5 ms·

Thomas Paine: Common Sense (1776)

64 points by tokenadult 13y ago

kijin 13y ago
> government even in its best state is but a necessary evil, and in its worst state an intolerable one ... Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. I wish people took this more seriously and explored its philosophical implications. In a recent discussion with a couple of other HNers, I found a surprising amount of hostility toward my suggestion that the state and its laws are mere means to an end. But why not? What is there to romanticize, glorify, glamorize, sentimentalize, and eulogize about the fucking government? It's just a means to an end, like so many other things that we invented to make the harsh reality of life somewhat more tolerable. It's only raison d'etre is that, after years of experimentation, we have yet to find a less bad alternative as Churchill famously noted. What Churchill didn't mention is that we've only been experimenting with governments for a few thousand years, with democracy for a few hundred years, and with universal suffrage for a few decades. In the grand scheme of things, we've only just started. So much for the End of History, Mr. Fukuyama! When, after only so little experimentation, people cannot bear to admit that their current government might not be the best thing evaaaaar, it's a sign of a serious problem: confusion between means and ends. Developers who cannot bear to admit that their software has massive security holes tend not to produce secure software, and arguing with them often results in hilarious threads that we see here from time to time under headings like "How not to respond to a bug report". Similarly, people who equate any criticism of or harm to their country with the murder of their firstborn tend not to produce a good country. As Paine says in another part of the article: > any prepossession in favor of a rotten constitution of government will disable us from discerning a good one. Implication: Don't get too emotionally attached to a government. Another thing that I'd really want to emphasize is that Paine was not an anarchist. Neither am I. Just because people refuse to romanticize the government doesn't mean that they'd rather get rid of it. The definition of a necessary evil is that although it is evil, it is also necessary under present circumstances. Anarchists are stupid, they don't understand necessity. Sensible people do. People who have common sense do not destroy things that are necessary. But they are always willing to ditch one and get another if the alternative turns out to be a better fit for the job and the benefits outweigh the cost of transition. 237 years ago, Paine ditched Britain in favor of a new country. Perhaps 23.7 or 237 or 2370 years from now, sensible Americans may need to ditch America for something else. Throw around big words like "treason" all you want, but at the most fundemantal level it's just common sense. Countries just tend to be more difficult and costly to switch than your mobile phone contract is.
- 4891 13y ago
  Yes. Here's something interesting: various Chinese think tanks wonder publicly about if, and when their country will transition to democracy. (Yes, they can get away with this - the unwritten rule is that they can't say "China should become a democracy in the next 5 years" but discussions of longer time periods are not considered a threat). A lot of the left-leaning think tanks believe China should gradually become more democratic, building from the village elections they have now to city, province and ultimately national elections. Some of the right-leaning think tanks have a more original idea - China remains a one-party state, but with increasingly sophisticated methods of soliciting public opinion. Basically technocracy. I think the EU is converging on the same system of government from a different direction. I'm not saying technocracy is a wonderful system of government either, but it won't be hard to do a better job than democracy. Pretty much everything bad people have predicted about democracy has come to pass: - many people will vote on ethnic/tribal lines (true even in the US) - people's voting patterns will be mainly determined by the media, making the media and whoever controls it extraordinarily powerful (if you're Chomsky, this is the corporations, if you're UKIP, this is the "metropolitan liberal elite" - actually, they're both right). - the idea of having rotating politicians managing a permanent civil service is insanely impractical, is not implemented by any non-governmental organisation, and has had the entirely predictable result that the civil service pretty much does what it wants regardless of who is in power. - eventually the population realise they can vote themselves largesse out of the treasury. This is the equivalent of injecting smack for polities; it's insanely addictive, it's incredibly painful for them to quit, and it will probably eventually kill them. - it doesn't even really give a voice to voters. Seriously, all your opinions and preferences are reduced to 1 bit of information every election cycle? And in practice its less than that, because you probably live in a non-swing region, or your preferences are highly predictable (eg, in information theoretic terms, an urban highly-educated media professional who votes left-wing probably only gives you about 0.2 bits of information, because you knew they were gonna vote left-wing anyway). Something like Singapore is one good example of what a well-managed non-democratic state can look like. (INB4 caning: OK, corporal punishment isn't very nice, but neither are most criminals, and since Singapore has a low crime rate its "draconian" law enforcement leads to less overall suffering than, say, the American policy of placing two million people in rape-infested concentration camps. Free speech? You noticed how Jezebel and similar outlets have started threatening the employment of people who say things they don't like? I used to be a lot more libertarian, but I'm seriously coming around to the idea that people have more practical freedom in an orderly state than a libertine one). People here interested in this stuff should seriously read Moldbug if they haven't already: http://moldbuggery.blogspot.co.uk http://moldbuggery.blogspot.co.uk (start with "The Case Against Democracy: Ten Red Pill" and then maybe move to the "Open Letter" series).
ambassador451 13y ago
After reading this, I can't help but think that once and for all, we need to free Brad Manning and stop the NSA. The US is just really bad and the sheeple need to wake up and stop listening to the media who are telling them lies. Only people like us on the internet know what's really going on.
- InclinedPlane 13y ago
  This is an unhelpful viewpoint. In fact, I'd say it's actively harmful. It's one thing to rein in fantasies that we live in a dystopian, fascist, police state. That's not the case. In fact, today in the US we have a quite amazing degree of individual liberty compared to the historical average, even compared to several standard deviations above the historical average. And we should remember that. But it's another thing to imagine that there aren't serious issues at play here, and that there aren't serious threats to our individual liberty on numerous fronts. To try to play things off as though everything's fine. Things are not fine. There are very disturbing abuses of power happening. And even more disturbing trends. Legally. Socio-culturally. And in business as well. If we ignore them until they rise to the level of seriousness of a dystopian, fascist, police state (or something just as bad in some other form) we will have ignored them for far too long.
  - frozenport 13y ago
    I am getting extremely weary of users who have very little post history flooding HN with PRISM related anti-American vitriol. I recall organizations like Russia Today being caught for registering users on youtube that promoted their viewpoints, gave up-votes, and voiced extreme opinions: making their extremest lies look more legitimate. I don't know who these new people are but the quality of their posts is well below our standard and their users names appear to be a play on words.
    - ambassador451 13y ago
      I will defer to your judgement on what is up to 'our standards' since your account is less than a year old.
rkuerzinger 13y ago
hmmmm, am I the only one who's totally annoyed by that URL path? Seriously, what's the point in abbreviating to "/comsense.htm"? I know that's not a big deal, but being a fan of ... well, I'd say "semantic URLs" this always hits me square in my face! Why not use "/commonsense.htm" or "/common_sense.htm"? And after looking at http://www.constitution.org/tp http://www.constitution.org/tp it gets even worse ("/amercrisis.htm" etc.)
- kijin 13y ago
  Some of those files may have been named during the days of DOS 8+3 filename limit. Better keep an old filename than break a lot of links. Also, some people who first learned computing in the DOS era keep using shortened filenames out of habit, even if it's not always capped at 8 chars. (The site seems to have several files whose names have been abbreviated to 9 chars.)
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
emidln 13y ago
Common sense will tell us, that the power which hath endeavored to subdue us, is of all others the most improper to defend us. This quote has always been a favorite of mine. It's from an argument made by loyalists (to Britain) and others who wish to stay out of a conflict (with Britain) Sudbury the commonly perceived protection afforded the populace in North America by the British Navy.
coldcode 13y ago
It's sad when we have to go back 240 years to try to convince people that we are moving in the wrong direction.

64 points by tokenadult 13y ago

kijin 13y ago

> government even in its best state is but a necessary evil, and in its worst state an intolerable one ... Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. I wish people took this more seriously and explored its philosophical implications. In a recent discussion with a couple of other HNers, I found a surprising amount of hostility toward my suggestion that the state and its laws are mere means to an end. But why not? What is there to romanticize, glorify, glamorize, sentimentalize, and eulogize about the fucking government? It's just a means to an end, like so many other things that we invented to make the harsh reality of life somewhat more tolerable. It's only raison d'etre is that, after years of experimentation, we have yet to find a less bad alternative as Churchill famously noted. What Churchill didn't mention is that we've only been experimenting with governments for a few thousand years, with democracy for a few hundred years, and with universal suffrage for a few decades. In the grand scheme of things, we've only just started. So much for the End of History, Mr. Fukuyama! When, after only so little experimentation, people cannot bear to admit that their current government might not be the best thing evaaaaar, it's a sign of a serious problem: confusion between means and ends. Developers who cannot bear to admit that their software has massive security holes tend not to produce secure software, and arguing with them often results in hilarious threads that we see here from time to time under headings like "How not to respond to a bug report". Similarly, people who equate any criticism of or harm to their country with the murder of their firstborn tend not to produce a good country. As Paine says in another part of the article: > any prepossession in favor of a rotten constitution of government will disable us from discerning a good one. Implication: Don't get too emotionally attached to a government. Another thing that I'd really want to emphasize is that Paine was not an anarchist. Neither am I. Just because people refuse to romanticize the government doesn't mean that they'd rather get rid of it. The definition of a necessary evil is that although it is evil, it is also necessary under present circumstances. Anarchists are stupid, they don't understand necessity. Sensible people do. People who have common sense do not destroy things that are necessary. But they are always willing to ditch one and get another if the alternative turns out to be a better fit for the job and the benefits outweigh the cost of transition. 237 years ago, Paine ditched Britain in favor of a new country. Perhaps 23.7 or 237 or 2370 years from now, sensible Americans may need to ditch America for something else. Throw around big words like "treason" all you want, but at the most fundemantal level it's just common sense. Countries just tend to be more difficult and costly to switch than your mobile phone contract is.

4891 13y ago
Yes. Here's something interesting: various Chinese think tanks wonder publicly about if, and when their country will transition to democracy. (Yes, they can get away with this - the unwritten rule is that they can't say "China should become a democracy in the next 5 years" but discussions of longer time periods are not considered a threat). A lot of the left-leaning think tanks believe China should gradually become more democratic, building from the village elections they have now to city, province and ultimately national elections. Some of the right-leaning think tanks have a more original idea - China remains a one-party state, but with increasingly sophisticated methods of soliciting public opinion. Basically technocracy. I think the EU is converging on the same system of government from a different direction. I'm not saying technocracy is a wonderful system of government either, but it won't be hard to do a better job than democracy. Pretty much everything bad people have predicted about democracy has come to pass: - many people will vote on ethnic/tribal lines (true even in the US) - people's voting patterns will be mainly determined by the media, making the media and whoever controls it extraordinarily powerful (if you're Chomsky, this is the corporations, if you're UKIP, this is the "metropolitan liberal elite" - actually, they're both right). - the idea of having rotating politicians managing a permanent civil service is insanely impractical, is not implemented by any non-governmental organisation, and has had the entirely predictable result that the civil service pretty much does what it wants regardless of who is in power. - eventually the population realise they can vote themselves largesse out of the treasury. This is the equivalent of injecting smack for polities; it's insanely addictive, it's incredibly painful for them to quit, and it will probably eventually kill them. - it doesn't even really give a voice to voters. Seriously, all your opinions and preferences are reduced to 1 bit of information every election cycle? And in practice its less than that, because you probably live in a non-swing region, or your preferences are highly predictable (eg, in information theoretic terms, an urban highly-educated media professional who votes left-wing probably only gives you about 0.2 bits of information, because you knew they were gonna vote left-wing anyway). Something like Singapore is one good example of what a well-managed non-democratic state can look like. (INB4 caning: OK, corporal punishment isn't very nice, but neither are most criminals, and since Singapore has a low crime rate its "draconian" law enforcement leads to less overall suffering than, say, the American policy of placing two million people in rape-infested concentration camps. Free speech? You noticed how Jezebel and similar outlets have started threatening the employment of people who say things they don't like? I used to be a lot more libertarian, but I'm seriously coming around to the idea that people have more practical freedom in an orderly state than a libertine one). People here interested in this stuff should seriously read Moldbug if they haven't already: http://moldbuggery.blogspot.co.uk http://moldbuggery.blogspot.co.uk (start with "The Case Against Democracy: Ten Red Pill" and then maybe move to the "Open Letter" series).

ambassador451 13y ago

After reading this, I can't help but think that once and for all, we need to free Brad Manning and stop the NSA. The US is just really bad and the sheeple need to wake up and stop listening to the media who are telling them lies. Only people like us on the internet know what's really going on.

InclinedPlane 13y ago
This is an unhelpful viewpoint. In fact, I'd say it's actively harmful. It's one thing to rein in fantasies that we live in a dystopian, fascist, police state. That's not the case. In fact, today in the US we have a quite amazing degree of individual liberty compared to the historical average, even compared to several standard deviations above the historical average. And we should remember that. But it's another thing to imagine that there aren't serious issues at play here, and that there aren't serious threats to our individual liberty on numerous fronts. To try to play things off as though everything's fine. Things are not fine. There are very disturbing abuses of power happening. And even more disturbing trends. Legally. Socio-culturally. And in business as well. If we ignore them until they rise to the level of seriousness of a dystopian, fascist, police state (or something just as bad in some other form) we will have ignored them for far too long.
- frozenport 13y ago
  I am getting extremely weary of users who have very little post history flooding HN with PRISM related anti-American vitriol. I recall organizations like Russia Today being caught for registering users on youtube that promoted their viewpoints, gave up-votes, and voiced extreme opinions: making their extremest lies look more legitimate. I don't know who these new people are but the quality of their posts is well below our standard and their users names appear to be a play on words.
  - ambassador451 13y ago
    I will defer to your judgement on what is up to 'our standards' since your account is less than a year old.

rkuerzinger 13y ago

hmmmm, am I the only one who's totally annoyed by that URL path? Seriously, what's the point in abbreviating to "/comsense.htm"? I know that's not a big deal, but being a fan of ... well, I'd say "semantic URLs" this always hits me square in my face! Why not use "/commonsense.htm" or "/common_sense.htm"? And after looking at http://www.constitution.org/tp http://www.constitution.org/tp it gets even worse ("/amercrisis.htm" etc.)

kijin 13y ago
Some of those files may have been named during the days of DOS 8+3 filename limit. Better keep an old filename than break a lot of links. Also, some people who first learned computing in the DOS era keep using shortened filenames out of habit, even if it's not always capped at 8 chars. (The site seems to have several files whose names have been abbreviated to 9 chars.)
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

emidln 13y ago

Common sense will tell us, that the power which hath endeavored to subdue us, is of all others the most improper to defend us. This quote has always been a favorite of mine. It's from an argument made by loyalists (to Britain) and others who wish to stay out of a conflict (with Britain) Sudbury the commonly perceived protection afforded the populace in North America by the British Navy.

coldcode 13y ago

It's sad when we have to go back 240 years to try to convince people that we are moving in the wrong direction.