Federalist Paper No. 10

James Madison, author of federalist paper # 10, argues that a loose federation of states connected by a central government is the recipe for happiness. People are going to argue and have different opinions on subjects regardless of any situation or circumstance. He seems to attack the belief that a democracy will quell the harshness of factions. "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." And so he proposes that a republic which he means "a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking." Republics allow for equal representation, so the total population doesn't effect the representation. The republic would be ideal for the United States because unlike a democracy where laws and statues are passed and all have to obey, each state would retain a great deal of autonomy and yet still have an equal representation in the federal government. I couldn't agree more with Mr. Madison. I believe the autonomy of the states has allowed the US to survive as a nation for so long. As much as we may protest federal laws, there are very few which we are forced to follow. Besides that, it seems that it is an unwritten rule that the federal government stay out of the affairs of individual states for the majority of matters. The more autonomy we give to an entity, the less it feels threatened and the more it is encouraged to grow, strengthen, and develop.

Rousseau "On The Social Contract" Book I

Rousseau begins by talking about the origins and purposes of a society. At the beginning, it sounds like he is writing to refute the works of Grotius, he clearly has a grudge against him. He also refutes Hobbe's argument of "might makes right". Then he goes in to explain in Chapter 7 that slavery is illegitimate. His argument for this, I believe, is his main argument in book I. It is very similar to Locke's. Consent is the basis for political legitimacy. In a slave-master relationship there is no consent, therefore the authority is invalid. He argues this point with conquests in the later chapters of the book. Like Locke's argument, I agree with consent being the basis for legitimacy, even if it is tacit consent. However, I would like to comment on his "social conflict" theory. In his argument against slavery he writes "Men are not natural enemies, for the simple reason that men living in their original state state of independence do not have sufficiently constant relationships among themselves to bring about either a state of peace or war." This sounds like he is saying that men, in a state of nature, lack relationships and property. I disagree. Even in a state of nature man has "putative" property. If this putative property is infringed, conflict will occur. More so in the state of nature than in society will conflict or war arise between two parties when property of any kind, be it real or putative, is infringed.

Machiavelli, "The Prince"

Machiavelli's concern in this essay is how to gain power and stay in power. Violence is a critical and necessary component to staying in power. He talks about deception and the importance of appearance. It is important to have the support of the people. Therefore the ruler's appearance must be shown as upright and benevolent in order to have their support. He paints politics in a new light as having their own morals and rules. Anything goes as long as it is for the good of the state. This type of morality can be classified as consequentialism. I agree with Machiavelli on most of his point except consequentialism. Politics is all about being able to get things done, about alliances and appearances. Although I don't agree with physical violence to make a political statement, I do believe at times one has to sabotage an opponent or do verbal or political harm to them. In order to stay in power you have to look like a god, and make your opponent look like evil incarnate. However, if you take consequesntialism to be your ethics, you risk compromising the true objective of politics, the well-fare of the state.