I always read about those who think government is ruinous and I was just trying to find an argument from the other side for fun. I’m kinda specifically interested in anyone who almost out-and-out suggests that human nature “requires” government. I know Locke had a few lines about it but nothing is coming immediately to mind besides that.
Thomas Hobbes come to mind, he argues that government is necessary because of humanity’s violent nature.
Every totalitarian dictatorship ever. Both right/fascist and left/communist regimes are big fans of “strong central government”, and both varieties have had their thinkers/apologists.
Of course, that’s a pretty good argument against strong central government.
The Federalist Papers by James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton make an articulate case for a strong central government.
Well, most of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention certainly wanted a strong central government to replace the weak government under the Articles of Confederation, which they thought lacked the strength to hold the country together. That was the basic purpose of the Convention.
Notably, Washington was amongst those who wanted a stronger central government, as shown by his correspondence leading up to the Convention and during the fight for ratification.
After the Constitution was ratified, the Federalist Party led by Alexander Hamilton was based on the principle of a strong central government, typified by the First Bank of the United States, which Hamilton proposed and Jefferson opposed. Hamilton carried the day, when Washington signed the bank bill on Hamilton’s advice.
Eventually, Jefferson and the Democratic-Republican party defeated the Federalists, but that political victory did not lead to a decrease in the powers of the federal government. Notably, Jefferson agreed to the Louisiana Purchase even though the Constitution did not expressly give the federal government any power to expand the size of the country in that way.
I believe that the use of Federal assets during the Civil Rights Era was a good thing.
Perhaps surprising, Adam Smith thought that the government ought to be at least strong enough to preserve the free market. He was not in favor of monopoly and only the government can prevent it.
I have felt for a long time that there are hardly any free marketers among businessmen. Only the ones trying to break in believe in it and then only until they are successful.
There have also been a fair number of benign monarchies, like Jordan and Brunei, which have worked out quite well. Given that a great majority of the sovereign nations of the world have been in existence for barely the lifetime of a king, such examples are as valid as any.
Second this. Hobbes was the central figure in arguing for the need for a strong centralized government.
Well, the thinkers behind socialism/communism come to mind as obvious choices. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Gramsci…The movement was not poor in theoreticians.
The one catch is that most of these are arguing for a strong central government in response to past failures of setting up government and Marx/Engels, in the end, want the dissolution of government.
I’m more looking for people who think government is REQUIRED because human nature inherently necessitates it. Hobbes was definitely a good suggestion so thanks so much for that, guys!
sorry for the trouble
I haven’t read them, but I suspect that Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill will address the topic. Though, I suspect that they will phrase things in the sense of the “proper place for government” rather than specifically arguing for the existence of government. In a utilitarian view, the government would be necessary to mediate the interactions of people for the greater good.
Similarly, any Libertarian work would be making an attempt at arguing for the proper place for government.
Anything which argues for government on the basis of human nature would have to be post-Darwinism. I know that I have made arguments based on human nature tending towards pack behavior and Alpha/Beta roles. But such arguments might come more from Evolutionary Pscyhology, which is a fairly new field.
Back to the Federalist Papers. As Madison put it, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
A government must be strong enough o carry out vital functions, but not so strong as to threaten basic liberties. That requires a difficult balancing act, and always will.
Marx was in favor of a strong central government?
Duh!!! smacks head I even know and love that quote too but I was thinking too deep into Puritan thinkers or Revivalists. Thanks!
Marx was more descriptive than evaluative in his writings, but I think his views on the historically inevitable development of society include statements about the inevitability of a society under a proletarian government with far-reaching powers and without the protection which the liberal 19th century state gave to the rights of the individual. Only as an intermediate stage, but still as a necessary intermediate stage which communist parties had to strive for. In that sense, yes, he was in favour of a strong central government.
This pretty much describes the Historical School of Economics, a primarily Prussian (but with significant American intellectual contribution by way of Alexander Hamilton) school of thought that advocated for active State involvement in the economy. While fairly obscure to-day, I would argue they were more influential then more remembered thinkers considering their contribution to the modernization and development of the United States, Germany, and Japan (and through Japan, the rest of Sinosphere East Asia).
“If all men were angels Government wouldn’t be necessary.”—Not Vladimir Lenin.
I think you’re confusing Marx with Lenin.
Keynes? He advocates major stimulus spending because of macroeconomic factors, which arguably requires a “strong central government” to carry it out.