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'.