Posted by
CKHustler on Monday, January 19, 2009 12:55:32 AM
Federalist Paper #8
Continuing on the Consequences of Hostilities Between the States by Hamilton.
His first full paragraph is on what Europe goes through with their constant wars. A very real example that would disgust any wishing for freedom. He then examines how it would be different and much worse here in the states. Where in Europe each is well established and able to repel many attacks, here we are new and larger states would "plunder and (devastate)" the smaller ones easily. In the end, people will give away their freedoms in favor of security, which would probably lead to monarchies. Not a pretty picture in my eyes.
The path he leads us down from republic to monarchy is a fantastic way to prove his point. It is clear that he doesn't lead us astray with his hypothesis, as it happened in Europe as he explained. I personally believe that if the leader of a monarch has good principles and pursues avenues for the correct reasons, it can be better than a republic. Decisions can be made quickly and corruptness will be tougher given that only a single person is making the decision in this case. If he has a pure heart, he may not stray from decisions benefiting the nation as a whole. The problem is human nature. Humans are power hungry and greedy. It doesn't take long for the son of a ruler to kill his father to take the throne and proceed to immolate his people for his personal benefit. Not a pretty picture there either.
Hamilton himself asks a question one might ask if they were still against his preposition. Greece still had standing armies, why are we so different to them? He states how our living arrangements are much different now.
"The industrious habits of the people of the present day, absorbed in
the pursuits of gain, and devoted to the improvements of agriculture
and commerce, are incompatible with the condition of a nation of
soldiers, which was the true condition of the people of those republics."
Another difference would be the state of the standing armies. One, if separate confederacies, must be ready for battle at any moment, while another, if a union, wouldn't be. Laws for relaxed liberties in favor of security would be less likely imposed if we were a union.
"The smallness of the army renders the natural strength of the community
an over-match for it; and the citizens, not habituated to look up to
the military power for protection, or to submit to its oppressions,
neither love nor fear the soldiery; they view them with a spirit of
jealous acquiescence in a necessary evil, and stand ready to resist a
power which they suppose may be exerted to the prejudice of their
rights."
Can anyone see a reference to why we have the second amendment? Now how would the community defend itself from the standing army, if they had no arms to do so!? They simply couldn't!
The rest is reproving the other side of the coin regarding standing armies. Fascinating stuff.
Thanks for reading.
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke