Talk:Government/Archive 1

Untitled
"It can be noted that a government can be seperated from other institutions becuase a government always maintains the sole use of violence to maintain and enforce its view."


 * surely not true: many governments don't manage to maintain a sole use of violence, some may not even care much as long as they are not threatened. I'm not sure that introducing the "legitimate force" idea from political philosophy would be a good idea either: just see what kind of morass trying to define "legitimate" leads to.  In any case it's against common usage, e.g., one can talk about an "illegitimate goverment" or a government not generally "recognised" outside a state, but it's still basically a government as long as it maintains control.  Also, preoccupation with violence is probably mistaken: it's easy to imagine a government ruling a heavily indoctrinated population, not needing to use violence since lynch mobs will take care of any "problems". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conversion script (talk • contribs) 15:43, 25 February 2002 (UTC)


 * I agree most governments accept that citizens use violence in self defence etc. It was a nice try for a definition but it doesn't work --BozMo|talk 13:27, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

-

need to mention social organization of cyberspace — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.170.144 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 15 March 2004 (UTC)

This article is a mess, because it doesn't decide whether it's about the "decision making elite" of the state, or the state itself. I think it should take the first definition and leave the rest to the state article. It can still mention that "government" is sometimes used as a synonym of "state". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.225.23 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

the role of government
according to all economic theory government's only purpose is to deal with market failure. i think someone should add a short paragraph on gov's attempt to fix market failure and how sometimes gov failure accures because of lack of perfect information--GregLoutsenko 29 June 2005 00:48 (UTC)

suggested tweak of definition
organization that has the power to make and enforce laws for a certain territory or people

consider corporate government or governance of a non-profit organization. how about a nomadic culture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.195.64.98 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 1 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that a territorial component of government should be avoided. Governing bodies, that is bodies that make rules and extract obedience, exist within most institutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace Diamond (talk • contribs) 18:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Fundamentally, government exists as a reflection of the will of "the people"; generally meaning it is an organization established by a majority of those seeking to be governed (to have rules & regulations established as the people need and to have the "government" administer those laws for the benefit of the people. Unfortunately this has evolved into government existing for itself and controlling the populace). Usually this happens within a well defined geographic area although the UN was an attempt to create a global government.

NB - Where something exists and has possessions, it has an owner. As with a non-profit association or a club or a mutual life insurance company, government is beneficially owned by those it governs. Food for thought when a government is formed by those using the "first past the post system" rather than by winning a majority of the votes. Also gives one pause when contemplating corruption and vote-buying by government (see the Gomery Inquiry in Canada).

Wishful thinking - legally define government as a trustee existing to serve the electorate and provide legal liability to politicians, bureaucrats and government employees/contractors for their actions. Require them to be every bit as responsible and liable as an officer or director of a public company or any other trustee of public funds. When you consider Enron and Worldcom and the responsibility being forced upon many officers of those companies, you need to remember that the funds they administered were volunarily turned over to them by shareholders and bond holders. Taxpayers are forced to turn funds over to governments so perhaps they should be held to an even higher standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.210.111.248 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

History of government
needs to include the history of government — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flufybumblebee (talk • contribs) 18:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

American History of Government/ American Purpose of Government
Original North American aboriginal governance was supported by cultural solidarity. A chain of trust secured a 'House' with True Authority. A House was responsible for its members. If a member committed a wrong to a member of another House, Houses, represented by House Chiefs through circle sentencing with the wronged and the wronged doer, restored justice. Dispersed cultures dispersed as population saturation demanded it. They were happy and characterise by reason and tolerence. They were free until economic ties culturally decimated 'True Liberty, replacing 'True Authority with economic authority. The ensuing material disparity proved carcinogenic. Wars were inevitable.

According to John Lock, in the state of nature all people were equal and independent and none had a right to harm another's life, health, liberty, or possesions; but war, the most insidious crime against humanity, is culture dependent; various factions and coalitions vying for whatever they can have provided fertile soil for striving economically, but modern merging cultures are biased. They have yet to re-develop beyond the principles of capitalism, which are not synonomous with those of democracy.

The most basic principle of capitalism is exploitation within an economic system concerning private interests. The most basic principle of democracy is virtue within a cooperative government system concerning public freedom.

Public freedom is dependent upon governing private interests; but governing the governed reflectively so as not to re-dramatize man's inhumanity to man is taking time to effect change because as Montesquie said, the person(s) entrusted with the execution of democracy must be sensible of being himself subject to its direction.

Representatives of a Republic must be elected by people who understand that food, shelter, transportation, and communication are the limits of human commonality, the purpose of government,and the limitation of government. These natural rights to life are fundamental to consent of the governed given to government. Beyond this most common precondition for liberty is just that: liberty.

--Some may declare, communism; but the most basic principle of communism is federalization within a controlled government system purporting to concern itself with the common good. Its power structure is top down rather than bottom up.--

Natural rights to life must needs be the focus of government. Otherwise, a contentious political quagmire of corportate/ego-centric/ethnocentrism reiterates Machiavelli, "Least happy is the (world) whose institutions are intirely off the path that leads to a right and perfect end. But the republic for which the US flag stands is not a done deal.  It is the means of working towards a right and perfect end, to answer the prayer "Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven," to form a perfect union: a new paridigm politik.

A choherent a collective cultural basis of justice, tranquility, commonality, and well-bing that is reasonable, right, and natural for the security of liberty requires government, but as Thomas Jefferson said, "That government is best which governs the least, because its people dicipline themselves."

The history of government ends with the American revolution because, in America, we the people have yet to perfectively form a union. History, we the people must avoid. The founders of the Unites States gave Americans the responsiblity of page turning, starting a new chapter: A Republican Form of Government Subject to a Constitutional Ordinance of PAurpose.

The republican form of government, that governs the republic for which the US flag stands, is the American experiment. It is a process that needs not party members, but republicans to exersice democratic responsiblity though education, participation and contribution. Think abourt it! If justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, and general welfare secured to people and posterity can be conceptualized, you can give your consent to perfectively establish objectivity supported by veracity, communicate on a domestic level so as to ensure peacefull coexistence, provide the principles of immovable force, promote the equality of well-being, and secure authority and culture together with solidarity of purpose for future generations.

The rear view mirror of history shows where the future is not, but as we look to the future humankind must needs be guided by something: the preamble of the US Constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.169.124 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What you're proposing violates the NPOV concept of the Wikipedia. The purpose of this article should not be prescriptive, but rather a descriptive generalization of all governments at all times, each of which was constructed by individuals for a specific culture in order to obtain specific goals. The United States Constitution is neither an outline for a perfect form of governance, nor an exclusive recipe for effective governance. We live in a world of 250 distinct nation states, not simply by accident of history, but also because a single form of government cannot possibly encompass the needs a desires of all the world's people. Governments are rarely the sole organization or cultural construct within a society, and how responsibility is distributed between government and non-government actors significantly determines the scope and character of any particular government. Dwcsite (talk) 10:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes
The recent large change to the page by User:Ace Diamond loses a fair amount of nuance and makes a number of controversial claims. I've reverted. Discuss here. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes
Man that didn't take long.

This whole article (before the changes)seems to me to be a rambling, disjointed discussion all by itself. It contains few citations (admittedly a flaw in the new article but that can be fixed). I just wanted to provide a description of what a government is and does.

So, let us discuss

Ace Diamond 02:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, I think the current layout is broadly alright (though like most articles here it needs rewriting in a lot of places). The article currently attempts to answer a few basic questions: The last little section could well be incorporated somewhere else. Those three questions are certainly things that should be covered; other issues that should be addressed but aren't include the history and development of government.
 * What government is -- the definitions and forms section
 * Why governments exist -- the section labelled "theories" (this is a vague title)
 * What governments do -- the "operations" section, again a vague title

The main reason I reverted your edit, though was that it made a number of broad generalizations that would certainly be highly controversial (e.g. "All effective governments possess two attributes, authority and legitimacy." -- it would be hard to get agreement even on what "effective" means in that context). I don't know if that's a good way to begin a reorganization. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

All right, I hate admit it but you make good points. I'll rewrite and address your concerns. As to the issue of broadness, though, I think that an article that concerns itself with the broad notion of government should take a broad perspective and then point to more focused articles to provide nuance

Ace Diamond 03:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Definitions
May I know why was the section for elaborating the different meanings of the word government entirely removed? Thanks. The removal has made the commonwealth usage of the word disregarded. &mdash; Instantnood 15:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * See the sections immediately above for some related discussion on an earlier, similar change. The existing definitions section was admittedly a bit poorly organized, but my concerns above still apply. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to note that the section in question is so poorly written that I felt it needed to be replaced. What does:
 * One approach is to define government as the dominant(on top) better decision-making arm of the state, and define the latter on the basis of the control it has over violence and the use of force within its territory.

mean? If someone wants to rewrite the section and put it back, I have no objection.Ace Diamond 02:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Previously the #Definitions section clearly stated that, the word Government in Commonwealth usage may also mean the executive branch of government. The message has completely perished. &mdash; Instantnood 20:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OK Ace Diamond 15:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The second question is, is this only commonwealth usage? The term head of government always refers to the head of the executive branch. &mdash; Instantnood 19:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

-- what about putting in the meaning of the word "government" itself? The word breaks down to govern, and ment.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ment (mind or spirit) http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/govern (to control the actions of)

to control the actions of mind or spirit -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.77.192 (talk) 00:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Civil vs. Other governments
I have a fear that this article will fall into a trap that trips up many political aricles. This should be a broad piece that defines and describes government in its least specific sense.

Everyone within a state is governed by a sort of a macro-government, the Civil government. You might call this being governed from without.

Academic, eclesiastical, artistic, and commercial organizations are all "governed" from within, in the sense that they all have governing bodies that make and enforce internal rules and policies.

Too much concentration on civil government masks the similarities between civil governance and other venues for governance. For that reason I would prefer to leave the secondary definition alone for now. Ace Diamond 21:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right. I intend to find a good place in the article to place a link to the governance article.--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 08:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Bologna

 * One approach is to define government as the decision-making arm of the state, and define the latter on the basis of the control it has over violence and the use of force within its territory. Specifically, the state (and by extension the government) has been considered by some to be the entity that holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a territory.

Who takes this approach? Not Weber, who recognized that the legistative function is but a fraction of the role of government. In fact Politics as a Vocation concentrated on the executive. Moreover, almost any discussion of a particular government refers to the executive (see the introductory paragraph s of this very article.

I would love to see some citation that states that governments are the decision making arm of the state as I could find none. Ace Diamond 23:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

definition

 * A government is a group of people who perform the following functions:
 * (1) nominate office holders,
 * (2) elect office holders,
 * (3) make laws or rules,
 * (4) execute laws or rules,
 * (5) judge breaches of laws.
 * These functions may reside in one person, a group, or with all the people collectively. Or these function can be divided in various ways.

A government does not nominate or elect office holders. And it never resides in a single person. Governments are not limited to civil administrations but exist in any institution that regulate or administer.Ace Diamond 02:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Forms of Government section
While doing some rewording to eliminate redlink references, I noticed the existing "Forms of Government" section text:
 * The lines between some of the above forms of government can sometimes be ambiguous. For example, during the 19th century, most self-proclaimed "democracies" restricted voting rights to a minority of the population (e.g. property-owning males). This could qualify them as oligarchies rather than democracies. On the other hand, the voting minority was often quite large (20-30% of the population) and its members did not form the compact group with common interests that is the hallmark of most oligarchies. Thus, this form of government occupied a space between democracy and oligarchy as they are understood today.

I added the citation tag, although it probably isn't exactly a citation that is need. I wasn't sure exactly what countries the author might have been referring to with the "self-proclaimed 19th century democracies" wording, but given the oligarchy article I'm not sure that it is obvious that, say, early America was an oligarchy, even with a limited franchise. Of course it could be argued that it was, or effectively was, but since this is supposed to be a summary of the main article forms of government, is it really necessary to go into unsubstantiated detail, especially since it is halfway retracted in the next sentence? Couldn't this entire paragraph be replaced with some sort of "lines are blurry, for instance between an oligarchy and a democracy with limited suffrage and/or other concentrations of wealth [or whatever]" type of phrasing? - David Oberst 09:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Government or The State
A distinction needs to be made between "government" and "The State". The former is simply the question "Who (a person) may coerce whom to do x?" The latter is the invention of Machiavelli, and is a machine, not a person. The former has been always with us; the latter starts in the 17th Century, and becomes independent of its operator with the French Revolution. July 2006 - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.71.118.255 (talk • contribs).

Anarchy included in forms of government
Under forms of government was this statement: Anarchy is characterised by the absence of a government and therefore does not constitute a form of government. If it doesn't constitute a form of government, what is it doing under forms of government? Doctors without suspenders 11:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

fixed: 'other categories' --Anarchysm (talk) 05:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Difference between law and code
What's the difference ( remeber Aristotle ? Herodotus?) between law and code, etc ? Wblakesx 05:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)wblakesx

"OK this article is really a mess" (relocated from top of page)
OK, this article really is a mess. I took the liberty of writing an a provisional outline. Maybe this is the place to assemble a coherent, consise, elegant article. I know that this outline is incomplete, maybe that will encourage editors to add, crossout, and rearrange topics so that we can produce an exemplary piece. Ace Diamond 02:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Government Defined From the Greek for to steer Forms of Government Origins Who gets to govern? Functions of Governments Power Agenda setting How to Govern
 * A body that makes and enforces rules
 * features
 * authority
 * legitimacy
 * The State
 * any institution
 * civil
 * corporate
 * academic
 * religious
 * commonly refers to a specific regime
 * Blair Government
 * see also Bush Administration
 * Authoritarian
 * Autocratic
 * Oligarchic
 * Totalitarian
 * Everything in between
 * constitutional monarchy
 * liberal democracy
 * Llaissez Faire
 * Anarchistic
 * Libertarian
 * how does this apply to non-civil institutions?
 * This might be the place to talk about the social contract
 * What about other rationales for the developement of governments?
 * Divine Right? Who argued in favor of this rationale?
 * Confusious had a different approach, didn't he?
 * What about Social Darwinism? The most capable will rise to the top?
 * Conquest
 * Tradition
 * Charisma
 * Legal/rational (government with the express consent of the governed)
 * Rule Making
 * enforcement
 * interpretation
 * Authority
 * limits of authority
 * Legitimacy sources
 * Tradition
 * Charisma
 * Legal/Rational
 * Policy
 * define power
 * Acquiring power
 * Applying power

Maybe these parts should be included in some other article? Branches of Government Governmental Operations Size of Government
 * This section might fit better in an article on public administration/organizational schemes.
 * This section assumes that the tripartite division of powers is universal.
 * again maybe Public Administration
 * Actually, this probably ought to be deleted as not neutral point of view Ace Diamond 02:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Etymology
I don't know if you plan to mention the etymology in this version, but I should point that "the latin 'mente'" (mens, mentis, really) has nothing to do with it and should be discarded.Pif le chien 14:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The -ment stem is from French (through Latin) and simply indicates a noun formed from a verb. Nothing to do with "mind." Christopher Parham (talk) 06:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Confidence and supply
I have just created a page on Confidence and supply. I'm no political scientist, so if anyone wants to improve it, please do so. Also, if there is a more appropriate page for this message to be on, feel free to move it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Helenalex (talk • contribs) 02:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Montesquieu
The following text was on the main page:
 * Enlightenment philosopher [Montesquieu] argued that different forms of government were more appropriate for different size dominions. He wrote that entities governing a large area are most appropriately Despotisms, or Dictatorships, entities with sovereignty over a medium area should be monarchies and entities with authority over a small area are best as republics.

I was unable to find the source of this quote from online sources. --Kevinkor2 15:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
This article seems to get a lot of hit-n-run vandalism on a regular basis. Should it be semi-protected? Or should that wait until after possibly being an improvement drive collaboration? -- Beland 08:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is going to be semi-protected, it should probably be after the improvement drive is over so that unregistered users can participate.--Mars2035 00:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Outline

 * 1) Origin of Government
 * 2) Fundamental purpose of government
 * 3) early governments
 * 4) Expanded roles of government
 * 5) military defense
 * 6) economic security
 * 7) social security
 * 8) Government as a friend
 * 9) national pride
 * 10) religion
 * 11) social order
 * 12) Government as an enemy
 * 13) deception and disenfranchisement
 * 14) enslavement
 * 15) war
 * 16) racism
 * 17) misdirection of public resources

--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Partiality
Synopsis Section.

"Although anarchists are noteworthy exceptions, very few people—even when faced with the most repugnant government, envision replacing it with nothing."

It's the Godwin Law or Wikipedia has decided to create a political party? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.3.18.248 (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've removed that part. Pha telegrapher (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of anarchists the writer is citing, but the point of anarchism isn't to replace government with nothing, so I deleted that sentence. --Vericuester (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay now I'm not sure if it's right or not. I might add it back. I have to check whether or not that's true. --Vericuester (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Mistrust of government
Although the subject is mentioned briefly in the "government as enemy" section, I think the concept of mistrust of government deserves more attention. At least in the United States, politicians often campaign on promises to reduce the role of government. Perhaps there should be a separate article. Pha telegrapher (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Reads Like An Essay
This article doesn't read like an encyclopedia article. It reads more like an essay someone wrote when asked what their opinion of government is.

For one thing it is full of opinions like this:

"The necessity of government derives from the fact that the people need to live in communities, yet personal autonomy must be constrained in these communities." The necessity of government is a matter of opinion, not fact and shouldn't be presented as a fact. It is a popular opinion, and there are many well-founded arguments for it, but it is still an opinion. Also, there are other opinions for the necessity of government besides this one. It's good for the article, keep it, but reframe it.

At the end it says "The controversies over how big, how powerful and how intrusive governments should become will continue for the remainder of human history." Sounds like a good conclusion for an essay on government, but this is not an essay, it's an encyclopedia article. While I agree the controversies will most likely continue for the remainder of human history the remainder of human history hasn't happened yet. This is a prediction and does not belong in an encyclopedia article.

It presents Hobbes as though his views are fact. Keep in mind that not only do anarchists disagree with Hobbes, but there are non-anarchists who have different ideas about the creation and reason to maintain the state.

Also "This will be discussed shortly" doesn't sound very encyclopedic. That's the kind of thing you put in an oral essay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealdeal (talk • contribs) 22:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. Also very wrong is that: States formed as the results of a positive feedback loop where population growth results in increased information exchange which results in innovation which results in increased resources which results in further population growth.[19][20] The role of cities in the feedback loop is important. Cities became the primary conduits for the dramatic increases in information exchange that allowed for large and densely packed populations to form, and because cities concentrated knowledge, they also ended up concentrating power.[21][22] "Increasing population density in farming regions provided the demographic and physical raw materials used to construct the first cities and states, and increasing congestion provided much of the motivation for creating states."[23]
 * The term of "a positive feedback loop" implies that nation building would be something like a rational process. This is even the reverse of the standard theory of rising states by Franz Oppenheimer. --Crashtip (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree; this absolutely reads like an essay. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 20:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree as well; Furthermore I think that it is not very useful for an encyclopedia. Specifically I came to have an idea what is part of the government and what not. The article does not help me with this in any way. 130.60.228.172 (talk) Wed Jun 18 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 15:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"Government as Friend/Enemy" (please change these)
Seriously, they need to be changed. Governments cannot go to the movies with me or demand my lunch money. Stop using words that are childlike and ignorant. Instead, title these sections as "Positive Aspects" and "Negitive Aspects." If you so desire, add "of Government" to each if you are worried about people forgetting about which article they are in. Sgt. Hydra (talk) 16:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to positive and negative aspects. I also had to change some of the wording in the subsequent sentence under each heading. If I've made it somehow more biased by doing this, could someone change the article to something less biased? I wasn't really sure how to word it. --Vericuester (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Woah, woah, woah. Wait a second. Who determines what is positive and what is negative? Your pet lizard? Without a Biblical Worldview, no one determines what is right and wrong, so, since Wikipedia has a generally Humanistic Worldview, isn't it rather vague and pointless to to say "Positive and Negative" when there's no way to determine what each means? Huck2012 E. Novachek (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Religion and Government
I've edited the first sentence for NPOV. I think the rest of the paragraph should also be edited. Bkepisto (talk) 06:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Stupid Question
¿Why is it some other articles on forms of government (such as the article on Autocracy)have a table referencing other forms of government, yet this article does not? Call me stupid, but it would seem THIS article needs that table most of all.4.246.120.144 (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Andering J REDDSON, Troublemaker and Misanthrope.

I added a table of types of governments to match other government related articles. I know it isn't perfect, but it is a step towards strengthening this article. Αδελφος (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Addition of section on critical views and alternatives
Whilst the dealt with the positive and negative aspects of government, it lacked any real critique of the actual traditional conception of government. In an increasingly interdependent world, there is a growing discussion over whether the traditional role and approach of government is still appropriate and effective. I have therefore added a section which deals with this issue. No doubt it requires some further editing, but I feel it should be included in the article. Timschocker (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Types of Government
Howcome "Aristocracy" is ommited from types of government? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.162.217 (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Aristocracy refers to the criteria by which leaders are selected, not the actual structure of the government itself. The traditional form of an aristocracy is technically an oligarchy.  Polemicisto (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Synopsis
Is there a reason why this article should have a synopsis at all? It seems out of place with usual wiki style, and frankly just looks strange and amateurish. --24.125.201.42 (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

nem13: Guys, should I remind you that all states within the USSR were called "Soviet Socialist Republics"? A republic is not a democracy, not in all cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.220.42 (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

>> The political philosophy of anarchism opposes states, not governments. Therefore, it is a fallacy to assume that anarchism is not a form of it as it does not mean governments are harmful and unnecessary, but states are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.12.28 (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Government?
Isn't there one? If so, can somebody tag this? Thanks. Trekphiler (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitions in “Types of Government”
Under “Types of Government”, the definitions of Despotism, Dictatorship and Tyranny seem to be the same. This should be changed so that the differences are explained, if there are any differences.Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Heads Up on Incoming Vandalism
Just a quick heads up for anyone monitoring this article. A teacher at my school is planning on a practical demonstration of the dangers of using Wikipedia for research papers. To do this, the teacher will be editing an article on "Government." I don't know the exact article yet, but I'm guessing it will be this one. Anyway, we will be doing this in class, so I should have more accurate information soon. Keep on your toes if you care about the integrity of this article, and consider informing administrators once the vandalism is posted so that the IP Address can be blocked. If the vandalism isn't caught by anyone immediately I will fix it when I get home. Thanks for your help everyone, I love Wikipedia and I hate it when people try to sabotage it.TyGuy92 (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is the negative aspects of government so short?
Really surprised to notice this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government#Negative_aspects_of_government

Thought it would be (at least) double the size.

Will contribute to it.

Panarchy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.120.169 (talk) 06:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Fundamental Purpose of Government
This section seems entirely NPOV as it explains government seemingly through social contract theory. Although social contract theory is taught in United States schools as an explanation of government, it has largely been discredited by Political Philosophers, and Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau do not hold a monopoly on explaining government. Rousseau, in fact, was forced to give up social contract theory as it proved logically inconsistent, a fact that is largely ignored by the authors of social science textbooks, but tends to discredit widely held views of government. The reasons why governments form and individuals submit to them may very well be as diverse as all the governments that have throughout history and every individual who has submitted to a government respectively. The justification of government has proven to be a sloppy intellectual endeavor at best, and the formation and consolidation of political power into government institutions has rarely proven to be a tidy academic exercise. Examples of coersion, self interest, and violence are too numerous to cite; however even in the Anglo-American nation states, such a tidy definition belies the messiness of the whole process. To then generalize such a definition to all governments throughout time and space seems, to put it politely, ambitious. I think this section cannot every be wholly NPOV, however editors out to do their best to identify multiple social, historical, anthropological, and philosophical viewpoints in this section, and leave it to the reader to make a determination about the viability of any of the named theories. Not all theories need to be presented, however, and expert in the area might identify the one currently deemed most plausible, and we could move from there. As it is, this article is terrible, this section in particular.Dwcsite (talk) 10:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Government literally means "control mind" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.23.88 (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree the 'Purpose' section needs quite a bit of work. Consider the development of the U.S Federal Government after the revolution: the states had governments but they established a Federal one anyway because it had the ability to accomplish more than the states did individually. The purpose section completely avoids the idea that governments initially develop as a way for individuals in a community to accomplish tasks that would be impossible if each person went out on their own to do so (policing, constructing public works, establishing laws, dealing with other governments, etc) 134.121.179.20 (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Patrick

Government VAT
It is cruesial that VAT is noticed in government and the whole citizen community. You can work VAT out by finding 17.5% of the amount of money, though note that not everything has VAT including baby and disabled people equiptment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.190.62 (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Types of Government: Democracy
A small thing I just want to point out, under the definition of Democracy it includes the definition in the ancient Athenian sense of complete populist control. But also says "It may be exercised by them (direct democracy), or through representatives chosen by them (representative democracy)." It seems to me that the second definition should be more labeled as Republic. Off hand (I could be wrong) the only place that exercises representative democracy as its sole governing body is the US. Even if this should still be left under Democracy I still think a place for Republic should be added, seeing as there a legitimate form of government and quite significant through out history with such examples as SPQR and the the French Republics. Any one feel differently? 131.230.146.135 (talk) 05:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above. There is no mention of a Republic on the government page, a prominent form of government.Judasbot (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Numerous problems

 * The intro does not read well. It is just a selection of quotes defining of justifying "government", without even saying something like "The term 'Government' has been defined in a number of ways, notably..."
 * Types of Government:
 * "Constitutional Monarchy - A government that has a king, but his/her power is strictly limited by the government" - governments don't have kings, states/kingdoms do. And if the king is part of the government, then this definition amounts to "a government whose power is limited by itself."
 * "Monarchy - Rule by an individual who has inherited the role and expects to bequeath it to their heir." - Not all hereditary rulers are monarchs, and not all monarchs are hereditary (or were not anyway - some ancient societies had kings that were elected by and from the aristocracy).
 * Despotism/Dictatorship/Tyranny - the definitions given are basically the same, and in some/all cases may be inaccurate (several dictatorships have been governed by a military council or similar group).


 * Origin and Purpose of Government: this presents one POV among several. Alternative views would include:
 * Some (e.g. anarchists) might say that the only "purpose" of government is to perpetuate its own existence and exploit the people for the benefit of the ruling classes. (And I'm sure many dictators think the same, even if they publicly try to justify their rule).
 * Hobbes AFAIK thought government developed because everyone would end up at war with everyone without a state and government to keep their baser instincts in check.
 * Locke AFAIK took a more optimistic view of human nature and thought people could get by without a government, but created them because they can do better with one than without.
 * Various revolutionary declarations (e.g. US Declaration of Independence) have stated their composers’ views on the purpose of government, which have typically included several items beyond mere security and public order.  Also, I would say it is simply incorrect to say "without which individuals cannot attempt to find happiness" - you can attempt anything under any conditions.  It would make more sense to remove the word "attempt", but then the truth of the statement could be disputed.


 * Expanded roles for government: Military defence: "The fundamental purpose of government is to protect one from his or her neighbors..." - Several issues here:
 * Firstly, this seems a bit of a strong statement - one could easily debate which is the most fundamental role of government.
 * Inconsistency: the paragraph about national defence states that the most important role is defence against your neighbours (i.e. law and order/internal security), but the paragraph about law and internal security only describe this as "one of" the most important.
 * If law and order is the most important, then that should probably be described first, and in greater detail.


 * Social security: the section seems to be inconsistent about whether it is using the term "social security" to mean government-provided aid ("social security is a relatively recent phenomenon, prevalent mostly in developed countries") or any form of care for the elderly or infirm ("there are still many countries where social security through having many children is the norm").


 * Education: "The government plays a central role in participating to the education of the citizens. In particular it finances (directly or via subsidizing) a huge portion of the educational system (Schools, Universities, continuous education)."
 * The truth of this statement depends heavily on what country, what government, and what period of history you are talking about.


 * Positive and negative aspects of government: this is full of POV, weasely wording, and other problems. For example:
 * Upper economic class support (Positive?) / Class oppression - the former seems more of a criticism that a positive, and the latter seems to be written from a distinctly anti-capitalist perspective (which is both POV, and not the only form of class oppression that a government can inflict/support. A more neutral (but possibly still weasely) way of saying this might be something like:
 * "Governments often attempt to control or influence the economies of their countries. The legitimacy of this is often leads to bitter dispute between those who think the government's acts benefit the country, and those who think they only benefit the government and its supporters to the detriment of the rest of the population".


 * Religion - this paragraph seems more about the benefits of religion to society, rather than any (alleged) benefits of government to religion.
 * War. I can think of lots of negative aspects of governments when it comes to war, however I don't think that "a people of one nation will see the government of another nation as the enemy when the two nations are at war" is a particularly relevant one.
 * Religious Opposition: this is really more an issue of state religions (or possibly religion in general), rather than a negative aspect of governments.

Wardog (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Synopsis: as someone else mentioned earlier, this reads more like a conclusion to an essay than an encyclopaedia. Not only that, but it's a particularly weasely conclusion that basically says "governments can be good and/or bad, and people will never be able to agree about it".  (Which, IMO, is true, but not a very useful thing to say).

The article flip-flops saying "X can be either good or bad", thus it reads like a 7th grade essay. Was this part of a paper for civics class? In addition, everything has POV issues. Specifically modern and Western POV. Most of the historical citations are from European and American history, and there is very little mention of Asian, African and Arabian history, which as I recall, is very relevant. BTW, the "Support for democracy" is pretty blatant in terms of POV.

Am I missing something here or do the footnotes not make a lot of sense. I mean, sure a lot of the notes there are for bibliography purposes, but, "^ Most of this sentence is in the present tense because the process is still ongoing."?

I'm reading the previous edits to make sure that there aren't any no editors out there who has extreme objections towards improving this article.Grifter tm (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Origins of Government
In fact, we don't have records of the origin of government, and this section is purely speculative. I think that it reflects the conventional wisdom, and I agree that this is the most plausible story for the origin of government...but changing the wording to "It is assumed" or "The conventional model is", etc. would be a win. TJIC (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV
I don't think it's very NPOV to have a picture of the capitol building in america, but not of anything else except for a greek symbolistic painting.Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well that's your POV, and I don't think it's very NPOV to post your POV here. 72.235.131.7 (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

High Standards
Shouldn't Wikipedia uphold the highest standards in article writing, especially in such an important article as "Government?" I mean, imagine you're a student coming to Wikipedia for history or civics project, and you expect to find a neutral, helpful, fact-filled article. Instead, however, you find an opinion-filled, reflective, vague article with an obviously partisan point of view. Should you stay on Wikipedia, where people don't have the decency or intelligence to clean an important article up, or go to your school library for an old-fashioned Funk&Wagnalls' Encyclopedia? If we don't see the necessity of cleaning this article up and get to action quickly, every student will have good reason to forsake Wikipedia for a book-form encyclopedia that was put together by scientists and Ph.D's, rather than "the free online encyclopedia that everyone (and his dog) can edit." E. Novachek (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

forms of govt:repbulic
why isn't it added?.USA is a Republic and this system of govt is absent.I have added it.plz make is more perfect —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 05:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes
Refined the Abuse of Power section to make it more neutral and informed. However, I have not removed the POV-section, as I deem it appropriate that someone else evaluate the revisions and conclude my writing meets the higher standard. ClassicalScholar (talk) 07:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Bizarre Text
'''"Historians and anthropologists have now located many examples of peaceful communities with gangs of barbarians living nearby. Imagine one of our more violent gangs riding into town on horses, instead of motorcycles or cars, and you will have the picture. These barbarians were lazy and had little interest in work. Every few weeks they would ride into town, steal food, clothing, and whatever else they could carry, then ride back out. They would live off the stolen loot until it was gone, then ride back in and raid the town again. This would go on for many years until- One night the barbarians were sitting around their campfire planning their next attack, one complained, "You know, all this riding in and out of town and fighting with people is beginning to feel like work. It isn't fun anymore, there's got to be a better way."...This sorrowful discussion would continue until someone exclaimed, "I've got it! Let's just ride into town and stay!...Then we'll levy something we'll call a tax. We'll tell the people-we'll call them taxpayers-that as long as they pay this regularly, exactly as we tell them...we won't punish them..." Another barbarian suggested, "Yes, and we could use some of the tax money to provide a few services, maybe streets, schools, and courts, so that the people feel like they're getting something for their money. Richard J. Maybury, in Whatever Happened to Justice?"'''

This whole text is pretty wierd, not to mention very poorly written. Is there any point in retaining it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.64.241 (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Missing types?
Where is Socialism and Fascism? They ARE types of governments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.114.172.2 (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Government: different American and European meanings of the word.
There are differences in what Americans and Europeans think about when using the English word "Government".

Americans think about every employee and tangible asset paid by dollars in every Agency or Bureau, their Administration, and the three branches of Government. This means millions of people, their offices and fighter jets. Europeans refer to these things as "the State".

Europeans (including English speakers on the British Isles) think on the other hand only about the fifteen to twenty persons who are chosen to run a country on the highest political level. Americans call this group the "Cabinet" or the "Administration".

A European prime minister is typically talking about forming a government, which his King or Queen my refer to as "My Government". This makes no logical sence to Americans who thinks that the government is already there, independently of who wins the elections and thus chooses the cabinet.

The reason for the two different meanings of the word "government" is the vast constitutional differences in the political systems between America and Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.177.143.118 (talk) 06:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's correct. A few other relevant points here:  What Americans call the "cabinet" is referred to in the UK as both the "government" and the "cabinet", while "government" is never used in the US to refer to the "cabinet" alone; the president of the US is never referred to as part of the cabinet, while I believe in UK-type systems the prime minister is part of the cabinet; and the often-heard phrase "the government fell" -- meaning in a parliamentary system that the "cabinet" is dissolved and there will probably be an early election -- would have quite a different meaning in the US.  Basically it would mean that there had been a revolution and the entire system of government had been replaced by a different system.  Neutron (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Just an opinion...
But I'd think that "origins" should be renamed History (and cleaned up a little) and be put nearer the top... Most articles on wikipedia begin with history, listing "types" of governments should be on the bottom (like how cities and towns are in a table at the bottom of the page, or even on the right hand side.) =] Just my 2 cents...

Also, as to the difference between european and american versions of govenmernt... couldn't you just do a disambiguation page? like... Government (U.S.) or Government (U.K.). =/ Ncboy2010 (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

'Monopoly on Violence' POV?
"Each successive government is composed of a specialized and privileged body of individuals, who monopolize political decision-making, and are separated by status and organization from the population as a whole. Their function is to enforce existing laws, legislate new ones, and arbitrate conflicts via their monopoly on violence. In some societies, this group is often a self-perpetuating or hereditary class. In other societies, such as democracies, the political roles remain, but there is frequent turnover of the people actually filling the positions.[4]"

This sections seems filled with POV. It makes the idea of government sounds bad through 'monopoly of violence' and '[separation] from the population as a whole.' Not saying that governments like this don't exist, but not all governments do.

PhnxFyreG (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This might change your mind. You should be able to find longer clips if you want the full context. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewQl-qAtNwQ. 122.107.89.127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC).

RfC on article revert
I would like to revert this article to this version: and improve from there.

At the beginning of this year the article Government was a 24 kbyte article with stale tags in need of work:. On January 12th of this year reduced the article to a stub   though a series of about 20 edits:  Since then, the article has grown somewhat to it's current status, which appears to be a not very encyclopedic mish mash of trivia and views. I'm not sure of the best way to deal with this article. During the stubbing, and subsequent build-up, the talk page has been for the most part dormant. It seems like the most sensible approach would be to revert it to it's early January tagged state, warts and all, and improve from there.

I would like some further input before resetting the article.aprock (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll give this another day or three to get some feedback before reverting. aprock (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'm reverting. Please bring up any concerns on talk. aprock (talk) 01:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just noticed this. I've reverted back to the last decent version. The one that you reverted to is a hodgepodge of unsourced, original research and synthesis. It's better to start with a well-sourced, short article and improve from there, rather than trying to improve a disorganized, unsourced article that is filled with inaccurate information. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 09:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, given that you're the one who deleted all that content, I can see how you might feel that way. The current article is even worse that it was before you deleted all the content.  Having the view of uninvolved editors is only sensible. aprock (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested in hearing an explanation about how having a bunch of unsourced, original research; misrepresentation of source material / low quality sources; and synthesis is better than having an article that is completely reliable and sourced to high-quality sources. What exactly is "worse" about the current version? If you feel like there is something in the old version that you'd like to add to the current article, then please do so (assuming that it has a reliable source backing it). But I don't see why you'd want to add a bunch of unsourced misinformation back into the article. --- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please review my RfC for my view on the relative merit of the restored version. I will say that the original article is a much better starting place than "In the social sciences, the term government refers to the particular group of people, the administrative bureaucracy, who control a state at a given time, and the manner in which their governing organizations are structured". aprock (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You didn't give any views on the "relative merit" of the other version. You simply declared that you like it more, with no explanation. I don't see any justification for the inclusion of unsourced material, and a bunch of off-topic rants about the history of war, etc. Again, I understand that you think, for some reason, that the other article is a better place to start, but I'm trying to understand what those reasons are. At least the current version is an accurate portrayal of the term as used in political theory, and is backed by high-quality reliable sources. If there is something that you like from an older version, that has sources to go with it, you are welcome to include that as well. But please make sure that it is an accurate representation of the source material, and that it is on topic. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll note that the current version is highly unbalanced. Sourcing one third of the article to anarchist sources is a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT. aprock (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Problem solved. Any other issues? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The January 11 version of the article certainly has much more substance and its content should be reused. All the sections in that original version were within the scope of the topic and while there were a few statements that were debatable (and appropriately marked as "original research?"), they could simply be sourced, deleted or modified. Nevertheless, there is a fundamental issue that has not been addressed with either version of the article. "Government" requires a disambiguation page to distinguish among the following overlapping meanings:
 * 1) In Britain the prime minister is said to "form the government". The term is understood to mean the cabinet, i.e. the executive branch only.
 * 2) The body of persons charged with the duty of running the State; this includes the judicial, executive and legislative branches of the State.
 * 3) The system according to which a nation or community is governed. Often the word is preceded with an adjective to indicate the nature of the community governed (civil government, church government, town government, corporate govt.) or the kind of organization used (monarchic government, fascist government, republican government, etc.)

So, we really need three separate articles here. If the original version is to be reverted, its content should be distributed appropriately among the disambiguated articles. --İnfoCan (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll reiterate that I'm not saying that there was nothing in the old article that wouldn't be worth including here if sources could be found. What I'm saying is that if there is such content (examples please), then it should be brought in here, with sources, rather than reverting to the old version which will restore a bunch of unsourced information, much of which is incorrect/biased. If you have examples of valid content that is no longer here, please provide an example and sources to back it up, and we can then discuss how to include it into this article. I'd like to ensure that all of the information in the article remains backed by reliable sources. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we're in general agreement. The only minor quibble is the starting point.  Since all of the current article would be rewritten, I suggested starting from a version where some of the content could be kept.  But that's neither here nor there.  Improving the article is the real goal, so I'm all for adding back the better sections from the deleted content and addressing the sourcing issues. aprock (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I starting looking at this because I "discovered" (I'm only two months a wikipedian) "vital articles" and was curious. It seems everyone agrees that the old article had lots of problems, and that the new one is a stub, but at least doesn't have any obvious NPOV or other problems.  Would it make sense to start a sandbox and try to agree to a basic outline, then start filling it in?  It's such an immense and difficult topic, that something like that might be a way to make progress.  TheNgeveld   18:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with the sandbox approach. The stub is kind of useless to the general user, so I'd recommend restoring the old version while a new one is hashed out. Gerardw (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A well-sourced stub is not "useless". What is useless is a bunch of unsourced information on an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Per WP:BURDEN, if you want to add something to the article, it needs to have reliable sources backing it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I am hesitant to support such a short article for such an important topic, but the old, longer article truly was terrible. It was riddled with typographic errors, undue weight, original research, and was apparently greatly influenced by anarchists. I've attempted to salvage some of the old article, although I wasn't sure what to do with the section on the purpose of government, or if such a section should be included. I also think a section on the relationship between government, the state, different regimes, and the form of government should be included, although I tried to clarify that in the lead. The history needs to be lengthened. Andrew Keenan Richardson 02:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Marxism
I noticed that the section on Marxism was removed quite abruptly, along with Anarchy; I think we should discuss changes this drastic. As for now, I'll leave it like it is, but remember, this article is the result of a long, unwieldy process and shouldn't be modified so greatly so quickly. E. Novachek (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This article defines Marxism as "the political, economic, and social principles espoused by 19th century economist Karl Marx". How is that a form of government? There are two different stages of Marxism--the dictatorship of the proletariat (which actually is a form of government, so I'm fine with us having that) and utopia (which is just anarchy where everyone shares everything), but Marxism itself is not a form of government (as I understand it). How about we replace it with "the dictatorship of the proletariat"? Byelf2007 (talk) 5 November 2011

"Gummint" ?
"Gummint" redirects to this article, but absolutely no other mention is made of the term "gummint", its history, associations, etc. It would be nice to know. Toddcs (talk) 13:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge
Okay, lets be honest here, none of these three articles are very good. They individually have very useful information, but they all essentially describe different sections of the exact same topic, and the result is a very fractured coverage on Wikipedia. I suggest merging Forms of government pretty much as is, but with List of forms of government, I think the current system should be kept (type of goverment, then brief explanation of type of government), but adding in the government typed listed in LOFOG but not in government. Thoughts?--Coin945 (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I've merged "Forms of government" already. -- Beland (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "List of forms of government" also now merged. -- Beland (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Anarchism
I believe anarco-communism is without a goverment, the same for anarco-capatilism. Anarchy is a term that can mean many things as well, so I do not think this is an accurate desciption. Mob-rule can count as a form of anarchism, tribalism I am not to sure of. But can someone please change this in the list of political sytems (or absence of them) unless there are any objections? perhaps we can have a section for anarchism and a section for minamilist goverments (a.k.a Librilism) where anarco-communism/capatilism currently is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.199.34 (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Map
The map has apparently since been removed. -- Beland (talk) 08:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Missing Map Legend
Although the text below the map intended to show the world's various forms of government says that a legend is available if you click on the illustration, no such legend appears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.56.219.28 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Correction to map.
In the world map showing which states are monarchies, Jan Mayen and the Faroe Islands are both depicted as being UK territory. That is inaccurate: Jan Mayen is Norwegian and the Faroe Islands are Danish. 86.28.218.22 (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Bullet-pointed List of Government Types
In the list of bullet-pointed government systems, I believe the systems that do not exist today should be marked as such, because the list is quite long and, other than the maps, not much about individual countries is shown.

Kento Arendt (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Kento

Objection to the "merge the Political System page with the Government page" suggestion
Political Systems exist in a vast number of non-government groups/organizations/un-declared collectivism's/ as well as in many temporary/spur-of-the-moment collectives, and also between many explicitly opposed groups/organizations. However: Political Systems do not necessarily exist in every Government; Also: Political Systems are often the means by which Anti-Government movements such as secession, revolution, coup de tat's, impeachment, assassination, or mass-exodus' are imagined, invented, and proliferated. Although Anti-Government movements are- or nearly always become- Government-Replacement(s), the Political-System(s) can neither be considered Government(s) on their own- Nor can the Governments necessarily be considered Political-Systems- since Politics "is the process by which coercive power is legitimately applied."

In short: Governments breed (whether purposely or not) Political-Systems, and in turn- Political-Systems feed, breed, play with, OR kick, neglect, starve, euthanize, or run over Governments with a car...

LarchOye (talk) 08:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Do Not Merge! ~ Government and Political system are two different things. –p joe f (talk • contribs) 10:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, the main problem was the section Political_system which was essentially a shorter version of the list at Government. I have merged that and removed the tag, leaving the articles separate. The distinction and relationship between "political system" and "form of government" is not clear from the article; perhaps this section was on the wrong side of that. Clarification welcome! -- Beland (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Listed Governments
Why are imaginary forms of governement like Uniocracy listed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.139.63 (talk) 21:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia project aims to be complete, hence the speculative section. Please explain why they should not be listed. Reprah (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

“the administrative group of people”
I argue that a government is not an administrative group of people, but an administrative organization. At first there may seem to be no difference, but consider the distinction between natural persons and legal persons. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Originally posted by IP 71.52.185.136
For future reference. --71.160.93.144 (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Democracy: Edit Request Notice* This is infact wrong. A Democracy is strictly a government ruled by the people. A government of ones own people, that become the ruling class. The proccess of elections, and the electorial college as well as all other statements made above, is that of a Republic. (IE: America, is a hybrid, Constitutional Republic.)In most cases Democracy is defined as "ruled by the mob" meaning no direct rulers, simply that of the people voting. When ALL people vote, as a requirement this becomes "Direct democracy" as stated below) Please correct this area.

Whence Government?
Why and under what circumstances do people form governments? Does this question deserve a quick mention and link to further information in the introduction of this article? Spblat (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)