Thomas Paine was not an anarchist. He made it clear that his idea of anarchism (no government) aligned with government in its worst state: utter chaos. He wrote on January 10, 1776,
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: 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.
Government, for Paine, was the one we know too well, that of a legal monopoly of violence over a specific land mass. Quoting Rothbard, “it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion [overt taxation or monetary inflation].” In his infamous “Letter to Washington” in 1796, Paine refers to his proposal for a central government:
But as to the point of consolidating the States into a Federal Government, it so happens, that the proposition for that purpose came originally from myself. I proposed it in a letter to Chancellor Livingston in the spring of 1782, while that gentleman was Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Later in the same letter Paine said he “did not see the propriety of urging it precipitately,” when he first suggested it. He would’ve been more consistent had he never suggested it.
Given these statements, especially his claim that government is a necessary evil, why is Paine so much loved by anarchists today (including me)? As my dad used to say, I’m glad you asked.
Unless otherwise specified, the following excerpts can be found in THOMAS PAINE Ultimate Collection, for the Thomas Paine price of $1.99 (Kindle). All italicized text is mine. Let’s begin.
Under how many subtleties or absurdities has the divine right to govern been imposed on the credulity of mankind?
By “divine right” he was challenging Edmund Burke’s argument that kings are part of the long history of English liberty, though Paine’s question underlies any claim to political authority.
He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
In today’s world of shifting powers, the ones occupying the seats of government often view their election as a mandate to destroy the opposition. They want revenge, not liberty.
What is called the splendor of a throne is no other than the corruption of the state. It is made up of a band of parasites, living in luxurious indolence, out of the public taxes.
No one today refers to the splendor of the throne, but the Fed with its multi-billion dollar new building brings it to mind. Given the Fed is corrupt by design and the primary reason for our accelerating collapse, calling it a parasite is flattering.
To reason with governments, as they have existed for ages, is to argue with brutes. It is only from the nations themselves that reforms can be expected. [In Paine’s writings, “nation” refers to the people ruled.]
His reference to brutes derives from Common Sense, where he called the king the “Royal Brute of Great Britain.”
There is a natural aptness in man, and more so in society, because it embraces a greater variety of abilities and resource, to accommodate itself to whatever situation it is in. The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act: a general association takes place, and common interest produces common security.
Clearly, this is a version of anarchism that is consistent with Enlightenment principles and today’s libertarian philosophy.
The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has upon man, and all the parts of civilized community upon each other, create that great chain of connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation, prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole.
Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their law; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost everything which is ascribed to government. . . .
Scratch the word “almost” above and you have rational anarchism.
War is the common harvest of all those who participate in the division and expenditure of public money, in all countries. It is the art of conquering at home; the object of it is an increase of revenue; and as revenue cannot be increased without taxes, a pretense must be made for expenditure. In reviewing the history of the English Government, its wars and its taxes, a bystander, not blinded by prejudice nor warped by interest, would declare that taxes were not raised to carry on wars, but that wars were raised to carry on taxes. . . .
War and taxes go together like wood and axes. Is there a genetic link between war and the state? Randolph Bourne thought so,
The portion of liberty enjoyed in England is just enough to enslave a country more productively than by despotism, and that as the real object of all despotism is revenue, a government so formed obtains more than it could do either by direct despotism, or in a full state of freedom, and is, therefore on the ground of interest, opposed to both.
With war the order of every day, at least until the federal government collapses under debt or sets off a zoological genocide, there is no chance of establishing what some libertarians call “limited government” or the The Night-Watchman State.
As time obliterated the history of their beginning [i.e., the origin of governments], their successors assumed new appearances, to cut off the entail of their disgrace, but their principles and objects remained the same. What at first was plunder, assumed the softer name of revenue; and the power originally usurped, they affected to inherit.
From such beginning of governments, what could be expected but a continued system of war and extortion?
Paine thought democracy was the answer to perpetual war, inasmuch as the people would never vote for it. His knowledge of history suggests he was well aware of the power behind the throne, but it didn’t shake his confidence in people.
Paine’s View of Sovereignty
He writes:
Sovereignty, as a matter of right, appertains to the Nation only, and not to any individual; and a Nation has at all times an inherent indefeasible right to abolish any form of Government it finds inconvenient, and to establish such as accords with its interest, disposition and happiness.
True and important except for the opening assertion: Sovereignty is a trait of individuals who are at liberty to keep it or surrender it to any person or group they choose. There is nothing about togetherness that produces sovereignty; power, perhaps, but not sovereignty. The idea of individual sovereignty is best expressed in William Ernest Henley’s poem, Invictus:
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate,
I am the captain of my soul.
Anarchy as stateless civilization implies the full freedom — sovereignty — of each individual.
