<DIV>Charles, your reading of the Federalist in mistaken. Carrol, your are correct about those tow ##s. Charles: The authors of the Federalist Papers would have been horrified to hear the Constitution as instituting a democratic order. For them, as for almost everyone else in that era, "democracy" meant mob rule. The Federalist's ideal is republican, that is, non-minarchical. The Federalist does advocate what is in the modern sense a sort of democratic govt, that is more or less popular govt, with the usual restrictions of the era, no women, slaves, unpropertied persons, etc. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>No, "factions" did not mean political parties associated with classes. Nor was a one party state with a party of the propertied only desirable. Rather the republican ideal was that wise and virtuous citizens would deliberate on the common good and decide on policy without reference to private interest, or at least that private interest would be stalemated by checks and balances. Factions are any groups that adovocate merely private interest. Since the unpropertied were excluded from suffrage and office anyway, the concern about faction was not a concern about the hoi poloi, but about self-seekin among the properties.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It should not be necessary to say that I do not advocate these ideals, but only explain here what they are.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>jks<BR><BR><B><I>BrownBingb@aol.com</I></B> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"><FONT face=arial,helvetica><FONT lang=0 face=Arial size=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF"><BR>It's been several decades since I read the _Federalist Papers_ -- but it<BR>seems to me (if my memory for both content & number is correct) that<BR>Nos. 10 & 51 esp. were in effect promises that the Constitution would<BR>not lead to democracy (in the sense of the "masses" or "factions" having<BR>a loud voice in decision-making).<BR><BR>Carrol<BR>^^^^^^^<BR>CB: And didn't these demi-gods of liberal "democracy" understand "factions" as political parties representing different economic classes, and therefore favor a one party system or system run by one party in particular ? Guess which class' party. </FONT><FONT lang=0 style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF"></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><BR><BR></FONT><FONT lang=0 style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF">This was too honest.  It took their political descendants to realize that the </FONT><FONT lang=0 style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF"><BR></DIV></FONT><FONT lang=0 style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF"> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" TYPE="CITE">deception "freedom and choice" which is two parties (representing one class) would make a bourgeois democratic republic more secure for its ruling class.</BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><BR><BR></DIV></FONT> <BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT><p><br><hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br> <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/search/mailsig/*http://search.yahoo.com">The New Yahoo! Search</a> - Faster. Easier. Bingo.