Thursday, September 20, 2007

Federalist Paper No. 10

Imagine you have a problem. Let’s say that it will cost $100 to purchase a solution to this problem in the marketplace. Let’s say you can donate $10 to your local politician to have a law passed that will solve your problem. Which solution do you choose?

That's right; you buy off the politician every time. It’s the only rational thing to do. Of course things are never quite that easy, and politicians are never quite that cheap. With the high cost of purchasing legislation, what is a concerned citizen to do? You form up with other like minded citizens and pool your resources together.

Congratulations, you just formed a faction. Perhaps you'll call yourself MoveOn.org or the National Rifle Association. The modern trend is for names totally devoid of actual meaning, like "Concerned Citizens for a Better Tomorrow." My personal favorite is mildly fictitious Billionaires for Bush.

When James Madison wrote the Federalist #10, his primary concern was how factions can push their own agenda at the expense of the public good. We can't really abolish liberty, and we can't really get everyone to want the same thing. The problems is that these factions are "disposed to vex and oppress each other [rather] than to co-operate for their common good." Madison noticed that "the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property." It shouldn't surprise anyone that landlords have a different set of interests than renters.

"It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good." Since the cause of factions cannot be eliminated, we must look at mitigating its effects.

A minority faction will be kept in check by the majority. The problem is that when the majority enters into a faction, it has the power to sacrifice the public good and the rights of other citizens in order to satisfy its wants. We need to prevent the majority form crushing the rights of the little guy.

One solution can be found in our republican (small "r") form of government. Because politicians must receive a large number of votes, it is harder for a small faction to unduly influence the politician. But if the electorate is too large, you loose the ability to represent truly local interests. Madison saw beauty in our constitutional government, where “great and aggregate interests [are] referred to the national [government], that local and particular to State legislatures.”

This should sound familiar: National government decides national issues like defense or interstate commerce. Local government decides local issues, like education and zoning.

Madison also took note that slim majorities tend to oppress the opposing faction. The larger the majority, the more encompassing it’s interests. Likewise, a slim majority mean you only need to buy off (or “support”) a small number of legislatures. The large majority provides a more difficult target for a small special interest group to influence decisions. This brings the government price for a solution much closer, if not greater, than the market price.

A charismatic individual, a particularly powerful local religion, or a politician with questionable ethics will be kept in check by countervailing interests from other places. This is the advantage of the federalist system. Local interests dominate local politics, but do not dominate national politics.

This should sound familiar: National government decides national issues like defense or interstate commerce. Local government decides local issues, like education and zoning.

Madison also took note that slim majorities tend to oppress the opposing faction. The larger the majority, the more encompassing it’s interests. Likewise, a slim majority mean you only need to buy off (or “support”) a small number of legislatures. The large majority provides a more difficult target for a small special interest group to influence decisions. This brings the government price for a solution much closer, if not greater, than the market price.

A charismatic individual, a particularly powerful local religion, or a politician with questionable ethics will be kept in check by countervailing interests from other places. This is the advantage of the federalist system. Local interests dominate local politics, but do not dominate national politics.

1 comment:

  1. Fantastic Jeremy. A great example of how we can use the messages of our Framers in discussions and debates today. Bravo!

    ReplyDelete