base? If Government can pass law that protects it, government can require that they participate in the democratic process. Why not? It was democracy that set them up, why can't they be more democratic? Corporations are 'centers' of economic power while government is the center of political power and political structure. Hence, government encompasses an 'area' larger than the economy. The economy would be meaningless without government. In all probably, it could not exist. Whereas, government could exist with or without the economy. Just because the economy is important to the Nation as a whole, does not mean that the economy can upend the government. The economy must 'contain' its economy and that means some measure of democratic control. If there is no control over certain economic activity, its time we got some. Originally, some measures were enacted into law, but they have since been diffused or 'thinned out'. Laws designed to control corporations have no 'teeth'. Its time for government to get its 'bite' back.

The 'power' of government is at the Top, but the 'condition of togetherness' is at the Bottom. It becomes necessary to clarify the 'condition of togetherness'. It seems that most of what we read about in newspaper articles relates to the power of government and politics. Of course, that is important because it creates a record of the powerful forces at work within the social. Nevertheless, the essence of government are the People in a 'condition of togetherness', and who are situated at the Bottom of the structure of government. Is there a difference between being in a 'condition of togetherness' and living side by side, next to each other. Absolutely, the former term 'captures' the spirit or 'glue' of 'the condition', while the latter 'captures' the individuality of each individual living in the 'condition'. Both terms are important and both signify an important aspect of political and social power. The 'condition of togetherness' could not exist without the emphasis that creates the very condition, viz. the unique, human condition of the individual. Both are essential to the structure of government and both must exist in the structural configuration of the One and the Many into the form of a democratic government. Its at this point where language can be manipulated by politicians. Political language is usually about governing, but running for office is about promises made while at the Bottom, about what s/he will do, once at the Top. The politician relates specifically to the 'vote' while the power at the Top is exercised in 'generality' and is usually justified by statements such as; " political power is not about 'specifics' but about everyone". The problematic, at this point, relates too, how can power be exercised in general and yet remain democratic within the specific area covered. Laws and policy are tapered to fit certain parts of the social. Except for general laws or policies like, "everyone is free and equal" that apply to everyone, some laws apply to only a part of the public. The bottom line is the individual is the spirit of democracy and is always entitled to be counted, excluded or included, in all law and policy.

In Government and politics, the human condition at the bottom of Government is the most important factor. We've visited the Top and we've visited the 'sides' of Triadic Government and we've said the 'essence' of Government is the part that's being governed and that's at the Bottom. I don't think its very novel, nor original to say that human beings are the most important part of life on this planet. That should be obvious to everyone. Yet, we need to examine why the human condition is more important than either, Governments or the so-called concept of the 'State'. I don't think that the issue needs a lot of attention, because I believe that it's obvious. Nevertheless, it would not hurt to amplify a little. No human being can live alone. Of course, we don't have to test that because the degree of multiplication of the human condition very soon took over. Because we are Many, we must live in a 'condition of togetherness' or we perish. That applies to every Nation in the world. As individuals we must live together, and Nations must also learn to live together. No exceptions. An individual needs Government because s/he is not One. S/he is Many. Also, a Nation needs other Nations because it is not only One. But, lets stick to human beings. Human beings existed before Nations or before the 'condition of togetherness'. Once 'together', the Many individuals needed Government. The issue was how are we to govern the 'condition of togetherness' without discriminating against any one, Free and Equal, human being. The 'togetherness' is a necessary, secondary condition to being born alone. In the U.S., that's what the Founding Fathers were faced with. They came up with the Constitution, which was a triadic form of government that used every part of the triad. But, it was a People's Constitution, not some sort of fixed institution that could never be Amended or changed. The People were and still are, the most important part of the Constitution. Any form of government that institutionalizes the Top and trivializes the Bottom is wrong because it is a man-made institution that has merely delineated the parameters of governmental power. That institution is wrong because the people have no say-so in the Government. That's what happened to The Divine Right of Kings; to Dictatorships, and to the Autocratic form. In a democracy, each human being is important. That's why 'history' has called it a 'living Constitution'.

Political language is general, nebulous, and very unreliable. Of course, that's the case with language in general. All language is abstract, both the general terms as well as the specific terms. Each 'language discipline' has its own paradigm. If you want to do "science", you have to stay within the scientific paradigm, otherwise you are not doing science. However, politics does not have a paradigm. It is a special case of generality, confusion and unreliability. The reason being that government and hence politics deals with that ancient problematic called the 'One and the Many'. The relation between the One and the Many is a governmental or political relation. All government is about governing or ruling and all governing is about One or a few governing the Many or the People. The Top of any government must allude to the Bottom( the people)in a general way because there are many people at the bottom and the Many are those being governed. When 'governing', the Top must govern all the people. Of course, there are many different types of government, but democracy presents a novel language problem. The problematic is precisely that of 'abstract language' and generality. Of course, language should not be a problem in government, but because it purports to govern the relation between the One and the Many, it becomes problematic. The government relation is a problematic relation. Can that issue be remedied? I think it can, but it requires that we look at the relation in a fresh way. The Top of any government must relate to the Bottom in a realistic manner. In an Autocracy or Dictatorship, that's not a problem. What the Top says is what must be done. In a democracy, the Top must carefully categorize the individuals referenced in policy or law so as to include or exclude those referenced. In a general reference like "all people are Free and Equal", the term "all" must be 'real'. No reduction of the term must take place. "All" means all human beings. No 'reduction' to male, female, lesbian, gay, black, white, brown, red, homeless, etc.. unless the policy or law properly applies to a certain part of the population, e.g. employees, drivers, etc.. Categorizing is quantitative and quantity deals with numbers, not abstractions. Human beings within categories can be counted. Democracy is an equation and in an equation all numbers must be considered. If not, its not democracy.

'Top/Bottom' language is political language that originates at the Top of government and refers to the organization at the Bottom of government viz. where millions of people reside. Obviously, that makes political language very abstract and very general. When a politician runs for office, s/he is speaking from the Bottom and referring to what s/he will do when s/he gets to the Top. Obviously, the politician is making specific promises to the people at the Bottom that s/he claims s/he will keep when s/he gets to the Top. Therein lies one dilemma. The keeping of the promises from the Top will always be deficient, although honest in execution. There is always improper inclusion or exclusion. The general always includes the particular in some logical manner, but that is not necessarilly the reality. The reality in a 'condition of togetherness' does not necessarilly submit to the meaning and the logic of the spoken word. Each individual is real and each must be included in an 'equation of democracy'. An equation of democracy has a real relation between the Top of government and the Bottom. There has to be a real connection between the two and not just a free-floating verbal formulation. Of course, its not easy to do, but there is no other way the Top of government can claim to the power, Right, and authority to govern the Bottom. The positions of power at the Top are not for some sort of self-gratification or self-importance. Its a heavy responsibility and the Bottom (People) must be grateful to those who are properly placed in those positions of power. But, the positions cannot be abused. They cannot be used for the purpose of self-aggrandizement. The Many at the Bottom of government need someone to govern them. But, they do not need someone at the Top who abuses his/her elected position of power for selfish reasons. The Founding Fathers gave us the First Amendment so the People could "peaceably...assemble, and ...petition the Government for a redress of grievances". That is the Constitutional Right to revolution. Make no mistake, a democracy is a government "of the people", "by the People" and, the most important, "for the People.

All 'Top /Bottom' words are 'dirty words' in the sense that they are generalizations. When they refer to a political stance, they can be manipulated to the ultimate degree. Take for example, the term "Socialism". "Socialism" means, I guess, the 'social' or society as a whole. Well, everyone knows the 'whole social' cannot act as an entity. Only an individual or some individuals can act, and there are millions of individuals at the Bottom of government. No one individual can act on behalf of the 'social' in some totalizing way. Then why do we label some real individuals political activity as 'Socialistic'? There are no 'social acts'in the sense of some 'totalizing' political activity attribited to the entire Bottom of government. The term "socialism" is a bad selection of political terms. Come to think of it, so are many other political terms. So we have to ask, what in the hell are we? The answer is we are " individuals in a condition of togetherness", just trying to get along under government. We are a society and a government "of People", "by People" and "for People", and we were that, before we divided up into antagonistic factions using warped generalizations that capitalize on empty political 'talk', instead of learning to 'do' politics. To be sure, the term "democracy" has a real meaning, but the only way to keep track of it is to quantify it; (get out of empty abstractions) and form into a real 'condition of togetherness', formed by each and every individual at the bottom of government. The only way to keep track of "democracy" is to count each individual covered by any one policy or law which either 'includes' or 'excludes' certain individuals. For example, the democratic phrase, "everyone is Free and Equal". In a democracy, Freedom and Equality 'includes' everyone. We must include everyone. If we want to 'talk' we can use abstractions, but, if we want to 'do', lets use real democracy.

Every democracy has political problems. The reason being that if every individual is Free and Equal, s/he feels that these factors guarantee that they can do whatever they wish. That is not necessarily the case. Social activity must be kept within the parameters of the Law and the Social institutions of the democracy. But even then, lots of acceptable activities within these structural pararmeters can still be harmful to a democratic spirit. For example; the economy can flourish and the medium of exchange can be so productive that an individual or a corporation can amass great amounts of wealth and money. Thats fine, there's nothing wrong with that. However, when that individual begins to consider the accumulation of money and wealth as his/her sole social goal, that individual begins to confuse the principles of democracy with the principles of capitalism. Its at this point where an individual must realize that s/he also has duties and responsibilities to his democratic Nation. Democracy places a great weight on the shoulders of an individual. The individual must learn to sacrifice personal self-gain and egoistic inclinations in exchange for the opportunity of living in a 'condition of togetherness' with others, which is afforded him by the principles of democracy. The principles of Freedom and Equality from the Top down are generalizations that must be fitted to the individual responsibility from the Bottom up. The Freedom and Equality are still there but the duty and responsibility of the individual at the Bottom is also there. The problematic arises when the individual at the bottom substitutes capitalistic principles in place of democratic principles, in other words, Greed. When individual greed becomes institutional greed, we have money as the motive force of the democratic social. Then money becomes 'political'; legal fictions are allowed to participate in politics, and Party -loyalty begins to amass more wealth and money at the top 1% of the social. The process is self-destructive for the individual and de-constructive for the democratic social.

The economy of a Nation is a very important part of the Nation. But, its never more important than the government. If the government is a democracy; then its a government, "of people", " by People" and "for People". If the economy is considered primary, the government will be in the 'background' and will be 'motored' by economic principles instead of political principles. If that happens you might as well be considered a Plutocracy. Once money becomes more important than Freedom and Equality, the government "of the People" will be relegated to an almost 'non-existent' social level. Then you can depend on the fact that most, if not all, legislation will be for the benefit and the furthur enrichment of the already rich and the corporations. Even the so-called objective Supreme court, will render decisions like "Citizens", which is the most ludicrous decision ever decided. How can a "legal fiction" participate in politics and how can the decision be justified under the Freedom of Speech Clause in the Constitution? The economy is important and money is essential in a capitalistic economy, but economic principles cannot 'drive' a democracy. Economic principles are based on competition while democratic principles are based on the Freedom and Equality of the individual human condition. These are basic and different principles of organization. Democratic principles are about the political organization of the government and the social. They are about the Freedom and Equality of every individual within the social. No individual has to compete for his Freedom and Equality; its a given in a democratic social. The economy, to the contrary, requires competition among individuals and the Freedom and Equality of the individual plays no part in the scenario. Of course, even competition among individuals has been compromised, because no individual can compete with a corporation. The point is that economic principles and democratic principles of government are different. A democracy should be governed by democratic principles; an economy by economic principles.

One of the problems with a Democracy is that every individual is considered Free and Equal. Of course, this statement seems shocking. Why should that be a problem? Because Freedom and equality of the individual is the essence of a democracy. But, consider this. Some of the beneficiaries of the essence of democracy form into groups, or incorporate their business, or form into opposing Parties. Well, you say, that is democratic and has to be ok. But, the problem is that the motivation behind such 'formations' is not a democratic motivation. Its an economic motivation, or, more to the point, its for the purpose of concentrating the results of economic activity which is money or the medium of exchange. In other words, they use democratic principles to form autocratic organizations that impair circulation of money and concentrate it in a few individuals or corporations. This effects the economy, in general, of a free country. It creates an economy of the 1%. The 1% remains at the top while only a portion of the money circulates at the bottom and that portion is under the complete control of the rich and the same corporations. They establish 'autocratic groups' by means of 'democratic principles' and then destroy the very principles that got them to the Top. The economy is destrying democracy. Democracy is established by the Constitution and founds the government. Hence, Government should have more control over economic activity as well as corporations. Government creates corporations, why can't it have more control over them. Of course, not in any autocratic manner but, government should establish some 'balances' in the economy and corporations should be required to contribute to democracy. Democracy is the glue of a 'condition of togetherness'. Why should we let "fictions" use the principles of democracy to destroy democracy? If the 'human condition' of a few people cannot control its own greediness, then government must control it.

The decision to be constituted as a democracy was a "Big","Great", "Huge", "Enormous" personal decision. Anyway you conceive it, the Founding Fathers had to have 'sacrificed' a lot of 'ego' and 'self-interest' formulations. Imagine being in a position, where you could have retained just a little bit of 'egoistic or self-interest power'. How many of us would have done just that. They didn't do that! Instead, it became a government "of the people", "by the people" and "for the people". That move installed an 'ever circulating form of government', 'of the People', that places primary attention on all the people in the Nation. It unites the Top and the Bottom of government into 'a more perfect Union' of People. "We the People...", is the engine of the Constitution. The 'motor' of democracy becomes the individual in his 'condition of togetherness'. The individual, any individual, becomes eligible to ascend to the Top of government. But, it has to be a government that follows the 'interpretation' of the Constitution. That places a great responsibility on the Third Branch. That responsibility is one of 'objectivity' in interpretive practices. So why is the Supreme Court divided into 'conservative' and 'liberal' which just happens to be Democrat and Republican? Why is appointment to the Court related to the Party affilliation of the President, and most important, why are Justices Party affiliated? Why can't they just be objective? Democracy is democracy, its not Democrat or Republican. The Constitution does not belong to either Party. The Constitution 'constitutes' the People into a self-government; no preferrential treatment for anyone nor for any Party. Of course, Party members tend to stick together. Certainly each is entitled to its point of view. But, both Partys exist within a democracy. So,in the case of a democracic issue, why doesn't a Party see the issue as being a democratic issue and not as a Party-loyalty issue?

Politicians play with words; office holders use words to attempt to comply with Constitutional interpretations. Supreme Court jurists reason with them in order to twist meaning to comply with a 'Party-politics' view of the Constitution. I guess, the saddest thing in the world is the 'unreliable' use of language in a democracy. What can we depend on? Politicians use vacuous words to promise everything and when in office, do the contrary. Agencies stay within policy requirements of their agency and seek to enforce an ever-changing, nebulous Constitutional interpretation. Ah, but the Learned Brethern, the 'protectors' of our Constitution', use their great learning to 'create a hiatus' in the 'political winds' so that "legal fictions" can begin to usurp the "general welfare" of real individuals by giving then 'license' to be involved in the political process. How on earth did we get so stupid? Or maybe, its that the value of an economic system has replaced the value of a real democracy. The basis of the economy is a medium of exchange called "money". The basis of a democracy is the Freedom and Equality of each individual. Money is an economic value; a "medium of exchange", not a democratic value. Money is a medium of exchange, and as such, should circulate. Thats what its for! Of course, some 'hoarding' is necessary to prepare for the individuals future, but not in only 1% of the population. I'll bet that the 1% are either corporations, owners of corporations, or directly, or indirectly, related to corporations. The Court already protects these "fictions" and now, thanks to "Citizens", it has allowed one 'fiction' to support and buttress another fiction called "money" by allowing corporations to participate in a democracy under the guise of a 'freedom of speech'; "fictions" among millions of real individuals. What direction will the Nation take? "Alice in Wonderland" is a fiction, but there's more substance in it than our 'politics'. We have to learn to 'do' politics instead of just talking politics. We need to 'sink'our words on something solid or on the 'Bottom' of our triadic form of government.

What's an "entitlement"? What's a hand-out? Well, a hand-out is when a complete stranger gives to another complete stranger something or other. Once in a while, one reads where someone drives up to a street-corner and tenders a few bucks to someone completely unknown to them. Not many of those around and never done in a consistent or regular manner. An "entitlement" is not a handout, it's, as the word denotes, something someone is entitled too and is usually done in a systematic and consistent manner. Individuals are not necessarilly obligated to other individuals. Some people do become obligated to others and extend that obligation within the parameters of the obligation; like employers to employees, as well as employees to employers. (Works both ways) An "entitlement" also works both ways. Government is the only agency that can have a duty to grant so-called "entitlements" because it has a duty to the "condition of togetherness". Government has political power, because the Bottom of government(the People) has entitled those in power to occupy that political position. Without that position, no power. Political power is the only mandatory entitlement in a condition of togetherness. Outside of politics, power does not exist; only individuals with a political Right to Freedom and Equality. 'Might' might exist(no pun intended)but only if we equate it with guns and weapons of mass dstruction. But, might applies to 'things', not people. People have no power, only Freedom and Equality.( at least in a democracy) So, Social security, food stamps, Welfare, etc. are only duties or obligations the government has to the 'condition of togethernes' which grants office-holders the only entitlement in the world, namely, political power. The People owe government only the right to be law abiding and to remain within the confines of the Constitution; to the contrary, Government has a duty to the People under the Constitution, or to every individual within its jurisdiction. The word "entitlement" should be replaced with the word "Constitutional Right".

Democracy requires good laws; otherwise, the Freedom and Equality of a democratic government would create a chaotic condition. Of course, Law applies to every individual within the Nation and each individual lives under law as does the Social, its institutions, as well as the Top of government. Great care must be taken to insure that law is applied justly and equally because the individual that lives at the Bottom of triadic government is the essence of democracy. Everyone and everything exists under the 'roof' of the Constitution. If law applies to 'activity' that has the potential to create disorder within a democracy,it has the right to regulate the distribution of certain weapons within the social. That will not effect the Second Amendment. Not everyone is going to use weapons to kill innocent people and children but, unfortunately, some individuals, for whatever reason, will do just that. Hence, some control is essential. Will that control resolve the issue? Of course not! But, its a step in the right direction. Killing, murder, and mayhem will continue, but at least the easy availability of automatic weapons will have been made illegal. There is no such thing as an absolute solution. But, we cannot stand by and see atrocious acts against children being perpetrated in schools and not do anything about it. That would truly be a neglect of duty. The issue is not to control the mentally unstable because many mentally unstable don't kill children with weapons. No one can foretell when someone is going to lose their sanity and commit such atrocious acts. The best way is to control the easy availability of automatic weapons. How can anyone be against such laws?

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Wrong! People with guns kill people and people with automatic weapons kill many people. Thats why guns and democracy are not a good combination. What I mean by that last statement is that a democracy must have some law or control over the use of guns. Guns can be used for shooting targets, 'game', or for self-defense and protection of property. However, its unbelievable that some individuals think that some control of firearms is considered an attack on the Second Amendment. That's ridiculous. There is a proper use of firearms, but there is no right to take innocent lives of adults or children. Since deranged people can easily get firearms, why not control the EASY AVAILABILITY of automatic weapons. What is sought to be controled is the easy availability of automatic weapons, not the production of weapons nor the right of self-defense nor is it an evisceration of the 2nd Amendment. The proper use of weapons is not being controled, its the improper use of automatic weapons that is being controled. Too often, some 'nut' gets the urge to commit mayhem and takes the lives of innocents. Since weapons for that purpose are easy to get, he gets a weapon that will do the most damage. The saying, "guns don't kill people, people kill people" may be partially true, but why make it easy for the demented to kill many people. In the hands of some 'nut' guns do kill people, sometimes many people; sometimes children. That should be obvious, even to a lobbyist. Some control is essential. The easy availability of automatic weapons can be controled; the foretelling of a deviant personality that will go bonkers cannot be predicted. So, control the easy AVAILABILITY of automatic weapons. Keep in mind that a law cannot be ex-post-facto, and hence cannot deprive the present holders of weapons. But, future transactions can be controled and should be.

The fuel for a capitalistic economy is profits. The fuel for a democracy is Freedom and Equality. A Capitalist cannot survive under a non-democratic government. In the same way, a democratic government cannot survive within a 'capitalistic government'. The two value systems are different and must be kept separate. Once the fuel of capitalism begins to influence the Freedom and Equality of democracy, we're in trouble. Why? Because the value system of 'big money' has been substituted for the value system of democracy. Once that takes place, its no longer a question of freedom and Equality. It becomes a question of who 'holds' all the wealth or who is wealthy enough to govern. The strange thing is that most wealthy individuals are dependent on the Freedom and Equality afforded them under a democracy. Without that Freedom and Equality, they could never have accumulated that wealth. Yet, once wealth is acquired, greed sets in. Why should they try to dismantle a system that gave them that wealth? Why can't the two systems work together in a democratic fashion? Why can't economics and capitalism work within the structure of democracy without the need to dismantle democratic principles? The only way a capitalist can keep the wealth he or she has acquired is to keep government democratic. Therein lies the mistake of trying to establish a government by 'capitalism' or the 1%. If we get government by the 1%, its not going to be democratic. Its going to be 'capitalistic' and that means that profits will become the Ideal and that means competition by whatever means, which can only be to topple as many of the 1% as possible because 'greed' and being number 1 will be the goal. A Plutacracy cannot endure in a Nation that has the First Amendment and that has had a taste of Freedom and Equality.

The term "democracy" is a high level linguistic abstraction and is too general and hence allows for language manipulation and obfuscation at the more specific level. That's 'political language' for you. But, language just 'free floats' abstractly and never settles to the individual level in a 'real manner'. Of course, in all political activity, it becomes necessary to 'talk' democratically. But, we shouldn't ignore the fact that language can be useful for talking, but not for 'doing'. 'Doing democracy' is a different game. 'Doing democracy' involves the real individual referred to by the language of the policy or law. I have previously said that an 'algorithm of democracy' may be possible. In such a case, we can include and exclude each and every individual referred too by the policy or law. The importance of that is that everyone is counted and accounted for in policy or law. In other words no one is excluded from the accurate democratic policy or law being allude too. In such an algorithm, the individual is retained as a number which demands accountability within the equation called 'democracy'. The individual is not further reduced to the digital language of the computer. The individual is considered a number and is counted as an individual with all the mysterious qualities of the human condition. The reduced digitalization of computer language is just as unattainable as the generality of high level political abstractions. The real individual 'resides' somewhere between these two extremes. Democratic government is government of the real individual, not high level abstract ideals or low-level digitalizations. A government "of the People", "by the People" and "for the People" is a government by individuals, not computers. Turning government over to computers is as dangerous as turning government over to the 1%. Its not democratic and its not 'Freedom and Equality.

It's not the gun lobby thats strong, its the money thats involved. Without money no lobby would have an influence. Kinda sad, isn't it, that the real value behind political decisions and political positions is the amount of money generated in favor of a sector of the social. There are political, democratic values and there are social, economic values and never shall the two meet. Economic values relate to making money. Political values relate to Freedom and equality. Nevertheless, the two can be combined effectively within a democratic politics. The issue is not to exclude one by the other, its to include one within the other.In other words, we can and must protect the Second Amendment, but; that can be accomplished while regulating the easy, unquestioning, availability of automatic weapons that are usually used in conditions of war and assault for the illegal purpose of terroristic killing. I'm sure no one wants to limit the effectiveness of the Second Amendment,only the easy availability by individuals not entitled to that availability and who have an intent to mis-use them. Sure, making money is involved but look at the other side of that issue and consider the lives of children or other human beings. Don't stop the production of weapons, but stop the killings. Thats the issue. There has to be a medium somewhere. The shame seems to be that its become a money issue; not a human issue. The usual position is that if one limits the availability, that means less production,(and that means less money)but, if we examine the question carefully, we can see that it would have no effect on the production, only on the control of the means used by some to make these weapons available to anyone seeking them.(no questions asked) Maybe we should control the lobby. The lobby should insure that these weapons are only for a certain use and should justify that use as a legally accepted use. Why should producers make weapons that have no 'democratic' utility? After all, we produced "nerve gas" for use during war; are we going to allow that to 'go public' also? We need to get our values straightened out.

Q. What's a lobbyist? A.It's a 'non-office-holding politician' in 'economic garb'. Its not sufficient that corporations have a tremendous advantage over individuals, but some individuals give them the benefit of a 'lobby'. Again, its not for 'qualitative' reasons that lobbyists function within society, its simply for money. Many are ex-politicians. I guess, once money creeps into a life-style, it's difficult to let-go. Lets hope thats not always the case. The silicon 'Geeks' are rapidly replacing the corporate moguls in suits, so maybe there's a chance for the less-fortunate to help establish a real democracy.(maybe not) Time will tell. It would be nice to have someone from the bottom strata of society elevate themselves by the 'collar' to an influential position in the social and not forget from where he or she came. But, also try to consider the fact that 'computerization of the social' means basically, more quantitative control over activities and products of the people. Just as activity and products becomes 'more algorithmic', maybe the movement will expand to considering each individual in a democracy as Number; this would be a 'political algorithm' that includes the unique individuality of each person within any particular policy or law. Democracy is an equation with a Top and a Bottom. 'Quantification' of the social does not have to be harmful; on the contrary, it can insure that each individual is counted, included or excluded, within any particular policy or law. That way a government of the people, by the people, and for the people can have a 'flourishing individuality' as opposed to 'haves' vs have-nots'. Non-discriminating quantification or less Party-politics can be a good insurance policy against 'democratic' exclusion.

"Power" at the Top is a given in a properly organized democracy. It issues from the Bottom. "Strength" in a democracy is the result of a properly organized Bottom; that's what the phrase, "Strength in Numbers" means. That is also one reason for having a First Amendment which guarantes the "right...to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". That is a Right of revolution. The only reason for such a 'Right' is the fact that a democracy is a government "of people", 'by people" and "for people". The word 'people' does not include a corporation. Thats a separate entity; its a "legal fiction". A corporation does not have 'political power', it has economic value. But, corporations should function within the economy and not interfere with the 'political'. Of course, government is 'run or 'operated' by people and corporate 'fictions' are also run and 'operated' by people. Thats an inherant weakness of democracy. Unfortunately, people are anxious to increase their 'holdings' and hence succumb to the value systenm of the economy. There's nothing 'wrong' with that; but don't 'run' for office. 'Polititians' and 'statesman' that run for office should understand that they are 'running' for a noble position of authority; one that 'grants' political power. There is no other source for 'power'. Power is an endowment; it could even be said that its an entitlement. If one occupies a political office, one is 'entitled' to the power of that office( for a limited time). What is faciciously referred to as "entitlements" by some polititians ( Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,etc) is a terrible, political mis-use of language. Government only has 'duties' to the People; it doesn't grant 'handouts' to the people; government is just doing its job. Polititians and statesmen who 'run' for office are 'asking' to be placed in a position of power; hence they have a job to do. Whats so difficult with that? Its only for a limited period of time. Once 'you' leave office you won't have power. (Are examples necessary?) The problem is not with democracy; the problem is with the people who 'run' it. The circulation of money in a democracy is essential, but not its greedy hoarding by a mere 1%. We have too many polititians; where are the "statesmen"?

The 'haves' and the 'have nots'; how often do we read about this social phenomena and what does it mean? Of course, everyone knows that it refers to a 'level' of 'living' and 'owning' that reflects all the economic benefits reaped within a democratic social. The 'haves' even have a publication that lists the top 10, or whatever; while the 'have nots' aren't even mentioned. But, the real issue is why should a democratic social be measured by an economic principle? Democracy must be measured by political principles while the economy can be measured by economic principles. Economic principles cannot and should not invade the domain of democratic principles. Success in a Democracy must be measured by democratic principles. The basic principle being the Freedom and Equality of everyone. But, we all know that the economy is not a level playing field because it has 'legal fictions'(corporations) that are not human and that are protected by democratic principles. They have been created to increase the economic grasp of the human condition. That move did away with competition. The only competition a corporate economy has is among themselves. The individual is completely out of the economic-competition game. The only competition for humans is on a much more smaller scale. The economy functions with 'profits' not Freedon and Equality. Hence, the economy does not have a duty to the individual. But,if government indirectly created the un-level playing field, why doesn't it have more control over the 'fiction'? The imbalances in an economy are created by corporations. And if the 'power' of government issues from the Bottom of democracy, why doesn't government create a more balanced economy? Of course, we all know that such programs are called "Entitlements"-which is an intentional 'political' mis-use of the word- but doesn't government have a duty to the people? The economy surely doesn't, but if government gets the only "entitlement' in the world called 'political power' from the People, why not try to balance the economic conditions of the Nation? Please, I don't mean 'hand-outs'( no one wants a hand out); I mean a 'fair' amount of Social Security and other earned social benefits. Surely the People have to learn to live within a democracy, but government has a duty to implement democracy. Maybe, its time for government to do its share!

One of the reasons for conceiving the Bottom of democracy as Number is the pejorative connotation of the term "socialism". The term is usually mis-used and done so in a highly inflamatory manner. Properly used the term refers to the Bottom of democracy, but the bottom of democracy in a triadic, Constitutional government is conceived differently and refers to each and every individual,living with others in a 'condition of togetherness' viz. each individual is bound with the other individuals into a 'condition of togetherness'. Law is one aspect of that binding. In this way,they form a "more perfect Union", i.e. a more perfect Union of individuals. The Union is of individuals,(We the People) not States. Its the real individual who is important in a democracy, not the abstraction "the social". Of course, the term can also be used abstractly, but the implication is that the "social", as a whole, is a form of government. It's not! The social, as a whole, cannot govern. Only the Top of government can govern because only the Top has power. The Bottom is the essence of government and the Top must govern according to the Constitution for the benefit of the individuals at the Bottom. Of course, the term, "socialism", is always used in a pejorative manner as when one Party refers to the policies of the other party. Its usually an allusion to the term "Communism". That is unfortunate but it just points to the huge difference of opinion within our Union of individuals; its called Party politics. All political Parties should be for democracy, not some self-serving Party ideology. However, the term "social" or the term "society" are valid ways to refer to the individuals at the Bottom of a democracy. Thats why we should conceive the bottom of democracy as Number. Number is a quantification and can be used to delineate exclusion and inclusion. 'Keeping score' of democracy becomes a lot easier and it avoids the inflamtory term "socialism". Its the Bottom of democracy that grants power to the Top of government. It does this by means of the electoral process. The problem with the electoral process is that it functions by 'representation' and that requires a choice to be made by the representative; a choice between the 'personal' and the 'political'. The good news is they serve only for a short time.

Power is a 'social' given; it arises from the 'togetherness' conditions of existence. It applies only to large social entities and not to particular individuals. Hence, it applies to the Nation. That makes power applicable to the political because the political applies to the Nation or the society as a whole. There is no political power on the individual 'level'. No political leader can apply the force of power acquired from the Constitution to any one human organism. Humans are Free and Equal and hence are their own 'governors', which ,of course, places a responsibility on the individual to stay within the parameters of Just law. But, the Nation or the social or sub-categories of the social, as political entities, are subject to the power of law and political policy. Hence, a democracy "of people","by people" and "for people" is governed as a Nation, which includes 'a social', or a sub-category of the social. Government is for the Many and the application of policy and law to the Many at the Bottom must be objectively consistent with the Form of the Constitution. This objectivity should be Numerical and should apply to individuals as Number. With Number, one can compute inclusion and exclusion properly. General laws and policy should be subject to reduction to Number which can render inclusion and exclusion more exact, more practical, and less confusing. If quantification is a tool available to science and renders science accurate, why not use that to better achieve democracy. There is no other way to 'balance' a democracy for the 'General Good' at the Top as well as the Freedom and Equality of the individual at the Bottom. Maybe this approach can really help us to try to make politics into a science. We already use the term, "political science", but if anything is remote from the appellation "science", it's politics. The reason for that seems to be that polititians are more concerned with their own welfare instead of the General Welfare propounded by their disipline. We cannot exist as a Nation when selfish welfare creeps into our political decisions.

Power is political. Influence, by whatever means, is personal. Personal influence extends to other individuals as individuals within the social. One friend can have influence over another friend. An individual can also have influence as a leader within the limited structure of a social institution. However, power being political extends to the governing of all the individuals in the social or as a 'limited' group. Of course, referring to the social merely by a linguistic concept can be very nebulous, because the social 'group' may include different races or individuals. This was the case with slavery. Humans who were slaves were not included in many Constitutional and legal categories. Thats why it's best to refer to the individual within the social as number. All I mean to convey by that statement is that each human being is included within the category being referred too. If the Constitution states, or is interpreted as stating, that every individual is Free and Equal,that means 'everyone'. If we use a 'quantified' term, the individuals to which it refers, cannot be mis-understood. Governing individuals is governing human beings in a 'condition of togetherness'; everyone must be included. Inclusion and exclusion can be better calculated with quantities than with 'meanings'. Meanings change, numbers are always the same. Of course, language is essential, but when it comes to the application of a Constitutional or legal right,the quantification of the part of the social to which the Constitution or law relates too, is better understood as a quantity than as a 'meaning'. Number cannot be mistaken and is less confusing. Why should we require more accuracy with the application of Constitutional and legal rights? Because the Constitution constitutes us and is formed in such a way as to protect each and every human being under its 'roof'. Government exists because the People created and formulated the Constitution. All government must comply with the Constitution. In any government, its the People who are important.

Of course,there are many institutional 'offices'or positions that are said to be 'powerful'. But, that is not what I mean when I say the only power in the world is a political power. Certainly, teachers, coaches, policemen, preachers, priests, Popes, presidents of organizations, CEO's of corporations, and many government officials are said to be 'powerful'. A better word to describe that kind of authority would be influencial. Certainly, the above and many other positions have authority and can 'influence' the members of the related social organization. But, none of the above have the power to establish Law and to enforce it. The policeman, at whatever level, can enforce it because thats his/her job. Law and Order is a parameter imposed on all social activity. Only a government can pass these laws and try to establish order in the social. The very basis of social order are the laws designed to delineate and contain that order. In a democracy, Constitutional Law is what holds the Nation together and gives it it's integrity. Without this power the One could not govern the Many. This is real power and its a political power. If one violates a law, s/he compromises her/his Freedom ( not the Equality)and is punished. Hence, political power exists on the National and State level and attempts are being made to apply it on the International level (but thats another story). Why should a Nation or government wield such power? Thats a power over human life! Because, no One or few individuals could possibly govern the Many at the bottom of government. Power is essential at the Top of government but it must follow the parameters established by the Constitution. Anything outside the Constitutional arrangement, especially in a democracy, that has power or influence over the offices of government is a danger to a democratically 'arranged' social. That,s precisely where money comes in. When money influences political office, we're in trouble. Money belongs in the economy, not in politics. If money influences politics and politics is the originating source of real power, we no longer have a democracy based on the Freedom and Equality of the individual. We have changed our democratic values and replaced them with an economic value system. We then live in a society where money is 'King'; in a society of the 1%.

The only source of power in the world is a political power. Individuals, per se, don't have power. Nevertheless, it is the individual that wields the political power of the Nation. The issue becomes an individual matter from this perspective. We are as 'safe' as the leader of any Nation wields his/her political power. At this point, we are concerned with democratic forms of government, not autocratic forms. So, how are leaders chosen and what motivates leaders. The 'how' of choosing a leader is a political problem. The 'motivation' of chosen leaders is a more personal issue. What motivates a politician to 'run' for office? Of course, that's a very personal isssue and a very complex one, even for the person seeking office. But, we can delineate a few general parameters of any 'seeker' of political power. S/He chooses to spend her/his life in office. S/He has a life and a duty. As everyone else, even a politician has a right to a 'life'. But, unlike everyone else, s/he has duties to a government. In a democracy, those political duties should gravitate toward the people at the Bottom. Increasing the freedom and equality of the individual and protecting those Rights, at home and on the International sphere, is the sole purpose of government. Why else organize the One and the Many in a democratic form? Of course, there are many other collateral and sub-issues that tie-in to the major one, but we're right back to the question of why 'run' for office, but this time we're on a more personal scale. Why 'run'? The political reasons have been sketched above, the personal reasons have to relate to the personal welfare of the individual. Of course, his/her lifestyle changes for the duration in office. How about his/her personal wishes after s/he leaves office? Most have a different life-style from the one they had before and they are in high demand for 'social and political' functions. But, were decisions made, while in office, to bolster and help personal priveledges after leaving office? In different words, were decisions based on economic reasons designed to increase a personal economic value as oppossed to a political value? If so, the decision was not a political decision based on democratic values. At every step, an office holder is faced with the welfare to 'himself/herself' and the public duty to the welfare of the individual in a democracy. Public office reaps many benefits, but it is also the most arduous office in the world. A real 'States-Person' has 'the general welfare' of the individuals at the front of all his political decisions; s/he already has a confortable personal life. The distinction between a 'States-Person' and a politician is sometimes based on which of the two is sacrificed, the personal or the public.

Power is a much mis-understood term. There is no such thing within the personal, individual sphere. A political leader acquires the power of political office by virtue of the structure of government. Outside that office,( it can be said) s/he is powerless. Its only the political previledge that bestows such immense power. And,(it must be said) only a democratic form of governement can bestow such power, because it emmanates from the People in a condition of 'togetherness'. Persons cannot have power, they have different strengths and they also exert different influences. But, personal strength and influence is just personal strength and influence. Nothing is acquired from the 'social at large' because each individual in the social has the same 'freedom' and 'equality'. Money does not confer power, only the ability to purchase. However, a functionary of a democratic governmnt, regardless his strengths and personal influence, gets his/her political power by virtue of political office. There are no superior human beings in the world. Everyone on the planet is in the same 'boat'. Our only hope is that those in power will reflect wisely and try to continue the existence of the human race. Of course, every human being has an obligation to his/her own self; but, every politician has an obligation to our 'condition of togetherness'. Power only exists on the political sphere and International power only exists between Nations as Nations and only within an Internationally organized government. But International Government and power must seek equilibration between Nations just as National power must seek equilibration of the freedom and equality of each individual. Only the people can 'confer' power. There is no other way to acquire power in this world. The other ways are illusory and depend on guns, weapons, and money.

There comes a time when the inner workings of a democratic Nation must assemble behind their leaders. Such is the case today. Sometimes the International sphere gets out of balance and belligerent words begin to dominate the International rhetoric. Of course, the International sphere has more variables than any one National sphere. In a democracy, each Nation has an obligation to its People, but it also has an obligation to the International sphere. However, some Nations are not concerned with the first obligation and instead think about ways to acquire control and rule other Nations. The only possible reason for that attitude has to be because of the need for more egoistic,personal Power over the International sphere, or more weapons of mass-destruction with which to acquire more personal power over the International sphere. But, this attitude pre-supposses that the peoples of the Nation are totally behind their leader. There are two reasons underlying that National attitude. Either all the people support their leader or they become the victims of their leader's whims. I doubt very seriously that every man, woman, and child,including young people, who are in the military and those who are not, prefer a condition of war instead of some peaceable solution.( especially in the International sphere) So,the issue is how does one get some control over such a dangerous condition? Unfortunately, the problem reduces itself to a personal problem. If the leader had weapons of mass destruction, he would have already started something besides just talking. Hence, the problem gets very personal; one that requires a better relationship between the leader and his People. Of course, Revolution within the Country is the answer. However, it's an over-simplification to state that that solution is easy. The reason being that they don't have a First amendment, viz. the right to assemble. The Peoples of a dictatorship are compelled to follow their leader. Hence, either the leader 'changes' his mind or the People revolt. Revolution is difficult in a dictator-ship; the former can only be viable in a leader that understands his primary obligation to his own people. Surely, there's enough work to be done within the Country, than to extend the limits of personal power outside its boundaries into the International sphere. This attitude calls for a re-focus of personal power within its proper political domain (where it belongs) and not Internationally. There are many Countries that in their 'togetherness' can organize for the purpose of imposing International stability. Lets hope the leader re-evaluates his decision. Sometimes 'power-hunger' is 'allowed' within a Country, but extending it Internationally is not allowed.

Democracy is not without its problems. A government "of people", "by people", and "for people", is not 'home free' simply because it's democratic. Unfortunately, the first thing that millions of free and independent people do is divide themselves into political Parties. Political parties are usually at loggerheads. These differences can become politically vicious. Can anything be done about the Party-system of democracy. Yes and No. Of course strict compliance with Constitutional government as set out in the Constitution may help attenuate the antagonism. In other words, a Triadic government whose Branches are always in motion viz. one Executes, one Interprets, and one Legislates,( according to democratic values) may off-set some of the antagonistic elements in Party politics, but that pre-supposes that each Branch is functioning according to democratic values. By that I mean that each Branch emphasizes and implements the Freedom and Equality of the individual, which are political values of a democracy, and no Branch is being influenced in their political decisions by other value systems. What other value systems? Well, try economic values. Economic values are not values that can be 'used' in governing. Democracy is about People, people need to be governed; economics is about profits, both people and huge corporations want to make big profits. The goal of each institution is not the same. A democracy requires governing and that means Constitutional democratic values; not economic values. I think most people can 'see' that, but greed overcomes the best of intentions and some of them want to ascend to levels of power from where they can increase their booty. Enter the Party system. I don't mean that any one Party is solely motivated by economic values, but democratic values ( the motor of democracy) are being overcome by economic values( money). Its getting to where people would rather have lots of money than being free and equal. Unfortunately, all political Parties are influenced by the 'holy dollar' and the big corporation. Competition between individuals is not 'bad' per se, but who can compete against the big corporation? No one! And its the government that creates the corporate monster. The economy then divides the economy into Big business and Little business. More divisions! Why? well, it allows the little guys to feel like they are functioning in a free society, while the Big corporations assume control of government. Little business meeks-out a living while Big business acquires political punch and ascends to the top 1%. Democracy falls and Plutocracy ascends. Where are the people? They are in a state of acquiescence. They witness the battles between political parties and the corporate behemoths and the best they can hope for is that something will fall to the bottom. After all, democracy is about the People.

The term "revolution" has acquired a bad connotation. Just like the terms,"riot", "demonstration", "uprising", and even the limited term "strike", are perceived as harmful to organized government and organized work. Of course, using these language terms in isolation is usually perceived in a negative manner. But, we must place these terms and other similar terms withing the context of the organized structure of government and of organized work. There is only one structure of government and that is the Constitutional structure, or stated differently, the triadic form of government. Any organized activity falling outside the triadic form of government is usually interpreted as being harmfull to the inner workings of organized government. But, that is not always the case. Sure, democratic government must follow the Constitutional structure and if it doesn't, then its not Constitutional. But, the nature of democratic government is founded on the freedom and equality of the people that inhabit triadic government. It is the People who help establish the government and who elect the representatives into the triadic form( A few exceptions, like appointing Supreme Court Justices). Once the government is established it continues to function from election to election in a 'Representative' manner. The term 'Representative' is also a term with many 'faces'. Thats a problem that exists in a democracy. The Founding Fathers knew that not all Representatives( in whatever office) were going to be faithful to their elected duties. Hence, the First Amendment; the freedom to assemble and petition for redress of grieviances. That is a right to revolution! Hence, the term "revolution" is Constitutional and a legitimate way for the People to bring about changes in a government that is going in the wrong direction. The term provides for action ( in the proper circumstances)within the structure of democratic government. The other terms have a similar denotation. The more limited term, "strike", allows workers to petition the corporate structure for better work 'conditions'. These terms allows People outside the 'structure' to petition for better conditions and for changes within the structure. Thats the only manner that a democracy can function. Otherwise, we are victims of the system. In the right circumstances, all these terms are democratic.

A democracy must function only with democratic principles. Of course, that's obvious, but what is not so obvious is the easy manner in which democratic principles co-mingle with economic principles. A well established democracy may have a capitalistic economy, but the principles or goals of capitalism can not be co-mingled with the basic principles of a democracy. Of course, profits and money are as essential to a well balanced economy as they are to a democracy. However, profits and money cannot be the 'motor' behind a democracy. Of course, they are the 'motor' of a capitalistic economy, but the 'motors' of democracy are the freedom and equality of the individuals. Government must protect and defend the freedom and equality of all individuals, while capitalism must circulate the medium of exchange, make profits, and encourage competition. Capitalism is about profits and money; democracy is about freedom and equality. One big problematic in politics arises when big corporations or very rich individuals begin to acquire control over government or government agencies and try to gain advantages over the democratic form. The result is government of the wealthy, by the wealthy, for the wealthy. That's what is happening with the so-called 1%. If the trend continues, the freedom and equality of all individuals will not 'motor' the democratic process. In such a case, the value system of the democracy is replaced with the value system of the economy. These value systems must be kept separate. Democracy will not work in a Nation where only the wealthy have a say-so in the governing process. Democracy will not work in a Nation ruled by the 1%. As soon as the People learn that democracy is about freedom and equality (not money), and as soon as they learn that the Constitution protects their right to 'assemble' and petition for redress of grievievances, they will 'assemble'. In the right circumstances, the people have a Constitutional Right to revolution.