Final answer:
Hamilton's argument centered on the balance of power in governance, contrasting majority rule with the tyranny of monarchy. Today, his ideas resonate as modern constitutional monarchies limit the power of kings and emphasize democratic principles, with Hamilton advocating for civic engagement to guard against despotism.
Step-by-step explanation:
The argument of Alexander Hamilton's is reflected today in the debate over the role of the majority in governance, contrasting starkly with the monarchical systems of the past. Hamilton questioned, "Shall the majority govern or be governed?" signaling his concern over majority rule and the potential for tyranny akin to that of kings. Hamilton, who wrote against the whiskey rebels and majority rule in 1794, emphasized the importance of a balanced system that prevents any single group from wielding too much power. Today, constitutional monarchies have largely replaced the absolute monarchies of the past, yet the essence of Hamilton's argument persists in modern political discourse. Modern governments, such as those in Great Britain and Canada, recognize monarchs but abide by constitutional mandates that redistribute power, typically in favor of democratically elected officials like prime ministers. In this context, Hamilton's insistence on being responsible, civically-engaged citizens to prevent the rise of despotic authority echoes strongly in contemporary society. The kings of yesterday now play more ceremonial roles, as governance evolves to reflect the will of the people, with a focus on individual rights and democratic processes as opposed to the whims of the aristocracy.