Federalist Papers #21-22

I have already told you enough times that Alexander Hamilton is a genius, you do not need me to tell you again.

And yet here we go...

FEDERALIST No. 21. Other Defects of the Present Confederation

So #21 and #22 are a set, in the sense that they both set out a series of so-called defects, and boy howdy is Hamilton right about everything that's wrong.

We begin #21 by noting that there is no good way to get rid of an elected official that isn't really doing their job (or isn't doing their job really well). There's, like, treason, but nothing for all of the stuff that isn't treason. Incompetence, for example, or a lack of focus, or an unwillingness to cooperate.

Also, while we're on the subject of things our constitution doesn't have, there's no agreement our states have to sign (not that a state can sign anything, but you know what I mean) that clearly sets out their responsibilities to the union, nor is there any similar agreement for state officials.

This reminds me of when Larry and I were thinking about getting married and I asked my dad where I could view the contract that Larry and I would be making with the state of Illinois and the federal government, the document that clearly stated which rights we would be gaining and which rights we would be giving up, and my dad laughed and said there was no such thing.

Soooooo these two problems are still problems, as is the third problem in Federalist #21: quota-based taxation. Hamilton once again argues that we should have sales tax and only sales tax, as follows:

The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counterbalanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.

It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. 

I love that he explains why sales tax would not only be good for the citizens but also good for the government, in the sense that it would eliminate the potential for what you might call bloated government spending. Win-win, or at least it could be if this plan were ever actually adopted (and feel free to tell me why the plan would actually be a lose-lose, I'm sure at least one economist has written an article about it).

FEDERALIST No. 22. The Same Subject Continued (Other Defects of the Present Confederation)

I'm beginning to wonder why some of these Federalist Papers were split up. Was it, like, a space issue? Could they only fit so many words on a pamphlet? Or did they want to get the Federalist Papers out as quickly as possible, and figured more small papers would be better than fewer big ones?

At any rate, we continue with our list of defects:

• The federal government should be allowed to regulate commerce, otherwise we're going to get unfair trades. THIS IS STILL A PROBLEM.
• Military drafts are bad and they make people feel bad, so we need to get rid of them. ALSO STILL A PROBLEM, EVEN THOUGH WE HAVEN'T HAD AN ACTUAL DRAFT IN DECADES.
• Small states probably shouldn't get the same number of votes as bigger states. WE SOLVED THIS ONE, FOR THE MOST PART. GOOD JOB.
• Requiring a supermajority of votes for major decisions is the mathematical equivalent of letting a very small number of votes control the outcome of said decisions, so we need to stop with this supermajority idea right now because CAN'T YOU DO MATH and also THIS IS HOW YOU GET FACTIONS.

The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must, in some way or other, go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy.

Yeah, that one's still kind of a problem too, and it's a problem even for the votes that don't require a supermajority.

And yet we go on...