List of forms of government – rationalwiki quadcopter gas engine

#

Anarchy is lack of a central government, as there is no one recognized governing authority; in anarchy there is no effective government (as opposed to an "ineffective government") and each (rugged) individual has absolute liberty. It is important to note, however, that the lack of a government to enforce laws does not automatically imply that there are no laws; anarcho-capitalism in particular posits a form of anarchy with a body of explicit laws.

Aristocracy (from the Greek "rule of the best") is government rule by a few elite citizens. Usually the "elite" positions in question are hereditary. It was one of the six forms of government identified by Aristotle, and he said it was the second best, after monarchy but before constitutional government. [1] Moreover, if corrupted, it resulted in only the second worst form of government, oligarchy.

The United Kingdom’s system of aristocracy is probably the canonical one for the English speaking world. Until 1999, everyone who held a hereditary title of nobility higher than baron or baroness was automatically a member of the upper house of the British legislature, the House of Lords. Since 1999, the members of this class elect 90 representatives who sit as the legislative body of the House of Lords. The title of baron/baroness were also hereditary. In addition to these aristocrats, members of landed families entitled to a heraldic coat of arms are generally considered part of the gentry, without regard to their ranks or titles. [2] And people designated by the British monarch as Life Peers also belong to the House of Lords, but these peers do not pass their titles to their progeny by descent. [3]

Even in places where noble titles carry no special political rights or consequences, a conventional social distinction is drawn up between "old money" and a class of nouveaux riches or parvenus. Old-money families inherited their wealth from relatively distant ancestors. It was formerly considered a more prestigious sort of wealth. Many political dynasties in the United States, including the Theodore and Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the Tafts, represented this kind of wealth. [4]

A form of government in which the political power is held by a single, self-appointed ruler. This should be distinguished from monarchy, which involves some traditional basis for that power, usually birth, and is often weakened (especially in modern times) by the presence of countervailing institutions, like a Parliament. Which is not to say that dictators who’ve awarded themselves the position of king or emperor or president-for-life are exempt from being categorized as autocrats, of course.

In practice, it is almost impossible to be a real autocrat, because every state must rely on an array of lesser officials to enforce the dicta of the autocrat. Moreover, any given autocrat will have to appease certain factions, most notably the military, to avoid the Praetorian treatment. At a bare minimum, the autocrat will need the threat of force to compel obedience, which necessitates some willing underlings to carry out that threat.

Autocracy, though, is one of the most overused words in the foreign policy lexicon, as it is often used to simply mean " authoritarian" or " totalitarian" governments. For example, many writers will refer to Chinese "autocrats", not understanding that the mere fact that there is more than one person making decisions means it is not an autocracy.