Harriman Beepat

Prof. Murdaco

POL 166

October 22^nd 2013

Assignment (Due 10/22): Choose one passage from Madison and one from Hamilton and write out the passage and interpret it, follow the same format as previous assignments. 

From Madison’s # 10…“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.”

 

           Liberty and faction are essential in any strong government, but what isn't healthy is the violence of faction, and controlling the effects of violent faction can be achieved through representative methods of governing. Madison continued by making the argument that the means to control the causes of faction is to stamp on rebellious opinions, and remove liberty. Furthermore, he dismisses this as being against the nature of man, and surmises that faction is a normal part of liberty, wrapped in the weaknesses of people. Like a fire that died because it consumed the oxygen from the air, a faction cannot continue its manipulative influence without the liberty it wants to suppress. The underlying 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.

 

From Hamilton’s # 15…“There is nothing absurd or impracticable in the idea of a league or alliance between independent nations for certain defined purposes precisely stated in a treaty regulating all the details of time, place, circumstance, and quantity; leaving nothing to future discretion; and depending for its execution on the good faith of the parties.”

 

          Clearly Hamilton was referring to the United Nations, even though this organization was formed decades in the future. Though this “league of alliance” was a novel and a noble idea, it is quite impractical in reality, as the present day UN can attest.  As it is at present, and using the UN as an example, one worldwide governing authority would struggle to meet the needs of the diverse and different cultures throughout the world. This is clearly an indication why countries have their own government, which understands and caters to the differences of its people. For any government to try and assimilate the diversity of the world into their structure, it would be a considerable bureaucratic nightmare. Even present day countries cannot meet the needs of their different people that make up their population.