Modern Sense

First off:
This is merely a modern rendition of Thomas Paine's Common Sense, a pamphlet passed out to garner attention and support for the American Revolution written in 1776. In no way, shape, or form is this my material. While reading Common Sense recently, I was surprised at how close to home the essay hit, so I decided to do my best in translating it so that the average non-politician or historian could read it. I will post the first part of the essay now, and will hopefully get another section out in a week or two. I encourage you to read the real thing here, and I hope that it ignites within you the same passion for freedom that it did in me.

Introduction

Maybe what I'm going to write about here isn't going to be very popular. You see, people have a habit of thinking that something is right just because it hasn't been considered wrong. And when you say, “Hey, maybe that's wrong,” people get upset. They get upset because they're used to the way things are done. And sometimes, that's ok. Traditions are in place for a reason. But every tradition needs to be examined every once in a while. Maybe people will at least take me seriously. But to be honest, I don't think the stuff I say here will convert that many people to this cause; time, and only time, will shift peoples' outlooks.

Usually, we're ok with someone else having power over us. Especially when we're talking about our and our family's security. But when the people who have authority abuse that power for a long time, we begin to wonder whether or not it's ok for them to remain in power. And, since the United States government has used its power to abuse us, its innocent citizens, we have both the right and the obligation to call our government into question. Not only that, but we have the right to reject the authority of our government.

In the following essay, I have done my best to spread this message to every American, not just the people who like politics. Because the people who like politics have already read all the essays they want to, and decided to agree or disagree with me before they even started reading.

The great Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once told us: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” While I don't mean to belittle African-Americans' struggle to obtain their rights, I think that he would agree with me when I interpret his quote to mean that any time someone, being black or white, rich or poor, young or old, is denied their freedom, everyone should come to their defense. Because when someone else is denied their freedom, then it's only a matter of time before you are denied your own freedom

I should point out that in the big scheme of things, my identity is irrelevant to how you read this essay. I say that because the ideals that I write about don't have anything to do with who I am, but instead speak for themselves. I am not paid by any company, organization, government, person, or anyone or thing in regards to this essay. I write this because I think that it is the best thing that I can do to help the people of the world in their constant struggle for freedom.


Part One:
How a Government Starts, and How it Should Work

It's important to draw a line between society and government. Society is what people make when they are together and want or need things, like food or shelter. Government is what people make to prevent each other from doing something wrong.

An example of society is a Wal-Mart. 2 groups of people can be seen in a Wal-Mart: the employees and the shoppers. The shoppers are there to buy things like food that we need. The employees are there to make money so they can go out and buy things that they need.

An example of government is a group of citizens and a police force. This time, there are 3 groups of people being discussed. The 1st group are the policemen, who are paid by the 2nd and 3rd groups. The 2nd group of people are the ones who are paying the policemen and tell them what laws they enforce. The 3rd group of people are the ones who used to be in the 1st or 2nd groups, but no longer are because they violated the law that the 2nd group set up, and are in prison and/or are not allowed to have a voice when the laws are made.

You can see that at a Wal-Mart, 2 groups of people come together because they both have needs. But in the police force example, there were 3 groups of people and 1 group was cut off from the rest. For that reason, government at its best always separates people. Thomas Paine, someone who wrote during the American Revolution, said that at its best, government is a necessary evil. That is, government is something that we need, but that can never be good.

Not only can government never be good, but an especially bad government, one that abuses its power, makes us suffer the same things that we would be suffering if we had no government at all.

I'd like you to read that last sentence again and pause for just a second to let it sink in.

What I'm saying is that an abusive government is one that serves no purpose other than to make the people under it suffer. You see, the only reason that government is around is that we don't trust one another, or trust ourselves, to do the right thing all the time. I don't mean stealing a stick of gum from the store, I mean we don't trust people to run things the way they should be run. We think that some corporate executives will try to swindle their employees and/or their bosses out of money. Or we think that someone who's hungry and jobless won't be able to resist the temptation to rob the local liquor store. And secretly, we think that there's a chance that we might do the same in those kinds of situations.

And when people get away with doing things like this under the current government, when people are encouraged or even forced to rob convenience stores, steal electronics, or deal in inside trading, what difference does it make whether there is a government or not? Ask yourself how your life would be different without your government in place. Would your roads stop being repaired? Growing up in a poor area of a major city, I can remember my roads were only repaired once every year or two. Would the crime rates go up? There's no reason to think so, and I say so because statistics show that the same crimes are committed everywhere you go depending on your location. Go to any major city and you'll see drug addiction and robberies. Go to any suburb and you'll see a drug addiction to a different substance and “white-collar crime.” Go to any rural area and you'll see yet another kind of drug addiction and vandalism. All of these things listed, and maybe some others, are the reasons we establish a government.

I'd like to back up to get a glimpse of how a government is formed; how it starts out. Let's take an imaginary group of 5 or so people and put them on an island somewhere without contact with the rest of the world. At first, these people might try to live on their own. But sooner or later, they would come together to form a society where they would trade with one another so that each can make his or her own life easier.

After a while, the number of people grow from just a few to 10 or 20. And now, because there are that many, it is possible for someone to steal from someone without being noticed. When that happens, the people come together to prevent it from happening again. So, they form a government.

In this government, all the people are treated as equals and they can all meet in the same place at the same time. At their meetings, they will decide what they are and are not allowed to do, and what the punishment will be for breaking a rule.

But as the years go by, the number of people in the island increases to 100 and they spread farther and farther apart. And, since each of these people will have their own opinion on each issue or rule that is brought up during the meetings, it becomes hard for everyone to meet at one location at one time. Because of this, the people on the island decide to leave the government to a small number of people who will act the same way as everyone on the island.

If the number of people on the island continues to increase and spread further away from one another, the number of people in the government will have to keep increasing as well so that they can keep expressing the opinions of everyone equally. And because the people on the island, or the voters, want to make sure that the people they elect (the government) are expressing the voters' views, they will make each elected person run for election every so often. In this way, the elected officials and the voters will cooperate with one another naturally. The strength of the government and the happiness of the voters is founded on their cooperation.

This is an example of how a government is started and grows. I used the example to tell you why we, as people, establish a government: because we cannot rely on ourselves or on other people to do what is right. I also used the example to show what the goal of government is: to make sure we are safe from one other.

I draw my ideas about how a government should be run from basic logic that anyone can agree with: the idea that the simpler something is, the harder it is to break. The fewer parts to a toy or the fewer links in a chain, the tougher and more durable it will be. And, if the simple toy or chain does break, the easier it is to put back together. If you look at the Constitution of the United States of America the same way we look at toys and chains, you will find a few things that I'd like to point out. I agree with and appreciate the fact that the Constitution was a great document in the 1700s, after a long time of government oppression, and that it gave people liberties that had never been given before. But the Constitution remains imperfect and cannot give the people governed by it the liberties that it seems to guarantee. I will present some examples of these imperfections.

I first have to mention that dictatorships, governments that are run by just one person, have one good thing about them: that they are simple. If the country is in trouble, there can only be one cause: the person in charge has done something wrong. I'm not saying that dictatorships are good; they are evil, and everything that people in this great country have worked for up until this point have been to free ourselves from dictatorships. But comparing the convenience of knowing what is wrong with the country to the confusion that the American government encourages, where the Senate blames the president, who blames the House, which blames the Supreme Court, which blames the Fed, who turns around and blames the Senate... well, you get the idea. The point is that people like you and me can suffer through a recession or a violation of our rights without ever knowing who to blame or who to turn to.

I know that it is difficult to really look at what the Constitution says; as a proud American who loves and respects his country, I sometimes feel guilty or anti-patriotic when I scrutinize the Constitution. But I know that it is for the greater good, and for the good of my unborn children. I encourage you to read this the same way that I am writing it. And when you do, you will realize that the 3 governing bodies that the Constitution sets up (the president, congress, and Supreme Court) are based on old world ideals with only a hint of democracy.

The first old world ideal, the dictatorship, is found in the presidency. The second ideal, the aristocracy (rule by the elite few) is found in the Supreme Court. Only in the congress do we find the democratic process at work, because only the congress men and women are elected directly by the people.

Thinking about the president's role in the government, his or her only job is to be a figurehead and leader of the United States, and this job leads him or her to either maintain the rights of the people as they are or to take away those rights. Never has a president given the people more rights, because that is the duty of the Supreme Court.

Moving on to the Supreme Court as the rule of the aristocracy, we see that the Supreme Court's only real power, to apply and interpret the laws that have been passed by the congress, could easily be done by congress itself. Moreover, couldn't these laws be interpreted better by the people that voted on them in the first place? And if the congress could actively vote on laws that are being appealed, wouldn't they reflect the needs of the people better than a bunch of out-of-touch judges that were appointed rather than elected? Moving on.

Now, it is popular to say that the three branches of American government are a union of three powers that serve to check one another. Let me say that when you think about it, the idea is ridiculous. You'll see that I've put two words in bold; the words union and check. The word check comes from the game of chess, where one player puts the other into “check,” meaning that the opponent cannot move until a threat has been eliminated. So, knowing this, we can figure out that a union that checks itself just doesn't make any sense. To put it simply, it's as though the government is playing chess with itself, and it's always losing.

First of all, to say that the congress is a check on the president, you must assume two very important (and revealing) things:

1. That the president cannot be trusted without being looked after, or in other words, that a thirst for power will get the better of anyone who becomes the president.

2. That the congress, by being elected to put a check on the president, are either wiser or more trustworthy than the president himself.

But the same Constitution that gives the congress the power to check the president through impeachment gives the president the power to check the congress, which is supposed to be wiser or more trustworthy, by being able to veto its legislation.

The idea that our forefathers had when they made the Constitution was to limit one part of the government from becoming too powerful. But our forefathers made the mistake of assuming that there needed to be more than one part, or branch, of government at all, and that the different branches of government would not needlessly or consistently check one another. More on that later.

A final thought before I wrap this part up. Why does America (or anyone, for that matter) need a far-removed institution like the Supreme Court that decides what the congress meant when they said this or that? Why does America need a president that the people are afraid to trust, and that we feel a constant need to check? In fact, what is the reason for the establishment of a power that needs to be checked by another power at all? Is there ultimately any reason that the people cannot rule themselves through the congress, without a president or a supreme court?