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. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first a patron, the last a punisher.
Get a FREE Copy of "The Essential Federalist Papers
What Jefferson called the greatest commentary on Government ever written, organized by topic!
What, you mean some of our founders didn’t worship government? Shocking.
Ehhh, All government is, is the philosophy of life of the socieity. You can’t have a society without government and you can’t have a government without society. They are different things, but they are intricately linked. That doesn’t mean goverment is meant to be worshiped, but it isn’t necessarily to be demonized either. Simply stated, just because our current government is out of control doesn’t mean that government is a dirty word. Just like any idea, it can be used for both good and bad… unfortunately, we seem to have more of the later than the former these days.
(really wishes he could spell…)
Thomas, it depends upon what you define to be ‘government’.
Government is societies method of governing interactions between the citizens. It could be something as simple as an anarchy with a NAP or something as complex as the monstrosity we have, both are still governments. You can not have a society without guidelines of interaction, otherwise you have chaos, which will lead to a breakdown of the society.
A government doesn’t even have to be official, it can even include every person in the socieity, but it will exist.
Thomas, try downloading the Google toolbar. It has a spell checker. I wish FB did.
I think Paine is correct. Society is the people living in a community. Government is what regulates the community. It would be difficult, but not impossible to havea society without a government. It would be pointless to have a government without society.
This Government will fail if we don’t say NO to the Fed wanting to raise the 14.294 trillion debt ceiling. And then they’ll just keep borrowing 100 billion a month. This HAS to stop. See http://www.missouritenth.wordpress.com/ for your own buttons and other artwork to put on your webpage.
I heard it explained once that laws are force. Some things are good ideas, but it doesn’t mean that people should be forced to do them. I am not a libertarian. I believe God gave us the blueprint for government in Romans 13: The role of gov’t is to do good and punish evil. But at some point people have to accept responsibility for themselves.
the great ones who deserve it seems to be never to receive it
YES, restraining our vices; WE need BIG business and more from their CEO’s
I love Thomas Paine. Here is one of my favorite Paine quotations, from his greatest work:
“Create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property.” Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice.
Without laws of course there would be chaos!
After reading this a few times, carefully… I would say this, I agree with the “positively” portion, but differ on the “negatively” portion. The government becomes far more wicked than simply seeking to “restraining our vices”. What it becomes, when left un-checked by an inattentive nation, is a very dominating, self-aware and serving, beast that eats liberty and freedom.
We need to stop feeding it so the cancer will die and fall from our tree of liberty. Our roots are strong, we can grow again.
A virtuous and moral people need no laws. The more wicked society gets the more laws are needed
When you consider that especially with criminal law, laws are codified forms of morality, the statement that you cannot legislate morality is not only over used, it is totally inaccurate. Laws formulate governments to curb the behavior of people. Thomas Paine was typically spot on in this observation.
@John but has their ever been a truly virtuous and moral people? I don’t think so nor do I think there ever will be as we all fall short! Or am I wrong?
then, of course, the age old response has always been “Of course humans are selfish, greedy, and murderous… And you want them IN CHARGE of you?”
When the definition of vice is left to the government to determine, then the restraint is likely to go beyond what rational persons may consider to be vice. It is not within the governments function, nor it seems, ability to restrain itself, and thus not restrain it’s own vices. One man’s vice may not be so considered by another.
For example … Alchohol, Tobacco and Firearms
victimless crimes much?
The government steps in when self-control and personal virtues disappear. Men are elected and form the government from what is allowed to float to the top.
What is ugly is when men of vice suppress vice… because in their debasement they trample virtue which offends their perverse sensibilities. The fall of a nation is measured in the moral decline, once the government is the only restraint of vise, the cliff is a few steps off.
You simply CANNOT legislate vice. Prohibition of alcohol drove this lesson home… Except for those who ignore history, for whom, we must repeat it for Drugs.
Here is more Paine, from The Rights of Man:
“It is painful to see old age working itself to death, in what are called civilised countries, for daily bread… pay to every such person of the age of fifty years … the sum of six pounds per annum out of the surplus taxes, and ten pounds per annum during life after the age of sixty… This support, as already remarked, is not of the nature of a charity but of a right.”
And more!
“Pay as a remission of taxes to every poor family, out of the surplus taxes, and in room of poor-rates, four pounds a year for every child under fourteen years of age.” Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man
There has not been (as far as I know) a truly virtuous and moral people…if you know math and the principle of limits…it’s something that a society should strive for and you will get ever closer too, but never quite make it. I’m just saying that it is a continuum that you can measure how a society is doing. The more virtuous and moral a society is, the fewer laws are necessary (if men were angels, no government would be necessary), the more wicked a society is, the more laws are needed…there is a core relationship there
You forgot the complement, which is (If men are devils, dare you risk placing them in authority over yourself?)
The removal of God from the public square by our government and ruling elite has allowed them to impose upon society a new or redefined morality, not by authority but by shear coercive power. Sinning against the law of God has been replaced with sinning against the rules and regulations of the state (a redefined morality).
Very good Tim ..
Humans are capable of defining their own morality, Paine believed this; with religious freedom and separation of church and state, religions are allowed to flourish in a religiously diverse country, where the Government does not, and should not, favor one over the other. If this is done, you have no religious freedom, but a theocracy, the very thing Thomas Paine and our Founding Fathers escaped and left in Europe.
The “removal” of God from the public square by our government is necessary for religious freedom. Government should not represent one creed. Government is not responsible for morality, imposing or influencing it. Faith is a personal quest and should be sought individually.
Absolutely yes because the primary role of government is to prevent criminal behavior, not to assume the active role of savior for whatever flavor-of-the-moment societal ill it perceives. It is neither morally authorized, or able to do so, largely because of it’s own weaknesses as an institution. And no hiding behind the 10th amendment on this one. State governments have no authority to play in the Nanny sandbox either. Out of my way, off my property, and out of my wallet, all of you!
Waaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy tooo faaaarrrrr. The only lessons learned from the first Prohibiton were that one can deprive people of their civil rights and make goads of money doing it.
You simply cannot legislate morality…… In the end all you do is restrain freedom. God gives no mandates, but allows us all to choose our destinies… Where we (souls) ultimately end up is by our own free will. The same should be here on Earth. Man (Government) is not more powerful than God therefore should not pretend to be. Trying to legislate morality only creates criminals out of people whom otherwise would not be such. This sage advice to all comes from me, a simple old soldier who has seen lots of both good and evil in this world.
if we all lived under the principles of Law in the Declaration of Independence we would rule ourselves-our Consciounce and our God would be our Guide. for the government to be “the keeper of our morals” is nothing more than a nanny-state…pure socialist, marxist, communist. people are too lazy to rule themselves. it requires a little effort and its easier to let the government tell us what we can and cant do. just pay the fee and its all good…………
Perfect statement – so amazing our government fails to understand these very simple principles of truth upon which our country is founded.
His statement is a simple observation as to the root of government. I don’t if it is necessary or appropriate to add emphasis either. Paine was capable of drawing distinction between the concepts of positive/negative and good/bad. This quote doesn’t mean he was anti-government and there is nothing theological about these words. He helped start a revolution against government sponsored monopolies (corporate and religious) in order to found a more just, equitable and tolerant one, after all.
Society is not a single animal, and government is a natural tool of humankind to manage societies. Government does involve itself in limiting vices deemed destructive, yet I’m not convinced the entire root is wickedness. Government has always had a role in the survival of societies, focusing on teamwork, economies of scale, etc.
Yes I agree and yes it has way to far. It is not well suited to involvement in control of vices. This should be obvious to anyone at this point the drug war is a disaster only made worst as each continues.
The things we want – food, clothing, shelter, companionship, entertainment, self growth – bring us together and create society. That seems true enough. But once together our individual vices can cause conflict, and so government becomes necessary to restrain them. But it would seem to me that the restraint should be minimal and only of those vices that effect the freedom of others. So the government should pass laws against theft, to protect us from assault, etc. But they have no need to pass laws that protect the individual from vices that only affect the individual. That would fall under MYOB.
Paine could be incredibly insightful. He could also go the other way, ignore reality in pursuit of some vision. The latter cost him at the end of his life. Many of the Founders would have nothing to do with him. It was only due to his “Common Sense” and “The Crisis” that he was invited to return to America at all. When the poor man died, only six people came to his funeral. It was a sad end.
I would agree with Mr. Paine as he meant the reference to “restraint of vices” in the most general of terms and never advocated for the nanny government envisioned by the liberals. The “restraint of vices” he intoned only gave nod to those vices–crimes is actually a better word in this day and age–that were known to be a detriment to society rather than those which are a detriment to the individual only. He would have in no way supported the intrusions made by faceless bureaucrats through regulations and would have, I believe, advocated strong action against them and their agencies.
You are so right
The tragic end of his life had more to do with his imprisonment in France for opposing the frequent use of the guillotine and feuding with clergymen who wanted government to impose their interpretations on the people. These clergymen misrepresented the Age of Reason to their largely illiterate congregations and subsequently demonized him so that by the time James Monroe won his release many people in the US had a distorted view of him.
Hmm… I see an incomplete thought from Paine. He says “society is promoted by our wants, and government by our wickedness”. In both, society and government is promoted by the people. So if people can create a wicked government, then the people can also create a wicked society. I think corruption occurs when both sides are corrupt. The people in our government are elected by the people of society.
Ben, Paine’s anticlerical writings did cause him much trouble as the people of America tended to be religious.
By the way, your post is unclear as to which people were largely illiterate. I do not think that is how America was described, but I cannot comment on the French of that period.