Every Type of Government Explained in 10 Minutes | History Teacher Reacts | The Paint Explainer

[@MrTerry]

What type of government is best?

[@Ghost_Toast5000]

The one where I'm in charge!

[@doctordogelordtmg9637]

​@@Ghost_Toast5000 LOL

[@map6205]

halo

[@nate2064]

Mr terry my loyalty is to the republic TO DEMOCRACY!!!

[@ProbsNotLiam]

IMO Democratic Socialism or maybe a constitutional Monarchy 0:24

[@colinparris]

Technically if you use Louis XIV as an example of a theocracy. You could, in a roundabout and slightly tenuous way, argue that the current UK constitutional monarchy is a theocracy as the current King is also the head of the Church of England which is the established official state religion in the UK.

[@AIHumanEquality]

Except the King has little to no authority cause Parliament has controlled almost everything for a long time now. Louis XIV had power and control. Very different.

[@merro31]

Apart from the king of England has no real power and is just a figurehead

[@colinparris]

Yes it is different. I wasn't seriously claiming the UK is a theocracy. But mentioned it more as an interesting point in that the arrangement is in contrast to a lot of other modern democracies today. The king also still has considerable legal powers in the UK constitution but only exercises those powers on the advice of the. Prime Minister due to convention. The legal powers are there though. But they are not used (and realistically couldn't be used) in practice.

[@kfiraltberger552]

9:27 Really though, that's what he said right? The Soviet union was Totalitarian under Stalin, a charismatic (intimidation is a charisma skill) leader with a fixed world view. You may also argue the same about Lenin and Krushchev, and only after them does it become more of a one-party state rather than a one-person state. Also, after Krushchev it kinda isn't as totalitarian anymore, which still justifies his definition. I'd say Soviet union after Krushchev is authoritarian, not totalitarian

[@AIHumanEquality]

Lenin did want to return the power to the people eventually he was busy trying to stablize the country for the majority of his time in office and died fairly young from strokes. Lenin being more authoritarian had a purpose. Without that Russia would have fallen into chaos. Stalin however came in and ruined all of Lenin's plans.

[@YAH2121]

"Anarchies turn into feudal states" wow i actually agree, I never thought of it that far.

[@caim3465]

At least feudalism seems less bad than our current system

[@yosephbuitrago897]

13:40 this is so true, and it’s something that archo-capitalists never seem to understand, If they get their way, and we end up in an ararcho-capitalist society, then sooner rather than later we will end up with brutal and oppressive feudalism based on whoever will be the first to dominate and control vital resources like water or food production and use those resources to control others

[@AIHumanEquality]

The US already basically is set up that way.

[@Makarosc]

Argentina pay attention

[@liarwithagun]

That is basically true of every flavor of ancharism. Whether it be the capitalist, communist, or other version. Those people always seem so convinced their ideologies' rule or rules universally apply with no caveats.

[@maddizzle1744]

This is why any anarchists with half a brain cell become minarchists at least. A functioning anarchic society still needs universal guidelines like the NAP and punishments for breaking them.

[@AIHumanEquality]

The US was a Confederacy and so was Canada for awhile. Fun fact that not many people seem to know that Canada was originally called the Canadian Confederation.

[@elix901]

Yeah that didn’t last long in the US.

[@AIHumanEquality]

@@elix901 I'm talking pre-revolution US not the Civil War.

[@maddizzle1744]

​@LGBTQlegend It didnt last long in the US either. The Articles of Confederation only lasted like 5 years.

[@thumper8684]

Anarchism was a significant force in the Spanish republic. They achieved influence through the trades unions, but also had support among the rural peasantry.

[@davidburroughs2244]

hierarchies always from whether as school age youngsters and adults. How many act only "positively," though ... depends on how "positively" is defined.

[@adam-obaseball]

Wendigoon did a 2hr long video explaining every government type on the political compass. I think it was far better than a 10min crash course. Were there mistakes? Probably, but it was informative.

[@vaudreelavallee3757]

Feudal - you saw that with the seigneurs and habitants of New France. The habitants had more rights than the peasants back home. The seigneurs had certain responsibilities, such as providing a mill to grind their grain. That is why the Montreal Canadians (NHL hockey) are known as the Habs when they used to have more French players.

[@TheChernobylNPP]

Another amazing video Mr Terry!

[@diegocadavid3406]

If you haven’t done Monsieur Z’s political compass test of every president I feel like that would be a good video for you to react to

[@KommandoCraftLP]

Okay some of those I've never heard about as a definition but did see historically or in my own home country actually, like demarchy: Of course it is only a tiniest part of how our government works but there exist so called "Bürgerräte" (citizen councils) that are a randomly selected group of citizen working together on a topic to suggest certain actions to the government.

[@AIHumanEquality]

Type of Government is very vague. We do often simplfy a lot of governments with basic titles like Democracy, Totalitarianism, Authoritarian, Fascism, etc. but the reality is that Governments run very differently. There's no blueprint for how to establish a government "type". A classic example would be Castro's Cuba vs Stalin's Russia vs Hitler's Germany. All ruled by one person at the top with complete power yet every single government had very different policies. And I have heard people who believed every authoritarian government is the same and every democracy is the same, but they just aren't.

[@colinparris]

In some confederations, an enforcing body could exist. A classic example would be the European Union.

[@Rishnotfishandnochips]

Except that the EU isn’t confederal

[@AIHumanEquality]

The EU is an alliance not a Confederation. The EU doesn't consider itself it's own nationality or nation.

[@colinparris]

The EU has government institutions and a constitution. It also definitely does have its own nationality. EU citizenship is a real thing which gives legal rights to people who have it. The EU also has elections and a parliament and an executive. It also has diplomatic representation around the world. I agree that its not a sovereign state but I think a confederation is defined as a political union of sovereign states linked by treaty. This is the closest union of sovereign states we currently have in the world. You have to admit that it looks very very similar to a confederation.

[@AIHumanEquality]

@@colinparris The EU doesn't have a Constitution(Although it has been trying to make one), it does have 7 main institutions. The EU was formed to unite Europe in the hopes of preventing another World War. Joining and staying in the EU is voluntary and there's no "enforcement" body. Everything is based on agreements. There is no nationality nor citizenship associated with the EU, there are partnerships from each country who joins. The EU parliament does not create laws, they simply approve or reject proposed ones. The head of the EU is the EU Council which generally comprises of the elected leaders(Prime Minister/President) of each country in the EU. There is no judicial branch of the EU like there is in the UN.

[@colinparris]

@@AIHumanEquality there is no single written constitution, you're right. But there are constitutional foundational documents. EU citizenship is a thing which was created with the Maastricht treaty of 1992. It doesn't replace national citizenship but it gives EU citizens certain rights and legal protections. The enforcement body of the EU is the European Court of Justice and European Commission. They both have enforcement duties and powers. There is obviously no enforcement in terms of an EU police or military though. It is a voluntary body, that's true. It started as an association of countries looking to cooperate economically after world war two but the trend over the past 60/70 years has been closer and closer political and economic union among more and more member states. (Not making any comment on whether that's a good or bad thing).

[@chris-parker]

"For the Republic!"

[@jasonfisher8689]

When the Mayflower landed in Massachusetts and the pilgrims started the Plymoth colony, They originally made one big farm that they all worked together. What kind of government would that be?

[@Grizcat-]

You should look into the channel Chat History, I just found them and I feel like it’s exactly the type of content you typically watch on the channel and he has an interesting o’nella adjacent style

[@sheilakirby5616]

BEST EXPLANATION EVER *** YOU MY FRIEND JUST EARNED YOURSELF A NEW SUBSCRIBER ❣️❣️❣️

[@crazybrain87]

Us uses technocracy by asking the best to help fix problems

[@AutoReport1]

Roman emperors were also granted the title of pontifex maximus, giving religious as well as secular authority to the emperor.

[@NapoleanBlown-aparte]

Under 1k views club because i was too late for the 10 mins club

[@FuzzyMarineVet]

It seems to me that all forms of government can be broken down along a line from individualism to authoritarianism. Every government falls somewhere along this line and history is the story of the tension between the individual and the collective. This seems to play out in economics as well, where corporations or socialist governments collect the power of the economy in the hands of the few while the free enterprise market puts the power of the economy in the hands of the individuals.

[@rickvandepavert1764]

19:27 Bless you

[@DBArtsCreators]

I hope we never are ruled by a Technocracy or Noocracy. To put it simply: wise people are often foolish, and intelligent people are often stupid. Simply being "the best" with working with some type of technology or "the experienced" with a philosophy does not make one good at managing civic policies & situations.

[@firbolg]

Switzerland is officially called the Swiss Confederation but we are indeed a federation. We started as a confederation but evolved into a federation. And the canton (state) I live in is officially the Republic of Geneva.

[@stingwizard4766]

Anarchism worked fairly well in Acadia

[@IulianYT]

Regarding "technocracy" - don't know how in other countries, we even had few self-proclaimed "technocrat" governments (while in reality they were just to shy to recognize a coalition), but in my country, working in the private sector is better payed and it has far less stress. And I believe most of decent engineers feel the same. So it would be nice, but it requires some special mindset to switch from "zone of comfort" to political rule.

[@kfiraltberger552]

I live in a Kleptocracy🇮🇱

[@Touhou20246]

A part of me actually likes the idea of a technoacracy.😅👍🏻🤔🤨🧐🥰

[@TheGameDomeGuy]

1:24 this part made me chuckle "a marxist would say is the opposite" and yet most of the legacy of the nations that embraced marxist ideologies kinda ended up as dictatorships, oligarchies and some rather shaky and very corrupt "republics" (also oligarchies but they attempt to appear democatric AKA russia)

[@AIHumanEquality]

A common misconception. Marxism was just the criticism of capitalism. It did not in any way say how to build a society or government.

[@seroujghazarian6343]

Monarchies aren't always heriditary. There are elective monarchies

[@eveljkov]

no pure system is best. balance in all things.

[@TheGameDomeGuy]

11:15 yeah i think it could be... tho its gonna take a few generations for the planet to arrive at that stage or at least i think so

[@AutoReport1]

That's not how feudalism develops. Also it's not so much a form of government but a system of land tenure. Fuedalism developed from odalism. Under odalism, land was held as an inherited patrimony, but increased productivity or consolidation required increased public and military service and judicial authority in the absence of a central government. Over time developing central monarchies changed the philosophy so that land tenure was not freehold but granted or recognized by the monarch in return for this public service and could be taken away at the monarch's discretion. This land rather than being inherited was held in fief. This extended to commercial monopolies. Some land is still held in fief, but much had been converted to freehold with the aim of collecting inheritance and other land taxes (how can you pay taxes on land that isn't yours?).

[@mistyhaney5565]

I think feudalism may be the natural result of an area no longer having a centralized government. I don't necessarily believe that it would occur organically within a population that had never had a centralized government.

[@MattnessLP]

I can sorta understand where the anti-democratic movement of the past years comes from. Federal democracy as it is practiced in the US or my home country of Germany certainly has its flaws. But it is still the best form of government humans have come up with so far, and it's certainly better than the authoritarian regimes governing countries like Russia, China or North Korea

[@Bolt8864]

You need to watch the entire history of World War One, I guess by paprika gaming

[@mistyhaney5565]

I have a few things to add, authoritarian and totalitarian aren't forms of government, they're ways in which governments conduct themselves. A couple of forms he missed, dictatorship, and stratocracy (ruled by military chiefs). Last thing, I really think we need to find a way to distinguish theoretical/philosophical communism, from governments that have claimed to be communistic, neither of which do I think fit the definition provided. I would suggest simply changing what we call the idea which only exists in theory, but the word communism is used so much in all the writings we have about it. Most people only know it's bad, and are only vaguely aware of the behaviors of the governments that claim to be communist. I don't engage in political discussions online, but I do watch others, and it is incredibly frustrating to listen to two or more people discuss political ideas and have them utilizing, either the two different definitions of communism, and talking past each other, or have one individual mix and match aspects of the two.

[@C4Snipes]

Is Haiti considered an anarchy or is there still some constructive government

[@nono-bz2hb]

There still a government however they are so weak that the country might as well be considered anarchy

[@nono-bz2hb]

It would be considered an anarchist state due to the collapse of the government

[@C4Snipes]

@@nono-bz2hb wasn’t sure how far along the collapse had to be like what is the line.

[@TheAltSter]

id say rather an anomy than an anarchy

[@C4Snipes]

@@TheAltSter maybe if a gang is still in control that is still a sort of authority entity. I don’t know depends on if your recognize the government in place however it doesn’t matter if it isn’t recognized because the people who are there respect them out of fear of their own life

[@map6205]

halo

[@ChibiHobbit904]

Before 10 minutes club

[@I.am.not.in.your.house.or.am.I]

12 min club

[@johnwhite5094]

Feudalism is the natural evolution from a period of anarchy. Might makes right under anarchy and the weaker need to seek support from those stronger.

[@themalcontent100]

1:27 some would say that we are getting there. this is the reason why monolpoies are very, very bad. Would North Korea be regarded as an absolute monachy? It does look like something out of ancient euorpe with a king, a bunch of lords, and the pesantry. and so far it has inherited. And China could just be labeled an Empire. it isn't communist no matter what anyone says. They even took the idea of 99 years of rule from the British in regards to taking over other country ports. 11:22 if 2020 has proven us anything, it is degrees does not equal braincells and scientists can be bought.

[@theravagepirate]

Can anyone explain in simple terms peronism.

[@cody3504]

I heard Elon Musk will be running for president so maybe we will see Technocracy at some point

[@i_teleported_bread7404]

Would Ancient China be considered a theocracy due to their belief in the mandate of heaven?

[@hellhound7482]

AI warning: I let ChatGPT edit my comment and re-edited it again, which is why it may sound strange. I used to support technocracy, but now I see numerous examples of fraudsters like Elizabeth Holmes, Elon Musk, or Mark Zuckerberg employing strategies such as buying out competition and aimlessly throwing money at the problems of the metaverse. Moreover, there's the issue of mistreatment of workers at companies like Tesla and Twitter. I've come to doubt that technocracy would be effective, but the lack of a viable governmental alternative is troubling. Democracy is seen by me as corrupt, inefficient, ignorant, unequal, and excessively bureaucratic. Yet, other systems of government are even worse. Hence, I find myself opposed to any system of government. I'd characterize myself as a progressive anarcho-communist because of this stance. I desire two things: freedom and equality. By freedom, I mean freedom of speech and advocating for direct democracy. I also support the freedom to own firearms, although I believe they should be non-automatic for public safety reasons. Additionally, I believe the means of production should be collectively owned to prevent monopolies. In general, actions that could harm others against their will should be prohibited. While drugs may not be healthy, individuals should have the freedom to choose to use them once informed of the risks. Furthermore, I believe in equal distribution of wealth, so everyone receives the same compensation for their work per hour. This encourages mutual support and education while discouraging laziness, as shirking work would result in less income for oneself and others.

[@joecrazy9896]

OK, but if it's anarchy, under whose authority are you gonna obtain and distribute that wealth? Also, what if somebody doesn't want to give up what they have? Are you gonna use force to do so because that doesn't sound all that "free" to me. Basically, what I'm saying is that you can't both have "anarchy," but also have rules that limit the kinds of weapons or the wealth you're allowed to accumulate. You'd need some kind of authority to enforce that because under an anarcho system, there isn't any way to stop someone from doing the thing you're against.

[@hellhound7482]

​@@joecrazy9896 Well, laws can be made and enforced as long as it is the people's decision, because anarchy is not against democracy but only against indirect democracy. I think it should be a bit like the Vikings "thing". For an example, someone built on the property of someone else, so if they are not capable of talking it out, they can bring it to the weekly thing where the locals group for case law, where all sides explain what's going on out of their view and the people can vote for what will be done. If some, for example, were voted guilty of murder, they could vote for exile or therapy. In general, it's illegal to take someone else's freedom without the peoples/thing permission.

[@joecrazy9896]

@hellhound7482 But the point of anarchy is that there isn't any form of political authority. You are saying there are still laws and people that enforce that, which means that there is, in fact, some kind of political authority. Which is using force at the end of the day, in which that punishment you are suggesting would need in order to enforce that upon an individual. It's no longer anarchy if you can legally take away a persons freedom via someone else's authority. Another question is how would you get that person into that trial in the first place? You said the people can still be armed, what's stopping that person from barricading his/her home/property and defend himself/herself. What's stopping his friends or family from helping them out, making it a kind of militia force. There are only other people with the same "level" of firepower to go against them.

[@hellhound7482]

@@joecrazy9896 You definitely make a good point there. The saying goes, "My freedom ends where yours begins” So the question would be, is it okay to take freedom to protect freedom, and if yes, would it then still be freedom? My head hurts xD so. If it is not freedom anymore, and it's not possible to protect freedom, it would only be possible to be free without other humans who could oppress you or would need to be oppressed for your freedom. So we have only the choice of being oppressed or to be lonely. Well, now I'm depressed.

[@joecrazy9896]

@hellhound7482 That's the thing, there are always gonna be conflicting ideas and beliefs. That will always get in the way of utopian ideas. Because from how you describe anarco-communism, it does fall under utopian thinking. In some regards, communism by itself is rather utopian because the whole "moneyless/classless" thing can only really work if we get rid of not only scarcity, but the very human drive to want more and compete with others. It could work on a small scale, get together with like-minded individuals, buy yourselves a couple of acres in the middle of nowhere, and have your commun. It's when you try to do it at a larger scale that is where you run into real issues. Eventually, you'll run into people who just won't like that idea and want to be left alone. Maybe into an entirely different group who's got beliefs and ideas that aren't compatible with yours. Tribe vs tribe, then it could get violent, you start drawing lines, then bang, you're right back to where we started with nation states that can grow rapidly. Maybe that idea could work if we're a hivemind, where only the whole matters. However, we'd no longer have individuality or free will at that point. Personally, I'd like to keep mine.

[@NatashaBezbrozh]

So there's a difference between people who are smart and otherwise and Elon Musk is not intelligent in the sense you seek to demonstrate he is merely an investor he had some schooling I believe you are referring to the engineers who actually drive his company those in a technocracy intellect and technical skill I agree with this as long as we are not talking about wealthy investors who run tech companies.

[@MalikF15]

Before twenty minute mark

[@tordsol2876]

Nicee

[@stapuft]

Elon musk don't know shit about shit.

[@decim161]

I was disappointed at his view of anarchism

[@adamwest8256]

I get so tired of hearing people say we need to protect our democracy! The United States of America is not a fucking democracy! We are a representative Republic! For fuck sake, why does everyone forget that?!?!

[@isaacgleeth3609]

A republic is a type of democratic government. Why are you forgetting that!?

[@weepingscorpion8739]

Yes, but your representatives are elected democratically through elections. That is why you are also democratic/have democracy. This video also calls it representative democracy as opposed to direct democracy. I feel like some people intentionally narrow the meaning of the word democracy to just include direct democracy but I am sure that when about 90+% of people say democracy they mean representative democracy since that is the one that virtually the entire globe uses.

[@AIHumanEquality]

The US is an Oligarchic Plutocracy. If you still think your vote matters much in America you need a wake up call from George Carlin. Big business controls EVERYTHING in the US from politics to the media.

[@AIHumanEquality]

The US democracy is almost as fake a democracy as you can get. Big businesses really run America.

[@bigty390]

We are a republic ​@@weepingscorpion8739