Although EphBlog tries to be the central (virtual) location for interaction between Ephs of different ages, plenty of such interactions occur elsewhere. A great example is this dialogue between Evan Miller ‘06 and DeWitt Clinton ‘98 on social networks, trust sliders and microeconomics. Even the Federalist Papers make an appearance! Read the whole thing. My less interesting thoughts are below.

Since I read the Federalist Papers with Professor Gary Jacobsohn more than 20 years ago, the least I can contribute to the dialogue is this reference. Miller wrote that:

But I couldn’t help but to be reminded of the Federalist Papers, number 10 I think. There are certain dangers to decentralizing power. If you are just an average user, would you rather have the local system administrator know what you’re writing and reading and who you’re looking up, or would you rather Google or Microsoft know? If Google deduces that I’m a sex-crazed pinko atheist, there’s not much they can do. They could care less. Now, if I live in Tennessee (like I do) and Cooter the Root User finds out things I don’t want my family, church, or town to know, I’m vulnerable. People who know me are far more capable of exploiting private information than are faraway corporations, just as local democracies can be more damaging to rights than national ones. It is a noble sentiment that wants to let the information disperse itself among servers throughout the world, but you may be doing a greater service to the world by managing all of the data yourself.

I suspect that he is thinking of this passage.

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,–is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.

My personal political philosophy is largely along these lines. If the people in Mississippi want to have policy X or Y or Z, fine. It is not my problem. But I expect them, in return, to leave me and the citizens of Massachusetts alone. In the same way, if the good voters of Williamstown do not want to have higher taxes to spend more on schools, fine. It is their town. But I expect them to let me and my fellow voters in Newton to choose a different path.

But, again, the dialogue between Miller and Clinton is much more interesting than my crackpot views. Go read that.