Some people may not understand the controversey between picking a good government, and why after all this time nobody has figured out something perfect. The problem begins with free will. People can do whatever they want with their hands, feet, and the rest of their body; It gives people so many choices as what they can do with it. They can ride a bike, or climb a mountain. Now all this freedom comes at a price. People have the freedom to hurt others, like steal, lie, and cheat, all stuff many people would agree aren't often the best choices to make. In order to counteract this, people have attempted to create government. By creting a law, it takes away the people's freedom, and exchanges it for what's called a right. when the law was placed which disallows stealing, people's freedom to steal was abolished, and in exchange, people have recieved the right to not have their stuff stolen. rights offer people security, and it is a trade off governments are intended to do when we must give up some freedom in order to obtain more securiy. People obviously can't have others stealing and hurting each other, so it's clear having no government is not an option. on the other end of the spectrum, taking away all of the people's freedom for security leads to a boring life. imagine a world where the government takes away the people's freedom to play video games to give the people the right to be protected from game violence, or the freedom to ride a bike in exchange for the right to never crash. Although safe, there would be nothing fun to do. Maximizing government is also not ideal. the controversy is where in the middle should the line be drawn. the spectrum described above tells a tale between two rival approaches to government: Capitalism and socialism. Capitalism wishes to maximize freedom while Socialism is out to maximize security. Now that you know the difference, hopefully you can apply your own wisdom as to what should make a good government.