- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Some deal

Posted by: bill on November 26, 1999 at 00:39:42:

In Reply to: On dealing with factions posted by David on November 25, 1999 at 18:32:40:

:You'll never find a chapter of the Michigan Militia in Montana.

True...the Montana Militia are to be found in href="http://www.militiaofmontana.com/">Montana.

(The "factions" Madison was most concerned with was the power of individual States)

"it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and act in unison with each other....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." From Howard Zinn's - "A People's History of the United States" p. 96

Zinn goes on to write:

Madison's argument can be seen as a sensible argument for having a government which can maintain peace and avoid continuous disorder. But is it the aim of government simply to maintain order, as a referee, between two equally matched fighters? Or is it that government has some special interest in maintaining a certain kind of order, a certain distribution of power and wealth, a distribution in which government officials are not neutral referees but participants? In that case, the disorder they might worry about is the disorder of popular rebellion against those monopolizing the society's wealth. This interpretation makes sense when one looks at the economic interests, the social backgrounds, of the makers of the Constitution.

As part of his argument for a large republic to keep the peace, James Madison tells quite clealy in Federalist #10, whose peace he wants to keep: "A rage for paper money, for the 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"

Yes...the furthur removed the ruling class is from direct democracy, and those who would promote "improper and wicked project[s]", the less liklihood of interference.

Just look at the WTO.

Follow Ups:


The Debating Room Post a Followup