Contents

Articles
Sovereignty Sovereign (disambiguation) Westphalian sovereignty Government Classical liberalism 1 10 11 14 29

References
Article Sources and Contributors Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 40 42

Article Licenses
License 43

Sovereignty

Sovereignty
Sovereignty is the quality of having independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory.[1] It can be found in a power to rule and make laws that rests on a political fact for which no pure legal definition can be provided. In theoretical terms, the idea of "sovereignty", historically, from Socrates to Thomas Hobbes, has always necessitated a moral imperative on the entity exercising it. For centuries past, the idea that a state could be sovereign was always connected to its ability to guarantee the best interests of its own citizens. Thus, if a state could not act in the best interests of its own citizens, it could not be thought of as a sovereign state.[2] The concept of sovereignty has been discussed throughout history, from the time of the Romans through to the present day. It has changed in its definition, concept, and application throughout, especially during the Age of Enlightenment. The current notion of state sovereignty contains four aspects, or different ways of understanding the term: domestic sovereignty actual control over a state exercised by an authority organized within this state,[3] interdependence sovereignty actual control of movement across state's borders, assuming the borders exist,[3] international legal sovereignty formal recognition by other sovereign states,[3] Westphalian sovereignty lack of other authority over state than the domestic authority (examples of such other authorities could be a non-domestic church, a non-domestic political organization, or any other external agent).[3] Often, these four aspects all appear together, but this is not necessarily the case they are not affected by one another, and there are historical examples of states that were non-sovereign in one aspect while at the same time being sovereign in another of these aspects.[3]
The frontispiece of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan, depicting the Sovereign as a massive body wielding a sword and crozier and composed of many individual people.

History
Classical
The Roman jurist Ulpian observed that: The imperium of the people is transferred to the Emperor. The Emperor is not bound by the law. The Emperor's word is law. Emperor is the law making and abiding force. Ulpian was expressing the idea that the Emperor exercised a rather absolute form of sovereignty, although he did not use the term expressly.

Sovereignty

Medieval
Classical Ulpian's statements were known in medieval Europe, but sovereignty was not an important concept in medieval times.[1] Medieval monarchs were not sovereign, at least not strongly so, because they were constrained by, and shared power with, their feudal aristocracy.[1] Furthermore, both were strongly constrained by custom.[1] Sovereignty existed during the Medieval Period as the de jure rights of nobility and royalty, and in the de facto capability of individuals to make their own choices in life. Around c. 13801400, the issue of feminine sovereignty was addressed in Geoffrey Chaucer's Middle English collection of Canterbury Tales, specifically in The Wife of Bath's Tale.[4] A later English Arthurian romance, The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnell (c. 1450),[5] uses much of the same elements of the Wife of Bath's tale, yet changes the setting to the court of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. The story revolves around the knight Sir Gawain granting to Dame Ragnell, his new bride, what is purported to be wanted most by women: sovereignty. We desire most from men, From men both lund and poor, To have sovereignty without lies. For where we have sovereignty, all is ours, Though a knight be ever so fierce, And ever win mastery. It is our desire to have master Over such a sir. Such is our purpose. The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnell (c. 1450), [5]

Reformation
Sovereignty reemerged as a concept in the late 16th century, a time when civil wars had created a craving for stronger central authority, when monarchs had begun to gather power into their own hands at the expense of the nobility, and the modern nation state was emerging. Jean Bodin, partly in reaction to the chaos of the French wars of religion presented theories of sovereignty calling for strong central authority in the form of absolute monarchy. In his 1576 treatise Les Six Livres de la Rpublique ("Six Books of the Republic") Bodin argued that it is inherent in the nature of the state that sovereignty must be:[1] Absolute: On this point he said that the sovereign must not be hedged in with obligations and conditions, must be able to legislate without his (or its) subjects' consent, must not be bound by the laws of his predecessors, and could not, because it is illogical, be bound by his own laws. Perpetual: Not temporarily delegated as to a strong leader in an emergency or to a state employee such as a magistrate. He held that sovereignty must be perpetual because anyone with the power to enforce a time limit on the governing power must be above the governing power, which would be impossible if the governing power is absolute. Bodin rejected the notion of transference of sovereignty from people to sovereign; natural law and divine law confer upon the sovereign the right to rule. And the sovereign is not above divine law or natural law. He is above (ie. not bound by) only positive law, that is, laws made by humans. The fact that the sovereign must obey divine and natural law imposes ethical constraints on him. Bodin also held that the lois royales, the fundamental laws of the French monarchy which regulated matters such as succession, are natural laws and are binding on the French sovereign. How divine and natural law could in practice be enforced on the sovereign is a problematic feature of Bodin's philosophy: any person capable of enforcing them on him would be above him.

Sovereignty Despite his commitment to absolutism, Bodin held some moderate opinions on how government should in practice be carried out. He held that although the sovereign is not obliged to, it is advisable for him, as a practical expedient, to convene a senate from whom he can obtain advice, to delegate some power to magistrates for the practical administration of the law, and to use the Estates as a means of communicating with the people. With his doctrine that sovereignty is conferred by divine law, Bodin predefined the scope of the divine right of kings.

Age of Enlightenment
During the Age of Enlightenment, the idea of sovereignty gained both legal and moral force as the main Western description of the meaning and power of a State. In particular, the "Social Contract" as a mechanism for establishing sovereignty was suggested and, by 1800, widely accepted, especially in the new United States and France, though also in Great Britain to a lesser extent. Thomas Hobbes, in Leviathan (1651) borrowed Bodin's definition of sovereignty, which had just achieved legal status in the "Peace of Westphalia", and explained its origin. He created the first modern version of the social contract (or contractarian) theory, arguing that to overcome the "nasty, brutish and short" quality of life without the cooperation of other human beings, people must join in a "commonwealth" and submit to a "Soveraigne [sic] Power" that is able to compel them to act in the common good. This expediency argument attracted many of the early proponents of sovereignty. Hobbes strengthened the definition of sovereignty beyond either Westphalian or Bodin's, by saying that it must be: Absolute: because conditions could only be imposed on a sovereign if there were some outside arbitrator to determine when he had violated them, in which case the sovereign would not be the final authority. Indivisible: The sovereign is the only final authority in his territory; he does not share final authority with any other entity. Hobbes held this to be true because otherwise there would be no way of resolving a disagreement between the multiple authorities. Hobbes' hypothesis that the ruler's sovereignty is contracted to him by the people in return for his maintaining their physical safety, led him to conclude that if and when the ruler fails, the people recover their ability to protect themselves, including by forming a new contract. Hobbes's theories decisively shape the concept of sovereignty through the medium of social contract theories. Jean-Jacques Rousseau's (17121778) definition of popular sovereignty (with early antecedents in Francisco Surez's theory of the origin of power), which only differs in that he considers the people to be the legitimate sovereign. Likewise, it is inalienable Rousseau condemned the distinction between the origin and the exercise of sovereignty, a distinction upon which constitutional monarchy or representative democracy are founded. John Locke, and Montesquieu are also key figures in the unfolding of the concept of sovereignty, and differ with Rousseau and with Hobbes on this issue of alienability. The second book of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Du Contrat Social, ou Principes du droit politique (1762) deals with sovereignty and its rights. Sovereignty, or the general will, is inalienable, for the will cannot be transmitted; it is indivisible, since it is essentially general; it is infallible and always right, determined and limited in its power by the common interest; it acts through laws. Law is the decision of the general will in regard to some object of common interest, but though the general will is always right and desires only good, its judgment is not always enlightened, and consequently does not always see wherein the common good lies; hence the necessity of the legislator. But the legislator has, of himself, no authority; he is only a guide who drafts and proposes laws, but the people alone (that is, the sovereign or general will) has authority to make and impose them. Rousseau, in his 1763 treatise Of the Social Contract[6] argued, "the growth of the State giving the trustees of public authority more and means to abuse their power, the more the Government has to have force to contain the people, the more force the Sovereign should have in turn in order to contain the Government," with the understanding that the Sovereign is "a collective being of wonder" (Book II, Chapter I) resulting from "the general will" of the people, and

Sovereignty that "what any man, whoever he may be, orders on his own, is not a law" (Book II, Chapter VI) and furthermore predicated on the assumption that the people have an unbiased means by which to ascertain the general will. Thus the legal maxim, "there is no law without a sovereign."[7]

Definition and types

There exists perhaps no conception the meaning of which is more controversial than that of sovereignty. It is an indisputable fact that this conception, from the moment when it was introduced into political science until the present day, has never had a meaning which was universally agreed upon. Lassa Oppenheim (30-03-1858 07-10-1919), an authority on international law

[8]

Absoluteness
An important factor of sovereignty is its degree of absoluteness. A sovereign power has absolute sovereignty when it is not restricted by a constitution, by the laws of its predecessors, or by custom, and no areas of law or policy are reserved as being outside its control. International law; policies and actions of neighboring states; cooperation and respect of the populace; means of enforcement; and resources to enact policy are factors that might limit sovereignty. For example, parents are not guaranteed the right to decide some matters in the upbringing of their children independent of societal regulation, and municipalities do not have unlimited jurisdiction in local matters, thus neither parents nor municipalities have absolute sovereignty. Theorists have diverged over the desirability of increased absoluteness.

Exclusivity
A key element of sovereignty in a legalistic sense is that of exclusivity of jurisdiction. Specifically, the degree to which decisions made by a sovereign entity might be contradicted by another authority. Along these lines, the German sociologist Max Weber proposed that sovereignty is a community's monopoly on the legitimate use of force; and thus any group claiming the same right must either be brought under the yoke of the sovereign, proven illegitimate, or otherwise contested and defeated for sovereignty to be genuine.[9] International law, competing branches of government, and authorities reserved for subordinate entities (such as federated states or republics) represent legal infringements on exclusivity. Social institutions such as religious bodies, corporations, and competing political parties might represent de facto infringements on exclusivity.

De jure and de facto

De jure, or legal, sovereignty concerns the expressed and institutionally recognised right to exercise control over a territory. De facto, or actual, sovereignty is concerned with whether control in fact exists. Cooperation and respect of the populace; control of resources in, or moved into, an area; means of enforcement and security; and ability to carry out various functions of state all represent measures of de facto sovereignty. When control is practiced predominately by military or police force it is considered coercive sovereignty. It is generally held that sovereignty requires not only the legal right to exercise power, but the actual exercise of such power. Thus, de jure sovereignty without de facto sovereignty has limited recognition.

Sovereignty

Internal
Internal sovereignty is the relationship between a sovereign power and its own subjects. A central concern is legitimacy: by what right does a government exercise authority? Claims of legitimacy might refer to the divine right of kings or to a social contract (i.e. popular sovereignty). With Sovereignty meaning holding supreme, independent authority over a region or state, Internal Sovereignty refers to the internal affairs of the state and the location of supreme power within it.[10] A state that has internal sovereignty is one with a government that has been elected by the people and has the popular legitimacy. Internal sovereignty examines the internal affairs of a state and how it operates. It is important to have strong internal sovereignty in relation to keeping order and peace. When you have weak internal sovereignty organization such as rebel groups will undermine the authority and disrupt the peace. The presence of a strong authority allows you to keep agreement and enforce sanctions for the violation of laws. The ability for leadership to prevent these violations is a key variable in determining internal sovereignty.[11] The lack of internal sovereignty can cause war in one of two ways, first, undermining the value of agreement by allowing costly violations and second requiring such large subsidies for implementation that they render war cheaper than peace.[12] Leadership needs to be able to promise members, especially those like armies, police forces, or paramilitaries will abide by agreements. The presence of strong internal sovereignty allows a state to deter opposition groups in exchange for bargaining. It has been said that a more decentralized authority would be more efficient in keeping peace because the deal must please not only the leadership but also the opposition group. While the operations and affairs within a state are relative to the level of sovereignty within that state, there is still an argument between who should hold the authority in a sovereign state. This argument between who should hold the authority within a sovereign state is called the traditional doctrine of public sovereignty. This discussion is between an internal sovereign or an authority of public sovereignty. An internal sovereign is a political body that possesses ultimate, final and independent authority; one whose decisions are binding upon all citizens, groups and institutions in society. Early thinkers believe sovereignty should be vested in the hands of a single person, a monarch. They believed the overriding merit of vesting sovereignty in a single individual was that sovereignty would therefore be indivisible; it would be expressed in a single voice that could claim final authority. An example of an internal sovereign or monarch is Louis XIV of France during the seventeenth century; Louis XIV claimed that he was the state. Jean-Jacques Rousseau rejected monarchial rule in favor of the other type of authority within a sovereign state, public sovereignty. Public Sovereignty is the belief that ultimate authority is vested in the people themselves, expressed in the idea of the general will. This means that the power is elected and supported by its members, the authority has a central goal of the good of the people in mind. The idea of public sovereignty has often been the basis for modern democratic theory.[13] Modern Internal Sovereignty: Within the modern governmental system you usually find internal sovereignty in states that have public sovereignty and rarely find it within a state controlled by an internal sovereign. A form of government that is a little different from both is the UK parliament system. From 17901859 it was argued that sovereignty in the UK was vested neither in the Crown nor in the people but in the "Monarch in Parliament". This is the origin of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and is usually seen as the fundamental principle of the British constitution. With these principles of parliamentary sovereignty majority control can gain access to unlimited constitutional authority, creating what has been called "elective dictatorship" or "modern autocracy". Public sovereignty in modern governments is a lot more common with examples like the USA, Canada, Australia and India where government is divided into different levels.[14]

Sovereignty

External
External sovereignty concerns the relationship between a sovereign power and other states. For example, the United Kingdom uses the following criterion when deciding under what conditions other states recognise a political entity as having sovereignty over some territory;

"Sovereignty." A government which exercises de facto administrative control over a country and is not subordinate to any other government in that country or a foreign sovereign state.

(The Arantzazu Mendi, [1939] A.C. 256), Strouds Judicial Dictionary

External sovereignty is connected with questions of international law, such as: when, if ever, is intervention by one country onto another's territory permissible? Following the Thirty Years' War, an European religious conflict that embroiled much of the continent, the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 established the notion of territorial sovereignty as a norm of noninterference in the affairs of other nations, so-called Westphalian sovereignty, even though the actual treaty itself reaffirmed the multiple levels of sovereignty of the Holy Roman Empire. This resulted as a natural extension of the older principle of cuius regio, eius religio (Whose realm, his religion), leaving the Roman Catholic Church with little ability to interfere with the internal affairs of many European states. It is a myth, however, that the Treaties of Westphalia created a new European order of equal sovereign states.[15] In international law, sovereignty means that a government possesses full control over affairs within a territorial or geographical area or limit. Determining whether a specific entity is sovereign is not an exact science, but often a matter of diplomatic dispute. There is usually an expectation that both de jure and de facto sovereignty rest in the same organisation at the place and time of concern. Foreign governments use varied criteria and political considerations when deciding whether or not to recognise the sovereignty of a state over a territory. Membership in the United Nations requires that "[t]he admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council."[16] Sovereignty may be recognized even when the sovereign body possesses no territory or its territory is under partial or total occupation by another power. The Holy See was in this position between the annexation in 1870 of the Papal States by Italy and the signing of the Lateran Treaties in 1929, a 59-year period during which it was recognised as sovereign by many (mostly Roman Catholic) states despite possessing no territory a situation resolved when the Lateran Treaties granted the Holy See sovereignty over the Vatican City. Another case, sui generis, is the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, the third sovereign entity inside Italian territory (after San Marino and the Vatican City State) and the second inside the Italian capital (since in 1869 the Palazzo di Malta and the Villa Malta receive extraterritorial rights, in this way becoming the only "sovereign" territorial possessions of the modern Order), which is the last existing heir to one of several once militarily significant, crusader states of sovereign military orders. In 1607 its Grand masters were also made Reichsfrst (princes of the Holy Roman Empire) by the Holy Roman Emperor, granting them seats in the Reichstag, at the time the closest permanent equivalent to a UN-type general assembly; confirmed 1620). These sovereign rights never deposed, only the territories were lost. 100 modern states still maintain full diplomatic relations with the order[17] (now de facto "the most prestigious service club"), and the UN awarded it observer status.[18] The governments-in-exile of many European states (for instance, Norway, Netherlands or Czechoslovakia) during the Second World War were regarded as sovereign despite their territories being under foreign occupation; their governance resumed as soon as the occupation had ended. The government of Kuwait was in a similar situation vis--vis the Iraqi occupation of its country during 19901991. The government of Republic of China was recognized as sovereign over China from 19111971 despite that its mainland China territory became occupied by Communist Chinese forces since 1949. In 1971 it lost UN recognition to Chinese Communist-led People's Republic of China and its sovereign and political status as a state became disputed and it lost its ability to use "China" as its

Sovereignty name and therefore became commonly known as Taiwan. Commonly mistaken to be sovereign, the International Committee of the Red Cross, having been granted various degrees of special privileges and legal immunities in many countries, that in cases like Switzerland are considerable,[19] which are described as amounting to de facto sovereignty, is a private organisation governed by Swiss law.[20]

Shared
Just as the office of head of state can be vested jointly in several persons within a state, the sovereign jurisdiction over a single political territory can be shared jointly by two or more consenting powers, notably in the form of a condominium.

Nation-states
A community of people who claim the right of self-determination based on a common ethnicity, history and culture might seek to establish sovereignty over a region, thus creating a nation-state. Such nations are sometimes recognised as autonomous areas rather than as fully sovereign, independent states.

Federations
In a federal system of government, sovereignty also refers to powers which a constituent state or republic possesses independently of the national government. In a confederation constituent entities retain the right to withdraw from the national body, but in a federation member states or republics do not hold that right. Different interpretations of state sovereignty in the United States of America, as it related to the expansion of slavery and Fugitive slave laws, led to the outbreak of the American Civil War. Depending on the particular issue, sometimes the North and other times the South justified their political positions by appealing to state sovereignty. Fearing that slavery would be threatened by federal election results, eleven states declared their independence from the federal Union and formed a new confederation.[21] The United States government rejected the secessions as rebellion, declaring that secession from the Union by an individual state was unconstitutional, as the states were part of an indissolvable federation.

Acquisition
A number of methods of acquisition of sovereignty are presently or have historically been recognised by international law as lawful methods by which a state may acquire sovereignty over territory.

Justifications
There exist vastly differing views on the moral basis of sovereignty. A fundamental polarity is between theories that assert that sovereignty is vested directly in the sovereign by divine or natural right and theories that assert it originates from the people. In the latter case there is a further division into those that assert that the people transfer their sovereignty to the sovereign (Hobbes), and those that assert that the people retain their sovereignty (Rousseau). During the brief period of Absolute monarchies in Europe, the divine right of kings was an important competing justification for the exercise of sovereignty. The Mandate of Heaven had some similar implications in China. A republic is a form of government in which the people, or some significant portion of them, retain sovereignty over the government and where offices of state are not granted through heritage.[22][23] A common modern definition of a republic is a government having a head of state who is not a monarch.[24][25] Democracy is based on the concept of popular sovereignty. In a direct democracy the public plays an active role in shaping and deciding policy. Representative democracy permits a transfer of the exercise of sovereignty from the

Sovereignty people to a legislative body or an executive (or to some combination of legislature, executive and Judiciary). Many representative democracies provide limited direct democracy through referendum, initiative, and recall. Parliamentary sovereignty refers to a representative democracy where the parliament is ultimately sovereign and not the executive power nor the judiciary.

Views on
Classical Liberals such as Stuart Mill consider every individual as sovereign on him- or herself. Realists view sovereignty as being untouchable and as guaranteed to legitimate nation-states. Rationalists see sovereignty similarly to Realists. However, Rationalism states that the sovereignty of a nation-state may be violated in extreme circumstances, such as human rights abuses. Internationalists believe that sovereignty is outdated and an unnecessary obstacle to achieving peace, in line with their belief of a 'global community'. In the light of the abuse of power by sovereign states such as Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union, they argue that human beings are not necessarily protected by the state whose citizens they are, and that the respect for state sovereignty on which the UN Charter is founded is an obstacle to humanitarian intervention.[15] Anarchists and some libertarians deny the sovereignty of states and governments. Anarchists often argue for a specific individual kind of sovereignty, such as the Anarch as a sovereign individual. Salvador Dal, for instance, talked of "anarcho-monarchist" (as usual for him, tongue in cheek); Antonin Artaud of Heliogabalus: Or, The Crowned Anarchist; Max Stirner of The Ego and Its Own; Georges Bataille and Jacques Derrida of a kind of "antisovereignty". Therefore, anarchists join a classical conception of the individual as sovereign of himself, which forms the basis of political consciousness. The unified consciousness is sovereignty over one's own body, as Nietzsche demonstrated (see also Pierre Klossowski's book on Nietzsche and the Vicious Circle). See also sovereignty of the individual and self-ownership. Imperialists hold a view of sovereignty where power rightfully exists with those states that hold the greatest ability to impose the will of said state, by force or threat of force, over the populace or other states with weaker military or political will. They effectively deny the sovereignty of the individual in deference to either the 'good' of the whole, or to divine right.

Relation to rule of law

Another topic is whether the law is held to be sovereign, that is, whether it is above political or other interference. Sovereign law constitutes a true state of law, meaning the letter of the law (if constitutionally correct) is applicable and enforceable, even when against the political will of the nation, as long as not formally changed following the constitutional procedure. Strictly speaking, any deviation from this principle constitutes a revolution or a coup d'tat, regardless of the intentions.

Sovereign as a title
In some cases, the title sovereign is not just a generic term, but an actual (part of the) formal style of a Head of state. Thus from 22 June 1934, to 29 May 1953, (the title "Emperor of India" was dropped as of 15 August 1947, by retroactive proclamation dated 22 June 1948), the King of South Africa was styled in the Dominion of South Africa: "By the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India and Sovereign in and over the Union of South Africa." Upon the accession of Elizabeth II to the Throne of South Africa in 1952, the title was changed to Queen of South Africa and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, parallel to the style used in almost all the other Commonwealth realms. The pope holds ex officio the title "Sovereign of the Vatican City State" in respect to Vatican City.

Sovereignty The adjective form can also be used in a Monarch's full style, as in pre-imperial Russia, 16 January 1547 22 November 1721: Bozhiyeyu Milostiyu Velikiy/Velikaya Gosudar'/Gosudarynya Tsar'/Tsaritsa i Velikiy/Velikaya Knyaz'/Knyaginya N.N. vseya Rossiy Samodyerzhets "By the Grace of God Great Sovereign Tsar/Tsarina and Grand Prince/Princess, N.N., of All Russia, Autocrat".

References
This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain:Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). Catholic Encyclopedia. Robert Appleton Company.
[1] "sovereignty (politics)" (http:/ / www. britannica. com/ EBchecked/ topic/ 557065/ sovereignty). Encyclopdia Britannica. . Retrieved 5 August 2010. [2] Bateman, C.G. (15 February 2011). Nicaea and Sovereignty: Constantine's Council of as an Important Crossroad in the Development of European State Sovereignty. University of British Columbia. pp.5491. SSRN1759006. [3] Krasner, Professor Stephen D. (2001). Problematic Sovereignty: Contested Rules and Political Possibilities (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=ISqwQIBQff4C& lpg=PA7& pg=PA7). pp.612. ISBN9780231121798. . [4] "Chaucer's tale of the Wife of Bath." (http:/ / www. dhushara. com/ book/ renewal/ bath. htm). . Retrieved 10 January 2009. [5] "The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnell" (http:/ / www. lone-star. net/ mall/ literature/ gawain. htm). . Retrieved 10 January 2009. [6] Of the Social Contract, Book II, Chapter III. [7] Stallybrass, William Teulon Swan (1918). A society of states: Or, Sovereignty, independence, and equality in a league of nations (http:/ / books. google. com/ ?id=Gl9JAAAAIAAJ& pg=PA80& dq="there+ is+ no+ law+ without+ a+ sovereign"+ Seydel). . [8] Lassa Oppenheim, International Law 66 (Sir Arnold D. McNair ed., 4th ed. 1928) [9] Newton, Kenneth. Foundations of comparative politics: democracies of the modern world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. [10] Heywood, Andrew. "Political Theory" (http:/ / www. scribd. com/ doc/ 51146058/ 41/ Internal-sovereignty#page=108). pg. 92. Palgrave MacMillian. . Retrieved 25 June 2011. [11] Wolford, Rider, Scott, Toby. "War, Peace, and Internal Sovereignty" (http:/ / spot. colorado. edu/ ~wolfordm/ implementation2. pdf). pg.1. . Retrieved 19 June 2011. [12] Wolford, Rider, Scott, Toby. "War, Peace, and Internal Sovereignty" (http:/ / spot. colorado. edu/ ~wolfordm/ implementation2. pdf). pg.3. . Retrieved 19 June 2011. [13] Heywood, Andrew. "Political Theory" (http:/ / www. scribd. com/ doc/ 51146058/ 41/ Internal-sovereignty#page=108). pg. 93. Palgrave Macmillian. . Retrieved 21 June 2011. [14] Heywood, Andrew. "Political Theory" (http:/ / www. scribd. com/ doc/ 51146058/ 41/ Internal-sovereignty#page=108). pgs. 9495. Palgrave MaCmillian. . Retrieved 21 June 2011. [15] Andreas Osiander, Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth, International Organization Vol. 55 No. 2 (Spring 2001), pp. 251287. [16] "UN Chart, Article 2" (http:/ / www. un. org/ en/ documents/ charter/ chapter2. shtml). . Retrieved 4 October 2011. [17] Bilateral diplomatic relations of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (http:/ / www. orderofmalta. int/ diplomatic-relations/ 862/ sovereign-order-of-malta-bilateral-relations/ ?lang=en) [18] United Nations General Assembly 48 Observer status for the Sovereign Military Order of Malta in the General Assembly (http:/ / www. undemocracy. com/ A-RES-48-265''Resolution''& #32;265& #32;session) [19] By formal agreement between the Swiss government and the ICRC, Switzerland grants full sanctity of all ICRC property in Switzerland including its headquarters and archive, grants members and staff legal immunity, exempts the ICRC from all taxes and fees, guarantees the protected and duty-free transfer of goods, services, and money, provides the ICRC with secure communication privileges at the same level as foreign embassies, and simplifies Committee travel in and out of Switzerland. On the other hand Switzerland does not recognize ICRC issued passports (http:/ / www. udiregelverk. no/ ~/ media/ Images/ Rettskilder/ Visa Code/ Visa Code vedlegg 10 a. ashx). [20] About the International Committee of the Red Cross (http:/ / www. icrc. org/ eng/ who-we-are/ overview-who-we-are. htm) [21] McPherson, James, Battle Cry of Freedom, (1988) pp. 40, 195, 214, 241 [22] Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws (1748), Bk. II, ch. 1. [23] "Republic". Encyclopdia Britannica. [24] "republic" (http:/ / dictionary. reference. com/ browse/ republic). WordNet 3.0 (Dictionary.com). . Retrieved 20 March 2009 [25] "Republic" (http:/ / www. merriam-webster. com/ dictionary/ republic). Merriam-Webster. . Retrieved 14 August 2010.

Sovereignty

10

Further reading
Benton, Lauren (2010). A Search for Sovereignty: Law and Geography in European Empires, 14001900 (http:// books.google.com/books?id=6BNZPgAACAAJ&dq). Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-88105-0. Philpott, Dan. "Sovereignty" (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sovereignty/). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Thomson, Janice E. (1996). Mercenaries, pirates, and sovereigns: state-building and extraterritorial violence in early modern Europe (http://books.google.com/books?id=EvylnkgJ9ycC). Princeton University Press. ISBN978-0-691-02571-1.

Sovereign (disambiguation)
A sovereign is the supreme lawmaking authority within its jurisdiction. Sovereign may also refer to: Head of state Monarch, the sovereign of a monarchy Sovereign, Saskatchewan, community in Canada Sovereign Bank, banking institution in the United States Sovereign (English coin), minted from 1489 to 1604 Sovereign (British coin), minted from 1817 to the present Sovereign Hill, Victoria, Australia Sovereign Limited, Insurances company of New Zealand Sovereign Pontiff, a title for the Pope Sovereign wealth fund, type of investment funds

Aircraft
Cessna Citation Sovereign, a super mid-size business jet

Literature
Sovereign, a novel by C. J. Sansom

Music
Lady Sovereign (born 1985), a female MC and performing artist for Def Jam Recordings "Sovereign Light Caf" a song by Keane (band)

Ships
HMS Sovereign, the name of more than one English warship or British Royal Navy ship Sovereign of the Seas, also known as HMS Sovereign, an English warship launched in 1637 and in service until 1696, renamed Royal Sovereign in 1660 USS Sovereign, the name of more than one United States Navy ship

Sovereign (disambiguation)

11

Television
Sovereign class starship, in Star Trek The Sovereign, Hercules's evil alter-ego in Hercules: The Legendary Journeys Sovereign, leader of The Guild of Calamitous Intent on the television show The Venture Bros. Digimon Sovereigns, fictional creatures from the anime series Digimon Adventure 02 and Digimon Tamers

Video games
Sovereign, a cancelled Sony Online Entertainment game Sovereign, the sentient warship in the game Mass Effect

Westphalian sovereignty
Westphalian sovereignty is the concept of the sovereignty of nation-states on their territory, with no role for external agents in domestic structures. Scholars of international relations have identified the modern, Western originated, international system of states, multinational corporations, and organizations, as having begun at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.[1] Both the basis and the conclusion of this view have been attacked by some revisionist academics and politicians, with revisionists questioning the significance of the Peace, and some commentators and politicians attacking the Westphalian system of sovereign nation-states.

Traditional view
Adherents to the concept of a Westphalian system refer to the Peace of Westphalia, signed in 1648, in which the major European countries at the time (the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, France, Sweden and the Dutch Republic) agreed to respect the principle of territorial integrity. In the Westphalian system, the national interests and goals of states (and later nation-states) were widely assumed to go beyond those of any citizen or any ruler. States became the primary institutional agents in an interstate system of relations. The Peace of Westphalia is said to have ended attempts to impose supranational authority on European states. The "Westphalian" doctrine of states as independent agents was bolstered by the rise in 19th century thought of nationalism, under which legitimate states were assumed to correspond to nationsgroups of people united by language and culture. The Westphalian system reached its peak in the late 19th century. Although practical considerations still led powerful states to seek to influence the affairs of others, forcible intervention by one country in the domestic affairs of another was less frequent between 1850 and 1900 than in most previous and subsequent periods (Leurdijk 1986). The Peace of Westphalia is important in modern international relations theory, and is often defined as the beginning of the international system with which the discipline deals.[2][3][4] International relations theorists have identified several key principles of the Peace of Westphalia, which explain the Peace's significance and its impact on the world today: 1. The principle of the sovereignty of states and the fundamental right of political self determination 2. The principle of legal equality between states 3. The principle of non-intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state These principles are shared by the "realist" international relations paradigm today, which explains why the system of states is referred to as "The Westphalian System". Both the idea of Westphalian sovereignty and its applicability in practice have been questioned from the mid-20th century onwards from a variety of viewpoints. Much of the debate has turned on the ideas of internationalism and

Westphalian sovereignty globalization which, in various interpretations, appear to conflict with Westphalian sovereignty.

12

Modern views on the Westphalian system

The Westphalian system is used as a shorthand by academics to describe the system of states which make up the world today.[5] In 1998, at a Symposium on the Continuing Political Relevance of the Peace of Westphalia, the then NATO Secretary-General Javier Solana said that "humanity and democracy [were] two principles essentially irrelevant to the original Westphalian order" and levied a criticism that "the Westphalian system had its limits. For one, the principle of sovereignty it relied on also produced the basis for rivalry, not community of states; exclusion, not integration."[6] In 2000, Germany's Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer referred to the Peace of Westphalia in his Humboldt Speech, which argued that the system of European politics set up by Westphalia was obsolete: "The core of the concept of Europe after 1945 was and still is a rejection of the European balance-of-power principle and the hegemonic ambitions of individual states that had emerged following the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, a rejection which took the form of closer meshing of vital interests and the transfer of nation-state sovereign rights to supranational European institutions."[7] In the aftermath of the 11 March 2004 Madrid attacks, Lewis Atiyyatullah, who claims to represent the terrorist network al-Qaeda, declared that "the international system built up by the West since the Treaty of Westphalia will collapse; and a new international system will rise under the leadership of a mighty Islamic state".[8] It has also been claimed that globalization is bringing an evolution of the international system past the sovereign Westphalian state.[9] Benedict Anderson refers to putative nations as "imagined communities." Others speak favorably of the Westphalian state, notably European nationalists and American paleoconservative Pat Buchanan.[10][11] Some such supporters of the Westphalian state oppose socialism and some forms of capitalism for undermining the nation state. A major theme of Buchanan's political career, for example, has been attacking globalization, critical theory, neoconservatism, and other philosophies he considers detrimental to today's Western nations.

Globalization and Westphalian sovereignty

During the 1980s and early 1990s, the emerging literature on globalization focused primarily on the erosion of interdependence sovereignty and Westphalian sovereignty. Much of this literature was primarily concerned to criticize realist models of international politics in which the Westphalian notion of the state as a unitary agent are taken as axiomatic (Camilleri and Falk 1992). The European Union concept of shared sovereignty is also somewhat contrary to historical views of Westphalian sovereignty, as it provides for external agents to interfere in nations' internal affairs. In a 2008 article Phil Williams links the rise of terrorism and other violent non-state actors (VNSAs), which pose a threat to the Westphalian sovereignty of the state, to globalization.[12]

Westphalian sovereignty

13

Intervention
Military intervention
Since the late 20th century, the idea of Westphalian sovereignty has been brought into further question by a range of actual and proposed military interventions in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Sudan, among others.

Humanitarian intervention
Interventions such as in Cambodia by Vietnam (the CambodianVietnamese War) or in Bangladesh (then a part of Pakistan) by India (the Bangladesh Liberation War and the Pakistan-initiated Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 within it) had a questionable or weak basis in international law, but were carried out on the premise that they constituted humanitarian intervention aimed at preventing genocide, large-scale loss of life or ethnic cleansing. However, there is debate about whether other recent infringements of state sovereignty, such as in Kosovo (then a part of Serbia and Montenegro) by NATO (the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia) and subsequent de facto partitioning of Kosovo out of Serbia, in Iraq by the United States and a few other allies such as the United Kingdom (the 2003 Iraq War), in Georgia by Russia (the 2008 South Ossetia war), or in Libya by NATO (the 2011 Libyan civil war), also reflected these higher principles or whether the real justification was simply the promotion of political and economic interests. A new notion of contingent sovereignty seems to be emerging, but it has not yet reached the point of international legitimacy. Neoconservatism in particular has developed this line of thinking further, asserting that a lack of democracy may foreshadow future humanitarian crises, or that democracy itself constitutes a human right, and therefore nation states not respecting democratic principles open themselves up to just war by other countries.[13] However, proponents of this theory have been accused of being concerned about democracy, human rights and humanitarian crises, only in countries where American global dominance is challenged, such as the former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Iran, Russia, China, Belarus, North Korea, Sudan, Venezuela, etc., while hypocritically ignoring the same issues in other countries friendlier to the United States, such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Egypt, Georgia, and Colombia.

Failed states
A further criticism of Westphalian sovereignty arises in relation to allegedly failed states, of which Afghanistan (before the 2001 US-led invasion) is often considered an example.[14] In this case, it is argued that no sovereignty exists and that international intervention is justified on humanitarian grounds and by the threats posed by failed states to neighboring countries and the world as a whole. Some of the recent debate over Somalia is also being cast in these same terms.[14]

Further reading
Camilleri, J. and Falk, J. (1992), The End of Sovereignty?: The Politics of a Shrinking and Fragmenting World, Edward Elgar, Aldershot. Leurdijk, J. (1986), Intervention in International Politics, Eisma BV, Leeuwarden, Netherlands. Phil Williams: Violent Non-State Actors and National and International Security [15], ISN, 2008.

References
[1] Gabel, Medard; Henry Bruner (2003), Global Inc.: An Atlas of the Multinational Corporation, New York: The New Press, p.2, ISBN1-56584-727-X [2] Osiander, Andreas (2001), "Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth", International Organization 55 (2): 251287, doi:10.1162/00208180151140577. Here: p. 251.

Westphalian sovereignty
[3] Gross, Leo (January 1948), "The Peace of Westphalia", The American Journal of International Law 42 (1): 2041, doi:10.2307/2193560, JSTOR2193560. [4] Jackson, R.H.; P. Owens (2005) "The Evolution of World Society" in: John Baylis; Steve Smith (eds.). The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 53. ISBN 1-56584-727-X. [5] Osiander, p. 251. [6] Solana, Javier (November 12, 1998), Securing Peace in Europe (http:/ / www. nato. int/ docu/ speech/ 1998/ s981112a. htm), North Atlantic Treaty Organization, , retrieved 2008-05-21 [7] Fischer, Joschka (May 12, 2000), From Confederacy to Federation - Thoughts on the Finality of European Integration (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20020502231325/ http:/ / www. auswaertiges-amt. de/ www/ en/ eu_politik/ ausgabe_archiv?suche=1& archiv_id=1027& bereich_id=4& type_id=3), Auswrtiges Amt, archived from the original (http:/ / www. auswaertiges-amt. de/ www/ en/ eu_politik/ ausgabe_archiv?suche=1& archiv_id=1027& bereich_id=4& type_id=3) on 2002-05-02, , retrieved 2008-07-06 [8] Berman, Yaniv (April 1, 2004), Exclusive - Al-Qa'ida: Islamic State Will Control the World (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20040610173219/ http:/ / www. themedialine. org/ news/ news_detail. asp?NewsID=5420), The Media Line, archived from the original (http:/ / www. themedialine. org/ news/ news_detail. asp?NewsID=5420) on 2004-06-10, , retrieved 2008-07-06 [9] Cutler, A. Claire (2001), "Critical Reflections on the Westphalian Assumptions of International Law and Organization: A Crisis of Legitimacy", Review of International Studies 27 (2): 133150, doi:10.1017/S0260210500001339. [10] Patrick J. Buchanan (January 1, 2002), Say Goodbye to the Mother Continent (http:/ / www. theamericancause. org/ patsaygoodbye. htm), , retrieved 2008-05-21 [11] Patrick J. Buchanan (May 23, 2006), The Death of the Nation State (http:/ / www. theamericancause. org/ print/ 052206_print. htm), , retrieved 2008-05-21 [12] http:/ / se2. isn. ch/ serviceengine/ FileContent?serviceID=ISFPub& fileid=8EEBA9FE-478E-EA2C-AA15-32FC9A59434A& lng=en [13] Olivier, Michle (October 3, 2011). "Impact of the Arab Spring: Is democracy emerging as a human right in Africa?" (http:/ / www. consultancyafrica. com/ index. php?option=com_content& view=article& id=866:impact-of-the-arab-spring-is-democracy-emerging-as-a-human-right-in-africa& catid=91:rights-in-focus& Itemid=296). Rights in focus discussion paper. Consultancy Africa Intelligence. . Retrieved 2012-01-16. [14] The Washington Quarterly, Volume 25, Issue 3, 2002 "The new nature of nationstate failure" Robert I. Rotbergab [15] http:/ / se2. isn. ch/ serviceengine/ FileContent?serviceID=ISFPub& fileid=8EEBA9FE-478E-EA2C-AA15-32FC9A59434A& lng=en

14

Government
A government is the system by which a state or community is governed.[1] In British English (and that of the Commonwealth of Nations), a government more narrowly refers to the particular executive in control of a state at a given time[2]known in American English as an administration. In American English, government refers to the larger system by which any state is organized.[3] Furthermore, government is occasionally used in English as a synonym for governance. In the case of its broad definition, government normally consists of legislators, administrators, and arbitrators. Government is the means by which state policy is enforced, as well as the mechanism for determining the policy of the state. A form of government, or form of state governance, refers to the set of political systems and institutions that make up the organisation of a specific government. States are served by a continuous succession of different governments.[4] Each successive government is composed of a body of individuals who control and exercise control over political decision-making. Their function is to make and enforce laws and arbitrate conflicts. In some societies, this group is often a self-perpetuating or hereditary class. In other societies, such as democracies, the political roles remain, but there is frequent turnover of the people actually filling the positions.[5] Government of any kind currently affects every human activity in many important ways. For this reason, political scientists generally argue that government should not be studied by itself; but should be studied along with anthropology, economics, history, philosophy, science, and sociology.

Government

15

Political science
Etymology
From Middle English government, from Old French government (French gouvernement), from Latin gubernatio ("management, government"). Government is a compound formed from the Ancient Greek (kuberna, "I steer, drive, guide, pilot") and the Latin -mente, ablative singular of mns (mind). arch-, prefix derived from the Greek archon, 'rulership', which means "higher in hierarchy".[6] The Greek word krtos, 'power', which means "right to lead" is the suffix root in words like aristocrat and democracy. Its mythological personification was the god Kratos, a son of Styx.

Classifying government
In political science, it has long been a goal to create a typology or taxonomy of polities, as typologies of political systems are not obvious.[7] It is especially important in the political science fields of comparative politics and international relations. On the surface, identifying a form of government appears to be easy, as all governments have an official form. The United States is a federal republic, while the former Soviet Union was a socialist republic. However self-identification is not objective, and as Kopstein and Lichbach argue, defining regimes can be tricky.[8] For example, elections are a defining characteristic of a democracy, but in practice elections in the former Soviet Union were not "free and fair" and took place in a single party state. Thus in many practical classifications it would not be considered democratic. Another complication is that a large number of political systems originate as socio-economic movements and are then carried into governments by specific parties naming themselves after those movements; all with competing political-ideologies. Experience with those movements in power, and the strong ties they may have to particular forms of government, can cause them to be considered as forms of government in themselves. Further complications is general non-consensus or deliberate "distortion or bias" of reasonable technical definitions to political ideologies and associated forms of governing, due to the nature of politics in the modern era. For example: The meaning of "conservatism" in the United States has little in common with the way the word's definition is used elsewhere. As Ribuffo (2011) notes, "what Americans now call conservatism much of the world calls liberalism or neoliberalism.[9] Since the 1950s conservatism in the United States has been chiefly associated with the Republican Party. However, during the era of segregation many Southern Democrats were conservatives, and they played a key role in the Conservative Coalition that controlled Congress from 1937 to 1963."[10] Every country in the world is ruled by a system of governance that combines at least 2 (or more) of the following attributes (for example, the United States is not a true capitalist society, since the government actually provides social services for its citizens). Additionally, one person's opinion of the type of government may differ from another's (for example, some may argue that the United States is a plutocracy rather than a democracy since they may believe it is ruled by the wealthy).[11] There are always shades of gray in any government. Even the most liberal democracies limit rival political activity to one extent or another, and even the most tyrannical dictatorships must organize a broad base of support, so it is very difficult "pigeonholing" every government into narrow categories

Government

16

The dialectical forms of government

The Classical Greek philosopher Plato discusses five types of regimes. They are Aristocracy, Timocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy and Tyranny. Plato also assigns a man to each of these regimes to illustrate what they stand for. The tyrannical man would represent Tyranny for example. These five regimes progressively degenerate starting with Aristocracy at the top and Tyranny at the bottom. In Republic, while Plato spends much time having Socrates narrate a conversation about the city he founds with Glaucon and Adeimantus "in speech", the discussion eventually turns to considering four regimes that exist in reality and tend to degrade successively into each other: timocracy, oligarchy (also called plutocracy), democracy and tyranny (also called despotism).

Forms of government by associated attributes

Descriptions of governments can be based on the following attributes:

By elements of where decision-making power is held

Aristarchic attributes Governments with Aristarchy attributes are traditionally controlled and organised by a small group of the most-qualified people, with no intervention from the most part of society; this small group usually shares some common trait. The opposite of an Aristarchic government is Kakistocracy.
Term Aristocracy Definition Rule by elite citizens; a system of governance in which a person who rules in an aristocracy is an aristocrat. It has come to mean rule by "the aristocracy" who are people of noble birth. An aristocracy is a government by the "best" people. A person who rules in an aristocracy is an aristocrat. Aristocracy is different from nobility, in that nobility means that one bloodline would rule, an aristocracy would mean that a few or many bloodlines would rule, or that rulers be chosen in a different manner. Rule by the intelligent; a system of governance where creativity, innovation, intelligence and wisdom are required for those who wish to govern. See Aristocracy of the wise. Rule by the strong; a system of governance where those strong enough to seize power through physical force, social maneuvering or political cunning. The process can mimic darwinian selection. Rule by the meritorious; a system of governance where groups are selected on the basis of people's ability, knowledge in a given area, and contributions to society. Rule by honor; a system of governance ruled by honorable citizens and property owners. Socrates defines a timocracy as a government ruled by people who love honor and are selected according to the degree of honor they hold in society. This form of timocracy is very similar to meritocracy, in the sense that individuals of outstanding character or faculty are placed in the seat of power. European-feudalism and post-Revolutionary America are historical examples of this type; the city-state of Sparta provided another real-world model for this form of government.

Geniocracy

Kratocracy

Meritocracy

Timocracy

Technocracy Rule by the educated or technical experts; a system of governance where people who are skilled or proficient govern in their respective areas of expertise in technology would be in control of all decision making. Doctors, engineers, scientists, professionals and technologists who have knowledge, expertise, or skills, would compose the governing body, instead of politicians, businessmen, [12] and economists. In a technocracy, decision makers would be selected based upon how knowledgeable and skillful they are in their field.

Government Autocratic attributes Governments with Autocratic attributes are dominated by one person who has all the power over the people in a country. The Roman Republic made Dictators to lead during times of war; the Roman dictators only held power for a small time. In modern times, an Autocrat's rule is not stopped by any rules of law, constitutions, or other social and political institutions. After World War II, many governments in Latin America, Asia, and Africa were ruled by autocratic governments. Examples of Autocrats include Idi Amin, Muammar Gaddafi, Adolf Hitler and Gamal Abdul Nasser.
Term Autocracy Definition Rule by one individual, whose decisions are subject to neither external legal restraints nor regularized mechanisms of popular control (except perhaps for implicit threat). Autocrat needs servants while despot needs slaves. Rule by a single entity with absolute power. That entity may be an individual, as in an autocracy, or it may be a group,[1] as in an oligarchy. The word despotism means to "rule in the fashion of a despot" and does not necessarily require a single, or individual, "despot". Despot needs slaves while Autocrat needs servants.

17

Despotism

Dictatorship Rule by an individual who has full power over the country. The term may refer to a system where the dictator came to power, and holds it, purely by force; but it also includes systems where the dictator first came to power legitimately but then was able to amend [13] the constitution so as to, in effect, gather all power for themselves. In a military dictatorship, the army is in control. Usually, there is little or no attention to public opinion or individual rights. See also Autocracy and Stratocracy. Fascism Rule by leader base only. Focuses heavily on patriotism and national identity. The leader(s) has the power to make things illegal that do not relate to nationalism, or increase belief in national pride. They believe their nation is based on commitment to an organic national community where its citizens are united together as one people through a national identity. It exalts nation and race above the individual and stands for severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Monarchic attributes Governments with Monarchic attributes are ruled by a king/emperor or a queen/emperess who inherits their position from their family, which is often called the "royal family." There are at two opposing types of monarchies: absolute monarchies and constitutional monarchies. In an absolute monarchy, the ruler has no limits on their wishes or powers. In a constitutional monarchy a ruler's powers are limited by a document called a constitution. The constitution was put in place to put a check to these powers
Term Absolute monarchy Constitutional monarchy Diarchy Definition Variant of monarchy; a system of governance in which a monarch exercises ultimate governing authority as head of state and head of government. Variant of monarchy; a system of governance that has a monarch, but one whose powers are limited by law or by a formal [14][15] constitution, such as that in the United Kingdom Variant of monarchy; a system of government in which two individuals, the diarchs, are the heads of state. In most diarchies, the diarchs hold their position for life and pass the responsibilities and power of the position to their children or family when they die. Diarchy is one of the oldest forms of government. In modern usage diarchy means a system of dual rule, whether this be of a government or of an organization. Such 'diarchies' are not hereditary. Variant of monarchy; a system of governance that has an elected monarch, in contrast to a hereditary monarchy in which the office is automatically passed down as a family inheritance. The democratic manner of election, the nature of candidate qualifications, and the electors vary from case to case. Similar to a monarchy or sultanate; a system of governance in which the supreme power is in the hands of an emir (the ruler of a [16] Muslim state); the emir may be an absolute overlord or a sovereign with constitutionally limited authority. Variant of monarchy; a system of governance where a federation of states with a single monarch as over-all head of the federation, but retaining different monarchs, or a non-monarchical system of government, in the various states joined to the federation.

Elective monarchy

Emirate

Federal monarchy

Government

18

Monarchy

Rule by royalty; a system of governance where an individual who has inherited the role and expects to bequeath it to their [17] heir.

Pejorative attributes Regardless of the form of government, the actual governance may be influenced by sectors with political power which are not part of the formal government. Certain actions of the governors, such as corruption, demagoguery, or fear mongering, may disrupt the intended way of working of the government if they are spreaded enough.
Term Bankocracy Definition [18] Rule by banks; a system of governance where the excessive power or influence of banks and other financial authorities on public policy-making. It can also refer to a form of government where financial institutions rule society. See Trapezocracy. Rule by corporations; a system of governance where an economic and political system is controlled by corporations or corporate [19] interests. Its use is generally pejorative. Fictional examples include OCP in Robocop Rule by nephews; favoritism granted to relatives regardless of merit; a system of governance in which importance is given to the relatives of those already in power, like a nephew (where the word comes from). In such governments even if the relatives aren't qualified they are given positions of authority just because they know someone who already has authority. Pope Alexander VI (Borgia) was accused of this. Rule by the stupid; a system of governance where the worst or least-qualified citizens govern or dictate policies. Due to human nature being inherently flawed, it has been suggested that every government which has ever existed has been a prime example of kakistocracy. See Idiocracy. Rule by thieves; a system of governance where its officials and the ruling class in general pursue personal wealth and political power at the expense of the wider population. In strict terms kleptocracy is not a form of government but a characteristic of a government engaged in such behavior. Examples include Mexico as being considered a Narcokleptocracy, since its democratic government is perceived to be corrupted by those who profit from trade in illegal drugs smuggled into the United States. Rule by the general populace; a system of governance where mob rule is government by mob or a mass of people, or the intimidation of legitimate authorities. As a pejorative for majoritarianism, it is akin to the Latin phrase mobile vulgus meaning "the fickle crowd", from which the English term "mob" was originally derived in the 1680s. Ochlocratic governments are often a democracy spoiled by demagoguery, "tyranny of the majority" and the rule of passion over reason; such governments can be more oppressive then autocratic-Tyrants. Ochlocracy is synonymous in meaning and usage to the modern, informal term "Mobocracy," which emerged from a much more recent colloquial etymology. [20] Rule by fear and hate; a system of governance where the basic organizing principles is the use of fear mongering to keep those being ruled in line; this attribute is preferred tool of control that all forms of governments seemed to have in common over the centuries. What makes this extremely effective is the (unfortunately) common human trait of not trusting people one doesn't know. The most commonly used fear throughout history is fear of "rapacious outsiders" (i.e. barbarians, communists, terrorists, etc.), who would "rampage over the homeland if not for the brave military"; the United States has been accused of "hardliner [21] phobiocratic-policies" which triggered racial segregation and the Cold War. Add to this the policy of making the populace fear themselves and/or the rulers as well; the pattern is to have the ruled be too afraid to resist the rulers, who were usually local; to manipulate the citizenry into activities deemed desirable by the rulers, and to divide the populace into small/fearful/ignorant groups; and at the same time fear the possibility of invasion, or at least banditry, even more due to the consequences of noncompliance in the population. Well-informed people are less fearful than those who are ignorant or uneducated; fear makes people do stupid things.

Corporatocracy

Nepotocracy

Kakistocracy

Kleptocracy (Mafia state)

Ochlocracy

Phobiocracy

Government

19

By elements of who elects the empowered

Authoritarian attributes
Term Definition

Authoritarian Rule by authoritarian governments is identified in societies where a specific set of people possess the authority of the state in a republic or union. It is a political system controlled by unelected rulers who usually permit some degree of individual freedom. Totalitarian Rule by a totalitarian government is characterized by a highly centralized and coercive authority that regulates nearly every aspect of public and private life.

Democratic attributes Governments with Democratic attributes are most common in the Western world and in some countries of the east that have been influenced by western society, often by being colonised by western powers over the course of history. In democracies, all of the people in a country can vote during elections for representatives or political parties that they prefer. The people in democracies can elect representatives who will sit on legislatures such as the Parliament or Congress. Political parties are groups of people with similar ideas about how a country or region should be governed. Different political parties have different ideas about how the government should handle different problems. Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people.
Term Demarchy Definition Variant of democracy; government in which the state is governed by randomly selected decision makers who have been selected by sortition (lot) from a broadly inclusive pool of eligible citizens. These groups, sometimes termed "policy juries", "citizens' juries", or "consensus conferences", deliberately make decisions about public policies in much the same way that juries decide criminal cases. Demarchy, in theory, could overcome some of the functional problems of conventional representative democracy, which is widely subject to manipulation by special interests and a division between professional policymakers (politicians and lobbyists) vs. a largely passive, uninvolved and often uninformed electorate. According to Australian philosopher John Burnheim, random selection of policymakers would make it easier for everyday citizens to meaningfully participate, and harder for special interests to corrupt the process. More generally, random selection of decision makers from a larger group is known as sortition (from the Latin base for lottery). The Athenian democracy made much use of sortition, with nearly all government offices filled by lottery (of full citizens) rather than by election. Candidates were almost always male, Greek, educated citizens holding a minimum of wealth and status. Democracy Rule by a government chosen by election where most of the populace are enfranchised. The key distinction between a democracy and other forms of constitutional government is usually taken to be that the right to vote is not limited by a person's wealth or race (the main qualification for enfranchisement is usually having reached a certain age). A Democratic government is, therefore, one supported (at least at the time of the election) by a majority of the populace (provided the election was held fairly). A "majority" may be defined in different ways. There are many "power-sharing" (usually in countries where people mainly identify themselves by race or religion) or "electoral-college" or "constituency" systems where the government is not chosen by a simple one-vote-per-person headcount. Variant of democracy; government in which the people represent themselves and vote directly for new laws and public policy

Direct democracy Liberal democracy

Variant of democracy; a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of liberalism. It is characterized by fair, free, and competitive elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, and the protection of human rights and civil liberties for all persons. To define the system in practice, liberal democracies often draw upon a constitution, either formally written or uncodified, to delineate the powers of government and enshrine the social contract. After a period of sustained expansion throughout the 20th century, liberal democracy became the predominant political system in the world. A liberal democracy may take various constitutional forms: it may be a constitutional republic, such as France, Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, or the United States; or a constitutional monarchy, such as Japan, Spain, or the United Kingdom. It may have a presidential system (Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, the United States), a semi-presidential system (France, Taiwan), or a parliamentary system (Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, Poland, the United Kingdom).

Government

20
Variant of democracy; wherein the people or citizens of a country elect representatives to create and implement public policy in place of active participation by the people. Variant of democracy; social democracy rejects the "either/or" phobiocratic/polarization interpretation of capitalism versus socialism. It claims that fostering a progressive evolution of capitalism will gradually result in the evolution of capitalist economy into socialist economy. Social democracy argues that all citizens should be legally entitled to certain social rights. These are made up of universal access to public services such as: education, health care, workers' compensation, public transportation, and other services including child care and care for the elderly. Social democracy is connected with the trade union labour movement and supports collective bargaining rights for workers. Contemporary social democracy advocates freedom from discrimination based on differences of: ability/disability, age, ethnicity, sex, gender, language, race, religion, sexual orientation, and social class. Variant of democracy; refers to a system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a nation state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government.

Representative democracy Social democracy

Totalitarian democracy

Oligarchic attributes Governments with Oligarchic attributes are ruled by a small group of segregated, powerful and/or influential people, who usually share similar interests and/or family relations. These people may spread power and elect candidates equally or not equally. An oligarchy is different from a true democracy because very few people are given the chance to change things. An oligarchy does not have to be hereditary or monarchic. An oligarchy does not have one clear ruler, but several rulers. Some historical examples of oligarchy are the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Apartheid in South Africa. Some critics of representative democracy think of the United States as an oligarchy. The Athenian democracy used sortition to elect candidates; were almost always male, white, Greek, educated citizens holding a minimum of land, wealth and status.
Term Definition

Ergatocracy Rule by the proletariat, the workers, or the working class. Examples of ergatocracy include communist revolutionaries and rebels which control most of society and create an alternative economy for people and workers. See Dictatorship of the proletariat. Kritarchy Rule by judges; a system of governance composed of law enforcement institutions in which the state and the legal systems are traditionally and/or constitutionally the same entity. Kritarchic judges, magistrates and other adjudicators have the legal power to legislate and administrate the enforcement of government laws, in addition to the interposition of laws and the resolution of disputes. [22] (Not to be confused with "judiciary" or "judicial system".) Somalia, ruled by judges with the tradition of xeer, as well as the Islamic Courts Union, is a historical example. Rule by social connections; a term invented by the editorial board of the American technology magazine Wired in the early 1990s. A portmanteau of Internet and aristocracy, netocracy refers to a perceived global upper-class that bases its power on a technological advantage and networking skills, in comparison to what is portrayed as a bourgeoisie of a gradually diminishing importance. The netocracy concept has been compared with Richard Florida's concept of the creative class. Bard and Sderqvist have also defined an under-class in opposition to the netocracy, which they refer to as the consumtariat. Rule by a system of governance with small group of people who share similar interests or family relations. [23]

Netocracy

Oligarchy Plutocracy

Rule by the rich; a system of governance composed of the wealthy class. Any of the forms of government listed here can be [24] plutocracy. For instance, if all of the voted representatives in a republic are wealthy, then it is a republic and a plutocracy. Rule by military service; a system of governance composed of military government in which the state and the military are traditionally and/or constitutionally the same entity. Citizens with mandatory or voluntary active military service, or who have been honorably discharged, have the right to govern. (Not to be confused with "military junta" or "military dictatorship".) The Spartan city-state is a historical example; its social system and constitution, were completely focused on military training and excellence. Stratocratic ideology often attaches to the honor-oriented Timocracy. Rule by a religious elite; a system of governance composed of religious institutions in which the state and the church are traditionally [25] and/or constitutionally the same entity. Citizens who are clergy have the right to govern. The Vatican's (see Pope) and the Tibetan government's (see Dalai Lama) are historically considered theocracies.

Stratocracy

Theocracy

Government Libertarian attributes There is no consensus on the precise definition of libertarianism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines libertarianism as the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things. George Woodcock, author of a history of libertarianism, defines it as the philosophy that fundamentally doubts authority and advocates transforming society by reform or revolution. Libertarian philosopher Roderick Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.[3] According to the U.S. Libertarian Party, libertarianism is the advocacy of a government that is funded voluntarily and limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.
Term Libertarian Definition advocate minimizing coercion and emphasize freedom, liberty, and voluntary association. Libertarians generally advocate a society with significantly less government compared to most present day societies. Variant of democracy; government ruled by a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialists believe in converting present-day private productive property into common or public goods, while retaining respect for personal property. Libertarian socialism is opposed to coercive forms of social organization. It promotes adhocracy and free association in place of government or bureaucracy, and opposes the social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor. The term libertarian socialism is used by some socialists to differentiate their philosophy from state socialism, and by some as a synonym for left anarchism.

21

Libertarian socialism

Other attributes
Term Anarchy Definition Anarchy has more than one definition. In the United States, the term "anarchy" typically is used to refer to a society without a [26][27] [28] publicly enforced government or violently enforced political authority. When used in this sense, anarchy may or may [29] not be intended to imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society. Outside of the U.S., and by most individuals that self-identify as anarchists, it implies a system of governance, mostly theoretical at a nation state level. There are also other forms of Anarchy that attempt to avoid the use of coercion, violence, force and [30][31] authority, while still producing a productive and desirable society. Anocracy An anocracy, is a regime type where power is not vested in public institutions (as in a normal democracy) but spread amongst elite groups who are constantly competing with each other for power. Examples of anocracies in Africa include the warlords of Somalia and the shared governments in Kenya and Zimbabwe. Anocracies are situated midway between an autocracy and a [32] democracy. The Polity IV dataset recognized anocracy as a category. In that dataset, anocracies are exactly in the middle between autocracies and democracies. Often the word is defined more broadly. For example a 2010 International Alert publication defined anocracies as "countries that [33] are neither autocratic nor democratic, most of which are making the risky transition between autocracy and democracy". Alert noted that the number of anocracies had increased substantially since the end of the Cold War. Anocracy is not surprisingly the least resilient political system to short-term shocks: it creates the promise but not yet the actuality of an inclusive and effective political economy, and threatens members of the established elite; and is therefore very vulnerable to disruption and armed violence.

Government

22

Banana republic

A banana republic is a politically unstable kleptocratic government that economically depends upon the exports of a limited resource (fruits, minerals), and usually features a society composed of stratified social classes, such as a great, impoverished [34] ergatocracy and a ruling plutocracy, composed of the aristocracy of business, politics, and the military. In political science, the term banana republic denotes a country dependent upon limited primary-sector productions, which is ruled by a plutocracy who [35] exploit the national economy by means of a politico-economic oligarchy. In American literature, the term banana republic originally denoted the fictional Republic of Anchuria, a servile dictatorship that abetted, or supported for kickbacks, the [35] exploitation of large-scale plantation agriculture, especially banana cultivation. In U.S. politics, the term banana republic is a pejorative political descriptor coined by the American writer O. Henry in Cabbages and Kings (1904), a book of thematically related short stories derived from his 189697 residence in Honduras, where he was hiding from U.S. law for bank [36][37] embezzlement. The existing structure is overthrown by a completely new group. The new group can be very small - such as the military - or very large - as in a popular revolution. After a period of time, this 'becomes' one of the other type of government (unless there is another coup or uprising). The theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism developed in China by Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-tung), which states that a continuous revolution is necessary if the leaders of a communist state are to keep in touch with the people.

Revolutionary government

Maoism

By elements of how power distribution is structured

Republican attributes A republic is a form of government in which the country is considered a "public matter" (Latin: res publica), not the private concern or property of the rulers, and where offices of states are subsequently directly or indirectly elected or appointed rather than inherited. In modern times, a common simplified definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a monarch.
Term Republic Definition Rule by a form of government in which the people, or some significant portion of them, have supreme control over the [38][39] government and where offices of state are elected or chosen by elected people. A common simplified definition of a [40][41] republic is a government where the head of state is not a monarch. Montesquieu included both democracies, where all the people have a share in rule, and aristocracies or oligarchies, where only some of the people rule, as republican forms of [42] government. Rule by a government whose powers are limited by law or a formal constitution, and chosen by a vote amongst at least some sections of the populace (Ancient Sparta was in its own terms a republic, though most inhabitants were disenfranchised. The United States is a federal republic). Republics that exclude sections of the populace from participation will typically claim to represent all citizens (by defining people without the vote as "non-citizens"). a republic form of government where the country is considered a "public matter" (Latin: res publica), not a private concern or property of rulers/3rd world, and where offices of states are subsequently, directly or indirectly, elected or appointed - rather than inherited - where all eligible citizens have an equal say in the local and national decisions that affect their lives. a republic, like India, Poland, with an elected head of state, but where the head of state and head of government are kept separate with the Head of government retaining most executive powers, or a head of state akin to a head of government, elected by a Parliament. a federal union of states or provinces with a republican form of government. Examples include Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Germany, India, Russia, the United States, and Switzerland. Countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran are republics governed in accordance with Islamic law.

Constitutional republic

Democratic republic

Parliamentary republic

Federal republic Islamic Republic Socialist republic

Countries like China and Vietnam are meant to be governed for and by the people, but with no direct elections. The term People's Republic is used to differentiate themselves from the earlier republic of their countries before the people's revolution, like Republic of China and Republic of Korea.

Government Federalism attributes Federalism is a political concept in which a group of members are bound together by covenant (Latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head. The term "federalism" is also used to describe a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces). Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments, creating what is often called a federation. Proponents are often called federalists.
Term Federalism Definition Rule by a form of government in which the people, or some significant portion of them, have supreme control over the government [43][39] and where offices of state are elected or chosen by elected people. A common simplified definition of a republic is a [40][41] government where the head of state is not a monarch. Montesquieu included both democracies, where all the people have a [44] share in rule, and aristocracies or oligarchies, where only some of the people rule, as republican forms of government. A federal monarchy is a federation of states with a single monarch as over-all head of the federation, but retaining different monarchs, or a non-monarchical system of government, in the various states joined to the federation. a federal union of states or provinces with a republican form of government. Examples include Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Germany, India, Russia, the United States, and Switzerland.

23

Federal monarchy Federal republic

Other power structure attributes

Term Adhocracy Definition Rule by a government based on relatively disorganised principles and institutions as compared to a to a bureaucracy, its exact opposite. Sometimes said to be non-governance; it is a structure which strives for non-hierarchical voluntary associations among agents. Anarchy is a situation where there is no government. This can happen after a civil war in a country, when a government has been destroyed and rival groups are fighting to take its place. There are also people called anarchists. They believe that any government is a bad thing - this belief is called anarchism. Anarchists think governments stop people organising their own lives. Instead they think people would be better off if they ruled their own lives and worked together to create a society in any form they choose. Rule by a government based on small (usually family) unit with a semi-informal hierarchy, with strongest (either physical strength or strength of character) as leader. Very much like a pack seen in other animals, such as wolves. Rule by a system of governance with many bureaus, administrators, and petty officials Rule by a government based on small complex society of varying degrees of centralization that is led by an individual known as a chief. Ruled by a data fed group of secluded individuals that regulates aspects of public and private life using data feeds and technology having no interactivity with the citizens but using "facts only" to decide direction. A system of democratic government in which the ministers of the Executive Branch derive their legitimacy from and are accountable to a Legislature or parliament; the Executive and Legislative branches are interconnected. It is a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them. A system of government where an executive branch is led by a president who serves as both head of state and head of government. In such a system, this branch exists separately from the legislature, to which it is not responsible and which it cannot, in normal circumstances, dismiss. Rule by a government under the sovereignty of rational laws and civic right as opposed to one under theocratic systems of government. In a nomocracy, ultimate and final authority (sovereignty) exists in the law.

Anarchism

Band Society

Bureaucracy Chiefdom (Tribal) Cybersynacy

Parliamentary system

Presidential system

Nomocracy

Government

24

Forms of government by other characteristic attributes

By socio-economic system attributes
Historically, most political systems originated as socioeconomic ideologies; experience with those movements in power, and the strong ties they may have to particular forms of government, can cause them to be considered as forms of government in themselves.
Term Capitalism Definition In a capitalist or free-market economy, people own their own businesses and property and must buy services for private use, such as healthcare.

Communism In a communist country, the working class, through cooperatives, owns all businesses and farms and shares the healthcare, education and welfare. Feudalism A system of land ownership and duties. Under feudalism, all the land in a kingdom was the king's. However, the king would give some of the land to the lords or nobles who fought for him. These presents of land were called manors. Then the nobles gave some of their land to vassals. The vassals then had to do duties for the nobles. The lands of vassals were called fiefs. Socialist governments own many of the larger industries and provide education, health and welfare services while allowing citizens some economic choices Concept of government in which the state plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens. It is based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for those unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life.

Socialism

Welfare state

By political system attributes

Term Elitism Polyarchy Centrist Definition independent nation with small, modernizing elites Greek for "many leaders"applies to nations with "Western-style" democracies nations with strict authoritarian regimes

Personalist nations with unstable personalistic political leadership

By significant constitutional attributes

Certain major characteristics are defining of certain types; others are historically associated with certain types of government. Rule according to higher law Separation of church and state Civilian control of the military Totalitarianism/Authoritarianism vs. liberty

Police state Economic system (e.g. capitalism, socialism, welfare state, feudalism) Androcracy (Patriarchy) vs. Gynarchy (Matriarchy) - dominance of a particular gender

Government

25

By approach to regional autonomy

This list focuses on differing approaches that political systems take to the distribution of sovereignty, and the autonomy of regions within the state. Sovereignty located exclusively at the center of political jurisdiction. Empire Unitary state Sovereignty located at the centre and in peripheral areas. Hegemony Federation and Federal republic Confederation Federal Monarchy Diverging degrees of sovereignty. Asymmetrical federalism Federacy Associated state Protectorate Colonial Dependency Thalassocracy League Commonwealth Devolved state - sovereignty can be abolished without changing the constitution.

Theoretical and speculative attributes

These currently have no citable real-world examples outside of fiction.
Term Corporate republic Definition Theoretical form of government occasionally hypothesized in works of science fiction, though some historical nations such as medieval Florence might be said to have been governed as corporate republics. While retaining some semblance of republican government, a corporate republic would be run primarily like a business, involving a board of directors and executives. Utilities, including hospitals, schools, the military, and the police force, would be privatized. The social welfare function carried out by the state is instead carried out by corporations in the form of benefits to employees. Although corporate republics do not exist officially in the modern world, they are often used in works of fiction or political commentary as a warning of the perceived dangers of unbridled capitalism. In such works, they usually arise when a single, vastly powerful corporation deposes a weak government, over time or in a coup d'tat. Some political scientists have also considered state socialist nations to be forms of corporate republics, with the state assuming full control of all economic and political life and establishing a monopoly on everything within national boundaries - effectively making the state itself equitable to a giant corporation. Magocracy Rule by a government ruled by the highest and main authority being either a magician, sage, sorcerer, wizard or witch. This is often similar to a theocratic structured regime and is largely portrayed in fiction and fantasy genre categories. Ruled by a singularity of all human minds connected via some form of technical or non technical telepathy acting as a form of super computer to make decisions based on shared patterned experiences to deliver fair and accurate decisions to problems as they arrive. Also known as the hive mind principle, differs from voting in that each person would make a decision while in the "hive" the synapses of all minds work together following a longer path of memories to make "one" decision.

Uniocracy

Government

26

Maps References
[1] "Oxford English Dictionary" (http:/ / oxforddictionaries. com/ definition/ government). Oxford University Press. November 2010. . [2] Bealey, Frank, ed. (1999). "government" (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=6EuKLlzYoTMC& pg=PA147). The Blackwell dictionary of political science: a user's guide to its terms. Wiley-Blackwell. p.147. ISBN`Fuchs u -0-631-20695-8. . States by their systems of government. For the complete list of systems by country, see List of countries by system of government. presidential systempresidential republicssemi-presidential systemsemi-presidential republicsparliamentary republicsparliamentary republics, An executive presidentexecutive presidency elected by and dependent on parliamentary systemparliamentparliamentary systemparliamentary constitutional monarchyconstitutional monarchies in which the monarch does not personally exercise powerconstitutional monarchyconstitutional monarchies in which the monarch personally exercises power, often alongside a weak parliamentabsolute monarchyabsolute monarchiesstates whose constitutions grant only a single-party statesingle party the right to governstates where constitutional provisions for government have been suspended [3] "Oxford English Dictionary: American English" (http:/ / oxforddictionaries. com/ definition/ american_english/ government). Oxford University Press. 2012. . [4] Flint, Colin & Taylor, Peter (2007). Political Geography: World Economy, Nation-State, and Locality (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=GXz9xHdHeZcC) (5th ed.). Pearson/Prentice Hall. p.137. ISBN978-0-13-196012-1. . [5] Barclay, Harold (1990). People Without Government: An Anthropology of Anarchy. Left Bank Books. p.31. ISBN1-871082-16-1. [6] Online Etymology Dictionary (http:/ / www. etymonline. com/ index. php?term=archon) [7] Lewellen, Ted C. Political Anthropology: An Introduction Third Edition. Praeger Publishers; 3rd edition (30 November 2003) [8] Kopstein and Lichbach (2005:4) [9] Leo P. Ribuffo, "20 Suggestions for Studying the Right now that Studying the Right is Trendy," Historically Speaking Jan 2011 v.12#1 pp 26, quote on p. 6 Countries highlighted in blue are designated "electoral democracies" in Freedom House's [45] 2010 survey "Freedom in the World". Freedom House considers democracy in practice, not merely official claims. [10] Kari Frederickson, The Dixicrat Revolt and the End of the Solid South, 1932-1968, p. 12, "...conservative southern Democrats viewed warily the potential of New Deal programs to threaten the region's economic dependence on cheap labor while stirring the democratic ambitions of the disfranchised and undermining white supremacy.", The University of North Carolina Press, 2000, ISBN 978-0-8078-4910-1

[11] "Plutocrats - The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else" (http:/ / www. us. penguingroup. com/ nf/ Book/ BookDisplay/ 0,,9781594204098,00. html) Chrystia Freeland is Global Editor-at-Large at Reuters news agency, following years of service at the Financial

Government
Times both in New York and London. She was the deputy editor of Canada's Globe and Mail and has reported for the Financial Times, Economist, and Washington Post. She lives in New York City. [12] Ernst R. Berndt, (1982). From Technocracy To Net Energy Analysis: Engineers, Economists And Recurring Energy Theories Of Value (http:/ / dspace. mit. edu/ bitstream/ handle/ 1721. 1/ 2023/ SWP-1353-09057784. pdf), Studies in Energy and the American Economy, Discussion Paper No. 11, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Revised September 1982

27

A world map distinguishing countries of the world as monarchies (red) from other forms of government (blue). Many monarchies are considered electoral democracies because the monarch is largely ritual; in other cases the monarch is the only powerful political authority.

[13] American 503 [14] Fotopoulos, Takis, The Multidimensional Crisis ad Inclusive Democracy. (Athens: Gordios, 2005).( English translation (http:/ / www. inclusivedemocracy. org/ fotopoulos/ english/ brbooks/ multi_crisis_id. htm) of the book with the same title published in Greek). [15] "Victorian Electronic Democracy : Glossary" (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20071213045132/ http:/ / www. parliament. vic. gov. au/ SARC/ E-Democracy/ Final_Report/ Glossary. htm). 28 July 2005. Archived from the original (http:/ / www. parliament. vic. gov. au/ SARC/ E-Democracy/ Final_Report/ Glossary. htm) on 13 December 2007. . [16] CIA||The World Factbook||Field Listing :: Government type (https:/ / www. cia. gov/ library/ publications/ the-world-factbook/ fields/ 2128. html) [17] American 1134 [18] Waibl, Elmar; Herdina, Philip (1997). Dictionary of Philosophical Terms vol. II - English-German / Englisch-Deutsch (http:/ / books. google. com/ ?id=r7OiXFVasZEC& dq=bankokratie). Walter de Gruyter. p.33. ISBN3110979497. . Retrieved September 18, 2012. [19] "Corporatocracy" (http:/ / oxforddictionaries. com/ definition/ corporatocracy). Oxford Dictionaries. . Retrieved May 29, 2012. "/krprtkrs/ .... a society or system that is governed or controlled by corporations:" [20] (http:/ / www. ncc-1776. org/ tle2003/ libe229-20030629-03. html) "Phobiocracy by Chris Claypoole" [21] "The Untold History of the United States", (http:/ / www. oliverstone. com/ america-undercover/ ) "The Oliver Stone Experience" [22] A Peaceful Ferment in Somalia: Publications: The Independent Institute (http:/ / www. independent. org/ publications/ article. asp?id=126) [23] American 1225 [24] "Plutocracy Rising" Moyers & Company. (http:/ / billmoyers. com/ episode/ full-show-plutocracy-rising/ ) [25] American 1793 [26] "Decentralism: Where It Came From-Where Is It Going?". Amazon.com. ASIN1551642484. [27] "Anarchy." Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. 2004. The first quoted usage is 1667 [28] "Anarchy." Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. 2004. The first quoted usage is 1552 [29] "Anarchy." Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. 2004. The first quoted usage is 1850. [30] "Noam Chomsky on the history of Anarchy" (http:/ / www. youtube. com/ watch?v=kOTBGrrDeXg). Youtube.com. 2011-09-07. . Retrieved 2012-01-30. [31] "A discussion on what anarchy is, by those that self-identify as anarchists" (http:/ / www. anarchy. net/ ). . [32] Marshall, Monty G.; Cole, Benjamin R. (1 December 2011). "Global Report 2011: Conflict, Governance, and State Fragility" (http:/ / www. systemicpeace. org/ GlobalReport2011. pdf) (PDF). Vienna: Center for Systemic Peace. . Retrieved 2012-08-15. [33] Vernon, Phil; Baksh, Deborrah (September 2010). "Working with the Grain to Change the Grain: Moving Beyond the Millennium Development Goals" (http:/ / www. international-alert. org/ sites/ default/ files/ publications/ MDG. pdf) (PDF). London: International Alert. p.29. . Retrieved 2012-08-15. [34] Richard Alan White (1984). The Morass. United States Intervention in Central America (http:/ / books. google. com/ ?id=X88WAAAAYAAJ). New York: Harper & Row. p.319. ISBN9780060911454. . P. 95 (http:/ / www. google. it/ search?num=100& hl=en& safe=off& tbm=bks& q="Richard+ Alan+ White"+ "The+ morass"+ "United+ States+ intervention+ in+ Central+ America"+ "banana+ republic"). ISBN 0-060-91145-X; ISBN 978-0-06091-145-4. [35] "Big-business Greed Killing the Banana (p. A19)" (http:/ / www. highbeam. com/ doc/ 1G1-179318358. html). The Independent, via The New Zealand Herald. Saturday 24 May 2008. . Retrieved Sunday 24 June 2012. [36] Occurrences (http:/ / www. google. it/ search?num=100& hl=en& safe=off& tbm=bks& q=O. + Henry+ was+ first+ to+ use+ the+ term+ "banana+ republic"+ "Cabbages+ and+ Kings"+ (1904)) on Google Books. [37] O. Henry (1904). Cabbages and Kings (http:/ / books. google. com/ ?id=6jpMsL2T0CoC). New York: Doubleday, Page & Co. for Review of Reviews Co. p.312. . "While he was in Honduras, Porter coined the term 'banana republic'" (http:/ / books. google. it/ books?id=CsSr5CxBrGQC& hl=en& pg=PT198& dq="While+ he+ was+ in+ Honduras,+ Porter+ coined+ the+ term"+ "banana+ republic"#v=onepage& q="While he was in Honduras, Porter coined the term" "banana republic"& f=false).

Government
[38] Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws (1748), Bk. II, ch. 1. [39] "Republic". Encyclopdia Britannica. [40] "republic" (http:/ / dictionary. reference. com/ browse/ republic). WordNet 3.0 (Dictionary.com). . Retrieved 20 March 2009. [41] "Republic" (http:/ / www. merriam-webster. com/ dictionary/ republic). Merriam-Webster. . Retrieved 14 August 2010. [42] Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws, Bk. II, ch. 23. [43] Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws (1748), Bk. II, ch. 1. [44] Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws, Bk. II, ch. 23. [45] "Freedom in the World" (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20110208040624/ http:/ / www. freedomhouse. org/ uploads/ fiw10/ FIW_2010_Tables_and_Graphs. pdf) (PDF). Archived from the original (http:/ / www. freedomhouse. org/ uploads/ fiw10/ FIW_2010_Tables_and_Graphs. pdf) on 8 February 2011. . Retrieved 13 December 2011.

28

Arnheim, M.T.W. Aristocracy in Greek Society. London: Thames and Hudson, 1997.

Further reading
Kjaer, Anne Mette (2004). Governance (http://books.google.com/books?id=AY5SIsf1nI4C). Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN978-0-7456-2979-7. Newton, Kenneth & Van Deth, Jan W. (2005). Foundations of Comparative Politics (http://books.google.com/ books?id=jkPIY_lVKUIC). Cambridge University Press. ISBN0-521-53620-0. Sharma, Urmila & Sharma, S.K. (2000). "Forms of Government" (http://books.google.com/ books?id=qdZ3VRRLDrgC&pg=PA406). Principles and Theory of Political Science. Atlantic Publishers & Distributors. ISBN978-81-7156-938-0. Boix, Carles (2003). Democracy and Redistribution. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bunce, Valerie. 2003. "Rethinking Recent Democratization: Lessons from the Postcommunist Experience." World Politics 55(2):167-192. Colomer, Josep M. (2003). Political Institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dahl, Robert Polyarchy Yale University Press (1971) Heritage, Andrew, Editor-in-Chief. 2000. World Desk Reference Lijphart, Arend (1977). Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration. New Haven: Yale University Press. Linz, Juan. 2000. Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Boulder: Lynne Rienner. Linz, Juan, and Stepan, Alfred. 1996. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southernn Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. Lichbach, Mark and Alan Zukerman, eds. 1997. Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Luebbert, Gregory M. 1987. "Social Foundations of Political Order in Interwar Europe," World Politics 39, 4. Moore, Barrington, Jr. 1966. Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World. Cambridge: Beacon Press, ch. 7-9. Comparative politics : interests, identities, and institutions in a changing global order/edited by Jeffrey Kopstein, Mark Lichbach, 2nd ed, Cambridge University Press, 2005. O'Donnell, Guillermo. 1970. Modernization and Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism. Berkeley: University of California. O'Donnell, Guillermo, Schmitter, Philippe C., and Whitehead, Laurence, eds., Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: comparative Perspectives. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Przeworski, Adam. 1992. Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America, New York: Cambridge University Press. Przeworski, Adam, Alvarez, Michael, Cheibub, Jose, and Limongi, Fernando. 2000. Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well Being in the World, 1950-1990. New York: Cambridge University Press. Shugart, Mathhew and John M. Carey, Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics, New York, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992.

Government Taagepera, Rein and Matthew Shugart. 1989. Seats and votes: The effects and determinants of electoral systems, Yale Univ. Press.

29

External links
The Phrontistery Word List: Types of Government and Leadership (http://phrontistery.info/govern.html) What Are the Different Types of Governments? (http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/ 1096-what-are-the-different-types-of-governments.html) Types of Governments from Historical Atlas of the 20th Century (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/20c-govt. htm) Other classifications examples from Historical Atlas of the 20th Century (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ othergov.htm) World Affairs: Types of Government (http://stutzfamily.com/mrstutz/WorldAffairs/typesofgovt.html) Regime Types (http://www.polisci.ccsu.edu/brown/regime_types.htm) CBBC Newsround : types of government (http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/find_out/guides/world/ united_nations/types_of_government/) Bill Moyers: Plutocracy Rising (http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-plutocracy-rising/) Phobiocracy by Chris Claypoole (http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2003/libe229-20030629-03.html)

Classical liberalism
Classical liberalism is a political ideology, a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with limited government under the rule of law and generally promotes a laissez-faire economic policy.[1][2][3] Classical liberalism developed in the 19th century in Europe and the United States. Although classical liberalism built on ideas that had already arisen by the end of the 18th century, it advocated a specific kind of society, government and public policy as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization.[4] Notable individuals whose ideas have contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke,[5] Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on the free-market economics of Adam Smith and on a belief in natural law,[6] utilitarianism,[7] and progress.[8] The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism.[9] There was a revival of interest in the ideas of classical liberalism in the 20th century, led by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman,[10] who argued that government should be as small as possible in order to allow the exercise of individual freedom. Some call this modern development "neo-classical liberalism", because it holds political views similar to classical liberalism. Others use the term "classical liberalism" to refer to all liberalism before the 20th century, not to designate any particular set of political views, and therefore see all modern developments as being, by definition, not classical.[11] Libertarianism has been used in modern times as a substitute for the phrase "neo-classical liberalism", leading to some confusion. The identification of libertarianism with neo-classical liberalism primarily occurs in the United States,[12] where some conservatives and right-libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in minimal government and a free-market economy.[13][14][15]

Classical liberalism

30

Core principles
According to E. K. Hunt, classical liberals made four assumptions about human nature: People were "egoistic, coldly calculating, essentially inert and atomistic".[16] In addition, people were motivated solely by pain and pleasure. Being calculating, they made decisions intended to maximise pleasure and minimise pain. If there were no opportunity to increase pleasure or reduce pain, they would become inert. Therefore, the only motivation for labour was either the possibility of great reward or fear of hunger. This belief led classical liberal politicians to pass the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834, which limited the provision of social assistance. On the other hand, classical liberals believed that men of higher rank were motivated by ambition. Seeing society as atomistic, they believed that society was no more than the sum of its individual members. These views departed from earlier views of society as a family and, therefore, greater than the sum of its members.[17] Classical liberals agreed with Thomas Hobbes that government had been created by individuals to protect themselves from one another. They thought that individuals should be free to pursue their self-interest without control or restraint by society. Individuals should be free to obtain work from the highest-paying employers, while the profit motive would ensure that products that people desired were produced at prices they would pay. In a free market, both labour and capital would receive the greatest possible reward, while production would be organised efficiently to meet consumer demand.[18] Adopting Thomas Malthus's population theory, they saw poor urban conditions as inevitable, as they believed population growth would outstrip food production; and they considered that to be desirable, as starvation would help limit population growth. They opposed any income or wealth redistribution, which they believed would be dissipated by the lowest orders.[19] In economics, Adam Smith articulated a central proposition in classical liberalism: that individuals pursuing their own economic self-interest, without government direction, serves the common good.[20] Government, as explained by Adam Smith, had only three functions: protection against foreign invaders, protection of citizens from wrongs committed against them by other citizens, and building and maintaining public institutions and public works that the private sector could not profitably provide. Classical liberals extended protection of the country to protection of overseas markets through armed intervention. Protection of individuals against wrongs normally meant protection of private property and enforcement of contracts and the suppression of trade unions and the Chartist movement. Public works included a stable currency, standard weights and measures, and support of roads, canals, harbors, railways, and postal and other communications services.[21] According to Alan Ryan, the ideology of the original classical liberals argued against direct democracy, where law is made by majority vote by citizens, "for there is nothing in the bare idea of majority rule to show that majorities will always respect the rights of property or maintain rule of law."[22] For example, James Madison argued for a constitutional republic with protections for individual liberty over a pure democracy, reasoning that, in a pure democracy, a "common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole...and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party...."[23] According to Anthony Quinton, classical liberals believe that "an unfettered market" is the most efficient mechanism to satisfy human needs and channel resources to their most productive uses: they "are more suspicious than conservatives of all but the most minimal government."[24] For classical liberalism, rights are of a negative naturerights that require that other individuals (and governments) refrain from interfering with individual liberty, whereas social liberalism (also called modern liberalism or welfare liberalism) holds that individuals have a right to be provided with certain benefits or services by others.[25] Unlike social liberals, classical liberals are "hostile to the welfare state."[22] They do not have an interest in material equality but only in "equality before the law".[26] Classical liberalism is critical of social liberalism and takes offense at group rights being pursued at the expense of individual rights.[27]

Classical liberalism Friedrich Hayek identified two different traditions within classical liberalism: the "British tradition" and the "French tradition". Hayek saw the British philosophers Bernard Mandeville, David Hume, Adam Smith, Adam Ferguson, Josiah Tucker, Edmund Burke and William Paley as representative of a tradition that articulated beliefs in empiricism, the common law, and in traditions and institutions which had spontaneously evolved but were imperfectly understood. The French tradition included Rousseau, Condorcet, the Encyclopedists and the Physiocrats. This tradition believed in rationalism and sometimes showed hostility to tradition and religion. Hayek conceded that the national labels did not exactly correspond to those belonging to each tradition: Hayek saw the Frenchmen Montesquieu, Constant and Tocqueville as belonging to the "British tradition" and the British Thomas Hobbes, Priestley, Richard Price and Thomas Paine as belonging to the "French tradition".[28] Hayek also rejected the label "laissez faire" as originating from the French tradition and alien to the beliefs of Hume, Smith and Burke.

31

History
Classical liberalism in Britain developed from Whiggery and radicalism, and represented a new political ideology. Whiggery had become a dominant ideology following the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and was associated with the defence of Parliament, upholding the rule of law and defending landed property. The origins of rights were seen as being in an ancient constitution, which had existed from time immemorial. These rights, which some Whigs considered to include freedom of the press and freedom of speech, were justified by custom rather than by natural rights. They believed that the power of the executive had to be constrained. While they supported limited suffrage, they saw voting as a privilege, rather than as a right. However there was no consistency in Whig ideology, and diverse writers including John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith and Edmund Burke were all influential among Whigs, although none of them was universally accepted.[29] British radicals, from the 1790s to the 1820s, concentrated on parliamentary and electoral reform, emphasizing natural rights and popular sovereignty. Richard Price and Joseph Priestley adapted the language of Locke to the ideology of radicalism.[29] The radicals saw parliamentary reform as a first step toward dealing with their many grievances, including the treatment of Protestant Dissenters, the slave trade, high prices and high taxes.[30] There was greater unity to classical liberalism ideology than there had been with Whiggery. Classical liberals were committed to individualism, liberty and equal rights. They believed that required a free economy with minimal government interference. Writers such as John Bright and Richard Cobden opposed both aristocratic privilege and property, which they saw as an impediment to the development of a class of yeoman farmers. Some elements of Whiggery opposed this new thinking, and were uncomfortable with the commercial nature of classical liberalism. These elements became associated with conservatism.[31] Classical liberalism was the dominant political theory in Britain from the early 19th century until the First World War. Its notable victories were the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829, the Reform Act of 1832, and the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846. The Anti-Corn Law League brought together a coalition of liberal and radical groups in support of free trade under the leadership of Richard Cobden and John Bright, who opposed militarism and public expenditure. Their policies of low public expenditure and low taxation were adopted by William Ewart Gladstone when he became chancellor of the exchequer and later prime minister. Classical liberalism was often associated with religious dissent and nonconformism.[32]

A meeting of the Anti-Corn Law League in Exeter Hall in 1846

Classical liberalism Although classical liberals aspired to a minimum of state activity, they accepted the principle of government intervention in the economy from the early 19th century with passage of the Factory Acts. From around 1840 to 1860, laissez-faire advocates of the Manchester School and writers in The Economist were confident that their early victories would lead to a period of expanding economic and personal liberty and world peace but would face reversals as government intervention and activity continued to expand from the 1850s. Jeremy Bentham and James Mill, although advocates of laissez-faire, non-intervention in foreign affairs, and individual liberty, believed that social institutions could be rationally redesigned through the principles of Utilitarianism. The Conservative prime minister, Benjamin Disraeli, rejected classical liberalism altogether and advocated Tory Democracy. By the 1870s, Herbert Spencer and other classical liberals concluded that historical development was turning against them.[33] By the First World War, the Liberal Party had largely abandoned classical liberal principles.[34] The changing economic and social conditions of the 19th led to a division between neo-classical and social liberals who, while agreeing on the importance of individual liberty, differed on the role of the state. Neo-classical liberals, who called themselves "true liberals", saw Locke's Second Treatise as the best guide, and emphasised "limited government", while social liberals supported government regulation and the welfare state. Herbert Spencer in Britain and William Graham Sumner were the leading neo-classical liberal theorists of the 19th century.[35] Neo-classical liberalism has continued into the contemporary era, with writers such as Robert Nozick.[36] In the United States, liberalism took a strong root because it had little opposition to its ideals, whereas in Europe liberalism was opposed by many reactionary interests. In a nation of farmers, especially farmers whose workers were slaves, little attention was paid to the economic aspects of liberalism. But, as America grew, industry became a larger and larger part of American life; and, during the term of America's first populist president, Andrew Jackson, economic questions came to the forefront. The economic ideas of the Jacksonian era were almost universally the ideas of classical liberalism. Freedom was maximised when the government took a "hands off" attitude toward industrial development and supported the value of the currency by freely exchanging paper money for gold. The ideas of classical liberalism remained essentially unchallenged until a series of depressions, thought to be impossible according to the tenets of classical economics, led to economic hardship from which the voters demanded relief. In the words of William Jennings Bryan, "You shall not crucify the American farmer on a cross of gold." Classical liberalism remained the orthodox belief among American businessmen until the Great Depression.[37] The Great Depression saw a sea change in liberalism, leading to the development of modern liberalism. In the words of Arthur Schlesinger Jr.: When the growing complexity of industrial conditions required increasing government intervention in order to assure more equal opportunities, the liberal tradition, faithful to the goal rather than to the dogma, altered its view of the state," and "there emerged the conception of a social welfare state, in which the national government had the express obligation to maintain high levels of employment in the economy, to supervise standards of life and labour, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security.[38]

32

Classical liberalism

33

Intellectual sources
John Locke
Central to classical liberal ideology was their interpretation of John Locke's Second treatise of government and "A letter concerning toleration", which had been written as a defence of the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Although these writings were considered too radical at the time for Britain's new rulers, they later came to be cited by Whigs, radicals and supporters of the American Revolution.[39] However, much of later liberal thought was absent in Locke's writings or scarcely mentioned, and his writings have been subject to various interpretations. There is little mention, for example, of constitutionalism, the separation of powers, and limited government.[40] James L. Richardson identified five central themes in Locke's writing: individualism, consent, the concepts of the rule of law and government as trustee, the significance of property, and religious toleration. Although Locke did not develop a theory of natural rights, he envisioned individuals John Locke in the state of nature as being free and equal. The individual, rather than the community or institutions, was the point of reference. Locke believed that individuals had given consent to government and therefore authority derived from the people rather than from above. This belief would influence later revolutionary movements.[41] As a trustee, Government was expected to serve the interests of the people, not the rulers, and rulers were expected to follow the laws enacted by legislatures. Locke also held that the main purpose of men uniting into commonwealths and governments was for the preservation of their property. Despite the ambiguity of Locke's definition of property, which limited property to "as much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of", this principle held great appeal to individuals possessed of great wealth.[42] Locke held that the individual had the right to follow his own religious beliefs and that the state should not impose a religion against Dissenters. But there were limitations. No tolerance should be shown for atheists, who were seen as amoral, or to Catholics, who were seen as owing allegiance to the Pope over their own national government.[43]

Classical liberalism

34

Adam Smith
Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, was to provide most of the ideas of classical liberal economics, at least until the publication of J. S. Mill's Principles in 1848.[44] Smith addressed the motivation for economic activity, the causes of prices and the distribution of wealth, and the policies the state should follow in order to maximise wealth.[45] Smith believed that as long as supply, demand, prices and competition were left free of government regulation, the pursuit of material self-interest, rather than altruism, would maximize the welfare of society through profit-driven production of goods and services. An "invisible hand" directed individuals and firms to work toward the public good as an unintended consequence of intending to maximize their own gain. This provided a moral justification for the accumulation of wealth, which had previously been viewed as sinful.[45] He assumed that workers could be paid as low as was necessary for their survival, which was later transformed Adam Smith by Ricardo and Malthus into the "Iron Law of Wages".[46] His main emphasis was on the benefit of free internal and international trade, which he thought could increase wealth through specialization in production.[47] He also opposed restrictive trade preferences, state grants of monopolies, and employers' organisations and trade unions.[48] Government should be limited to defence, public works and the administration of justice, financed by taxes based on income.[49] Smith's economics was carried into practice in the 19th century with the lowering of tariffs in the 1820s, the repeal of the Poor Relief Act, that had restricted the mobility of labour, in 1834, and the end of the rule of the East India Company over India in 1858.[50]

Say, Malthus, and Ricardo

In addition to Adam Smith's legacy, Say's law, Malthus theories of population and Ricardo's iron law of wages became central doctrines of classical economics. Jean Baptiste Say was a French economist who introduced Adam Smith's economic theories into France and whose commentaries on Smith were read in both France and Britain.[50] Say challenged Smith's labour theory of value, believing that prices were determined by utility and also emphasised the critical role of the entrepreneur in the economy. However neither of those observations became accepted by British economists at the time. His most important contribution to economic thinking was "Say's law", which was interpreted by classical economists that there could be no overproduction in a market, and that there would always be a balance between supply and demand.[51] This general belief influenced government policies until the 1930s. Following this law, since the economic cycle was seen as self-correcting, government did not intervene during periods of economic hardship because it was seen as futile.[52] Thomas Malthus wrote two books, An essay on the principle of population, published in 1798, and Principles of political economy, published in 1820. The second book which was a rebuttal of Say's law had little influence on contemporary economists.[53] His first book however became a major influence on classical liberalism. In that book, Malthus claimed that population growth would outstrip food production, because population grew geometrically, while food production grew arithmetically. As people were provided with food, they would reproduce until their growth outstripped the food supply. Nature would then provide a check to growth in the forms of vice and misery. No gains in income could prevent this, and any welfare for the poor would be self-defeating. The poor were in fact responsible for their own problems which could have been avoided through self-restraint.[54]

Classical liberalism David Ricardo, who was an admirer of Adam Smith, covered many of the same topics but while Smith drew conclusions from broadly empirical observations, Ricardo used induction, drawing conclusions by reasoning from basic assumptions.[55] While Ricardo accepted Smith's labour theory of value, he acknowledged that utility could influence the price of some rare items. Rents on agricultural land were seen as the production that was surplus to the subsistence required by the tenants. Wages were seen as the amount required for workers' subsistence and to maintain current population levels.[56] According to his Iron Law of Wages, wages could never rise beyond subsistence levels. Ricardo explained profits as a return on capital, which itself was the product of labour. But a conclusion many drew from his theory was that profit was a surplus appropriated by capitalists to which they were not entitled.[57]

35

Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism provided the political justification for implementation of economic liberalism by British governments, which was to dominate economic policy from the 1830s. Although utilitarianism prompted legislative and administrative reform and John Stuart Mill's later writings on the subject foreshadowed the welfare state, it was mainly used as a justification for laissez-faire.[58] The central concept of utilitarianism, which was developed by Jeremy Bentham, was that that public policy should seek to provide "the greatest happiness of the greatest number". While this could be interpreted as a justification for state action to reduce poverty, it was used by classical liberals to justify inaction with the argument that the net benefit to all individuals would be higher.[59]

Political economy
Classical liberals saw utility as the foundation for public policies. This broke both with conservative "tradition" and Lockean "natural rights", which were seen as irrational. Utility, which emphasises the happiness of individuals, became the central ethical value of all liberalism.[60] Although utilitarianism inspired wide-ranging reforms, it became primarily a justification for laissez-faire economics. However, classical liberals rejected Adam Smith's belief that the "invisible hand" would lead to general benefits and embraced Thomas Malthus' view that population expansion would prevent any general benefit and David Ricardo's view of the inevitability of class conflict. Laissez-faire was seen as the only possible economic approach, and any government intervention was seen as useless. The Poor Law Amendment Act 1834 was defended on "scientific or economic principals" while the authors of the Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601 were seen as not having had the benefit of reading Malthus.[61] The anti-slavery views of numerous classical liberal economists, such as J.S. Mill, led to Carlyle calling economics the dismal science.[62][63] Commitment to laissez-faire, however, was not uniform. Some economists advocated state support of public works and education. Classical liberals were also divided on free trade. Ricardo, for example, expressed doubt that the removal of grain tariffs advocated by Richard Cobden and the Anti-Corn Law League would have any general benefits. Most classical liberals also supported legislation to regulate the number of hours that children were allowed to work and usually did not oppose factory reform legislation.[61] Despite the pragmatism of classical economists, their views were expressed in dogmatic terms by such popular writers as Jane Marcet and Harriet Martineau.[61] The strongest defender of laissez-faire was The Economist founded by James Wilson in 1843. The Economist criticised Ricardo for his lack of support for free trade and expressed hostility to welfare, believing that the lower orders were responsible for their economic circumstances. The Economist took the position that regulation of factory hours was harmful to workers and also strongly opposed state support for education, health, the provision of water, and granting of patents and copyrights. The Economist also campaigned against the Corn Laws that protected landlords in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland against competition from less expensive foreign imports of cereal products. A rigid belief in laissez-faire guided the government response in 18461849 to the Great Famine in Ireland, during which an

Classical liberalism estimated 1.5 million people died. The minister responsible for economic and financial affairs, Charles Wood, expected that private enterprise and free trade, rather than government intervention, would alleviate the famine.[64] The Corn Laws were finally repealed in 1846 by removal tariffs on grain which kept the price of bread artificially high.[65] However, repeal of the Corn Laws came too late to stop Irish famine, partly because it was done in stages over three years.[66][67]

36

Free trade and world peace

Several liberals, including Adam Smith and Richard Cobden, argued that the free exchange of goods between nations could lead to world peace, a view recognised by such modern American political scientists as Dahl, Doyle, Russet, and O'Neil. Dr. Gartzke, of Columbia University states, "Scholars like Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Richard Cobden, Norman Angell, and Richard Rosecrance have long speculated that free markets have the potential to free states from the looming prospect of recurrent warfare."[68] American political scientists John R. Oneal and Bruce M. Russett, well known for their work on the democratic peace theory, state: The classical liberals advocated policies to increase liberty and prosperity. They sought to empower the commercial class politically and to abolish royal charters, monopolies, and the protectionist policies of mercantilism so as to encourage entrepreneurship and increase productive efficiency. They also expected democracy and laissez-faire economics to diminish the frequency of war.[69] Adam Smith argued in the Wealth of Nations that, as societies progressed from hunter gatherers to industrial societies, the spoils of war would rise but that the costs of war would rise further, making war difficult and costly for industrialised nations.[70] ...the honours, the fame, the emoluments of war, belong not to [the middle and industrial classes]; the battle-plain is the harvest field of the aristocracy, watered with the blood of the people...Whilst our trade rested upon our foreign dependencies, as was the case in the middle of the last century...force and violence, were necessary to command our customers for our manufacturers...But war, although the greatest of consumers, not only produces nothing in return, but, by abstracting labour from productive employment and interrupting the course of trade, it impedes, in a variety of indirect ways, the creation of wealth; and, should hostilities be continued for a series of years, each successive war-loan will be felt in our commercial and manufacturing districts with an augmented pressure. Richard Cobden[71] When goods cannot cross borders, armies will. Frdric Bastiat[72] By virtue of their mutual interest does nature unite people against violence and warthe spirit of trade cannot coexist with war, and sooner or later this spirit dominates every people. For among all those powersthat belong to a nation, financial power may be the most reliable in forcing nations to pursue the noble cause of peaceand wherever in the world war threatens to break out, they will try to head it off through mediation, just as if they were permanently leagued for this purpose. (Immanuel Kant: The Perpetual Peace.) Cobden believed that military expenditures worsened the welfare of the state and benefited a small but concentrated elite minority, summing up British imperialism, which he believed was the result of the economic restrictions of mercantilist policies. To Cobden, and many classical liberals, those who advocated peace must also advocate free markets.

Classical liberalism

37

Relationship to modern liberalism

Many modern scholars of liberalism argue that no particularly meaningful distinction between classical and modern liberalism exists. Alan Wolfe summarises this viewpoint, which reject(s) any such distinction and argue(s) instead for the existence of a continuous liberal understanding that includes both Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes... The idea that liberalism comes in two forms assumes that the most fundamental question facing mankind is how much government intervenes into the economy... When instead we discuss human purpose and the meaning of life, Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes are on the same side. Both of them possessed an expansive sense of what we are put on this earth to accomplish. Both were on the side of enlightenment. Both were optimists who believed in progress but were dubious about grand schemes that claimed to know all the answers. For Smith, mercantilism was the enemy of human liberty. For Keynes, monopolies were. It makes perfect sense for an eighteenth-century thinker to conclude that humanity would flourish under the market. For a twentieth century thinker committed to the same ideal, government was an essential tool to the same end... [M]odern liberalism is instead the logical and sociological outcome of classical liberalism.[73] According to William J. Novak, however, liberalism in the United States shifted, "between 1877 and 1937...from laissez-faire constitutionalism to New Deal statism, from classical liberalism to democratic social-welfarism".[74] Hobhouse, in Liberalism (1911), attributed this purported shift, which included qualified acceptance of government intervention in the economy and the collective right to equality in dealings, to an increased desire for what Hobhouse called "just consent".[75] F. A. Hayek wrote that Hobhouse's book would have been more accurately titled Socialism, and Hobhouse himself called his beliefs "liberal socialism".[76] Joseph A. Schumpeter attributes this supposed shift in liberal philosophy to the 19th century expansion of the franchise to include the working class. Rising literacy rates and the spread of knowledge led to social activism in a variety of forms. Social liberals called for laws against child labour, laws requiring minimum standards of worker safety, laws establishing a minimum wage and old age pensions, and laws regulating banking with the goal of ending cyclic depressions, monopolies, and cartels. Laissez faire economic liberals considered such measures to be an unjust imposition upon liberty, as well as a hindrance to economic development, and, as the working class in the West became increasingly prosperous, they also became more conservative.[77] Another regularly asserted contrast between classical and modern liberals: classical liberals tend to see government power as the enemy of liberty, while modern liberals fear the concentration of wealth and the expansion of corporate power. Others such as Michael Johnston and Noam Chomsky assert that classical liberalism as such can no longer exist in a modern day context as its principles were only relevant at the time its founding thinkers conceptualised them; and that classical liberalism has grown into two divergent philosophies since the beginning of the twentieth century: social liberalism and market liberalism.[78]

Notes
[1] Modern Political Philosophy (1999), Richard Hudelson, pp. 3738 (http:/ / www. google. com/ books?id=sq-1z8VMhDEC& lpg=PP1& dq=Modern Political Philosophy& pg=PA37#v=onepage& q=& f=false) [2] M. O. Dickerson et al., An Introduction to Government and Politics: A Conceptual Approach (2009) p. 129 [3] Bronfenbrenner, Martin (1955). "Two Concepts of Economic Freedom". Ethics 65 (3). JSTOR2378928. [4] Hamowy, p. xxix [5] Steven M. Dworetz, The Unvarnished Doctrine: Locke, Liberalism, and the American Revolution (1994) [6] Joyce Appleby, Liberalism and Republicanism in the Historical Imagination (1992) p. 58 [7] Gerald F. Gaus and Chandran Kukathas, Handbook of Political Theory (2004) p. 422 [8] Hunt, p. 54 [9] Richardson, p. 52 [10] Richardson, p. 43 [11] (http:/ / www. ncpa. org/ pub/ what-is-classical-liberalism) is an example of an article that defines "classical liberalism" as all liberalism before the 20th Century.

Classical liberalism
[12] Mayne, p. 124 [13] http:/ / www. ncpa. org/ pub/ what-is-classical-liberalism is an example of an article that defines "classical liberalism" as all liberalism before the 20th Century. [14] http:/ / mises. org/ etexts/ classical. asp is an example of an article that defines "classical liberalism" as small government. [15] http:/ / mason. gmu. edu/ ~ihs/ guideintro. html defines "classical liberalism" as a belief in peace and freedom. [16] Hunt, p. 44. [17] Hunt, pp. 4446. [18] Hunt, pp. 4647. [19] Hunt, pp. 4951. [20] Dickerson, M. O. An Introduction to Government and Politics: A Conceptual Approach. Cengage Learning, 2009. p. 132 [21] Hunt, pp. 5153. [22] Alan Ryan, "Liberalism", in A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, ed. Robert E. Goodin and Philip Pettit (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1995), 293. [23] James Madison, Federalist No. 10 (November 22, 1787), in Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, The Federalist: A Commentary on the Constitution of the United States, ed. Henry Cabot Lodge (New York, 1888), 56 (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=XcllKruLvi4C& pg=PA56& vq="common+ passion+ or+ interest"). [24] Anthony Quinton, "Conservativism", in A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, ed. Robert E. Goodin and Philip Pettit (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1995), 246. [25] David Kelley, A Life of One's Own: Individual Rights and the Welfare State (Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 1998). [26] Chandran Kukathas, "Ethical Pluralism from a Classical Liberal Perspective," in The Many and the One: Religious and Secular Perspectives on Ethical Pluralism in the Modern World, ed. Richard Madsen and Tracy B. Strong, Ethikon Series in Comparative Ethics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003), 61 (ISBN 0-691-09993-6). [27] Mark Evans, ed., Edinburgh Companion to Contemporary Liberalism: Evidence and Experience (London: Routledge, 2001), 55 (ISBN 1-57958-339-3). [28] F. A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty (London: Routledge, 1976), 5556. [29] Vincent, pp. 2829 [30] Turner, p. 86 [31] Vincent, pp. 2930 [32] Gray, pp. 2627 [33] Gray, p. 28 [34] Gray, p. 32 [35] Ishiyama and Breuning, p. 596 [36] Ishiyama and Breuning, p. 603 [37] Eric Voegelin, Mary Algozin, and Keith Algozin, "Liberalism and Its History" (http:/ / links. jstor. org/ sici?sici=0034-6705(197410)36:4<504:LAIH>2. 0. CO;2-A), Review of Politics 36, no. 4 (1974): 50420. [38] Arthur Schelesinger Jr., "Liberalism in America: A Note for Europeans" (http:/ / www. writing. upenn. edu/ ~afilreis/ 50s/ schleslib. html), in The Politics of Hope (Boston: Riverside Press, 1962). [39] Steven M. Dworetz, The Unvarnished Doctrine: Locke, Liberalism, and the American Revolution (1989) [40] Richardson, pp. 2223 [41] Richardson, p. 23 [42] Richardson, pp. 2324 [43] Richardson, p. 24 [44] Mills, pp. 63, 68 [45] Mills, p. 64 [46] Mills, p. 65 [47] Mills, p. 66 [48] Mills, p. 67 [49] Mills, p. 68 [50] Mills, p. 69 [51] Mills, p. 70 [52] Mills, p. 71 [53] Mills, pp. 7172 [54] Mills, p. 72 [55] Mills, pp. 7374 [56] Mills, p. 74-75 [57] Mills, p. 75 [58] Richardson, p. 32 [59] Mills, p. 76 [60] Richardson, p. 31

38

Classical liberalism
[61] Richardson, p. 33 [62] Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question (http:/ / homepage. newschool. edu/ ~het/ texts/ carlyle/ carlodnq. htm), Carlyle, p. 531 [63] Levy, David M., and Sandy J. Peart " The Secret History of the Dismal Science: Part I, Economics, Religion and Race in the 19th Century (http:/ / www. econlib. org/ library/ Columns/ LevyPeartdismal. html)." [64] Richardson, p. 34 [65] George Miller. On Fairness and Efficiency. The Policy Press, 2000. ISBN 978-1-86134-221-8 p.344 [66] Christine Kinealy. A Death-Dealing Famine:The Great Hunger in Ireland. Pluto Press, 1997. ISBN 978-0-7453-1074-9. p. 59 [67] Stephen J. Lee. Aspects of British Political History, 1815-1914. Routledge, 1994. ISBN 978-0-415-09006-3. p. 83 [68] Erik Gartzke, "Economic Freedom and Peace," in Economic Freedom of the World: 2005 Annual Report (Vancouver: Fraser Institute, 2005). [69] Oneal, J. R.; Russet, B. M. (1997). "The Classical Liberals Were Right: Democracy, Interdependence, and Conflict, 1950-1985". International Studies Quarterly 41 (2): 267294. doi:10.1111/1468-2478.00042. [70] Michael Doyle, Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism (New York: Norton, 1997), 237 (ISBN 0-393-96947-9). [71] Edward P. Stringham, "Commerce, Markets, and Peace: Richard Cobden's Enduring Lessons" (http:/ / papers. ssrn. com/ sol3/ papers. cfm?abstract_id=1676244), Independent Review 9, no. 1 (2004): 105, 110, 115. [72] Daniel T. Griswold, "Peace on Earth, Free Trade for Men" (http:/ / www. cato. org/ dailys/ 12-31-98. html), Cato Institute, December 31, 1998. [73] Alan Wolfe, "A False Distinction" (http:/ / www. tnr. com/ blog/ alan-wolfe/ false-distinction), The New Republic, 2009 [74] William J. Novak, "The Not-So-Strange Birth of the Modern American State: A Comment on James A. Henretta's 'Charles Evans Hughes and the Strange Death of Liberal America'" (http:/ / www. historycooperative. org/ journals/ lhr/ 24. 1/ novak. html), Law and History Review 24, no. 1 (2006). [75] L. T. Hobhouse, Liberalism, in Hobhouse: Liberalism and Other Writings, James Meadowcroft, editor, Cambridge University Press, 1994, ISBN 978-0-521-43726-4 [76] F. A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism (University of Chicago Press, 1991), 110. [77] Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Routledge, 2010, ISBN 978-0-415-56789-3 [78] Michael Johnston, Syndromes of Corruption: Wealth, Power, and Democracy, Cambridge University Press, 2006, ISBN 978-0-521-61859-5

39

References
Gray, John. Liberalism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995 ISBN 0-8166-2800-9 Hamowy, Ronald. The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc, 2008 ISBN 1-4129-6580-2 Henry, Katherine. Liberalism and the Culture of Security: The Nineteenth-Century Rhetoric of Reform University of Alabama Press, 2011. Draws on literary and other writings to study the debates over liberty and tyranny. Hunt, E. K. Property and Prophets: the Evolution of Economic Institutions and Ideologies. New York: M. E. Sharpe, Inc., 2003 ISBN 0-7656-0608-9 Ishiyama, John T. and Breuning, Marijke. 21st Century Political Science: A Reference Handbook, Volume 1. London, UK: SAGE, 2010 ISBN 1-4129-6901-8 Mayne, Alan James. From politics past to politics future: an integrated analysis of current and emergent paradigms. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999 ISBN 0-275-96151-6 Mills, John. A critical history of economics. Basingstoke, Hampshire UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002 ISBN 0-333-97130-2 Richardson, James L. Contending Liberalisms in World Politics: Ideology and Power. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2001 ISBN 1-55587-939-X Turner, Michael J. British Politics in an Age of Reform. Manchester UK: Manchester University Press, 1999 ISBN 0-7190-5186-X, 9780719051869 Vincent, Andrew. Modern Political Ideologies (Third Edition). Chichester, W. Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009 ISBN 1-4051-5495-0, ISBN 978-1-4051-5495-6 http://www.la.fnst-freiheit.org/webcom/show_page.php/_c-1032/_nr-5/i.html

Article Sources and Contributors

40

Article Sources and Contributors

Sovereignty Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=535161972 Contributors: (, 01011000, 10metreh, 200.191.188.xxx, 39fkeuf, 8080tanme, ARISTOKLES, Abc518, Adoniscik, Ahruman, Alansohn, AlexiusHoratius, Alinor, Allens, Allstarecho, Alsandro, Altenmann, America jones, Anarchia, Ancheta Wis, Andrevan, Andycjp, AnneDrew55, Antandrus, Applebitemak, Arakunem, Arf!, Arknascar44, Arthur10291029, Astrowob, Athaenara, Avnjay, Avono, Axeman89, B0Rn2bL8, BD2412, BananaFiend, Banno, Battlemonk, Bayle Shanks, Bcharles, Bcnviajero, Before My Ken, Bill, Billinghurst, Biruitorul, Bjankuloski06en, Bjarki S, Bkell, Blathnaid, Blue-Haired Lawyer, Bluemoose, BobDohse, Bobo192, Boleslaw, Bondegezou, Booksworm, BooooooooB, Brandmeister (old), BraneJ, Brewcrewer, C.Fred, Cafeirlandais, Camille32, Carolmooredc, Casey Abell, Cassowary, Catgut, Cbrown285, CesarB, Ceyockey, Chaps28, Chealer, Chris the speller, ChrisO, CityOfSilver, Cityslicker414, Ckatz, Conversion script, Coolcaesar, Coralmizu, Correogsk, CrucifiedChrist, Cuchullain, Cybercobra, DANZIG666, DARTH SIDIOUS 2, DBG Heuser, DD Ting, DLJessup, DVD R W, Danger, Dano112358, Darth Panda, Davehi1, David.Monniaux, David91, Dayewalker, Deaconse, Deville, Diderot, Discospinster, Dleonard, Dlifjas4890, Dlohcierekim's sock, Dogface, DoubleBlue, Dougz1, Duffman, Dynamicsmiles, EJB341, Ed Poor, Editfinder, Ejoty, El C, Elcid, Electionworld, Elena Emanova, Elliskev, EnthusiastFRANCE, Entirelybs, Epbr123, Eras-mus, Erianna, Euchiasmus, Falconclaw5000, Famspear, Fastifex, Filemon, Flex, Fluffernutter, Franey, Frog, FrozenUmbrella, Future Perfect at Sunrise, G2bambino, Gaius Cornelius, Galoubet, Gary King, Gene s, Gentgeen, Geschichte, Ghibelline, Git2010, Glen, GoneAwayNowAndRetired, Goodone121, GraemeL, Grafen, Graham87, GreenReaper, Grunt, Gurch, Gurchzilla, Gusegn, Gwernol, Gyll, Happysailor, Harlan wilkerson, Harrytesticles, Haza-w, Headbomb, HexaChord, Hires an editor, Hmains, Hmortar, Husond, Hyacinth, II MusLiM HyBRiD II, IRP, IW.HG, IceKarma, Igoldste, Ilikerla, Iluvcapra, Imaginaryoctopus, Instantnood, IoannisKaramitros, Iridescent, Isidore, IstvanWolf, IvanLanin, Ixfd64, J.delanoy, J04n, JCSalomon, JCarriker, JaGa, Jackol, Jahsonic, Japinderum, Jebba, Jeff3000, Jersey Devil, Jerzy, Jetgraphics, Jiang, Jiddisch, JimWae, Jimothytrotter, Jkeiser, Joe Bodacious, John, John1121, Johnboydog, Jon Roland, Joolz, Jose Ramos, Josherhoff, Joshuapaquin, Jpeob, Jrtayloriv, Jsorens, Jumbuck, JustJimWillDo, K1Bond007, KMcD, Karlward, Keegan, Kellym133, Ken.kabs, Kevlar67, Kevyn, Kitplane01, Kopolee11, Kraftlos, Kubanczyk, Kukini, Kuru, Kzollman, La la ooh, Lapaz, Lerdsuwa, Levineps, Lightmouse, Lkjhgfdsa 0, Lmbstl, Lockesdonkey, Lottieandsid, Lowellian, Lquilter, Lubejob, Lukobe, M3taphysical, MPN, MZMcBride, Mais oui!, Majorly, Man vyi, Manfi, Manumitany, Marek69, Mastorrent, Matthew Yeager, Maximaximax, Maxis ftw, Mayumashu, Mbecker, MelbourneStar, Melsaran, Metta Bubble, Michael Hardy, Miquonranger03, Misarxist, Mistakefinder, Modulatum, Moe Epsilon, Monarchy of Byzantium, Moorishbrooklyninteligence, Morch5918, Mufamadi, Muhends, Muppet317, Nakon, Nay01, Ned Jacobs, NeilN, Neko-chan, Newmanbe, Ngchen, Night w, Nirvana2013, North Shoreman, Nourhaghighi, Nscheffey, Oberiko, Ohconfucius, Ohiostandard, OsamaBinLogin, Osli73, P.T. Aufrette, PK2, Paedia, Para, Paradise32, Parvathisri, Pedant, Pedant17, Pepper, Petercorless, Pfly, Pgreenfinch, Philip Trueman, Pilotguy, Pinkadelica, Pishogue, Pit, Pollinosisss, Pooperman632, Poor Yorick, Privacy, Puckly, Pyl, Quarl, R'n'B, RTG, Raggz, Ranveig, Razorflame, Rbarreira, Rcj442, RedHillian, Redheylin, Redking7, Rees11, Renamed user 4, Rgamble, RicJac, Rich Farmbrough, Rjwilmsi, Roadrunner, Robert Skyhawk, Rrburke, Rstevens90, Ruhrjung, RupertMillard, RussBlau, S3000, SDiZ, SH9002, Sahara4u, Sam Blacketer, Santa Sangre, Scgtrp, SchfiftyThree, SchmuckyTheCat, Selket, Sgoldman10, Shanes, Shocktm, Shoeofdeath, Shoreranger, Sintonak.X, Sisera, Skeezix1000, Skookum1, Sleepaholic, Slon02, Smalljim, Smilo Don, Snozzer, Sonyack, SpaceFlight89, Spacepotato, SpookyMulder, Squib, Ssrose, StanC8, Stephen Bain, Stephenb, Straker, SudoGhost, SwisterTwister, T doffing, Tapir2001, Tati-maranhao, Tazmaniacs, Tcncv, Tedder, Teemu Ruskeep, The Anome, TheFarix, TheRanger, Thingg, Thurloe, Timmyandy, Timo Laine, Tlesher, Tom Ketchum, Tommy2010, Touchy Feely Dan, Transcendence, Treisijs, Truman Burbank, Ttwaring, UberCryxic, Ubiq, Uriber, Valip, Vanished user sflgjhaerp98q3iv8j3qp8uti, Vanwhistler, Vina, Visor, Vladislaus Draculea, VolatileChemical, WDavis1911, Washdivad, Wavelength, Wayiran, Wayne Slam, Wenttomowameadow, Weyes, Wickey-nl, Wik, Wiki Raja, Wikidemon, Wikieditor42, Wlievens, Wolfdog, Woohookitty, XavierGreen, Zarcadia, Zzyzx11, le flottante, , , 628 anonymous edits Sovereign (disambiguation) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=521227503 Contributors: (, ADM, Adashiel, Alexs, Angela, BD2412, BertieBasset, Biglovinb, Binabik80, Curps, CyberSkull, Daniel.Cardenas, DarbyAsh, Dpaajones, Dudebri1, Eridani, Flex, Framhein, Headbomb, Hephaestos, Hero122, Husond, IstvanWolf, JamesA, Jess Cully, Jkeene, Kalel2007, Karpsmom, Lapaz, Law Lord, Lawrence Chard, Little grape, Lkjhgfdsa 0, Magus05, Mahanga, MatthewDBA, Mdnavman, Melsaran, Michael Hardy, Modulatum, Moon1965, Morgan Riley, Mrwojo, Muhandes, Nirvana2013, Oberiko, Petri Krohn, Qaanaaq, Quuxplusone, R-41, Refertoday678, Reformedman, RussBlau, Shantavira, Shem1805, Sovereignite, TTZnju, Template namespace initialisation script, TheFarix, Tisane, Tomfulton, Turk brown, William M. Connolley, Williamb, Xaqzasta, Zahnrad, 25 anonymous edits Westphalian sovereignty Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=535185597 Contributors: Antigravityece, Athaenara, Ballofstring, BaruMonkey, BigrTex, Blue-Haired Lawyer, Boat v, Bobrayner, Bwithh, Coleacanth, David stinson, DonaldRichardSands, DuncanBCS, Ehrenkater, Esrever, ForestAngel, HansHermans, Hemlock Martinis, Historicist, Hmains, Ipatrol, JLaTondre, Jish, John Quiggin, Joriki, Joseph Solis in Australia, Jsp722, Kintetsubuffalo, Lic812, Liliana Dioguardi, Mais oui!, Mdotley, Meesher, Mindbuilder, Mirrormundo, Mwmoretti, Natalie Erin, Nutiketaiel, PBS, Pathoschild, Piast93, Pmsyyz, Polylerus, RandomCritic, Rjwilmsi, Ronark, Rwalker, Sandstein, Sasoriza, Sbabones, Serge925, Tabletop, TallNapoleon, Tempshill, The Rambling Man, Vapour, Will Beback, Woohookitty, Wtmitchell, Yabti, 82 anonymous edits Government Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=535510654 Contributors: *drew, - ), -Ozone-, 10metreh, 195.149.37.xxx, 20027491, 21655, 28bytes, 334a, 5 albert square, 63.201.32.xxx, 90, 90 Auto, A1ed, A8UDI, AAA765, ADAMAJP28, ALtgLasS, ASSASSIN, AaronS, Aazn, Abasdfasldf kasl;dkf jasl;dkf j, Abiyoyo, Academic Challenger, Acaila wiki, Acather96, Access Denied, Ace Diamond, Ace of Spades, Achowat, Adam Bishop, Adamislolandtaco, Addihockey10, Addshore, Aeonx, Agent Smith (The Matrix), Ageo020, Ahoerstemeier, Aitias, Aixroot, Ajdlinux, AkatDemonSuki, Al-Andalusi, Alan Liefting, Alansohn, AlasdairEdits, Aldaron, Aldrich Hanssen, Ale jrb, Aleeeeeeeexis, Alegoo92, Alexanderj, Alexf, Alexlaker, Alexstobart, Alison, AllStarZ, Allens, Allstarecho, AllyUnion, Almafeta, Alphachimp, Alphathon, Alyoshka, Amaury, Amire80, Anarchist082056, Anarchysm, Anbu121, Anclation, Andre Engels, Andrew Levine, Andrewspy007, Andy Marchbanks, Andy120290, Andycjp, Angela, Anger22, Angr, Anna Lincoln, Anon1277, Anonymous Dissident, Antandrus, Antonio Lopez, Apocalyptor, AppleJuggler, Aprock, Ardara, ArielGold, Arjun01, Art LaPella, Arthena, Arthur Rubin, Asabih, Assclitt, Astudent, Atlan, Auror, Autorads, Awardtake, Awesomeface9999, Aznicepeng, BDD, Balkantropolis, Baodo, Barakosamayomomma, Baronnet, Bart133, Barticus88, Baseball Bugs, Basharh, Bekiroflaz, Beland, Ben Arnold, Bencherlite, Benny1boy93, BennyQuixote, Bensaccount, Bento00, Bentogoa, BesselDekker, Bhaddow, Bibliomaniac15, Bibowen, BigThinker, Bingozone, Binksternet, Biosci01, Bird8392, BjrnEF, Bkepisto, Bkonrad, Blue bear sd, Blueflavouredcat, Bluemask, Bms19, Bo, Bob f it, Bobak, Bobby122, Bobdoe, Bobo192, Bobrayner, Boco10296, Bogey97, Boggon155, Boivie, Boki13, Bombs Away, Bonadea, Bongwarrior, Bounc3, Bowei Huang 2, BradBeattie, Brambleclawx, Brandon, BrendelSignature, Brian the Editor, Brian0918, Brianga, Brownings, Buaidh, BuickCenturyDriver, Builderman, Burzmali, Bwilkins, Bwill6, Byelf2007, Bz2, CTZMSC3, CWii, Caknuck, Caladrieng, Calidore Chase, Caltas, Cambalachero, Camw, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, Canterbury Tail, Canthusus, CapitalistOverlord, Capt. James T. Kirk, Carbonite, CardinalDan, Careless hx, Carmichael, Carolmooredc, Carom, Caseylebaker, Caster23, CasualVisitor, Catgut, Ceradon, Chamal N, Chanvis18, Charphil, Chelseamarie322, Cherkash, Chimpanz6, ChongDae, Chris the speller, ChrisGualtieri, Chriscf, Chrislk02, Christopher Parham, Chun-hian, CieloEstrellado, Cielomobile, Cit helper, CityOfSilver, Cjnm, ClamDip, ClassicalScholar, Clinton564, CloudNine, Cntras, Coastergeekperson04, Coin945, ColbeagleTheEagle, Cole1234829ah, Confession0791, Conrad5501, ContinueWithCaution, Controlgovernment, Conversion script, Coonhound1235565, Coreyhunter1, Correogsk, Crashtip, Crazysane, Cremepuff222, Crnica, Curps, D, D6, DARTH SIDIOUS 2, DBragagnolo, DVdm, Da6thblood, DaemonDice (Gremlin), Dan653, DanCKor, Danger, Daniel5127, DanielCD, Danielfolsom, Dantytoon, DarkFalls, Darkmusashi, Darthwar, David Fuchs, David.Mestel, David91, Dawn Bard, Dawnseeker2000, DeadEyeArrow, Deadcorpse, Dean Wormer, Deathphoenix, Delldot, Demmy, DerHexer, Deus Ex, Dfrg.msc, Dglynch, Diderot's Ghost, Discospinster, Dmn, Doc glasgow, Doctors without suspenders, Dominoe, Don4of4, Doric Nash, Dorond, Douinman, DragonHawk, Drift chambers, Dscotese, Dtgm, Dude018219293, Dude765434567, Dudez r good, Dungodung, Dycedarg, Dylan Lake, Dysepsion, E. Novachek, ECEstats, EarthPerson, EdGl, Edderso, EditingBandit123, Edwardjacobs123, ElationAviation, Eldarone, Electionworld, Eliteplaya269, Eliz81, Elosensweig97, Emc2, Emogangster, Eog1916, Epeeist smudge, Epiq, Ergjnijvnrtjhnbinb, EricWesBrown, Escape Orbit, EscapingLife, Etale, Eubulides, Euryalus, Everyking, Evileyelover22, Excirial, Exor674, Extracurricular activities, Eyrian, FETuriousness, FJPB, FY5867, Falcon8765, Falsefacts, Fang 23, Favonian, Fdp, Feeeshboy, Fer0xkills, Ferkelparade, Fetchcomms, Feto34, Fg, Fingerz, FisherQueen, Fjeinca, Flatterworld, Flewellyn, Flewis, Floquenbeam, Flowerpotman, Francs2000, Frank, Frank G Anderson, Frederic Bastiat, Freechild, Freedom12345, Frenchi8, Freshbakedpie, Frood, Funandtrvl, Fungusdude, Funnybunny, Fvw, Fyyer, F, G Colyer, GDonato, GManNickG, Gabbe, Gadfium, GadflyGuy, Gadickson2002, Garion96, Gary-bob32, Geof, Geoffr, Georgette2, Geraldk, Gfoley4, Giladpokemon, Gilliam, Gimboid13, Ginsengbomb, Glacialfox, Gladworth, Glane23, Glenn, Gnowor, Goatriderman04, Gock, Gogo Dodo, Gonzonoir, Goodnightmush, Gov07, Govprof, Gracenotes, Grafen, GrandKokla, Gravitan, GrayFullbuster, GregAsche, Grljkbh,kbgf, Gromlakh, Gsmgm, Guanaco, Guess Who, Gurch, Guru48632, Gusegn, Gwernol, HJ Mitchell, Haaqfun, Hadal, HaeB, Hajatvrc, HamburgerRadio, Hans Zarkov, Harland1, Hazhk, Heechunlee, Heimstern, Helenalex, Hellboy999, Henksoma, HenryLi, Heron, Hersfold, Hi1032, Hiei229, HighPriest15, Hinoku, History6621, Hitittome873, Hmrox, Hockey6895, Hockeyboy211, Homa Alona, Hotcrocodile, Howard sucks, Hu Gadarn, Hurricane111, Hydnjo, I dream of horses, Iainscott, IanA, Idaltu, Ieatbrain, Ihavealittlepeener, Iloveelvis, Ilyushka88, Imagination dbride, Imaginationac, Immunize, Incogation, Indon, Inka 888, Insanity Incarnate, Instantnood, Intelati, Intelligentsium, Ipodracer, Ipoellet, Irishmex rebel, Isababe, Isarra (HG), Its meeeabcd1234, J Di, J. W. Love, J.delanoy, JHMM13, JMS Old Al, JO987654321, JW1805, Ja 62, Jacek Kendysz, Jacob1207, Jacobcia, Jacobko, Jado818, Jagged 85, Jaime Saldarriaga, Jakecrpntr7, James086, JamesAngel, JamieS93, Jan is de man, Jan1nad, Japwum, Jauerback, Javierito92, Jawillde, Jbwaite, Jcaraballo, Jcesar, Jeancey, Jeanmichel, Jedsundwall, Jeffrey Mall, Jeltz, Jemappelleungarcon, Jeremy4891, Jeremyb, Jeronimo, Jerryseinfeld, Jersyko, Jesanj, Jespinos, Jewbag101, Jibbajabba, Jiddisch, Jim1138, Jimbobjenkins4, Jimmyboi1, Jimworm, Jj137, Jmlk17, Jncraton, Jnestorius, JoanneB, Jogloran, John, John Maynard Friedman, John254, JohnCD, JohnGalt1812, Johnbod, Johnsonjody, Jojhutton, Jollandude, JonHarder, Jonhson12, Jordanlaborde, Joriki, Joshjoshjosh, Joshlepaknpsa, Journalist, Joy, Joyous!, Joyradost, Jpeob, Jrtayloriv, Jumbuck, Jungliquid83, Jusdafax, Jusjih, JustPhil, Justthisonce, Jwoodger, Jye18, KJS77, KPH2293, Kalamarijuana, Kanags, Karol Langner, Kathryn NicDhna, KathrynLybarger, Kbdank71, Kdau, Keegan, Kelly Martin, Kerotan, Kevinkor2, Kharados, Killervogel5, Kilopi, King Pickle, Kingeli516, Kingpin13, Kizor, Klilidiplomus, Kmg90, KnowledgeOfSelf, Kotjze, Krawi, Krellis, Ksenon, Ksinkar, Kteagle, Kubigula, KuduIO, Kum0004, Kungfuadam, Kurieeto, Kuru, Kurykh, L Kensington, L0b0t, Lakers, LanguageMan, Latka, Lazulilasher, Lbbzman, Lectonar, LedgendGamer, LegendLaLa, Lenschulwitz, Leroidevie, Lesgles, Levineps, Lewisskinner, Liam Skoda, Lightmouse, Lights, Like a Brock, LilHelpa, Lilacfielder, Linburats, Link, Lir, Little Mountain 5, Ljhenshall, Lkinkade, Llamadog903, Lolololololololol1, LordHarris, Lotje, LuK3, LucVerhelst, Lugia2453, Luigiwax, Luisrc7080, Luk, Luna Santin, Lupinpooter, MER-C, MFlet1, MK8, MONGO, MRXXX, MacTire02, Macrakis, Macy, MadGuy7023, Madelinefelkins, Magioladitis, Magister Mathematicae, Mahdog123, Mailer diablo, Makwy2, Malick78, Malo, Malteahrens, Manchurian candidate, Mandarax, Mani1, Maniteja nmt, Manning Bartlett, Marek69, Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas, Mark91, MarkGallagher, Mars2035, Martarius, Martinman11, Martpol, Mathonius, Matthew1216, Maurice Carbonaro, Maurreen, Mav, Maxim, Maxsonbd, Mayumashu, Me the Third, MeStevo, MeUser42, Mean as custard, Meco, Mephistophelian, Mereda, Mermaid from the Baltic Sea, Mesoderm, Methnor, Mfranklin427, Michael Hardy, Michael93555, Microgeekfreak, Midnus, MightyWarrior, Mike Rosoft, Mikkelanjelo, Mindmatrix, Mintleaf, Miranda, Misza13, Mkamensek, Mlin109, Mm40, Moe Epsilon, Mogism, Moogletw, Morwen, Mr manilow, Mr. Billion, Mr. Stradivarius, Mrdthree, Mrkuhn, Mrmrbeaniepiece, Mrsneaky0101, Mryogibojangles, Mschel, Msleeman, Mstercrack, Mtmelendez, Mualphachi, Mumia-w-18, Munkeyy31, Mvaldemar, Mwilso24, Mysdaao, N5iln, NERIUM, NJA, NJGW, Nabeth, Nakon, Nanajoth, Naryathegreat, Nathan Khan, NawlinWiki, Nehrams2020, NeilN, Neutrality, Neutron, NewEnglandYankee,

Article Sources and Contributors

Niceguyedc, Nick125, Nightenbelle, Nihiltres, Nikodemos, Niroht, Nirvana2013, Nishkid64, Niteowlneils, Nivix, Nk, Nlvwarren, No Guru, Noah Salzman, Nogoodusernamesleft, Norm mit, North Shoreman, Northerlywind, NorthernThunder, Notinasnaid, Nuggetboy, Nurg, Nuttycoconut, Nyttend, Oberst, Ocaasi, Oda Mari, Oddblock, Ohconfucius, Ohnoitsjamie, Ojay123, OlEnglish, Olympian22, Omicronpersei8, Optakeover, Orange Suede Sofa, Orangefruitman, Orphan Wiki, Orzetto, OscarMike1, Ost316, Owen, Owl, Oxymoron83, P30Carl, PGWG, Pablomartinez, Paddywhack, Paintballer815, Pakaran, Palfrey, Palmer602, Pandora, Panyd, Parsecboy, Party, Passargea, Paul August, Paulo Andrade, Paxsimius, Pdcook, Penbat, Persian Poet Gal, Peruvianllama, Peteweez, Pha telegrapher, Pharaoh of the Wizards, Phgao, Phiarc, PhilKnight, Philip Trueman, Philippe, PhuryPrime, Picapica, Pigsonthewing, Pilotguy, Pinar, Pinethicket, Pingu fc, Piotrus, Pirate Pacman, Pit, Pjacobi, Pjvpjv, Planetary Chaos, Plattler01, Pochsad, Poopshoes, Prari, Priyanath, Procrastinator, Pudwiggle, Pulsar06, Purplepumpkins, Pdraic MacUidhir, QZXA2, Quantumelfmage, Quintote, Qwqwqwqwqwqwqwqwqwqw, Qxz, R Lowry, R'n'B, RG653, RGloucester, RJFF, RMG, RP459, RTRCballsack, RadioFan, Radon210, Raghith, Randerson1725, Randolf Richardson, Random123321, Ranveig, RaseaC, Raymondwinn, Razorflame, Rd232, Reach Out to the Truth, Really Spooky, RebbecaRoy, Reconsider the static, Red Winged Duck, Reinyday, Reprah, Reptiliansarereal, Retireduser1111, RexNL, Rgriga1, Riana, Rje, Rjwilmsi, Rmky87, Rmt2m, Robin Patterson, Rodhullandemu, Roged, Romanm, Ronhjones, Ronnie42, Rory096, Roundhouse0, Rrburke, Rudrasharman, Ruhrjung, Rushbugled13, RxS, Ryan Postlethwaite, Ryan032, RyanGerbil10, Rykill892, SQGibbon, SRF, SU Linguist, Saber095, Saeedjn, Saintswithin, Salvio giuliano, Sam Spade, Sandstein, Sannse, Sarahbebright, Sarahfuzz97, Sarbear6, Sarranduin, Satori Son, Savh, Sbluen, Sceptre, Schumi555, Scott Sanchez, Scotvega18, Seaphoto, Seb, Seb az86556, Secret (renamed), Servant124, Sethlor, Settdigger, Shadowjams, Shanes, Shaunh86, Sheeana, Shellreef, Shift6, Shiftchange, Shizane, Shizhao, Shoeofdeath, Should55, SimonP, Simplyamazinqx, Singhalawap, Sir Lewk, Sjakkalle, Sjock, Sj, Skarebo, Skater, Sketch051, Skipsievert, Skittleys, Skizzik, Skomorokh, Skovoroda, Sky Attacker, Slazenger, Slightsmile, Slon02, Smalljim, SmilesALot, Smoulding, Snowmanmelting, Snowolf, Snozzer, Sok-not, Some jerk on the Internet, Sophie, Sophus Bie, Sourabhchopra, SpK, SpeedFreakMATT, Spellchecker, Spitfire, SpookyMulder, Srich32977, Sterlingstyles12, Steven Zhang, Stevertigo, Stivsommers, Str8Cool, Stwalkerster, Sue Rangell, Sun Creator, SuperStrags, SuperWikiDoom2, SusikMkr, SyntaxError55, Syrthiss, TBadger, TGoold6511, TR, Tabletop, Tacoman2, Tahu199397, Tallpaul8981, Tanaats, Tawker, Tbonnie, TedE, Tepidpond, Terjepetersen, Terrx, TestPilot, Tetraedycal, Tgeairn, Thatguyflint, Thavron, Thdrits, The Anonymouse, The Cunctator, The Houesse, The Thing That Should Not Be, The editorness, The president of south africa, The truth16, TheChrisD, TheGrimReaper NS, TheNeon, ThePassengerOfFreedom, TheProject, TheRanger, Theauthor13, Thecheesykid, Theda, Themightyquill, Theone00, ThesaurusRex, Think outside the box, Thiseye, Thisusless, Thomas Paine1776, Thomasmeeks, Thoughts in space, Thu, TicketMan, Tide rolls, TimProof, Timir2, Timschocker, Timwi, Titodutta, Titoxd, Tkn20, Tmrobertson, Tom harrison, Tomaxer, Tommy2010, TommyBoy, TostitosAreGross, Tournesol, Tpbradbury, TransUtopian, Traxs7, Treisijs, Tresiden, Trevor MacInnis, Trusilver, Twilitewolf20, Twsx, Tylerball22, Tyrol5, Ubermynsch, Ultimus, Uncle G, Under1111111, Unschool, Usapcool, Utcursch, Vasilcho, VasilievVV, Veinor, Venkat.athma, Vera Cruz, Vericuester, Vianello, Vicente810, VictorianMutant, Vilerage, Vineetcoolguy, Vipinhari, Vovkav, Vrenator, Vzbs34, Waggers, Wakebrdkid, Walkerma, Warpspeed555, Wavelength, Waxigloo, Wayne Slam, Webmazter, Weedwhacker128, WeniWidiWiki, Werdan7, WereSpielChequers, Wertydm, West.andrew.g, Why Not A Duck, Widr, Wiki alf, Wiki4646, WikiLaurent, WikiPuppies, Wikidudeman, WikipedianMarlith, Wikipelli, Wilfried Derksen, Wimt, WingateChristopher, Wingspeed, Wisco, Wizzard2k, Wknight94, Wlievens, Wolfdog, WookieInHeat, Wtflol101, Wtmitchell, Wng, X!, XGirX79, Xaro, Xcentaur, Xenon54, XxBrewKrewwwwxX, Xxfallenxxscreams, XxnecroxX, Yamamoto Ichiro, Yamanbaiia, Yorlfgj, Yossarian, Zaf, Zahid Abdassabur, ZeWrestler, Zula57, Zzuuzz, nfoCan, , 2462 anonymous edits Classical liberalism Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=533754687 Contributors: -Majestic-, 1wheel, 62.78.132.xxx, 808gravy, A.R., A.Samot, Academician, AdamRetchless, Al B. Free, Aleksd, Alex S, Alex2706, All Male Action, Allen3, Alphathon, Amtiss, Andrew Levine, AnnaFrance, Antandrus, Anthony, Aquillion, Arcadian Genesis, Arcanaman, Arjayay, Auntof6, Awotter, Bambuway, Bastin, Batmanand, Belovedfreak, Ben Arnold, BenAbuyah, Benson85, Bgwhite, Big Large Monster, BigK HeX, Billinghurst, Bjenks, Black Jam Block, Blacktrance, Blanchette, BlueGuy213, BoDu, Bobblehead, Bobisbob2, Bobo192, BrendelSignature, Brettpeace, Brianmullis, Britannicus, Bryan Derksen, Bstein80, Bullet Dropper, Burntsauce, Byelf2007, C-Liberal, CWenger, Can I touch it?, Carabinieri, Carbonite, Carolmooredc, Carrie18, Causa sui, Celsius1414, Centinel2, Centrx, Chaucer, Cheslowelsik, Chris the speller, Cjs2111, Classicalpolitics, Cmskog, Colchicum, Cold Porcelain, CommonsDelinker, Const, Conversion script, Cool Blue, CosmopolitanCapitalist, CounterEconomics, Courtmaster, Czrisher, D-Rock, DCNanney, DNewhall, DPC12015, Darolew, Database, Dayewalker, Deanlaw, Delirium, DemitreusFrontwest, Demoscho, DerHexer, Derek Ross, Dirtybutclean, DivineAlpha, Djuff, Dkriegls, Doctors without suspenders, Doldrums, Dolovis, DrCruse, DrGoNavy, DrRetard, Draeco, Dravecky, Dropperada, Dspencer, Dstlascaux, Dyfrgi, Dylan Lake, E9, EDM, Earth, Eastlaw, Eclecticology, Economizer, Ed Poor, El aprendelenguas, Electionworld, Elendil's Heir, Elmondo21st, Erus bellum, Erweinstein, Esoltas, Estlandia, Excirial, FF2010, Fagstein, Far, Faulah, Felisopus, FeloniousMonk, Fifelfoo, Financestudent, Flet, FloNight, Fluri, FormerIP, Freemarket, FrenchTouchLiberal, Fubar Obfusco, Fuhghettaboutit, G-Man, GAPlauche, Gaius Cornelius, Gardar Rurak, Gegorg, Ghewgill, Givegains, Goethean, Goyaz, Gregbard, GreggW, Grenavitar, Gssq, Gtg732w, Gurch, Guy Macon, Gzkn, HalfShadow, Handsome Jack, HappyCamper, Harry491, Harryboyles, Harvestdancer, Haukurth, HighKing, Hmains, Hogeye, HomoIlluminatus?, Hosterweis, How cme tkn4, Hu12, Huangdi, Humane Edits, Hylaride, Hypocritepedia4, Iliev, Instantiayion, Intangible, Intangible2.0, Introman, Ioannes Pragensis, Itsdaileyyy, J.delanoy, J0lt C0la, J8079s, JDM77, JDnCoke, JHP, JTBX, JW1805, JacquesDemien, Jadabocho, Jadon, JamesReyes, Jamesinderbyshire, Jarkeld, JayJasper, JettaMann, Jmabel, JohnCD, Johnbradleytlh, Johndburger, JonDePlume, JonHarder, Jonlevy93, JoseREMY, Just zis Guy, you know?, K, KConWiki, KDRGibby, Kasyapa, Katzenberger, Kelisi, Kesla, Kgrr, KillerChihuahua, King of Hearts, Kitteneatkitten, KnightRider, Kokiri, Ksz4, Kurykh, KyZan, L Kensington, La goutte de pluie, Lapafrax, Lawrencekhoo, Learn From It, LevenBoy, Levineps, Liberty4u, Light current, Ligulem, LilHelpa, Limoira, Logan, LoneWolf1992, Lost.goblin, Lou Sander, Lovepool1690, LowBlow, LukeTH, Lusitana, Lussmu, MSGJ, Mackan79, Maelnuneb, Makgraf, Manthrax3, Many Heads, Marek69, Marudubshinki, Materialscientist, Matt Gies, Mcduarte2000, MeUser42, Meltwaternord, Metamagician3000, Modulatum, Mrdthree, Mshecket, MutantPlatypus, NaBUru38, Nashhinton, Nat Krause, Neutrality, NickelKnowledge, Nikodemos, Nipisiquit, Nunquam Dormio, Nydas, OTer, O^O, OceanDepths, Octoghlon, Ohnoitsjamie, Omegatron, Oo7565, Operation Spooner, PaleoLib, Pass a Method, Pearle, Peter1c, Philip Stevens, Philwelch, Placid, Pmyteh, Political Guru, Proud Ho, PublicSquare, Pumper, Purplebackpack89, Pyroclastic, Qmwne235, R Lowry, RCB45, RJFF, RJII, RL0919, Rabidcentipede, Radgeek, Radical Mallard, Random71, Rchamberlain, Rcsprinter123, Red Bulls Fan, RedBlade7, Reddi, Reinyday, Rich Farmbrough, Rick Norwood, Rintrah, Rjensen, Rjwellings, Roarkgodard, Robocracy, RotaryAce, Rothbardanswer, Rouenpucelle, Rtdixon86, SFinside, Sajita, Sam Francis, Sansvoix, Sardanaphalus, Saruman-the-white, Scott Burley, Sct72, SebMel, SergeMtl, Seven days seven nights, Shadowthedog, Shirik, Shonstar, Shoreranger, Sigma 7, SimonP, Singwaste, Sintaku, Skaakt, Skomorokh, Slizor, SmartyBoots, Snake item, Snooker, Snowded, Soxwon, Spangineer, SpongerJack, Srich32977, Stcaaty, Steel, Stenge, Stephen Compall, Stevenmitchell, Straw Cat, Super-Magician, SyntaxTerror, TFOWR, Tacorama, Tahgof, Tamfang, Tang23, Tbhotch, Technogeek, Teeninvestor, Teppic, Terra Novus, The Anome, The Cunctator, The Four Deuces, The Green Fish, The Land, TheArguer, TheOldJacobite, Thechanblog, Thekaoruhitachin, Timotheus Canens, Timwi, Tom harrison, Tomster583, TonyLechner, Treekids, Trueliberal, TrulyTory, Tyrol5, UberCryxic, Ultramarine, Unimaginative Username, Universalcosmos, Urinbecken, User1961914, Username 411, Valois bourbon, Veralto, Vermincelli, VersaWorka, VictorAnyakin, Vision Thing, VoluntarySlave, Volunteer Marek, Warren Dew, Washburnmav, Wcp07, Weedro, WellGull, Wereon, Wesley, What are you on about?, Whichmore, WikiPuppies, Wilfried Derksen, William M. Connolley, Woland1234, Woohookitty, Wooster, Wtfk, Xmacro, Yaf, Zachorious, Zenohockey, Zigz0gger, Zigzogger, Zzuuzz, 709 anonymous edits

41

Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors

42

Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors

File:Leviathan gr.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Leviathan_gr.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Denniss, Dodo, Erkan Yilmaz, Interpretix, JMCC1, Kajk, Mattes, Pfctdayelise, Richard001, Suruena, Thegreenj, Theredmonkey, Tom Reedy, 9 anonymous edits File:PD-icon.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:PD-icon.svg License: Public Domain Contributors: Alex.muller, Anomie, Anonymous Dissident, CBM, MBisanz, PBS, Quadell, Rocket000, Strangerer, Timotheus Canens, 1 anonymous edits Image:Forms of government.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Forms_of_government.svg License: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike Contributors: Jackaranga File:Electoral democracies.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Electoral_democracies.png License: Public Domain Contributors: Joowwww, updated by 23prootie for 2011 and MaGioZal for 2009, 2010 and 2012 File:Formas de governo.PNG Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Formas_de_governo.PNG License: Public Domain Contributors: Eduardo Sellan III File:1846 - Anti-Corn Law League Meeting.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:1846_-_Anti-Corn_Law_League_Meeting.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Adam sk, Oxyman File:JohnLocke.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:JohnLocke.png License: Public Domain Contributors: Dcoetzee, Diomede, FranksValli, Herbythyme, Hystrix, Kilom691, Raymond, Shakko, 7 anonymous edits File:AdamSmith.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:AdamSmith.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Etching created by Cadell and Davies (1811), John Horsburgh (1828) or R.C. Bell (1872). The original depiction of Smith was created in 1787 by James Tassie in the form of an enamel paste medallion. Smith did not usually sit for his portrait, so a considerable number of engravings and busts of Smith were made not from observation but from the same enamel medallion produced by Tassie, an artist who could convince Smith to sit.

License

43

License
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported //creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/