Paine did provide a succinct document expressing his views on the appropriate structure of government: "Dissertation on First Principles of Government" (1795). During the same period Paine also authored one of the most progressive statements of principle and public policy -- "Agrarian Justice" -- progressive not only in his age but that has been produced to this day. Paine is clearly influenced in this tract (as was Benjamin Franklin) by the principles of the French school of political economists that included Francois Quesnay, Anne Robert Jacques Turgot and Pierre Samuel du Pont de Nemeurs -- the Physiocrats. Paine made the case in "Agrarian Justice" for the right of access to land, to nature, as an equal birthright. Paine echoed Turgot in stating that any person who controlled land owed to society a ground rent as payment for what amounts to a monopolistic license or privilege. This was Paine's way to achieve equality of opportunity where access to nature was involved. Edward J. Dodson, President Thomas Paine Friends www.thomas-paine-friends.org
The evidence as I understand it is that Jefferson shared his draft with Paine, who offered a number changes in the phrasing of the declaration.@@waddellwaddellbsc516
Great discussion. One (liberal) point to counter Levin, at about 29:00. Americans equated taxation with loss of liberty because we saw ourselves as Englishmen. The King had no power to impose taxes. Parliament did. Centuries of American/English history had established the right of the middle class (burgesses, low-level knights, freemen) to have their parliamentary representatives determine whether or not to approve a tax. And we were middle class enclaves, with no aristocracy putting us in our place. The 13 colonial governments were a direct copy of English government: each had the Common Law, an elected legislature, and the King (in the person of the royal governor). When the Act of Union created that fiction called "Great Britain" in 1707, it reduced each of the colonies to the status of Ireland (a conquered dominion). Even worse, in creating a "British Parliament" in which they had no representation, it wiped us off the map. Any delusions that we had at the turn of the 17th century that we were still English subjects, protected by English freedoms, were basically dreams that we were waiting to wake up from . No Taxation Without Representation was a middle class, non-aristocratic assertion of our historic rights as Englishmen. George III could have defended us against Parliament's excesses, but the (German) King of "Great Britain" was now so far under the thumb of the "British" Parliament that there was no one to complain that Parliament had in effect become what we Americans today protest (erroneously) as resistance to an authoritarian king.
Dennis P. Schaefer I have to correct you on george the third he was definitely not under the thumb of parliament or charles fox at some point would of been prime minister he couldnt even get into government once pit the younger wanted him
Should have listened to Burke. Unfortunately Burke as a great genius lost every major battle he fought but on reflection won every war. Of course he was right, he was a phenomenal genius and understand the best of England. He was almost always right but there was a cost to listening to him for many.
Most Britons had no idea what America was, never mind what it could become, or what it had done in recent wars and could do in future conflicts. The Americans were patronised in an egregious and sentimental way precisely at the time they should have been liberated and celebrated as the future.
It's interesting how Paine & Burke arrived at a similar ideology from a completely different approach. Paine saw liberalism as emerging from rationally articulated principles. Burke saw it as the result of gradual cultural evolution.
"Decentralization has, not only an administrative value, but also a civic dimension, since it increases the opportunities for citizens to take interest in public affairs; it makes them get accustomed to using freedom. And from the accumulation of these local, active, persnickety freedoms, is born the most efficient counterweight against the claims of the central government, even if it were supported by an impersonal, collective will." - Alexis de Tocqueville
@Mikeduke324 No his mother was a Catholic and his father converted from Catholicism. His sister was also a Catholic and he married a Catholic. This was at a time when the penal laws excluded Catholics from the professions and much else so some Irish Catholics to get on became Anglicans. Burke was a champion of Catholic emancipation but unfortunately for him he did not live to see it.
@@DomhnallOSuileabhainPrin-tm1fw His Dad was Protestant, and he himself was also an Anglican, his writings furiously defended the Anglican Church at every corner. Also his ancestry is of Anglo-Norman ancestry, he descends from an Anglo-Norman Knight who had moved to Ireland during the Invasion of Ireland by Henry II of England. It's actually best to describe him as "Anglo-Irish".
Explain to me again how we voluntarily gave up our right to own private property. It's an alienable right? We have the right to not have the right to own something? It's amazing how you have justified this in your minds. Didn't the early Americans fight against Feudalism? So they made it involuntarily voluntary? Here in lies the problem and has usurped the power from the individual to the government. So now they can hold it as ransom against us.
I think you're getting some philosophies confused because owning property was never given up entirely. So most classical liberals, people like Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, John Hancock, Benjamin Franklin, and others, were all influenced by Hobbes and Locke in their philosophies and outlooks on politics and life. That philosophy that Hobbes stated, and Locke partially changed, states this... (That naturally speaking (this is called the state of nature), people are entirely and utterly free. They can do anything and everything they want there are no rules, laws, customs, traditions, and governments, economies, nothing but individuals in nature. This state of nature is essentially a type of anarchy. Life here is hard, cold, loveless, and short, because barbaric practices reign supreme. Because of this individuals give up their rights, in order to be protected. We give up our liberty to enforce law and we give it to the police. We give up our money (in the form of taxes) to pay for police. We give up our right to make certain decisions and we give our individual rights and authorities to a government so in exchange they protect us and thus a society is born and the cruel life in the state of nature no longer exists.) Now Hobbes felt that the state of nature was so bad and so damaging that it needed to be avoided at all costs. Hobbes saw the horrors of the English Civil Wars and the rule of Cromwell firsthand (wars that led to the largest population decline in British history since the Black Plauge of the 14th Century). Because of these horrors, Hobbes argued that an authoritarian ruler was best for us to live under. While an authoritarian may be cruel, unjust, and plain uncomfortable to live under, the alternative of living in the state of nature was much, much, worse. Hobbes felt and argued that it was better to live in tyranny than to live in anarchy, because tyranny was not as bad as the state of nature. Locke disagreed with Hobbes. Locke felt that while the state of nature wasn't good, tyranny was just as bad. As a result, Locke said men should be the ones who establish and maintain their own government that way the government protects what it should protect and leave alone what it should leave alone. The purpose of government was not just to protect your life from the state of nature, its purpose was to protect your rights from anarchy and tyranny. Locke called this a social contract, a unwritten agreement between men and authority. As a result Locke argued for representative democracy and made it clear that certain rights people give up to escape the state of nature, others they should never give up because to do so would lead to tyranny which is just as bad as anarchy. Both Hobbes and Locke agreed rights came from God, they believed that men surrendered their rights to form government, and that in the state of nature all men are equal. Hobbes said that equality was bad because anarchy occurred. Locke said the equality was good and that keeping the equality would make sure no tyranny or anarchy occurred. Burke argued that the state of nature did not exist. Burke said there was never such a thing as the state of nature. Burke argued anarchy was an exception not the base of our humanity. Society and people living together was natural. By nature humans are social creatures who need society and all societies will build a government, because anarchy is unnatural. Like Aristotle, Burke says that men naturally desire to have government. They don't want tyranny or anarchy but society not anarchy is the state of nature. As a result no social contract ever existed and no barbaric state of nature ever existed. And because they never existed we shouldn't build government off of that unnatural idea.
@@walterfielding9079 Thank you for this outstanding and succinct statement of the arguments of Hobbes, Locke and Burke. And paleoanthropology makes it quite clear that Burke is correct, human beings have always lived in social groups and without tyranny because of a relatively equal distribution of power and mutual dependence among people in the group.
@Polystrophic Music - JGPurdy Thank you for your compliment. Also, Burke would argue that tyranny does happen and does exist. But tyranny usually only occurs because chaos and anarchy are occurring or did occur. Essentially, if a society gets sick, anarchy and chaos are born. And out of that illness, society will inevitably over compensate and over-correct and will accept tyranny. We see this time and time again in history, just look at the fall of the Roman Republic or the French and Russian Revolutions for an example. The way to avoid tyranny is to hold fast to your society and the things not imposed on you by a force. Religion, family, culture, and tradition exist outside of that state and the states that last the longest and the states that are the most successful are the ones that hold on and integrate all of those concepts. Britain kept the monarchy. Americans still cling to their constitution. The Japanese, their Emperor, and Greece their history. The reason the American revolution worked is because the Americans simply restored their rights as Englishmen. Their English rights were being violated so they restored them. While this isn't entirely true, it's what we believed as a nation and it prevented tyranny. The same occurred in the Glorious Revolution in 1688 in England or the Restoration in 1660. Same with the Magna Carta in the 1300s. Arguably the same occurred with Lutherans in the Reformation. Lutherans unlike Calvinist were not out to destroy the Church of Rome but restore it in their minds, which is why on the surface Lutherans look and feel Catholic. Those "Revolutions" were more of restorations holding to something deeper and older. It's always the outsiders trying to impose a new belief or new understanding that cause trouble and lead to chaos, France is a prime example. Society works best when people live when they see their country as a home they inherited from their fathers and grandfathers, NOT a place where God put us and lets us magically roam free.
in scripture it's against or for the rulers depending on their moral and ethical virtues...and against or for the masses of poor depending on their values...
53:35 Great presentation. I wrote a paper on Thomas Paine back in college. There are actually partial remains at the Thomas Paine Cottage Museum in New Rochelle, NY. All that is left is his brain stem that is buried in a secret location on the grounds. Gross, but true!
@@brittybee6615 Guy named William Corbett came to America in the early 19th century, dug up his grave, and brought his remains back to England. Unfortunately, his remains were lost.
His distinction (after the 30 minute mark) between centralized reason and dispersed unreason is of course a false one. If anything, it would be more accurate to use the other two quads of the box graph, and say that the free market is dispersed reason, and the contemporary leftist state is centralized unreason.
Burke was proven right about the French Revolution. As with the Russian and and Mao’s cultural revolution the left seems to eat itself and the slaughter is incomprehensible.
@@eatfrenchtoast actually that is false. In fact the Communists in Germany supported the Nazis as The KPD created the idea that social democrats were fascists.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 87 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "ก้องชัย vs โชคปรีชา"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YN6e7HVnekw/mqdefault.jpg)
Paine did provide a succinct document expressing his views on the appropriate structure of government: "Dissertation on First Principles of Government" (1795). During the same period Paine also authored one of the most progressive statements of principle and public policy -- "Agrarian Justice" -- progressive not only in his age but that has been produced to this day. Paine is clearly influenced in this tract (as was Benjamin Franklin) by the principles of the French school of political economists that included Francois Quesnay, Anne Robert Jacques Turgot and Pierre Samuel du Pont de Nemeurs -- the Physiocrats. Paine made the case in "Agrarian Justice" for the right of access to land, to nature, as an equal birthright. Paine echoed Turgot in stating that any person who controlled land owed to society a ground rent as payment for what amounts to a monopolistic license or privilege. This was Paine's way to achieve equality of opportunity where access to nature was involved.
Edward J. Dodson, President
Thomas Paine Friends
www.thomas-paine-friends.org
thank u for that .....tom is still misunderstood
to this day......do u believe that he penned the decl. of ind. ?
The evidence as I understand it is that Jefferson shared his draft with Paine, who offered a number changes in the phrasing of the declaration.@@waddellwaddellbsc516
hello this is a person from 2023 percicely iam watching this on 10/30/2023 so 8 years after it has been posted also i am watching this for school
Excellent - Thank you very much for posting!
That was fantastic.
Edmund Burke was brilliant. He predicted everything that came true in the next 200 years pertaining to revolutions
Edmond Burke wanted you to be his slaves.
Did anyone else watch this for Ambleside?
I did :)
Great discussion. One (liberal) point to counter Levin, at about 29:00. Americans equated taxation with loss of liberty because we saw ourselves as Englishmen. The King had no power to impose taxes. Parliament did. Centuries of American/English history had established the right of the middle class (burgesses, low-level knights, freemen) to have their parliamentary representatives determine whether or not to approve a tax. And we were middle class enclaves, with no aristocracy putting us in our place. The 13 colonial governments were a direct copy of English government: each had the Common Law, an elected legislature, and the King (in the person of the royal governor). When the Act of Union created that fiction called "Great Britain" in 1707, it reduced each of the colonies to the status of Ireland (a conquered dominion). Even worse, in creating a "British Parliament" in which they had no representation, it wiped us off the map. Any delusions that we had at the turn of the 17th century that we were still English subjects, protected by English freedoms, were basically dreams that we were waiting to wake up from . No Taxation Without Representation was a middle class, non-aristocratic assertion of our historic rights as Englishmen. George III could have defended us against Parliament's excesses, but the (German) King of "Great Britain" was now so far under the thumb of the "British" Parliament that there was no one to complain that Parliament had in effect become what we Americans today protest (erroneously) as resistance to an authoritarian king.
Dennis P. Schaefer I have to correct you on george the third he was definitely not under the thumb of parliament or charles fox at some point would of been prime minister he couldnt even get into government once pit the younger wanted him
Should have listened to Burke. Unfortunately Burke as a great genius lost every major battle he fought but on reflection won every war. Of course he was right, he was a phenomenal genius and understand the best of England. He was almost always right but there was a cost to listening to him for many.
Most Britons had no idea what America was, never mind what it could become, or what it had done in recent wars and could do in future conflicts. The Americans were patronised in an egregious and sentimental way precisely at the time they should have been liberated and celebrated as the future.
It's interesting how Paine & Burke arrived at a similar ideology from a completely different approach. Paine saw liberalism as emerging from rationally articulated principles. Burke saw it as the result of gradual cultural evolution.
Paine was an ardent Republican icon and deist who did great work to help progressive social change
25:54 Brilliant. I really need to revisit Tocqueville.
"Decentralization has, not only an administrative value, but also a civic dimension, since it increases the opportunities for citizens to take interest in public affairs; it makes them get accustomed to using freedom. And from the accumulation of these local, active, persnickety freedoms, is born the most efficient counterweight against the claims of the central government, even if it were supported by an impersonal, collective will." - Alexis de Tocqueville
Burke was from Dublin Ireland. Not England! 🙂
@Mikeduke324 No his mother was a Catholic and his father converted from Catholicism. His sister was also a Catholic and he married a Catholic. This was at a time when the penal laws excluded Catholics from the professions and much else so some Irish Catholics to get on became Anglicans. Burke was a champion of Catholic emancipation but unfortunately for him he did not live to see it.
@Michael no his mother was a catholic. father a convert. Burke is Irish.
@@DomhnallOSuileabhainPrin-tm1fw His Dad was Protestant, and he himself was also an Anglican, his writings furiously defended the Anglican Church at every corner. Also his ancestry is of Anglo-Norman ancestry, he descends from an Anglo-Norman Knight who had moved to Ireland during the Invasion of Ireland by Henry II of England. It's actually best to describe him as "Anglo-Irish".
very interesting
The statement about Alito around 39 minute mark sounds so ridiculous now
We are a Constitutional Republic with a democratic way of voting
Republic kind of implies a democracy. You can't really elect a parliament of representatives without democracy
Why are you so adamant about this? Additionally, what was the civil war fought for?
Explain to me again how we voluntarily gave up our right to own private property. It's an alienable right? We have the right to not have the right to own something? It's amazing how you have justified this in your minds. Didn't the early Americans fight against Feudalism? So they made it involuntarily voluntary? Here in lies the problem and has usurped the power from the individual to the government. So now they can hold it as ransom against us.
I think you're getting some philosophies confused because owning property was never given up entirely.
So most classical liberals, people like Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, John Hancock, Benjamin Franklin, and others, were all influenced by Hobbes and Locke in their philosophies and outlooks on politics and life.
That philosophy that Hobbes stated, and Locke partially changed, states this... (That naturally speaking (this is called the state of nature), people are entirely and utterly free. They can do anything and everything they want there are no rules, laws, customs, traditions, and governments, economies, nothing but individuals in nature. This state of nature is essentially a type of anarchy. Life here is hard, cold, loveless, and short, because barbaric practices reign supreme. Because of this individuals give up their rights, in order to be protected. We give up our liberty to enforce law and we give it to the police. We give up our money (in the form of taxes) to pay for police. We give up our right to make certain decisions and we give our individual rights and authorities to a government so in exchange they protect us and thus a society is born and the cruel life in the state of nature no longer exists.)
Now Hobbes felt that the state of nature was so bad and so damaging that it needed to be avoided at all costs. Hobbes saw the horrors of the English Civil Wars and the rule of Cromwell firsthand (wars that led to the largest population decline in British history since the Black Plauge of the 14th Century). Because of these horrors, Hobbes argued that an authoritarian ruler was best for us to live under. While an authoritarian may be cruel, unjust, and plain uncomfortable to live under, the alternative of living in the state of nature was much, much, worse. Hobbes felt and argued that it was better to live in tyranny than to live in anarchy, because tyranny was not as bad as the state of nature.
Locke disagreed with Hobbes. Locke felt that while the state of nature wasn't good, tyranny was just as bad. As a result, Locke said men should be the ones who establish and maintain their own government that way the government protects what it should protect and leave alone what it should leave alone. The purpose of government was not just to protect your life from the state of nature, its purpose was to protect your rights from anarchy and tyranny. Locke called this a social contract, a unwritten agreement between men and authority. As a result Locke argued for representative democracy and made it clear that certain rights people give up to escape the state of nature, others they should never give up because to do so would lead to tyranny which is just as bad as anarchy.
Both Hobbes and Locke agreed rights came from God, they believed that men surrendered their rights to form government, and that in the state of nature all men are equal. Hobbes said that equality was bad because anarchy occurred. Locke said the equality was good and that keeping the equality would make sure no tyranny or anarchy occurred.
Burke argued that the state of nature did not exist. Burke said there was never such a thing as the state of nature. Burke argued anarchy was an exception not the base of our humanity. Society and people living together was natural. By nature humans are social creatures who need society and all societies will build a government, because anarchy is unnatural. Like Aristotle, Burke says that men naturally desire to have government. They don't want tyranny or anarchy but society not anarchy is the state of nature. As a result no social contract ever existed and no barbaric state of nature ever existed. And because they never existed we shouldn't build government off of that unnatural idea.
@@walterfielding9079 Thank you for this outstanding and succinct statement of the arguments of Hobbes, Locke and Burke. And paleoanthropology makes it quite clear that Burke is correct, human beings have always lived in social groups and without tyranny because of a relatively equal distribution of power and mutual dependence among people in the group.
@Polystrophic Music - JGPurdy Thank you for your compliment. Also, Burke would argue that tyranny does happen and does exist. But tyranny usually only occurs because chaos and anarchy are occurring or did occur. Essentially, if a society gets sick, anarchy and chaos are born. And out of that illness, society will inevitably over compensate and over-correct and will accept tyranny. We see this time and time again in history, just look at the fall of the Roman Republic or the French and Russian Revolutions for an example.
The way to avoid tyranny is to hold fast to your society and the things not imposed on you by a force. Religion, family, culture, and tradition exist outside of that state and the states that last the longest and the states that are the most successful are the ones that hold on and integrate all of those concepts. Britain kept the monarchy. Americans still cling to their constitution. The Japanese, their Emperor, and Greece their history.
The reason the American revolution worked is because the Americans simply restored their rights as Englishmen. Their English rights were being violated so they restored them. While this isn't entirely true, it's what we believed as a nation and it prevented tyranny. The same occurred in the Glorious Revolution in 1688 in England or the Restoration in 1660. Same with the Magna Carta in the 1300s. Arguably the same occurred with Lutherans in the Reformation. Lutherans unlike Calvinist were not out to destroy the Church of Rome but restore it in their minds, which is why on the surface Lutherans look and feel Catholic. Those "Revolutions" were more of restorations holding to something deeper and older. It's always the outsiders trying to impose a new belief or new understanding that cause trouble and lead to chaos, France is a prime example. Society works best when people live when they see their country as a home they inherited from their fathers and grandfathers, NOT a place where God put us and lets us magically roam free.
in scripture it's against or for the rulers depending on their moral and ethical virtues...and against or for the masses of poor depending on their values...
53:35 Great presentation. I wrote a paper on Thomas Paine back in college. There are actually partial remains at the Thomas Paine Cottage Museum in New Rochelle, NY. All that is left is his brain stem that is buried in a secret location on the grounds. Gross, but true!
Why??
@@brittybee6615 Guy named William Corbett came to America in the early 19th century, dug up his grave, and brought his remains back to England. Unfortunately, his remains were lost.
Paine was very against the slavery abolishing not to be in the constituation
His distinction (after the 30 minute mark) between centralized reason and dispersed unreason is of course a false one.
If anything, it would be more accurate to use the other two quads of the box graph, and say that the free market is dispersed reason, and the contemporary leftist state is centralized unreason.
Burke was proven right about the French Revolution. As with the Russian and and Mao’s cultural revolution the left seems to eat itself and the slaughter is incomprehensible.
Wild there are still monarchists on TH-cam in 2022.
Nazis, kkk, isis are the far right.
Yes, king! Let's live under absolute monarchies and feudalism forever and ever. Yaaay!
@@eatfrenchtoast actually that is false. In fact the Communists in Germany supported the Nazis as The KPD created the idea that social democrats were fascists.
@@eatfrenchtoast based auth right
Jeffery non partisan lol brilliant
o and i also think that i am the first person to say FIRST FISRT FIRST FIRST FIRST FIRST FIRST FIRST FIRST FIRST FIRST FIRST