Essay On The Federalist Paper

1601 Words 7 Pages
Stemming from the idea that humans are inherently fallible is the idea that mankind requires some guide to define morality and control its wills. When a government is established within a community, that entity becomes the lawmaker and the law enforcer, and this system is upheld as long as it maintains the safety and prosperity of its people. So one must then wonder: in order to maintain order, must a government be centralized and authoritative, or can the success of a civilization solely rely on interpersonal agreements between people? That is to say, must there be an enforcer of law? I believe that a supreme government is now necessary to provoke an atmosphere of prosperity within a society.
To address the philosophical question: Do people
…show more content…
He establishes his case with a utilitarian’s viewpoint, explaining that a good government’s main purpose is to promote safety for as many citizens as possible, that they may find benefit in life. He maintains that this can only adequately be done with a supreme national state of some form. John Jay mainly forms his argument by saying, “… qualifications will be necessary to recommend men to offices under the national government…” and maintains that a national government will make more moral decisions because it has a larger pool to pick its legislatures and commanders from. It seemed that a more just society is then more safe, “… more wise, systematical, and judicious than those of individual States…” because better qualified officials will better resist the temptation of harmful foreign affairs (Jay 95). He also brings up the fact that under the Articles, the United States had no centralized judiciary system, therefore laws might be unfairly enforced state by state or ignored completely. Before the ratification, America saw its first uprising with the actions from Shay’s Rebellion. America’s failure to have proper tariffs and establish good national credit caused farmers to lose money, which eventually prevented them from paying their state taxes. These people were the true stakeholders of society, lenient on a government with no inherent-power to bail …show more content…
Marxist Despotism can be used as an example here: when one person is given complete power over a settlement or country, it is historically likely that someone eventually becomes tyrannical. This of course leads to genocidal massacres (Stalin/Hitler), paths toward poverty (Louis XIV sculpted France into a well-functioning bureaucracy that was later destroyed due to Louis XVI inadequacy in his rule), etc. Most European monarchies’ inevitable failure sprung from the concept of divine right, that everything a ruler decides is straight from God. Logically, most of these countries had a large lower class who struggled to believe that God would wish them hungry. Kublai Khan of the Mongol Empire maintained a vast empire while providing an atmosphere of complete religious freedom. The silk road flourished underneath him because he was able to provide safety for tradesmen, country to country. Furthermore, Europeans and Asians began their first substantial, diplomatic relations under the supervision of his reign. However, he was still responsible for hundreds of murders. To control a continent, you first have to conquer it, and to conquer is to

Related Documents