Posted on 02/02/2002 1:03:59 PM PST by ThJ1800
There is no subject more interesting to every man than the subject of government. His security, be he rich or poor, and in a great measure his prosperity, are connected therewith; it is therefore his interest as well as his duty to make himself acquainted with its principles, and what the practise ought to be.
Every art and science, however imperfectly known at first, has been studied, improved and brought to what we call perfection by the progressive labors of succeeding generations; but the science of government has stood still. No improvement has been made in the principle and scarcely any in the practise till the American Revolution began. In all the countries of Europe (except in France) the same forms and systems that were erected in the remote ages of ignorance still continue, and their antiquity is put in the place of principle; it is forbidden to investigate their orgin, or by what right they exist. If it be asked how has this happened, the answer is easy: they are established on a principle that is false, and they employ their power to prevent detection.
Notwithstanding the mystery with which the science of government has been enveloped, for the purpose of enslaving, plundering and imposing upon mankind, it is of all things the least mysterious and the most easy to be understood. The meanest capacity cannot be at a loss, if it begins its inquiries at the right point. Every art and science has some point, or alphabet, at which the study of that art or science begins, and by the assistance of which the progress is facilitated. The same method ought to be observed with respect to the science of government.
Instead then of embarrassing the subject in the outset with the numerous subdivisions under which different forms of government have been classed, such as aristocracy, democracy, oligarchy, monarchy, etc., the better method will be to begin with what may be called primary divisions, or those under which all the several subdivisions will be comprehended.
The primary divisions are but two:
First, government by election and representation.
Secondly, government by hereditary succession.
All the several forms and systems of government, however numerous or diversified, class themselves under one or other of those primary divisions; for either they are on the system of representation, or on that of hereditary succession. As to that equivocal thing called mixed government, such as the late Government of Holland, and the present Government of England, it does not make an exception to the general rule, because the parts separately considered are either representative or hereditary.
Beginning then our inquiries at this point, we have first to examine into the nature of those two primary divisions. If they are equally right in principle, it is mere matter of opinion which we prefer. If the one be demonstratively better than the other that difference directs our choice; but if one of them should be so absolutely false as not to have a right of existence the matter settles itself at once; because a negative proved on one thing, where two only are offered, and one must be accepted, amounts to an affirmative on the other.
The revolutions that are now spreading themselves in the world have their origin in this state of the case, and the present war is a conflict between the representative system founded on the rights of the people, and the hereditary system founded in usurpation. As to what are called monarchy, royalty and aristocracy, they do not, either as things or as terms, sufficiently describe the hereditary system; they are but secondary things or signs of the hereditary system, and which fall of themselves if that system has not a right to exist.
Were there no such terms as monarchy, royalty and aristocracy, or were others terms substituted in their place, the hereditary system, if it continued, would not be altered thereby. It would be the same system under any other titulary name as it is now.
The character therefore of the revolutions of the present day distinguishes itself most definitively by grounding itself on the system of representative government, in opposition to the hereditary. No other distinction reaches the whole of the principle.
Having thus opened the case generally, I proceed, in the first place, to examine the hereditary system because it has the priority in point of time. The representative system is the invention of the modern world; and, that no doubt may arise as to my own opinion, I declare it beforehand, which is, that there is not a problem in Euclid more mathematically true than that hereditary government has not a right to exist. When therefore we take from any man the exercise of hereditary power we take away that which he never had the right to possess, and which no law or custom could, or ever can, give him a title to.
Continue here
"... it is the nature and intention of a constitution to prevent governing by party, by establishing a common principle that shall limit and control the power and impulse of party, and that says to all parties, thus far shalt thou go and no further. But in the absence of a constitution, men look entirely to party; and instead of principle governing party, party governs principle."
party governs principle Paine predicted exactly what his beloved America has now become.
Q: Which party advocates(d) "the common good before the individual good"?
Or is this just a bunch of bull....
Go to google and search missing 13th or thirteenth amendment and you will reap bonanzas of info.
It's for real.
There are a few monarchists on my list, BTW, so the thread will be more interesting. :-)
martian_22, thanks for the link.
Why can't/don't we have any thinkers like this for leaders today?
I honestly don't think there's one single solitary politician alive that would even fathom such thoughts.
A red herring. The US government is founded to:
"form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
Implementation of these principles requires some subordination of the good of certain individuals to that of the rest of us. For instance, it might be in my personal financial self-interest to kill and rob those I run into each day. The state is supposed to interfere with this "good" of mine.
The specific purpose of the entire Constitution is to provide a balance between the common good and individual goods. Any individual's "good," carried to an extreme, will interfere with or destroy the "goods" of others.
And You too martian_22.
There's a college website (Avolon, I think) that has early contracts signed by America with other countries.
After the Revolution Ben Franklin signed a contract with England to borrow money to help pay the costs of the Revolution and to keep America running. The king of England also bought up a contract America had with Holland, putting America deeper into debt with the king.
God said "Give unto Caesar, what is Caesar's". Maybe I'm a radical, but if Gods' own people don't own anything here, neither did Caesar, and neither do the elites who are trying to force us into world rule.
The world is close to another Rome....
So what is worse, overtly hereditary rule, or hereditary rule that masquerades as election of the most capable? Democracy has always been, and will always be, a fraud. To the extent that our optimates actually beleive that they were chosen on merit, they are merely delusional. But when they foist their fraudulent system on the rest of the world (i.e., Austria-Hungary and the German Empire) they are doing Satan's work.
redrock--Constitutional Terrorist
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.