1. What concept that we have already discussed does “faction” remind you of?
    A faction, as I understand it, reminds me of the idea of political parties. Factions are described as a number of citizens who are united and act based on common feelings of passion, or interests, that are against the ideas of other groups of citizens. This seems to match with the idea of political parties, as they are groups of citizens that are bound together by their passions or interests that, in some ways, oppose the beliefs or rights of other citizens by aim of what they believe in.
  2. According to Federalist #10 (written by James Madison), what is the source of wealth (private property)? What factor explains why some people get to possess wealth by owning private property, and others don’t (thus remaining poor)?
    In this case, I believe faculties means the intelligence that someone has. Therefore, James Madison is saying that the intelligence of man is where the rights of property originate, and thus is the source of wealth. According to him, highly intelligent people are the ones who are able to gain wealth and those who are less intelligent are unable to gain wealth, thus remaining poor. The intelligence of a man determines how much wealth they are able to accumulate.
  3. Do you agree with this explanation of wealth and poverty?
    I do not agree with this explanation of wealth and poverty because, while having an education can increase one’s potential for gaining greater wealth, there is nothing that directly connects intelligence to the ability to own property, a successful business, or to be born into wealth. As previous readings have explained, a large amount of wealth held by a small percentage of the top 1% is generational, meaning it is passed down and grows from one generation to the next. Capitalists come from wealth and continue to build wealth due to being in a position where they can continue to grow it by controlling the means of production. Being born into or inheriting wealth does not require or guarantee higher intelligence. Additionally, there are incredibly intelligent people who do not have access to an education that will further build their intelligence due to being born into poverty, as well as those who do gain access to education but still are unable to build enough wealth to be considered “wealthy” because they were born into poverty. So I do not agree with James Madison’s explanation of wealth an poverty, as the correlation between intelligence and wealth (or poverty) is not as simple as he states.
  4. What is the core mission (“first object”) of the US government? Does this surprise you, does it sound different from what our society today seems to suggest the core mission of the government is? Explain.
    According to reading 6.3, the core mission of the US government is to protect the wealth of the capitalist class. This makes sense as, the ones who wrote the Constitution and established the government were capitalists and thus wanted to protect their own interests. I feel that this, to a degree, is still true today. Taxes are a big discussion topic to this day, and the argument comes down to if we should be taxing the wealthy (both individuals and corporations) at all. Some argue that we should because it would be fair as the working class is taxed, especially the wealthy working class, while others argue that we should not in hopes that one day, they will be rich enough to benefit from not paying taxes. This overall protects the interests of the capitalist class as we continue to have these arguments while continuing to give tax breaks and cuts to the rich.
  5. Given the discussion in questions 1-4, are you surprised that Federalist #10 is not in favor of democracy, and supports a Republican (representative) form of government? Why would the author dislike a (pure) democratic form of government?
    I am not surprised at all that the writer of Federalist #10 is not in favor of democracy. I believe the writer is in favor of a Republican form of government because restrictions were placed on which individuals could take political office, which in most cases amounted to someone who would be part of the capitalist class. This meant that, even if representatives were elected by the working class, they were more likely to still have capitalist interests at the forefront of their minds, as opposed to if the working class had full access to voting and selecting aspects of the government like in a democracy. A democracy would threaten everything that the capitalist class attempted to put into writing as protections in the Constitution, as the working class would fight for equality and their own interests which directly interfered with the capitalists.

Leave a Reply