Common sense

It is a pamphlet published in 1776 by Thomas Paine, advocating for American

independence from British rule.

Paine distinguishes between society and government, arguing that society arises from
natural human needs and promotes happiness, while government arises from human
wickedness and is a necessary evil to restrain vice.

He begins by asserting that society and government are distinct entities with different origins.
Society, he argues, is a product of human needs and desires for mutual assistance
and cooperation, promoting happiness by uniting people's affections and
encouraging social interaction. On the other hand, government arises from human
wickedness, primarily the need to restrain vices and prevent chaos. While society fosters
unity and positive interactions, government creates distinctions and enforces rules
through punishment.

He then delves into the nature of government, describing it as a necessary evil. He suggests
that while society is inherently beneficial, government, even in its best state, is only a
necessary evil because it restricts freedoms and imposes authority. In its worst state,
government becomes intolerable, exacerbating suffering and calamity. He emphasizes that
when people suffer under a government, they are essentially enabling their own
suffering by providing the means for it to exist.

Furthermore, Paine compares government to a "badge of lost innocence," implying that it

symbolizes humanity's fall from a state of natural purity and freedom. He argues that if
humans were inherently moral and obedient to their conscience, they would not need
government to dictate their behavior. However, because people are not always guided by
clear and uniform moral impulses, they must surrender a portion of their freedom and
property to establish government for protection and security.

He concludes by asserting that the primary purpose of government is to ensure

security and protect people's rights. He suggests that the most effective form of
government is one that achieves these goals with minimal expense and maximum
benefit to society.

He advocates for a limited government that prioritizes individual liberty and security
while acknowledging its inherently flawed and imperfect nature.

He continues to explore the evolution of society and the emergence of government in a

hypothetical scenario. He suggests that initially, necessity and mutual dependence would
lead a group of people, represented as "arrived emigrants," to form a society. This society,
born out of necessity and cooperation, would naturally provide mutual benefits and render
the need for formal laws and government obsolete, as long as its members remained just
and virtuous towards one another.
However, he acknowledges the inevitability of human imperfection, noting that as the initial
difficulties of establishing the society are overcome, people may become lax in their moral
duties and obligations to each other. This moral decline would highlight the need for some
form of government to compensate for the lack of inherent virtue among the population.

He then describes the gradual development of governance within the emerging society. He
imagines a simple State-House, likely a metaphor for a gathering place or meeting spot,
where the entire colony could convene to discuss public matters and make decisions.
Initially, these decisions would likely be informal regulations, enforced not by legal penalties
but by public disesteem or social pressure.

As the colony grows and becomes more complex, Paine suggests that it would become
impractical for all members to participate in every decision-making process. Therefore, it
would be necessary to delegate legislative responsibilities to a select number of
representatives chosen from the larger body. These representatives would act on behalf of
the entire community and be accountable to them.

Paine emphasizes the importance of maintaining a close connection between the

representatives and the electors to prevent the formation of separate interests. He
suggests frequent elections as a means of ensuring accountability and preventing
elected officials from becoming detached from the concerns of the general
population.

He outlines a vision of government emerging organically from the needs and

dynamics of society. It underscores the importance of representation, accountability,
and the preservation of common interests in the functioning of a just and effective
government.

He continues his critique of government, particularly focusing on the British Constitution and
its complexities. He argues that while the British Constitution may have been noble in its
historical context, it is imperfect and prone to causing confusion and inefficiency in
addressing the needs of the governed.

Paine asserts that the true origin and purpose of government lie in the necessity created by
the inadequacy of moral virtue to govern society effectively. Government, therefore, is
designed to ensure freedom and security for its citizens. He emphasizes the simplicity of
effective governance, suggesting that simpler systems are less prone to disorder and easier
to repair when problems arise.

Paine then turns his attention to the British Constitution, acknowledging its historical
significance as a step towards combating tyranny. However, he criticizes its complexity,
arguing that it hinders the ability of the people to identify and address the source of their
suffering. Unlike simpler forms of government where the people can easily attribute
responsibility and seek remedies, the complexity of the British Constitution obscures
accountability and confounds efforts to resolve issues.

He compares the British Constitution unfavorably to simpler forms of government,

suggesting that despite their flaws, they offer the advantage of clarity and directness
in addressing problems. In contrast, the complexity of the British system leads to
confusion, with different factions attributing blame to various parts of the system and
proposing conflicting solutions.

Overall, Paine's critique highlights the importance of simplicity and transparency in

governance, suggesting that overly complex systems, such as the British
Constitution, are inherently flawed and ineffective in fulfilling their intended purpose
of securing the freedom and happiness of the governed.

He says the king and the nobles have too much power, and they don't really help the regular
people have more freedom.

Paine believes that the regular people, called the commons, are the key to making England
more free. But he thinks the way the government is set up doesn't do a good job of making
sure everyone's treated fairly.

He also thinks it's silly to say that the king and the commons balance each other out. He
says it's obvious that the king has the most power, and the way things are set up doesn't
really keep him in check.

In "Common Sense," Thomas Paine criticizes the idea of kings and queens, saying it's not
natural or fair for some people to have so much power over others. He explains that in the
past, people lived without kings, and there was less conflict. Paine believes that giving one
person so much authority is a bad idea, and he points out that even the Bible doesn't support
the idea of kings ruling over everyone. He thinks it's wrong to treat kings like they're special
or above everyone else, and that this kind of worship goes against what's right. Paine argues
that having kings is a mistake, and it's something that should be questioned and changed.

He talks about how the people of Israel wanted a king even though they were doing
fine without one. He says that wanting a king was a mistake because it went against
what they believed in. Paine explains how the prophet Samuel warned them about the
problems a king would bring, like taking their sons and daughters for his own use,
and taking their land and possessions. But the people still insisted on having a king
because they wanted to be like other nations, even though it wasn't good for them.
Eventually, they got a king, but it didn't turn out well for them, and they regretted
asking for one. Paine uses this story to show how having a king isn't always a good
thing and how it can lead to problems for the people.

In this part he criticizes the idea of hereditary succession, where rulers pass their
position down to their children. He argues that this is unfair because everyone should
be equal and no one should have special privileges just because of their family. Paine
says that even though many people don't like hereditary succession, it's hard to get
rid of because some people are afraid to speak out against it, some believe in
superstitions, and others benefit from it. He suggests that many kings probably
started out as violent criminals who took power by force, and the idea of passing
power down to their children only came later as a way to justify their rule. Paine
believes that hereditary succession is based on myths and superstitions, rather than
on fairness or logic.
He says that hereditary succession doesn't ensure good leaders and can even allow minors
to take the throne, leaving the country vulnerable to manipulation. He criticizes the idea that
hereditary succession prevents civil wars, pointing out that England has had many conflicts
despite having kings pass down their position to their children. He also questions the
legitimacy of kings who gained power through conquest, like William the Conqueror, arguing
that their rule is based on violence rather than divine right. He suggests that the idea of
hereditary succession is illogical and compares it to the concept of original sin, saying both
ideas deprive people of their freedom and dignity. Overall he believes that hereditary
succession is harmful and should be replaced by more democratic forms of government.

He discussed the conflicts between Henry VI and Edward IV, highlighting the uncertainty of
war and the instability caused by personal quarrels for power. He argues against monarchy
and hereditary succession, citing historical examples of civil wars and bloodshed. Paine
criticizes the role of kings in absolute monarchies, questioning their necessity and
effectiveness in governing. He suggests that as a government approaches a republic, there
is less need for a king, and emphasizes the importance of the republican part of the English
constitution, which allows for the election of representatives.

Finally, he introduces the main topic of the pamphlet, the struggle between England and
America, urging readers to consider the facts and use their reason and feelings to form
opinions.

He emphasizes the importance of considering the long-term consequences of the conflict, as

it will impact future generations.

He also asserts that reconciliation with Britain is no longer feasible and explores the
disadvantages of remaining dependent on Britain. He challenges the notion that America
has flourished under British rule, suggesting that America would have thrived independently.

He also criticized Britain's motives for protecting America, arguing that it was driven
by self-interest rather than genuine concern. He also warns against the dangers of
maintaining connections with Britain, citing examples of past conflicts. Additionally,
he refutes the idea that Britain is America's "parent country," stating that such a
relationship would be shameful considering Britain's oppressive actions. Overall, he
advocates for America's separation from Britain and highlights the potential benefits
of independence.

Hi view on reconciliation with Britain and instead advocates for independence for the
American colonies. Here are the key points:

1) Reconciliation is dangerous because it may lead to Britain regaining control through

cunning rather than force.
 2) Even if reconciliation were achieved, it would only be temporary, and the colonies
would still face uncertainty and unrest.
3) Independence is necessary to maintain peace and prevent civil wars.
4) Many colonists have already suffered at the hands of British oppression and have
nothing left to lose, so they would resist reconciliation.
5) The colonies have shown they can govern themselves effectively and peacefully
under continental government.
6) European republics are generally peaceful, while monarchical governments tend to
have more internal and external conflicts.
7) Fear of independence stems from uncertainty about what a new government would
look like, but the text offers suggestions for a continental government structure.
8) The proposed government would have annual assemblies with equal representation
from each colony, and decisions would require a three-fifths majority.
It argues that such a government, with its fair representation and checks on power, would
prevent discord and promote unity among the colonies.

The book also suggests holding a Continental Conference to establish a Continental

Charter, similar to Magna Carta in England. The Charter would outline the structure of
government, ensuring freedom, property rights, and religious freedom. It proposes
representatives from colonies and the people drafting this Charter. It emphasizes the
importance of a government of their own, rather than relying on chance or British rule. It
warns against the potential rise of dictators if they don't establish their own government and
highlights the need for the law to be supreme, not kings. It references historical examples
like Massanello's revolt in Naples to illustrate the dangers of relying on foreign rule.

He argued against reconciliation with Britain and advocates for American independence. Key
points include:

1) Reconciliation is not possible due to irreparable harm and lack of trust between
America and Britain.
2) Britain's oppression has led to a desire for independence among Americans.
3) The time for independence is now, as evidenced by the unity and strength of the
colonies.
4) America has the military strength and resources to support independence.
5) It criticizes the idea of negotiating for minor concessions from Britain instead of
seeking full independence.
6) Contracting debts for the sake of gaining minor concessions is seen as unfair to
future generations.
7) A national debt, if used wisely, can be beneficial to a country.
8) It appeals to humanity to support the cause of freedom and provide refuge for those
fleeing oppression.
9) Overall, it emphasizes the urgency and necessity of pursuing independence for
America.

He also argued that America should build its own navy for defense and commerce. Key
points include:

1) America has the resources to build a navy without needing to import materials.
 2) Building a fleet would create jobs and boost the economy.
3) It suggests that only a fraction of the crew needs to be experienced sailors, as the
rest can be trained.
4) America's timber resources and shipbuilding capabilities make it well-suited for
constructing ships.
5) Unlike other regions, America has both extensive coastlines and abundant natural
resources.
6) Having a navy is essential for America's safety and security, especially as it has
grown in population and wealth over the years.

7) America has resources like timber, iron, and hemp for shipbuilding and naval
supplies.
8) Having a navy is crucial for protection against pirates and foreign threats.
9) Relying on Britain for protection is unwise, as it may lead to exploitation or
subjugation.
10) America doesn't need a navy as large as Britain's; even a fraction of Britain's naval
force would be sufficient.
11) Offering incentives to merchants to build and use armed ships could maintain a naval
force without a constant military burden.
12) Combining commerce and defense strengthens the nation.
13) America has abundant resources and technological capabilities for defense, such as
iron, small arms, cannon manufacturing, and gunpowder production.

It's argued that waiting for independence would only lead to more difficulties and conflicts
under British rule.
The current state of America, with its relatively small population and vast unoccupied land,
favors independence.
Being less populated actually enhances unity and military effectiveness, as shown by
historical examples.

Therefore, he encourages seizing the opportunity for independence now, rather than waiting
for later.

He emphasized that

1) Commerce can weaken a nation's spirit and readiness for defense.

2) Nations achieve their greatest feats in their early stages, before becoming too
focused on trade.
3) America's current unity and shared hardships make it an opportune time to establish
a government.
4) Nations that delay forming their own governments often end up being ruled by
conquerors.
5) It's essential to establish a government before someone else imposes one by force.
6) Government should protect religious freedom without interference in religious
matters.
7) Diversity of opinions is beneficial and should be respected.
8) A Continental Charter is suggested as a solemn agreement to protect the rights of all
parts of the nation.
 9) Large and equal representation in government is crucial to avoid tyranny and unfair
influence.
10) The example of Pennsylvania's House of Representatives serves as a warning
against concentrated power and unequal representation.
11) People should be cautious about delegating power and ensure that representatives
truly represent their interests.

Lastly
The Imperative of Declaring Independence: Key Reasons and Considerations.

1) Representation and election: There's a need to consider whether representation and

election should be vested in the same body of men, as it might be too much power
for one group to possess.

2) Maxims from enemies: Sometimes, excellent lessons can be learned from our
enemies, such as realizing the importance of a large and equal representation in
government.

3) Declaration of independence: Several reasons are given for why declaring

independence is necessary:

It allows other nations to mediate and potentially bring about peace.

France or Spain might not assist if America seeks to repair its connection with Britain.
Being seen as rebels while professing loyalty to Britain creates confusion
internationally.
A manifesto to foreign courts explaining America's grievances and desire for
independence would have a greater impact than petitions to Britain.
4) Need for independence: Remaining under British rule hinders America's ability to be
received and heard abroad, and declaring independence would allow the country to
take its place among other nations.

5) Familiarity with independence: While declaring independence may seem daunting at

first, it will become more comfortable over time, and delaying the decision only
prolongs the inevitable.