Commentary

Humanitarian Government Section 7, Part 1: A Government Primer

The Midnight Goddess Nyx

12 Oct 2025 • 26 min read

Section 7, Part 1

Greetings. I'm hoping you're having a good day. For this? That might be the easiest and nicest thing for this article (blog, chapter, whatever you're calling this work).

This section is of some of the biggest names in the governmental system world and ideologies that can affect or modify those systems. You might ask why and again my answer is: we all need to be on the same page, understand the terminology, and have all that information as unvarnished as I can make it.

The reason? Simply put in one word: politicians. Some of the terms here you'll have heard brought up by at least one of the parties we have in the US (we do have more than the obvious two) and used in such a way to be damn near interchangeable. Is that good?

Hell no.

Description: Governmental Systems—Power Source (1, 2, 3, 4)

Many qualifiers go into any system of government a population will either allow or accept. Yes, even though I personally do not and will never accept a theocratic authoritarian and fiscally austerity-driven government...that same version sort might work for another country or group of people.

Just like humans, the same thing can be said for governments: no two are alike.

Form, power source, socioeconomic and geo-cultural. These are the major factors and reasonings of any form of government. Some of what will be covered are some really strange forms of government that are explored in Science Fiction and theoretical government circles, but those I'll let you, an educated reader, delve into deeper than I'll mention here.

There are three major 'umbrellas' for Governmental Forms. I'm talking about the 'Title Line' of governmental systems: Democratic, Non-Democratic, and Hybrid. There are ideologies that modify any governmental system. So, despite what many would say or think, there is never a 'pure' system of government. Not only that, but different systems work for different regions of Earth in general better than others and may or may not be the same 'flavor' of government we have. Does that make it wrong? No. Not at all. If something works and, in this case, the US doesn't like it—the US needs to just negotiate and deal with that situation as best it can. I won't go into history or anything like that. However, do some digging and be prepared to have a cast iron stomach if you want to find out more.

Issue: Forms: Democratic (3, 4, 5, 11)

There are three main schools of thought on this particular 'flavor' of government: direct, representative, and (believe it or not) Constitutional Monarchy. These forms of government all have some similar facets, one being that the citizens in one way or another have a say in their government. Now, mind you, I know you'll say: 'well, we have elections...' (at least right now we do), and I'll point out North Korea, China or Russia. Guess what? They, too have elections. However some of their power structures and socioeconomic variants has gone down different paths. Does it mean my thinking is 'correct' for that population? Not necessarily.

The thing about democratic systems of government, they are only as strong, adaptable, and vibrant as the citizenship and it's interactions. This means that citizens who interacts, votes, keeps on top of what the government does and does not do, know their rights and responsibilities, and put in effort into the system keeps that democratic system alive and healthy. Drop the ball and....look around you and YOU tell me what's going on in the US today. This 'blog' of sorts points out weaknesses, issues, and potential solutions, not just commentary.

There are also sub-'flavors' of Democracy. Ours has a mix of several of these sub-'flavors'. But the listings below are in alphabetical order and I'll leave it up to you to determine which ones we use. (Evil laugh here—I love giving out homework).

Demarchy (6, 7, 11): This one is interesting and I would tie it in with Rank Voting/Public Service. There's some areas that do have Rank Voting and I'd love to see that more often. I'd love it better if parties stay out of politics and anyone running would focus on solution platforms and flat out make it illegal for attack ads/rally's and whatever. Seriously: attacks isn't policy and not solutions. Get with the picture those of you who are reading this and not realizing what you bought into. (Sorry to those who have a better understanding of reality.)

Now Demarchy has some benefits that would 'fix' some of the issues with any form of Representative Democracy. Generally, this form has a broadly inclusive pool of eligible citizens and, like jury duty, people are pulled from this pool to form groups of one name or another and make the decisions. So, a fixed set of time for the 'duty', a demand for accountability and ethics, and even a wider range of ages and thoughts would be part of this (especially in 'Erf' which I'm calling 'the new US'. It's an Old English word and I'm not going to tell you what it means—yes more homework). This also would limit or eliminate 'special interest' involvement.

Census Democracy (8): This is where the right to vote is limited. When the US was first formed, it was 'older, white, land-owning, males' who could vote. They made decisions that affected everyone and was colored by how they were raised, educated, and their moral compass. I'm not saying any of that is 'bad', just that women, people of color, and Indigenous Peoples weren't considered as part of the process or the outcomes of any policies they created. We still have issues with this form, by the way.

Direct Democracy (9, 10, 11): Now, when our Founding Fathers created the US, direct citizen involvement unless local wasn't really a thing. For one, if you weren't white, land owning, male, and qualify by age; you didn't get to vote. Remember we've about five Amendments that cover voting alone. Also, our way of electing our leadership is fairly unique.

But in direct democracy, the citizenship directly interacts with and decides the government and the decision-making process in one way or another.

Electocracy (4, 11): Now, this is where citizens are able to vote for their government but cannot participate directly, as in decision making. In it's definition, it also states that this form of government the representative part of it has almost absolute power. Granted, we can talk to our representatives in either part of the Congress, however, do we get a direct say in most anything? I'll let you answer that.

Ergatocrasy (4, 11): You'll find a word associated with this one that is attached to Russian Government: 'proletariat'. China also has the same and other countries although called different things. It's where 'the workers'/working class runs the show. However, I can also see via history and historical references that this ends up being more of a version of the next version.

Herrenvolk Democracy (4, 11, 12, 13) : This one only allows specific ethnic group(s) to participate in government while disenfranchising others. Free elections may exist, but the interests and governance is skewed to the allowed group(s) version of thinking. If you look at history in the US, we've had that. Why do you think we have five or so Amendments or other sections within the Constitution that addresses voting?

Liberal Democracy (4, 11, 14, 15): This is a form of Representative Democracy. Free, fair elections, (also competitive) between multiple parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, rule of law and open society. This open society portion takes in consideration the protection of human rights and civil liberties for ALL persons. Our form of Democracy was evolved into more of this form mixed in with some other portions of governmental systems.

I will also say, it's also gotten a huge push-back in recent years. I won't go into the reasons here. I will say this: if you want to turn back the clock to an older form of government and thinking, that genie left the building and a new genie was let out of it's bottle. Once released, that genie doesn't go back in and stagnation? Well, that's what turning the clock back encourages and doesn't bode well in life, little lone governance.

Liquid Democracy (4, 11, 16, 17) : This allows for the people to represent themselves or to choose to temporarily delegate their vote to another voter in regards to new laws and public policy. Look around this list and see if it fits our government system, too.

Representative Democracy (4, 11, 18, 19): When it comes to Representative, this is more of what the US has today. You vote for a representative, you send that representative to whatever body that has been designated for 'government' and you hope that representative 'does the right thing'. Well, this also has it's flaws. Ego, bad information, lack of interactions of the population at large versus the governmental system, and even further outside sources such as money or pursuit of power all on its own can help warp this system.

Social Democracy (4, 11, 20, 21): This has a huge range of variations. You might have heard about various European and Scandinavian countries having this type of system. You'll also hear it denigrated as 'welfare' states/nations, a method of getting rid of various economic systems and more. Yes, some of that is potentially true. As stated, there is a huge range of what can happen.

Social Democracies are forms of participatory democracy and the economic influences normally adopt a type of mixed economy that involve both free-market and socioeconomic intervention. In short: whatever variation tries to take care of the people better and reign in excesses.

Notably, this form of governance tend to have 'universal rights': education, health care, worker's compensation, public transportation and other services. This can also include child and elderly care. Trade unions are normally attached to this system so the workers get more say in various aspects of life. It's also inclusive: race, gender, ability/disability, age, etc. are all advocated to have freedom.

Soviet Democracy (4, 11): I'd call this a form of Ergatory Democracy. This is direct governance by elected councils and are supposed to be directly responsible to their electors and bound by their instructions. Also, supposedly, whatever persons who are delegates to these councils may be dismissed from their post at any time or voted out. Their 'mandate' is more imperative rather than a free one (the delegate is only responsible to their conscious). You'll note that I use 'supposedly' here. Russia, like the US, has never had a pure form of engagement and today's' Russian government is more like the next form.

Totalitarian Democracy (4, 11, 22, 23): In this, yes there are rights to vote and even voting. However, whatever 'lawfully elected' representatives maintain the integrity of nation/state and the citizens have little or no participation in the decision-making process. I can argue that even the US has this at least partially in our current system.

Digital Democracy (4, 24, 25): Now this is supposed to help with scaling and addressing the inefficiency of democracy. I would embrace this, only I'd like to insulate our elections and government from the internet and other technology as much as possible. However, questions are posed or formulated as referendums, put on public forums for discussion, comment, and voting. Citizens, in this, have the ability to read the arguments, proffer (give) their own, even to the point of voting on whatever issue using available tech. This, I know, would set certain segments of the US population on edge. That's another issue I'd like to avoid if at all possible. It would increase the amount of people who vote, I would think because of quick, easy availability, however I can see the system easily manipulated and it still doesn't address a population who doesn't realize their responsibilities and aren't knowledgeable of their governmental environment.

Constitutional Monarchy (4, 11, 26, 27): Now Constitutional Monarchy's are interesting. That's what happened to Britain once upon a time. I won't go into details but I will trace the changing of a pure Monarchy to a more Constitutional Monarchy to the Magna Carta. Not that the Magna Carta created Parliament, but it did put the Monarchy on some limits and subject to the law of the land. It put barons and the Church into the mix and was essentially a peace treaty of sort because there were rebellious barons at the time. But it still has a historic and pivotal position even in the US: as stated it put the Monarchy into a limited position and subject to the law of the land. I'll only say this: I think there are a group of legally-knowledgeable people in the US who have forgotten that piece of history.

Issue: Forms: Non-Democratic (4)

Now this, I know that were will be a large group from 'the other side' who will want to argue with me. Fine by me. However, if you do want to argue, you better have your history and facts straight. I might not be a Political Science PhD or a lawyer, but I do know research, history, and I have critical thinking skills. I'm not demeaning those who'll argue with me: I'm giving you a heads up on the fact that you might have to put in thinking and work into why you'd want any of these next forms.

Authoritarianism (4, 28, 29): First up is Authoritarianism. Essentially power is concentrated in a single leader or party, limiting political freedoms. Remember me mentioning Russia? North Korea? Throw in China, too. What do all these governments have in common? Via multiple methods and levers, power is concentrated in one person via a system that looks like democracy (having parties, 'elected' officials etc) but isn't at all. There are two sub-flavors so this will be a short foray.

Civilian Dictatorship (4, 30, 31): This is where the sole holder of power is 'civilian'. Some might call that person a 'Dictator' or even an 'Absolute Monarch'. Scary though, is one who is elected 'President'. Several governments in the world today are either already in the hands of this form of government or in the process of becoming this form of government. With this form, rule of law, constitutions or any social or political institutions are either ignored or in such shape that they aren't able to put any stops on that one person's power. If you want some examples try on Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and the Kim Dynasty of North Korea. I'd even throw in Vladimir Putin, Victor Orbon, and the (attempt-er) Donald Trump.

Here in the US, that 'unitary executive' theory? Uh, yeah...read deep into it and you'll find that it's just a fancy, muddy-the-waters way of saying 'dictator', 'despot', 'authoritarian leadership'. This particular 'theory' which is being forced into daily life is that the President, through the wording of the Constitution is 'vested' with 'the executive power' is the reason why the President has sole authority over the executive branch. In ways that is correct. However, thinking that the Executive isn't answerable to the People or the expressly outlined 'co-equal' branches of government is deeply flawed. I'll get more into this in an article about the Executive Branch later.

Military Dictatorship (4, 32, 33) : This is much different than a Civilian Dictatorship. The major differences are along the lines of motivations, the various institutions on how they organize their rule, and even the way they leave power. Now, 'saving the nation' is often shared by both versions and that 'saving' is from corrupt or myopic civilian politicians. The thinking of these governments are that the military is 'neutral' because of their being simply military/armed forces. Military juntas are notorious for this form of government.

Totalitarianism (4, 22, 23, 34) : This is another version of government I can see being pushed. Yes, today it's October 2025 and no I'm not blind to what is going on. When a group (party) wants to dictate your every breath that is a government who is wanting to control all aspects of your public and private lives. Guess what? That's not 'small government' either.

What am I getting at? Well, to make sure your demands of public and private life are being followed means more surveillance (in today's world that's tech-which costs for man-power for monitoring, installation, maintaining, and creating; software/firmware, and even the power and materiel) or enough people who do in person surveillance (which means more governmental spending and a bloated governmental workforce). Also, that also doesn't take into consideration much on reasoning or logical progression, either. In today's world, in the US, we've a very vocal and active minority who want to dictate how you behave, what you think, how you respond to what you think, and more. I'll also point fingers: they all claim to be religious.

I'll get into the whole religious argument later. However I will say this: you want a world from fifty to a hundred years ago and based on today's tech is counter intuitive in any time, place or with any population over two people. The minute things get 'discovered', 'developed', or otherwise 'let out of the bag/bottle/box'...things change and those changes can ripple out widely. I'll repeat what I said in my initial article: if you stagnate, you lose adaptability and the ability to survive. It's just a fact of life and in whatever you're addressing.

Oligarchy (4, 35, 36): This is another we're familiar with when it comes to Russia and now, America. A small group of elites (we're talking mainly very wealthy persons—I've yet to see or hear about a scientific oligarchy or something similar in real life practice. Wealth, legal, or family-run yes. Also, you can throw in military which can become an oligarchy.). Does a small group who are insulated from the general population have the general population in mind when they make decisions? Not really. At least not historically. Too much distance between the bottom rung to whatever top rung acknowledged.

However, I will say this: the bottom rungs of any society are normally much larger in numbers than the oligarchy. If money/legal is the basis of that oligarchy, well, their money is made by the work of the bottom rungs. Legally? They can try to rig whatever laws and systems they can. However, it's still a matter of numbers.

I'll also add: peaceful methods work much better and the changes lasting for longer amounts of time. One last thing: you think Democracy was the only version of government to have many sub-'flavors'? Wrong answer if 'yes'. Here goes another listing:

Aristocracy(4, 37, 38), : This should be familiar to anyone who reads up on history in general and generally attached to Monarchy. A limited amount of privileged individuals lay claim to a 'higher birth rank' than everyone else and forms a government and/or works with a Monarchy. Remember the Magna Carta? Yeah, that's because of barons being 'pain in the ass' to the king of the time and was essentially a peace treaty between the monarchy and the aristocracy.

Geniocracy 4, 39, 40, 41): This is a term of a very strange origin. Raëlism/Raëlianism started in the 1970s and started by Claude Vorihon. He's now known as Raëli and this is (gulp, don't laugh) a UFO religion. Yes, you read that right. Look up International Raëlian Movement (IRM) or Raëliian Church. Now, this one relies on the rule of the 'intelligent'. Those with creativity, innovation, wisdom, and intelligence are required and are the 'ruling class'. I'd have issues with this: who defines any of that?

Hamarchy (4):This is joint rule of different regions that retain the individuality but also has many distinct and/or independent parts that rule together.

Kraterocracy (4,42) :Ug, this is something being attempted in various ways today in the US, or so I think/see. It's a 'strong man' version of ruling by those who are able and strong enough to seize power through physical force, social maneuvering, or political cunning. Some or all of this is being 'attempted'. Whether or not those involved will be successful is to be seen.

Kritarchy (4, 43, 44):Another ug. When you become the law enforcement and legal system you have this. This has various judges (AKA kritarchs) that form up a government that the two branches (which are separate in this nation) are traditionally or constitutionally the same entity. Now, I would say this is semi-attempting to be formed in conjunction with the Kraterocracy because this has the legal power to legislate and administer the enforcement of whatever laws developed, the interposition and even the resolution of disputes. I'll not mention a certain six letter organization I feel is trying to be this.

Meritocracy (4, 45, 46):Currently, I'd say we're in an anti-meritocracy attempt, too. Meritocracy is where groups are selected on their ability, knowledge and contributions to society in a given area. I would say: lawyers for legal, teachers for teaching, etc. I'll give you another piece of 'Humanitarian Government': this would be part of the 'solution' I see for the form of government proposed.

Netocracy (4, 47):Gads. This is a term originally coined by the editorial board of the tech magazine'Wired'in the early 1990s. What is it? Well, for one, the term is a portmanteau (mashing) of 'Internet' and 'aristocracy'. What it is is a perceived global upper-class that bases it's power on tech advantage and networking skills. Based on my information (and I didn't go down the rabbit hole so if you want more information you'll have to dive for it) Richard Florida's 'creative class' is compared to this. Now, two others: Bard and Soderqvist defined an under-class and opposition: consumtariat.

Noocracy (4, 48, 49):'Rule by the Wise'. This is where philosophers are the rulers and was first advocated by Plato. Again: who defines 'wise', and philosophers are more likely to question everything rather than working solutions in my mind. I could be wrong on this, though.

Plutocracy (4, 50, 51):This is where the wealthy rules. I'd say we're already deep into this one. This system is indebted to, heavily influenced or dependent upon the desires of the rich. This variation of Oligarchy can influence every or any form of government. A major example is yes, you have elections, you have representatives, but those representatives are dependent upon financial support from wealthy sources (I'd call that buying elections). So, yeah...we've got this in spades.

Particracy (4, 52): Yeah, this too we have in spades: this is a form of dominant political party rule.

Statocracy: This is where those who have the right to govern have either had or active military service that is mandatory or voluntary. You might have heard the terms 'military junta' or 'military dictatorship'. This isn't those.

Synarchim (4, 53):Well, conspiracy theorists know this well but not necessarily the term. This is a rule of a secret elite. So, most of these versions of Oligarchy are 'seen' or 'known' by the public at large, but this one doesn't fit that mold.

Technocracy:Tech experts are the ones who are the top dogs in this version. So, whatever specialty areas and those who are skilled in that area are part of the ruling class. In pure practice, who ever represents whatever specialty area redresses any issues and moves to improve society at large. Politicians, businessmen and economists wouldn't be part of the government like right now (I'd say economists should be part of it simply because of monetary/budget needing to be monitored). Currently, if you deal with algorithms (global and run by Silicon Valley engineers), that's part of this model today. It's also been called 'digitocracy'. Have fun with the rabbit holes on this one.

Theocracy (4, 54, 55): When a religion or rather religious leaders govern and laws are based on religious doctrine, you have a theocracy. There are two very well known in the US: the Iranian Ayatollahs and The Catholic Church. Although I can also argue that the Catholic Church isn't a nation. Iran, though, is.

A few years ago, there was screaming about one side of the political spectrum wanting Sharia Law. Just to inform everyone, it's one of the two forms of law in the Muslim World. It's the religious-based law. Now, the strange thing of it all was that the ones accused of wanting to bring Sharia Law into existence here never uttered a peep on anything close.

The side that screamed, though, is the very side that now wants to dictate life in the US and be the only recognized religion allowed without consequences. We have the Freedom of Religion because of the Mayflower Compact and also the Pilgrims being not of the Catholic Church or even the Church of England. They were Christians, yes, but they are the ones that first codified Freedom of Religion.

Go figure the logic. Please...and get back to me with the results of your pondering.

Timocracy (4, 56, 57): This is the last of the Oligarchy systems (thank the heavens). This is 'Rule by the honorable'. Again, I have issues because who defines 'honorable'. This also requires property-owners. That would cut much of the US out of governance entirely. Not to mention, if this was something used, I would demand those who rule be 'perfect' and 'keep the people fulliy at the forefront'. Since humans aren't perfect, and aren't free of being potentially selfish or forgetting that 'the little guy' can also be 'honorable' I wouldn't ascribe to this one either.

Monarchy (4, 58, 59): I'm thinking people know of Monarchies. Kings/Queens run the show. This term I'll use for anything but a Constitutional Monarchy that I've already gone over. England has (currently) a Constitutional Monarchy, but it wasn't too long ago that it wasn't always that way. Just think: when the US broke from England, it was still a strong Monarchy-ran country.

Issue: Forms: Hybrid Systems(4, 60, 61)

Now we get into something we also have experience with. Not that we didn't with one or more of the previously listed systems, but these, too, have similarities to what we have.

Trigonocracy (4, 62, 63): This is also another form of government that is interesting. It consists of direct democracy, technocracy of lobbyists, and meritocratic principles. It's also a theoretical government just like I'm putting forth eventually in this blog/chapter book/ whatever you want to call this.

Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary branches are part of this government, but also (what Sam May states (4, 63, 64) two additional powers: Monecative for supervision of finances and Mediacative for the integrity and independence of the media. When I first introduced my theoretical government, I didn't know about this form of Democracy. However, I would say that mine is very close to this one. I will get into that soon, trust me. I just need to make sure everyone is on the same page first.

Semi-Presidential System (4, 65, 66): This is where there is a President, but also a Prime Minister. When you get technical, and considering the Vice President is also (technically again) part of the Senate, I'd say that would fullfill the Prime Minister part of the 'parliamentary' system part of this system.

Dominant-Party System (4): Oh yeah, we know this one very well. Multiple parties exist (and there are more than the Democrat and Republican parties in existence in the US), but one party dominants in political power. That's the Majority/Minority parts of Congress come from. If you look at committee assignments and such, you'll see why.

Description: Governmental Systems—Socioeconomic attributes (4)

This is more of the 'thinking' behind or possibly even a way of how a governmental system is organized. Remember: every governmental system, even anarchy, is based entirely on the population and what they will tolerate or be involved in. Also, just like the power structures I just went through, one or more of these can be at play at the same time. Each region, population, and historical experience with other forms of government, socioeconomic and even geo-cultural factors influences how a government is formed and ran. I could go into some of the dark underbelly of the US, however I will refrain.

Anarchism (4, 67, 68): This proposes self-governance societies based on voluntary institutions. You might even run across the term 'stateless societies', 'non-hierarchical' or 'free associations'. Some of those who delve into this particular form advocate for an inclusion of private property, property rights and even hierarchical groups. However any form is fully voluntary. In short the 'state' is undesirable, unnecessary and/or harmful. I'll argue that this can work: on small scale populations. However of a population of 340 million or so, I'm fairly certain people don't have the personal control or promoting the social benefit to allow for that large of a population to have this.

Capitalism (4, 69, 70, 71): sigh Yes, we have this. In spades and since the Industrial Revolution and possibly even before that. This is where the means of production (physical or even intellectual items) are owned by private individuals. Workers are put into the position to negotiate with the owning individuals to use, yes 'use', the means of production in exchange for a portion of what they produce. No, not in the items, however more in the form of capital (money). I did a three part economic set before this, so I'll refer you to that. Whatever is left over from the negotiated portion going to workers are part of the individual/owners entitlement.

Colonialism (4, 72, 73): Just look to the beginning of what would become the US and you'll see a text book example of colonialism. The Indigenous Peoples of what became the US was subjugated by an external political power (at the start this was mainly the English Monarchs of the time, but French, Dutch, and Spanish were also big players) for economic and/or political gain.

Communism (4, 74, 75), : You'll see this tied to or interchanged with socialism in today's rhetoric in the US. However, in this form, the means of any economic production are commonly owned by the population direction, through a commune system, or the state/society. This also is done based on internal use, possible also trade, but profit isn't the driving factor. In ways, this also has a facet in common with Anarchism: stateless. But it, in theory at least, is also supposed to be classless and money-less. It's also thought to be the final form of a socialist or anarchist society. I've already gone over what I think about anarchist form of socioeconomic power. I'll still support the same for socialist, too.

Despotism (4, 76, 77): Remember Authoritarian power structure? Yeah, this is the socioeconomic name for the same type of system.

Distributism (4,78, 79): This is either tied into or a variant of Capitalism. This views property ownership as a fundamental right and the means of production are spread out as widely as possible rather than centralized via the control of the state or even a few individuals or corporations. But this isn't socialism or capitalism, rather it opposes both of those. It's thinking is to have human life as a whole (body, spirit, mental, and family lives) being primary rather than economic activity.

Feudalism (4, 80, 81): Well, if you haven't studied or been taught this in history class, let me clue you: look up Medieval Europe or Feudal Japan. The land in any given control area that is ruled by some sort of King, Emperor or otherwise named power equal to those, belonged to that King, Emperor, etc. Now, if you swore allegiance to that top power, was considered a noble or lord and would fight for that power head, some of that land might be given or gifted to that lord or noble. Ever hear of 'manor houses'? Those were the homes of the manor land given to those lords or nobility. In a 'trickle down' type system, those lords or nobles gave parts of that land (fiefs-the next rung down) and those people were collectively called vassals. There was a similar system for medieval Islamic societies of the Middle East and North Africa and that is called Iqta'. It's similar, however there are differences enough to make it it's own system.

Minarchism (4, 82, 83, 84): Another variant of capitalism. Now, I'll say this right now: current Republican thinking and Libertarian thinking follows this line fairly close. The state/government is to exist but in a very small number of services to be rendered. I understand why they think that way, however mixed in with other socioeconomic variations and influences, and again I'll put out human nature as a huge factor in using those influences, this I can't see working.

Republicanism (4, 85, 86): What do you get when laws, governmental policies and such are considered 'public matter' and decided by the citizens of that society? You have this system. Is this at odds with Democracy? Nope. Although in recent history in the US, this and Democracy has been argued as being two different things. In ways, yes. Being a Republic is a socioeconomic influence while Democratic is more of a power structure that influences the Republic. So, for those of you who want to complain that they are different, I'll agree but I'll also push the fact we can, indeed, be both.

Socialism (4, 87, 88, 91, 90): In this, I spoke widely about in Democratic Socialism. More specifically to the socioeconomic portions (and of course not a pure socialist system) the workers own the means of production via democratic and/or social structures. This can have decentralized and self-managed framework in autonomous units that follow more of a type of libertarian system. It cal also be centrally planned, as in authoritarian systems. Social systems such as healthcare and educations would be held commonly, collectively, and/or be state owned. I know, 'state rights'. Some things though, and I'm talking to some of the lowest 'good outcome' service states when it comes to education and healthcare, should be held by the public and guided as such. See, I also believe in investing into the backbone either economically or socially of a nation to get the best outcomes. I won't go more into that right now.

Totalitarianism (4, 22, 23, 24,91, 92): This was a power structure, but it's also a socioeconomic one that opposition is prohibited, civil rights are extremely suppressed and life in general is dictated and controlled by higher powers in an authoritarian type state. There are many examples but I'll mention one in particular: North Korea.

Tribalism (4, 93, 94, 95): this is the last one for this section. This is where small, complex society sections that vary greatly on centralization or decentralization and is run by an individual, generally known as a chief or chieftain. If the US used this, I'd say thousands or even millions of tiny groups would form and that would be a mess that we may not have ways of dealing with.

At this point, I'm going to stop. Let you digest this portion of information because it's been a a lot. I'll do a second part: some deeper dives into governmental systems already mentioned, geo-cultural issues/power structures, and ideologies that will or can influence governance. I had thought this would be a shorter segment, but I was oh so wrong. Sorry about that.

_____________

FOOTNOTES (You'll have to copy and paste to get to some of these links):