Analysis Of Alexander Hamilton In The Federalist Papers

Aristophanes wrote The Acharnians at a time where the world he saw around him was changing. Athens had been at war for six years with no end in sight, the leader who started the war has been killed by a plague, and just three years prior Athens almost voted to kill off one of its allies for trying to leave the Delian League. He was seeing a whole new side of Athens. A side in which the concept of an independent polis has been lost and Athens is at war with its former allies. These are the things that inspire Aristophanes’ Greek comedy to be born. He uses the theater to address the questions he has about what is

What is of greater underlying significance for Aristotle, however, is not so much the size of the citizen-body as the stark contrast between the respective ideas that “those constitutions which aim at the common good are right, as being in accord with absolute justice” and “those which aim only at the common good of the rulers are wrong” (The Politics, 3:6, 1279a16, p. 189). In practice, Aristotle’s juxtaposition is implicitly suggestive that if one is ruling in their own self-interest, regardless of the size of the group, and be that for themselves or the minority to which they belong, then they are in essence missing the point of what it is that they are supposed to be doing. Thus, the key point Aristotle is trying to make is this: the ruler of a polis or state; be that one person, a few people, or many people; should govern in accordance with the interests of the polis or state as a whole at heart rather than with the interests of a select few.

The Federalist Papers written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay are one of the greatest collections of literature from the time period of 1787 to 1788 when the Constitution was being ratified by the states. This collection of eighty-five essays was written for the states, to help them better understand and grasp a concept of why they should vote for the ratification of The Constitution. Why did the Madison, Hamilton, and Jay write The Federalist Papers and what is there underlying meaning? Who were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay? What was Madison trying to say in regards to the concept of federalism, separation of powers, republics and ratifying the Constitution and why? Each of these questions can be further explored and answered in Madison’s Federalist #51. By analyzing #51, with the addition of #10, clarity can be gained on the meaning behind these essays and there obvious importance to the nation’s history.

Swiss-French writer Benjamin Constant and ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle offer conflicting viewpoints concerning the merits and possibilities of ancient Greek democracy. Aristotle’s political theory attempts to justify his city-state’s political structure by providing a model of the common good, or Chief Aim, his end goal for Athenian democracy. He believed Athenians could reach the Chief Aim as a society by individually learning to be virtuous and then instilling laws and morals based on these ideals. In his lecture, The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with that of the Moderns, Constant highlights that the individual liberties protected in a modern representative democracy are much more important than the political liberties that one was given in antiquity. Constant illustrates that while some ideas of ancient Greek democracy are precious, Aristotle’s political theory is not an obtainable reality and it was beneficial that modern democracies transitioned to a system that protects individual liberty.

Democracy is a form of government where people choose leaders through elections and social construct that are based on the equality of everyone within the state. It is a form of government were majority and public opinions combine to choose leaders with respect to the social structure of a particular society, taking into consideration the social laws, rules, traditions, norms, values, and culture. Plato and Aristotle tow of the most influential figures in Greek philosophy. Both Plato and Aristotle were big critics of democracy as a poor form of government. Aristotle’s views about democracy hold that democratic office will cause corruption in the people, if the people choose to redistribute the wealth of the

Aristotle says that justice is thought of as equality among all, there is a disregard to merit (p.172). In a society, there is usually more poor people and because there is this demand of equality then the majority rule (p.174). Mob rule is then authoritative. All governments have their forms, which are good and are bad. Democracy to Aristotle is not the best regime because it is ruled by the poor or the ones that need from the government. Government is not chosen by those who pursue virtue, but instead pursue wealth. The democratic principle is that of freedom, wealth, and birth. Not virtue. He believes the best regime would not be exactly a democracy but a polity that would be a combination of freedom, wealth, birth and virtue. The best regime has ideal conditions in which it becomes a predictable regime and consists of values, choices, the inanimate, elements of the class of workers, and the education of rulers. Democracy has a big defect in that it does not have intelligence or wisdom. It is the rule of many. It is based on the idea of happiness by following pleasures (p.48). Democracy comes into play when the majority revolt against the oligarchy because of the ideas of freedom. The problem with it is that people are pursuing their pleasures, not thinking of the state as a whole. There is unity based on pleasure. Before long, everyone is pursuing their own pleasures and there is an undermining of authority

According to Scott (2008), the Constitution of America has undergone several translations within the history of America because they found it to be unclear. Whereas it appears discrepant that the unclear Constitution could be useful, the disagreement is the case (Robertson, 2005). Americans regard the Constitution to be helpful for the reason that it allows for diverseness of views. In the history of America, a variety of thoughts would develop with alarming and formidable support through various factions (Robertson, 2005). Today, the main political arguments are presented from the Republican group or Democratic group. During the early periods of the American government, arguments on politics were made by Thomas Jefferson

In the eyes of the Classical Greeks, political participation is the manifestation of the most important of freedoms. Those who were most useful to society, to their polis, were those who made the most of their capability to think and speak in such a way as to benefit those around them. Unlike the modern man, and specifically the modern American, the Greeks, in the words of Paul Rahe in his “Primacy of Politics in Ancient Greece”, “did not value political freedom for the sake of life, liberty, and property; they valued the last three for the sake of the first” (Rahe 279). This notion of political action being the foundation of a functional society is not one that is implemented today—most Americans consider the government to be infringing on

These views were evident, and perhaps promoted, due to the continual control of government by aristocrats. These rulers sought to improve their own interests over those of the poleis, and promoted their own values and ideas. Aristotle believed that the best form of governing should be decided by those governed and, although he believed democracy to be the best of the examples of government, believed that voting would both satisfy the citizens’ desire for equality and avoid revolutions such as those that result from the tyrannies that had come before.

When I think about a political community, I usually associate it with elections, politicians, and advertisements that bad mouth candidates from the different political parties. Politicians try to persuade citizens to vote for them by making promises that they may never fulfill. But a political community is more than that. A comparison of Aristotle and John Locke’s nature and purpose of a political community has given me a new insight. I learned that, even though the political community is responsible to provide security, its main purpose is aimed for the highest good of all its citizens, which is virtue and happiness.

In Aristotle's Politics, he focuses much on the regimes of an oligarchy and of a democracy. Democracies exists when the free and poor, being a majority, have authority to rule, and have an equal share in the city. Oligarchies exists when the few wealthy and better born have authority and grant benefits in proportion to a person's wealth (1280a:10-30;1290a:5-10).

In turn, the individual also benefits by discovering their niche within society. Aristotle’s strong support of community collaboration in life and educations is very much present in his political ideas as well. Ultimately, the purpose of government is to develop and finalize a city state, which is achieved “only when households and families live well as a community.” (Politics, Aristotle Bk III, Ch.9, p.386). For this to happen, the government must create a peaceful and secure atmosphere within the community, allowing citizens to trust each other.

As one of the most significant works in philosophy, The Republic has been one of the most historically and intellectually influential basis of many political theories and philosophical approaches since its first appearance. It is also crucial to mention that the book contains both Plato’s and Socrates’ arguments of life and the view of the Athenian Democracy in the ancient Greek world. Therefore, it can be confusing and complicated to decide to which philosopher the arguments belong. The main focus of the book is to find the definition and the whereabouts of order, justice and to establish a just state, as well as to prove that a just man is happier than the unjust man by providing examples. The true importance of The Republic lies in the fact that everything has meaning in it, not only the arguments, but also the people who act as metaphors for the different kind of roles, which they fulfill in the Athenian society, furthermore the way they speak symbolizes those roles and every one of them embodies a part of the soul and the city-state. Even though it is not obvious, Plato / Socrates criticizes the Athenian society and tries to establish a new, ideal one with the different people he meets and talks to in the book.

The subject which the question focuses on is the view of Aristotle’s ideal state. The distinction between hierarchy and equality is at the heart of the understanding of Aristotle’s ideal state. He claims that an ideal state ought to be arranged to maximise the happiness of its citizens. So happiness together with political action is the telos of human life. This end can be reached by living a better ethical life. However, he endorses hierarchy over equality. On one hand we have the equality which benefits everyone; on the other hand we have the distinction of classes meant in terms of diversities and differences where the middle one appears to be the means through which the state is balanced. Furthermore what is clear for Aristotle is that

What one can take away from both the implicit and explicit criticisms given by Xenophon and Aristotle is that political life is incredibly messy and problematic and, moreover, the best regime, the telos of political life, may not be unattainable. Both works indicate that virtue must be a main component of the regime, yet it appears human beings have difficulty remaining virtuous in the face of 1) material wealth and 2) the allure of