When we indicated the limits of the policy we understand what includes and therefore, we include/understand its definition, nevertheless the humanity is before the dilemma to find a consensus in reference to where are the limits. Other branches like those of the medicine exist and the architecture that has their delimited battle area or, clearly and defined, nevertheless the policy includes everything, its battle area is the entire world, from Alaska to the Polynesian islands all we comprised, in major or measured minor, of the extensive concept of policy. The policy is everywhere, is universal and in spite of it, not only by being it we have the same definition of the same exactly. Around the world, in the million universities educate that it, those professors of humanities exist all, each with its own definition, nevertheless that does not mean that they are all evil, is very complicated to create a definition that is not very vague but that it does not border on the end of the exactitude so that important data are omitted. The Real Academy Spanish defines to the policy as Art or draws up whereupon a subject is conducted or the average ones are used to reach an aim determinado2 but in the personnel, a so ample subject is very concise when imagining with the previous words, and even so minimalister definitions exist. We can call to the policy like the art of the good government as Aristotle and Plato did? He is then that. The good government is the result of carrying out a good policy? Foucault in his book of Gobernmentality assures to us that inquisitive ones with respect to the government exist three: the government of one same one, who corresponds to the personal conduct; the government of the souls and lives, who corresponds to the one of the religion and churches; and the government of the state.