Dissertation on First Principles of Government

Thomas Paine Archive ^ | July 1795 | Thomas Paine

[annalex]

I am pondering the relevance of this article. Why is it that Americans, while they repudiate the theory of hereditary succsssion, ignore the fact that we are ruled by our own hereditary "aristocracy."

I would also question the premise that kings are necessarily usurpers. Both monarchies and republics are constituted by universal consent of the vassals/citizens, while the national borders of either are a product of wars. In fact, since in a monarchy a vassal either explicitly states his allegiance or finds another monarch, or becomes a monarch himself, while our allegiance to the Constitution is at most implicit, or, as many opponents of the social contract theory of government would argue, non-existent, government by consent of the governed is best exemplified by a feudal society.

The Enlightenment era's objection to monarchy is twofold: it is either an objection to an absolute monarchy which indeed usurps the power of the independent gentry, or it is an objection not to monarchy per se, but the lack of meritocracy in succession. I won't argue with the former; as to the succession, the critisism is totally spurious. It should be clear to anyone that democratic rule of succession brings up the worst qualities in a politician as he needs to appeal to the lowest common denominator in the electorate. If you think that the goverment overblown with functions that any sane person would choose to hire an illiterate maid for rather than paying taxes, -- if you think that this kind of government is anything but a direct result of democratic rule of succession, well, think again.

[Pistias]

You could at least be polite and call me a Platonist!

[Pistias]

Well said. Does not the character of the governers depend on the character and probity of the electors?

[Pistias]

You'll like Democracy in America if you've never had the pleasure. It's not the best translation out there, but it's one of the better ones I could find on the web.

[Pistias]

The meanest capacity cannot be at a loss, if it begins its inquiries at the right point.

That's some bullsh!t, Tom!

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.

So gov't should work on the scientific method?

[Pistias]

It is one step toward liberty to perceive that hereditary government could not begin as an exclusive right in any family.

What if God appointed a man king? At least Locke addresses that (with questionable success) in his First Treatise (though it seems nobody cares enough to put it on the web).

[martian_22]

I look towards the founder's guide for federal legislators. They envisioned the common man(untitled) representing the common man of America. This way, laws would be fashioned from plain language for the good of this country, first.

No group(s) of entrenched political lawyers will ever let this become an issue anyway. That's what the original 13th was designed to prevent.

There are lawyers today who have no idea of the origins of the American BAR. As far as they're concerned, the BAR is just a piece of wood between the gallery and the bench.

[stanz]

Thanks for the bump. I'm printing a hard copy so I can read it on the bus.

[AAABEST]

BTW, never thanked you for the ping the other day. Excellent thread.

I'm off to one of those embarassing "Day in the Life" threads throw some cold water on the Bushelmania groupies.

[A.J.Armitage]

You could at least be polite and call me a Platonist!

You're a monarchist? I didn't know that.

Later on you mentioned Locke's First Treatise. I'm actually surprised at this point that anyone would take Filmer seriously. In any event, Paine is actually closer to Filmer than he is to a minarchist republican like me in one crucial respect: he thinks the most important thing is who holds power, not what is done with the power. I think an explicitly minarchist monarchy would be an interesting experiment, and I've even got some ideas how it could be organized, although for a large country only a federal republic has any chance of preserving liberty. I have a question for G_v_B (and Pistias, if you are indeed a monarchist, and any other monarchists who might be around). If you had a choice between a tyrannical monarchy and an untyrannical republic, which would it be?

[A.J.Armitage]

I'm off to one of those embarassing "Day in the Life" threads throw some cold water on the Bushelmania groupies.

The alien approves.

[Libertarian_4_eva]

There was a reason why this man's writings were so well received two and a third centuries ago. There once existed a nation filled with men and women who believed in ideas and ideals of liberty. What statement is it for today's men and women that so few of us exist any longer?

The democrats and republicans would call that progress.

[pjd]

Don't get me wrong. I agree with you. I've been complaining for years that lawyers have a built-in conflict of interest if they run for public office and should hence be barred from it. However, the arguments related to the missing 13th amendment is not gong to convince anyone. The arguments could just as well be held against someone granted the 'honor' of a PhD, MD, and all manner of other titles that are granted to persons from some other large organization. Maybe the intent of the amendment was to single out lawyers, but it doesn't seem convincing to me that it couldn't be used to argue against doctors and professors too. That is what weakens the argument for me.

It would be much simpler simply to argue that lawyers have a conflict of interest when they are making the laws that it is their livelihood to solicit. (sorry, I'm a terrible speller.)

[AAABEST]

LOL

[martian_22]

I understand the general coverage idea of honors and titles. In particular the idea was to exclude any agents of foriegn/international bodies of power; corporations as we know them today.

It was very evident that off-shore powers did not always seem to have the best interests of the newly formed USofA at heart. In fact they wanted it controlled or destroyed to stop this "Liberty/Freedom infection".

Most Americans at that time were keenly interested in Life, Liberty and Prosperity for Americans. After all, that was them.

Those who didn't care for this upstart nation had no problem selling anything to the hightest bidder or for political favor. These were the ones I believe the amendment was aimed at.

[Pistias]

You're a monarchist? I didn't know that.

Nah, I was just screwing around. Personally I think monarchy is the best theoretical government, but the worst practical one.

[A.J.Armitage]

People have said the same thing about Communism, and it's always confused me. How can the theory be true if it fails?

[Pistias]

Theory takes into assumption that its conditions for existence are met, where in "real life" things don't work out so neatly--for instance, theoretically two historically-minded individuals such as you and I could discuss early Roman history; in practicality, I've never seen you in the flesh to do so. Likewise, a king is the best form of government in that it is quick, decisive, and there is no chance for corruption in theory; in practicality, there's no way to know if a king is a good king until he's got the sceptre.

[Pistias]

Communism in that sense is similar to monarchy--if your Stalin is not a Stalin, but an Arthur, then communism may infringe upon "rights" but it will be a swift and precise executor of justice and wisdom...except that a part of wisdom is moderation (cf. Xenophon's Memorabilia, when I get my hands on my copy I'll send you the references, and ditto for the Cyropaedia about Cyrus and the big boy with the little coat and the little boy with the big coat) in that human reason can't reliably achieve the perfection one needs to be an Arthur, even in a single man--let alone a dynasty. Theory vs. practice.

[A.J.Armitage]

Theory takes into assumption that its conditions for existence are met, where in "real life" things don't work out so neatly--for instance, theoretically two historically-minded individuals such as you and I could discuss early Roman history; in practicality, I've never seen you in the flesh to do so.

But why can't you have a theory taking the practicalities into account, or a theory of how the practicalities can be dealt with? Say, a theory that if we both went to that area with the tables and vending machines near the front of DuSable we would be able to talk about Roman history. Or, in a political sense, a theory that checks and balences can limit abuses of power.