The reason I maintain that America return to its roots is because today we find ourselves overwhelmed with a variety of narratives which makes identifying the one, true narrative impossible. It is this reason that I suggest that we “reinvent the wheel.” I enthusiastically recommend that everyone read the text which inspired the American Revolution in the first place. Yes, I’m advocating that every American become reacquainted with “Common Sense” written by Thomas Paine in 1775–76.
What possessed our forefathers to think that they could attain freedom from the most powerful monarchy on Earth at the time? Perhaps we will never understand their motivations completely, and some may be left to conjecture for eternity — but that’s OK!
My true motivation is to reacquaint you with Thomas Paine. He is probably the biggest influence for our becoming a Republic rather than a Democracy. He inspired men like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. How? Let’s take a closer look at “Common Sense.”
See, Paine begins with examining the origins and design of government, but is compelled to distinguish the differences between Society and Government. He says, “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 a patron, the last a punisher.”
The reasons for this pronouncement may seem mundane or trivial, but the meaning turns out to be quite profound. See, Paine wishes his reader to understand one primary difference. One is created due to our wants and the other according to our needs. We want to associate with others who share our interests and goals. We enjoy socializing with others who have similar predilections, lifestyles or jobs. However, he seems to be saying that the only reason we have government at all is for arbitration and mediation — the keeper of the rules… the referee.
Now that people are awakening to the truth, you hear discussion of a replacement for the regime in place now. Within a society, we have rules. These rules we call laws. Science tells us that society dictates to the individual the rules, not vice versa. If the individual dictated to the society the norms — that would essentially be anarchy where every human writes their own laws and interprets them as they see fit. In scientific studies, people know how to answer basic moral dilemmas. Asked how people would react to finding a wallet in the street, we find people are very moral and responsible. However, once you introduce too many variables into the equation and complicate matters for people — they ask, “What would he do?” or “What would she do?” In other words, they begin looking for the norm. What is normal. What is our society willing to accept or tolerate. (Or more cynically: What can I get away with?) “Can I put my feet up on my desk in class?” One way to find out is challenge the teacher. In other words: people don’t know the difference between Right and Wrong. Whatever the society says it will or won’t accept becomes acceptable to us.
The only true problem with our existing paradigm is that government has grown too unwieldy and abused its authority. Authority? We authorize teachers to discipline our children if they’re disruptive in class. We authorize local police to enforce laws at their discretion. (As long as they don’t infringe on our rights, of course.) We consent to it. Paine was an Englishman who came from a long line of writers who endorsed this idea of “government legitimacy is derived from the consent of the governed.” This idea that government and governed enter into a legal contract is a fairly new idea. English history is replete with examples though, Thomas Hobbes (1651) and John Locke (1689) were most certainly influences on Paine.
If we wish to reap the benefits of our cooperation with others, then we must submit to its (society’s) rules. How we resolve differences and settle disputes is decided beforehand to guarantee objectivity and gain the parties’ trust that the resolution is a just and fair one. Therefore, our constitution defined the government by how these rules are written, enforced and interpreted.
One of the replacements heard today is that perhaps we should look at Anarchism instead of returning to Republicanism. They justify this argument that things are different now than they were in 1776. No, Paine is laying out the argument that if it were possible to exist without government — we should do it. However, anarchy’s main flaw is that there are no instruments for arbitration and mediation and is saying that that government’s main function — is as mediator. Even when the executive branch of the American government enters a treaty with a foreign power this too should be viewed as them mediating on our behalf.
Other regimes recently advocated for replacing our Republic are Socialism and Communism. However, looking at “Common Sense” again, we see that Paine has some profound insights into government. It is he, not Henri de Saint-Simon or Auguste Comte who first acknowledged an evolution of government. He cites within “Common Sense” a natural progression that starts with Anarchy (every man for himself) …
“…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…. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but one man might labor out of the common period of life without accomplishing anything.”
but soon evolves into Direct Democracy (like a family, everyone has a voice/vote) …
“Thus necessity… will point out the necessity, of establishing some form of government…. 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 of regulations, and be enforced by no other penalty than public disesteem. In the first parliament every man, by natural right, will have a seat.”
and yet again evolves — into a Representative Democracy (not everyone can make the trip to the capital or the seat of power / parliament).
“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 who appointed them…”
As you can see, it wasn’t these founders of Socialism (Henri de Saint-Simon, Auguste Comte, etc.) or the founders of Communism (Karl Marx or Joseph Engels) who made the staggering hypothesis that governments evolve, but it was Thomas Paine.
The founding fathers of America stopped the evolutionary process at Republicanism because they sought to minimalize the government’s size and scope. Sure, a society (or community) can be said to be a group of people who shares resources (water, food, shelter, etc.) However, is that sharing and caring a function of a Society or of a Government? This is where James Madison and Thomas Jefferson distinctly adhere to the ideas of Paine. You can find numerous references to small government in their writings. James Madison even expressed his disdain for government this way:
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”
I could stop here, however being a person who seeks genuine debate on the merits of the various regimes. It is now the 21st century. I think we have learned a lot since Thomas Paine and even the founding fathers.
As a citizen of the United States during this post–9–11 era and after being awakened to the travesty we called our federal government of the 21st Century, the amount of corruption revealed is truly astonishing. However, to be fair to the Socialists, I must confess that any amount or any degree of taxation is Socialism. Taxes is a redistribution of wealth.
So, to my Libertarian compatriots who scream “no Socialism of any kind” who would be compelled to rid us of all taxes. However, we may want to consider our society’s infrastructure. What about the bridges, dams, roads, etc. which costs money to build and maintain. How we resolve this can be decided in referendum perhaps? I just want to inspire the debate. We the People need to decide.
Also, in defense of the Socialists, the Universal Basic Income (UBI) was defended by Thomas Paine. See, it wasn’t Paine that stopped the evolution of government, but the founding fathers — they chose to stop with the Republic. The UBI is a guaranteed salary each citizen could receive, regardless if they’re working or not.
I too support the UBI, but it’s because I think job creation lags too far behind the number of those wanting a salary/income. Worldwide, we need to create billions of additional jobs. Our modes of production are too efficient today. In the 21st Century, perhaps job creation could be addressed as an international problem instead of a national problem. We Americans want to see our southern neighbors successfully generating wealth and prosperity for their peoples. I would like to think that the wall on our southern border is a tentative solution and not a permanent one.
Although I support the abolition of NATO, hopefully it would be contingent on SCO also being abolished. Although multilateralism may need to be drawn down, I am hesitant to advocate total abolition of the UN.
Lastly, although our founding fathers were mostly Deists, they still believed in god. When I compare Deism to Theism, people living in America of the 21st Century are more religious than our founding fathers. Deists believe in god, but he is more a spectator and not a participant in our daily lives. He does not work miracles. Theists, on the other hand, see god working miracles and answering prayers throughout their lives — he’s an intervening god. A passive versus active god, I guess.
However, in our efforts to find truth, we have also discovered that Christianity is most likely a construct created for manipulating the masses. There is mounting evidence and a growing consensus that three First Century families invented both Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism. The three families are: the Flavians of Rome, the Herods of Palestine and the Alexanders of Egypt.
Was Madison’s objection to government based on his beliefs that men are basically bad? Why does religion teach us that men are innately bad/corrupt? If we are the corrupting influence on the universe, it explains why there are no observable absolutes in an omnipotent (absolutely powerful) god’s universe… We corrupted it. Also, it explains why poverty and war still exists in our modern society. War-profiteering will continue until the end of time. Additionally, keeping people religious makes it easier for them to raise an army.
If Madison had believed that men are basically good, would he have been equally resistant to government taking on more benevolent roles? Should we just work to restore the Republic? If we do, we could always evolve the Republic based on any hidden truths which may arise in the future, right? Regardless, I look forward to living within a decentralized and egalitarian society… for America… and hopefully, the world will follow our lead.
