Customer Reviews: Read 4 more reviews...
 fair June 22, 2008
well, i finally got around to reading thomas paine's "rights of man". his sentences, like in "common sense" are run on in nature. but, to be fair, many writers of that period wrote quite lengthy compound - complex sentences. i found a number of errors, no, not the changes in language over 200 years. basically, i found nearly all of his ideas to be reflections or regurgitations of rousseau or hobbes or any of the other great political philosophers of the era and that which preceded it. the feature, perhaps unique and thus most worthy of reading paine's work, is the combination of logic with his flair for passion and motivation of the people to unite and insist on government's respecting their rights. written after the united states bill of rights had been penned, it clearly wasn't an effort aimed at the people of the united states. by the time this book was written, the people of france were beginning to get restless and beg for democracy and civil rights. paine, having moved to france, might have had some contribution in implanting the seeds of democracy in france. the conversation of the book wanders. it is composed of numerous documents and writings. overall, in order for the reader to capture the flavor of the unrest of the day, this is a well worthwhile book.
 The Hobo Philosopher September 19, 2007
In reading Tom Payne it is best to go right to the horse's mouth. Don't buy a volume with a modern day author's interpretation. Tom expresses himself clearly, logically and in up to date readable language. He needs no interpreter. Read what he has to say for yourself and make your own judgements.
This work is rather amazing when you consider the date that he penned these masterpieces. Don't pay any attention to the right-wing attempts at slurring Tom even today. He made sense in 1776 and his arguments makes sense today. If there were no Tom Paine I doubt if their would be an independent United States today - even George Washington admitted that fact. Tom Paine was simply too outspoken and too honest (and too courageous) for his time - or for today's times for that matter.
If you love history, philosophy, or politics as an American this is a man that you must read.
Tom Paine writing style and ability is "inspirational" to say the least.
Efficiencies of Democracy February 5, 2007
The book is a response to arguments made by Edmond Burke that were critical to the constitution and behavior that resulted from the French revolution. Edmond Burke believed in the English constitution and the structure of the government in Great Britain. Mr. Paine argued the British did not have a constitution, the government was tyrannical, not efficient, a poor economic system, and not democratic. The sporadic alterations in the general design of the English government was not designed by the people voted on by the population in Great Britain, so it cannot be considered a constitution. The purpose of this work is to make an argument why the constitution set up by the French revolution is superior to the pre-Revolutionary French government and the current British government at the time of publication. No constitution cannot be established but through referendum.
Thomas Paine argues that the equality of man is established by his very nature. His arguments come from the bible and other religious resources. The rationale for the rights from man come from God, but the author does not believe an individual religion has a monopoly on the truth. Pain believed in freedom of association and the organization of individuals in the making a political argument. He believed people of opposing thoughts could come to accommodation while they walked this earth. Anyhow he believed in the arguments of different world views could be made to come to the conclusion all men equal in his natural state.
Paine argued government is formed either through Superstition (Religious manipulation) Power (war, conquering a people) and those that arise out of society (constitutional government). Constitution must occur before the government. The United States and France were his examples of governments coming from society. Governments that exist out of power or superstition produce a hereditary government or government ruled by a certain association not from the population or society. Edmond Burke defended the nobility. Mr. Paine made a distinction between government privileges inherited based on birth and the wealth obtained through inheritance. Titles are nicknames of legal sanction to have authority over others in the population. Consequence is not just unfairness, but a less competent government and the lack of fairness in governmental decisions. Distinction between people must be determined by the person's utility. Does the person improve society by holding a specific position of trust. The sovereign and legislators should be determined by the vote. Transmission of ideas through debate will improve the government. Debate is formed through association. People should be encouraged form into groups in order to form alliance to their point across. Society and Civilization, the wants of the people can be pursued more efficiently when a structure exists where ideas may be debated, thoughts learned, and more may seek participation. Some men have abilities that other do not posses. Society therefore the individual function better under structure but that does not mean all governments are equally as effective. Thomas Paine did not want the rights of a select few chosen through heredity protected at the expense of others. Men seek a fair government where their concerns are heard.
Thomas Paine believed in the Universal Right of Conscience. Man does not worship man, but God. The mortal worships the immortal. Government should not presume or regulate how man worships the immortal neither should government define who the immortal is. - If man is free to judge his own faith his beliefs will hold what is to be true. - If man is free to judge another's faith he will hold or believe the idea of another God to be false. Thomas Pain makes the argument government corrupts religion. I have no argument here. But when he argues that government is the cause of religious intolerance that argument is absurd.
The author saw the forces of history on the side democracy. Thomas Paine saw democracy as a major factor in developing the free enterprise system. He saw the United State as a major example of democracy and prosperity. Man was set free to go after wealth in so doing creating more wealth. He presumed France would soon follow the United States. Thomas Paine argued government sanctioned Charters (monopolies for the Aristocrats ) hindering ingenuity and the betterment of man. The more efficient the trade between people and nations the more wealth is produced.
The author goes into great length to argue for less regressive taxes. Taxes on products hit the poor the hardest and increase the need for more in the population to receive aid to be able to survive. Thomas Paine was an advocate of a more progressive tax. He also argued for more government to those in aid by taking returns of investments and taxes on the wealthy.
.
Considered a founding father of democracy and egalitarianism. December 12, 2006
This book was written in 1790 and 91. It was written in two parts. It started out as a rebuttal to Edmund Burke's book on the French Revolution, but as it developed Paine ended up discussing the whole aspect of democracy and goes in quite detail into the ills of a monarchial government. Paine was an ex-patriot Englishman who lived for a time in the United States. His time there coincided with the American Revolution, and Paine was a contemporary of George Washington and Ben Franklin. Paine was an idealist and that comes out clear in this important work. He also made a lot of enemies in England with his radical viewpoints. His was not an easy life, but he certainly lived at a crucial time in world history, and his viewpoints are actually quite valid in some respects even today. Not an easy book to read, but an important work to make the effort to do so.
Paine's prescient screed against authoritarian precedent May 12, 2004
15 out of 18 found this review helpful
"Rights of Man" (1791-92) is Thomas Paine's famous response to Edmund Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution of France" (1790). Although it helps have read Burke's essay, a general background is sufficient to understand and appreciate Paine's basic and groundbreaking arguments. Paine and Burke were originally allies; Burke not only supported self-rule for the American colonies, he also supported the emancipation of the House of Commons from monarchical control and the independence of both Ireland and India. Many of his allies, then, were bewildered by his fervent opposition to the French Revolution; Burke drew the line between territorial autonomy from a distant or aloof government and the total overthrow of existing monarchies and institutions. For Burke, humankind's real enemies were drastic change and "unsocial, uncivil, unconnected chaos," and he proved himself a staunch defender of the status quo, of precedent, and of gradual reform. Jerry Muller, in his recent--and superb--book "The Mind and the Market" asserts that Burke's denunciation of the French revolution is "the single most influential work of conservative thought published from his day to ours." (This, of course, depends on what one means by "conservative.") Yet Muller and likeminded historians inevitably cherry-pick Burke's more attractive economic and philosophical arguments and foreground Burke's critique, in Muller's words, "of the revolutionary mentality that attempts to create entirely new structures on the basis of rational, abstract principles." (Muller doesn't even mention Paine, much less the example of the United States.) Such a focus inevitably sidesteps Burke's brief for the supremacy of European monarchical institutions and of the landed aristocracy. And that's where Paine comes in. With his usual acerbic wit and extravagant rhetoric, Paine, in the first part of his treatise, makes mincemeat out of Burke's sillier statements. For example, he finds especially unspeakable Burke's claim that that "the English nation did, at the time of the [1688] Revolution, most solemnly renounce and abdicate [the right of self-rule], for themselves, and for all their posterity for ever." Paine correctly challenges the primacy of a decision made by members of that generation over desires of other generations, questions the right of any generation to surrender the rights of their descendants, and notes that "government is for the living, and not for the dead, it is the living only that has any right in it." He also chastises the English for a system of hereditary government that virtually guarantees unfettered rule by children, madmen, idiots, and foreign-born pretenders (and he certainly has plenty of examples from which to choose), many of whom led their realms into chaos and terror without the help of radical revolutionaries. And Paine argues that wars would cease with the promotion of democracy and the cessation of the selfish interests of absolutists. His critics rightly respond that the rise of democratic institutions has hardly stopped wars, although one might pose the counterargument that, relatively speaking, democratic governments go to war with each other much less frequently. In the second part, Paine proposes a radical agenda for an overhaul of the British government. Although his anecdotally based statistics and figures must be viewed with skepticism and a few laughs, the prescience of his proposals is startling: poverty relief, social security, public education, maternity care, homeless shelters, workfare, veteran's benefits, and progressive taxation. His is the agenda of the idealist: "When it shall be said in any country in the world, my poor are happy; neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want, the taxes are not oppressive . . . when these things can be said, then may that country boast its constitution and its government." Paine, of course, had the nascent United States to cite in support of his proposals, but he and Burke were debating these matters before the onset of the Jacobin Reign of Terror, which dismayed Paine and seems to have realized Burke's worst fears. Yet, throughout history, for every Robespierre or Lenin, one can find a Mandela or a Walesa; monarchies too were no strangers to upheaval. Paine hardly argued for "mob rule" or even "majority rule"; the French Revolution failed in part because it violated the fundamental tenet that the citizens of each nation have a right to choose whatever rule they please, even "a bad or defective government, . . . so long as the majority to not impose conditions on the minority, different to what they impose on themselves"--a caveat we all should take to heart in today's political climate.
|
