Processing Paine
Photo courtesy of University of Indiana via Wikimedia Commons
Picking up my copy of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, I little expected to be inspired, having forgotten the fiery invective he was capable of, but was thinking more of the availability of a contentious point from which to chart out an interesting debate. I found both: an inspirational rhetorical figure who could stir the martial spirit with his printed words, seeming to draw a voice from the pages, and a distinct philosophical difference which may characterize revolutionary America but perhaps not the land that we know, post Abraham Lincoln.
“Some writers have so confounded society with government as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins.”
In reading this opening position from his revolutionary tract, I was reoriented to something truly unique to the American founding documents and in this popular call to action, obviously living a rhetorical life in the late eighteenth century: The clear-cut division of social life into the possibility of mutual benefit through association, or society, and the distinct function of government as the antidote to human vice. Society is a sign of our success, government of our failure, one a jewel, the other a manacle.
“Society is produced by our wants, government by our wickedness.”
This, one of a salvo of antithetical clauses, rips down the page, leaving no ambiguity in the proposition which will build the argument of Common Sense. We read that a King is nothing more than an overgrown descendant of original ruffians, ones grown strong enough to subdue an otherwise peaceful society and perpetuate themselves by merely having children. King George was the descendant of a Norman bully, and since a lion often gives birth to an ass in the royal line of succession, we can understand that a government that produces more vice than it prevents is an abomination. Frequent elections then are the weed poison to keep this kind of crabgrass down. We read these things from Paine, a sort of American Revolutionary folk hero. Some think revolutionary thoughts today. Are they like Paine? But what of the basic proposition, further illuminated with:
“Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil . . .”
I have in my lifetime heard American politicians at every level and of every party speak of “reaching across the aisle” in order to produce prosperity in some way. Would Paine think this was something that should even be done at the political level? Perhaps on a deeper level, is there a society that responds to our wants? -- and what is our government restraining? If we listed our wants, which would be the things we spend the most time and money on, and listed our vices, the things which we accuse each other of, would these fall cleanly into categories headed by society and government, respectively, or would they end up on the opposite side of the page? Returning to the proposition, should they? The hard part to think of finally might be, Why or why not?
Dan Snyder, Instructor of Rhetoric, Classical School of Wichita
Paine’s Pain is Mankind’s Blessing
Bob Love
Dan Snyder’s thoughts on Thomas Paine’s definition of and distinction between “society” and “government” provoke an important 2-part question:
Which came first … society or government?
And which does/should take priority in case of conflict?
Paine seems to believe that society came first followed by government as “a necessary evil” to address society’s occasional failure.
But what if government came first and is the foundation for society?
And if this is true, what does it imply about Paine’s [and our] notion of “liberty”?
In his 1958 speech examining, among other things, society and government titled “Liberty and Property”, Ludwig von Mises, using a method of analysis known as praxeology which is free from the partisan constraints of early American revolutionaries like Paine, argues as follows:
“Romantic philosophy labored under the illusion that in the early ages of history the individual was free and that the course of historical evolution deprived him of his primordial liberty. As Jean Jacques Rousseau saw it, nature accorded men freedom and society enslaved him. In fact, primeval man was at the mercy of every fellow who was stronger and therefore could snatch away from him the scarce means of subsistence. There is in nature nothing to which the name of liberty could be given. The concept of freedom always refers to social relations between men. True, society cannot realize the illusory concept of the individual’s absolute independence. Within society everyone depends on what other people are prepared to contribute to his well-being in return for his own contribution to their well-being. Society is essentially the mutual exchange of services. As far as individuals have the opportunity to choose, they are free; if they are forced by violence or threat of violence to surrender to the terms of an exchange, no matter how they feel about it, they lack freedom. This slave is unfree precisely because the master assigns him his tasks and determines what he has to receive if he fulfills it.
“As regards the social apparatus of repression and coercion, the government, there cannot be any question of freedom. Government is essentially the negation of liberty. It is the recourse to violence or threat of violence in order to make all people obey the orders of the government, whether they like it or not. As far as the government’s jurisdiction extends, there is coercion, not freedom. Government is a necessary institution, the means to make the social system of cooperation work smoothly without being disturbed by violent acts on the part of gangsters whether of domestic or of foreign origin. Government is not, as some people like to say, a necessary evil; it is not an evil, but a means, the only means available to make peaceful human coexistence possible. But it is the opposite of liberty. It is beating, imprisoning, hanging. Whatever a government does it is ultimately supported by the actions of armed constables. If the government operates a school or a hospital, the funds required are collected by taxes, i.e., by payments exacted from the citizens.
“If we take into account the fact that, as human nature is, there can neither be civilization nor peace without the functioning of the government apparatus of violent action, we may call government the most beneficial human institution. But the fact remains that government is repression not freedom. Freedom is to be found only in the sphere in which government does not interfere. Liberty is always freedom from the government. It is the restriction of the government’s interference. It prevails only in the fields in which the citizens have the opportunity to choose the way in which they want to proceed. Civil rights are the statutes that precisely circumscribe the sphere in which the men conducting the affairs of state are permitted to restrict the individuals’ freedom to act.”
For Paine, men have “natural rights” … including liberty … which form the basis for their “civil rights” which Mises claims are the only “rights” men really have. So “conservatives” like the “give me liberty or give me death” Paine-ians raise the cry for “primordial liberty” without worrying too much about “civil rights”. Indeed, Jefferson [and later Bastiat] claimed
the individual’s “right to liberty” was “inalienable and self-evident”,
derived solely and necessarily from the individual’s God-given “right to life” and
followed by the individual’s “right to property” which Jefferson [deceitfully?] euphemized as “the pursuit of happiness” to obscure the obvious contradiction that African humans had been “property” in America since 1619 … the year white American capitalists first imported black African slaves.
Accordingly Bastiat made crystal clear what Jefferson [and Paine] only [but still elegantly] implied … that individual liberty [and collective society] comes before and supports law [and government]:
Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” Bastiat, The Law, 1850
So is Mises really questioning the sacrosanct [even religious] properly basic belief … that
liberty is a natural right given by God directly to each individual
which forms the only real basis for functioning society
which then institutes government as a “necessary evil” to cover its short-comings
implying “the lesser the better” when it comes to government?
It would seem so, but how can that be?
The key to understanding Paine’s [and most Americans’] logical fallacy may be quite simple:
ecology [ie. Mises’ “nature”] precedes economy [Bastiat’s “labor/liberty/property”].
However, the practical consequences [sociological and ecological] to which this simple fallacy has led may be quite complex and serious … to the point of being fatal to American democracy and the republic itself.
To learn more about this vital issue, consider engaging in Northfield School’s annual spring lecture-discussion series titled: “In Search of Law and Order: Ecology as the Basis for Economy” … you might just be glad you did.
Postscript
“Pride goes … before a fall.” Proverbs 16:18
"What in the world has God done to us?" Gen 42:28
“He has shown you, O mortal, what is good [a]nd what [is] require[d] of you:
To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” Micah 6:8"We’ve got to be humble in the face of nature.”
Boris Johnson announcing 2nd virus lockdown in England. Oct 2020
Teachable moments are often accompanied by [local or even global] duress which evokes different emotions in different people … one of which is humility which alone transforms teachable moments into learnable moments.
How are we reacting to what God/nature is doing to us?
What will we learn … and when will we learn it?