Around the world nations have had their founding heroes: Robert the Bruce in Scotland, General Tso in China, Gandhi in India, Peter the Great in Russia, Sir Francis Drake in England, Joan of Arc in France, etc. America, as we know, has it's founding heroes such as the intrepid George Washington, the stately Thomas Jefferson, and the sage Benjamin Franklin among so many others. While these heroes of the American founding are indisputably valorous and raised up by providence to the purpose for which they were born, their political views were not without flaws. Here are contained the political critiques on the contrasting views of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. While both men deserve the reverence that is their due, there are contrasting flaws in both their theories.
We all know the prowess of Thomas Jefferson, but have you ever considered that Jefferson was an Egalitarian? or that he wanted a graduated tax system? or that he was an agrarian? Here is a letter that he wrote to James Madison on the 28th of October 1785, that evidences these views:
Papers 8:681--82
"Seven o'clock, and retired to my fireside, I have determined to enter into conversation with you; this [Fontainebleau] is a village of about 5,000 inhabitants when the court is not here and 20,000 when they are, occupying a valley thro' which runs a brook, and on each side of it a ridge of small mountains most of which are naked rock. The king comes here in the fall always, to hunt. His court attend him, as do also the foreign diplomatic corps. But as this is not indispensably required, and my finances do not admit the expence of a continued residence here, I propose to come occasionally to attend the king's levees, returning again to Paris, distant 40 miles. This being the first trip, I set out yesterday morning to take a view of the place. For this purpose I shaped my course towards the highest of the mountains in sight, to the top of which was about a league. As soon as I had got clear of the town I fell in with a poor woman walking at the same rate with myself and going the same course. Wishing to know the condition of the labouring poor I entered into conversation with her, which I began by enquiries for the path which would lead me into the mountain: and thence proceeded to enquiries into her vocation, condition and circumstance. She told me she was a day labourer, at 8. sous or 4 d. sterling the day; that she had two children to maintain, and to pay a rent of 30 livres for her house (which would consume the hire of 75 days), that often she could get no emploiment, and of course was without bread. As we had walked together near a mile and she had so far served me as a guide, I gave her, on parting 24 sous. She burst into tears of a gratitude which I could perceive was unfeigned, because she was unable to utter a word. She had probably never before received so great an aid. This little attendrissement, with the solitude of my walk led me into a train of reflections on that unequal division of property which occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which I had observed in this country and is to be observed all over Europe. The property of this country is absolutely concentered in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 200 domestics, not labouring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers, and tradesmen, and lastly the class of labouring husbandmen. But after all these comes the most numerous of all the classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason that so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are kept idle mostly for the aske of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be laboured. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state."
(http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s32.html)
To be an Egalitarian and Agrarian is not to be bad, if fact they do have their good qualities, but they do lend themselves to fatal flaws. For example, while civil equality is good and just, economic equality is bad and unjust. I think Jefferson realizes this somewhat when he recognizes that "...an equal division of property is impracticable." The fatal flaw Jefferson makes however is to recommend a graduated tax system, which is unjustly casting both the burden of government, and the services government offers, only on the rich.
Agrarianism, dates back to the Romans, and to Cincinnatus especially. Cincinnatus was a Roman farmer who was called upon to lead Rome against invading threats, to do this, he had to adopt absolute power over the state. Despite what most would do, Cincinnatus gave up the dictatorship after the threat was neutralized, and returned to his farm. Figures like this were the ones to create and define Roman virtue, such as public trust and a close kinship with discipline and the earth. Agrarianism, while noble in some of it's aspects, as demonstrated by Cincinnatus, does have a dark side. While Wikipedia describes the light side as "...values rural society as superior to urban society, the independent farmer as superior to the paid worker, and sees farming as a way of life that can shape the ideal social values.[1] It stresses the superiority of a simpler rural life as opposed to the complexity of city life, with its banks and factories." It describes the dark side as "the term "agrarianism" means political proposals for land redistribution, specifically the distribution of land from the rich to the poor or landless. This terminology is common in many countries, and originated from the "Lex Sempronia Agraria" or "agrarian laws" of Rome in 133 BC, imposed by Tiberius Gracchus, that seized public land (ager publicus) used by the rich and distributed it to the poor.[2] This definition of agrarianism is commonly known as “agrarian reform.” In 18th- and 19th-century England and Ireland, the word identified any land reform movement that sought to redistribute farm lands more equally, especially to landless Irish families.[3]"
While to be Egalitarian before the law, and to be agrarian at heart, are good things, using government's bayonet to plunder and to redistribute at whim is dangerous and atrocious, and will end in abject tyranny, as Plato's digression teaches us. In Plato's digression, the state decays from what Socrates considered to be a perfect society into lower and baser forms. He presents an oligarchy, where wealth falls into the hands of the few, and the rest suffer, morphing into a Democracy, where the masses cast off their golden chains and reorganize the government so as to benefit the poor at the expense of the rich. However as Democracy decays, the poor start to turn on each other and to use the bayonet of government to not only steal among themselves, but to also give themselves licentious freedoms until Democracy collapses and Tyrants must step in to stop society from self-destruction. While Oligarchy is bad at some points, so is Democracy with it's. It is important to remember that there is no such thing as poly-justice, only justice exists, same towards all. Jefferson's political persuasions, I think, are flawed in these two areas.
On the other hand Hamilton seems to take the opposite views; whereas Jefferson is the Egalitarian Agrarian, Hamilton is the Elitist Urbanian. This view seems to take the exact opposite views as Jefferson on the structure of the state, property, and in what way people should live to maximize success.
Hamilton, is not a Democrat like Jefferson, rather he is an oligarch, the way Plato describes the different forms of the state. Hamilton, in elitist fashion, believed that the wealthy, by merely being wealthy were thereby qualified to lead the country, as is evidenced by Hamilton's desire to create a central banking system to control the nation's economy.
Hamilton's views on the structure of the state went hand in hand with his views on economics and morality. Instead of believing that the best way to live, and the most healthy for the state, was Agrarianism, he believed that "Urbanianism", for lack of a better term, was the best way for mankind to live, and most healthy to the state. By Urbanian, is meant the idea that living in cities provide better than living rurally.
Urbanianism has credit, for, when a man works alone, his production is limited; but when he mixes his labor with lots of other men, then everyone's labor is not worth only what they could have produced separately, but their labor is greatly multiplied. Urbanianism, as opposed to Agrarianism, is much more wealthy, but it also tends to be less moral. Because a close relationship with the earth creates a moral people, living in concrete jungles remove man from that state, and that removal also removes the moral benefit of working in good, clean, earth.
Therefore, while Hamilton was right on some things, he was wrong on others, as are we all. If Hamilton's conception of America became absolutely true, then everywhere would be like L.A. but if Jefferson's conception of America became absolutely true, then everywhere would be like Oklahoma. Neither of these conditions are ideal for the whole country to be like.
In conclusion, we see how both Jefferson and Hamilton's political persuasion had their merit, they also had their flaws. It is up to us to find and analyze these flaws so that we can create better views for ourselves that includes the good parts of Jefferson and Hamilton, but discards the bad. You can build your political view as you please, but learn from others, and examine your own from time to time to see what is true and right, and what is false and wrong, thereby is wisdom bestowed and a better future given in the same.
Papers 8:681--82
"Seven o'clock, and retired to my fireside, I have determined to enter into conversation with you; this [Fontainebleau] is a village of about 5,000 inhabitants when the court is not here and 20,000 when they are, occupying a valley thro' which runs a brook, and on each side of it a ridge of small mountains most of which are naked rock. The king comes here in the fall always, to hunt. His court attend him, as do also the foreign diplomatic corps. But as this is not indispensably required, and my finances do not admit the expence of a continued residence here, I propose to come occasionally to attend the king's levees, returning again to Paris, distant 40 miles. This being the first trip, I set out yesterday morning to take a view of the place. For this purpose I shaped my course towards the highest of the mountains in sight, to the top of which was about a league. As soon as I had got clear of the town I fell in with a poor woman walking at the same rate with myself and going the same course. Wishing to know the condition of the labouring poor I entered into conversation with her, which I began by enquiries for the path which would lead me into the mountain: and thence proceeded to enquiries into her vocation, condition and circumstance. She told me she was a day labourer, at 8. sous or 4 d. sterling the day; that she had two children to maintain, and to pay a rent of 30 livres for her house (which would consume the hire of 75 days), that often she could get no emploiment, and of course was without bread. As we had walked together near a mile and she had so far served me as a guide, I gave her, on parting 24 sous. She burst into tears of a gratitude which I could perceive was unfeigned, because she was unable to utter a word. She had probably never before received so great an aid. This little attendrissement, with the solitude of my walk led me into a train of reflections on that unequal division of property which occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which I had observed in this country and is to be observed all over Europe. The property of this country is absolutely concentered in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 200 domestics, not labouring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers, and tradesmen, and lastly the class of labouring husbandmen. But after all these comes the most numerous of all the classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason that so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are kept idle mostly for the aske of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be laboured. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state."
(http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s32.html)
To be an Egalitarian and Agrarian is not to be bad, if fact they do have their good qualities, but they do lend themselves to fatal flaws. For example, while civil equality is good and just, economic equality is bad and unjust. I think Jefferson realizes this somewhat when he recognizes that "...an equal division of property is impracticable." The fatal flaw Jefferson makes however is to recommend a graduated tax system, which is unjustly casting both the burden of government, and the services government offers, only on the rich.
Agrarianism, dates back to the Romans, and to Cincinnatus especially. Cincinnatus was a Roman farmer who was called upon to lead Rome against invading threats, to do this, he had to adopt absolute power over the state. Despite what most would do, Cincinnatus gave up the dictatorship after the threat was neutralized, and returned to his farm. Figures like this were the ones to create and define Roman virtue, such as public trust and a close kinship with discipline and the earth. Agrarianism, while noble in some of it's aspects, as demonstrated by Cincinnatus, does have a dark side. While Wikipedia describes the light side as "...values rural society as superior to urban society, the independent farmer as superior to the paid worker, and sees farming as a way of life that can shape the ideal social values.[1] It stresses the superiority of a simpler rural life as opposed to the complexity of city life, with its banks and factories." It describes the dark side as "the term "agrarianism" means political proposals for land redistribution, specifically the distribution of land from the rich to the poor or landless. This terminology is common in many countries, and originated from the "Lex Sempronia Agraria" or "agrarian laws" of Rome in 133 BC, imposed by Tiberius Gracchus, that seized public land (ager publicus) used by the rich and distributed it to the poor.[2] This definition of agrarianism is commonly known as “agrarian reform.” In 18th- and 19th-century England and Ireland, the word identified any land reform movement that sought to redistribute farm lands more equally, especially to landless Irish families.[3]"
While to be Egalitarian before the law, and to be agrarian at heart, are good things, using government's bayonet to plunder and to redistribute at whim is dangerous and atrocious, and will end in abject tyranny, as Plato's digression teaches us. In Plato's digression, the state decays from what Socrates considered to be a perfect society into lower and baser forms. He presents an oligarchy, where wealth falls into the hands of the few, and the rest suffer, morphing into a Democracy, where the masses cast off their golden chains and reorganize the government so as to benefit the poor at the expense of the rich. However as Democracy decays, the poor start to turn on each other and to use the bayonet of government to not only steal among themselves, but to also give themselves licentious freedoms until Democracy collapses and Tyrants must step in to stop society from self-destruction. While Oligarchy is bad at some points, so is Democracy with it's. It is important to remember that there is no such thing as poly-justice, only justice exists, same towards all. Jefferson's political persuasions, I think, are flawed in these two areas.
On the other hand Hamilton seems to take the opposite views; whereas Jefferson is the Egalitarian Agrarian, Hamilton is the Elitist Urbanian. This view seems to take the exact opposite views as Jefferson on the structure of the state, property, and in what way people should live to maximize success.
Hamilton, is not a Democrat like Jefferson, rather he is an oligarch, the way Plato describes the different forms of the state. Hamilton, in elitist fashion, believed that the wealthy, by merely being wealthy were thereby qualified to lead the country, as is evidenced by Hamilton's desire to create a central banking system to control the nation's economy.
Hamilton's views on the structure of the state went hand in hand with his views on economics and morality. Instead of believing that the best way to live, and the most healthy for the state, was Agrarianism, he believed that "Urbanianism", for lack of a better term, was the best way for mankind to live, and most healthy to the state. By Urbanian, is meant the idea that living in cities provide better than living rurally.
Urbanianism has credit, for, when a man works alone, his production is limited; but when he mixes his labor with lots of other men, then everyone's labor is not worth only what they could have produced separately, but their labor is greatly multiplied. Urbanianism, as opposed to Agrarianism, is much more wealthy, but it also tends to be less moral. Because a close relationship with the earth creates a moral people, living in concrete jungles remove man from that state, and that removal also removes the moral benefit of working in good, clean, earth.
Therefore, while Hamilton was right on some things, he was wrong on others, as are we all. If Hamilton's conception of America became absolutely true, then everywhere would be like L.A. but if Jefferson's conception of America became absolutely true, then everywhere would be like Oklahoma. Neither of these conditions are ideal for the whole country to be like.
In conclusion, we see how both Jefferson and Hamilton's political persuasion had their merit, they also had their flaws. It is up to us to find and analyze these flaws so that we can create better views for ourselves that includes the good parts of Jefferson and Hamilton, but discards the bad. You can build your political view as you please, but learn from others, and examine your own from time to time to see what is true and right, and what is false and wrong, thereby is wisdom bestowed and a better future given in the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment