Bitcoin Forum

Government comprises the set of legal and political institutions that regulate the relationships among members of a society and between the society and outsiders. These institutions have the authority to make decisions for the society on policies affecting the maintenance of order and the achievement of certain societal goals. This article provides an overview of the types of government, the ways authority can be distributed, the divisions of government, and the functions of government. Separate articles deal with the origins and development of the concept of the state, the theoretical and practical development of representation, law, and the study of government.

The power of a government over its own citizens varies, depending on the degree to which it is free of limitations and restraints. The power of a government abroad also varies, depending on the human and material resources with which it can support its foreign policy. Governments range in size and scope from clans, tribes, and the shires of early times to the superpowers and international governments of today. Until recent times some governments were strong enough to establish empires that ruled not only their own people but other peoples and states across national, ethnic, and language boundaries. The present-day counterpart of the empire is the superpower that is able to lead or dominate other countries through its superior military and economic strength. Within the modern nation-state, government operates at many different levels, ranging from villages to cities, counties, provinces, and states.

Types of Government
Aristotle, a Greek political philosopher of the 4th century B.C., distinguished three principal kinds of government: monarchy, aristocracy, and polity (a kind of enlightened democracy). The differences among them chiefly concerned whether power were held by one, by a few, or by many. Aristotle thought that the selfish abuse of power caused each type to become perverted, respectively, into tyranny, oligarchy, and a lower form of democracy characterized by mob rule. Monarchy tended to become tyrannical because it vested authority in a single ruler. Aristocracy, a government based on birth and privilege, in which the rulers governed for the good of the whole society, tended to become oligarchy as a consequence of restricting political power to a special social and economic class; only a few members of the class would have enough drive and ability to acquire the power to govern. The polity, likewise, would deteriorate into ochlocracy, or mob rule, if the citizens pursued only their selfish interests.

Aristotle's classifications suited the societies of ancient times, but they do not correspond to the power structure of later societies. Modern writers have developed a variety of schemes for classifying governments, based on the nature of the ruling class, the economic system, the government's political institutions, the principles of authority, the acquisition and exercise of power, and other factors. Some influential writers on government include Thomas Hobbes, Baron de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Karl Marx, Gaetano Mosca, Vilfredo Pareto, and the sociologist Max Weber.

Monarchy
The most common form of government from ancient times to the early part of the 20th century was monarchy, or rule by a hereditary king or queen. Monarchy passed through three basic stages, varying according to the nation and the political and economic climate. The first stage was that of the absolute monarch. In the Christian part of the world during the Middle Ages, a conflict developed between the pope and the kings who recognized his spiritual authority. The pope wanted to expand the power of the church beyond spiritual matters to include the temporal realm. But some kings proclaimed that God had given them the right to rule, and by proclaiming this divine right they were able to give legitimacy to their reigns and limit the pope's power.

Limited monarchy was the second stage. Kings depended on the support of the most powerful members of the nobility to retain their thrones. In England and some other Western European countries, the nobility placed limits on the power of the ruler to govern. This was done in England, for example, through the Magna Carta. Threatened with the loss of political and financial support, even the strongest kings and emperors had to accept a system of laws that protected the rights and privileges of powerful social and economic classes.

The third stage in the evolution of monarchy was the constitutional monarchy. Present-day monarchs are nearly all symbolic rather than actual rulers of their countries. (A few exceptions can be found in Africa and Asia.) In such monarchies as Great Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Spain, governing power is now in the hands of the national parliaments.

Constitutional Government 
Today most governments derive their legitimacy from national constitutions that provide a legal framework for their rule and specify how power is to be exercised and controlled. Even one-party states, such as the traditional Communist countries and other nations in Africa, Asia, and South America, have found it necessary to establish formal constitutions. In democratic countries the constitution can be amended or replaced by popular vote, either directly or through a system of elected representatives. In authoritarian one-party systems, however, all political power, including that of revising the constitution, resides with the leaders of the party. The constitution may thus be only a paper facade, and in order to understand how the country is governed one must examine the actual political process.

Democracy 
Representative government in the modern world is based not only on a constitution that provides for it but on the actual rule of law — the assurance that provisions of the constitution will be enforced. It requires that citizens be free to organize competing political parties, engage in political campaigns, and hold elections according to agreed-upon rules. Democratic governments vary in structure. Two common forms are the parliamentary and the presidential. In the parliamentary form of government, as in Australia, Britain, Canada, or India, all political power is concentrated in the parliament or legislature. The prime minister or premier and the officers of the cabinet are members of the parliament. They continue in office only as long as parliament supports — or has "confidence" in — their policies. In the presidential form of government, as in France and the United States, the voters elect a powerful chief executive who is independent of the legislature but whose actions are delimited by constitutional and other legal restraints.

Dictatorship
As a form of government, dictatorship is principally a 20th-century phenomenon. The dictator, often a military leader, concentrates political power in himself and his clique. There is no effective rule of law. The regime may or may not have a distinctive political ideology and may or may not allow token opposition. The main function of a dictatorship is to maintain control of all governmental operations. There have been some cases — Indira Gandhi in India and several military dictatorships in Latin America — in which authoritarian rulers have relaxed their control and have even allowed open elections. In certain Soviet-bloc countries of Eastern Europe dictators were forced from power in bloodless coups or voluntarily relinquished their authority to popularly elected officials as Soviet power declined.

The totalitarian dictatorship, as in Nazi Germany, Communist China, and the former USSR, is much more thoroughgoing. It seeks to control all aspects of national life, including the beliefs and attitudes of its people. It has a set of ideas that everyone is expected to embrace, such as revolutionary Marxism or counterrevolutionary fascism. At its most extreme, as during the leadership of Joseph Stalin in the USSR, the power of the dictator may become more absolute than in any of the earlier forms of tyranny. Such gross power in the hands of one person results inevitably in the development of what has been called a cult of personality. The leader is credited with almost infallible wisdom, because to admit that he or she may be wrong would deprive the regime of its authority. In some Communist countries the cult of personality appears to have given way to the dominance of a group of party leaders — a ruling oligarchy. The administrative complexities of managing a modern industrial state are too great to be monopolized by an individual leader such as Stalin or Mao Zedong(Mao Tse-tung). The successor regime in China, for example, continues to claim infallibility for its policies and doctrines but not for the leaders. Examples of 20th-century dictators in addition to those already mentioned include Idi Amin Dada(Uganda), Kemal Atatürk (Turkey), Fulgencio Batista and Fidel Castro (Cuba), Francisco Franco (Spain), Saddam Hussein(Iraq), Ferdinand Marcos (Philippines), Benito Mussolini (Italy), Juan Peron (Argentina), and António Salazar (Portugal).

Distribution of Authority
Effective government in any form requires a workable method for distributing authority within the country. The larger and more diverse the jurisdiction of the government, the stronger the tendency toward a federal system in which authority is "layered" or distributed among different levels. In countries with a relatively homogeneous population and with a common tradition, language, and sense of national history, the central governments may not be federal but unitary — that is, they may retain most of the administrative power at the center. Loosely allied autonomous states sometimes join together to create a type of central government known as a confederation, in which the central government exists only at the pleasure of the sovereign members.

Federal Systems 
The United States and India with their state governments and Canada and China with their provincial governments are examples of workable federal systems in large nations with very diverse populations. Other federal states include Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria, and Germany. The national governments of these countries are clearly more powerful than those of their subdivisions, even though the constitutions delegate many powers and responsibilities to the subnational units. In certain prescribed policy areas a state government may have a high degree of autonomy. In the United States, for example, state legislatures pass laws having to do with state affairs; state administrators carry them out; and state judiciaries interpret them.

Federal systems also include autonomous local governments such as county governments and municipal governments — in cities, boroughs, townships, and villages local governments may stand in a relationship to their state governments that corresponds to that of state governments with the national government. The citizens in each jurisdiction elect many of the public officials. In addition, certain special districts exist with a single function, such as education or sanitation, and have their own elected officials.

The layers of government in a federal system may not be clearly defined in practice. Often the different levels compete for control of functions and programs. In the United States and other countries the tendency over the years has been for the national government to become much more involved in areas that once were the exclusive domain of state or regional governments. In addition, the distribution of authority has become even more complex and varied with the rise of large metropolitan areas — the megalopolis — and the corresponding new local governmental organizations such as the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

Unitary States
In unitary states the national government performs all the governmental functions. Subnational national units administer matters within their jurisdiction, but their powers are set and delegated by the national authority. The national government retains the police power — the inherent power to provide for the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. Taxation and major lawmaking powers also rest almost entirely with the national government.

Most nations are unitary states, but their institutions and processes may differ markedly. Great Britain, for example, is considered a unitary system, yet a certain degree of regional autonomy exists in Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, and local county governments perform certain fairly autonomous functions. In France, however, strict control over the administrative territorial subdivisions is exercised by the national government. In other unitary states there exists only token territorial decentralization.

Confederations 
Confederation produces the weakest central government. Member states in a confederation retain their sovereignty, delegating to the central government only those powers that are essential for its maintenance. The individual states jealously guard their power to tax and to make their own laws. The central government serves as a coordinating instrument to protect the interests of all its members. It also represents the confederation in dealings with outside governments, but its actions are subject to the review and approval of the confederated states.

The weakness of the confederate form of government led the United States to abandon that system in 1789 after only eight years. Confederations, however, have also served other nations — Germany and Switzerland, for example — as a preliminary step toward a more unified government. No modern nation-state is organized along confederate lines, yet some international organizations, such as the British Commonwealth of Nations, the European Union (formerly the European Community), and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, have some aspects of a confederation.

Very well written! This study can be used for general teaching of political science and history.
Thank you very much for this! I will save this topic to my bookmarks.

I also want to ask if there are any similar articles on other topics. Probably they are in other sections of the forum, but I do not know about them. Can you share them with me?

I've always thought that the best type of government is one that allows itself to be challenged. Most of us live in capitalist democracies, and of course the phrase is an oxymoron, but that's what makes it valuable. Capitalism works for the benefit of the elite, but democracy works for the general public, and acts as a brake on the excesses of the wealthy. Certainly it doesn't work perfectly in practice, but at least it works to an extent... which is better than any other form of government.

Not at all. Capitalism is the system that has made it possible for almost 8 billion people to live on earth today and for hunger, which has been a constant throughout human history, to be drastically reduced.

Capitalism and democracy are not only not an oxymoron, but go hand in hand. The origins can be traced back to the ancient Greeks, where democracy went hand in hand with the development of trade. Democracy and capitalism flourished together, and precisely those systems that have wanted to move away from capitalism with the discourse that it only benefits a few and pretending to save the rest, have ended up in authoritarian regimes that only favored the dominant elite and impoverished, if not killed the rest of the population. We can still see it today. And I'm not just talking about communism. Let's look at the Middle Ages, for example, where democracy disappeared and trade also virtually disappeared.

Capitalism is the natural system of economic relations without war. If you produce shoes and I grow apples, we reach an agreement that benefits both of us.

Since we already start from such different points of view, I will not argue any more, because I do not think we will reach common ground.

As for OPs question, the best system is a democracy with respect for private property and freedom of enterprise. With low taxes, few regulations and simplification of administrative procedures. With a reduced public administration, with only public security forces, public health and education but allowing the private sector to offer private health and education.

The government model I have exposed is more pro-capitalist/torie/republican, whatever you want to call it.  As nobody is perfect, and political systems are put into practice by humans, I understand that the best thing is a political alternation every 2 or 3 legislatures at the most.

Without a doubt Self-governance with all sizes of contracts/partnerships/cooperations.
Govern is steering and ment is mind (mentorship, mentor). In this day and age no need for someone else to steer, lead in the wrong direction.

No, the power of the people over the government varies. At least that is sold in a democratic model.
Democracy is a broken system anyway, always was. Two school drop-outs tell a professor what is the right thing to do, with two thirds majority.

Capitalist democracy is what works better than anything else, not pure capitalism. Capitalism without democracy would lack accountability. We'd be back to slave ownership. It's the accountability that's the important thing. Freedom within a system that acts to inhibit excessive abuses of that freedom. The question of where to set those limits is something for another thread.


I'd agree that globalisation, despite all its faults, is probably the single biggest factor in the absence of world wars since 1945. Having your economy entangled with the economies of every other major power is a compelling motivator for peace.

A very long article but despite that we have not come to the conclusion which government is better, I think this definition of better government can never be agreed upon. It is a broad term like the word "freedom". No one can give you an exact definition of the word freedom and no one can come to a right decision about the best government, many different governments have arisen throughout history but there have always been flaws at all times but I think the worst of them are tyrannical dictatorships that combine all powers In the hands of one tyrannical person does not take anyone's opinion.
In my opinion, the best system of government is the system that combines absolute rule and consultation or democracy, where there is a just ruler who consults his ministers in all matters, but in the end the decision is his decision.

There are so many government systems, indicating that there is no best government system for all, but it is conditional because each country has different cultures, norms, and rules that apply, giving rise to their respective ideologies.  And this is inseparable from the history of the founding of a country...
 For today, the best state system in my opinion is democracy.  Because it is more suitable for modern humans.  Although many aspects such as culture and courtesy are of particular concern.

By the way, I'm guessing @theymos won't be stopping by to comment, but I'd be interested to know what he thinks about it. In another thread he said:


I think it's very nice in theory, but I'm not so clear that government needs to be eliminated completely. I believe in smaller government and that in general the private sector tends to do things more efficiently than the public but I don't see how without government we could control the abuses of large corporations, cartels, etc.

I really gave up on reading, don't know where to start-side-bottom-or left/right.

He summarized all countries-from occupations to slaves, gave up I saw this one topic.

For me the best type of government is a democracy with a federal system, so you can vote on the politicians in your city, state, and the country. A system like that gives more chances for the voters to interact with their politicians. Unfortunately I am not the average person in my country. On the city and state level I know that only around 50% of the people actually go voting, and on a federal level its around 60%. So about half of the people aren't interested in politics or don't like any of the parties that they can vote for. For them it might be better to live with a different type of government than they actually do now.

I often think that the idea of the government is correct, but its implementation is completely different. It often happens that the government simply legitimizes social injustice and protects the elite from the weak majority. Earlier I did not think about this question, but then we considered societies in different states. I did not understand this topic well, so I used extra resources (https://studymoose.com/social-injustice) to prepare and write my own essay on social injustice. I recommend this resource if you have problems with writing and do not have time to prepare.

I think this is the era of civilized society. The best Govt provides basic necessities of life, education, justice for all the communities. The good govt should also provide medical facilities, unemployment allowance to its citizens, scholarships to the old & diable persons. It should also provide equal opportunities to develop his inhabitant all kinds of political, social & financial activities. In short, an ideal Govt behaves its members like a mother.

What is the Best type of Government? A well-run democratic state that strives for fiscal discipline and stability with a free market economy, where the individual is free to earn an honest living and engage in trade as he wishes. The role of governments in this world should be to provide the checks and balances on the actions of the private sector, be neutral arbiters of disputes in society and prevent large-scale unemployment and social imbalances.

Well no, unless you stupid, of think your stupid. It is a system run by the most corrupt and not the intelligent.
Two trolls will rule the professor. He can never get elected because he does not speak the language, hasn't got the "moves" or has anything in commen. All that happens is the two trolls form a coalition and alternate in leading the way telling the professor what is right and wrong.
One of the arguments is even that any idiot can lead, he just needs to proof he more corrupt than the opposition, whithin and outside of own party.
It is a system that can not progress and is destined to fail sinking deeper and deeper in the corruption ditch.

For once we are in agreement (apart from the 'very nice in theory' bit). I think I've criticised anarcho-capitalism fairly recently in another thread. The worst system has to be the one that is most easily exploited, and has nothing to prevent excesses and abuses. It sounds nightmarish. I've had a read of that post, and theymos also says:


He's a lot more intelligent than I am, so I'm willing to accept that I may be missing something. But superficially at least, ancap appears to me to be a terrible idea, premised on the belief that there is zero exploitation within the current system, and any unfairness or abuse that does exist is caused solely by government intervention.

--

I'd probably agree with this. The private sector is generally more efficient. The issue is who benefits. Rail travel in my country might be a decent example. It used to be run by the government, it wasn't hugely efficient, but prices were cheap. A couple of decades ago it was privatised, and the government started handing out regional franchises to private operators. Effectively a series of local monopolies. Companies are interested primarily in making money for themselves. For companies beholden to shareholders, it's a duty. So, inexorably and inevitably, prices increased and standards slipped. The companies offer the minimum viable service they can get away with, whilst charging exorbitant fees and creaming off all the profit. When a government privatises something and puts something out to tender, the aim is to get rid of the cost, so they invariably accept the lowest offer rather than the offer that is best for the customer. The rail situation here is now much worse than before. I appreciate that privatising infrastructure and utilities is quite different to private companies operating in direct competition with one another... but the ultimate motivation is always self-enrichment. No company works for the benefit of the customer; no company puts money into improving the customer experience unless they believe this will net them an increase in profits.

But I'm certainly not against companies. I'd agree with you that part of the duty of a government is to rein in some of their more egregious behaviour.

Basic, simple democracy is really dictatorship by a group. Here's why and how.

In democracy:
1. The people vote.
2. 49% become slaves to the dictates of the 51%.
3. The 51% don't want the mundane life of governing, so they turn the job over to a small group.
4. The small group almost never does what the 51% wanted, but the voters have no recourse once things are set in place.

----------

A simple correction to almost any government that would make it work for the people:
1. Nobody has to formally obey any law or EO until he freely, voluntarily accepts it formally.

8)

Unfortunately, most of the governments claim themselves to be  democracies who care for the general public, but in reality they are inspired by capitalist. The leaders in the most political parties are corrupt, so how can you expect that those people will really care for the general public. They only care to fill their own money banks  >:(

Thanks OP for this thread. Because it makes us reflect on what is the best government we need.
All those listed are those that are in operation today. Although I think they are mostly worn out and need to improve with a vision of the future.

I would like to share how I would like a government in my country Venezuela. It should have a good administration that eradicates corruption, that ensures the proper functioning of public and private institutions, offering support and security.

A fair government that evaluates its resources so that they are exploited and provide the safety and well-being of its inhabitants. That can be achieved with good work because my country has abundant natural resources to be a prosperous country where jobs should not be lacking.
The land is so fertile that where a seed falls, a plant, flowers, cereals, fruit trees are born.

It sounds simple but it is not easy, in my country there must be a change but the population is already tired of electing the rulers because in the end they win the same Chavismo and Madurismo.

I don't know the particularities of the case, but what usually happens in cases like that is that the prices are "cheap" because in reality the public companies are hugely loss-making and you are paying considerably less than what the ticket would be worth if the real cost were applied to you. The difference between what you pay and the deficit that the public company has is paid on the other hand via taxes, but you think it's ok because the ticket (or the public service) is "cheap".

Something tells me that this is so because of what you say later:


If the government were to make a profit by offering a public service, it would make no sense for it to consider privatizing it.


That is a problem. Capitalism must inexorably go hand in hand with free competition and the public authorities must guarantee it, even if it means interventionism. A company in monopoly tends to abuse.

Another thing is that there are sectors where competition is more difficult, but if you have a privatized sector with a monopoly, the government has to

1) make sure that there is competition.
2) if this is not possible, regulate, intervene in the sector to avoid abuses.

The job of the best government is to improve the main macroeconomic indicators and socio economic indicators of the population, the state of the financial system in the region and the national accounting system. In addition to eliminating unemployment the competition in this system is so high that trying to reduce it is detrimental to freedom relaxation of taxes and rules in this system. Leaving government services to the private sector to prevent corruption in the market economy of trade unions and bargaining firms.

Scenario:
*One man is running a red light*
Police: Give me your licence for I will issue a ticket for running a red light
The man: No, I didn't accept that law
Police: okay you're free to go.


The corrupt is intelligent for being able to rise in position and corrupt, though his/her intelligence are being used to disgusting habits.

Even though, I may ask what is your "BEST" type of government?

I won't be accepting "NONE" cause without any kind of government, chaos will exist.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4717626.msg57679560#msg57679560
As every country is a company so the leader is basically the CEO.
Self-governance is being the own CEO taking matters in own hand, just like with Bitcoin managing own finaces.


The state itself produces nothing. He only survives because of the productive work of those he expropriated.
llewellyn h. rockwell. jr.

Everything the state says is a lie. Everything he has is stolen!
Friedrich Nietzke

Self-Governance, in what way? expound to a way that i covers the major differences with the existing type of government

A dog is told to sit, a cat yeh right will sit when i feel like sitting.

If that is the defense, then democracy already impose that  ;)

Ah i see that's why you did not wear a mask. Good thats sorted.

Nope cause I can sit whenever I want even if someone told me so. <--- base on your defense

But democracy doesn't just stop that cause democratic also impose certain laws for the betterment of the most.

 I think the best type of Government which had a good vision and mission for their country they will accept for what may risk their life. Entering politics is not an easy thing you will have a big responsible not just community but in your country. Sacrifices and know how to see their people greivance.

The government of the people,by the people,and for the power which is democracy is the best type of government.The type of government in which people vote in whom they like,whom they trust and whom can serve them well.

 If countries use this type of goverments,then the activities of that country will be seeable and transparent which is one of the qualities of good governance. It is this type of government that the people in power seek to hear the opinion of their masses,so as to know which area to concentrate on.

   For me the best type of Government is Democracy and having a good rule model who had vision and mission for hes/her country . Yes we have a freedom but we know also our limitless or actions even we're democratic government.

I support your opinion that democratic government is the best because it gives one the privilege to choose whom they want and whom they believe in, to occupy important positions.
Democratic government gives room for public opinion to debate,criticise and exermine the government that is in power at a given period of time.

Democratic goverment is also better because it gives one freedom of movement,freedom of speech and freedom to dress the way you like,unlike military goverment that the government control even the lifestyle of an individual.One cannot move any how because one is under military government.Nothing is as good as freedom.

Is it your assignment or what. I tried to read all the post. but in the mean time i can explore a lot more. you should make a summarize paragraph at the end of your post so that we can read this.

or has no capability to govern (money, influence and power). small groups are the corporations/capitalist that is governed by even smaller groups-the club of elites that only caters to their selfish interest.

the best form of government is "no government at all". any form of government is corrupting, the smaller the better but the small (power is prone to corruption and consolidation) gets big like cancer.

how do we govern ourselves without a government?..components still have to be invented to make it work like fixing the corruption of money so let's start with bitcoin okay  ;)

LOL where are your freedoms now in this covid shitshow? democracy was invented in the time where there is no efficient worldwide communications and transportation.

how many democratic governments waged meaningless wars, became poor (at least for majority of the population)...or in other words--gets corrupted?

for us humans to move forward we have to reinvent ourselves.

maybe you can democratically decide to have a guillotine outside of congress and presidential palace where if a politician breaks a threshold of failures can directly be sent for public execution decided by decentralized autonomous organization (DAO)--a population, on public TV. maybe i'll consider buying a TV.. LOL

In general, we all know that we support those that confirm that citizens have access to opportunities and security but Government is sweet to mention that we support those that work for the people. One thing we all like during a democratic system of state. Most of the countries within the world today are democratically governed, with some failing to supply benefits to their citizens.

Democracy is one of the major factor that is affecting government, so this democracy of a thing is the system that is causing corruption in different countries today, i know that each country have their own norms which they operate or rules and regulations which they work with, but since the existence of democratic leadership everything is going wrong, government leadership is not something someone can relay with because government is not longer government of the people, it's government of the family.

  What I mean is the best type of Government is democracy that having a freedom, a ruler who guide us , a government will support us but I may not mean that this flow of democratic right now. Yes you have a point and I will not argue on your asking me about freedom and coruption, but the person who just entered politics was abused their power of Government and not the Government rules are wrong but person who entered an had a bad intention of his/her country are the real wrong.

anyone who have good intentions can be usurped, corrupted/bought, assassinated and/or have a change of heart. putting a person or a group to lead is a weak point. everyone has selfish interest.

you think you have freedom? it is subjective (depends on where your mind operates LOL). you are a sheeple. in any form of government the richer and powerful you are the more free you become  ;)