Talk:List of forms of government

Move

I suggest we move this to "List of forms of government." ListenerX^TalkerX 17:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I called it what I did for search purposes really. It's not by any way a complete list of forms of government see wp:Template:Forms_of_government which I extracted it from. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 18:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The original title is still there as a redirect so it should be fine for searches.

(EC part)Any particular format that'll make this slightly more readable? Perhaps broad categories like the "by minimum age" navbox found in Evidence against a recent creation? It could be a very useful article if expanded and arranged like that. ^bomination 18:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought of it more as a sort of navbox for finding articles than an article in itself. Alphabetical works for me. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 18:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I note that the definitions are being expanded. Ruins my intent which was to link to ARTICLES . Still, it's a mobocracy. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 18:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No definition has been expanded past stub-size, which is par for a summary article. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Still, like the creation one, we can have a navbox as a list template and this as a brief overview. Not all have individual articles so will need a little more description in order to be useful. ^bomination 18:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed rant from anarchist apologist

Here's his text:"Anarchy does not mean a lack of government. If 'government' simply refers to the means by which a state/area of the world is ordered, then 'anarchy' does not mean the "lack" of anything other than a form of order or authority (or 'government') where there is no one single leader. If we look at the roots of the word we find a negation "an-" and authority "archos" — which implies 'without leaders'. To say it means "a lack" is fallacious as this implies that 'without' (or 'with a lack') of government there is no order whatsoever. But anarchy does not refer to a system of no order. There are many ways for humans to order themselves without power or authority invested in a singular point of reference, and the idea that there absolutely must be one leader or leadership is simply a logical falsity. There can be systems with no leaders, and indeed these have and do exist in many places — see the Spanish Civil War for many, many examples of people taking back power and ordering themselves with no leaders. People can and do make decisions together, without the need for a singular authority. Similarly, anarchy does not by definition mean that there is no governing authority, although it does mean that there would not be a governing authority such as the ones we see now. A governing authority which was truly democratic (rather than being placed in one entity, such as a political party) could and would be made up of and take account of everyone who wanted to give a point of view on matters. As such, anarchy simply refers to a form of government in which the power is never invested in a single leadership. Furthermore, if anarchy means that people simple rule themselves without the need for a singularly powerful leadership, then this does not necessarily mean that in anarchy individuals have absolute liberty: if people order themselves and agree to certain things, one of these might be the limiting of liberty — for example to agree that murder is wrong and individuals must undergo some sort of process if they are found to have taken part in it. The so-called concept of anarcho-capitalism is a false concept as anarchy and capitalism are entirely non-mixable. " Even if this information was correct, this is not the page for it. He then complained about democracy not having consensus. --TiaC (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure Ba'athism is a form of fascism

I think it's socialism personally.--Jakester499 (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

How? It doesn't have social ownership, the basic of a socialist area. ( also social ownership can be workplace democracy as well ).--Boredsocialist (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Undertale fans pleased

https://www.reddit.com/r/Undertale/comments/4on5ge/toby_has_done_his_research/

FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 06:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Another possibility

Wiki-ocracy: the rules within (a particular part of) the wikiverse - or government by wiki-system. Anna Livia (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)