What causes parties and factions, and can a large republic control them?

1. WHAT HE SAID (the record)

Record ledger

• BELIEF (undated): The passage shows that David Hume believed luxury, or a refinement on the pleasures and conveniences of life, was once thought to be the immediate cause of faction, sedition, civil wars, and the total loss of liberty. However, he also suggests that views on this matter can change when it is argued that such refinements may instead promote industry, civility, and the arts, thereby altering moral and political sentiments. "Luxury, or a refinement on the pleasures and conveniencies of life, had not long been supposed the source of every corruption in government, and the immediate cause of faction, sedition, civil wars, and the total loss of liberty." [1]
• BELIEF (undated): David Hume believed that parties and factions in a government are driven by considerations of benefits and injuries, friendships and animosities, hopes and fears, and that in such contexts, regard for equity, law, and justice is often of little moment. He argued that in factious times, the parliament becomes the organ of present power, and individual security is more dependent on private power and confederates than on the general protection of law. "a hundred considerations of benefits and injuries, friendships and animosities, hopes and fears, were able to influence his conduct; and amidst these motives, a regard to equity, and law, and justice was commonly, in those rude ages, of little moment." [2]
• BELIEF (undated): David Hume believed that parties and factions arise from human nature and the diversity of interests and opinions among people. He argued that a large republic may have an advantage in controlling them due to the greater number of individuals and the complexity of interests, which can prevent any single faction from gaining too much power. [3]
• BELIEF (undated): David Hume believed that parties and factions arise from both personal and real differences, with personal factions being more common in small republics. He argued that even trivial differences can lead to factions, and that personal factions are especially dangerous because they can persist for long periods and undermine governance. (key quote above) [4]
• BELIEF (undated): David Hume believed that parties and factions are caused by a strong propensity in mankind to divisions, which are often continued even after the original differences are lost. He argued that these divisions are fueled by affection for allies and animosity toward opponents, which can be passed down through generations. He also suggested that wars of religion are more absurd than wars based on sensible differences, such as complexion. (key quote above) [5]
• BELIEF (undated): David Hume believed that a popular government, such as one led by the House of Commons, could lead to the formation of factions and sub-factions, which could cause tyranny and instability. He argued that such a government could not long subsist and would eventually lead to absolute monarchy. This shows his view that popular government can cause factions and that it may not be able to control them effectively. (key quote above) [6]
• BELIEF (undated): David Hume believes that parties and factions are influenced by the behavior and attitudes of individuals, and that the court party is less assuming and more able to bear contradiction than the country party. He attributes this difference to the behavior of the parties themselves, though he acknowledges that each party would assign a different reason for the difference. "This is a fact, which, I believe, every one may have observed who has been much in companies where political questions have been discussed; though, were one to ask the reason of this difference, every party would be apt to assign a different reason." [7]
• BELIEF (undated): David Hume believed that irregular authority not avowed by laws is more dangerous and tends to create factions, while legal authority has bounds that limit such dangers. He argued that novelty and the nature of human opinion contribute to the formation of factions, and that a legal and established authority is more stable. "A man possessed of usurped power can set no bounds to his pretensions: his partisans have liberty to hope for every thing in his favour: his enemies provoke his ambition with his fears, by the violence of their opposition: and the government being thrown into a ferment, every corrupted humour in the state naturally gathers to him." [8]
• BELIEF (undated): David Hume believed that parties and factions in Britain are influenced by both principle and interest, with leaders being primarily motivated by interest and members by principle. He argued that the balance between the republican and monarchical elements of the British constitution is delicate and prone to generating differing opinions, especially among those with strong passions and prejudices. [9]

What cuts against it

• The contrary-evidence entries are already in the record ledger above: [1], [2], [3].

2. HOW IT APPLIES (reasoning; inference is marked)

1. David Hume identified two primary causes of factions: personal and real differences. "Factions may be divided into Personal and Real..." [4]

2. Personal factions, driven by friendship or animosity, are more common in small republics and can persist for long periods. "Personal factions arise most easily in small republics..." [4]

3. Real factions, based on differences in sentiment or interest, can also lead to long-lasting divisions, even after the original differences are lost. "When men are once enlisted on opposite sides, they contract an affection to the persons with whom they are united, and an animosity against their antagonists..." [5]

4. Hume suggested that a large republic might have an advantage in controlling factions due to the greater number of individuals and the complexity of interests. [3]

5. However, he also warned that even in a popular government, factions could lead to tyranny and instability, potentially resulting in the rise of absolute monarchy. "If the House of Commons, in such a case, ever dissolve itself, which is not to be expected, we may look for a civil war every election..." [6]

3. HIS TAKE

Record coverage: PARTIAL

The record is silent on the specific mechanisms by which a large republic might control factions, but it does suggest that the complexity of interests in such a system could prevent any single faction from gaining too much power.

Extrapolation: David Hume likely believed that while factions are an inevitable part of human nature and governance, a large republic might mitigate their influence through the diversity and complexity of interests among its population.

Competing readings: One reading is that Hume saw large republics as having an advantage in controlling factions due to the diffusion of power and interests. Another reading is that he was skeptical of any government's ability to fully control factions, especially if they are driven by deep-seated human propensities. The record itself supports both readings, but the latter is more explicitly stated in his warnings about the instability of popular governments.

Confidence: Moderate, based on the partial coverage and the competing readings in the record.