Saturdays with Madison - Inaugural Edition
From the "Steyn/Goldberg/Long" school of titling stuff, I am thinking of establishing a new feature on the Member Feed: a weekly posting, on Saturdays, of snippets of Madison's insight from the Federalist papers (hence the title).
My favorite books serve as compasses in my life. The Federalist is on a short list that helps guide my reasoning and taste in public affairs. Don't worry: no homework is involved, but I will link to the whole document each week if you wish to read Madison's arguments in full.
Should you have a few free minutes on Saturday, consider using them as a free man or woman ought: pondering big questions in the presence of a great thinker.
From Federalist 10:
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.
- Comment (4)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Apr '11
Re: Saturdays with Madison - Inaugural Edition
Capital idea Crow's Nest. Food for thought, a true "Breakfast of Champions" or concerned citizens at least.
What it sheds light on to me is that he, and they, our founding fathers, understood the true nature of man and the need for safeguards. I know there are those that honestly consider first the constitutionality of a proposed piece of legislation but many who think it more noble to help the downtrodden, the victim if you will, forgetting that true justice, when exercised, does the best to all. Merely taking from one and giving to another may feel good and noble but never considers the consequences of that action for all or especially the one proposed for it to benefit.
Someone I work with recently said that the problem is one of insulation of which I'm in agreement. Our ruling class truly are continually insulated from the legislation they daily propose and usually pass never once themselves feeling it's impact.
Thanks CN for a getting my neurons flowing.
Jun '10
Re: Saturdays with Madison - Inaugural Edition
Go for it. Great idea.
Jan '11
Re: Saturdays with Madison - Inaugural Edition
I'll support your idea by taking you up on it ... let's consider the idea presented in the citation.
Madison's solution to the above dilemma was to allow interests to compete. Rather than pretend that statesmen can rise above their interests, why not simply accept them? We should allow the public good to emerge from the competition naturally, instead of suppressing interests to try and force an approved interest to win a rigged game.
Man is able to rise above his passions, but his interests aren't mere passions. The competition of interests is a highly rational exercise in strategy.
Dec '10
Re: Saturdays with Madison - Inaugural Edition
This is a fine idea, for discussion. I am fond of the Federalist papers, but mostly keep that to myself. In principle, they are great tools, but in practice, they are blunt. They were written in and for a different time.
The principles elucidated never contemplated our era, when the vote of a Conrad Hilton could be cancelled out by a Paris Hilton. As such, this is a fine topic for Saturdays, when, perhaps we can pretend that they were written to appeal our own electorate.
My saturdays do not normally allow me to pretend that.