Having finished our discussion of the dangers of foreign force and influence that was taken up by John Jay in the last four essays (and the only four of his that we will cover in this thirty-six part series), we now begin our discussion of the dangers from dissensions between the states that is covered by Hamilton in Federalist No. 6 and Federalist No. 7.

Again addressing the people of the State of New York in the Independent Journal, Hamilton notes that republics, like monarchies, are administered by MEN and that men are subject to aversions, predilections, rivalships, and desires of unjust acquisitions. In addition, Hamilton notes that popular assemblies [are] frequently subject to the impulses of rage, resentment, jealousy, avarice, and of other irregular and violent propensities and that it is well known that their
determinations are often governed by a few individuals in whom they place confidence and are, of course, liable to be tinctured by the passions and views of those individuals.

After all, have there not been as many wars founded upon commercial motives since that has become the prevailing system of nations, as were before occasioned by the cupidity of territory or dominion? Has Has not the spirit of commerce, in many instances, administered new incentives to the appetite, both for the one and for the other?

A student of history knows that Sparta, Athens, Rome, and Carthage were all republics and were as often engaged in wars, both offensive and defensive, as the neighbouring monarchies. More recently, in European history, Venice and the provinces of Holland were often engaged in wars.

So what reason can we have to confide in those reveries which would seduce us into an expectation of peace and cordiality between the members of the present confederacy, in a state of separation? In a nutshell, none.

But if the states form a union that is a Confederate Republic and their constitution prevents the differences that neighbourhood occasions, in the words of Gabriel Bonnot do Mably, in Principes des Negociations, it will extinguish that secret jealousy which disposes all states to aggrandize themselves at the expense of their neighbours, and minimize the dangers of dissension between the states.

In other words, as a whole, our strengths will multiply and our weaknesses will divide and be conquered.

Want to discuss? Join The Federalists on LinkedIn. The open group has been created specifically to discuss the philosophical underpinnings of the governance of nations and their ramifications on the national and international economics and global trade.

Today we discuss Federalist No. 5. This is the fourth, and final, in the series of contributions by John Jay that we will be covering in our thirty-six part blog series. In this essay, Jay concludes his discussion of the dangers of foreign force and influence while writing to the people of the State of New York in the Independent.

In this piece Jay reminds us that weakness and divisions at home would invite dangers from abroad; and that nothing would tend more to secure us from them than union, strength, and good government within ourselves. In this essay, he reminds us that although it seems obvious to common sense that the people of such an island [as Great Britain] should be but one nation, we find that they were for ages divided into three, and that those three were almost constantly embroiled in quarrels and wars with one another. Then he asks would not the same thing happen if the people of America divide themselves into three or four nations. After all, would not similar jealousies arise, and be in like manner cherished? Instead of their being “joined in affection” and free from all apprehension of different “interests,” envy and jealousy would soon extinguish confidence and affection, and the partial interests of each confederacy, instead of the general interests of all America, would be the only objects of their policy and pursuits. Hence, like most other BORDERING nations, they would always be either involved in disputes and war, or live in the constant apprehension of them.

After spending time noting how likely this would be to happen when one of the confederacies became unquestionably more formidable than any of the others, Jay then goes on to note that the proposed confederacies [of the time] would be DISTINCT NATIONS and each of them would have its commerce with foreigners to regulate by distinct treaties; and as their productions and commodities are different and proper for different markets, so would those treaties be essentially different. Different commercial concerns must create different interests, and of course different degrees of political attachment to and connection with different foreign nations.

You’d have a situation where one confederacy was ready to declare war on a foreign nation for hostile actions, while another would want to do everything to preserve peace with its foremost trading partner. Just like neighbouring nations in Europe, acting under the impulse of opposite interests and unfriendly passions, would frequently be found taking different sides, so would the confederacies. What a nightmare! And given how much more easy it is to receive foreign fleets into our ports, and foreign armies into our country, than it is to persuade or compel them to depart, a situation of divided loyalties is the last situation you want to have on a continent.

So, to maximize safety, you need one nation, one Union. And for that Union to be true, the citizens must be of one mind and one heart. And, furthermore, so should the officials they represent to elect them. But that is a topic for other posts.

Want to discuss? Join The Federalists on LinkedIn. The open group has been created specifically to discuss the philosophical underpinnings of the governance of nations and their ramifications on the national and international economics and global trade.

Today we discuss Federalist No. 4. This is the third in the series of four contributions by John Jay that we will be covering in our thirty-six part blog series. In this essay, Jay again addresses the dangers from foreign force and influence while writing to the people of the State of New York.

In this essay, published in the Independent Journal, Jay notes that the safety of the people of America against dangers from FOREIGN force depends not only on their forbearing to give JUST causes of war to other nations, but also on their placing and continuing themselves in such a situation as not to INVITE hostility or insult. As Supply Management professionals, this essay hits close to home because Jay begins to explain this statement by noting that with France and with Britain and with most other European nations we are rivals in navigation and the carrying trade; and we shall deceive ourselves if we suppose that any of them will rejoice to see it flourish; for, as our carrying trade cannot increase without in some degree diminishing theirs, it is more their interest, and will be more their policy, to restrain than to promote it. Furthermore, in the trade to China and India, we interfere with more than one nation, inasmuch as it enables us to partake in advantages which they had in a manner monopolized, and as we thereby supply ourselves with commodities which we used to purchase from them.

The extension of our own commerce in our own vessels cannot give pleasure to any nations who possess territories on or near this continent, because the cheapness and excellence of our productions, added to the circumstance of vicinity, and the enterprise and address of our merchants and navigators, will give us a greater share in the advantages which those territories afford, than consists with the wishes or policy of their respective sovereigns.

Wow! Jay essentially predicted the global dominance, at least in GDP, that America, a country that did not yet exist, would attain 84 years before it happened! And he predicted the challenges America would face when it attained this dominance. Not bad. Plus, he realized that inducements to war may arise out of these circumstances. (Which they did. Thee was the Franco-American War which consisted of the French privateer attacks on U.S. Shipping, the War of 1812 brought partially about due to trade restrictions, the Mexican-American War, etc.)

As a result, he argues the need for a a union and a good national government … to put and keep the people of America in SUCH A SITUATION as, instead of INVITING war, will tend to repress and discourage it. A situation that consists in the best possible state of defence which can only be realized in a Union because one government can collect and avail itself of the talents and experience of the ablest men, in whatever part of the Union they may be found and move on uniform principles of policy. Plus, It can apply the resources and power of the whole to the defence of any particular part, and that more easily and expeditiously than State governments or separate confederacies can possibly do, for want of concert and unity of system. In addition, in the formation of treaties, it will regard the interest of the whole, and the particular interests of the parts as connected with that of the whole.

But, at least in this author’s view, the heart of the article appears in the last paragraph. Whatever may be our situation, whether firmly united under one national government, or split into a number of
confederacies, certain it is, that foreign nations will know and view it exactly as it is; and they will act toward us accordingly.

If they see that our national government is efficient and well administered, our trade prudently regulated, our militia properly
organized and disciplined, our resources and finances discreetly managed, our credit re-established, our people free, contented, and united, they will be much more disposed to cultivate our friendship than provoke our resentment.

In other words, if a country wants to be safe, and free, it needs a well administered national government that effectively organizes its militia, discreetly manages its resources and finances, and prudently regulates trade. As a result, it is important to elect officials that maintain a militia that is large enough to defend the country from perspective threats (but not so large that the military becomes a driving force), know how to balance the budget (and maintain a good credit rating), and believe in fair global trade (which should not be too protectionist or completely free of tariffs, especially considering that tariffs are still a significant part of the tax-base in many nations). And while appropriately regulated and fair is open to interpretation, that interpretation needs to be congruent with what the majority of countries that participate in global trade (which today participate in the United Nations) more-or-less accept as reasonable. And just like an extremist government will not minimize the chance of hostility (and maximize the safety of its people), neither will an extremist candidate.

Want to discuss? Join The Federalists on LinkedIn. The open group has been created specifically to discuss the philosophical underpinnings of the governance of nations and their ramifications on the national and international economics and global trade.

This is a topic that has been top of my mind as of late, and with the upcoming election, a topic that should be top of yours as this is still the primary source of news for many people, even if they get it in digital form.

Traditionally, a newspaper has been the primary vehicle of the free press, an establishment that was only first realized in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1539 and a reality that even England — despite its attractiveness for, and ability to produce, great thinkers — did not see until about a century and a half later. In fact, if it was not for the Areopagitica of John Milton, which is among history’s most influential and impassioned philosophical defences of the principle of a right to freedom of speech and expression (Source: Wikipedia), who knows if we would have freedom of the press today? (Milton was obviously among the great thinkers who inspired Hamilton, Madison, and the other delegates who drafted the US constitution which created the country which has produced some of the mightiest advocates for the free press in recent times.) In addition, one of Milton’s central premises was that the individual is capable of using reason and distinguishing right from wrong, good from bad so the press should not have to be licensed or censored.

So given that the newspaper is the primary vehicle of the free press, which is supposed to be the primary means by which free speech is spread in modern times, what ethical responsibilities does it have. Much ado is always made about the ethical responsibilities of the journalist, but what about the ethical responsibility of the publication? For example, what good does it do if the journalist dig deeps, finds something, comes up with a correlation that the publisher doesn’t like, and the story gets buried? What good does it do if a (printing) error is made and it is not corrected in a timely manner? What good does it do to only report one side of the story. (Especially when every story has essentially three sides in the mind’s eye — yours, mine, and the truth, which is meticulously sought by any good journalist.)

If you look at some of the commonly accepted principles of journalism, they typically say that a journalist must be:

• obligated to the truth,
• in allegiance with the citizens and their public interest,
• possessive of a discipline of verification,
• independent from the organizations, corporations, and people they cover,
• open to feedback and criticism, and
• of good conscious.

Based on this, one would think it would be safe to say that a newspaper — which is the outlet through which journalists report on the news, issues, and concerns of the day — must be:

• obligated to the truth,
• in allegiance with the community they serve and the public interests within,
• possessive of a discipline of verification,
• of detached independence from the organizations, corporations, and people they cover – completely separating advertising from news coverage, and
• open to feedback and criticism.

But is that enough? Since a newspaper is a collective of journalists and the primary vehicle through which free speech is promoted and the public interests of the community addressed, it seems only logical that it be held to an even higher ethical standard. It seems fair to say that a newspaper should also:

• hold itself accountable for all that it publishes, and if errors or omissions are made, quickly issue a retraction or correction in such a way that the retraction or correction is likely to be seen by everyone who was misinformed,
• make an effort to report on both sides of a battle where there is a dispute or conflict,
• make an effort to voice dissenting opinions, even if the opinion is limited to one reader; As John Stuart Mill wrote in his book On Liberty, If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and one, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind,
• make an effort to be balanced both in terms of the types of news reported, and the views associated with each topic, story, or debate, and
• serve as an independent monitor of of power. James Madison got it right when he said that all power in human hands is liable to be abused, and that’s why we need a free press to monitor it. Chequered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted to the press for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression.

Furthermore, in today’s digital age, one could also that if the newspaper has an online edition, or is published digitally, that it also has a responsibility:

• to provide a digital community forum for its readers to interact with it and each other,
• to not criticize, or censor, the views and statements of its readers (unless such views or statements are made in a way that are libelious, hateful, or otherwise in opposition to municipal, state, or federal law, and only if such views are required by such law to be blocked),
• and to address the concerns brought forth by the readers if those concerns demonstrate that a misprint was made, that the reporting was not factual, or that one or more sides to the issue, story, or debate was missed.

After all, if a newspaper is the vehicle of the free press, and the rationale of the free press is to serve the people, then the newspaper should at least react to all of the people it claims to serve. And it should remember, in the words of Andrew Vachss, a free press doesn’t mean it’s not a tame press.

What do you think?

In full disclaimer, just as the doctor has never claimed to be an analyst, he’s never claimed to be a journalist either. He is a blogger. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Want to discuss? Join The Federalists on LinkedIn. The open group has been created specifically to discuss the philosophical underpinnings of the governance of nations, their ramifications on the national and international economics and global trade, and the rights and responsibilities they suggest.

Today we discuss Federalist No. 3. This is the second of four contributions by John Jay (in the thirty-six essays we will cover) who again addresses the dangers from foreign force and influence while writing to the people of the State of New York.

In this essay, Jay notes that among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their SAFETY seems to be the first. As a result, in this essay, he takes up the subject, but only as it respects security for the preservation of peace and tranquillity, as well as against dangers from FOREIGN ARMS AND INFLUENCE, as from dangers of the LIKE KIND arising from domestic causes. His goal, to examine whether the people are not right in their opinion that a cordial Union, under an efficient national government, affords them the best security that can be devised against HOSTILITIES from abroad.

To this end, he puts forward the argument that when once an efficient national government is established, the best men in the country will not only consent to serve, but also will generally be appointed to manage it; for, although town or country, or other contracted influence, may place men in State assemblies, or senates, or courts of justice, or executive departments, yet more general and extensive reputation for talents and other qualifications will be necessary to recommend men to offices under the national government. As a result, the administration, the political counsels, and the judicial decisions of the national government will be more wise, systematical, and judicious than those of individual States, and
consequently more satisfactory with respect to other nations, as well as more SAFE with respect to us.

Let us deliberate on this for a moment. In this paragraph he is making a number of claims which not only serve as the basis for his argument that a Union is stronger than a collection of confederacies, but also highlight the key difference between a Union and a collection of confederacies. In these statements, Jay is stating that

1. A national government will attract the best men,
2. The best of the best men will be elected by the population to manage it, and, as a result,
3. The decisions from the whole will not only be better than the decisions from the part, but, as they will be coming from a nation, they will be more amicable to other nations and, thus, decrease the chance of conflicts, increasing the nation’s safety.

Of these claims, the first two are paramount. If you are going to have an effective republic, then

1. the best candidates have to be put forth and run for office and
2. the people have to elect from those candidate the candidate who is best able to serve them as a whole.

If the best candidates are not put forth, the Union will not offer the benefits it is designed to offer. This means that if you are running a party system, the party has to put forward the candidates who will best serve the interests of all of the citizens with a leaning toward that party, and not just the senior party members. If it doesn’t, then you, as a citizen, have to vote for an independent as it is your responsibility to elect the best possible candidate just as it is the responsibility of the best possible candidate to represent the needs of the people as a whole to the best of her ability. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

In addition, Jay also argues that while the prospect of present loss or advantage may often tempt the governing party in one or two States to swerve from good faith and justice … those temptations … consequently having little or no influence on the national government … will be fruitless, and good faith and justice be preserved. In other words, while it may be easy for a person, corporation, or nation to sway the decisions of a rather small body of people that represent a small entity like a state, it will not be so easy at the level of the Union. For example, while you may be able to bribe a few elected officials to sway a vote at the level of the state, such an act would be considerably harder to do at the Union level.

Want to discuss? Join The Federalists on LinkedIn. The open group has been created specifically to discuss the philosophical underpinnings of the governance of nations and their ramifications on the national and international economics and global trade.