# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Government Overview, Types & Examples | What is Government? - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn the definition of government and understand the different types of government with various examples. Discover the important functions of a…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
government, the political system by which a country or community is administered and regulated.

Most of the key words commonly used to describe governments-words such as , , and -are of Greek or Roman origin. They have been current for more than 2,000 years and have not yet exhausted their usefulness. This suggests that humankind has not altered very much since they were coined. However, such verbal and psychological uniformity must not be allowed to hide the enormous changes in society and politics that have occurred. The earliest analytical use of the term monarchy, for example, occurred in ancient Athens, in the dialogues of Plato ( c. 428- c. 348 bce), but even in Plato's time the term was not self-explanatory. There was a king in Macedonia and a king in Persia, but the two societies, and therefore their institutions, were radically different. To give real meaning to the word monarchy in those two instances, it would be necessary to investigate their actual political and historical contexts. Any general account of monarchy required then, and requires today, an inquiry as to what circumstances have predisposed societies to adopt monarchy and what have led them to reject it. So it is with all political terms.

This article discusses the historical development of governments, primarily in the societies of the West. ( See also political science; political system; state.)

Agricultural society

So long as humans were few, there was hardly any government. The division of function between ruler and ruled occurred only, if at all, within the family. The largest social groups, whether tribes or villages, were little more than loose associations of families, in which every elder or family head had an equal voice. Chieftains, if any, had strictly limited powers; some tribes did without chieftains altogether. This prepolitical form of social organization may still be found in some regions of the world, such as the Amazonian jungle in South America or the upper Nile River valley in Africa.

The rise of agriculture began to change that state of affairs. In the land of Sumer (in what is now Iraq) the invention of irrigation necessitated grander arrangements. Control of the flow of water down the Tigris and Euphrates rivers had to be coordinated by a central authority, so that fields could be watered downstream as well as farther up. It became necessary also to devise a calendar, so as to know when the spring floods might be expected. As those skills evolved, society evolved with them. In early Sumer, it is reasonable to assume, the heads of the first cities, which were little more than enlarged villages, only gradually assumed the special attributes of monarchy-the rule of one-and the village council only gradually undertook a division of labour, so that some specialized as priests and others as warriors, farmers, or tax gatherers (key figures in every civilized society). As organization grew more complex, so did religion: an elaborate system of worship seemed necessary to propitiate the quite elaborate family of gods who, it was hoped, would protect the city from attack, from natural disaster, and from any questioning of the political arrangements deemed necessary by the ruler group.

Unfortunately-but, given human nature, inevitably-the young cities of Sumer quarrelled over the distribution of the rivers' water, and their wealth excited the greed of nomads outside the still comparatively small area of civilization (a word deriving from the Latin word for city, civitas). War, perhaps the most potent of all forces of historical change, announced its arrival, and military leadership became at least as important an element of kingship as divine sanction. It was to remain so throughout the long history of monarchy: whenever kings have neglected their military duties, they have endangered their thrones. The wars of Sumer also laid bare another imperative of monarchy-the drive for empire, arising from the need to defend and define frontiers by extending them and the need to find new means to pay for troops and weapons, whether by the plunder of an enemy or by the conquest of new lands, or both.

The spread of civilization

The history of Old World monarchy, and indeed of civilization, was to consist largely of variations on the patterns mentioned above for four or five millennia. Trade contacts carried the principles of civilization to Egypt and to India (China, like the pre-Columbian societies of the Americas, seems to have evolved independently). And everywhere, once the social order was established, the problem of defending it became paramount. Although the broad zone of civilization spread steadily, so that by the reign of the Roman emperor Trajan (98-117 ce) there was a continuous band of civilized societies from Britain to the China Sea, it was always at risk from the barbarian nomads who roamed the great steppelands of central Eurasia. These nomads had retained the loose and simple institutions of primitive societies, but they had in other ways evolved as rapidly and successfully as the cities themselves (and partly under the cities' influence). The steppe was horse country, and, armed with bows and arrows, the barbarians of all epochs possessed marvelously swift and deadly light cavalry. They fought constantly among themselves for pasturage, and the losers were forever being driven west, south, and east, where they often overcame any defenses that the farms and cities of civilization could muster against them.

Yet the nomads' military challenge was never sufficient to overturn civilization entirely. Either the invaders would overrun the settled lands and then adopt civilized customs, or the frontier defenses would prove strong enough to hold them off. There were even long periods of peace, when the barbarian threat was negligible. It was at such times that the spontaneous ingenuity of humankind had greatest play, in politics as in everything else. But it is noteworthy that, in the end, what may be described as the ancient norm always reasserted itself, whether in Europe, the Middle East, India, or China. Military crises-barbarian invasions, civil wars, or war between competing polities-recurred, necessitating the strengthening of government.

The effort to secure a measure of peace and prosperity required the assertion of authority over vast distances, the raising of large armies, and the gathering of taxes to pay for them. Those requirements in turn fostered literacy and numeracy and the emergence of what later came to be called bureaucracy-government by officials. Bureaucratic imperialism emerged again and again and spread with civilization. Barbarian challenge occasionally laid it low but never for very long. When one city or people rose to hegemony over its neighbours, it simply incorporated their bureaucracy into its own. Sumer and Babylon were conquered by Assyria; Assyria was overthrown by the Medes of Persia, in alliance with a resurgent Babylon and nomadic Scythians; the empire of the Persians was overthrown by Alexander the Great (356-323 bce) of Macedonia; the Macedonian successor states were conquered by Rome, which was in due course supplanted in the Middle East and North Africa by the Islamic Caliphate of Baghdad. Conquerors came and went, but life for their subjects, whether peasants or townspeople, was not much altered by anything they did, as long as the battles happened elsewhere.

Nevertheless, from time to time experiments were made, for no monarchy had the resources to rule all its subjects directly. So long as they paid tribute punctually, local rulers and local communities were perforce left to govern themselves. Even if they did not pay, the effort required to mount a military operation at a distance from the imperial centre was so great that only in exceptional circumstances would it be undertaken, and even then it might not succeed, as the kings of Persia found when they launched punitive expeditions from Asia Minor against mainland Greece at the beginning of the 5th century bce ( see Greco-Persian Wars). Thus, in normal times the inhabitants of the borderlands had extensive freedom of action.

Although civilization, as its advantages became clear, spread west and northwest out of Asia, bureaucratic monarchy could not easily follow it. The sea was becoming a historical factor as important as the steppe and the great irrigable rivers. Tyre and Sidon, maritime cities of Phoenicia (modern Lebanon), had long exploited their coastal situation, not only to remain independent of the landward empires but also to push across the sea, even beyond the Straits of Gibraltar, in quest of trade. Their daughter cities- Carthage, Utica, and Cádiz-were the first colonies, but primitive communications made it impossible for Phoenicia to rule them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Government | Definition, History, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Government, the political system by which a country or a community is administered and regulated. Read more in this article about the forms and historical development of governments in the societies of the West from ancient times to the 21st century.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Voice your opinion on the debatable issue of whether or not government structures are vital for society.

# data[].attributes.body
This prezi talks about the

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why is government important to a society?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Example We need a limited government, because all of the power should not be solely in the hands of on person, or one group of people, we should have different people working together to better the entire community. Life Without a Government A condition in which there is no

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Imagine-if you will-a world in which there is no such thing as a government; no higher body, no politics, no bureaucracy, just people going about as they usually would without any higher power telling them otherwise. How do you believe those people would act? The question of government is one that asks what humans would be without any civil order, would we be better or worse off without it? Are we even any better with it?

The word "government" nowadays invokes a negative image in people's minds. A group of suited up bigwigs all sitting around a table or in courts deciding how to plunder the people of their money and how to curtail their liberties even more; a crude image, yes, but one that most people wouldn't think about sooner or later. A lot of governments nowadays are rife with graft, corruption, human rights violations, and a blatant disregard for the well-being of their own people. However, according to 17th-century English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, a government is necessary in society, no matter what.

In his monumental work, Leviathan, Hobbes wrote that governments are what keep people in check and civilizations alive. In the work, Hobbes introduced what is called, "the natural state of man," in which he described the life of humans without government as "nasty, brutish and short." When those humans decided that enough was enough, they sacrificed some of their freedoms and powers to ensure that order can be kept and peace be maintained. This entity formed the backbones of governments for ages to come and is known only as the Leviathan. The Leviathan ensures order, law and preservation with a sword and any means necessary to keep the public at peace. To Hobbes, no government is at fault; as the absence of any government, good or bad, is far worse than if there were no government at all-or so Hobbes thought...

Almost a century later, Swiss-French philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that without governments, the natural state of man is one of peace and harmony. In 18th-century Europe, the Enlightenment was implanting itself in the minds of European philosophers such as John Locke, Baron von Montesquieu, Voltaire, and of course, Rousseau. In the wake of the American Revolution and before the French Revolution, Rousseau argued that humans are better off with as little government as possible. Even if there need be a government, there must exist a social contract between the government and its people; meaning that in order for the people to respect the government, the government must respect its people. A government does not need to be oppressive nor censoring. Instead, it must be big enough to get the job done and ensure that its people are happy and its coffers are full.

But the game of politics is akin to walking across a minefield; one wrong move and a political society could end a massive and deafening bang. Especially nowadays, since there is such a diverse amount of opinions originating from the left right and center that governments are struggling in an attempt to keep all sides appeased. As history has taught us, when one government falls another one is put in its place...although there is a brief period of transition, rarely has the transitional process been peaceful, and is indicative as to why we need governments.

For example, take the fall of Rome: after the Roman empire collapsed and Roman authority was no more, Europe was left in a period of sieges, wars, invasions, and all kinds of strife from groups all around. Needless to say, this was a bloody period where little was accomplished in the way of achievement or prosperity and was appropriately named the "Dark Ages." The people of that time were so desperate for leadership and government that primitive forms of government took place amongst different regions in what became known as "feudalism."

Despite how sloppy and makeshift these feudal governments were, the fact that they existed and that people were heavily reliant upon them showed not only how much a government is needed, but the lengths that the people will go to for any sort of government. Hobbes is correct in saying that we need a strong, if not any, form of government (also take a look at the government of Poland by the late 18th-century, South America by the mid-19th-century, and various African and Asian countries post-independence) however, a government also needs to have a little wiggle room for people to express themselves in a constructive and creative manner.

In conclusion, the short answer is yes, we do need governments, but the ultimate question lay in how people should be governed? Countless theories from philosophers over the ages have provided many different kinds of answers, yet to what degree a government should be liberal or strict with its policies remain the underlying problem. Perhaps governments have grown independent of their people? Perhaps people are too dependent on their government? Or, perhaps, within the nuances of politics there remains the secret to good governments that we haven't found out yet? But if the previous centuries of war, bloodshed, and suspended freedoms and liberties haven't brought forth any answers, then maybe, we may never know.

Cover Image Credit: Alvaro Gluckmann

Keep Reading

About nine months ago, you left me in front of my dorm, tears in both of our eyes, all by myself.

As my first year away from you comes to a close, I'm getting ready to return to the nest. And I can guess you're either feeling really excited to have your baby back, or you are wishing the semester would last a little longer. But whether you're ready or not, I'm coming home.

It's been quieter around the house. You haven't had to drive to games, activities, appointments, and events for me. One less person to clean for, one less person to cook for, and one less person to feel responsible for. It's OK to admit that you've enjoyed it.

I loved my first year away from home. I tasted freedom like I never have before, and I would like to think I was safe and smart about it. I figured out how to take care of myself in every way, shape, and form -- I manage my own time, I feed myself, and I get myself from point A to point B. In just a few short months, I've learned so much about myself and the world outside of our little town. It has been an amazing experience.

I'm kind of an adult now, and as I adjust to life back home, I'm asking you to be patient with me. I have spent so much time getting used to a new lifestyle where I can make up my own rules and decide when I want to follow them, it may take me a while to remember how things used to be when I was here all the time.

Please remember that I just busted my butt academically in the two hardest semesters of my life and I'm exhausted. I don't want to think about classes or my grades or anything related to my major - I just want to enjoy my summer.

Don't get angry with me if I forget to put my dish in the dishwasher or don't do my laundry for two weeks - when I was living on my own, I could do whatever I wanted. I know I have to live by your rules when I'm home, but give me some time to adjust. I promise I'm not a slob when I'm at school - I'm just a college student.

I've been away from home for so long and there is so much I missed when I was gone. So please, let me pick that local restaurant I love for dinner and allow me to hang out with friends every night if I want to. I've missed the things I left behind and I'm only home for four short months, so I have to enjoy it while I'm here. I promise to spend time with you before I go back to school.

But mostly, I want to say thank you. Thank you for supporting me and loving me through all the tough times this year brought. All the phone calls, worried texts about my taxes, FaceTime sessions with the dog, and surprise weekend visits helped me survive my first year away from home. No matter where I go and how long I'm gone, I'll always be your baby and I will always appreciate everything you've done for me.

No more exams, presentations, meetings, or lectures. For the first time in a long time, I'm all yours. And even though I'm coming home now, soon I will be leaving again - so let me enjoy my time home with you.

Cover Image Credit: Mulpix

Keep Reading

In our increasingly polarized country, abortion is one of the most controversial and commonly debated topics. There are numerous perspectives and subsequently many more arguments supporting each position. One of the most prominent rallying cries from the pro-abortion stance is "My body, my choice," which is the idea that while the baby is inside of the mother, it is in fact not a baby and simply part of the mother's body, giving her the right to dispose of the child as she pleases.

Up until the past few years, unborn infants have been unanimously considered human beings. We don't ask pregnant mothers how their new body part is doing or if they have developed their second heart yet, we ask "How's the baby?" and exclaim "I can't wait to meet him/her!" subconsciously recognizing that the infant is a separate entity with separate body parts and, half the time, a separate sex than the mother.

Also, if babies are just parts of a woman's body, why would parents mourn the loss of their unborn child through a miscarriage? If it was just an unnecessary body part there would be no need for sorrow, but humans innately sense that that delicate baby is valuable and recognize the beautiful potential which lies within that blooming life.

Though to some it seems obvious that a baby is a separate being, others negate the fact but with no scientific evidence, often using emotional and contradictory claims to support their beliefs. When reason fails such parties, they often become defensive, especially against men, asking what right a man has to question women, who are the ones who grow the babies within their bodies.

But wait, in today's culture of advocacy for gender rights and equality, aren't the very groups vouching for abortion typically also proclaiming that a man can be someone with the biological body of a woman? So by that very logic, a "man" can become pregnant and the defensive argument against a man having both a legal and a verbal say is negated.

Science offers a less emotional, fact-based plethora of evidence against the claim that a baby is simply part of a woman's body until birth. Undeniably, babies have a unique DNA sequence formed by the DNA of both parents; at no point is it comprised of solely of the mother's DNA ensuing conception, and that in itself should be considered sufficient evidence of the child's individuality.

In accordance, the baby develops respectively to that unique DNA for the entirety of his or her life, going on to become an entirely different person with a separate personality and separate experiences than the mother if allowed to survive. In addition, babies develop their own heartbeat for their own little bodies while still within the womb and are not entirely dependent on the mother until natural birth, as seen through the survival of C-section and premature babies. Especially because a child can live outside of the womb, the mother has no right to deny the child that right.

If people actually want to adhere to the motto "Pro-Choice," then they must allow these tiny, defenseless humans to have the right to make their own personal decisions whether it's to live or die. It is the most ironic tragedy that the very group claiming to demand freedom of personal "choice" endeavors to deny the most sacred right of human beings, to live, and consequently to love, to think, to fight, to learn, from those that are least able to fend for those rights for themselves.

Keep Reading

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Imagine-if you will-a world in which there is no such thing as a government; no higher body, no politics, no bureaucracy, just people going about as they usually would without any higher power telling them otherwise. How do you believe those people would act?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Learning Objectives

Define and examine various forms of government.

Consider the level of order/control exerted over citizens by various forms of government.

Comprehend basic functions of government.

The United States of America have relied on citizen participation to govern at the local, state, and national level as a representative republic. The right to participate in government is an important pillar of this republic. The people have known and valued that right enough to fight for and then defend it over nearly two and a half centuries. Active civic participation is at once foundational to a free society, yet taken for granted by too many.

The founders of the United States were originally focused on freedom from the tyranny of a remote and imperious monarchy. While forming a new independent government, they realized an opportunity to draw on the wisdom of revered political philosophers and centuries of experience with European states and governance. Government form, structure and process to serve the current and future interests of the people resulted. Perhaps most importantly, the resulting representative republic-centered on civic participation and control of government through the consent of the governed -is able to meet the people's changing needs and interests over time.

Consider the issue of participation. At the founding, only free white males participated. In fact, some states further restricted participation by requiring ownership of property. Over time, these voting restrictions gradually gave way to full political equality of participation for all citizens. Only a government structured for ultimate control by the people, would be able to evolve the very definition of the people governing themselves. The definition of the people has changed over time. The struggle, to include more groups of people able to participate on equal footing, has been long and difficult. The fact that each disenfranchised group continued the struggle is evidence of the value placed on our representative republic and the opportunities equal participation affords.

The World War II era poster shown above depicts voting as an important part of the fight to keep the United States free. Voting is both a right worth protecting and a tool for engagement, which ensures the government serves the people rather than the reverse.

Thomas Jefferson writes in the Declaration of Independence that "political bands" of government connect citizens of a nation and that governments are formed for the purpose of securing citizens' rights of "[...] Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."He states that people agree to give power and authority to a government and to abide by agreed upon rules in order to achieve these objectives of protecting rights. While people hope the government will provide the proper balance between protecting their liberties, providing for their personal security and safety, and promoting opportunities to achieve personal happiness, no government is perfect. The balance between governmental purposes are constantly debated and discussed. Debate is ongoing over what government should do to assist citizens in pursuing "happiness" while at the same time treating citizens equally in such pursuits. Government sometimes regulates what we eat, where we go to school, what kind of education we receive, how our tax money is spent, and what we do in our free time. Americans are often unaware of the extent of government intervention in their lives.

What is government and why would we even want one?

Government is how a society organizes itself to allocate and exercise authority in order to accomplish purposes, goals and functions. These government functions typically include defense, education, health care, and an infrastructure for transportation and trade for their citizens. Countries provide such benefits via different governmental forms and structures. The form and structure of governmental organization a country chooses should not be confused with politics. Politics is a competitive struggle for gaining and exercising control over the governmental processes or organizational structures that set or carry out the goals, purposes, or functions of the country.

John Locke, a 17th century political philosopher, posited (put forward as an argument) that all people have natural and unalienable (inseparable) rights to life, liberty, and property-people have natural rights of self-determination (control of their own life and property). Does it then follow that all social contracts or governments should involve individual consent from the people? In the eighteenth century this political thought developed into the idea that people should govern themselves through elected representatives; and, only representatives chosen by the people should make laws and institute control over citizens' lives.

Why would we want any other individual or group to have any type of control over our lives or property? Individuals would not need to band together for order or control if everyone respected each other's lives, liberty and property 100% of the time. Unfortunately, this is not the case with some individuals who seek to take away others' lives, curtail others' liberty, or deprive others of property; therefore, governments are established to protect against such usurpations (taking something by force). The individuals organizing governmental control and imposing order for the new United States of America clearly stated the goals of good government in the Preamble to the contract for this new constitutional republic (their choice of governmental form). They sought balance in government between liberty and order.

Consider the Original
Federalist No. 51
The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments; From the New York Packet; Friday, February 8, 1788.

Author: James Madison

[...] "But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." [...]

While most governments want to establish order and control, not all seek to protect liberty or property. Throughout history, the most common form of government- monarchy (one person or one family in control; power concentrated at the top)-saw order and control as the highest priority. Several hundred years before the U. S. Constitution was written and before John Locke wrote about people governing themselves through representatives, Thomas Hobbes wrote a political thesis titled Leviathan. He argues in Leviathan that a strong ruler is necessary to prevent a constant state of war. Imagine there is no government, no police, no court, no rules. Hobbes concludes such a situation would make life "[...] poore, nasty, brutish, and short." He believed a strong ruler would keep people physically safe from attack. While Hobbes argued in his time for absolute monarchy, similar arguments for an extremely powerful ruler or dictator have been made in more recent times under a form of government known as authoritarianism.

Consider the Original
Excerpt from Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes (1651) Out Of Civil States,
"[...] it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called Warre; and such a warre, as is of every man, against every man... the nature of War, consisteth not in actuall fighting; but in the known disposition thereto, during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary [...]."
The Incommodites Of Such A War
"Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man... wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them... In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently... no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short [...]"

Although the power of some monarchs is limited by law, and such kings and queens often rule along with an elected legislature, this is not always the case. Kingdoms such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates have absolute monarchs with unrestricted powers. Also, many cases of very strong authoritarian governments still exist-with virtually dictatorial leaders where citizens have very limited opportunity to participate in governmental decisions.

The CIA website provides information about the types of government across the world.

Another nondemocratic form of government is oligarchy (power concentrated in a handful of elite members of society). This identifiable, permanent elite group of rulers frequently share characteristics of wealth, social status, military might, business, or political connections. In Cuba and China, only members of the Communist Party are allowed to vote or hold public office, and the party's most influential members make all government decisions. Some nondemocratic societies are totalitarian in nature, generally authoritarian and tyrannical. Under totalitarianism, the government controls all aspects of citizens' lives. Citizens' rights are limited and government does not allow political criticism or opposition. North Korea is an example of a totalitarian government.

The Freedom House Annual Survey of political rights and civil liberties shares information on the political form of government of some 154 countries ranking countries as "Free," "Partially Free," and "Not Free." Check it out at https://freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-world.

In a republic (or what is commonly described as a representative democracy), citizens do not govern directly. They elect representatives to make decisions and pass laws in the best interests of the people. U.S. citizens vote for members of Congress, the president and vice president, members of state legislatures, governors, mayors, and members of town councils and school boards to act on their behalf. Most representative governments favor majority rule: the opinions of the majority of the people have more influence with government than those of the minority. If the number of elected representatives who favor a proposed law is greater than those who oppose it, the law will be enacted. However, in representative governments like the United States, minority rights are protected-people cannot be deprived of certain rights even if an overwhelming number of people think that they should be deprived. For example, even though the number of Americans who believe in the authority of a Higher Power far outweigh the number who do not, the minority is still protected and no imposition of particular religious belief or practice is forced on this minority group. Because decisions are mainly made through majority rule, making your opinions known and voting (for individuals who make decisions affecting all citizens) are influential forms of civic engagement in a republic.

In a direct democracy, unlike a republic or representative democracy, people participate directly in government decisions. In ancient Athens, the most famous example of a direct democracy, all male citizens were allowed to attend meetings of the Assembly. Here they debated and voted for or against all proposed laws. Americans vote for people to represent them and make laws on their behalf. They may sometimes vote directly on issues. For example, a referendum or proposed law may be placed on the ballot for citizens to vote on directly, taking the matter out of the hands of the state legislature. At New England town meetings, all residents are allowed to debate decisions affecting the town. Such occasions provide additional opportunities for civic engagement. Direct control is often more effective at local levels of government, becoming unmanageable as populations increase. Accordingly, there are no direct democracy referenda at the national level.

Consider the Original

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."
Thomas Paine
The framers of government in the new United States of America understood the dangers of anarchy (absence of government order), the problems of monarchy (the oppression of a distant and disengaged monarch) and oligarchy, the repression of tyranny, and the impracticality of direct democracy. The new country was already too large and diverse for direct democracy. A representative republic was their choice-citizen control via elected representatives. They also had a clear understanding of the functions they wished the republic's representatives to implement on behalf of citizens.

Basic Purposes, Goals, and Functions of Government

Consider the Original

The preamble to the Constitution clearly outlines the basic purposes of government expected to be achieved with the Constitution stating,

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

What are these six (6) purposes or goals of the United States' government?

1. (form a union) unify to maintain order and liberty; strengthen and provide enough power to the government to carry out listed goals

2. (establish justice) formulate rules to establish order; a fair and impartial justice system to ensure equality before the law

3. (domestic tranquility) make sure the new rules and punishments provide an environment of law and order to preserve physical security for citizens and their property

4. make sure the union protects its citizens from foreign invasion & threats-military, political, and economic-through creation of a national military force

5. (general welfare) promote social, political, and economic prosperity for the entire nation

6. (secure liberty) maintain individual liberties against excessive government encroachment (intrusion)

These goals, listed in the Constitution's preamble, outline difficult tasks requiring delicate balance. Tension exists between the government's responsibilities to maintain order while upholding the commitment to protect liberties. Moreover, we continue to debate and redefine what is meant by each of these purposes. For example, debate exists over the extent to which the government, in promoting the general welfare, may obligate taxpayers to provide a safety net for those unable to provide for themselves. Debate over the role of the national government, in facilitating an environment of equal opportunity versus a commitment to equal outcome through various fiscal and economic policies, is one of the most hotly contested issues of modern U.S. politics.

Governments work to achieve their goals and purposes while balance governing tasks within a specific economic framework. The United States government works primarily in a capitalist, free-market system. Under this framework, the market-through privately owned and operated businesses and companies-provides many needed goods and services to those living within a society. Profit is earned in return for products and services. Under this system, a majority supply of food, clothing, housing, and other goods and services are provided by what may be called private sector goods and services. Economists have formally labeled these goods and services as " private goods."

However, the market cannot provide everything (in enough quantity or at low enough prices) to meet everyone's needs or to meet all the goals and purposes of government. Therefore, some goods, services, and activities are provided by the government itself, or what may be called public sector goods and services or " public goods." Two such goods are public roads and education. Some other countries use more public sector goods and services than the United States. Sweden and Denmark tend toward a socialist economic system with a higher expectation of goods, services, and activities being provided by the government.

At federal, state, and local levels, government provides stability and security as well as goods and services. Security and safety require some form of military establishment and also police, fire departments, and other first responders. Government provides other valuable goods and services such as public transportation, mail service; as well as food, housing, and health care for the poor. If a house catches on fire, the fire department does not demand payment before they put the fire out. If someone breaks into a house and tries to harm the occupants, the police will try to protect them and arrest the intruder, but the police department will not request payment for services rendered.

The provision of these goods and services is funded by citizens paying into the general tax base. Public goods are funded by all taxpayers and available based either on need or entitlement. NO public sector goods and services are free. Public sector activities are funded by ALL taxpayers and available based either on need or entitlement-or to meet some basic public purpose, such as national defense. Yet, not all public sector goods and services are fully funded by taxpayers. For example, if you wish to avoid traffic in a large metropolitan area, you may choose to pay a fee (toll) to drive on a less congested toll road, constructed under a government approved contract. Some government administered program benefits include subsidies for goods and services provided through the private sector.

Public sector goods and services include some activities that involve protection of what economists call " common goods," such as air, water, or fish in the sea-which all people may use, free of charge but are in limited supply. Because everyone can use these goods, they must be protected so a few people do not take everything that is available and leave others with nothing. Government performs the important job of protecting these common goods.

Fishing Regulations-Public Sector Regulation of Common Goods

Governments regulate public access to common goods like natural resources, which may be of limited supply. Public lands and wildlife, however, are not goods the government can simply multiply if supply falls due to demand. If some people take too freely from the supply of common goods, there will not be enough left for others to use.

Government currently regulates access to fish (a common good of limited supply) in order to ensure against extinction-sustainability. Environmentalists want to set strict fishing limits. Commercial fishers resist limits. Fishing limits are set by a combination of scientists, politicians, local resource managers, and groups representing the interests of fishers.

Politics is a competitive power struggle for gaining and exercising control over the governmental processes or organizational structures that set or carry-out social, political, and economic policy of the country. Politics is the process of who gets what and how. If government chooses to support an ideal such as individualism, it may choose to loosen regulations on business and industry or to cut taxes so that people have more money to invest in business. If it chooses to support an ideal such as egalitarianism or equality, it may raise taxes in order to be able to spend more on public education, public transportation, housing for the poor, and care for the elderly. If, for example, the government is more concerned with national security than with individual liberty, it may authorize the tapping of people's phones. If liberty is more important, then government will place greater restrictions on the extent that law enforcement agencies can intrude upon citizens' private communications. The political process and the input of citizens help determine the answers when protection of liberty and provision of security conflict.

Besides providing goods to citizens and maintaining public safety, most governments also provide a means for citizens to participate and make their opinions known to those in positions of power. Western governments like the United States, Britain, France, and others protect citizens' freedom of speech and a free press. These nations, and others in the world, also allow citizens to vote.

Civic engagement, or the participation that connects citizens to government, is a vital ingredient of politics. In the United States, citizens play an important role in influencing what policies are pursued, what values the government chooses to support, what initiatives are granted funding, and who gets to make the final decisions. Political engagement can take many forms: reading about politics, listening to news reports, discussing politics, attending (or watching televised) political debates, donating money to political campaigns, handing out flyers promoting a candidate, voting, joining protest marches, and writing letters to their elected representatives.

Questions to Consider

1. Why are governments necessary to society?

2. What does government do to serve the people?

3. What functions should governments perform?

4. What forms of government exist?

5. How do these forms differ?

6. How can citizens engage with government and participate in the crucial process of governing?

7. What form of government exerts almost 100% control over citizens?

8. What term describes a lack of government, order, or control?

9. Why did the founders compromise with a representative republic?

10. What are the six functions of government laid out by the Preamble to the Constitution?

11. What is the difference between a public good and a private good?

12. Is it right to interfere with people's ability to earn money in order to protect the access of future generations to the nation's common goods?

13. What is the difference between a representative democracy and a direct democracy?

Terms to Remember

anarchy -absence of government, order, control

common goods- generally natural resources that all people may use but that are of limited supply and are protected and regulated by government, that is, by the public sector

Declaration of Independence-written reasoning for political and economic separation between colonies in America and Great Britain

democracy- a form of government where political power rests in the hands of the people; majority rule; minority rights may be ignored

dictatorship -very strong or authoritarian ruler of a government with excessive regulation and control over public and private lives of individuals

direct democracy- a form of government where people participate directly in making government decisions instead of choosing representatives to do this for them

government- the means by which a society organizes itself and allocates and exercises authority and decision-making in order to accomplish its purposes, goals, and provisions of benefits

majority rule- a fundamental principle of democracy; the majority should have the power to make decisions binding upon the whole

minority rights- protections for those who are not part of the majority

monarchy- a form of government where one ruler, usually a hereditary one, holds political power

oligarchy- a form of government where a handful of elite society members hold political power

political power- influence over a government's institutions, leadership, or policies

politics- a competitive power struggle for gaining and exercising control over the governmental processes or organizational structures that set or carry-out social, political, and economic policy of the country

preamble-beginning statement; introductory paragraph of the U.S. Constitution, which states the purposes of the government formed by that contractual document

private sector goods and services- goods and services through the free market economy system by businesses and companies to those who pay for them; private goods

public sector goods and services- goods and services including regulation provided by government, paid for by taxpayer's dollars; public goods

representative democracy- a form of government where voters elect representatives to make decisions and pass laws on behalf of all the people instead of allowing people to vote directly on laws

republic -indirect rule by citizens' representatives; also known as representative democracy

totalitarianism- a form of government where government is all-powerful and citizens have no rights

tyranny -excessive control over public and private lives of individuals by an individual ruler, group, or government

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Define and examine various forms of government. Consider the level of order/control exerted over citizens by various forms of government. Comprehend basic functions of government. The United States of America have relied on citizen participation to govern at the local, state, and national level as a representative republic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Declaration of Independence
The Declaration of Independence is one of the most important documents in the history of the United States.

Fast Facts

It took Thomas Jefferson 17 days to write the Declaration of Independence.

On July 2, 1776, Congress voted to declare independence from Great Britain.

On July 4, 1776, Congress voted to accept the Declaration of Independence, marking July 4 as Independence Day.

To learn more, you may want to:

U.S. Constitution
The foundation of the American government, its purpose, form, and structure, are in the Constitution of the United States. The Constitutional Convention adopted the Constitution on September 17, 1787.

The Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. It guarantees greater constitutional protection for individual liberties and lists specific prohibitions on government power. There are 27 Constitutional Amendments in all. The 27th Amendment, which was originally proposed in 1789, was not ratified until 1992.

Where to View the Constitution

You can view the original, parchment copy of the U.S. Constitution at the National Archives Building in Washington, DC. You can also view an online copy of the U.S. Constitution or order a printed copy of the Constitution.

The U.S. National Anthem
The Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem of the United States. To celebrate a victory over British forces during the War of 1812, U.S. soldiers raised a large American flag at Fort McHenry in Baltimore, Maryland, on September 14, 1814. Inspired by those events, Francis Scott Key wrote a poem called "Defence of Fort M'Henry," which eventually became the Star Spangled Banner and the United States national anthem.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. History and Historical Documents | USAGov

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Declaration of Independence The Declaration of Independence is one of the most important documents in the history of the United States. It took Thomas Jefferson 17 days to write the Declaration of Independence. On July 2, 1776, Congress voted to declare independence from Great Britain.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is the role of government in society? This has been and remains the most fundamental question in all political discussions and debates. Its answer determines the nature of the social order and how people are expected and allowed to interact with one another - on the basis of either force or freedom.

The alternatives are really rather simple. Government may be narrowly limited to perform the essential task of protecting each individual's right to his life, liberty, and honestly acquired property. Or it may be used to try to modify, influence, or dictate the conduct of the citizenry.

In the first case, the government is assigned the duty of impartial umpire, enforcing the societal rules against assault, murder, robbery, and fraud. All human relationships are to be based on mutual consent and voluntary association and exchange.

In the second case, government is an active player in people's affairs, using its legitimized power of coercion to determine how the members of the society may live, work, and associate with each other. The government tries to assure certain outcomes or forms of behavior considered desirable by those who wield political authority.
More government means increased government force
We need to remember what government ultimately is all about. The Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises concisely explained this:
"Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, of gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom." Under a political regime of liberty, each individual gives purpose and moral compass to his own life. He is treated as independent and self-governing; as long as he does not violate the rights of others he is sovereign over his own affairs. He may choose and act wisely or absurdly, but it is his life to live as he pleases.
If any of us - family members, friends, or just concerned fellow human beings - believe someone has chosen a path to perdition, we may try to persuade him to mend his ways. But we are expected to respect his freedom; we may not threaten or use force to make him change course.

Nor are we allowed to use political power to manipulate his options so that he does what we want him to do. Using taxation and regulation to induce conduct more to our liking is no less a political imposition than the sterner and more explicit police power.

The totalitarian systems of the twentieth century used the direct means of command and prohibition to get people to do what a Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, or Mao wanted done. In the interventionist-welfare state such brute means are normally shunned for the more indirect and subtle method of influencing people's behavior through manipulation of incentives.
Government control through choice manipulation
Suppose an individual stands at a crossroads and is told he may choose which way to go. But in front of one of the roads is a government tollbooth that charges him a fee if he chooses that route; while in front of the other is a machine that dispenses a cash subsidy from the state, if the individual decides to follow that road. The choice is his, but the tradeoffs he faces have been manipulated to influence his decision.

In the 1950s the French coined a term for this type of political control: indicative planning. Through the use of fiscal and regulatory powers the government could get people to do what the politicians, bureaucrats, and various special-interest groups wanted, all the while maintaining the illusion that people were freely deciding where to invest or work or carry on their business.

We see this at work in America with government tax credits up to 30 percent of the purchase and installation costs to induce people to invest in solar panels on the roofs of their homes or office buildings; or the use of a similar tax credit of up to $7,500 if an individual purchases the Tesla electric automobile.

On the other hand, there is the use of taxes to induce less consumption or use of a product. A leading example of this is taxes on cigarettes. To the manufacturers' retail prices are added "sin taxes" for indulging in a "vice" that others in society consider disgusting and/or an unnecessary health risk.

While in Missouri it is as low as merely 17 cents per pack, in New York City, the state and municipal taxes add an additional $5.85 per pack to the manufacturers' retail price. Chicago has the highest of these sin taxes in the United States, with $6.16 in taxes added to the price of a pack of cigarettes.

The new code name for this type of political paternalism is "nudging." Those in power and those among the behavioral "experts" who claim to know how individuals should better live their lives than when left on their own, do not assert the right to directly command people to live "right" and "rational" for themselves or society.

No, instead, they merely wish to influence and modify the incentives in society to get people to live and act in that better way, when if they were as enlightened as the government-advising experts those people would realize was the way they should and would live and act without the manipulation of the trade-offs people face in the marketplace.
The danger from "soft" tyranny
We might call this a "soft" tyranny under which the commanding hand remains hidden behind an outward veneer seeming to respect the right of people to live and choose as they like and desire, but all the time manipulating the taxing and regulatory surroundings to see that the citizenry really ends up doing what the regulators and planners want them to do, or at least more it.

This form of "democratic despotism" over the conduct of the citizenry was, of course, explained, feared and warned about 180 years ago in Alexis de Tocqueville's deservedly famous Democracy in America, written in the 1830s after an extended visit by the Frenchman to the United States:
"After having thus taken each individual one by one into its powerful hands, and having molded him as it pleases, the sovereign power extends its arms over the entire society; it covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated, minute, and uniform rules, which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot break through to go beyond the crowd; it does not break wills, but it softens them, bends them and directs them; it rarely forces action, but it constantly opposes your acting; it does not destroy, it prevents birth; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, it represses, it enervates, it extinguishes, it stupefies, and finally it reduces each nation to being nothing more than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd. "I have always believed that this sort of servitude, regulated, mild and peaceful, of which I have just done the portrait, could be combined better than we imagine with some of the external forms of liberty, and that it would not be impossible for it to be established in the very shadow of the sovereignty of the people."
There is a duel hubris in the thinking and attitude of such paternalistic "experts." First, they presume to possess superior knowledge and insights greater than and superior to that of the ordinary citizen about how best people should live their lives. Second, they unreflectively presume that they, even though mere mortals as like the rest of us, do not suffer from similar behavior, psychological and social shortcomings, and therefore are intellectual demi-gods sitting atop a self-positioned political Mount Olympus far above the common man.
The hubris of the paternalist
Some psychological and behavioral scientists frequently claim that they are able to demonstrate the failings and conceptual and logical errors that the ordinary man commits, and on the basis of which they can assert a judgment concerning the "rationality" or "irrationality" of human beings and their choices and decision-making.

For instance, the person who consumes large quantities of "junk food" when they get anxious or depressed; or the cigarette smoker who can't quit because he needs the "nicotine fix" during or after a rough day at the office; or the individual who doesn't weigh on the basis of objective, rational statistical calculation whether it is really worth spending money on a lottery ticket; or a person who fails to logically plan for his own future retirement needs when they are in the 20s or 30s. And on-and-on.

The fact is that these and similar human "failings" have plagued mankind for all of its time on this earth. Read the accounts of the ancient Greeks written 2,500 years ago by those living among the people of that time, or the words of advice on good and ethical living given by the ancient Chinese philosopher, Confucius, to his disciples and the political leaders of his time, also around 2,500 years ago.

It soon becomes clear that human nature, when compared and judged against some notion of a machine-like rational calculating device, appears to be stumbling, bumbling, and unfit for successful existence on this planet.
Human improvement without the political paternalists
Yet, here we are, the human race having survived in spite of its frailties, imperfections and less than perfect rationally logical thinking processes. Of course, we have become more intelligent, informed, and rational. We no longer pray to rain gods for precipitation or (well, at least, rarely!) throw human beings into volcanoes to appease the angered gods; we stopped burning people as witches or heretics (at least in the Western world for the most part); and we've learned to harness the forces of nature to serve man's purposes (and often without too much of a screw up).

With only a limited degree of nagging and bullying, the number of people smoking in the U.S. has decreased from over 42 percent of the population in 1965 to barely more than 14 percent fifty years later in 2015. "Sin taxes" have certainly raised the cost of smoking, but it is also likely the case that a large majority of those who have given up the habit, did so because they decided to live a healthier life, through information and non-coercive peer-pressure by family members and friends - a method far more consistent with liberty than armies of busy-buddies playing political paternalists.

Obesity has increased from around 45 percent of the U.S. population in the 1960s to nearly 65 percent in the early part of the twenty-first century. But in one sense this is an indication of how wealthy we are and how inexpensive in general foods of all kinds have become compared to the past. In 1900 Americans spent around 43 percent of their family budget on food; in the first decade of the twenty-first century that had fallen to around 13 percent, or a 70 percent decline in the cost of putting food on the family dining table.

But at the same time, over the decades a significant number of people have gotten off the couch and gotten to the gym or on the park trails to run or bike regularly. More people try to eat and drink right. Since 1980, per capita alcohol consumption in the U.S. has decreased by about 15 percent.

Life expectancy has dramatically improved over the last 75 years in the United States. In 1940 the average expected life span of all Americans was about 63 years; by 2010, this had increased to almost 79 years, for around a 25 percent increase in how long you can, on average, look forward to living. (For whites, in general, there has been a 23.5 percent increase in life expectancy between 1940 and the present. For blacks, in general, the increase in life expectancy during this period has been a dramatic 41.5 percent!)

Now, certainly, a good part of this improvement in the human condition has been due to advances in medicine, and improved education and information accessibility. But, nonetheless, the changes for the better are also due to people making their own choices and decisions about how to live their own lives based on what they consider to be a good and happy existence in a general economic and social environment of improved opportunities and choices.

In other words, Americans have not needed paternalist "experts" to control and manipulate their lives and twist the choice sets that such political elites think is necessary and "good" for the masses of the population.
Whose life: yours or the government's?
And this gets, I would suggest, to the heart of the matter. Whose life is it anyway? Even if individuals make decisions and act in ways that others may consider misguided and harmful to themselves, the first principle of any free society should and must be that the individual is sovereign over his own life.

Otherwise, he is a pawn to the paternalistic presumptions of those who arrogantly claim a right to control his existence in both small and great ways. Which gets to the second assumption behind the thinking and desires of the political "nudgers," that they have the knowledge, wisdom and ability to know better the right choices that people should make for a rational, productive, and meaningful life.

Are not some of these "experts" the same people who were shown in the release of confidential emails a few years ago that they were determined to suppress and professionally bury any scientific evidence that ran counter to their absolute certainty that global warming was man-made and a threat to all living things on Earth?

Are not some of them the same people who have been found occasionally to falsify statistical and related data in their professional articles upon which they attempt to build their academic careers for purposes of position and financial reward?

Are not some of them the same people who before their appointment to positions as an economic adviser or bureaucratic overseer in government may have said that economic theory and historical evidence demonstrates that minimum wage laws tend to cause unemployment by pricing the unskilled or the low skilled out the labor market, but once in those positions of political authority suddenly say that such government regulations have little or none of such negative effects on such workers in general, if that fits in with the ideological and political agenda of those whom they serve in government?

In other words, are they not people just like some of the ones they criticize and "scientifically" sneer at for their claimed "irrationalities" and presumed emotional short-sightedness, for which they say there is only one answer: their guiding hand to dictate or "nudge" the "common man" into the elite's conception of the "good," the "right" and the "rational"?
Paternalism on the "left" and the "rig ht"
At the same time, too many people believe that the only problem with all this is that the "wrong" individuals have been given such power and authority. Too often both American "progressives" on the political left and political conservatives on the right want government to intervention, regulate and "nudge" people into directions different than the ones they might have peacefully followed if left alone; their only difference being into which direction they want people to be nudged and who they would like to see elected or appointed to do the regulatory restricting, manipulating and controlling.

For too long, too many conservatives have forgotten or chosen to ignore in their quest for political control that once the state is given the responsibility to see that we do the "right thing," they have no certainty that those empowered to implement the necessary policies will share their values and beliefs. They may be setting up or reinforcing or extending the political institutional mechanisms for the government to undermine the very ideals, values and beliefs you hold most dear when others they don't like get into power.

It is only in the arena of freedom that individuals can find their own way, guided by their own beliefs, values and purposes without the fear of some others attempting to bend them to a vision, ideal or a meaning for life different to their own.

But to secure the opportunity to live your life and practice the values you consider important, there must be a "first principle." That first principle must be the right of the individual to his own life, liberty and honestly acquired property without violence or political manipulative interference by the government powers-that-be.

This requires, at the same time, a rejection of the prevailing alternative first principle of modern society: the collectivist premise that the individual is subordinate and subject to the national, ethnic, religious, or social groups or tribes into which accident of birth or circumstances have placed him.

This should be the burning issue and alternatives debated and discussed in an election year: individualism versus collectivism. Instead, the campaign trail is filled with those who are more focused on trying to persuade the electorate on how they, respectively, have the "plan" to set everything right and assure every one of a better life and a happy future.

All of them are implicitly paternalistic "nudgers" and manipulators, merely arguing over how they each would better design society and control various aspects of people's lives.

The following two tabs change content below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is the Role of Government in Society?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is the role of government in society? This has been and remains the most fundamental question in all political discussions and debates. Its answer determines the nature of the social order and how people are expected and allowed to interact with one another - on the basis of either force or freedom.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The process of forming a new government begins immediately after a parliamentary election. This process lays the foundations for the policies the new government will pursue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Purposes of Government [ushistory.org]