Tag: federalist

Federalist Nos. 13 – 14

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

Federalist No. 13 left me with imagining one of two conclusions based on the following statement:

Nothing can be more evident than that the thirteen States will be able to support a national government better than one half, or one third, or any number less than the whole.

The two conclusions that I can draw from this – one of which must be true – are that Hamilton could not conceive (or did not consider) the incredible waste that could be perpetrated by a central government or else we are extremely lucky not to have the amount of waste we are paying for be multiplied by a number of regional confederacies with independent central governments.

Federalist No. 14 attempts to draw a clear distinction which many people today still do not understand. It is a distinction which is vital to having our government function properly.

The error which limits republican government to a narrow district has been unfolded and refuted in preceding papers. I remark here only that it seems to owe its rise and prevalence chiefly to the confounding of a republic with a democracy, applying to the former reasonings drawn from the nature of the latter. The true distinction between these forms . . . is, that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents.

The confusion around this issue is evidence of the fact that Americans must be made – being born in this nation is no guarantee of understanding and promoting the ideas of liberty and limited representative government that brought our nation to its greatness.

What I had never realized before was the fact that there was apparently widespread confusion back in the 18th century concerning the difference between a republic and a democracy. Today we suffer from two problems in our country regarding government. One, many people mistakenly believe that we are a democracy and try to treat government function as such. Two, some people properly recognize the republican form of our government and mistake or ignore the fact that some issues should be decided in a democratic manner by the people rather than placing more expansive powers in the hands of their elected representatives. This is especially true on issues such as congressional pay where there is an inherent conflict of interest on the part of those representatives.

Tags democracy, documents, federalist, government, republic

National

Federalist Nos. 11 – 12

Federalist Nos. 11 – 12 follow the same overarching argument that many of their predecessors followed. It can be boiled down to the truths concerning economies of scale. A larger union has great advantages over a smaller nation in many aspects of government. Number 12, which deals with government revenue, reminded me of a few issues related to taxes that I had not remembered and a few that I had never considered.

One of the things that has always been a pet peeve of mine is the incessant focus on the necessity of an ever expanding economy. I was reminded of why that would be when I read:

The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation, and to the celerity (speed) with which it circulates. Commerce, contributing to both these objects, must of necessity render the payment of taxes easier, and facilitate the requisite supplies to the treasury.

Money is only valuable because of the fact that it acts as a lubricant in the mechanisms of commerce. Because of our ever expanding demands for government services and intervention the government has an ever increasing need to generate more and more revenue through taxation and that is best done by faster and faster monetary circulation – although they are not above inserting more otherwise worthless paper into the system to increase their revenue when they feel it is necessary.

What I had never considered was the following:

It is evident from the state of the country, from the habits of the people, from the experience we have had on the point itself, that it is impracticable to raise any very considerable sums by direct taxation. Tax laws have in vain been multiplied; new methods to enforce the collection have in vain been tried; the public expectation has been uniformly disappointed, and the treasuries of the States have remained empty. . . . No person acquainted with what happens in other countries will be surprised at this circumstance. In so opulent a nation as that of Britain, where direct taxes from superior wealth must be much more tolerable, and, from the vigor of the government, much more practicable, than in America, far the greatest part of the national revenue is derived from taxes of the indirect kind, from imposts, and from excises.

It is that understanding about the difficulty of collecting direct taxes (such as income tax) that led our founders to codify in the constitution that the federal government should not have the power to levy an income tax. Indeed, reading that statement makes the FairTax proposal look all the more enticing since it rests on indirect taxation.

If anyone doubts the reality of the assertion that direct taxes are harder to collect consider the amount of money and time that Americans spend each year in tax preparation in an effort to pay as little income tax as they can and then combine that with the amount of money and time the IRS spends trying to ensure that nobody failed to pay their allotted share of income tax. Now compare that vast sum with the amount of time and money that people spend trying to avoid indirect taxes like a sales tax.

That explains why the only patriotic thing to do with our stimulus checks is to spend them the day we get them if not before.

Tags documents, economics, federalist, taxes

Picking Up the Pace

I realized yesterday that I have been losing steam on my review of the Federalist papers partly because the idea of 84 posts is rather daunting. I also realize that I am not obligated to break them up exactly as they were published. I have determined that I could have covered 2 – 5 in one post 6 & 7 in another and 9 & 10 together as well. Right there I would have cut the number of posts so far in half. In the future I will combine papers as it seems appropriate to me.

Another realization was that, while I hope to generate some discussion and even awareness of the contents of these founding documents, another result of this undertaking is to solidify the foundation of my own thoughts on issues of government so that I can write more soundly as well as return to a record of my conclusions.

Tags documents, federalist, foundation, thoughts

General

Federalist No. 10

Federalist No. 10 makes a statement that really rings true for me at both the federal and the state level of my government.

Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true.

Of course, the important thing is not the statement of the problem, but the analysis of the available solutions. The primary solution offered is that the form of government being proposed in the Constitution would be supportable over a larger republic and thus would be less susceptible to factions (as it would be harder to form a majority) and that the multi-level structure of government would allow for issues of local concern to be solved at a local level with only “the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national.”

In theory the advantages of a larger nation controlling the influence of factions is good, but that advantage breaks down when large groups of people abandon their own thinking in favor of adopting the thinking of someone else – as Frank Staheli suggested yesterday.

Likewise, the advantages of a multi-level governmental structure evaporate when the vast majority of issues are presented as falling into the category of “great and aggregate interests.” Because of our propensity to elevate everything to the level of national importance the state governments are often left in the position of simply administering programs which are not within their control.

Tags documents, federalist

General

Federalist No. 9

Federalist No. 9 can be almost completely reduced to this extended quote by Montesquieu:

a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC. . . is a convention by which several smaller STATES agree to become members of a larger ONE, which they intend to form. It is a kind of assemblage of societies that constitute a new one, capable of increasing, by means of new associations, till they arrive to such a degree of power as to be able to provide for the security of the united body. . .

The form of this society prevents all manner of inconveniences.

If a single member should attempt to usurp the supreme authority, he could not be supposed to have an equal authority and credit in all the confederate states. Were he to have too great influence over one, this would alarm the rest. Were he to subdue a part, that which would still remain free might oppose him with forces independent of those which he had usurped and overpower him before he could be settled in his usurpation.

Should a popular insurrection happen in one of the confederate states the others are able to quell it. Should abuses creep into one part, they are reformed by those that remain sound. The state may be destroyed on one side, and not on the other; the confederacy may be dissolved, and the confederates preserve their sovereignty. (“Spirit of Lawa,” vol. i., book ix., chap. i.)

Ever since the United States made the transition from being a plural noun (ex. “the United States are . . .”) to being a singular noun (ex. “the United States is . . .”) it seems that the individual sovereignty and identity of the states is becoming more of a formality than a reality. Contrary to the argument made in Federalist 9, I am not convinced that “So long as the separate organization of the members be not abolished; so long as it exists, by a constitutional necessity, for local purposes; though it should be in perfect subordination to the general authority of the union, it would still be, in fact and in theory, an association of states, or a confederacy.”

It seems that the last half century or more have shown that when the states become fully subordinate to the federal government the balancing of interests that are present in a confederacy are minimized and the Federal authority begins to act more like a monarchy with an ever-changing head.

Tags documents, federalist

General

Federalist No. 8

I found Federalist No. 8 to be simply prophetic about the dangers a country faces when subjected to the intersection of human nature and the constant perception of external threat.

Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. . . . the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.

This is exactly the danger that libertarian minded pundits have been vocally warning against since September 12, 2001. Though Alexander Hamilton is speaking about real external dangers the truth is that the public perception of external danger can be used to these ends with equal effect.

. . . weaker States or confederacies (or even nations) would first have recourse to [standing armies] . . . They would, at the same time, be necessitated to strengthen the executive arm of government, in doing which their constitutions would acquire a progressive direction toward monarchy. It is of the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of the legislative authority.

This is precisely the effect that we have seen throughout the Bush administration with the constant harping on the dangers posed by terrorists from around the world. To be sure, the technological advances of the last century have reduced the geographic cushion that had contributed to our national safety for the earlier part of our history. Despite the greater range available to anyone who would threaten us, we must stand vigilant against attempts to reduce our freedom in the name of safety when the safety being offered is against a threat more imaginary than real.

I don’t mean to say that the events of 9/11 were imaginary but those events, devastating as they were, did not constitute a real threat to our national survival except insofar as we respond to them by changing our society so that we become a different nation than the one which has been a beacon of liberty to the world. That idea cannot be killed by terrorist acts, and that idea is the American that is enshrined in our constitution.

Tags documents, federalist, liberty, security

General

Federalist No. 7

My first reaction to Federalist No. 7 was that it was applicable to the nation at the time it was written, but had little insights to offer us at present. Later it occurred to me that the issues being addressed would be applicable at any time we might consider the possibility of dissolving the nation into smaller sovereign entities. For example, the problem of how to discharge the national debt should be daunting enough to convince the majority of our citizens and states to preserve the union at any cost.

Tags documents, federalist, national debt

General

Federalist No. 6

With the subject of the dangers of dissension between the states, I was very interested in Federalist No. 6. My interest stems from the fact that we have seen, and continue to see, the results of such dissensions – not as much between the states as between powerful parties and organizations within the nation.

. . . it has from long observation of the progress of society become a sort of axiom in politics, that vicinity or nearness of situation, constitutes nations natural enemies. An intelligent writer expresses himself on this subject to this effect: “NEIGHBORING NATIONS (says he) are naturally enemies of each other unless their common weakness forces them to league in a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC, and their constitution prevents the differences that neighborhood occasions, extinguishing that secret jealousy which disposes all states to aggrandize themselves at the expense of their neighbors.”(Vide “Principes des Negociations” par 1’Abbe de Mably.) This passage, at the same time, points out the EVIL and suggests the REMEDY. (emphasis original)

There is enough strife, and enough of regional differences to make me question if the system we have has enough force in the built-in mechanisms of self-correction (separation of powers, competitions between overlapping interests different groups and competing interests between various groups of individuals and states) to regain the unity that has previously brought our nation together when we most needed it.

Tags documents, federalist

General

Federalist No. 5

Federalist No. 5 again argues the value of union over confederacies of fully sovereign states. I see no reason to revisit the issue, but I did notice one very accurate prediction:

Whenever, and from whatever causes, it might happen, and happen it would, that any one of these nations or confederacies should rise on the scale of political importance much above the degree of her neighbors, that moment would those neighbors behold her with envy and with fear. Both those passions would lead them to countenance, if not to promote, whatever might promise to diminish her importance; and would also restrain them from measures calculated to advance or even to secure her prosperity. Much time would not be necessary to enable her to discern these unfriendly dispositions. She would soon begin, not only to lose confidence in her neighbors, but also to feel a disposition equally unfavorable to them.

As soon as I read this I saw its fulfillment in the conflict over slavery. One of the things that brought the Southern States to succeed was that President Lincoln was elected entirely on the strength of the Northern voters without ever appearing on the Southern ballots. The North had grown so much more important politically that the South felt compelled to separate themselves.

Tags documents, federalist

General

Federalist No. 4

Federalist No. 4 continues largely the same argument as Federalist No. 3. Number 3 was about how a unified government could best prevent other nations from justly coming to war against us. Number 4 focuses on the fact that a unified national government is more likely to discourage other nations from manufacturing excuses to come to war against us – something akin to “peace through strength.”

The best part of number 4 comes in the final paragraph:

But whatever may be our situation, whether firmly united under one national government, or split into a number of confederacies, certain it is, that foreign nations will know and view it exactly as it is; and they will act toward us accordingly. If they see that our national government is efficient and well administered, our trade prudently regulated, our militia properly organized and disciplined, our resources and finances discreetly managed, our credit re-established, our people free, contented, and united, they will be much more disposed to cultivate our friendship than provoke our resentment. If, on the other hand, they find us either destitute of an effectual government . . . or split into three or four . . . discordant republics or confederacies, . . . what a poor, pitiful figure will America make in their eyes! How liable would she become not only to their contempt but to their outrage.

Our last few years have proven this true, for although we are still a nation under a single government we are nationally split into discordant confederacies politically and other nations are seeing less and less to respect among us.

Tags documents, federalist, parties