Talk:Government

	This Government related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Wow, so many edit conflicts in such a short period...Researcher 23:47, 2 December 2008 (EST)

I think that's what happens when 2-3 people suddenly start editing the same article over and over again. Sorry if I made your life harder... ħuman 23:50, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Not really. You added the same stuff I meant to, really. Researcher 23:53, 2 December 2008 (EST)

What did I unleash?! --V

Improovmintz! ħuman 23:58, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Liberalism

It's a tenet of IR liberalism that the structure of the government, and which citizens are represented, helps to determine the policies made by the government. That might seem like a no-brainer, but it is explicitly rejected by realists (and most Marxists, interestingly enough). Researcher 00:02, 3 December 2008 (EST)

What you changed it to is what I thought it meant, it just read weird - esp. with the link on IR, "liberalism" just looked like it was hanging there. It's clear now, thanks. I figured you'd catch my edit and rephrase it ;) ħuman 00:09, 3 December 2008 (EST)

It amuses me how well you seem to have picked up on my sometimes bizarre grammar. Researcher 00:17, 3 December 2008 (EST)

It's my specialty, translating what people write into what they mean ;) Unless I'm not sure what they mean because it's out of my depth, then I'll usually bring it to talk, or, as in this case where I figured you were right there, just make an edit and comment. I'll go all Ed Spoor on ya next time and just delete the article down to a stub I understand, though!!! (not) ħuman 02:43, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Republic v democratic republic

I'd say that a hereditary representation by region to a decision-making body would count as a republic without necessarily being democratic... Wazza^{Hello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me...} 02:47, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Right. A "council of elders" is still a Republic; hell, the most famous "pure" Republic was the Roman one, which was not at all democratic. However, Human's example is good too. Researcher

Good point, Wazza, I hadn't thought of that. Perhaps it should be mentioned at republic if it isn't already? ħuman 16:12, 3 December 2008 (EST)

It's there. Mostly. Researcher 17:10, 3 December 2008 (EST)

If Atheism isn't a religion...

How would anarchy be a form of government? (perhaps list it elsewhere?) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 21:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Pure anarchy isn't. There are, however, many sub forms of anarchy that act like Government, such as Anarco-colectivism, or Anarco-Capitalism. --Revolverman (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It's traditionally lumped in as a form of governance, in particular governance through not having a centralised leadership. It belongs in a list of "forms of government" the same way that "no religion" belongs in a pie chart of "what religion are people?". ^pathetic 22:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

And to be frank, classification of things sometimes require you bend a definition. For example, for the sake of equality of access to rights, the USSC defined atheism as a religion "for the context of the first amendment, equal access and equal protection". They clearly state it is not a religion, but there is a need to treat it as such. When you study government systems, the lack of a system must be studied, and that's where you stick it. Humans like/need boxes.--GodotL'important c'est d'aimer 22:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Scumbag boxes... ^gnostic 22:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thinking about it, anarchy is more a matter of a person's perspective, is it not? If anarchy is the lack of centralised leadership, could not the world be claimed to be an anarchic state, as it lacks any real centerisled leadership? I mean how small does the lack need to be before it become anarchy? --Revolverman (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

You've kinda stumbled upon one of the major problems of anarchy. You can't really have it, everyone would just faction off and you'd have mobs forming where the most assertive (read; most violent) get their way. ^gnostic 22:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, its the reason why we use the term power vacuum. Just like a real vacuum, something is going to fill it, and it can only ever be a temporary state, unless outside forces act on it to keep it a vacuum. --Revolverman (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No one would give a shit about atheism if it weren't for religion -- it would be like a club of non-golf players. So atheism gets chucked under the category of "religion" because it's only talked about in relation to, i.e. the language-game of religion. Same goes for anarchism and government. (Broken record mode: Read your Wittgenstein.) Also, who said something has to fill that vacuum. How do you explain that most of human history has been lived in anarchy? If it can only be temporary, the same goes for any form of government. (See Induction, Problem of and Historicism, The Poverty of. And if you want to get really nihilistic, see Universe, Heat Death of.) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the philosophical approach is really suited to the political sphere. It's on a different concept level. ^pathetic 22:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe i don't really understand what anarchy is, but i don't buy that early man was anarchic, any more than I'd say a pack of dogs, or an ape "group" is anarchy. it is a system that has a leader who often fights for his (her) role, and is the dominant. No, it's not formal, but anarchy seems as if (and again, maybe i'm just wrong) it's "every person for himself with no sense of order". GodotL'important c'est d'aimer 23:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Check out the Anarchy page -- it's generally defined as "lack of a state," but then you get into even more fun because there's a bunch of "No True Anarchist" cards to be played. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Consider this: if you live in a statist society, where the mainstream view is that government is legitimate, why would you expect Wikipedia to present a different view? I attempted to include coercion as part of the definition of taxation, as that is whet government is reliant on for existence, and was told that I was engaging in Original Research, a no-no for Wikipedia. As you can read on my user page in it, shyguy76767, I consider Wikipedia immoral, self-inconsistent, and thus unusable for rational discussion. If the mainstream opinion was that 2+ 2 was 5, that is what Wikipedia would display. somethingsea (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

(ec, @ADK) Er, political philosophy? But, anyway, damn good answer. You almost weaseled out of my pedantry for a second there. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I count political philosophy as that thing for people too stupid for either politics or philosophy (can you tell I'm on the "chunking" part of GEB?). ^{d hominem} 23:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Once again, its perspective. Hell, what today is a modern state is not a very old concept. At what point is the central control small enough that its "anarchism"? Prehistoic man might not have had states, but the family tribes had strong leadership in a Patriarch/Matriarch. Moving ahead, what about feudal Europe? At the hight of the feudal system, Kings didn't have much, if any direct control on lords. A case could be made for that being a form of anarchism. --Revolverman (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

@ADK: I'd go with history, first and foremost, especially because of all the ahistorical (rather more pseudohistorical today with modern archaeology) "state of nature" thought experiments. Almost makes me want to write an article on it.

@Revolverman: Wittgenstein has the answers you seek. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Wittgenstein. Drink! ^{d hominem} 23:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)