Common Sense: Modern Language Edition

Common Sense: Modern Language Edition

By Thomas Paine, adapted for contemporary readers

Originally Published February 14, 1776

Introduction

The ideas in this book may not yet be widely accepted. Long-standing habits can make something seem right, even when it’s not, and people often defend tradition fiercely at first. But that resistance fades with time. Reason and evidence ultimately win out.

The abuse of power often prompts people to question its legitimacy. In America, the King of England claims authority to support Parliament’s decisions, oppressing us in the process. We have every right to challenge both the King and Parliament and reject their overreach.

This book avoids personal attacks or praise. It focuses on ideas, not individuals. The wise don’t need flattery, and the misguided will eventually see reason without excessive effort to convince them.

America’s cause is humanity’s cause. The issues at stake—freedom, justice, and natural rights—are universal. When a nation is ravaged by war and its defenders are targeted, it concerns everyone who values human dignity. I write as someone guided by reason and principle, not by any political faction.

Note: This new edition was delayed to address any potential counterarguments to independence. None have emerged, suggesting the case for independence stands strong.

Of the Origin and Design of Government

Many confuse society with government, but they’re distinct. Society arises from our needs and fosters happiness by uniting us. Government exists to curb our flaws, restraining vice to protect us. Society encourages connection; government enforces boundaries.

Society is a blessing, but government, even at its best, is a necessary evil. At its worst, it’s unbearable. We create government to avoid the chaos of lawlessness, but it’s painful to realize we fund our own suffering through taxes and compliance. Government is like clothing—a reminder of lost innocence. If we were all perfectly moral, we wouldn’t need laws. But since we’re not, we sacrifice some freedom to protect the rest, choosing the lesser evil to ensure security.

Imagine a small group settling in an isolated place. Their first instinct would be to form a society, helping each other survive. One person alone couldn’t build a home or meet all their needs—cooperation is essential. But as they overcome initial challenges, some may neglect their duties, revealing the need for government to enforce fairness.

At first, this group might meet under a tree to make simple rules, enforced only by social pressure. As the community grows, it becomes impractical for everyone to meet constantly. They’d choose representatives to handle public matters, ensuring those elected share the community’s interests. Frequent elections keep representatives accountable, blending their interests with the public’s. This mutual support, not a king’s title, is the true strength of government and the key to our happiness.

Government’s purpose is freedom and security. A simple system is less likely to fail and easier to fix. England’s constitution, often praised, is flawed. It was a step forward in its time, but it’s complex and prone to breakdowns. Absolute governments, though oppressive, are simpler—people know who’s responsible for their suffering. England’s system, with its mix of monarchy, aristocracy, and elected representatives, is so convoluted that problems persist without clear solutions.

England’s constitution combines two old tyrannies—monarchy (the king) and aristocracy (the peers)—with some democratic elements (the commons). The king and peers, being hereditary, aren’t accountable to the people, undermining freedom. The idea that these three powers balance each other is laughable. If the commons can check the king by controlling funds, but the king can veto their laws, it creates a contradiction: the king is assumed wiser than the commons, who were already deemed wiser than him. This absurdity shows monarchy’s flaws. A king, isolated from the world, lacks the knowledge needed to rule well, making the system illogical and ineffective.

England’s government seems freer than others, not because of its structure, but because of its people’s spirit. The king’s will often becomes law through Parliament, just as in more oppressive nations, but the people’s resilience limits its harm. We must examine England’s system critically, free from bias, to see its flaws and imagine a better one.

Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession

All people are born equal, but distinctions like rich and poor arise naturally, often without oppression. However, the divide between kings and subjects lacks any natural or divine basis. How did some men become so exalted above others? Are they a source of happiness or misery?

In ancient times, there were no kings, and thus no wars driven by royal pride. Places like Holland have thrived without monarchs, enjoying more peace than kingdoms. Scripture, like the stories of Gideon and Samuel, shows God disapproving of kings, as they rival divine authority. The Jews’ demand for a king was seen as idolatry, a sin that brought curses upon them. Monarchy began with heathens, who worshipped their rulers, a practice Christians continued by honoring living kings as “sacred.”

The Jews’ request for a king, despite warnings of oppression, shows the folly of monarchy. Samuel described how kings would take their sons for war, their daughters for labor, and their wealth for themselves, leaving the people as servants. This pattern persists—kings breed corruption and favoritism. Even good kings don’t justify the system, as it’s inherently flawed.

Hereditary succession worsens monarchy’s evils. No one has the right to claim rule over future generations. Nature often mocks hereditary rule by producing unfit heirs. Historically, many kings began as ruthless leaders who gained power through force, not divine right. England’s monarchy, founded by William the Conqueror, a foreign invader, has no honorable origin. Hereditary rule also risks minors or infirm rulers, leaving the nation vulnerable to manipulation.

The claim that hereditary succession prevents civil wars is false. England’s history, with eight civil wars and nineteen rebellions since the Norman Conquest, proves it. Monarchy fuels conflict, not peace. In countries like England, where the king’s role is mostly making war and handing out favors, monarchy is a costly burden. A single honest person contributes more to society than all the crowned rulers combined.

Thoughts on the Present State of American Affairs

I offer simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense. Set aside prejudice and let reason guide you. This isn’t about a single city or colony but an entire continent—one-eighth of the world. The stakes are timeless, affecting generations to come. A small division now will grow into a lasting wound for our descendants.

The debate with Britain is over; war has begun. The king chose this path, and America has accepted the challenge. Reconciliation is a fading dream. Britain’s protection was never selfless—it served her trade and power, not our interests. America would have thrived without European interference, as our necessities always find a market.

Britain isn’t our parent but a tyrant. Europe, not England, is our true origin, as America welcomed those fleeing persecution. Clinging to England as our “mother” is misguided and selfish. Our identity is broader, uniting all who seek freedom.

Connection with Britain brings endless disadvantages. It drags us into Europe’s wars, pitting us against nations we have no quarrel with. Our trade suffers when Britain’s conflicts disrupt it. Independence would let us trade freely with all of Europe, securing peace and prosperity. The distance between America and Britain is a natural sign that we were meant to be separate. The Reformation and America’s discovery align as if divinely planned to offer a haven for the oppressed.

Reconciliation now would be ruinous. The king would retain veto power over our laws, keeping us subservient. His hostility to liberty makes him unfit to govern us. Even if terms were offered, they’d be temporary, leaving us vulnerable to future oppression. Independence is the only path to lasting peace, preventing civil wars and ensuring our unity.

Those who advocate reconciliation fall into four groups: the self-interested, the shortsighted, the prejudiced, and the overly optimistic. Their delay risks our future. Imagine Boston’s suffering—homes burned, families displaced. Can you forgive Britain’s brutality? If not, reconciliation is impossible. Nature cries for separation, and every day strengthens the case for independence.

Of the Present Ability of America

Everyone agrees separation from Britain is inevitable; the only question is when. The time is now. Our unity and strength make us ready. We have a disciplined army, unmatched globally, and our size is perfect—large enough to fight, small enough to stay united.

We lack a navy, but Britain prevented us from building one. If we stay under her rule, we’ll never develop one. America has the resources—timber, tar, iron—to build a fleet that could rival any nation’s. Our shipbuilding expertise and abundant materials give us an edge. A navy would protect our trade and coasts, ensuring security without relying on Britain.

We have no national debt, and any we incur will be a badge of honor for our fight. The cost of independence is small compared to the burden of British rule. Our land’s value could pay off any debt, and trade will sustain our government. Unlike Britain, weighed down by massive debt, we start fresh.

Commerce and population growth could weaken our resolve in the future. Now, in our youth, we’re united by hardship and purpose. This is the moment to form a government that reflects our values. Waiting risks division and conquest by opportunists. We must act to secure our freedom and property.

A Continental Charter, like England’s Magna Carta, should define our government, ensuring equal representation and protecting freedom, property, and religion. Let the law be our king, not a man. Proclaim this charter publicly, then destroy any symbol of monarchy, scattering it among the people who hold true power.

Appendix: Address to the Quakers

I respect all religions and address you not as a religious group but as a political one, meddling in matters your principles advise against. By issuing a testimony against independence, you claim to speak for all Quakers, which you don’t. Your actions undermine the unity we’ve built and risk making religion a tool of politics, which harms society.

You claim setting up or removing governments is God’s work, yet you urge loyalty to the king. This contradiction shows your testimony is more about politics than faith. If you truly believe in leaving governance to God, why publish a statement at all? Your call to support Britain’s rule clashes with your stated principles.

Your testimony misquotes Proverbs, implying the king’s ways don’t please God, as his reign brings conflict, not peace. True Quakers would preach repentance to the king, not criticize those defending their homes. Your selective outrage—condemning colonists but not Britain’s aggression—lacks consistency.

I wish you no ill. May you enjoy your rights, but let your example of mixing religion with politics be rejected by all Americans. Focus on peace and unity, not division.

Conclusion
Independence is our only path to peace and prosperity. It’s time to unite, set aside old divisions, and build a free America. Let’s create a government that serves all, guided by reason, justice, and the will of the people.