Society, Government and the Uselessness of Kings
What does a people actually need from government, and what does a king add to it? Nothing, Paine answers, but cost and danger, and a crown passed down by birth is worse.
Society grows out of people's needs and is a blessing; government is at best a necessary evil, and the less distance between it and the governed, the better. Measured that way, a king contributes nothing a people could not do for itself, and costs a great deal. Inheritance makes it worse even when the first king was good: a people that chooses a ruler may bind itself, but it has no right to hand its grandchildren to his descendants, whoever they turn out to be.
- monarchy
- hereditary succession
- political legitimacy
- political authority
- popular sovereignty
- political equality
- divine sovereignty
- religion and politics
- freedom
Enter a dialogue
- What should someone do with a lifelong loyalty to a king, once that king has sent soldiers against them?
- If government is at best a necessary evil, why trust a republic's government any more than a king's?
- A crown gives a nation a fixed centre nobody has to argue over. Is losing that a fair price for the freedom to choose?
- Government, you write, is like dress, the badge of lost innocence. What would people be like if conscience were clear and always obeyed?
- When Israel demanded a king to be like other nations, the prophet Samuel warned what a king would take. Why did you use that warning against monarchy?