Common Sense Mach 2

I am reading Thomas Paine's Common Sense. I have developed some sort of odd reasoning that Paine might be rolling in his grave right now.


So, in reading the first section of Paine's Common Sense -- Of the Origin and Design of Government in General, with concise remarks on the English Constitution (pp 17-46) -- I have discovered many parallels of Paine's criticisms of English semi-monarchy to America's Republic. Of course, Paine wrote this in January/February 1776, months before the Declaration of Independence.

He first starts out by defining the origins of government, adding "but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one" A statement I whole heartedly agree with. But, we all know that he believes the English Government to be an intolerable one. He then continues to speak of how society and government in a colony starts up, and saying what a good government is, "that the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered." This is his method of linking to criticizing the English constitution.

Paine criticizes the method of checks which the English constitution provides. Here are some lines where, if you replace England with America, and the respective sections of government, it will sound like a modern piece of writing (note: all caps are used in the document and not the editors emphasis):

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 will say in another, and every political physicial will advise a different medicine.

To say that the constitution of England is a UNION of three powers reciprocally CHECKING each other is farcical, either the words have no meaning, or they are flat contradictions.

But as the same constitution which gives the commons a power to check the king by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards the king a power to check the commons, by empowering him to reject their other bills, it then supposes that the king is wiser than those whom it has already supposed to be wiser than him. A mere absurdity!

There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of monarchy; it first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgement is required.

HOW CAME THE KING BY A POWER WHICH THE PEOPLE ARE AFRIAD TO TRUST, AND ALWAYS OBLIGED TO CHECK? Such a power could not be the gift of a wise people, neither can any power, WHICH NEEDS CHECKING, be from God.

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.

Right now, to me it seems that the only difference between us and England is that we had a judicial branch instead of the branch of peers, and that we elect our president instead of having hereditary secession.