[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Freepers Still Love war

Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump

"The Democrat Meltdown Continues"

"Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process"

"Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working"

"Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts"

"Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands

"Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies"

"Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk"

KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel

"Trade should work for America, not rule it"

"The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP"

"How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap"

‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’

Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible"

"Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!"

"If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think"

"Ending EPA Overreach"

Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built

Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew

The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED!

Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing!

Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy?

Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia)

"Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department"

Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent

"Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail"

Any suggestion that the USA and NATO are "Helping" or have ever helped Ukraine needs to be shot down instantly

"Real problem with the Palestinians: Nobody wants them"

ACDC & The Rolling Stones - Rock Me Baby

Magnus Carlsen gives a London System lesson!

"The Democrats Are Suffering Through a Drought of Generational Talent"

7 Tactics Of The Enemy To Weaken Your Faith

Strange And Biblical Events Are Happening

Every year ... BusiesT casino gambling day -- in Las Vegas

Trump’s DOGE Plan Is Legally Untouchable—Elon Musk Holds the Scalpel

Palestinians: What do you think of the Trump plan for Gaza?

What Happens Inside Gaza’s Secret Tunnels? | Unpacked

Hamas Torture Bodycam Footage: "These Monsters Filmed it All" | IDF Warfighter Doron Keidar, Ep. 225

EXPOSED: The Dark Truth About the Hostages in Gaza

New Task Force Ready To Expose Dark Secrets

Egypt Amasses Forces on Israel’s Southern Border | World War 3 About to Start?

"Trump wants to dismantle the Education Department. Here’s how it would work"

test

"Federal Workers Concerned That Returning To Office Will Interfere With Them Not Working"

"Yes, the Democrats Have a Governing Problem – They Blame America First, Then Govern Accordingly"

"Trump and His New Frenemies, Abroad and at Home"

"The Left’s Sin Is of Omission and Lost Opportunity"

"How Trump’s team will break down the woke bureaucracy"

Pete Hegseth will be confirmed in a few minutes


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Libertarianism for dummies
Source: Dailycaller.com
URL Source: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/13/libertarianism-for-dummies/
Published: Jul 14, 2012
Author: Max Borders
Post Date: 2012-07-14 16:40:31 by CZ82
Keywords: None
Views: 7588
Comments: 29

Libertarianism for dummies

By Max Borders

There is no denying it. Libertarianism is hot. This has a lot of people on both the left and right nervous. Some of the territory liberals and conservatives believed they had staked out long ago is being taken over by a new center — one that seems to borrow from aspects of each of the dominant partisan tribes. But libertarianism has its own elegant symmetry, as we’ll see.

The two tribes’ anxiety toward libertarianism rears its head in a number of ways. Most critics stitch together libertarian voodoo dolls from scraps of hearsay and Newsweek articles, then needle the dolls to get a reaction. Others say libertarianism is passé — a mere echo of discredited Enlightenment thinking. Still others claim libertarianism is a dogma that could never exist in the “real world.”

This article is intended as a general antidote to these criticisms. But more than that, it’s an invitation. So feel free to bookmark it. Whenever one of your social network “friends” starts in on some rant, you can save time and simply link to this piece.

1. Myth: Libertarianism is about blind faith in market processes.

Libertarianism starts with skepticism about government power, not faith in markets. Because markets are just an abstraction, what we’re really talking about is decentralized people power. We do have faith in people because people can and do solve problems. Governments are people, too, of course. So the most basic question is: which form of organization does a better job of solving problems and making the world a better place — centralized organization or decentralized? In other words, why do libertarians prefer market processes to government power in most areas? Libertarians are skeptical of government power not merely because of Lord Acton’s admonition about “absolute power.” We also think voluntary association is pro-social.

When people work together voluntarily, they:

1) Have better incentives to achieve their goals — both private and common;

2) Don’t coerce each other, they convince each other (and persuasion is better than power);

3) Are the stuff of real economies and real communities, not some political contrivance;

4) Can more easily exit a group or a set of rules in order to try something new;

5) Tend to pay closer attention to those around them — like their family, neighbors and community.

2. Myth: Libertarians think there should be no government.

Some libertarians engage in philosophical debates about the possibility of no government. But most libertarians believe government should be restricted to certain basic things — namely those things that protect you and your neighbor’s life, liberty and property. So what are those things? Courts to settle disputes, enforce contracts and administer justice. A solid national defense should resist adventurism. A police force should protect us, but with limited powers and responsibilities. Any other purported responsibilities of government — like building roads and bridges — should at least be pushed down to the most local level possible. Big plans fail big. Small experiments fail small. Successful small experiments can be replicated after a process of trial and error.

3. Myth: Libertarians are selfish.

Some libertarians are selfish, but libertarians are no more likely to be selfish than non-libertarians. You see, libertarians don’t think compassion is something you leave at the voting booth. And if it’s compulsory, it’s not really compassion at all, is it? Self-interest is certainly a part of our worldview. To deny one’s natural inclinations toward pursuing happiness is just kooky asceticism (unless, of course, asceticism somehow makes you happy.) We also know prosperity is the result of “selfish” people going about their business — trucking, bartering and trading.

But people have selfless instincts, too. So how should people manifest those instincts, by actively looking after our neighbors or by watching MSNBC and bitching about the rich? Libertarians are charitable to the extent that human beings are charitable. We happen to think individuals are better at making decisions about charity than central authorities. In fact, we consider it morally lazy to conflate higher taxes and forced redistribution with compassion. And we consider it strange to justify coercion by appeal to compassion. Think about it: Would it be morally justified for me to walk up to a man on the street and hold him up at gunpoint if I planned to give his money to charity? If not, what does a mob of voters and a corruptible legislature add to this story?

4. Myth: Libertarians don’t care if poor people (especially children) starve and sick people die.

In the interests of some grand compromise, most libertarians would tolerate some sort of minimum income or safety net — but it would look nothing like the monstrous entitlement system we have today. I don’t want to be flippant. I’m using strong language because today’s entitlement state is truly monstrous. It creates a dependent underclass — i.e., folks essentially paid to be poor. Bizarrely, it forces younger, poorer people to pay for the pensions (Social Security) and healthcare of rich people in Boca Raton. And it corrupts/crowds out the philanthropic sector. Helping the poor with welfare is like putting out a fire with sweet crude.

5. Myth: Libertarians think people should be able to do whatever they want.

No. Libertarians think people should be able to do whatever they want as long as: they don’t harm others or others’ property; they are not contractually bound to forego certain activities; and their own freely chosen moral systems don’t proscribe it. On the latter: I know quite a few Mormon libertarians. They swear off caffeine, tobacco and alcohol. (These are some of my favorite vices!) But most Mormons don’t see it as the state’s responsibility to take care of my body or my spirit. It’s mine. By Mormon lights, I have to choose the straight and narrow for it to matter. Moral practice is both a private and social affair, to be sure. But “social” doesn’t extend to state power. It’s about the free formation of moral communities. What other kind of morality is there but the kind one chooses? State-enforced “good” has always ended up in varying degrees being on the wrong side of history — from the Inquisition to the Great Leap Forward. That is why, for libertarians, tolerance is a prime virtue.

6. Myth: Libertarians have a narrow “don’t tread on me” ethos.

Well, this isn’t a complete myth. Let’s just say it’s a myth of omission — that is, only part of the story. It’s true that in our guts we don’t want anyone to tell us what to do. We don’t think anyone should decide what we may put into our bodies, how to spend our money, or how to live our lives. We don’t want to be used as slave labor for all or part of the year. I guess we could be accused of sounding like most teenagers — only with a big caveat about personal responsibility.

But if we look at the whole libertarian ethos, we can see a corollary to the Gadsden flag motto: “Don’t tread on others.” In other words, Rabbi Hillel the Elder had it right more than 2,000 years ago when he said, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.” On the other side of the world (at probably the exact same time) Lao-Tzu warned: “The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished. … The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be.” It’s not that hard to understand why. If more people adhered to the “don’t tread” principle as a matter of ethics and of policy, there would be less treading-upon in the world. Far from being based in some Enlightenment fancy or tea party slogan, libertarianism is rooted in ancient truths about how people can achieve social harmony and prosperity.

7. Myth: Libertarians are corporate apologists.

To quote Bugs Bunny: “Eh, he don’t know me very well, do he?”

Libertarians and classical liberals from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman, James Madison to James Buchanan, and Frederic Bastiat to Friedrich Hayek have been warning us about corporations since there were corporations. It’s not that corporations are evil per se, however. Companies are just people cooperating for common goals. Bad things happen when corporations collude with the state against the people. When you hear the words “crony capitalism,” there is a 95 percent chance that’s coming from the mouth of a libertarian. That’s because liberals, conservatives and populists cannot so easily distance themselves from it. The left has had its Solyndras. The right has had its Halliburtons. Both tribes have had their banksters. And libertarians have had enough. We believe cronyism will destroy this Republic as surely as it destroyed Rome.

8. Myth: Libertarians agree on everything.

Here’s a mini top ten list of things about which libertarians are fairly divided:

1.) Immigration

2.) Austrian or Chicago economics

3.) Abortion

4.) Origin of rights

5.) The status of children and teenagers

6.) War and pacifism

7.) Strategy of reform

8.) Tactics of reform

9.) Whether to compromise

10.) Intellectual property rights

9. Myth: Libertarianism is untried and would never work.

I have two responses to this myth: The first is: “So you think this is working?” The second is: History has shown that, by degrees, the freer the people, the happier and more prosperous they are. I can say all of this with confidence because there is a strong correlation between freedom and prosperity. Just look at examples in the Fraser and Heritage economic freedom indices.

Now, if we thought something wouldn’t work because it was untried, we would not have most of the good things we enjoy today. Try telling Tim Berners-Lee circa 1988 that the Internet would never work: A fully decentralized information network used by billions of free people around the world without central control? My God, it’s untried!

10. Myth: Libertarianism is a “materialistic” worldview.

Saved this one for last. In fact, one of my friends skewered this turkey in his new book with great finesse: “‘Materialist values’ is a vague term, but if — as seems to be the case — [E.J.] Dionne thinks the chief justification for capitalism is that it generates lots of stuff for consumers, he’s mistaken,” writes Donald Boudreaux.

While capitalism emphatically does improve material living standards, all the great champions of economic freedom (a.k.a. capitalism) ultimately justify this system because only it affords true dignity to individuals — the dignity that is denied by interventionist systems which arbitrarily diminish each person’s freedom to choose. For “Progressives” such as Mr. Dionne not to share the value of freedom is fine. But it’s rather cheeky to accuse, with one breath, proponents of capitalism of being unduly focused on material goods, and with the next breath to insist that a major problem with capitalism is that some people get fewer material goods than do other people.

Professor Boudreaux nails it. What we do with what’s left of our freedom may be materialistic, may be intellectual, and may even be spiritual. But it is not materialism that grounds our worldview. It is rather the powerful and ennobling idea that people are creative beings who should have the maximum possible latitude to pursue diverse conceptions of happiness and the good.

But, but …

I can hear all the “buts” now. People should ask themselves three fundamental questions before launching into any critique of libertarianism:

1.) In your heart, do you prefer persuasion and cooperation over power and coercion? If no, then read no further. If yes …

2.) In forming your opinions about the role of government — whatever they are — have you exhausted every other means of achieving some good end before turning to state coercion? If no, then try being more creative and entrepreneurial before rashly turning to power. If yes …

3.) Are you even a little closer to understanding the libertarian worldview than you were before?

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 20.

#1. To: CZ82 (#0)

Are you even a little closer to understanding the libertarian worldview than you were before?

I never had any problem understanding Libertarianism, who has?

I even agree with 90% of it's canon.

But there is a wee bit of a problem with so called Libertarianism.

It has NEVER worked in the REAL world anywhere or any time in ALL of human history.

It's basic idea that people act in rational manners is absurd, and disproved by ALL of human history.

NAME ONE PLACE THAT it has EVER been used and successful in ALL of human history.

You CAN'T, because it NEVER has.

In fact, so called "libertarianism" is a completely THEORETICAL mental exercise.

In this, "libertarianism" is even less tested than the entire libTURD canon.

Libertarianism is a VERY nice dream.

Too bad it goes against almost ALL of basic human character and action, and so it will NEVER work as advertised.

NEVER.

Would it be nice if it did?

Maybe.

Mad Dog  posted on  2012-07-14   17:12:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Mad Dog (#1)

Libertarianism is a VERY nice dream.

Too bad it goes against almost ALL of basic human character and action, and so it will NEVER work as advertised.

Just goes to show you how "little" some people want to think, it's just too hard for them to put forth any real effort to "thinking"!! (Why do you think Survivor, Jerry Springer and Dancing with the Stars is so popular)... LOL....

You would think that people would be all in for progressing culturally but "NOPE" they would rather be "regressives"!!!

CZ82  posted on  2012-07-15   11:24:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: CZ82 (#2)

Just goes to show you how "little" some people want to think, it's just too hard for them to put forth any real effort to "thinking"!!

Most people including me are naturally lazy.

They are also taught by their entire lives to SAY that they want the OBJECTIVE TRUTH but that is really the last thing that they want.

I have noted that in human culture social popularity is more valued than frank factual discussion.

Most of us are for something as long as we get something for minimum actual EFFORT.

Historically speaking mankind seems to prefer the status of benign slavery than that of being a free independent thinker and person.

The Japanese have the saying , "the nail that stands up gets hammered down."

Most of us seek the herd, it's safer and more comfortable.

Thinking hurts, but ACTING REALLY HURTS.

"In the beginning there was the WORD."

ACTION starts with THOUGHT.

People don't like to rock the boat they are in.

It's just human nature.

Which is one reason so called libertarianism can NEVER work on a national or large scale.

Because it a THEORY that goes against human nature.

I ought to admit that I saw a Jerry Springer show once or twice in my life. I felt the way I did the first time I went to a circus freak show. Those shows were like car wrecks, I couldn't look away, although I wanted to.

Who the fuck are those people?

The scary answer is that they are part of US.

The GOOD news is that they are just PART of US, and can be dealt with, IF we accept the FACT that they are.

"Humanity! what a concept!"

Mad Dog  posted on  2012-07-15   16:58:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Mad Dog (#4)

Who the fuck are those people?

Obama voters!!!

CZ82  posted on  2012-07-15   17:12:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: CZ82 (#6)

Obama voters!!!

Insane in de MEMbrain

INsANe iN DE memBrAiN

inSANE in deDE MEMbrain

IN sane IN DE memBRAIN

inSANE in de MEMbrain

ad puke upon the deck

repeatedly

.

..

...

Mad Dog  posted on  2012-07-15   20:41:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Mad Dog (#10)

avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp

The Same Subject Continued The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection From the New York Packet. Friday, November 23, 1787. MADISON

To the People of the State of New York:

AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a wellconstructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. 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. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.

It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.

The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:

In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.

It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,--is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.

PUBLIUS.

avalon.law.yale.edu/default.asp

SJN  posted on  2012-07-15   21:04:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: SJN (#11)

PUBLIUS

Oh great! An anonymous writer yet no where within this stuff is there language about "voting for success" as in America's withdrawal about personal RESPONSIBILITY for liberties, freedoms, rights by voting for a government dominated by two political parties.

It is a pity America believes these cretins anymore. BTW, "PUBLIUS" was Alexander Hamilton, a staunch defender of tight, centrist Washington DC control over EVERYTHING in life. Publius was at odds with Thomas Jefferson, the framer of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.

TJ (anti-federalist) rocks while you exalt BS about a god-damned federalist that lost in the first few decades of US growth.

buckeroo  posted on  2012-07-15   23:13:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: buckeroo (#14)

An anonymous writer

!!??

The writer of this "Federalist Paper" is identified.

SJN  posted on  2012-07-15   23:15:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: SJN (#16)

Yeah, a loser to TJ. HAHAHAHA. TJ was a libertarian ensuring one of the greatest nations on this planet. Meanwhile the nasty vile two party system has destroyed this nation. You seem to exalt a two-party system directive that denies the foundations for and about individual liberty. Nope, you need a directive from a two-party system to say anything.

buckeroo  posted on  2012-07-15   23:23:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: buckeroo (#17)

Nope, you need a directive from a two-party system to say anything.

Anyone can join either party.

I guess a six party system would be better. Then the winner would just need 20 percent.

A K A Stone  posted on  2012-07-15   23:28:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 20.

        There are no replies to Comment # 20.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 20.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com