Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: An excerpt from "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine

Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 28, 2011, 9:03 p.m. EST by SomethingDifferent (1)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

"when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT A GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer." Though our suffering isn't as severe as that of the British citizens who, in the 1700s decided they had had enough of the King's unjust rule, one can certainly draw parallels to our current situation. If we HAD no government, one could expect to see the wealthy citizens growing wealthier while all others continue to sink lower into poverty. :(



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 12 years ago

The suffering seems to be getting worse

"The events above noted gave unmistakable evidence of the unity of American sentiment against British oppression; but something more must be done to bring about united action. There must be some central authority to which all the colonies could turn for guidance. This political union came about in the formation of a Continental Congress. This Congress was the result of a spontaneous and almost simultaneous movement throughout the country. From New York came the first call. Paul Revere had been sent from Boston on a fleet horse to rouse the people of New York and Philadelphia, but ere he reached the former the Sons of Liberty had taken action for a congress. The Massachusetts legislature added its voice in June. Delegates were chosen in all the colonies except Georgia, and they met in Carpenter's Hall, Philadelphia. Among them we find such leaders as Washington, Lee, and Henry of Virginia, Dickinson of Pennsylvania, Samuel and John Adams of Massachusetts, Roger Sherman of Connecticut.

The Congress was not a constitutional body; many of its members had been chosen irregularly. Its authority was limited to the willingness of the people to respect and obey its suggestions and mandates. The very fact of its existence had a meaning of great significance, but it was too profound for the comprehension of George III. It was less a congress than a national committee, an advisory council of continental magnitude. It attempted no national legislation."


[-] 1 points by Individual (3) 12 years ago

A couple of excerpts from An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith.

"These little settlements too were under the government of an exclusive company, which had the sole right, both of purchasing the surplus produce of the colonists, and of supplying them with such goods of other countries as they wanted, and which, therefore, both in its purchases and sales, had not only the power of oppressing them, but the greatest temptation to do so. The government of an exclusive company or merchants is, perhaps, the worst of all governments for any country whatsoever."

"Such exclusive companies, therefore, are nuisances in every respect; always more or less inconvenient to the countries in which they are established and destructive to those who have the misfortune to fall under their government."

If having no government would only make the rich get richer than why do the rich do so much to take power in government?

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 12 years ago


[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago

If we HAD no government, one could expect to see the wealthy citizens growing wealthier while all others continue to sink lower into poverty.

I don't think that is true. The ownership and accumulation of wealth requires social stability.

The absence of government suggests a lack of social organization, and with it a lack of social stability.

With no laws, no law enforcement, no one would want to accumulate wealth, rather they would want to accumulate strength - to provide security, and then they would begin to look toward accumulating wealth - through an abundance of security.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago

William Findley of Philadelphia sayz calls for a new convention is a dissolution of the social contract. He says the United States has returned to a 'State of Nature'; one that is outside the law

Hugh Brackenridge of Princeton agrees.

And that is just what people are calling for.

[-] 1 points by SomethingDifferent (1) 12 years ago

Of course people are calling for that! Humans by there very nature want to rebel. Want to challenge authority... I wonder if that alone necessitates a revolution every once in a while... People grow too used to the system, they adapt, find ways to use it to achieve their goals (which are sometimes unjust). That alone may make political change necessary!