Is Small Government More Reliable Than Large Government

Both AntiFederalists and Federalists wanted to secure liberty but clashed in their opinions on whether a large republic would achieve this end. Antifederalists saw large republics as historically flawed, impractical, undemocratic and dangerous to liberty. Brutus attempted to build his case against consolidating the United States into one large republic by first citing the political writings of Montesquieu. “‘…[In] a large republic the public good is sacrificed to [only] a thousand views…[but] [in] a small one, the interests of the public is easier perceived,…[and] abuses are of less extent…”” (EA pg. 111). Montesquieu asserted that large republics typically failed, because a few wealthy aristocrats would assume power and make decisions in their own interests at the expense of the other citizens. To prevent abuse of power and maintain the will of the people a republic had to remain small in size. Brutus contended history supported Montesquieu by claiming the historic downfalls of the free governments of Greece and Rome were attributed to their expansions into large republics (EA pg 111).

There exists a similarity between both the federalists and the anti-federalists. Both felt that government was necessary because ‘men were not “angels”’ (Bryner, Public Virtue and the Roots of American Government, 1987). However, they disagree on the size of government and the republic. The federalists wanted a large republic with a central government while the anti-federalist wanted a small republic with a state government. In this essay, I generally agree with the statements except the part where federalists were republicans because they envisioned the commonweal of the national community. The weakness of this argument is that there may be a false impression that the candidate is truly virtuous. Thus, when he becomes the national government,

The Federalist and the antifederalist are at battle in political ideology in 1789 for whom would envision the future of their new formal government. That vision would then lead to the contemporary unified form of government we have today. However, there must be a comparison and contrasting form of organization amongst their key points, to identify where they stand amongst the political party groups beliefs. In a sensible way, the role of government is envisioned by both the Federalist Party and Anti Federalist Party to determine whether or beliefs or assumptions would shape the contemporary government we have today.

There exist similarities between both the federalists and the anti-federalists. Both felt that government was necessary because ‘men were not “angels”’ (Bryner, 1987). However, they disagreed on the size of government appropriate in a republic. The federalists wanted a large republic with a central government while the anti-federalists wanted a small republic with a state government. Both the federalists and anti-federalists were liberals and republicans. Republicanism refers to a political theory of government that advocates for the participation of the people for the common good of the community (Rawls, 1993). It focuses on the importance of virtue. Virtue is important because it encourages ‘personal restraint and willingness to contribute to the common good’ (Bryner, 1987, p. 2).

America is an incredibly vast, diverse country, and has been this way for hundreds of years. The sheer size of America, even when it was only composed of thirteen states with a total population of nearly three million people (Brutus, essay 1, p. 64), concerned many Americans in the 1780s, due to this inquiry: was America simply too large for a republican style government to work? Many anti-federalists claimed that republics could only work on a small scale, while the federalists believed that having a large republic was the only way to go and would be beneficial to the public good. Before this time, history furnished no examples of a well-functioning republic as big as America, so the federalists and anti federalists were stepping into a completely new untouched territory.

The primary source is Federalist paper No. 10, which is a the first of James Madison’s contributions to the series of essays known as the Federalist Papers. This essay is a highly regarded paper among the collection. The Federalist No. 10 is merely rhetoric used to rationalize the benefits of a new system of government, explain how the new union will be constructed and most crucial to the essay, sway public opinion to support the ratification of the new constitution. This particular primary source is imperative to understanding the complexity of the United States government at the time of its birth as well as now. Madison makes an argument that the expansion of the federal government is necessary to protect liberty against the excess of democracy. The document reveals the advantages of a Republic and serves as an explanation as to why the U.S. espouses a Republican form of government and the Constitution.

Federalist 51 mentions that “the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for the inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches.” Keeping this idea in mind, it is the reason why the legislative branch is divided into the House of Representatives and the Senate. By dividing the legislative branch, Congress assures that too many individuals do not control one large portion of the government and that the legislative branch works with more efficiency without too many conflicting opinions. Additionally, in the Judiciary branch, the author explains that “some deviations [from absolute democracy] must be admitted.” The exception is necessary because according the Hamilton or Madison, the branch needs specific qualifications in order to elect essential members and that the position must be permanent so that it combat all dependence on authority. This concept sets up the process by which Supreme Court justices are put into power today where the president appoints a judge to serve for life or until the judge chooses to retire. Moreover, the article proposes the design that the overall government itself should be split into two sections, the federal and state level. This so that the state government can adhere to the values of its individual populations while the federal government lays down the general guidelines so that the state government’s values does not exploit the citizen’s natural

The colonies and their mother country were at their brinks with each other. Taxes, rebellion, and unreasonable law pushed these nations into battle which would be known as the American Revolution. The separated colonies would unite and fight together for their well deserved independence. Throughout this the first government was set up by the Continental Congress known as the Articles of Confederation. Some may argue that the Articles were effective in expanding the nation; however, the Articles proved to be ineffective when dealing with the falling economy and taking control of the colonies.

Federalism was the belief in giving power to two levels of government, state and national. After the Declaration of Independence in 1776, colonies became states in an attempt to attain the ideal of a geopolitical nation. A geopolitical nation consists of individual states equivalent to individual countries, and these countries ruled themselves, while also being united under the same national government. The structure of federalism was a continuation from the Articles to the Constitution in the belief that each state retained its own power. Each state had the power to overturn any national government authority, exhibit their own authority over their residents, and have a ruling council of elected representatives. The departure, however, was in the limitations put on state power. The states were stripped of their power to overturn national taxation. The national government was

The argument between Federalists and Anti-Federalists might seem long gone to American citizens, but still their philosophical foundations shape the teams, scope and size of the battlefield. These philosophies go back to two lone men, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Both fought aggressively for a government based on their ideas, and both did make portions of the now-standing American government. This essay will outline the political, social and economic philosophies of both men, how their philosophies influenced the government today, and a closing opinion.

The United States, in the nineteenth century, had established themselves as independent state, with gaining expansion of land, rights, and freedoms in the western part of the world after succeeding from the British tyrannical rule. However, the United States had been cogitating on whether a federalist view, a strong national government limiting state’s powers, or anti-federalist view, opposing the constitution and pushing for state’s rights, should rule the government of the new independent state. Given the conditions of the early nineteenth century in the United States, Thomas Jefferson, an anti-federalist, had a more valid philosophy of government, than federalist Alexander Hamilton. Thomas Jefferson believed that a weaker national government

The Articles of Confederation, a written agreement that ensured each state’s sovereignty, freedom and independence, led America to victory over the British centralized government. During the late eighteenth century, the empowered government terrified the Americans, hence the thirteen colonies decided to spread governance powers equally to all functional states. The states had absolute dominance over the Congress due to the Articles of Confederation. While the localized power of states seemed to be promising, the system posed great threat to the major components of a democratic government, which are coercion, revenue, and legitimacy (Lecture 1 - The Roots of Government). The system of localized power did not ensure legitimacy, which referred to people’s recognition of national government. Congress’s lack of power to control each state’s actions caused great chaos. Eventually, national government’s lack of power and inability to unify the states exposed multiple flaws in the Articles of Confederation; consequently, a new supreme law, the Constitution was established by the founding fathers. The new supreme law successfully altered the imbalanced system into a novel democratic government.

Federalist papers were a series of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison and were publish with the pen name “Publius”. They were first written to urge the citizens of New York City to support ratification of the proposed United States Constitution. This paper will analyze the problem of tyranny of the majority in both society and the government by using Madison’s Federalist Papers No.10 and 51. It will also discuss how the republican government and separation of powers provide remedies.

This paper is a summary of bigger government and the reason they matter to the nation and, thus, supporting the debate that bigger governments are better governments. According to Conn (2012) in the article “Central Government: 13 Reasons Why Big Government Matters” published in the Huffington Post, bigger governments are better. The article describes how one of the most important improvements in America’s infrastructure was the roads. The landscape, which was hard and difficult to penetrate made it impossible to travel, hence the people lived in the same community. The federal government funded the first roads to be built in America. Also, canals, sponsored by the government, encouraged the connection

This debate greatly contributed our understanding of our national government and provided for stronger protections and the addition of a bill of rights. Although the Constitution did ultimately get passed, this did not necessarily prove the Federalists right in every instance and the Anti-Federalists wrong. This is particularly is proven in the evidence of the many predictions of the Anti-Federalists that have come true and the change of opinion on several essays from "The Federalist" that the authors later changed their opinion on. The decisive reason for the Constitution's eventual ratification and the alleged failure of the Anti-Federalist can be pinpointed to several key issues, some of which are the lack of an cohesive opinion of the Anti-Federalists, the absence of a worthy alternative, and a weaker argument to be debated. This is notably portrayed in the Anti-Federalist dissention of the Constitutions clauses for the office of the President and reveals similarities to the failures they suffered in their position against Constitution as a whole.