Table of Contents for Governance Systems Design

this isnt a real chapter, just a todo list for me


what chapter does this sort of stuff go into? theory?


Influence terms

One of his many contributions is his explication of the varieties of power, which he defines as A getting B to do what A wants. Dahl prefers the more neutral "influence terms" (Michael G. Roskin), which he arrayed on a scale from best to worst:

    Rational Persuasion, the nicest form of influence, means telling the truth and explaining why someone should do something, like a doctor convincing a patient to stop smoking.
    Manipulative persuasion, a notch lower, means lying or misleading to get someone to do something.
    Inducement, still lower, means offering rewards or punishments to get someone to do something, like bribery.
    Power threatens severe punishment, such as jail or loss of a job.
    Coercion is power with no way out.
    Physical force is backing up coercion with use or threat of bodily harm.

Thus, the governments that use influence at the higher end of the scale are best. The worst use the unpleasant forms of influence at the lower end.[citation needed]

Democracy and polyarchies Main article: polyarchy

In his book, Democracy and Its Critics (1989), Dahl clarifies his view about democracy. No modern country meets the ideal of democracy, which is as a theoretical utopia. To reach the ideal requires meeting five criteria:[10]

    Effective participation
    Citizens must have adequate and equal opportunities to form their preference and place questions on the public agenda and express reasons for one outcome over the other.
    Voting equality at the decisive stage
    Each citizen must be assured his or her judgments will be counted as equal in weights to the judgments of others.
    Enlightened understanding
    Citizens must enjoy ample and equal opportunities for discovering and affirming what choice would best serve their interests.
    Control of the agenda
    Demos or people must have the opportunity to decide what political matters actually are and what should be brought up for deliberation.
    Equality must extend to all citizens within the state. Everyone has legitimate stake within the political process.

Instead, he calls politically advanced countries "polyarchies". Polyarchies have elected officials, free and fair elections, inclusive suffrage, rights to run for office, freedom of expression, alternative information and associational autonomy. Those institutions are a major advance in that they create multiple centers of political power.[11] " [1]



incorporate [2] [3] [4], [5], [6], [7] esp [8] ,

mb read some books like and incorporate?


link to the metagovernment project and similar projects


some notes on the European feudal system and nobility:

the feudal system appeared to arise from situations in which (a) there was a lack of security, (b) the most important form of wealth was land. Local military rulers sprang up. Military rulers ('lords') who owned land (the original owners were called alloidal owners) delegated land ('fiefs') to others ('vassals') in exchange for some amount of loyalty as well some other form of 'rent' (the opposite of vassal, the word for the lord granting the land, is suzerain; " any relationship in which one region or polity controls the foreign policy and relations of a tributary state, while allowing the tributary state to have internal autonomy." [9]). A person could be a vassal to multiple lords simultaneously.

Vassals tended to be the loyal companions of the rulers, other soldiers, and competing but weaker rulers. The 'rent' tended to be military service. These relationship, either immediately or over time, became hereditary, and the various lords and vassals became nobles. Nobles, at least high nobles, were sometimes thought of as people who had some form of power/rights indepenently of the king (e.g. "Ealdorman...was a term in Anglo-Saxon England which originally applied to a man of high status, including some of royal birth, whose authority was independent of the king." [10]). Some nobles had land and some didn't, some had titles and some didn't, some had the right to sit in a national council, and some didn't. There were other forms of lease besides a lord-vassal relationship; commoners could sometimes rent land from nobles without themselves becoming either vassals or nobles.

Some nobles (eventually only monarchs) could ennoble commoners into nobles. One way a commoner could become a noble was to serve as a soldier and earn distinction in battle, which could cause them to be knighted.

Knights were (originally) soldiers who were nobles. Originally knights could knight other knights, but eventualy the monarch reserved the sole right to create new knights ('fount of honor') [11].

The king often required the permission of the nobles to levy taxes, and so when they needed money, they often had to summon the nobles to sit in a national council, at which point the nobles would often negotiate concessions from the king in exchange for the tax raise he wanted.

Often the less powerful nobles had limits on how much they were allowed to punish people in the context of the judicial system; local authorities were often only permitted to give light corporal punishment, and only higher authorities were permitted to apply of death and torture. See [12].

Over time the typical military service 'rent' became replaced by obligations to deliver goods and eventually money; the lords transmuted from military rulers to 'noble gentlemen' who believed themselves a superior class of person for reasons other than military might; and in some countries power was slowly taken away from various nobles and centralized around monarchs. Eventually the national councils became legislative bodies, and power was slowly (or rapidly) taken away from these monarchs and given to modern democratic forms of government. Eventually the role of knights was replaced by commissioned officers in the military. In some cases educational degrees have taken part of the role of the status of nobility; e.g. in England, regarding applications for coats of arms, "Applications are open to anyone with a 'reputable status' (normally including a university degree, but officially down to the discretion of the College)." [13]; e.g. in the US military, an educational degree is a prerequisite for an officer commission.

The classes of people tended to go:

Below nobles were commoners, with names like peasant.

Intermingled with and somewhat parallel to this power structure was the church power structure.

A rough concordance of European noble titles, in descending order of rank, is:

duke/herzog marquess/marquis/margrave earl/count/comes/jarl (note the etymological relationship between 'count' and 'county') (note that in some times and places, 'jarl' was just below the king, more like a duke) viscount baron

Note that the word nobles later etymologically evolved to denote goodness, and some names for commoners later etymologically evolved to denote badness (e.g. churl, villein).

Note that the etymologies of various ranks often denotes either:

See ,,,_royal_and_noble_ranks , , , , , , , ,

 the 'peerage' seem to be:

duke marquis=margrave=count of the marches (border count) earl=count=ealdorman (count as in county)=graf=greve viscount baron

the peerage sat in the house of lords.

then there was minor gentry including knights. then yeomen. then serfs. then slaves, but we wont use that.

thegn was an older word that got converted into barons and knights.


Military counts in the Late Empire and the Germanic successor kingdoms were often appointed by a dux and later by a king. From the start the count was not in charge of a roving warband, but settled in a locality, known as a county; his main rival for power was the bishop, whose diocese was sometimes coterminous with the county. In many Germanic and Frankish kingdoms in the early Middle Ages, a count might also be a count palatine, whose authority derived directly from the royal household, the "palace" in its original sense of the seat of power and administration.



Since the feudal era, any count whose territory lay within the Empire and was under the immediate jurisdiction of the Emperor with a shared vote in the Reichstag came to be considered a member of the "upper nobility" (Hochadel) in Germany, along with princes (Fürsten), dukes (Herzöge), electors, and the emperor himself.[4] A count who was not a Reichsgraf was likely to possess only a mesne fief (Afterlehen) — he was subject to an immediate prince of the empire, such as a duke or prince elector.


In the old days knight knighted new knights, but later the sovereign usurped that perogative:

in germany


he titles of elector, grand duke, archduke, duke, landgrave, margrave, count palatine, prince and Reichsgraf were borne by rulers who belonged to Germany's Hochadel. Other counts, as well as barons (Freiherren), lords (Herren), knights (Ritter)[14] were borne by noble, non-reigning families. The vast majority of the German nobility, however, inherited no titles, and were usually distinguishable only by the nobiliary particle von in their surnames.


in old china there were a class of ppl who had passed exams:


Napoléon Bonaparte established his own hereditary titles during the Empire, and these new aristocrats were confirmed in legal retention of their titles even after his overthrow. In all, about 2200 titles were created by Napoleon I: Princes and Dukes: sovereign princes (3) duchies grand fiefs (20) victory princes (4) victory dukedoms (10) other dukedoms (3) Counts (251) Barons (1516) Knights (385) "

wikipedia has a useful table:,_royal_and_noble_ranks#Corresponding_titles_of_nobility_between_languages

So basically that table we have

duke marquis (napolean had no marquis?) count baron knight gentleman

also see thegn/thane, ealdorman, high-reeve

yeoman in france may have been franklin. freeman could be another term.

"t. Originally, a gentleman was a man of the lowest rank of the English gentry, standing below an esquire and above a yeoman. By definition, this category included the younger sons of the younger sons of peers and the younger sons of baronets, knights, and esquires in perpetual succession, and thus the term captures the common denominator of gentility (and often armigerousness) shared by both constituents of the English aristocracy: the peerage and the gentry"

another list of castes at

note that in some contexts prince was a ruler of a PRINCipality, not the son of a king as is nowadays used. sometimes the sons of a ruler were given a title a little power than their father, so sons of kings were dukes or princes, sons of dukes were earls, etc.

you can be an untitled noble (part of the lower nobility)


Hochadel[edit] Hochadel ("upper nobility", or "high nobility") were those noble houses which ruled sovereign states within the Holy Roman Empire and later, in the German Confederation and the German Empire. They were royalty; the heads of these families were entitled to be addressed by some form of "Majesty" or "Highness". These were the families of kings (Bavaria, Hanover, Prussia, Saxony, and Württemberg), grand dukes (Baden, Hesse and by Rhine, Luxembourg, Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Oldenburg and Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach), reigning dukes (Anhalt, Brunswick, Schleswig-Holstein, Nassau, Saxe-Altenburg, Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Saxe-Meiningen), and reigning princes (Hohenzollern-Hechingen, Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, Liechtenstein, Lippe, Reuss, Schaumburg-Lippe, Schwarzburg, and Waldeck-Pyrmont). The Hochadel also included the Empire's formerly quasi-sovereign families whose domains had been mediatised within the German Confederation by 1815, yet preserved the legal right to continue royal intermarriage with still-reigning dynasties


Niederer Adel[edit] Nobility that held legal privileges until 1918 greater than those enjoyed by commoners, but less than those enjoyed by the Hochadel, were considered part of the lower nobility or Niederer Adel. Most were untitled, only making use of the particle von in their surnames. Higher-ranking noble families of the Niederer Adel bore such hereditary titles as Ritter (knight), Freiherr (or baron) and Graf. Although most German counts belonged officially to the lower nobility, those who were mediatised belonged to the Hochadel, the heads of their families being entitled to be addressed as Erlaucht ("Illustrious Highness"), rather than simply as Hochgeboren ("High-born"). There were also some German noble families, especially in Austria, Prussia and Bavaria, whose head bore the titles of Fürst (prince) or Herzog (duke); however, never having exercised a degree of sovereignty, they were accounted members of the lower nobility (e.g., Bismarck, Blücher, Pless, Wrede).


"Not all nobles have the same rank; instead, the Emperor claimed to be the highest-ranking noble in all of Europe (a claim that sometimes even went uncontested), followed by kings, dukes, counts, barons (Freiherrn), knights, "noblemen" (Edle, although afaik this only existed in Bavaria and Austria) and finally even a group of title-less nobility, only marked by a von in their name. "

" Latin aulicus (“of a prince's court”), from aula (“royal court”), from Ancient Greek αὐλή (aulḗ, “courtyard”). "



3 points · 11 months ago Surprising that you would focus that hard on hierarchies of medieval nobility in HRE without mentioning the distinction between Edelfreie and Ministeriale.

level 2 systemmetternich

6 points · 11 months ago I wasn’t really talking about the Middle Ages though, but the Early Modern where I was under the impression (and please correct me if I’m wrong) that by then this distinction had long since vanished or rather evolved into the various hierarchies I had mentioned. I at least can’t remember ever seeing „edelfrei“ or „Ministerialer“ in an early modern context.



level 2 ConsiderableHat?

10 points · 11 months ago Another hierarchy was the difference between imperial and "landsässig" nobility. I can't find an English translation for the latter word, but it basically means that you had not been ennobled by and/or didn't swear fealty directly to the Emperor, but by and to your local prince. I'd be surprised if there was a direct translation, as the ability to subinfeudinate like that was lost in 1290 in England, with the passage of the Statute of Quia Emptores - lands alienated after that point were not held of the grantor, but of the grantor's lord. So a local Earl couldn't make new barons any more, but could only sell an existing manor lordship or barony that he held, whether in addition to his main title or as a result of an escheat. (The changes this brought about in how English Law of Real Property and aristocratic politics worked are fascinating, but outside the scope of OP's question.)



Martin Scheutz differentiates between five groups of nobility in early modern Europe, and I'll simply translate him here: The Imperial Princes, the Magnates in Bohemia, Hungary and Poland, the British Lords, the Spanish Grandees and the nobiltiy at the French royal court constituted the so-called "old nobility", which owned and controlled large swathes of land and sometimes even was able to operate within several different countries. "


In the United Kingdom, the term gentry refers to the landed gentry, the majority of the land-owning social class who were typically armigerous (having a coat of arms), but did not have titles of nobility. Gentry, in its widest connotation, refers to people of good social position connected to landed estates (see manorialism), upper levels of the clergy, and "gentle" families of long descent who never obtained the official right to bear a coat of arms.



preventing organized crime:

"The results indicated that independence and integrity of the judiciary wasthe most important predictor of the extent of organized crime. Inde-pendently of this, the extent of organized crime was higher in countrieswhere the police were less effective. Finally, organized crime was moreprevalent in less affluent countries, independently of the two other factors.On the basis of these three key factors, levels of organized crime per countrycould be predicted fairly accurately." -- CONTROLLING ORGANIZED CRIME AND CORRUPTIONIN THE PUBLIC SECTOR by Edgardo Buscaglia and Jan van Dijk* ,

"Among the factors making it possible for organized crime to capture thecourt system, the most significant are procedural complexity and abuses ofsubstantive judicial discretion. The present analysis verified those links (e.g. that higher degrees of procedural complexity were linked to judicialcorruption and to higher levels of organized crime) (appendix A, tables 15-17). The link between the abuse of substantive judicial discretionon the one hand and judicial corruption and increases in organized crimeon the other was confirmed through another analysis. Moreover, lack ofpredictability of judicial rulings was linkedxto higher levels of both courtcorruption and organized criminal activities (appendix A, table 16)" -- CONTROLLING ORGANIZED CRIME AND CORRUPTIONIN THE PUBLIC SECTOR by Edgardo Buscaglia and Jan van Dijk* ,