The State is a necessity; Capitalism is essential; the People in a 'condition of togetherness' is essential.

A State cannot exist without a 'People'. A people cannot exist without an economy that provides the 'essential necessities' of existence in a 'condition of togetherness'. Without a 'condition of togetherness' a State cannot come into existence. Hence; the State exists only for the purpose of providing for its People. The State has no other reason for existing and cannot be said to have an existence separate and apart from the People. States are not created by nature; nor do they 'acquire' Political Power for any purpose, other than for the Political Institutions provided in a Constitutions. A Constitution 'constitutes' the concept of the State and delineates the 'States structure' and the ramifications of its Power. The State gets its political power from the 'Peoples' who have 'Constituted' it. Capitalism is essential in a 'condition of togetherness; an economy must provide for the necessities of the People; but both, 'Capitalism' and an 'Economy' are separate Institutions from the 'Institution of the State' and its Government. Government can pass Laws to regulate the economy and Capitalism, but Capitalism and an economy have no 'say-so' in governing a People. To be sure, they have a great influence on Politics, but they cannot 'Govern'. The influence of Money and the 1% must be kept separate from the 'duty to Govern' the 'condition of togetherness'. This problematic is not just a 'political problem'; its also a 'People' problem. We've said that the minute a 'condition of togetherness' comes about, the Individuals 'divide themselves' into Groups or factions. For example; Democrats and Republicans. Consider what is happening to the Republican Party today. Its 'self-destructing' and its members are saying they will not 'cross-over' and nominate a 'Democrat'. How 'mindless' and 'senseless' can the so-called, 'cream of the crop', or, 'Candidates', seeking Office get? Its not the 'Party' nor 'Party loyalty' that is important, its the real 'Individuals' in a 'condition of togetherness' that is important. How sad. When a 'condition of togetherness', divides up, it seems to lose its 'humanity'.

Capitalistic values are displacing Democratic values of Freedom and Equality.

The Capitalistic values of 'more and more of the same',viz., profits and money, are displacing the Democratic values of Freedom and Equality. Democratic values cannot be 'driven' by profits, money, and possessions. Democracy can only be driven by the democratic values of Freedom and Equality. Money, possessions, and profits cannot drive democracy; they can only 'drive' Capitalism. Its shameful and sad to think that money, profits, and possessions, or stated differently; the 1%, can drive democracy. The 1% can only produce more of the same, or more money, or, more Capital. The 1% cannot protect Freedom and Equality; the 1% can only destroy the Freedom and Equality that allowed Capitalism to flourish. Without Freedom and Equality, Capitalism would never have been able to survive. It was the Democratic values that allowed it to flourish. So why can't Capitalism be required to protect the very Freedom and Equality that allowed it to flourish. If Freedom and equality are 'abused', the Law 'curtails' their expression. For Example; 'Freedom of speech' does not allow an Individual to cry "fire" in a crowded theater. In the same manner, an Individual in the economy should not be allowed to 'hoard' the medium of exchange, to the point where most of the 'medium' is 'held' by the 1%. A 'medium of exchange' should do 'just that'; it must 'circulate' both 'Governmental' and 'economic values'. 'Rules' and Laws should be established to 'help' the circulation of the 'medium' in the economy. Otherwise, the 'end result' of profits as a 'motor', and, 'if left unchecked', is to generate 'more and more' of the same, or, stated differently, it 'generates Greed'. If Government can create economic Fictions, it can 'establish control' over the cumulative aspect of profits, or, 'that accumulation' called 'Greed'. After all, they are only Fictions; and if they do not comply, yank their Articles of Incorporation. Government must 'solve' that problem; if not, Government will be 'ruled' by Corporations. Its not too late to pass new Laws to 'clean up the economy', or, to curtail Plutocracy.

An economy is necessary to Democracy; but the division into 'haves' and 'have-not's' is not.

An economy is necessary to Democracy, and so is Capitalism, but the further division into 'haves' and 'have-not's' is not 'necessary'. Of course, the motor for Democracy is Freedom and Equality and the motor for Capitalism is profits. But, profits can function without 'Greed'. The accumulation at the Top 1% is not necessary to the 'Capitalistic Spirit'. The cause of that 'accumulation' is two-fold. One, personal Greed, which probably, cannot be overcome, or, at least, becomes a 'personal'matter'. Two, the Other is Institutional and Legal. By now, everyone knows that Corporations are considered as 'persons' withing the grasp of the Fourteenth Amendment. That's not 'too bad', but, the further 'humanization' of the fictional nature of the corporation into 'participants', in their own 'economic process' of 'self-evolution', or, 'self-inflation', i.e. into becoming 'fictional behemoths', in the economy, is certainly something that can be 'institutionally' and 'Legally' controlled. In a Democratic society, the human condition, itself, cannot be 'controlled'; i.e. the personal 'human emotions', and value systems, are not subject to 'control. But, most certainly, a 'Fictional creation', like the corporation, can be controlled. The fictional entities in our social need more democratic duties. If a fictional 'person' can be created, for the sake of giving it more 'economic permanence', more 'focus' and 'greater economic grasp', in the economy, why can't the corporation be given 'democratic duties'? If a corporation is a 'personal fiction', the Government should have more control over the democratic duties of the 'created fiction'. Why should a democratic Government create a 'despot', an Autocrat, a Dictator in its own Capitalistic economy? That does not make sense. The end result is 'haves' and 'have-not's', the 1%, and the further cultivation of a Plutocratic 'attitude' in the social that leads to 'economic classes', and the 'Deification' of 'profits and money'; a politics that becomes 'motored' by money, and the 'inching', closer and closer,( if not already there), to Plutocracy. Why has Capitalism taken over our social? where are our Leaders? and where is our Democracy?

There's a fine line between "news-worthy" events and "gossip".

In the Media, there's a fine line between "news-worthy" events and "gossip'. Most news-papers report 'political events', entertainment, 'every-day' occurrences, births, deaths, and even a 'comics' section.( of course, there's more) But when it comes to political events, the media must be objective. That's not easy, because the newspapers are owned by Individuals who have a political preference. Every daily 'news-paper' is a 'complete picture', or a 'micro-cosmos' of 'one day' in the continuum of Time. One has to look at a daily newspapers as a 'somewhat accurate' reflection of the occurrences within any 'one day' in the 'condition of togetherness'. Media must report the 'complete occurrences' of the day. That's why media is important to politics. Of course, its not easy to capture the 'whole day' in any 'form of completeness'. Nevertheless, the 'condition of togetherness' must be informed about the 'daily happenings' in the Nation. Hence, 'political reporting' becomes necessary. But, political reporting can easily slide into 'gossip', instead of the political issues of the day. Some newspapers are read for entertainment; some for 'information'; and some for a 'reflection' of the 'status' of the Freedom and Equality of the Peoples in the 'condition of togetherness'. That's the area where "politics" can descend into gossip. Obviously, 'Personality' is important to politicians, but politics must adhere to a level of discourse that 'elaborates' on democratic Ideals, and programs, that are being suggested by candidates, and which are designed to improve the democratic institutions in our social. Political language should be persuasive and convince the electorate, but it should not 'wallow' in the language of 'gossip' and 'Advertisement'; nor, should political language ascend to a 'vacuous level' of 'political correctness'. Empty, vacuous, linguistic generalizations, about the democratic status of the social are dangerous assertions. Democratic Institutions are essential to a social that purports to be democratic. The People are Real; the Governmental structure is real; Democracy is real; 'political language' should also be real.

The Media is important in any 'condition of togetherness'; it's also vital in a democracy.

The media is important in any 'condition of togetherness' because there is no other way that Individuals can be 'privy' to all or most 'happenings' within the 'condition. At best, Individuals can communicate individually, or be privy to 'information' within a small area of mutual influence. Hence. the necessity of Media to report and make available, so-called, 'news-worthy' events and activities. Reporting on such events, to the 'condition of togetherness', becomes necessary because 'the Peoples' need to be informed about anything happening within the condition, or threatening the condition. However, within the context of 'Politics', the media should not wallow in 'personality attacks'; 'preferential reportage'; or information that is unrelated to the 'qualifications', or, 'intentions' of prospective candidates for political Office. Office holders in a 'condition of togetherness', serve in a 'representative capacity' and only the essential aspects of that capacity should be made available to the 'Peoples' by means of the Media. When Media picks an irrelevant 'fact' or 'incident' and continually focuses on it, and repeats it, it creates a 'preoccupation with it'; which can be 'unhealthy' to the 'condition of togetherness', and which destroys its 'coherence', and contributes to its 'self destruction'. The Media's influence can be devastating to the 'condition of togetherness'. That's why, Media should report the Ideals of real Democracy. These Ideals help Democracy to keep the democratic structure together; enables the Ideals of Freedom and Equality to circulate at the 'Bottom' of the structure; which serves as a 'real foundation', for the abstract Top of the structure. That establishes a real foundation at the Bottom of a 'Peoples Government'. Democracy is a 'Peoples' Government, but the People must 'take care' of it; and the Media must report the democratic Ideals of the Government, to help 'solidify the Bottom' of Government. Democracy is "of the People"; "by the People"; and "for the People". You do not need a Government, if you don't have a 'People'. But, if you are a 'People', you need a Democratic Government.

A 'State'; a 'Nation'; a 'Country', is a political Institution that exists only for the purpose of exercising political 'Power'.

A Nation or a State only exists for the 'sole purpose' of 'exercising' political Power. The 'condition of togetherness' cannot govern itself without the postulation of a political institution with Power. Of course, there are many ways in which to organize a political Institution. Those distinguishable forms, situate the 'form' for 'exercising political Power'. Only Government, in this 'political' context, has power. The 'condition of togetherness', i.e. 'the Peoples', only have the 'Rights' attributed to the 'condition of togetherness' by the Government. The 'political forms' organize the relation, perceived politically, as the Top and the Bottom. That relation distinguishes the Autocratic Forms, the Aristocratic Forms, the Plutocratic forms' the Oligarchic forms, and the Democratic forms. Each form can become a 'mixture' with other forms and hence, not be a 'pure form'; in other words, there are many variables in the construction of political Institutions. However, in every case, its an Institutional form and in every case, its a form by which the Many (Peoples) are governed. Government is an arrangement of the Bottom by the Top, and regardless the arrangement, its always about the 'exercise of political power'. Since the 'condition of togetherness' cannot govern itself, a political Institution becomes necessary, but the sole and only reason for its existence, is the 'condition of togetherness'. Individuals have no 'say-so' about the 'Life' they have; about the Life they're 'immersed' in; they can only organize it as best as possible. Its never about 'living' or 'not living', its always about 'how to live'. We are 'already here', and so are 'Others'; hence, the 'condition of togetherness'. But, in a 'constructed political Institution', each Individual is 'Free and Equal', as is the 'Other'. Consequently, all political Institutions should 'respect' and 'never interfere' with the 'political Right' of Freedom and Equality of all Individuals within any Political Organization. We're all in the same boat; hence, we must learn to live with each Other; and Government must 'learn' to respect and protect the Freedom and Equality of each and every Individual living within its political Institution. All Life is sacred; Government is just a 'construction'.

The 'will of the Peoples' is determined by 'voters' who vote for the 'Freedom and Equality' of each and every real Individual.

The 'will of the Peoples' is a human problem. It should be a problematic of each and every human Individuals 'weighing' and 'elaborating' on the Freedom and Equality of 'all human beings' living in a 'condition of togetherness', within a Democratic 'Society, or Nation'. The terms "Society or Nation" includes every Human Being in the Nation; and not just in one or another State. What is Constitutionally valid for the Nation, also applies, to each and every State. The nature of a 'human problematic' automatically excludes the 'economic Legal Fiction' of the Corporation. The Corporation, considered as a 'person', is a Legal Fiction that exists only in contemplation of Law. In other, less 'juristic terms', its not 'real', like a human Being is real. A Corporation, as a 'fictional persona', cannot discriminate racially like an Individual. The 'real Individuals' that 'own' and who 'incorporated' the Corporation, certainly can. But that's another matter. Corporations are 'not real', and hence, do not have to 'weigh' and 'elaborate' along the lines of Freedom and Equality of each and 'every' human being, at the 'Bottom' of Government. This 'weighing' and 'elaborating' is the function of the real Individuals at the 'Bottom of Government'. Only a 'deliberation' by all the 'real human beings', at the Bottom of Government, can establish the 'will of the Peoples'. Those 'deliberations' must consider the Freedom and Equality of all the 'human beings' at the Bottom of Government, but it cannot include the Legal Fictions. That is a different function; its an economic function that does not 'live' or 'exists' by 'Freedom and Equality'; it lives and exists only for the 'economic purpose' of 'Profits'. In other words, the Corporation is 'driven' by profits, and not, by Freedom and Equality. The 'will of the Peoples' is driven by 'Freedom and Equality' of the real Individuals in the 'condition of togetherness', not by 'profits', the 1%, or the so-called 'corporate nature' of the social. The Peoples live in a 'real social', not a 'corporate social'. The so-called, Corporate Society is just as 'fictional' as the Corporation. How sad; Society, the Nation, have been taken over by 'an economy' of Legal Fictions. Its time for 'real Democracy' to 'wake-up'.

The biggest problematic in a Democracy is establishing the 'will of the People'.

The biggest problematic in a Democracy is trying to 'establish' the 'will of the People'. A 'Peoples' Government must determine the 'will of the People', and then it must implement it through the machinery and structure of democratic Government. But, how is that to be done? The Government is a democratically 'fixed', stable, entity, but the 'will of the People' is an 'elusive and variable' phenomena. The 'Peoples' have divided themselves into 'apposing Parties'. If the competing Parties were both 'democratic' in nature, then the 'end result' would just be a 'variable' in the 'concept of democracy'. Either result would be a 'kind of democracy'. The only difference would be in the 'means' by which democracy is to be implemented. But, the 'divided' Party ideologies are so different, that one Party member who may be unhappy with their Party's choice, will not, in the alternative, vote for the other Party's choice. Is that politically possible in a 'true democracy', where both Parties are supposed to be democratic, and one Party differs from the other Party merely 'in the means by which democracy will achieve a desired democratic result'? Of course, not! A choice between Two Parties, may be different, but the difference should not affect the 'democratic nature' of the choice. If it does effect the democratic nature of the choice; then it 'cannot' be said that both Parties are democratic. That's the problem with so-called divided loyalties. The division between Party-ideologies often leads to the embracing of 'non-democratic' political ideas. Hence, Parties can both be democratic; or, both can be undemocratic; or, one Party can be democratic, while the Other is not. Hence, establishing the 'will of the People', at the Bottom of Government, becomes a real problematic. Of course, many problems can arise from the the 'relation' between the Top and the Bottom. But, the biggest problematic is in trying to determine the will of 'all the People' at the Bottom. At this point, it is vital that the Individuals at the Bottom become very interested in their Government, and contribute to the implementation of Democracy. The Top of Government has a duty to its People; but, the Bottom of Government also has a duty to its Government. 'One' cannot fly without the help of the Other.

A Democratic Government cannot exist without its People.

A Democratic Government cannot exist without its People. However, other forms of Government can exist without the participation of its People. Actually, an Autocratic form of Government exists because 'someone', or a few Individuals have 'assumed' the control of the Top of the Institution. Then, they have managed to give, or 'pass', through inheritance,'control', to preferred Individuals at the Top of Government. This 'passage' of control becomes a function of the Top and is the result of Individual families, or, even Party members. The prominent characteristic of the passage of control is that it is not a function of all the People who are governed, but instead, of only a 'few' selected Individuals. Its not the result of the 'vote', but the result of 'Plutocratic' or 'Oligarchic' control. The main problematic is that the People as a whole, do not get to participate. Hence, in such a 'social', democracy is dying or dead. A Government "by the People" and "for the People"( especially 'for the People') has been taken over by the 'economy' and the 'Institutions', motored by 'Greed'. How sad. The economy flourishes because it exists in a democracy and the 'opportunistic results' of such a successful economy ( hoarding profits and greed) begins to 'run' and operate the government. Money and Greed takes over; and what began as a democratic economy 'turns' a Capitalistic economy into a 'Plutocratic Institution' that 'motors' the Government. It appears that 'money and greed' has become 'more important' than democracy. Where are the Statesmen and where is Democracy?

A Democratic Government needs a Politics; but the 'politics' cannot deviate from Democracy.

In a Democracy a 'politics' must be about Democracy. It would be ludicrous to state that a democratic government could transform into an Autocracy by means of the 'electoral' or 'democratic process'. That's impossible, because democracy is about the Equality and Freedom of each and every individual in the social. In a Democracy, the People 'empower' the institution of Government. Without People, there is no need for Government. Hence, Democracy is about its People; and politics should be about the Equality and Freedom of the People. Economies are necessary; but economic values cannot 'drive' a democracy because it is based on a 'profit motive', and not on an Equality motive. Economies cannot survive on a basis of Equality and Freedom; but a Capitalistic economy in a Democracy can. A 'Capitalistic economy' could never survive in an Autocracy. That's why they call it a Plutocracy or an Oligarchy. Its just another 'verbal Label' that describes the center of gravity of the 'Form' of the Government. Its a Government of the 1%, the 'few', or some Autocrat with lots of money and property. When a 'Capitalistic economy' begins to campaign on 'any basis' other than a 'Democratic basis', its headed for trouble. To do so is to under mine the very 'democratic principles' that allowed it to thrive. That's what happens when 'politics' and elections become 'based' on, personality attacks; prejudices; discrimination; so-called, 'class-consciousness'; and plain buffoonery. Democracy needs Equality and Freedom; only a democracy that emphasizes those qualities of Life can survive. Anything, short of that is ludicrous.

'Politics' is about 'governing' all the 'Peoples' at the Bottom. It should be driven by Equality and Freedom; not Money and Greed.

Politics is about 'governing' the millions of People at the Bottom of Government. That's what it should be. It is strongly related to what the People must do. Of course, they must work, and work should be available and well compensated. They should also 'live democratically'and 'think democratically'. The thinking part is more difficult. Hence, the Bottom is often subject to 'sweeping political generalities' that are 'insincere' and that politicians use to 'persuade and trick' the Bottom. How sad. That's why voting should become more 'fair' and less circumscribed by rules and maybe the rules for campaigning should also change. As it is now, only the wealthy and well-to-do can run for office. This years campaigning hasn't exhibited one single, 'genuine' political slogan. Oh sure, its about getting votes, but no 'genuine commitments' have been made. They're all empty and vacuous generalities, and most are 'personality attacks' on each other. How did this come about? Simple, candidates that belong to the so-called 1% are 'talking' to the Bottom as if the candidates were really going to help 'democracy'; the poor; the needy; and yet, some candidates have said that they would not increase the minimum wage. Does that make sense? Of course not. The main issue that should be addressed is that a democracy is not motored by the economy nor by economic values; nor by 'class distinctions'. it is motored by the Equality and Freedom of the individual. Economic inequality, Racial injustice; Racial discrimination; the 'Plutocratic and Oligarchic' nature of our Institutions and our politics; that is what should be addressed. Democracy as a political institution has become dis-functional and in its place we find a social motored by economic values instead of democratic political values. Genuine human values are being replaced by 'economic values' driven by money, greed, and political power. How sad. Democracy is 'dying' and Plutocracy is 'flourishing'.

Politics is about 'organizing' the structure of the 'Political Institution of the State' and protecting the 'Freedom and Equality' of the Individual.

The 'State' or the Nation is an Institution. The organization of the functions of the State is what we call "Democracy or democratic". A Democracy is a government "of the People, by the People, and for the people". Politics relates to the 'means' by which democratic principles are instituted into the everyday functions of the State. The 'People as a whole', and 'Individually', benefit from the institution of democratic principles into the 'Bottom" of the Institution of the State. Politics is a competition between Individuals. Who will occupy the 'Offices' that 'represent' the People? Hence, politics should be a 'political means' by which to educate the People about the many 'democratic improvements' to be instilled into the social; to better 'perfect, and or, improve democratic structures'. Today, unfortunately, Politics has been reduced to personality attacks between candidates for Office. Of course, 'political correctness' has long used democratic language to 'compete' for election, but the terminology was too 'general', and 'abstract' and 'never really registered' in the psyche of the People. That's why the People welcomed an election that 'strikes' at so called 'political correctness'. However, candidates are too concerned with personality attacks, instead of improving the Democratic structure. How sad; that reflects on the 'mentality of politics' in a democracy. When candidates become 'insincere' about occupying political Offices, democracy is in trouble. Every candidate should propose 'improvements of the democracy', in a clear understandable manner. Lacking that, he or she should not be in 'politics'. The Freedom and Equality of every Individual is at stake. Democracy is about 'the People'; and the Individuals who strive to 'represent' the People, should be 'strongly aware' of the 'Representative nature' of the Office they seek. All Individuals should be acutely aware that we 'must live' in a 'condition of togetherness' ( that makes politics necessary) and that the State exists only because it 'has a People'. Without 'People', the State has no need to exist. Without the State, we have no need for 'Politics'.

The Media is important in Democratic politics, but 'politics' does not 'truck' in Truth.

The media play a very important part in political campaigns. Recent news that some candidates " lie, and do not tell the truth", is ridiculous. There is no "truth" in politics, there is 'only', or 'maybe', or 'possibly', a 'political correctness', but the question of "Truth" plays no part in politics. Even Philosophy, psychology, cosmology, Religion, and many other 'disciplines, are still trying to determine what 'formulations' within there 'belief system', may constitute the 'Truth'. To accuse a politician of not telling the 'Truth', and lying, is ridiculous, and can only be attributed to the media coverage, of those events, as highly prejudicial. The media is doing what they are accusing the candidate of doing. The level of language-use in politics can only be 'correct or incorrect'; and even 'that' has become highly suspicious. But 'political correctness' and 'political language' does not 'truck' in Truth. Media is very important in a Democracy, but it cannot twist words around to create a specific effect that causes damage to 'Politics' or to 'political candidates'. Certainly 'honesty' is necessary in a Politics but, it must be kept within the domain of the "political sphere". Politics is about 'Representation'; a politician can only 'represent' the People. The 'Peoples' concern is with the "representative ethics' of the Politician and not with a 'candidates' ability to answer questions about "Truth". That's the most difficult and confusing question that anyone can be asked. What kind of 'truth' is being referred too? Politics does not truck with 'Truth' as a philosophical quest. What kind of question is that? The question can be asked in a political manner, but it should not be asked in a 'confusing' manner. Even the questioner does no know what the Truth is; hence the question is 'intentionally deceptive' and 'prepared' to cause damage. The Media has a duty to be as 'Objective' as possible. hence, it must use language to report both sides of the political spectrum, but it must use a grammar and a language that reflects the 'antagonistic nature' of the exchange, especially in 'Politics'.

The 'essence' of Democracy is 'its People'; hence, they have a Right to vote. Make voting easier.

The essence of Democracy is 'its People'; its essence includes 'each and every Individual' that constitutes 'the Governed'. Democracy is inseparable from the People it governs. The Government itself is constituted of 'its People'; the Legislature is constituted of 'its People'; and the Judiciary is constituted of 'its People'. Autocracy 'rules' people; Democracy doesn't rule, it 'governs people', or stated differently, it governs 'itself'. Hence, the electoral process becomes an important part of the Democratic process. That's why elections and the Right to vote is vital. Of course, everyone will say they know that. Well, then why not make the electoral process more democratic by allowing all those who have a Right to vote, to do so by mail or by computer. This would 'soften' the effects of 'gerrymandering'( that should be outlawed), and would allow all the qualified voters to express their preference from the 'safety' of their home. Some States allow voting by mail, so why not extend that 'privilege' to all States, and also include, voting by 'computer'. This would eliminate 'inconveniences' at the polls; traveling to the polls; and fighting inclement weather. Instead of the citizen finding 'a way' to vote, the Government must 'insure' that every citizen has expressed his/her preferences. Many States make voting difficult; the Government has a duty to 'facilitate' the exercise of that privilege; not to create difficulties. Democracy is Government "of the People"; "by the People", and "for the People"; hence Government is duty bound to use every new 'technology' to facilitate the voting process, and not to make it problematic. Government already requires voters to be 'registered'. Well, then allow the registered voters to vote by mail, by computer, by phone, or any other manner made possible by the advances in technology. Instead, 'Democracy' is still using the 'old fashion manner' of 'voting',i.e., citizens are required to overcome physical difficulties; health problems; age problems; storms, floods; tornado; snow; property damage; and 'getting' to the Polls'; where they are 'met' with 'other difficulties'. If Democracy is the best form of Government, let the People speak. Voting should not be 'old fashioned', in a modern, technologically advanced, Democracy.

Society, may advance technologically; but, the Individuals Constitutional Rights cannot be circumvented.

Society has made great technological advances in media, phones, and computers. Individuals rely on these 'advances' to 'store', send, and use personal and private information. Lately, many business institutions have been illegally 'hacked', to the detriment of the business, and also to the loss of personal information, credit card information, social security numbers, etc., of the clients involved. Clearly, an illegal act and that's understood by everyone; even by law-enforcement. Government has a duty to 'govern' but not to violate the Constitutional Rights of its citizens. But, the question arises, is anyone, especially Government, entitled to get behind the 'privacy' provided by these advances in technology? It should be obvious to everyone, especially Government, that if enforcement agencies cannot 'Unconstitutionally search' a human individual, it 'cannot' be acceptable to 'search' the technologies being used by the Individuals to store private information. So how can Government; or the F.B.I.; or the Courts, compel a business Institution that deals in these technological 'advances', compel that business to provide a 'back door' in the technology, for the purpose of unlawfully 'searching' for personal information? How can 'unlawful searches' of an Individual be 'Constitutionally prohibited', and unlawful searches of 'technology', 'not be' prohibited? That's ludicrous; not to mention Unconstitutional. Government has Power, but its a Power granted by the People. The People do not grant Government the Power to violate the Constitution; nor to allow encroachment into 'personal matters stored and encrypted' within the 'advances of technology'. Government cannot compel 'Unlawful Searches and Seizures' of the Individual; nor Unlawful Searches and Seizures of the 'technology' used by the individual; and it can't compel the building of 'back doors' in the technology, to facilitate illegal acts by the Government. Its all the 'same' and its all Unconstitutional. Government has Power; but, not Unconstitutional Power.

"Socialism" will not work; Equality and Freedom of the Individual, in a 'condition of togetherness', will work.

"Socialism", as a form of Government, will not work. The term is a misnomer; and an Oxymoron, because the Top of Government governs the human Individual, as an Individual, living in 'a condition of togetherness'. A 'condition of togetherness' always retains the 'individual elements' who are real, and who 'constitute' the 'togetherness' of the condition. Government cannot govern a general abstraction called the 'social' in its condition of 'abstraction'. The abstract nature of the term leaves too much 'wiggle room', at the Bottom of Government, among the real Individuals who are being governed, and leads to much abuse of power. If such was the case, racial discrimination could be justified by saying, "we have a socialistic form of government", where everyone is Equal and Free; when, in fact, Government discriminates between the individuals constituting the 'different' human races; or, sets standards that benefit one group of Individuals, but, discriminates against the Other groups. A "Social", in its 'condition of abstraction', cannot be governed; whereas a 'condition of togetherness' can be governed if each and every real Individual is included in the 'condition'. Governing is not easy, because it requires an Individual Representative who is capable of respecting the uniqueness of the individual human condition; and is able to govern the 'condition of togetherness', in its 'collective' condition without 'forgetting' and eliminating the Individual as a unique human being. Government must never forget that 'its a People' that is being governed.

Democracy is about each and every 'real' Individuals Equality and Freedom. Capitalism is about profits.

Democracy is about each and every 'real' Individual's Equality and Freedom. The Top 'governs' in a Democracy and every Individual counts; nobody can be left out and everyone must be included. Capitalism is about profits and competition between Individuals and Corporations. Everyone is Free to engage in Capitalistic activity, but only the 'Large' and the 'Rich' can compete with the other 'Large' and 'Rich'. Hence there is no such thing as Equality in the Economy and the so-called Freedom to engage in economic activity is a farce. Capitalism and its underlying Economic activity is an entirely different 'value system' from the 'value system' of a Democratic 'Political Institution'. Capitalism cannot be motored by Freedom and Equality and a Government cannot be motored by the profits motor. Hence, it becomes important to keep them separate. Unfortunately, the two value systems are intermingled; this becomes glaringly obvious during elections. Many other 'terms' also creep into the electoral process. For example, the term 'Socialism'. The term is an oxymoron. There is no such 'thing' as governing a 'social'. The term is an abstract generalization that applies to the 'entire Bottom' of the governing process, and which does not 'compute' the real individuals that constitute the 'condition of togetherness'. The 'condition of togetherness' is not an abstract term; and the condition 'includes' each and every 'real Individual' in the 'condition'. Hence, everyone is included and nobody can be left out of the so-called 'social' in a democratic government. Of course, it is said, that corporations are to big to fail. That's baloney. If Corporations are not 'doing' their democratic duties; or if they 'violate Law', ( A Fictions cannot be put in jail) they can be dismantled, and, by Law, their Articles of Incorporation can be 'involuntarily dissolved' until they comply and exist by the rules of a Democracy. You say that's extreme; isn't being a 'member' of the 1% being extreme?

A democratic Government is a necessity; a Capitalistic economy is also a necessity.

A Democratic form of Government is necessary because democracy is a Government of the People; by the People, and most important, for the People. A Capitalistic economy is necessary because 'competition' among the Individuals is a necessary component of the 'drive', or 'energy' towards profits that must be a necessary attribute of a successful economy. However, corporations are legal fictions and exist only in 'contemplation of law'. Otherwise, they do not exist. They are not real. Democracy 'for the People' can never lose sight of the fact that Freedom and Equality is always an 'Individual thing' and must always be 'for the People', or better yet, 'for the Individual' in the 'condition of togetherness'. Otherwise, the concept of freedom and equality becomes a, 'too general, abstract, concept' and becomes, in a practical sense, meaningless. Equally important, is the economic 'drive' towards profits which can be easily transformed into 'capital', ownership, or just 'huge profits'. However, this 'drive' ,if left uncontrolled, can become 'greed', which is not 'good' when it is based on a 'medium of exchange'. How can 'greed' be controlled? The only way is to establish more 'democratic obligations', or, 'official duties' on the part of the 'corporate structure'. This huge fictional, legal structure generates the profits and some Individual keeps the profits. That would be the 1%. Although, both Democracy and Capitalism are essential, the competitive nature of the economy is impossible where one of the competing Parties is 'real' and the other is a 'legal fiction'. More control over the legal fictions, in the form of 'democratic duties', becomes imperative. Democracy requires Freedom and Equality with respect to every 'real Individual'; this does not include 'legal fictions'. Legal Fictions are not real, they are 'constructions', and as such, they can be democratically controlled, or, in the alternative, be terminated.

A new concept of the State, or, how the One governs the Many.

The old concept of the "State" was considered a " persona ficta, because not a man". Obviously, "man"(also women) is real in a sense that the State is 'not real'. The State became recognized as a "legal fiction" which existed only in "contemplation of Law". Everyone now accepts, the fact that the State is a "political Institution" and "must exist". A "State", 'any State', 'all States' are 'political Institutions', whether organized as Autocracies, differing 'variations' of Autocracy, Kingdoms, Plutocracies, or Democracies. All of the above were historically instituted by an Individual or Individuals to serve as a 'Pivotal Point' for the 'Authority to Govern'. Of course, that is the source of all political power. But, a fiction, in whatever disguise it might assume, soon becomes obvious as a non-existent 'thing'. A 'fiction'cannot hold together the integrity of Government, especially when the 'governing' is real. To be sure, its a very important political concept, but that must not distract us from attempting to establish a more 'valid description' of the 'actual thing' called The state or the Government. Of course, it has to be an Political Institution and it 'must govern' the 'Many People' at the 'Bottom' of the established structure. That 'need' creates a relation between a Top and a Bottom. Of course, the 'Top' is the State, and the 'Bottom', are the millions of People, that are the 'Governed'. But that primitive structure, alone, is inadequate. It needs another 'aspect'; one that determines the correctness of the Governing. Of course, this would be a Judiciary that determines the Constitutionality of the 'Institutionalized Laws'. That is a 'Triadic form of government' where the Top governs according to the Constitution and the Bottom is governed by Law. The Top must govern according to Law; the Bottom must follow the law; and the sides must clearly 'define' the Law, i.e., keep the triadic nature of the Governing process in 'constant motion'. This relation is real; the form of Government is real, and the People governed are real. There are no 'fictional components' to the triadic nature of the Governing process.

The 'condition of togetherness' must retain the 'Individuality' of the human condition.

Obviously, we must live in a 'condition of togetherness'. The general formulation of 'the social' has created many problems. Our use of the terms,'Social', or, 'society', creates a huge linguistic generalization which can, too often, be said to 'signify' a term that is 'vacuous', and 'empty'. The concept is not grounded in a real, human 'individuality'. Too often we use the term 'social' as if it was inclusive of the human condition. Of course, we may be using 'the term' to include the human condition, but it actually neglects the 'specific', nature of 'individuality', which is the essence of Democracy. Democracy, in actuality, is a Government, 'of the Individual' in a 'condition of togetherness'; a Government, 'by the Individual', and most importantly, a Government 'for the Individual' in said condition. That description is a little different from the sweeping generalizations of 'political correctness' which, to be sure, rises to high levels of abstraction, but never seems to 'come down' to the every-day nature of the real, human, individual. That's the problematic. The solution must lie in a sphere where Legislation touches each and every human being, as the Individual s/he is, in the 'condition of togetherness'. Not easy, but worth struggling towards. Regardless the outcomes, the Individual cannot be forgotten. 'Peoples', 'individuals', 'human beings' need Government, but Government cannot and must not abuse the 'political power' that accrues to every 'political Institution', that becomes necessary, because we must live in a 'condition of togetherness'. Government is about 'governing', about legislating, about enforcing laws, in the 'condition of togetherness'; but Government must understand that it only exists because the 'People' were here first. People 'create governments'; Governments exist only for the purpose of governing, otherwise, they would not even exist.

An economy is essential; but a 'democratic economy' can 'fly' loose from its 'moorings'.

An economy in the 'condition of togetherness' is essential; but, it cannot 'fly loose' from its moorings. Although, an economy is 'more' quantifiable than Equality and Freedom, it must have a 'foundation' that keeps it in check. That foundation used to be the 'gold standard', but, that no longer applies. Its difficult to conceptualize, but Money, the 'ultimate fiction', has flown into a 'fictitious realm' labeled as 'derivatives'; once referred to as "financial weapons of mass destruction". The 'unchecked' ascendancy of a 'fiction' into a 'higher level of abstraction', one that 'tramples' on the line separating 'morals' from 'economics'. It cannot be kept in check unless the Government begins to require more democratic duties from corporations. How sad, the fictitious realm has taken over a 'genuine life' of human Equality and Freedom. Of course, the 'Individual' in a democracy also has 'duties',but, fortunately and unfortunately, the Equality and Freedom of the human condition can become 'greedy'. That's real sad; because, in the economic realm, that 'greed' is 'motored' by a fiction that is totally empty. The bottom line is that both Government and the Individual must learn not to give up their 'real life' for a 'fictitious life'. Maybe some 'degree' of so called 'Socialism' is needed. I say 'so-called' because the term, in a political context, is misunderstood. The term is on so high a level of abstraction, that it is 'dis-functional'. The term needs to become 'more connected' to the act of governing (less abstract) that it actualizes the duty of Government to 'really govern' the 'condition of togetherness', and each and every Individual 'in' the 'said condition'.

The 'tensions' in Democracy 'generate' Law; the 'tensions' in Capitalism 'generates' greed.

The 'tensions' in Democracy generates Law; the tensions in Capitalism generates Greed. Democracy demands Freedom and Equality and the freedom and equality of each and every Individual, subject to democratic Government, brings about the necessity of Law to 'regulate' and monitor' the exercise of that assured freedom and equality. Individuals are prone to 'individualism' or 'self-rule' and very often that individual attitude 'overflows' into the 'governing aspects', within the social, or the 'government', into some form of Autocratic-rule. Individuals do not distinguish between individual-self-rule and 'social' or 'government rule'. Stated differently, 'control'over 'ones-self' and 'power' over the condition of togetherness are two entirely different matters. Hence, established rules for the interactions of an individual living within the 'condition of togetherness' becomes essential, hence the necessity of Law. Of course, Law regulates and controls interactions of Individuals, in such a manner, as to hold the 'condition' together, without violating anyone's basic 'human rights'. Capitalism is different. The motor that drives Capitalism is not the freedom and equality of the Individual. Capitalism is driven by profits. No profits, no chance of survival in the economy. Hence, the 'self-rule' of 'democratic freedom' translates into 'more and more' of the same, or Greed. Capitalism creates Greed, and Greed establishes the 1%. It has become necessary for Government to establish institutions and possibly Laws, that require the 'fair' 'circulation' of the 'medium of exchange'. After all, the reason we have 'money' is because it is a 'medium of exchange'. If it was 'not' a medium of exchange, it would be a worthless piece of paper. Hence, it shouldn't be 'locket' up, or kept from circulating. Of course, the 'biggest culprit' that creates Greed is the Corporation; that 'legal fiction' that only exists in 'contemplation of law'. We create our own monsters and then we lose control over them.

Government is a political Institution; as such, it has a 'Persona'.

Democratic Government is a Political Institution, as such, it has a 'public persona'. Many Governments call themselves Democratic, but, not all so-called Democratic governments have a 'public posture' that practices the 'essential elements' of 'equality' and 'freedom' of the Individual. Many Nations can be judged to be 'democratic or not', by the 'social practices' acceptable within their 'established' political structures or, stated differently, by their 'Public Persona'. Of course, what is normally called an 'established' Democracy often-times fails the test of a 'true democracy'. How many Nations can say their practices do not, in fact, allow 'racial', religious, or economic', discrimination? Often-times, these so-called 'tolerable' public practices merely tolerate Individual, personality, characteristics with 'plutocratic leanings'. We all have 'plutocratic leanings'. Fortunately, or, unfortunately, every Individual needs a certain amount of 'money' to survive in our society. The problematic, arises when the so-called essential 'need for money' accelerates itself into the Plutocratic, public domain. At that point, an essential striving translates itself into a 'more and more of the same' type of striving characteristic of the 'Plutocratic Leanings' that lead to Plutocracy. How sad, we cannot live 'alone' and we cannot live in a 'condition of togetherness'.

A Democracy should 'unify' Equality and Freedom, not 'nickles and dimes'.

A Democracy should have a political system that 'unifies' the values of Equality and Freedom, instead, it unifies an economic system driven by profits. Why? Because, most Individuals are driven by 'money' or a quantified system of acquisitions. 'Money', a 'quantified system' of measurement 'motors' Capitalism and hence, easy to measure. Unfortunately, most Individuals don't value Equality and Freedom, of course, unless it effects the economic returns of their investments; viz., 'profits'. It's easy to determine if one is at the 'Top 1%', or not. It should be just as easy to determine if one is 'Equal" or 'Free'. But, the political value system of a Democracy has become so distorted, that it becomes easier to determine whether one is successful by measuring the 'nickels and dimes' that one owns. How sad! 'money' replaces Equality and Freedom. We should try living in a Nation that does not respect 'human life'. What has lead to this distorted view of the 'values of a Democracy'? Simply and unfortunately; we give 'lip service' to 'Equality and Freedom', but do not in fact practice it. Even the Top 1% provides for a 'proper distribution' of their 'net worth' among his/her heirs. Have you ever heard of someone in the Top 1% leaving their 'money' to the lower 99%? Of course not, and you never will. Why not? Of course, most will say, that's stupid, or silly! But, some of those assets could be used to 'institutionalize' the Bottom more democratically. Lets be clear about this. I don't mean, to leave it to any 'one Individual' in the 99%, I mean to some Institution that can create more Equal and Free opportunities at the Bottom of Government; like health care; just wages; more jobs, the homeless, etc. In other words, lets 'free' that locked in 'medium of exchange', that is meant to 'circulate' and stop 'hoarding' it.

The basic 'tension' between Democratic Government and its People is the Equality and Freedom of the Individual.

The basic 'tension' between the Institution of Democracy and the People is the careful, political, delineation, of the 'social principles' of the Equality and Freedom of the Individual. Equality and Freedom of the Individual must be carefully crafted into a political institution that protects and defends the 'human condition' as a unique 'expression of Life'. The question is always, "does Government 'allow' or 'tolerate' discrimination between different 'Races'; are all races 'politically Equal'?, are all races 'politically Free'?; and does Government allow and defend the 'preferential treatment' of different 'economic levels'; and even between different levels of 'so called education', and between the 'providing of the 'basic necessities' of a 'healthy Life'. Does it have 'homeless' veterans? If government does not, in reality, protect these 'characteristics' in the human condition, then Democracy is failing its people. How can Government say its doing its job, if it doesn't even provide for those who 'fought' and 'died' for its very existence. How easy it is for 'politicians' to 'claim' to fulfill these basic necessities, when in fact the 'sad basis' for seeking political Office is actually some kind of 'self-aggrandizement'. How sad! 'Power' runs amok; and the Office-holders cannot, or, do not, know how to handle it. It immediately takes a form of self-aggrandizement. Democratic Government must defend and protect the basic Equality and Freedom of each and every human being living within its 'territorial and political' boundaries.

One cannot equate 'Equality and Freedom' within a political institution with the 'same' in a human being.

The Equality and Freedom guaranteed by a political Institution is not the same as the Equality and Freedom inherent in the human condition. Obviously, the equality and freedom of the human condition is without limit, because it is 'Life itself', and yet, if the human beings live in a 'condition of togetherness', it must be subject to rules and regulations. That's why the 'condition of togetherness' needs Government. Hence, political Freedom and Equality becomes a political and social institution that governs and regulates, by means of Law, mores, and social structures, the expression of the said Freedom and Equality within the political institution. It does not 'limit' any one individuals freedom and equality but, it governs and limits the expression of 'it' within the 'condition of togetherness'; a condition that human beings must live within. One Individual on an Island does not need Government; the 'condition of togetherness' needs and requires Government. Hence, the duty of a political structure to organize, install, and regulate, the interaction of the human beings within its social and political institutions. Nevertheless, some individuals view laws, institutions, social regulations, as being limitations placed on themselves, 'personally' as 'individuals'. That's a 'mistaken', 'socially unhealthy' view of the 'condition of togetherness' and its 'mandatory structures'. The Individual, as a unique Individual, is not the 'subject of Government; the 'condition of togetherness' is the subject of Government. The 'Obligations' run both ways; Government respects protects, and defends the Rights, of Individuals; and Individuals respect, protects, and helps defend, the Power of Government.

Democracy is a 'political arrangement', but the underlying 'practitioners' are human beings.

Democracy is a 'political arrangement', but the underlying 'practitioners' of that arrangement are human beings, hence, even the best political arrangement will not work, if the 'practitioners' do not know how to handle 'themselves', and then, how to handle 'political power'. How sad; our political problems reduce themselves to personal human problems. The 'human' problematic is that individuals think of themselves with an 'undeserved self-importance'. That's too 'common', and in the political field, it becomes even 'more pronounced'. Why?, simply because of the 'undeserved' allocation of the 'political power' attributed to Public Office. That 'feeling' of 'self-importance' contaminates the exercise of 'political power'. We then call it an 'International Problem' or, in some cases simply 'War'. If we learn how to handle political issues with a degree of objectivity, we would not get our own 'personal inadequacies' into the picture. Politics is not an 'ego trip', and yet it often becomes one. How sad, our 'politics' is dependent on the mental health and sanity of our Leaders. Of course, these facts do not 'exculpate' the 'ordinary citizen'. We, unfortunately, sometimes also need to 'think' and 'feel', 'outside our own environmental box'. Hey, we're all in the same boat. 'Politics' like 'human psychology' is not a 'self-importance trip'. The 'little-picture' needs to be as 'objective', as the 'Big Picture'. We should become 'better human beings' and we should pray that our Leaders become more Objective. 'War' is not an Objective, its a failure of the human condition.

Democracy is the best political organization for Humanity; unfortunately, the human condition needs to become 'more human'.

Democracy is the best way for 'humanity' to arrange themselves politically. The system will work, since the human condition is the 'bottom line' in all political arrangements. If there were no humans, there would be no need for Government. As we've said, one human on an island does not need Government. Hence, if we have the best political arrangement, what is the problem? Obviously, the millions of humans on the planet, need to reconsider their own humanity and the their own reasons for continuing to exist as a political entity. Some Individuals may do that; some don't. All leaders in the political arena are humans that have been 'granted' the 'power of office'. Political power is being 'misused'. How? Simply by not 'really' 'understanding that all humans must live in a 'condition of togetherness'. Instead, politicians- not Statesmen-, 'govern' from the perspective of Power, and from a 'false assumption', that they as 'individuals' wield that power 'personally'. They are the same as all other human beings. Humanity did not 'give' 'more humanity' to any 'one human being' over the Other. Personally, 'leaders', of 'all stripes'are performing a 'job', and cannot claim to have some 'quality of Kingship' or 'human superiority' or 'Divine Wisdom', whatever that may be. Truly, we are all in the same boat. However, it seems that all 'progress' is in the 'direction' of more money, more possessions, and 'bigger legal fictions' like colossal corporations, and that much admired 1%. Progress is 'possible' in the economic sphere, but not in the Democratic political sphere. Democracy is already the the best system available; politically, there is no better, Other. Democracy cannot be 'improved' as a system but, it can sure be improved in its 'practical implementation'. We need to stop talking and start doing. Humanity must reclaim its sense of human values. Humanity is already at where its 'supposed to be'; now, it must act as a human being with 'real political values', and not as an 'economic monster' living in some 'illusory Utopia'. Lord, Please keep us from being 'over-loaded with trivialities'.

"Equality and Freedom" works only when the 'uniqueness' of the 'human condition' is recognized.

Its one thing to say Equality and Freedom works in a Democracy; it's quite another to say, 'each and every human being', at the Bottom of a Democratic structure of government, is 'Equal' to all 'Others' within the same structure, and is 'free' to do as s/he pleases, within the confines of 'legal structures'. If that were truly the case, there would be no 'racial' discrimination, and no classification between 'econo-haves' and 'econo-have-nots', nor 'social-class' distinctions. The Bottom of government would truly be democratic, functional, and Equal, with respect to each and every Individual within the system. Hence, democracy would apply to the Individual-Life, as distinguished from the Governmental structure as a whole. Of course, the Governmental structure would also be implemented democratically, as a whole, but, it would also legislate democratically with respect to 'social institutions' and 'Individual rights', in such a manner, as NOT to 'exclude' anyone, or any so-called 'race', or any so-called 'social class', from the Equality and Freedom that each and every-one in a 'real democracy' would expect. 'Democracy' as a Government system is the opposite of Autocracy and Plutocracy, because the 'power' of the Individual is vested in the human condition in a 'condition of togetherness', and that is at the Bottom of Government, not the Top; Truly, a Government 'of the People', 'by the People' and 'for the People'. The power of Autocracy and Plutocracy is at the Top; the power of democracy is in the 'condition of togetherness', at the Bottom of Government. But, the Bottom must be protected, and respected; and the Legislation must be for the 'benefit of the human Individual'. Hey, wake up!! Governments are Institutions; you and I are real.

Capitalism 'works' because Democracy 'works'; democracy 'works' because Equality and Freedom 'work'.

Capitalism 'works' because Democracy 'works'. Democracy 'works', because the Equality and Freedom of each and every human being within a political system is the basis for the underlying, political ideology, of every Democratic Nation. Capitalism cannot 'work' in an Autocracy; it cannot work in a Plutocracy. The reason it doesn't work in a Plutocracy is because the rich are already in 'control' of the circulation and accumulation of Capital, and the 'competition' necessary for real Capitalism would not exist. Competition would be restricted to the lower levels of society and it would become 'meaningless' and maybe, 'neighborly'. It would not be 'real competition'; only a 'tolerated competition'. That is one of the dangers that exists today. The fastest way to Plutocracy is to create 'legal fictions' that are considered 'persons' and are protected by the Constitution. Once a corporation acquires 'person-hood', it can use every Constitutional trick in the 'Book' to protect and expand its power as an artificial, fictional, 'person'. That is what they(corporations) have done. No human individual can compete, in a real sense, with a corporation. Its bad enough that corporations are solely 'driven' by the profits motive, but now, as a result of Citizens United,they can even 'participate in politics'. What had been allowed 'indirectly' is now allowed 'directly', thanks to the 'blessing' of the Supreme Court. Today, truly, 'money talks' and 'political bullshit' walks. What has happened to the human condition? Where are the States-men?

Capitalism has been 'good' for Democracy; but, it has 'dehumanized' the democratic spirit.

Capitalism has been 'good' for Democracy, but; it has 'dehumanized' the democratic spirit. As most things, 'anything' that is good for us as 'human beings' can become 'bad', if its excessive. Capitalism has a good, functional,'economic motor'; namely, profits; but, profits do not have to replace the Freedom and Equality of Democracy. Economic activity has 'shifted' from the economic sphere into the political sphere. Of course, that's what gave rise to the so-called 1%. We hold money in higher regard than Freedom and Equality. Today, the goal of most individuals is to be in the Top 1%, or, at least, to drive oneself in that direction. Our democratic value system has been replaced by a desire to have more and more of the same vacuous possession called 'money'. We accumulate 'emptiness' instead of Freedom and Equality. Freedom and Equality applies to each and every human being in the world, i.e. it is a 'real factor' in the human condition. It actually 'affects' the physical nature of the human condition. But, 'money' is a 'fiction', i.e. it only exists because its a 'quantification' we use to 'measure', 'more' or less', in economic activity. It used to be backed by gold, but that has been changed, it is now a pure, arbitrary, quantification, 'founded' by 'absolutely 'nothing'. That wouldn't be so bad, if it did not distract us from the democratic spirit that 'holds' democracy together, into an unadulterated pursuit of an 'empty fiction'; the 'economic motor' of capitalism, namely the 'Holy Dollar'or profits. How sad, human beings have become dehumanized, by the misguided pursuit of 'Fictions'. We eat 'real' food; we 'breathe' real air; why can't we 'think' 'real ideas', viz. about the 'condition of togetherness' that we live in, and the 'spirit of democracy' that holds it together? Why do we pursue economic fictions? Economic success has 'emptied us' of a 'real, genuine', Democratic Life. Its time to re-think Democracy, and re-shuffle our value systems. 'Greed' is not a democratic value.

The 'value system' of a Political Institution is different from the 'value system' of the Economic Institution.

The differences between the 'Political' and the 'Economic' are obvious to everyone. Yet, we continue to be 'ruled' by the economic. Its 'obvious nature' has become glaringly 'evident' in the 'World Issue' of 'Global warming'. Millions of Human beings are being effected by horrible weather conditions. Of course, that is not a 'direct' political issue. But, 'indirectly', the 'economic' value system is implicated. Any attempt by a Political System to 'correct' the political posture so as to 'disengage' the Economic system driven by Profits and Big money is immediately quashed by the 'Economic System'. Please notice, that I do not say, "quashed by the Political System", because the decisions are driven by the Profits Motor, not the 'Equality and Freedom' motor of Democracy. One has to ask, Why? Simply, because 'Profits', instead of the 'Equality and Freedom' motor of our political system drives the Nations decisions, in spite of the fact, that they may be 'contributing' to the weather conditions that are effecting the Global conditions directly effecting all Nations and particularly, the poor Nations. Of course, 'weather' doesn't effect the 'political nature' of the 'Institution of the Nation', as such; like War, it effects the 'real Human beings' in those Nations. Millions are dying and are being dispossessed of the necessities of life. Only a 'political decision' that addresses the 'economic value system' can help those conditions. So where is it? Nowhere in sight. We will probably continue living under the 'Profits Motor' until we can no longer 'breathe'. Our economic values will continue to 'drive' our lives till they destroy the 'food' we eat, and the 'air', we breathe, and the Planet we live on. Where is Democracy? I mean 'real democracy'; a democracy driven by the 'Equality and Freedom' of 'each and every' 'dignified' human being on the Planet. If the 'Profits motor' is not destroying our lives, its destroying our Planet. How sad; we create our own 'enemies', and, rest assured, the 'human condition' will be 'implicated' in its own demise.

All Nations are political Institutions; political Institutions are created by a 'People'.

All Nations have a 'beginning'. A Nations history reflects its political institutionalization. No Nation can exist without its people. Nations did not come into existence 'out of nowhere'. They are all political Institutions. As a 'Peoples Institution', their main concern should be the Peoples that they should serve. The different 'conditions of togetherness' into which the populated World is 'divided', lay different claims to 'Nation-Hood' and also to different 'forms of Government'. Regardless the differences in the forms of Government, a 'political Institution' is obligated to the People it should serve. It has no other purpose for existing. It would not exist except for the Peoples within its geographical area, or within its Political Institution. No 'War' was ever declared by 'People' or 'Individuals', living within a 'condition of togetherness'. All Wars are declared by Political Institutions. Why? Because the Individuals serving at the Top or in Offices of Power are the ones who, in the name of their Nation, declare War. How sad. War between Nations is basically a 'human factor', not an Institutional factor. 'Institutions', as such, don't think - just as the fact that they do 'not fight' in declared Wars- Institutions 'decide' and real human beings die. Maybe the problems of the World are in the 'Human condition', or stated differently, in the 'lack of humanity' of the Leaders of the World, and not in Nations? Why can't so-called Leaders handle Political Power? Why do they identify themselves with the Power at the Top, why do they lead their young people to fight in Wars? Why can't they dedicate themselves to serve and help their own Peoples. Human beings need help also. Nations have no other reasons for existing. Help us before its too late.

The importance of 'Equality' and 'Freedom'.

The importance of Equality and Freedom can be better appreciated if we examine both concepts. "Equality" means 'equally human'; 'Freedom' means a real living human being, at the Bottom of Government, is 'free' to live a 'democratic life'. Freedom usually means, an individual can do anything s/he wishes to do. In politics; this perception 'appears' to allow an individual to create 'mayhem', 'break laws', and do just about anything s/he wishes. After all, we are 'Free'. But, that is not the case; political freedom does mean one can do 'just about' anything s/he wishes, but, withing a 'political Institution' regulated by Law. That makes a big difference. If I am Free first, I am free to consider the Other, not as 'free' as myself. That's the reason I say, 'Equality first' and 'Freedom second'. If I am 'Equal' so is every 'Other' human being. Once that's understood, the concept of 'freedom' can enter the 'political picture'. The sequence and order in which these inalienable Rights are realized within a political structure becomes important. If I am Free 'first', I am in danger of considering myself 'free' to consider myself 'more Equal' than the Other; hence I 'imagine myself' free to 'racially discriminate'. If I am 'Equal' first, I am just as 'equal' as anyone else, 'then' I am 'Free' to live within a political Institution governed by democratic laws. If I choose not to abide by Law, I can do that also, but will have to pay the price. Hence, Equality first; Freedom second. Political 'Freedom' is a question of 'choice'; Political 'Equality' belongs to every 'living human being' within any political system. Please notice, I do not include Corporations within the inalienable Right of Political Equality, because they are not 'human'; hence, cannot be 'Equally Human'. They are 'mere' legal fictions that exist only 'in contemplation of law'.

'Democracy' has Three 'Branches', but the Third Branch is creating an 'imbalance'.

Democracy has Three Branches and one of those Branches is creating an imbalance. Of course, I refer to the Judicial Branch. The other two Branches also have their 'imbalances', but with elections and 'time limits' on service, those can be, with time, 'potentially balanced'. The Third Branch was created as a 'stabilizer' i.e. a Branch that balances-out the ideological differences, so as to implement democratic Institutions. However, the Justices are appointed for their life-time; that aspect of the judicial function merely allows a Justice to 'fixate or cement' his/her ideological stance or, to decide one-way 'today' with a view of changing it 'tomorrow'. The end-result is that many hard fought victories about 'Equality and Freedom' are being rendered 'unstable' and effete. (Of course, this would not have been possible if the ideologues had not separated into so called Liberals and Conservatives, but its too late to change that.) Public service for a life-time may have been designed to 'enunciate' some sort of stability to 'democratic institutions' and to that particular Branch, but, lets face it, that's too long for a 'diverse' Judiciary. 'Good behavior' is not a 'controlling factor', and neither is 'one or the other' ideology. Now, maybe what has 'become necessary' is that they serve for 20 or 30 years only.( a life-time is too long.) Certainly, a limit on the time-factor would be a sufficient time to establish an Institutional ideology that is Democratic. The Court's function is too stabilize, not to separate and 'create', 'temporary change', for 'later modifications' that will destroy democratic Institutions. That is where its heading. The Court is using Law to destroy democracy.

Politicians differ from Statesmen.

Politicians differ from Statesmen as Political Values differ from Economic values. Most Politicians don't know the difference between Economic values and Political values. Political values are driven by the Equality and Freedom of every Individual living in the 'Condition of Togetherness'. Economic values are driven by profits. Politicians 'acknowledge' that a good economy must make 'profits' and organize their perceptions of 'public office' on a foundation of a 'healthy economy'. In other words, most Politicians are 'motored' by economic values which underlie their political perceptions; the political values of Democracy, or, Equality and Freedom, are 'driven underground'. They don't have to confront the problematic because the problematic is 'elusive' and 'underground'. Where-as, a States-Person acknowledges the importance of the economy, but motors his political activity on a basis of 'Equality and Freedom'; in other words, the economy is important but economic values do not motor his political perceptions or agenda. The 'politicians' never seem to confront the 'vacuous', 'nebulous', position of their 'politics', because they just 'don't get it'. But, this year they have been confronted with a candidate of their own, who is 'the Ideal' of 'economic accomplishment' and activity; and what do they do?; they instruct him to 'tone it down'; which he refuses. They should thank him for 'clarifying the 'Big Picture', and for giving them data for a 'real' political, self-analysis. They have a real problem. Unfortunately, the 'candidate' is completely unfamiliar with 'political values', or, with political values as 'motor'. This year, the political landscape has been 'lit up' with the unfortunate fact that politics is driven by 'economic values' instead of 'political values'. How sad. This is a complete verification that democracy is 'dying' and that Plutocracy is 'ascending'. In other words, even the 'politicians' are confused, while the 'economic motors' continue to proliferate in the 'condition of togetherness'. Where are the States-persons?

The difference between the National scene and the International scene is the Locus of Power.

There's a huge difference between National Governments and the International scene. International 'Government' or the United Nations purportedly governs the Many Nations within its jurisdiction. However, each member Nation does not relinquish its Power. Each Nation has power and the International 'Government' cannot deprive any of its member Nations of its inherent Power. In other words, Power is at the Bottom of the Governing Body. In the National scene, Institutional Power is at the Top of the governing body, and the people at the Bottom do not have power. To be sure, in a democracy, they have the Constitutional Right to a vote. But, that is more of a 'privilege' than a power. Of course, its a valuable Right, but the people do not have Power. To be sure, they can influence the exercise of Power, but, nevertheless, they as Individuals do not have Power. Power is solely a function of the Top. Well, those political arrangements raise many questions. One could say, that a National Government has the Power to Constitutionally insure the Equality and Freedom of all its People. In such a case, Equality and Freedom is 'potentially' possible. But, that Nation can never be assured of being in a 'World' where all the Nations have Equality and Freedom. Why? Simply, because the International Government or the United Nations does not have the Power to rule its 'Bottom' or, its member Nations. In other words, Internationally, Government is 'politically weak'. Nationally, Governments are strong. Obviously, we have not resolved that historical dilemma, of the One and the Many. A suggestion; the human condition is all the same, regardless of location, place of birth, or form of government into which one is born. Governments are man-made Institutions; they are 'given' Power by the Many, or the people; so why can't our political Institutions have more 'respect' for the Equality and Freedom of every human being. After all, 'Peoples' create Governments; Governments don't create People. They only exist to serve the People.

Democracy is 'flexible'; an economy is 'rigid'.

A democratic value system is flexible because Equality and Freedom are flexible. I do not mean they can be one thing, then, another thing. The Individual always retains his/her Equality and Freedom but can maneuver within that Equality and that Freedom. That's a 'democratic Life'. However an 'Economy' is a quantification and is measured 'all along the way'. A 'good' economy is a 'quantification' of sorts. The economy depends on the circulation of a 'medium of exchange' and the formation of Institutions in the social that help the circulation process. It should never become 'static' and should always be in motion. In other words, the 'medium of exchange' must always be in motion. But that 'valued mobility' is a quantified 'fiction'. Hence, the 'rigidity' of money. It's a 'fiction' that has been given a 'social value' that can 'accumulate'. That gives rise to Greed and massive accumulations. That value is entirely separate from the 'political values' of Equality and Freedom. Equality and Freedom are 'not cumulative'. You either have them or you don't. In the meantime, 'money' is accumulated by the top 1% to the point where it does not circulate 'freely' or 'democratically' within democratic Institutions. The sad part is that these results were made possible by the creation of 'legal fictions', called corporations. Corporations are purely imaginary, unreal, and exist only in contemplation of Law. In simpler language, if they 'misbehave', you can't put them in jail. What a set-up; the damage done to the Equality and Freedom in the 'condition of togetherness' cannot be remedied. The Corporate World needs 'more democratic duties'. If Government can create them, it can require that they 'participate in democracy' or have their Articles of Incorporation terminated. Individuals are 'not governed' by an 'economy'; they are governed by a Democratic government. Maybe 'someone'or 'something' will 'awaken' us, to what the "haves" are doing to the "have-nots".

A democracy is a 'value system'; an economy is a 'quantified system'.

A Democracy is a 'political value system' that functions by means of the "Equality" and "Freedom" of every Individual in the Social. An economy is also a value system 'of sorts', but functions 'specifically' by means of 'quantification'. In other words, economies are measured by means of 'Number'. Number is always what it is. It cannot signify 'one thing' in one case and 'another thing' in another case. Whereas, Words, language, 'meaning', varies in the different manners of use. Language conveys 'meaning', and Number, has 'precise signification'; that's why we can "add", "subtract", "multiply" and "divide" Number. That is always why an economy can be measured by its 'medium of exchange', Money, Capital, etc.. We cannot confuse the value systems between an economy and a political system. When Money, being rich, etc. dominates a political system, we're in trouble. Politics should first be about Equality and Freedom and then economic concepts can come into the picture. To be sure, the economy is important, but if the goal of one's life is 'money', property, and being on the Forbes list, or the 1%, then the issue of real democracy becomes secondary, and dare I add, Plutocratic. How sad, political entities exist to help the 'human condition' in its 'condition of togetherness' and the 1% is 'grabbing' and 'hoarding' all the medium of exchange. The 'medium of exchange' is 'just that', a 'medium', and the 1% 'denies' it to the Other, at the Bottom, of the Government relation. Corporations need more legal, democratic goals, and the 1%, and Other 'greedy Individuals', need to be 'less greedy'. Apparently, its more difficult to really be Human, than it is to be 'rich' and on the Forbes' List. Well, I guess, the next step is for some rich guy or corporation to buy the Moon, Mars, or some Planet, and then we're really in trouble.

A 'real' Government should have 'Three Branches'; Each Branch should be occupied by a 'States-Person'.

A 'real' Government should have 'Three Branches; that would be an Executive Branch; a Legislative Branch, and a Judicial branch. Of course, governments are political Institutions. They were not 'born' Institutions; they were established by a People. The establishment of such Institutions is for the purpose of giving a 'structure' to the ancient dilemma of the 'One and the Many'. The Many 'need' Government and they can only be Governed by the 'One' or the 'Few', and hence, need 'Law' and a 'political structure'. The major way of insuring that the 'One' does not go over-board in its 'governing' is to establish a structure that allows all the participants in the 'Condition of Togetherness' to be represented in the Political Institution. The executive Branch would govern and execute the Laws established by the Many; the Judicial would help interpret the Law and insure that the Law was not against the established political Institution; and the Many would legislate Laws. Certainly, a 'balanced form' for a Government. So, whats the problem with Politics? The problem is the 'Human condition' or the Individuals who 'seek' and those that 'acquire' Public office. The difference between a 'States-Person' and a Politician is the States-Person has the 'general welfare' of the 'Many' or the 'People' in mind, and the Politician has 'political power' in mind. Don't be fooled, most Politicians don't care about the General Welfare and enjoy 'wallowing in the accouterments' of Political Office; and that would be 'Power'. Why can't Human Beings 'handle Power? Where are our States-Persons, and when are we going to stop fighting each Other?

Democracy has 'created' an economic system that has, in turn, almost destroyed 'real democracy'.

Democracy and the Freedom and Equality of 'everyone' has given rise to an economy that is trying to undo the very 'freedom' and 'equality' that made it possible. The first thing it did was to create the 'corporate monsters'. This completely destroyed the 'competitive edge' of every single individual competing in 'economic activity'. That not only rendered economic competition between Individuals, impossible, but further, and slowly, reduced the tax liability of the Legal Fiction to be the same as that of a real human being. "Whamo", there goes competition between 'equals' and there arises the 'economic behemoths'. Now, our esteemed Supreme Court has given them the Constitutional Right to participate in elections. Truly, 'money talks' and bullshit walks. Politics has been reduced to the level of 'bullshit', and money has been 'elevated' to the level of a 'democratic value'. How sad. First, politics is leveled to some kind of inefficient level, and money, becomes a prerequisite of 'political participation'. Even Billionaires can now run for office. But, try to get some 'poor' guy at the Bottom of the 'condition of togetherness', with good political principles, to run, and s/he would be laughed out of the 'race'. But, no one laughs at a billionaire. What we need is more Individual participation by 'real Individuals' who have somehow become 'real Statesmen'. What we are witnessing today, is an 'over-crowding' of political candidates. Lets hope the people can see through that and sift-out the 'politicians' from the 'Statesmen'. It's becoming more apparent, that Statesmen-ship is a lost art, and in its place is, more and more of the same, or, simply, Money. If we're not a Plutocracy, we're pretty dam close to it. A 'medium of exchange' has become a 'huge sore' in the Body Politic.

'Politics' is about Governing; not about 'feeding' and strengthening legal fictions.

'Politics' is not a science, but it should be more 'disciplined'. Instead, politics has become an economic 'mores', or practice. Of course, there's the saying," If you want to become rich, run for political office." Obviously, politicians don't become rich because of the salary they receive. They become rich because they 'befriend' huge corporations and legislate 'favorably'. The biggest 'fiction' in the world is not found in Theology, Philosophy, or Psychology'; Its the 'legal fictions' we created in the economy; the Corporation. The corporation does not exist; even the Law considers it a 'legal fiction' and an entity that exists only 'in contemplation of Law'. Other than that, it does not exist. Yet, it is more protected than the human bring and the reason for that is its 'economic grasp'. No real, living, human being can have an economic grasp as that of the corporate structure. Corporations are 'greed machines'. We have developed a 'science of advertising' that completely overcomes the 'will' of the human being. All advertisements are about selling and buying economic products and services of the corporations. The problems that arise relate to 'income inequality' and the Top 1%. No one addresses those issues; instead the politicians 'buy' into the economic products and services and 'sleep' with the corporations. How sad. Our economy is motored by 'greed' and 'corporate fictions'. Our politicians are 'motored' by the economy, the corporate 'elite', money, and a 'complete lack' for a genuine democratic spirit. Corporations need more democratic duties. We have succeeded in creating 'economic monsters' that create a 'lopsided economy'; where the result can only be an 'income inequality'.

Some political terms have acquired a 'bad taste'. Its time we left them behind.

Some political terms have acquired a bad taste. For example, the Bottom of the political structure has always been referred too as the 'social'. The term is a 'collective' term and when expressed within a 'political framework' has always been called 'Socialism'. That's bad nomenclature; to be sure an acquired one, but nevertheless has bad 'political baggage'. The 'Socialist' type of Governments that have existed have never really been 'Social' and have tended more in the direction of Autocratic forms of Government; certainly, not Democratic forms. That's why, I prefer to call the Bottom of Government ( where all the People live) a 'condition of togetherness'. You see, such a 'condition of togetherness' can more easily assimilate into itself the Equality and the Freedom of each Individual at the Bottom. The term, as defined, preserves the equality and Freedom of each Individual and hence avoids terms like 'socialistic', etc. Of course, we can still use the term 'Social', but when referring to the Bottom of the relation of Government, we must preserve the Integrity of the 'Human Being', who constitutes the 'essence of Governing'. A Human being does not lose his Independence, nor his reality as a real human being, nor the fact that s/he created Government and not the reverse. Humanity is real, powerful Governments, are 'constructed political Institutions'. Regardless, that in all Governmental structures, the 'institutionalized power' is always at the Top, we cannot lose the fact that humanity is more important than Government. No God or Gods created Governments ( The Divine Right of Kings is no longer a viable form), it was the 'condition of togetherness' ( the Many) that required Governments to be created 'by the people'; the same People, who were 'to be Governed'. We must be very careful, how we use Political terms; and never forget that the human condition can never be 'lesser' than the Institutions it creates.

A Nation should be a 'unifying force' of the 'condition of togetherness'.

A Nation should be a 'unifying force' of the 'condition of togetherness'. Always remembering that a Nation is 'of People', by People' and 'for People'. A Nation does not have an existence, separate from its People. The important element of Nationhood is the "Equality" and "freedom" of every Individual within the 'geographical' and 'political entity'. Hence, a Nation is formed by the Peoples it Governs. Every Nation is an institution and every 'People' are real. Hence, every Political Institution should be for the benefit of its People. Of course, on the International sphere, the political picture changes because of the number of separate Nations in the World. 'Politics' on the International sphere is different from politics on the National sphere. Yet all Nations have 'real' Peoples. The people are the same; it cannot be claimed that some people are 'better' or 'different' from the other peoples. The human condition is the same. But, the Institutions of the different Governments have the same power over their people as any other Nation. There's the dilemma that arises in a 'local politics'. When local politicians start making policy or demands of other Nations; that is, in effect, an extension of the local into the International. The 'political differences' must be respected. Of course, that is not to say that violence on the International sphere is condoned. Only that great caution must be exercised when it comes to making demands of other Nations. That's what causes Wars. Yet, its not the Institutions that fight the Wars, it's always the People withing the Nations that have to 'give' their lives. God save us from 'narrow minds' and 'bad politics'.

All Nations need Government; all Governments need a political structure; and, an economy, a social, and a legal structure.

All Nations need a Government with a 'political structure'; an economy, a social, and a legal structure. Nations are very large and have 'Many peoples', hence a 'social', and an economy becomes essential, to care for the General Welfare, social as well as economic, of 'all' of it's People. Hence the necessity of Law to help implement the 'organization' of the 'condition of togetherness'. That 'organizing Power' is what is generally called "Law and Order". One can't have one without the other. Without Law there is no Order; without Order there is no Law. However, each Government is different. Democratic Governments are usually referred too as 'People Governments', because they are Governments 'of the People', 'by the People', and 'for the people'. ( a 'circular affair') Autocratic Governments, or, the 'different shades' found in 'similar' forms of Government, are also 'Forms of Governments, but their Power is exercised 'from the Top-down', and differ from the Democratic forms, by the lack of participation of the individuals at the Bottom of Government. To be sure, there are many forms of Government, but the essential characteristic of all governments is that "all Governments must govern." Obviously, there is a need for Law, because Law can help organize the social. Law can 'emanate' from the People at the Bottom of Government, or, it can 'emanate' from the very Top of Government. The exercise of Power is essential to all forms of Government, but if the Power comes from the Top, its up to the Top of government to exercise that power. Whats the likelihood of that? If the Power comes from the People, or, from the Bottom of Government, its up to the 'People' to bring about political change. Democracy needs more 'responsible human beings' at the Bottom, to serve as 'Representatives' at the Top; Autocracies need 'more responsible human beings' to serve as 'Leaders' at the Top. Regardless what they call themselves, all 'Institutional Political Power' is 'Representative' in Nature.

"Political rigidity" is a 'blindness', unacceptable in a 'real' Democracy.

'Political rigidity' in a democracy is an oxymoron. The political condition to which the term 'political rigidity' is applied, implies a sole and rigid way of doing something. The politicians further divide that 'way' into two Parties or 'two ways' of doing the same thing. It leaves no room for 'flex-ability' or changes within the system and instead creates the semblance of two different ways. Political Democracy is not a binary-system. If the political system is democratic, it implies a freedom and equal( as it relates to the other party) ability to adjust to future modifications of the social, the economy, and the structure of a free political form. What remains constant is the Equality and Freedom of the Peoples. The social; the political; the legal; and the institutional undergo many 'changes' and 'modifications'; all designed to protect the Equality and Freedom of every individual in the social. It cannot be otherwise! Democracy must be socially, legally, and institutionally flexible. It cannot be 'Rigid'. Its an 'open system' of living and allowing for changes in the many social institutions of the 'One and the Many'. Democracy is not rigid; its an open-ended political system that welcomes changes into the 'future' of Society and Politics. Rigidity, to the contrary, blocks growth and 'social maturation'. If the ideology of the two Parties stands for two 'different ways' of doing democracy, they are wrong. Political rigidity like 'political correctness' is not 'real politics'; it spells the 'death pangs' of 'real' democracy and the further 'crystallization' into a binary-system of the "haves and the have-not's". 'To Hell' with Party loyalty; lets do Democracy!

The Party-System should be beneficial to a Democracy; but, is it?

The Party-System should be beneficial to a Democracy. But, is that the case? Both Parties should have the general, common goal, of implementing Democracy; but, again, is that the case? Why is there so much 'strife' between the parties? If the goal is, generally, the same why should the 'way' to its accomplishment be so different and so 'competitive'. Of course, many party-candidates see 'politics' as a means of 'getting rich' and 'wallowing' in their own self-importance. But, there are 'underlying elements' that also affects the nature of democracy. Politics involves 'power' because its the only way to 'effect' the system as a whole. The power to represent millions is a tremendous power. That same power can re-shuffle democratic institutions to the point where Equality and Freedom are replaced by economic institutions, or simply by the 1%. In such a case, we are headed towards a Plutocracy. Some say we are already a Plutocracy; notice the dominance of candidates from the 'same families' or, 'group' of Party members. Its a cycle!, or 'bicycle' because it only has 2 wheels. That's why its so 'refreshing' to see a 'political candidate' that seems to have little to no political ambitions. But, beware! 'Money' could be replacing democracy! ( if it hasn't already done so) Nevertheless, the refreshing aspects of such a candidate is that he has breached a hole in all this so-called 'political correctness' of the Party System. Its a welcome 'insight' into 'political rigidity'. Lets face it; its not possible by someone, no matter how intelligent, from the Bottom of society. Lets wake up, human beings are not destined to go in circles. Our destiny can only be to help the 'helpless'. There's no other goal for a 'condition of togetherness'.

Governments need economies; but, not all economies need government.

All Governments need an economy, but not all economies need Government. One must be very careful how one ponders these two separate, different social institutions. Government needs an economy to help provide for its People. But, the motor of an economy is different from the motor of a democracy. The motor of a democracy is the Equality and Freedom of the people within the Institution. The motor of a capitalistic economy is 'profits'. Without profits, an economy will not grow, hence the 'equality and freedom' that motors a political institution, or, stated differently, 'democracy', goes out the window. Why? Because, Capitalistic economies require 'competition' to generate larger profits, and 'Equality and Freedom' the motor for democracy, are not matters of competition. In a Democracy each Individual 'is' politically 'Equal and Free'. Equality and Freedom are not matters of competition, or profits. They are 'inherent' in the Individual living in the 'condition of togetherness'. That's politics! The issue of an Individual having 'money to get included in the 'Forbes list'; that's economics!, and never shall the twain meet. When Democracy functions properly, an economy can function properly; when an economy 'dominates' or overwhelms the democratic function, Democracy dies and gives birth to Plutocracy. Plutocrats can never be Democrats; but Democrats can use a 'viable economy' to provide for the 'general welfare of the People'.

Millions of 'Peoples' need Governments; but the People were here before the Governments.

Millions of 'Peoples' need Governments, but 'the People' are here before the Governments. Governments were then 'created' by the Peoples. So why does Government assume an Institutional 'posture' of being more important than the peoples it should serve? Of course, governments must have 'Institutional Power' in order to 'govern'. That's their 'job'. This fact is obvious to most Individuals. So, why is it that When individuals are born within any form of Government, the Government begins to act as if they had 'created' that individual and had given him/her everything he/she possesses. How strange. People create an Institution and then the institution becomes 'superior to the people'. The Institution exists for a purpose and that can only be to 'serve its People'. A Government cannot function and act 'by and from itself', except by the same People that 'created' it. The people in positions of power act on behalf of, and as, representatives of the Government. The Institution of Government is a vacuous, hallow, Institution, if it does not have 'a People'. If it has a People its an 'embodied Institution' that is as Noble and Strong as the People that embody it. How sad. When Nations cannot get along, it's actually 'the People' that cant get along. The Human Condition is the same everywhere. Everyone is 'equally human' and no one is born with 'more humanity' or 'less humanity' than some other human being. Then, what is our problem? Power and Greed. The human condition cannot handle 'political power' and 'economic Greed'.

Capitalism needs to 'mature'.

Capitalism needs to become more responsible. It needs to mature. Some will say, "but, it works, so why change anything?" Well the truth is that Capitalism is an economic institution and not a political Institution; its an economic function, and the goal of all economies is to produce 'more and more of the same'. Profits drives capitalism. Lots of activity of 'more and more', 'concentration', and then that 'human failure' called " its mine". The 1%. One of the problems with Capitalism is that it is founded on a Fiction(the Corporation), to begin with, and then, it never 'considers' the Other, even though the Other is a real human being and was instrumental in creating the corporate fiction. The welfare of the Other is more important than the welfare of the Corporate fiction. Yet, Corporate fictions received so-called 'Welfare' just as real human beings do. The truth is that Government does have a duty to its economy, but its primary duty is to Democracy. Real human beings have lots of duties; why can't, corporations be required to have more 'democratic'duties? After all, the corporate entity is considered a 'person', and is protected by the Constitution as are all other 'real persons'. One example of the 'imbalances' the corporation creates is the fact that, originally, corporations used to pay a 70% tax instead of the same tax a real individual pays. Corporations are not real 'Persons'. The corporate nature 'increases' the 'economic grasp' of the entity, hence rendering 'competition' with 'real persons' more problematic. The human individual cannot compete with a 'corporate fiction'. Hence, economic activity 'frees' or 'distances' itself from the 'democratic control' of the real Individual. The economy becomes 'self-functioning' alongside the governmental, democratic, 'control' of the real Individual, but under a 'different value system'. The motor of the economic value system, viz., profits, can only lead to 'more and more of the same' and hence, creates a form of Plutocracy instead of a form of Democracy. Plutocracy seems to be the closest thing we have to "Kingship". Plutocrats, Kings, and Autocrats need to realize that if it were not for the People in a 'condition of togetherness', there would be 'no need' for them to exist.

The essence of Democracy is Freedom and Equality. It would be better if it was Equality and Freedom.

Freedom and Equality is the essence of a Democratic government. However, it would seem preferable, if we instead referred to those basic principles as "Equality and Freedom". Why should that different arrangement make a difference? Simply, because if "Freedom" is first or basic it might be interpreted as " Primarily, I am Free to consider Others as Free or not" or, "I am free to consider Others as Equal or not", or, I am free to discriminate, if I so wish". Accepting 'Freedom' as primary can be a dangerous way of thinking. However, if we make "Equality", primary, than after being considered Equal, one can consider "Him/Herself" as Free, but, obviously, not "free" to discriminate against the Other, because everyone is "Equal". That may seem convoluted, but remember, the human Individual is more important than the Institutional Government, and the Individuals create Government. Governments also establish Law, which is an institutional structure that protects social Order, hence, Law and Order. Government has a duty to protect the Equality and Freedom of each and every Individual in the 'condition of togetherness', which creates a need for Government. A Government is duty bound to protect the 'sacred nature' of the human individual. If it doesn't do that, who needs Government. Governments are not 'Natural"( they are necessary) and they can, and should be "Just". An "unjust Government" has no Right to exist. A "Just Government" has every Right to exist and every Individual, under that Government, will fight for that Right.

The basic relation between Government and people is one of a 'Top' and a 'Bottom'.

The basic relation between Government and 'a People' is one characterized as an 'institutional Top' and a 'real Bottom'. The Top needs and has institutional Power.Regardless the form of Government the Top always has Power otherwise it could not govern. But, the Top is only a man-made political Institution subject to change every so-often. The Bottom is always real and a 'National Reflection' of the relation between a Government and its People. Wars are 'started' by the Top, and are 'fought' by the Bottom. The Top 'speaks' politics and the Bottom lives or dies as a result of political agreements or disagreements. The International problems in Government are created or resolved by real People serving as leaders and in dialogue with Other leaders. Needless to say, Leaders are People who must have a grasp of the Big Picture and not get involved with petty disagreements nor 'personal emotions'. The Institution of Politics on the International scene, unfortunately, is also 'motored' by economic values instead of political, real, human values of Freedom and Equality. Nations disagree and real human beings have to kill each other because their Leaders 'disagree'. A larger 'motor' for International politics is that fictitious 'Arms Race'. There is no 'race', only a fictitious scenario of the old childish game known as 'My father can beat up your father'. Sad but true. What can we do? How do we get Individual Leaders to understand that the Human Condition on the International sphere is the same as the human condition on the National scale? Political Institutions can never have more value than the 'Human condition'. Politics may be essential, but the human condition, under any banner, is Sacred.

Nations are Institutions that cannot survive long without their People.

A Nation is a political institution of Power. Make no mistake, its the most powerful institution in the world. But, all nations are 'constructed' institutions and hence, dependent on how the 'Top' uses its political Power. It was People who originated the Institution and its People who 'operate' it. All Nations have a history, and in most cases, a Nation is its history. A History has become a political Institution, but its an Institution that can be changed, for the better, or, for the worst; and that change can be brought about from the Top or the Bottom. The Top has Power as a product of its Institutionalized nature; but the Bottom does not have Power as an Institution; nevertheless, each Individual has individual Power over him/herself. The only way for the Bottom to have a direct influence on the Top is for the Bottom to organize. Workers Unions have understood this aspect of institutional power. But, how can all the Individuals in a Nation organize at the Bottom, if they are 'splintered' into 'different parties', or, if they are influenced by 'value systems' ( economic value system) that 'should be unrelated' to the 'political value system' (freedom and Equality)? The 'economic' cannot function in the 'Political'. It must be kept separate. Every single Individual is ( or should be)Free and Equal. In the economy, not every single Individual is 'rich'; not everyone has a job; not everyone has a home; not everyone has food to eat; not everyone has medical care; etc.. I am not advocating some sort of distribution scheme!! I'm advocating a democratic scheme of opportunity; where every Individual at the bottom is, in fact, Free and Equal; where corporations(legal fictions) have democratic duties, just like every human Individual; and where Government is ,in fact, Democratic.