Tripartite classification of authority

[Eskay]

Max Weber (1) (2) describes three different kinds of ways a leader can persuade people their rule is legitimate. What happens if each of the three factions focuses on a different one of these styles?

[Marcus Langley]

Looking at the plan here, it seems !Red are legal, !Green are traditional, and !Blue are charismatic.

[Eskay]

That suggests the Greens are more "house of lords" than "house of commons". That could go interesting places.

[burritoloco]

Green is, by my reading, de jure, a parlimentary republic and de facto a plutocracy run by money (where ties are broken by older money winning) which is, at some reading, traditional (status quo is maintained by those in power, money is passed on in a hereditary fashion)

Blue is an immensely loose confederation where each city-state does its own thing. I suppose if one was to try to bind them together more tightly it would be on the back of pure charisma.

Red is the stickiest since, as I understand it, there really is no center of authority. Though I guess Law itself could be considered the ruling body and it is held together by "rationally established norms..and other rules and regulations."

But yes, Eskay, while on the surface a government of/for/by the people I envision Green as more of a government of/by/for the rich (which is tolerated only because everyone secretly believes that they have what it takes to join the ranks of the rich and they want theirs when they get there).

[Eskay]

Sounds good to me.