There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.
There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.
It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.
The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.
The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.
No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.
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. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.
The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.
The intended purpose of the government, judging by the testimony of then primary leader of the movement to ratify the constitution, is not to make everyone equal. Rather, it is to treat all equally (or give equal opportunity, to use the more popular phrase). The goal is not to take from one group, or "faction", and give to another but to respect the property rights of both equally. After all, The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America asserts that all men are created equal, but it does not claim that they should have no choice but to remain that way. Instead, it affirms that "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". The job of the government is not to make everyone equal, but to protect equally the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Rather than punish those who pursue happiness with the greatest financial success, the government was intended to protect those very people (and every other group, for that matter) from those groups that would capitalize on minority groups for their own gain. This goes for everyone; the poor, racial minorities, religions, and the rich alike. Instead, as I see it, the government has become a tool of certain factions who capitalize on the rich by forcing them to pay a much higher percent of taxes and in turn awarding themselves welfare, medicare, social security, and the like. Granted, there was a time when the rich capitalized on the poor as well, but I do not see that this state of affairs is any better, and the liberals, supported by black communities and (often the same) poor communities. After all, the current over-taxation of the rich has only led us into an economic failure and ended up causing poverty just like the other did. And although you may say that it's still better, I see no evidence that it's not going to get worse, especially if the Democrats and unions keep yelling their dumb slogans about having higher paying jobs (with the understand, or course, that they won't have to actually work much). Judge for yourself whether the constitution has done a good job of controlling the affects of factions (of course, it might help if we actually followed the constitution). I guess when the nation oscillates between two extremes it at least gets a little time in the middle, which is better than staying on the one extreme. (The funny thing is that I'm the extremist for wanting to reduce government debt, spending, taxes, and regulation on business at a time when these are at historic national highs.)
No comments:
Post a Comment