As Hamilton once said, “Its not tyranny we desire; its a just, limited, federal government.” The idea had support, but also had a lot of opposition. Many Americans felt that the creation of federal parties would make the U.S. like the U.K. which the hated. It is part of a question that has troubled billions of people since the dawn of time: how should a society construct itself to maximize justice and opportunity? Is a strong central government necessary to do so? There are as many theories as there are grains of sand on the beach, but some ideas over the years have been more popular than others. Some people believe in socialism and that everyone must be made equal by a very powerful central government, the tall cut down and the short pulled up; others believe in a meritocracy where those people who have talent and work hard are rewarded for their labours. These people believe the government should get out of the way. Considering how developed the U.S. is today, the latter view should prevail.
Thomas Hobbes is most famous for his book Leviathan. In it he argued that a “war of all against all” existed in nature and that people were mostly motivated by fear and distrust and that peoples’ motivations all conflicted with each other. The only way for order to prevail, Hobbes argued, would be through an absolute sovereign or strong central government. While there is certainly some truth to what Hobbes says regarding human beings, other political thinkers have questioned elements of his vision. Indeed there are several flaws in this theory, but it shows us that it is not possible for people to effectively work as a commune. That does not mean we need a dictator to control things, but it does mean we need a strong rule of law to protect individual freedoms. The rule of law is effectively the latter-day sovereign. It serves the same purpose: it protects contracts and business and