Thomas Paine’s Common Sense: A Timeless Call for Liberty vs Unlimited Power
Government … even in its best state … is still evil.
Thomas Paine didn’t pull any punches in Common Sense. First published on January 10, 1776, it remains one of the most important pamphlets in American history. Far more than a rousing call for independence, it was an uncompromising attack on unlimited, centralized power.
The Revolutionary Context
When Common Sense hit the streets, many Americans still hesitated to break away from Britain. Even after fighting began at Lexington and Concord nearly nine months earlier, a significant number of prominent colonists clung to the hope of reconciliation with the Crown.
Paine shattered this illusion with plain, direct language that resonated with the average person.
The pamphlet rapidly gained widespread circulation. Estimates suggest that as many as 100,000 to 150,000 copies were sold in the first months of 1776 alone – an astounding number for the time.
It’s said that nearly everyone in the colonies either read or heard its contents. By reframing the struggle as a universal fight for liberty, Paine turned public sentiment decisively toward independence.
A Scathing Critique of Government
Paine began with a clear distinction between society and government:
“Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them.”
This distinction remains vital. Too often today, people look to government to solve problems instead of relying on society, the market. Paine argued that this approach only worsens issues, especially since government itself often creates those very problems in the first place.
Even at its very best, government was, in his words, “a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”
He added that the tyranny of government is even worse since our money, through taxation, pays for it:
“For when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a Government, which we might expect in a country without Government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.”
The Absurdity of Unlimited Power
Paine directed much of his ire at the British monarchy, which he saw as the epitome of unlimited, centralized power. He described the system as fundamentally at odds with liberty and reason:
“There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of Monarchy; it first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required.”
Paine condemned hereditary succession as absurd and dangerous:
“Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent. Selected from the rest of mankind, their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions.”
To Paine, monarchy didn’t just fail to produce competent leaders – the entire system of unlimited, unchecked power actively encouraged corruption, arrogance, and ignorance.
Its history, he argued, was written in “blood and ashes,” a legacy of war and oppression.
Rejecting Reconciliation
Paine dismantled the idea of reconciling with Britain, calling it a trap that would lead to “the ruin of the Continent.”
Initially, Paine himself had supported reconciliation, but the events of April 19, 1775 – Lexington and Concord and the “shot heard ‘round the world” – changed his perspective entirely. Reflecting on this turning point, he wrote:
“No man was a warmer wisher for a reconciliation than myself, before the fatal nineteenth of April, 1775, but the moment the event of that day was made known, I rejected the hardened, sullen-tempered Pharaoh of England for ever.”
Paine understood the gravity of the situation. The British Crown had shown it was not merely unwilling to listen to colonial grievances but was fully prepared to use force to subjugate the colonies. After such bloodshed, Paine believed reconciliation was not just unrealistic – it was morally untenable.
He went on to refute three common arguments in favor of reconciliation:
1. Unlimited Power Cannot Be Reconciled
Paine emphasized that reconciliation with Britain would leave ultimate authority in the hands of the King. Even if colonial assemblies negotiated compromises, the King’s power to veto any and all laws (“a negative over the whole legislation”) would render such efforts meaningless.
“The powers of governing still remaining in the hands of the King, he will have a negative over the whole legislation of this Continent. And as he hath shown himself such an inveterate enemy to liberty, and discovered such a thirst for arbitrary power, is he, or is he not, a proper person to say to these colonies, You shall make no laws but what I please!?”
A ruler who had already demonstrated a “thirst for arbitrary power” could not be trusted to respect liberty or the rights of the colonies. For Paine, reconciliation would not end oppression; it would institutionalize it, cementing the King’s role as a tyrant over America.
2. Prosperity Under British Rule Was Misleading
Paine attacked the argument that the colonies owed their prosperity to British rule. He rejected the notion that the Crown’s control had benefited America, arguing instead that the colonies’ success was in spite of her and due to their own natural resources and industrious people.
Paine pointed out that the colonies’ exports – agricultural products and raw materials – were necessities that Europe would always demand, regardless of British involvement.
“America would have flourished as much, and probably much more, had no European power taken any notice of her. The commerce by which she hath enriched herself are the necessaries of life, and will always have a market while eating is the custom of Europe.”
By asserting that America would have been even more prosperous without the constraints of British mercantilism, Paine challenged the idea that colonial dependence on Britain was beneficial.
His argument directly stated that British policies, including trade restrictions and taxation, had hindered economic growth rather than supported it.
3. British Protection Was a Myth
Paine also exposed the self-serving nature of British “protection,” rejecting the notion that unlimited power was keeping America “safe,”
“We have boasted the protection of Great Britain, without considering, that her motive was interest not attachment.”
While some colonists believed that the Crown’s military and naval presence safeguarded them, Paine argued that Britain’s actions were driven by its own imperial interests, not concern for the colonies. The British protected American shores not to defend the colonists but to secure their own trade routes and geopolitical power.
“She did not protect us from our enemies on our account; but from her enemies on her own account, from those who had no quarrel with us on any other account, and who will always be our enemies on the same account.”
He further suggested that Britain’s involvement in European conflicts had unnecessarily entangled the colonies in wars that were not their own, so the much-vaunted “safety” was nothing more than a myth.
Independence, he argued, would free America from such entanglements, allowing it to chart a course of peace and neutrality.
“Let Britain waive her pretensions to the Continent, or the Continent throw off the dependance, and we should be at peace with France and Spain, were they at war with Britain.”
A Vision for Liberty and Independence
As historian Dave Benner notes, Paine made seven key arguments throughout Common Sense, including:
- Many traditional rights were naturally bestowed and pre-existed government.
- Legitimate government depends on the consent of the governed and is based on contractual relationships between individuals.
- A free people could withdraw from an illegitimate government, as such a government ceased to possess the right to demand compliance.
While Paine focused much of his writing on principles, he was also a man with a plan. Six months before the Declaration of Independence, he proposed a precursor:
“Were a manifesto to be published, and despatched to foreign Courts, setting forth the miseries we have endured, and the peaceful methods which we have ineffectually used for redress…”
Paine envisioned this manifesto as a diplomatic tool to explain the colonies’ grievances and the lengths to which they had gone to avoid conflict. By documenting their peaceful attempts at redress, the colonies could justify their break from Britain on moral and legal grounds.
He continued, arguing that the manifesto should declare the necessity of independence:
“Declaring at the same time, that not being able any longer to live happily or safely under the cruel disposition of the British Court, we had been driven to the necessity of breaking off all connections with her…”
This declaration would serve two purposes: first, to affirm the colonies’ resolve to separate from Britain, and second, to make their case for independence clear and understandable to other nations. Paine emphasized the importance of framing the colonies as peace-seeking yet forced into action by Britain’s tyranny.
Finally, Paine highlighted the importance of building relationships with other nations:
“At the same time, assuring all such Courts of our peaceable disposition towards them, and of our desire of entering into trade with them: such a memorial would produce more good effects to this Continent, than if a ship were freighted with petitions to Britain.”
In short, a message of peace and prosperity to the rest of the world would be far more effective than an endless list of petitions, begging the tyrants to stop being tyrants.
“Hints” for a Constitution
Paine didn’t just criticize – he proposed a bold vision for the future. Among his “hints” for a constitution, Paine suggested:
- A Continental Congress with at least 390 delegates, a huge number in comparison to the size of the population.
- Congress would elect a president by ballot, with the presidency rotating among colonies.
- Laws would require a three-fifths majority.
- Securing freedom and property to all, “and above all things, the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience.”
For Paine, the law – not a king – should reign supreme:
“In America, the law is king.”
Lessons for Today
Paine’s timeless critique of centralized power continues to resonate. His call for free trade and a foreign policy of peace – no entangling or permanent alliances – anticipated principles later echoed by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
“As Europe is our market for trade, we ought to form no partial connection with any part of it. It is the true interest of America to steer clear of European contentions.”
Paine recognized the necessity of standing firm against tyranny, a lesson that transcends his time.
His blunt and unapologetic approach reminds us of a vital truth: freedom is not granted by tyrants – it is claimed by the people.
Begging those in power to stop abusing their authority is futile; Paine understood that true liberty can only be secured by rejecting illegitimate power outright.
Common Sense was more than a critique for 1776; it was a rallying cry for the ages.
Thomas Paine reminds us all that unchecked government is the greatest threat to liberty. His arguments emphasize the importance of rejecting centralized control and standing up for the natural rights of individuals.
Over two centuries later, his words remain a call to action for those who cherish freedom. His message is clear: liberty requires vigilance, courage, and an unwavering commitment to resist tyranny in all its forms.
As Paine wrote, “We have it in our power to begin the world over again.”
The question is whether we have the resolve to do so.
Support the Cause
At the JP, we work tirelessly to keep these principles alive. Thomas Paine’s Common Sense wasn’t just a scathing attack on centralized power – it’s a timeless reminder of the enduring fight for liberty and natural rights.
For as little as $2 a month, you can help us reach more people and defend the principles Paine championed. Join us today!
Latest posts by Michael Boldin (see all)