Federalist No. 10, the Greatest Piece of Writing on Politics in History

White Fox · #1 (**permalink**) 05-24-2008, 10:37 AM

Read it in its entirety here: http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

This really is the greatest piece of writing on politics in history, written by Madison in defense of the Constitution. This particular one is on the mischiefs of faction.

Here are some of the most important passages:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

CrusaderRabbit08 · #2 (**permalink**) 05-24-2008, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Cato University Home Study Course -- Module 6: The Constitution of the United States of America

Some Problems to Ponder & Discuss

• James Madison, in Federalist No. 10, addresses the problem of limiting the power of majority factions. His answer was not to eliminate the causes of faction, for that would mean eliminating liberty and even human nature itself, but to seek "relief . . . only . . . in the means of controlling its effects." A national government, Madison argued, would be more likely to secure republican liberty from the dangers of majority faction than would local government only: "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." In protecting against the danger of majority faction, however, did Madison at the same time open the door to minority faction, or what we today term "special interests"? Did Madison’s solution also make it more difficult to motivate a majority, for example, taxpayers, with a "common motive" to protect their rights against minorities, in this case, subsidized special interests? What constitutional innovations or amendments might guard against both majority and minority tyranny?

http://www.cato.org/university/module6.html

White Fox · #3 (**permalink**) 05-24-2008, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrusaderRabbit08

http://www.cato.org/university/module6.html

That article poses a good point. But the fact is that, if the government remains divided as it would in Madison's plan, then even if it was run by minority factions, they would be incapable of oppressing anyone. The fact is that the Constitution has not been followed very well for a while, and that we need people in government who will go back to this. The problem with this is that people in government are the ones who want big government. We need a libertarian revolution at the ballot boxes sometime soon.

JeffLV · #4 (**permalink**) 05-25-2008, 11:58 PM

I love his work and I think he made great points. I might ask, however, if it is as applicable today. Consider the forms of communication and transportation they had back then to today. He was under the understanding that in such a large republic, factions with similar interests would find it difficult to coalesce. True in the day. Do you think this force is weakened by the internet, cars, air planes, telephones, television, etc? And if so, do we have a greater danger today of large factions working together to their own ends at a level of scope and cooperation madison could not have imagined possible in his day?

White Fox · #5 (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffLV

I love his work and I think he made great points. I might ask, however, if it is as applicable today. Consider the forms of communication and transportation they had back then to today. He was under the understanding that in such a large republic, factions with similar interests would find it difficult to coalesce. True in the day. Do you think this force is weakened by the internet, cars, air planes, telephones, television, etc? And if so, do we have a greater danger today of large factions working together to their own ends at a level of scope and cooperation madison could not have imagined possible in his day?

Yes, I do think that modern technology has made it more possible for majority factions to take over. Anyone who has read 1984 knows that technology is what made that kind of government possible. However, this is why it is even more important to ensure that Madison's structure of government is protected from these forces. Unfortunately, it is weaker than it ever has been when we need it to be the strongest.

Daybreaker · #6 (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by White Fox

Yes, I do think that modern technology has made it more possible for majority factions to take over. Anyone who has read 1984 knows that technology is what made that kind of government possible. However, this is why it is even more important to ensure that Madison's structure of government is protected from these forces. Unfortunately, it is weaker than it ever has been when we need it to be the strongest.

Preventing effective monopolies so that resource industries (like oil -- or ethanol if you prefer) can't hold the government hostage and regulating media broadcasting (like the old rule that you couldn't own a TV news station and a newspaper) might be a good start.

White Fox · #7 (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daybreaker

Preventing effective monopolies so that resource industries (like oil -- or ethanol if you prefer) can't hold the government hostage and regulating media broadcasting (like the old rule that you couldn't own a TV news station and a newspaper) might be a good start.

How exactly is the oil industry an effective monopoly? I am an expert on monopolies and I have examined the issue and concluded that the market is free and competitive. The only problem is corruption in our government, made possible in part by the wealth generated by those companies.

JeffLV · #8 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by White Fox

How exactly is the oil industry an effective monopoly? I am an expert on monopolies and I have examined the issue and concluded that the market is free and competitive. The only problem is corruption in our government, made possible in part by the wealth generated by those companies.

Then obviously Madison's ideas are incomplete.

how might you propose limiting the effect of technology without defeating the purpose and good of that technology? We have to, in a sense, make it difficult for people to communicate yet this is the very barrier that is broken down by internet, phone, internet, etc. How do we get small factions to not get together and form large ones? Ask nicely?

White Fox · #9 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffLV

Then obviously Madison's ideas are incomplete.

how might you propose limiting the effect of technology without defeating the purpose and good of that technology? We have to, in a sense, make it difficult for people to communicate yet this is the very barrier that is broken down by internet, phone, internet, etc. How do we get small factions to not get together and form large ones? Ask nicely?

Fortunately, congress will always be a complete mess that can't really do anything if they want to or not. The 535 people you have in Washington can't stop themselves from arguing.

Pfaff · #10 (**permalink**) 06-20-2008, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by White Fox

How exactly is the oil industry an effective monopoly? I am an expert on monopolies and I have examined the issue and concluded that the market is free and competitive. The only problem is corruption in our government, made possible in part by the wealth generated by those companies.

Agreed. Arguments on price gouging (for example) are poorly researched, and poorly supported. Though I dislike the oil industry for my own personal reasons, they are not the cause of much of the problems we see with oil.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Worldwide current status on culture, genealogy, history and politics	familyman	Current Events	0	03-30-2008 07:44 AM
OK-Sen: Inhofe's Politics Spit on Oklahoman History	SeminalBlog	Political Blogs	0	02-01-2008 08:10 AM
greatest moment in history?	lunecat	History & Past Politicians	30	12-06-2006 06:43 AM
Invasion of BALTICS "one of the greatest wrongs of history'	f100supersabr	Russia & Eastern Europe	0	05-07-2005 12:34 PM
Greatest myths in history	Guevara	History & Past Politicians	42	08-11-2004 09:59 PM