Originally Posted by
jblosser
Heh. No offense, but y'all need to read again what is being said. Hamilton's point is that it's the people who are opposed to government involvment that are dangerous, not the people that think government order is necessary.
Nope. I think you are mistaken. He's warning about how people seek office:
It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust.
On one hand, it will be forgotten:
1.) jealousy usually always attends feelings of love; and,
2.) enthusiatic liberty is appropriately infected with much distrust.
Or, those who love their liberties will jealously guard them.
On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government.
On the other hand, also will it be forgotten:
1.) the essential justification for government is the security of liberty (rights);
2.) that, in well-thought out policies, the protection of rights as the proper role of government can't be seperated from government action;
3.) an ambitious person will more likely hide behind a mask of support for rights than for more government (this one is a little outdated, now, i think *koff democrats koff koff*; basically, ambitious people will lie to get into office by supporting popular ideas and appeals to emotion, even if they don't really agree with them personally)
History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.
History shows that more despots come to power under the guise of supporting freedom and liberties and other abstract rhetorical ideas than come to power by supporting instead that the government should do it's job correctly (i.e. secure rights). Most despots came to power by promising/giving the people everything they want. *koff dems! koff koff* They start out as demagogues (by playing on the people's emotions) and end up tyrants once they have power.
Basically, he's warning that you don't elect people who appeal to your emotions, but elect instead those that appeal to your logic. And logic should dictate that a properly fuctioning government works to secure peoples rights, not solves all of the problems they encounter in life. Elect a person whose record matches their rhetoric when it comes to liberty, and not the person that promises to give you everything you want.
Connect With Us