A Little Common Sense....


PDA






Seeker
May 1, 2003, 01:10 AM
.....literally.


SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.


Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer! Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.


In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest, they will then represent the first peopling of any country, or of the world. In this state of natural liberty, society will be their first thought. A thousand motives will excite them thereto, the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but one man might labor out the common period of life without accomplishing any thing; when he had felled his timber he could not remove it, nor erect it after it was removed; hunger in the mean time would urge him from his work, and every different want call him a different way. Disease, nay even misfortune would be death, for though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him from living, and reduce him to a state in which he might rather be said to perish than to die.


Thus necessity, like a gravitating power, would soon form our newly arrived emigrants into society, the reciprocal blessings of which, would supersede, and render the obligations of law and government unnecessary while they remained perfectly just to each other; but as nothing but heaven is impregnable to vice, it will unavoidably happen, that in proportion as they surmount the first difficulties of emigration, which bound them together in a common cause, they will begin to relax in their duty and attachment to each other; and this remissness, will point out the necessity, of establishing some form of government to supply the defect of moral virtue.


Some convenient tree will afford them a State-House, under the branches of which, the whole colony may assemble to deliberate on public matters. It is more than probable that their first laws will have the title only of Regulations, and be enforced by no other penalty than public disesteem. In this first parliament every man, by natural right will have a seat.


But as the colony increases, the public concerns will increase likewise, and the distance at which the members may be separated, will render it too inconvenient for all of them to meet on every occasion as at first, when their number was small, their habitations near, and the public concerns few and trifling. This will point out the convenience of their consenting to leave the legislative part to be managed by a select number chosen from the whole body, who are supposed to have the same concerns at stake which those have who appointed them, and who will act in the same manner as the whole body would act were they present. If the colony continue increasing, it will become necessary to augment the number of the representatives, and that the interest of every part of the colony may be attended to, it will be found best to divide the whole into convenient parts, each part sending its proper number; and that the elected might never form to themselves an interest separate from the electors, prudence will point out the propriety of having elections often; because as the elected might by that means return and mix again with the general body of the electors in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be secured by the prudent reflection of not making a rod for themselves. And as this frequent interchange will establish a common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this (not on the unmeaning name of king) depends the strength of government, and the happiness of the governed.


Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz., freedom and security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with snow, or our ears deceived by sound; however prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and of reason will say, it is right.


I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature, which no art can overturn, viz., that the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered; and with this maxim in view, I offer a few remarks on the so much boasted constitution of England. That it was noble for the dark and slavish times in which it was erected is granted. When the world was overrun with tyranny the least therefrom was a glorious rescue. But that it is imperfect, subject to convulsions, and incapable of producing what it seems to promise, is easily demonstrated.


Absolute governments (though the disgrace of human nature) have this advantage with them, that they are simple; if the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs, know likewise the remedy, and are not bewildered by a variety of causes and cures. But the constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies, some will say in one and some in another, and every political physician will advise a different medicine.

...more at "Common Sense" by by Thomas Paine, Philadelphia, Feb. 14, 1776: URL http://www.hdmsc.org/html/new/Thomas%20Paine's%20Commom%20Sense%20-%20TEXT%20VERSION.htm


(Edited by Preacherman to reset URL)

If you enjoyed reading about "A Little Common Sense...." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
BigG
May 1, 2003, 07:58 AM
The merit of this quotation illustrates perfectly why I believe no L/libertarian has read this treatise or (understood it if they did) else they would not spout their (cough) great insights to us beings of more imperfect intellect. :o

geekWithA.45
May 1, 2003, 06:56 PM
or do the ills he mentions, eg

and that the elected might never form to themselves an interest separate from the electors,


and

But the constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies, some will say in one and some in another, and every political physician will advise a different medicine.


Sound like today?

Chris Rhines
May 1, 2003, 07:20 PM
An interesting article, on many levels. I have it on my PalmPilot.

Comparing Thomas Paine's conception of government with the modern central state, nicely illustrates the impossibility of a lasting limited government. Paine himself can be forgiven; he did not know at the time what we today can perceve with our own eyes. We ourselves have no such excuse.

- Chris

BigG
May 1, 2003, 07:43 PM
How so, Chris? Paine has pretty well identified the gomt as a hydra where with every head you lop off, two more spring up in its place. Is that not a good characterization of our modern centralized gumit?

Chris Rhines
May 1, 2003, 08:07 PM
That's exactly my point, BigG. Government expands. It cannot be controlled by laws, or regulations, or Constitutions, or even the blood of patriots. Form a government, and it WILL eventually become a tyranny. This is as certain as gravity.

- Chris

Seeker
May 2, 2003, 01:38 AM
I wonder how it would read if translated in to todays terms and to reflect current issues?

By Bill Buckley?

Where is our modern T. Paine?

Great reading! Paine sounds kinda libertarian, or perhaps libertarianim comes from Common Sense.

Chris, what do you think would be a solution to "Form a government, and it WILL eventually become a tyranny. "?

yer an anarcist aren't you? :D

Augustwest
May 2, 2003, 09:45 AM
...that the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered...

This, to me, is the heart of the libertarian view of government.

BigG-

Explain, please, how I am wrong.

Tamara
May 2, 2003, 09:54 AM
Interesting that you think I haven't read Paine or am incapable of understanding his writing.

Perhaps you'd care to explain it to me in small words?

BigG
May 2, 2003, 10:04 AM
...government even in its best state is but a necessary evil... :neener:

Tamara
May 2, 2003, 10:24 AM
I think I'm getting it. Are you saying that you need people to pass laws to control your behavior?

BigG
May 2, 2003, 10:34 AM
government... is... a necessary evil...

Yep. When there is more than one person involved, EVERYBODY (including the mountaintop dwellers) need some level of governance. :neener:

Augustwest
May 2, 2003, 11:11 AM
government... is... a necessary evil...

To the degree that that governance only protects the rights of citizens from being interfered with, I have no argument with this.

Here's the rest of Paine's thought:

in its worst state an intolerable one

We're far closer to "worst" than "best" in this country, and the GOP bears almost as much responsibilty for that as the Dems.

BigG
May 2, 2003, 11:45 AM
We're far closer to "worst" than "best" in this country, Hokay. :uhoh: Have you ever been out of country? Just asking. Are you old enough to remember Jimma Carter? Gerald Ford? LBJ? Kennedy? Think the pedulum is a long way from the worst back under those fellers. But you may be right. :uhoh:

Augustwest
May 2, 2003, 12:00 PM
Said we were closer to worst than best, not that we are there (yet).

My travel out of the U.S. is limited to Canada and Mexico, and I would rather have our government than either of theirs (by a long shot).

Old enough to remember Ford and Carter. Not Johnson and Kennedy.

From a standpoint of the gov't interfering with peoples rights to conduct both their business and personal lives as they see fit, and the gov't growing to a point at which the people serve it, rather than the other way around, I maintain that we're continuing to head in the wrong direction.

Broad freedom can be dangerous, no doubt. But nowhere near as dangerous as tyranny.

hops
May 2, 2003, 12:16 PM
Broad freedom, at it's broadest, is indeed as evil as Tyranny at its broadest.

Nature tends toward equilibrium, a concept I learned in 9th grade science class. Just look at how the political, economic and social pendalums swing in this country.

Extremes at both ends, be it governmental power or no governmental power or be it no taxes or 90 pct tax rates, are dangerous.

The first American government was the Articles of Conferation - The Feds were effectively impotent. Worked so well that a convention was held to try again at a form of governement, which yielded the current Constitution that seems to have been working out ok for just over 200 years now.

I dislike taxation and govt, but looking back on my childhood; my parents had rules I have to live by and chores I had to perform.

Govt and Taxes - can't live with them and can't live without them.

Chris Rhines
May 2, 2003, 12:25 PM
Seeker - I think that you just answered your own question. :D

BigG - It is interesting that you think that you are in a position to know whether or not I need governence.

hops - Expain to me exactly how freedom can be evil.

- Chris

Tamara
May 2, 2003, 12:38 PM
I know. I, too, find it a little creepy that some folks don't kill people or steal their stuff because it's "against the law", and would apparently start doing so if those laws were repealed. Me? I don't do that kind of stuff because, well, it's just flat wrong, law or no law. Then again, some of the same people that tell me I need these laws to protect me are the same ones who, in other threads, tell folks to carry a gun because the law can't protect them. This makes my head hurt. ;)

BigG
May 2, 2003, 12:38 PM
August: I have to agree with hops, either end of the pendulum swing ain't pretty. The broad freedom end is survival of the fittest. No matter how tough you are, there is always somebody tougher, faster, etc. The nanny state end we can see in the socialized Euro states. That part of the spectrum ends at Soviet Union style communism, survival of the state at the expense of the individual. Also ain't pretty.

BigG
May 2, 2003, 12:46 PM
... the law
Since we are all theorizing here:
law is only as effective as its enforcement. The vast majority of USA laws are "feel good laws" enacted to make people think the legislators care. These laws are not enforced and should be wiped off the books. There are a few things that need to be under law however, malum in se crimes and true weights and measures are a couple, unless you libs want blood feud all over the place?

Oh, I forgot. Y'all're more adult than the rest of us. :uhoh: :o :p

Augustwest
May 2, 2003, 12:58 PM
...survival of the state at the expense of the individual.

Which is where we're incrementally ending up here. Not as blatant, or abusive as Stalinism, for sure. I would just rather err on the side of too little government than the inevitable alternative.

A government run by strict interpretation of the Constitution, staying out of what goes on behind closed doors among consenting adults, would be fine by me. Maybe that makes me less libertarian than some, but it sure isn't the mainstream these days.

Tamara
May 2, 2003, 01:00 PM
Oh, I forgot. Y'all're more adult than the rest of us.

Au contraire; I'd assume you're as adult as anyone else and quite capable of telling right from wrong without a statute book to help. ;) :neener:

We're the ones who want to treat you like an adult. :cool:

BigG
May 2, 2003, 01:03 PM
err on the side of too little government That's the ideal.

I am probably more of a true librarian than most of the chest beaters (of both sexes :neener: ) who claim to be.

Tamara
May 2, 2003, 01:06 PM
I am probably more of a true...

That sounds suspiciously like chest-beating to me. ;)

pax
May 2, 2003, 01:25 PM
BigG,
The broad freedom end is survival of the fittest. No matter how tough you are, there is always somebody tougher, faster, etc.
Let me get this right: We need gov't so that we won't be subject to rule by people with few scruples and no morals who are willing to use force to make the rest of us do things their way.

Is that what you said?

pax

If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual, it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master. The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual. -- Frank Herbert

BigG
May 2, 2003, 02:13 PM
Hi Pax,

We were talking about the pendulum swinging between No Govt and All Govt.

I think what your question says is that without some formal govt the strong will govern the weak. This has happened too often in the past to be denied.

The context of my contention was that once you put two or more together you are going to have conflict, both within the group and from outside the group. That's where I see the need for governance. Since the fundamental power of govt is coercion, I don't think the biggest guy should have all the marbles. Sorry.

I contend that without minimum governance we will at best be individually reduced to defending our rights to the detriment of our other productive activities. At worst we will have to put up with what you stated in your question. Then again, maybe each of us can build an individual stockade and move into it and defend it from all comers? (A quick read about the Greek City-States and their incessant self-destructive warfare might be indicated here for budding libs).

Meanwhile, while we are all busy defending ourselves from our "friends" (fellow libs?) we can all be individually overcome by an organized "enemy" (non-libs).

H. L. Mencken made a similar quote to the one you posted: The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

pax
May 2, 2003, 03:36 PM
I think what your question says is that without some formal govt the strong will govern the weak. This has happened too often in the past to be denied.
No, my question wasn't saying anything. It was a question. I was asking whether or not that was what you said. It appears your answer was yes?

If the question had a point, it is that anarchists believe that a formal government is, by definition, rule by people with few scruples and no morals who are willing to use force to make the rest of us do things their way. -- Which, of course, you conceded when you said, ... Since the fundamental power of govt is coercion ...

In short, you are a libertarian because you believe that government is a necessary evil. You are not an anarchist, because anarchists believe that government is an unnecessary evil. Both groups can work together against the statists on both sides of the aisle who believe that government is not evil. There will come a day when anarchists & libertarians must part ways, but that day is so far in the future it is hardly worth thinking about.

Still, discussing it does have some value. Do you really expect someone who believes government is an unnecessary evil to work with you to build a better government?

pax

For most people, anarchy is a disturbing word, suggesting chaos, violence, antinomianism - things they hope the state can control or prevent. The term state, despite its bloody history, doesn't disturb them. Yet it's the state that is truly chaotic, because it means the rule of the strong and cunning. They imagine that anarchy would naturally terminate in the rule of thugs. But mere thugs can't assert a plausible right to rule. Only the state, with its propaganda apparatus, can do that. This is what legitimacy means. Anarchists obviously need a more seductive label. -- Joseph Sobran

BigG
May 2, 2003, 03:47 PM
...someone who believes government is an unnecessary evil ... Pax, I guess I have trouble believing that anybody actually believes that. :uhoh: They may claim to, but I doubt anybody who has been out in the cold world would actually adhere to that viewpoint. That's more like a debating position. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I don't believe in govt... yada yada...

Tamara
May 2, 2003, 03:57 PM
Since the fundamental power of govt is coercion, I don't think the biggest guy should have all the marbles. Sorry.

Ah, but the de facto definition of "government" is "the biggest guy with all the marbles". ;)

I contend that without minimum governance we will at best be individually...

Are you unable to work voluntarily with others absent "coercion"? I doubt it, as you seem intelligent and ethical. :)




PS: Could we continue this discussion sans the snide assertions that the other is somehow ignorant? I give you full measure for having read, say, Common Sense or ancient Greek history, yet you seem confident in your assertions that I haven't. Since I have no need to, um, "chest beat", I'll refrain from posting pictures of my library or dropping gratuitous quotes from Herodotus if you will. ;)

pax
May 2, 2003, 03:58 PM
BigG,

I don't think you've been paying attention.

A few months ago I finally read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Great book; I don't agree with all of it but I'm not willing to call the author a sophist.

Plenty of anarchists on this board, if you look around. Not all of them are guilty of sophism.

pax

Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. – Jean Jacques Rousseau

BigG
May 2, 2003, 04:11 PM
Tamara: OK, great. I don't have all the answers. I hope we are not too far apart. I don't think that we have to be on opposite sides! :uhoh:

Pax: My remembrance of Ayn Rand was fondness for the kernels of wisdom she buried deep within her bushels of horrible writing. I read it about 30 years ago. A re-reading a few years back showed Rand's prose style had not improved with age. :eek:

You guys all have the right to believe as you wish. I hope if your experiences prove you wrong you are big enough to change. I know I've changed thru time. (I hope for the better) :uhoh:

SteelyDan
May 3, 2003, 03:54 AM
This actually looks like a pretty interesting thread, and I'd love to comment, but it's coming up on 3:00 and I didn't read most of the first, long post, and I've got to go to bed. But I'm glad there's a place like this where we can debate such issues.

And yeah, this is my most useless post ever. Sorry, I'm tired. Nite, all.

If you enjoyed reading about "A Little Common Sense...." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!