Section two will be Paine’s detailed argument against the hereditary monarchy. “Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession” begins by asserting the equality of mankind in the original order of creation. (1) Paine asserts that the distinction of “king” and “subject” is one for which there is neither natural nor religious reason. Male and female are distinctions of nature, good and bad those “of heaven” (religion), but the elevation of one man or group of men above the others is something entirely other. It is at this point that Paine makes an assertion that seems to be contradicted by the very source text from which he so heavily draws. Paine states: “In the early ages of the world, according to the scripture chronology, there were no kings; the consequence of which was, there were no wars; it is the pride of kings which throw mankind into confusion.” I did consider that perhaps Paine had a narrow view of history, or a limited availability of sources. Neither of these things would seem to be the case, though, nor does either of these things account for his sloppy scholarship of the Old Testament (OT) itself. He does refer to contemporary Holland as an example of a land at peace minus a monarchy, and he does limit his reference of non-monarchial peace in the OT to the ancient patriarchs. This seems to actively ignore the story of Jacob’s sons and Shechem and the Hebrew conquering of Canaan. (2) Paine then continues on to actively ascribe the institution of the monarchy to the devil. That certainly seems a harsh attribution, but considering his purpose and audience, what better way to argue against the monarchy than to point out it’s non-Hebrew origins (“heathen” being the word he uses) as an argument to support the monarchy being of infernal rather than heavenly origins? Certainly, the Hebrews justify their desire for a king to the prophet Samuel by noting “all the nations” have kings. Nevertheless, God himself tells Abraham in Genesis 17:6, “I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I make you into nations, and kings shall from from you.” This certainly implies that future kinds were a part of not a flouting of God’s plan. At this point, he accuses the monarchial governments of overlooking anti-monarchial scriptures. He’s going to base significant points of his argument on these scriptures he considers to be anti-monarchial.

From here, Paine outlines the development of Hebrew government from the elders to the judges to, finally, the anointing of Saul as king. To me, this becomes his weakest argument against the monarchy. He makes much (indeed several pages) of this history of Israel and God’s apparent disapproval of their desire for a king (“They have rejected me, that I should not reign over them”), highlighting all the negative consequences that Samuel outlines will come as a result of having a king. (3) To Paine, all of this speaks ill of all monarchies rather than merely a criticism of a nation called out by their own record to serve God and be ruled by Him. I think it is a bit reaching to apply this perspective to a nation that is not Ancient Israel. In appealing to scripture, I think Paine undoes himself a bit. Scripture is silent on the good or ill of any particular form of government outside of the theocracy of Ancient Israel. And, as noted in the previous paragraph, part of God’s promise to and covenant with Abraham was that he would be the ancestor of kings. That in itself does seem to indicate that some form of monarchy was the intended plan. God’s correction of Israel’s call for a king would seem to be with their desire for a king like the other nations rather than a king God would choose for them. (4) It seems that Paine here falls victim to his zealotry by using irrelevant OT passages to support his point. His arguments founded on the principles of natural civic evolution and human equality are far stronger.

Paine now adds to the “evil” of monarchy, the “evil” of hereditary succession. It is here that his argument does grow stronger. Paine begins by reviewing his point that all men were originally equal, that it is not a natural point of birth to be set up in authority over others. He makes two strong points here: one, that while a man might “himself deserve SOME decent degree of honours of his contemporaries,” there is now reason to believe his descendants will; and two, a man’s public honors are bestowed on him by others and the “givers of those honours could have no power to give away the right of posterity.” In other words, a man may deserve to be elevated above his peers, but there is o justification for automatically elevating his children. Likewise, those who choose to elevate this man do not have the right to elevate his descendants above their own progeny for generations. This effectively removes the right of their own descendants to elevate those they choose. The givers of honors “could not, without manifest injustice to their children, say, ‘that your children and your children’s children shall reign over OURS forever.’” (5)

Paine again uses the example of Saul in his addressing of hereditary succession when he examines how kings come to be. “The question admits but of three answers, viz. either by lot, by election, or by usurpation. If the first king was taken by lot, it establishes a precedent for the next, which excludes hereditary succession.” This is a reasonable conclusion to draw, but doesn’t seem to be reflected by historical application. He attempts to defend this point by noting that Saul was appointed by lot and stating that “the succession was not hereditary, neither does it appear from that transaction that there was any intention it ever should be.” This again seems to show sloppy scholarship of his own source text. No mention is made of transferring the crown to another until Saul’s direct disobedience and unrepentance in I Samuel 15. It is there, after Saul has been king for years, that Samuel tells him the kingdom has been ripped from his family and will be given to another. Paine’s own text appears to argue against the point he is using it to make.

Paine continues his point noting that crowing a first king by election also tends to establish the right of succeeding generations to elect their own king at such times as necessary, unless said election appointed an entire family rather than an individual to the throne. His third answer of usurpation is merely noted as indefensible for establishing a monarchy, barbs are aimed at William the Conqueror again, and the “antiquity of the English monarchy” rejected on that basis. While it may be ugly to accept that a monarchy is granted by right of conquer (“usurpation”), it is a long-established tradition. Paine could certainly have taken more time to establish here why it is unnatural even while long-standing. Thus, it seems to me that Paine uses a poor defense for one of his strongest arguments regarding the nature of the establishment of kings and fails to firmly establish another.

He is soon to redeem himself somewhat with a significant argument against hereditary succession, one that would seem to apply to an aristocracy across the board. Naming hereditary succession as not merely absurd but “evil,” Paine begins to establish that its very nature leads to oppression. Firstly, “Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and other to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance.” Certainly the run of history indicates that seats of authority conferred upon by birth alone lend a path of arrogance and ugliness to those so born. Granted, it is a problem that can be combated on an individual basis, but in general, I think Paine is correct in pointing out that hereditary position lends itself to the oppression of those born to be ruled. Secondly, hereditary position inevitably lends itself to certain times when a minor or one aged and infirm is in possession of the throne. “In both these cases the public becomes prey to every miscreant, who can tamper successfully with the follies of either age or infancy.” Again, a wise regent will tend to alleviate this problem on a case by case basis, yet one can see that this problem is innate to the nature of a hereditary monarchy. Now, a thing that Paine did not see, for reasons well understood upon examination of his time period, was that a monarchy can certainly be tempered by the presence of a strong, balanced parliament. During Paine’s lifetime the flaws and corruption of the English Parliament were infamous, so it is understandable that he could not see a path toward using Parliament to provide a check and balance to the monarchy. Then again, based on earlier segments that we’ve examined, Paine would see the need for a strong parliament an argument against the very nature of the monarchy. As I quoted before, “HOW CAME THE KING BY A POWER WHICH THE PEOPLE ARE AFRAID TO TRUST, AND ALWAYS OBLIGED TO CHECK?” The historical argument for the monarchy has been some form of divine right; and as he logically points out, if that is indeed the foundation of the monarchy, why on earth would it need a check and balance? And if it needs a check and balance, why then is the monarchy the unquestioned authority? I have no argument for that logic, and certainly we have seen the minimization of the political power of the monarchy in England as Parliament has established itself as a strong governing authority. Or as Paine puts it farther along in this section, “The nearer any government approaches to a republic the less business there is for a king.”

The remainder of this section Paine devotes to pointing out the bloody civil war fought in England over the throne and noting how the development of a parliament in England did indeed remove matters of governance from the king over time. He asserts that the problems present in parliament, the weakness of the constitution, are the fault of the very presence of a monarchy. Looking at modern England, I would say that Paine’s statement is hyperbolic but contains a kernel of truth. There do continue to be inequities in the application of legal and social justice in England that directly relate to the continued presence of a titled class. Nevertheless, her constitution and parliament were strengthened and reformed while still under the power and presence of a monarchy. Again, Paine knows he is best served by presenting the most directly black and white argument to his audience at a time when many were frustrated by divided loyalties and unsure what side of the fence on which to step down. Overall, I feel that Paine’s practical arguments against hereditary monarchy are strongest. His attempt to defend an anti-monarchial stance using the Old Testament does not serve him well upon examination as that very text argues against him. Thus, while it can be understood that he felt the need to present a biblically based argument to his audience, it is flimsy and fails to stand the test of time.

And there we end our examination of “Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession.” Paine will next address “Thoughts on the Present State of American Affairs,” wherein he will show his audience where their soon-to-be nation stands. I took a lot of notes in that section, so prepare for a couple of posts. haha

(1) This, I suppose, would be the place to note Paine’s adherence to the scriptural literacy. He will be founding the development of several of his arguments on the Old Testament. In an effort to prevent any type of apologetic derailing, let’s all agree to accept that Paine viewed the Old Testament as a reliable source of, at least, Hebrew national history and accepted that the universe was a product of some form of creation (as even the most secular of our founders did). I will note that an evolutionary perspective certainly does not negate the prospect of mankind being originally equal until some later point in his development spurred the development of social classes and monarchies. Further, as it is typically considered historical fact that Saul was the first king of Ancient Israel, and that prior to Saul, Israel was governed as a nearly pure Theocracy, I will be approaching his arguments as founded truth. Granted, Paine makes an argument based on what God indicated His preferences were, and this argument will have less weight with those of my readers who are neither Christian nor even Deist, but in order to continue to point here--addressing Paine’s actual arguments and statements on their own merit--I’m going to work through it on Paine’s assumptions: the Judeo-Christian God is true, and the circumstances of His expression and involvement in the anointing of Saul are accurate. Any other approach to Paine’s points is for another day. Paine saw the world a certain way, and his arguments should be seen and addressed the way he saw them.

(2) Granted, Shechem was a prince of a city. That said, Jacob at that point could also be considered a nomadic king based on the same leadership code that made Shechem’s father, Hamor, a king. Further, the argument could be made that Joshua and the Hebrews were fighting against tribal kings when they conquered Canaan, there seems to be no logical justification for assigning that series of battles to the “pride of kings.” Historically speaking, unless all tribal leaders are granted the title “king,” Paine’s argument here just doesn’t work. Tribal conflict is old. Perhaps Paine’s definition of king is, in fact, quite that broad, but that would end up making the term meaningless, I would think.

(3) The point is never proven that a non-monarchial government would not also have some of those necessary “ills,” such as taxes and a draft.

(4) This is evidenced by His instruction to Samuel later to anoint David as His choice for king after Saul. David, in fact, is later referred to as a man after God’s own heart. This turn of events does seem to argue against Paine’s insistence that God Himself is and was anti-monarchial.

Amongst his argument against hereditary succession, Paine takes some several paragraphs to rail against William the Conqueror. This seems a bit out of place to me since he established monarchy not by hereditary or divine right, but by the right of the conqueror. It seems as though Paine is venting bitter dislike here rather than defending a reasonable argument. /random address of random rabbit trail.

Last time, I stopped just as Paine had finished demonstrating the development of a representative government by using the example of a hypothetical colony. He finished by noting specifically that frequent interaction between the citizenry and the representatives/government “... will establish a common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this...depends the STRENGTH OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE HAPPINESS OF THE GOVERNED.” I noted that Paine is adamant (he even uses all caps!) about what causes this desire result of strength and happiness--it is mutual and natural support. This, of course, is generally at odds with the idea prevalent in some circles (on both sides of the aisle, it is true) that government should be distrusted. Paine’s remarks would lead one to believe he would find this a very unhealthy idea for a citizen to hold.

From here, Paine continues with his point that government is natural with the following natural premise: “...that the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered; and the easier repaired when disordered;...”(2) He uses this natural maxim to “offer a few remarks on the so much boasted constitution of England.” Those remarks point out that though the beginnings of this constitution were, of course, noble considering their time (viewed now, the Magna Carta is obviously not the best granter of rights to the average Englishman; but at the time, it was a comparatively radical move to lesson the power of the king, which would lead the way for further reforms in the future.), the English constitution is extremely complex, leading to a situation wherein “the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which par the fault lies.” This being in contrast to the absolute monarchy: when the nation suffers, it’s a simple matter to discover the fault.(3) A small aside here, because it is relevant at this point in the original text: Paine is a master at recognizing when his audience is going to have difficulty having an open mind and addressing it. Here he takes a moment to assure his readers that he knows “it is difficult to get over local or long standing prejudices” because he understands that his readers are British subjects. He knows that despite much turmoil in the decade previous to his pamphlet, his readers naturally still have an affection and patriotism for their mother country and all that entails. But he also knows that his readers must be critically minded towards those institutions, etc., if they are to begin thinking about splitting from England as he feels they should. Realizing this, he moves to break down the complexity of the constitution of England into 3 basic foundations: 1--”The remains of monarchial tyranny in the person of the king.” 2--”The remains of aristocratical tyranny in the persons of the peers.” 3--”The new republican materials in the persons of the commons, on whose virtue depends the freedom of England.(4)

Paine now works to disabuse his readers of the notion that the constitution of England presents a true balance of powers. He needs to point out this fundamental flaw in order show his readers that their loyalty to the constitution of England is misplaced. Only then will they be able to analyze their colonial relationship with England with a critical eye. In this bit and the bit after it, Paine seems to be pointing out the hypocrisy of the constitutional nature of the monarchy. On the one hand, the king’s power is supposed to be derived of God; but on the other hand, checks and balances are added to that power by giving the people their own representatives. And he does point out that even that check/balance is hamstrung by the fact that the king has the ultimate and unassailable power to permanently veto any bills he doesn’t like. He, quite loudly, asks, “HOW CAME THE KING BY A POWER WHICH THE PEOPLE ARE AFRAID TO TRUST, AND ALWAYS OBLIGED TO CHECK?” The answer, of course, is a thought problem: kings have such great power without it being bestowed by the people, yet there is an obvious need for accountability to those people. If the justification for monarchy is divine right, why the need for accountability? Now, the thing is that Paine never quite states this well in this section. I’ll willing to give him a pass under the consideration that the notion of monarchial authority being given by God was undoubtedly far more present in Paine’s day than now. His readers would likely have woven together his loose connections much more quickly than I did. Still, the development of that argument is lacking in depth and clarity. He makes some assumptions that his readers will pick up on his meaning and does not explain himself thoroughly throughout this section. Paine’s examination of the flaws of the constitution of England comes to these conclusions, from what I can tell: 1--the constitution is flawed because it continues to grant governing power based solely on heredity. 2--even in trying to check that power, it fails because how can elected representatives check the power of hereditary representatives. 3--if the claims the constitution offers of hereditary merit for governance are true, then what need is there of a check, anyway? In all, the constitution of England is not only overly complex, it is tainted by the very nature of two of the three parties of government. (I really hope all the made sense. It was a belabored bit of writing to convey).

That said, within this section, Paine offers a very simple and direct insight into why a hereditary monarchy and aristocracy will always struggle to meet the needs of the people. He writes, “The state of a king shuts him from the world, yet the business of a king requires him to know it thoroughly.” This reality is certainly less true today than it was in Paine’s time, but even that can be largely attributed to the proactivity of the current members of the royal family. Even then, it is obvious that they, along with the majority of the peerage, are far more insulated from the “world” than the majority of wealthy people in America even. The very nature of heredity position places them in a tier above everyone else. Hereditary monarchs and peers are separate by their very nature in a way that mere wealth could never accomplish. Even today, a peer of relatively modest means is far more likely to have access to power, opportunity, and royals than any number of very wealthy yet untitled commoners. In Paine’s day, the distinction would have been far more divisive. This division that is the very nature of the hereditary monarch’s like and position is the greatest hinderance he has to actually understanding how he must govern for the best of his people. He cannot know them. (5) His hereditary position prevents him. This, for the record, is going to be one of Paine’s strongest arguments against hereditary monarchy. Paine does note that England’s monarchs are not so oppressive as some in other nations, but this is not the result of the law or the constitution. As he notes, “the WILL of the kind is as much LAW of the land in Britain as in France.” It is a more formidable tool than an act of parliament that keeps the people safer: “the fate of Charles the first hath only made kings more subtle--not more just.” Of course, France would soon learn to use that tool soon enough. Paine’s point is strong, though. “IT IS WHOLLY OWING TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE, AND NOT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT, that the crown is not as oppressive in England as in Turkey.” He is certainly getting his audience to think about what the monarchy means to them; and what it’s meant in the past.

Having briefly expounded on a fundamental flaw in the constitution of England in the form of hereditary monarchy, Paine concludes this section by reminding his readers why this disabusing is vital. It is necessary to to examine “the CONSTITUTIONAL ERRORS in the English for of government” now, he writes, because as long as his readers continue “fettered by any obstinate prejudice” they will be unable to do justice to themselves by discerning good government.(6)

With that, Paine ends the first section of his pamphlet. And thus I end the second part of my response.

(1) As before, the question then becomes how we envision those two things. What does it mean to ensure freedom and security? Is it merely making sure we can say what we will while unrelatedly knowing our property won’t be stolen with impunity? Can someone in poverty be said to have freedom and security? But here, as elsewhere, Paine offers no specifics. It was not important enough to his point to do so. I find that telling. Were he set on a specific vision of what those things meant in every context, I would expect him, in this very purposeful discussion of the development and role of government, to have pointed it out. Yet, he is silent, leaving his readers then and now to make their own applications. Interesting.

(2) This is true. Things that are simple are often more ordered (when humans are involved) than things which are complex. However, we must beware of conflating “simple” with “small.” These descriptors, and the ideas they represent, are not the same nor are they interchangeable. Further, he uses this statement as a preface for the examination of the English constitution, not the size of their government or holdings. This is an important context to remember.

(3) At this point, you may be saying, “Constitution of England? There is such a thing? And how can a constitution be complicated to that degree?” Here I will point out the very odd-to-us-and-many-others nature of the constitution of England: it is not one document, but a collection of systemic laws and codes governing the nation. Complex? Slightly. You certainly could not, for good or ill, open a session of Parliament by reading it.

(4) Here, I would like to point out that the second part is a much larger and deeper issue than it first appears. The continued influence and governing power of the peers, based solely on their born ranks and titles, is a current political issue and struggle in England today. The power and influence of the aristocracy has had a much more long-standing effect on English politics that even Paine may have expected, and an effect that is arguably more central to political development and reform in England than the monarchy in the last hundred years or so. I point this out because it is interesting to the discussion, but also because I find it equally interesting that Paine spends much of his pamphlet arguing against the hereditary monarchy, but not so much against the aristocracy. I suspect this is due to a power-center shift as more republican materials have entered the constitution since the late 18th century. Or perhaps he knew his audience placed more authoritative weight and more loyalty on the crown.

(5) It is this, of course, that is the essence of The Prince and the Pauper. Before the switch, the prince (Edward VI) was completely oblivious to the world around him. He lived a life sheltered from the very things he ought to know in order provide the type of governmental answer to moral lapses that is (in Paine’s mind) the very purpose of the government he’s about to run. It is his stint in the barefoot world of the pauper, Tom Canty, that shows him how naive he truly is. In his world, all was right and just. In England, however, oppression and injustice were rampant. Had not a strange accident occurred, the prince would have known nothing of the realm he was to govern. Twain’s choice of the topic and its treatment was certainly no accident, either. Twain was an opinionated writer with his politics often on his sleeve. It would seem he and Paine were of one mind: the very nature of hereditary monarchy cripples the ability of the monarch to govern in knowledge. This is the benefit of an elected leader. Even a wealthy citizen still has a better grasp of the needs of average citizens and the nature of life in the nation than a monarch separated and elevated by heredity alone.

6) This does raise a very interesting point. Paine equates good government with justice. And he states that having a preconceived prejudice towards a “rotten constitution of government” will prevent his readers from being able to discern good government. This is a thought-provoking point. Paine doesn’t seek to address the myriad of statutes and the application of statutes in addressing good or rotten government. To him, the telling point here is the barest basics of its constitution. Who has the power to govern, and how did they derive it? This, for him, is the marker of basic governmental justice, and, I think, and interesting point on the merits of a constitution that establishes a republic, free of hereditary power.

Not long ago, I embarked upon a reading of Common Sense by Thomas Paine. I was spurred on to read it because of the way it had gained ascendance of mention among the Tea Party and their respective, more right of right legislative counterparts. So I suppose you could chalk it up to wanting to see what all the fuss was about. And also, it is a staple piece of Early American literature, one that was pivotal in the lead-up to the Revolution. That would make it a worthwhile read at any rate. I had been meaning to extend my reading of American lit. Why not start with Paine?

My idea here is begin by presenting Paine’s main theses with some comment, and then make further comment below. If that makes sense. Hopefully, it does. haha

Paine beings with an introduction on which I will say little. In essence, he uses it to note that he has endeavored to remain objective, and that the American cause is important because it is “in great measure the cause of all mankind.” The only other thing I will note about his intro is that he ends it by stating, “Who the Author of this Production is, is wholly unnecessary to the Public, as the Object for Attention is the DOCTRINE ITSELF, not the MAN. Yet it many not be unnecessary to say, That he is unconnected with any Party, and under no sort of Influence public or private, but the influence of reason and principle.” I just found it interesting that Paine eschewed to recognize his party but felt that his thesis stood outside of party politics. It’s worth noting that party lines were about as distinctly drawn in his day as now, though the use of traitor might have been more liberal back then. It’s hard to say these days.

Section one is entitled “Of the Origin and Design of Government in General, with Concise Remarks on the English Constitution.” Payne begins this section by expressing dismay at the convolution of “society” and “government” in the mind of most citizens. To him, society works positively by uniting our affections while government works necessary by restraining our vices. I’m not precisely sure this distinction is at all viable in the real world. After all, there is negative societal pressure as often as positive, and there are government incentives to positively promote behavior as well as negative consequences to restrain vices. Paine begins by offering what is a very simplistic view of the difference between society and government, and this thread of simplistic thought will continue throughout his work. Not much farther along Paine expresses that government is, even at its best, a necessary evil. We’ll address this idea again a little later, but Paine seems to want to have things more than one way. That said, I do not think that Paine is wrong when he says that government works to restrain our vices; I just think he’s simplistic. He state his case for the necessity of this side of government when he explains, “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 ever other case advises him out of the two evils to choose the least.” It would seem here (and in later passages) that Paine sees government as that which steps in when society fails to provide what it ought. In this case, he uses the point of taxation to protect property. (1) Pain then goes on to say that “...security being the true design and end of government,...” we ought to seek the greatest possible benefit for the least expense. I think this is a sentiment oft overlooked by those who seek to carry Paine’s banner (nor will it be the only one). Here, Paine does seek the least expensive option but with a parallel requirement: the greatest benefit. He isn’t looking to see the government just choose the cheapest option, the one that requires the least and costs the least. He wants to see the government provide the greatest benefit to its citizenry with good value. He’s not saying that the government should protect your property by sticking a security company sign in the yard and hoping that’ll keep the burglars away; he wants the best deal on a comprehensive alarm system (to apply his sole example to your house). Spending the least amount of money isn’t the goal here. It’s getting the best deal on the thing that offers the most benefit. This is an important thing to consider in discussing Paine.

He continues by offering an example of how society and government develop. Using a hypothetical group of isolated settlers. Of course, survival is their first goal and end. In order to survive, they must form community (society). They necessarily unite for the purpose of surviving. (I would take some exception to the necessity of their uniting by simply noting that it was not in the slightest bit a natural and necessary development in the colony of Jamestown. They needed government, in the form of John Smith, in order to unite for survival.) Over time, of course, survival becomes less necessary as they “surmount the first difficulties of emigration,” and “...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.” Here Paine becomes more explicit with regards to security. These fictitious colonists “relax in their duty and attachment to each other” and this “defect of moral virtue” must be addressed by the establishment of a form of government.(3) Paine goes on to describe how at first this government would be citizens all meeting together to discuss ways to deal collectively with societal problems. Eventually, as the settlement increases and spreads, representatives and scheduled sessions must enter the picture. At this point, the colony ought to be divided into convenient parts with a number of representatives appropriate to its part who will be sent to legislative gathering. Hm. Sounds a lot like our representative democracy. Paine does well in creating an illustration of the circumstances with would organically give rise to a representational government. And I think his description is strong. I also think that as the citizen of a country with (albeit atrocious and corrupt at the time) parliamentary representation, the idea of a representative government would seem organic. He will get to an argument against the monarchial portion of his native government, which shows some self-awareness, but I think it is important to note that the idea of a representative government was seeded. Here in a comparatively isolated colony, it had the chance to grow itself, in the organic way he envisioned, so to speak. He also outlines well the argument for recurring elections: “...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.” He concludes his explanation of the origin and rise of government by envisioning that “...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...depends the STRENGTH OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE HAPPINESS OF THE GOVERNED.” (4)

***All right. I think that’s a pretty good place to take a pause in this. No, I’m not even through the first section, but there are only four main sections to his work, so I feel okay stopping in the middle of the first. haha. This will be a multi-part posting. Hope nobody minds.

(1)Now, Paine specifically uses the example of taxation to protect property as an example of how government steps in where society is unable. Is it not just as justifiable to stretch that further--to say that a social safety net provided by government when society cannot or will not protects property from thefts of necessity and envy whilst also protecting property value by maintaining economic stability? Property is vulnerable to economic threat as well as physical threat. The economic health and stability of the entire nation contributes either positively or negatively to an individual’s property. Paine doesn’t specify what he envisions “the protection of the rest” to mean. While I wouldn’t wish to put words in his mouth, I think it’s just as foolhardy to assume that he mean the barest bones of protection, ie military and police.

(2) This, of course, raises the question: what do we determine security to be? I think that Paine is correct is asserting that security is the highest role of government to which all it’s actions aspire. Then, it seems, we need to determine what that word entails. Again, just military security? Or do we aspire to something more than merely that? Does ensuring security have further implications than that. As I mentioned long ago in connection with my examination of what came to be the Affordable Care Act, Jefferson felt that universal education was a necessity for the continuing security of our nation and it’s civil structure. If this is true, then is it not the true and proper role of government to ensure that all children have a uniform education? (By uniform, I mean one meeting a set form of standards, not necessarily identical throughout all schools and classrooms.) It is an important question, if we are to attempt applying Paine’s ideas in modern American society.

(3) Hamelessness? Poverty? Could it be said that societal ills are in fact societal neglect that must be addressed? Paine is not specific as his point is to illustrate the path to forming a government, but he speaks of the need for forming government as a way to redress societal neglect, lack of duty and attachment to others. Certainly, as well, at the larger level, they become issues that society isn’t well equipped to handle on the larger scale--while individual/private charity may keep Plymouth Plantation on an even socio-economic foundation, it cannot maintain a nationwide balance when you add 300,000,000 people spread over hundreds of millions of miles of habitable land, particularly when you consider that economic hardship in one region cripples the majority of people in the region--the need the support of those outside of the region to get back on their feet.

(4) Note what he says here: it is the mutual and natural support between government and community that ensures strength and happiness. Not mutual distrust, not personal bootstraps, not minimal government that stays out of our lives. The mutual and natural support built upon frequent interchange. This seems vitally important to me, esp. coming from someone very influential in the independence and establishment of this nation.

Have you ever found yourself in the throes of a decision you didn’t know how to make? Where one choice is simple and direct and the consequences are easy to see, and the other choice is more like jumping off a cliff and hoping there’s a nice deep body of water underneath? I’ve got one of those right now. At least, it feels that way. And I hate it. The thing is that since last summer, England has owned a large portion of my heart. A big enough one that I’ve been surreptitiously applying for secondary English teaching positions for the past few months. I haven’t gotten a job, though, and now I’m down to a week (a gracious week given my incredibly gracious principal) to make a life-altering decision. I’m still holding out for that call or email that says, “Hey, come on over--we have a position just for you!” If I don’t, then I’m a bit stuck. Without a job offer, I’m left with the simple, direct choice--turn in my signed contract, work at Victory for another year, look for a teaching position for the 2012-2013 school year while saving the monies--and the cliff-diving choice--go to England anyway on the small fundage I have, get a temp job(s) while looking for a teaching position over there hoping that I get something so that I can qualify for a visa before my six months of “tourism” is up. And the thing is, I just don’t know what to do. I guess when it comes down to it, I like safe choices. I like things I can count on. I like the security of knowing I have something to go to rather than going to find something. And I’m afraid that if I go, it won’t work out and I’ll be jobless in two countries and regretting every minute of it. Perhaps being impulsive and risk-taking is just another word for foolhardy. But on the other hand, I’m haunted by the thought that staying another year is cowardly, that something will happen and I’ll never get to England, that I’ll regret it. Maybe doing the responsible thing is just another way of saying boring and cowardly. I guess either way, I fear regretting the decision I’ve made. This whole thing would be so much simpler if I get a surprise job (!) in the next week.

At any rate, all that venting just shows my serious dislike of making decisions. At least ones like this where the outcome of my choices are a bit more permanent. Would it be completely irresponsible of me to base my decision on a Magic 8 ball?