Common Sense....REVISITED (Part One)
A Sequel to "The Law"
This is a modern day look at the fantastic work of Thomas Paine…Common Sense.
I see it as a sequel to my version of The Law 2024. Timely information that needs to be read by everyone that uses Reason, Logic and Common Sense to come to their conclusions. The story of how this came into my possesion right after I posted The Law 2024 is one that tells me…there is a divine Creator that moves in the hearts of men. I give you Common Sense REVISITED. C.L.
“Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides.” ~Thomas Paine (1737-1809)
“Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak, and that it is doing God’s service when it is violating all His laws.” ~John Adams
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Indigenous Power vs. Surrogate Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Bottom-up Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
What Went Wrong? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Global Government: The Ultimate Surrogate . . . . . . . 14
A Monetary System to Support Indigenous Power . . . 18
Welfare and Indigenous Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
The Environment and Indigenous Power . . . . . . . . . . 23
Education and Indigenous Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Health Care and Indigenous Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Foreign Relations, Defense and Indigenous Power . . 32
Drugs and Indigenous Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Creating A Paradigm Shift to Indigenous Power . . . . 39
Recommended Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
“Life, liberty and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforhand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” ~Frederic Bastiat
The author of Common Sense Revisited is a passionate student of the founding principles of our country. The author, at this time, desires to remain anonymous. This pamphlet is virtually identical in length to the original version of COMMON SENSE by Thomas Paine. The essential subject matter is the same: individual sovereignty vs. government sovereignty.
This version puts the issue in the framework of indigenous vs. surrogate power, essentially the same concept stated in modern terms. It is our hope that this pamphlet will have the same incredible impact on America and the rest of the world as Paine's original version.
The Common Sense Revisited Team - Clyde Cleveland - Eliyah Finkelstein - Corey Morrow - Jonny Cook
In January 1776, it seemed unlikely that the 13 American colonies would declare independence from England. Even as George Washington was leading the Colonial Army against the British in Boston, most of the delegates attending the Continental Congress in Philadelphia wanted to patch things up with King George.
The advocates for freedom, led by John Adams, asked for a non-binding survey of delegates to see where they stood. The results were disheartening. Less than a third voted for independence.
Then, late in the month of January, a seemingly small event changed the course of history. Thomas Paine published an 80-page pamphlet entitled COMMON SENSE. COMMON SENSE presented common sense arguments to refute the predominant theory of sovereignty in the western world. Instead of a divine birthright that gave kings and queens power over others, Paine made the case for individual sovereignty, declaring that all powers of government were derived from the individuals who created the government. His arguments were clearly stated so anyone could understand that individual sovereignty was the natural order, based on self-evident, eternal truths. Paine argued that each individual human being, divinely created and given free will by his or her Creator, has the right to function in society in a manner which allows him or her to exercise that divine gift of free will.
After emphatically laying out his reasoning, Paine proceeded to explain the inevitability of the colonies’ separation from England. He then suggested how the war could be won and proposed structures for the new colonial government.
To say that his small pamphlet struck a chord with the colonials would be the understatement of the millennium. COMMON SENSE sold over 100,000 copies in the first three months, and as many as 500,000 copies altogether. At that time there were approximately 3 million people residing in the 13 colonies, and it was estimated that the vast majority of the population read COMMON SENSE. The huge groundswell of support for a formal split with England created by this powerful little pamphlet quickly reached the delegates in Philadelphia as well as the Colonial Army in Boston. In late March, General Washington wrote in a personal letter that “by private letters which I have lately received from Virginia, I find COMMON SENSE is working a powerful change there in the minds of many men.”
By July, the groundswell had reached the boiling point. On July 2, with New York abstaining, the Continental Congress unanimously voted for independence. On July 4, 1776, the formal document was signed by 56 very courageous individuals.
That was not the only impact Paine was to have on the country’s independence movement. In late 1776 the war was going very poorly for the Continental Army. It was going so poorly that many soldiers were defecting to the British and most of the British military leaders were confident that the war was effectively over.
It was at this time that Thomas Paine was inspired to start a series of letters he called THE AMERICAN CRISIS. His opening paragraph is famous:
“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.”
The letters of THE AMERICAN CRISIS inspired the troops to keep fighting and the civilian population to donate the necessary resources to provision the army. Paine had come to the rescue of freedom once again. In 1805 John Adams wrote of Paine, “I know not whether any man in the world has had more influence on its inhabitants or affairs for the last thirty years than Tom Paine.”
Paine wrote with enthusiasm, clarity, and common sense. He wrote in language that everyone could understand, and in doing so, inspired the people of the 13 colonies to sacrifice their property and their lives for the cause of liberty.
COMMON SENSE REVISITED also comes from a lover of liberty who wants to see his children and grandchildren grow up in a free country and a free world—a world devoted to creating freedom, prosperity, peace, and love for all people of all races, religions, and nationalities.
The American Founders provided the formula for that kind of world. The freedom formula worked well for the first 100 years; but during the first decade of the 20th century, America was subjected to a much different view of sovereignty than that held by the Founders. Unfortunately, that competing ideology has gradually gained strength, severely weakening the country and dramatically reducing the degree of individual liberty the people once enjoyed.
However, the principles of liberty are based on eternal laws of nature and cannot be contained for long. It is time that the people unite once again to reignite the flame of freedom that lies within their hearts.
The Boston Tea Party of Dec. 16, 1773, was a turning point in the history of the United States and is known throughout the world as one of the most important symbolic gestures for freedom from tyranny. The primary instigator of the original event was Samuel Adams, one of the most effective organizers of the independence movement.
On that day a group of Boston's citizens, fed up with the increase in punitive actions being implemented by King George, decided to make a statement and take matters into their own hands. The news of that gesture of civil disobedience spread throughout the colonies quickly, largely because of the committees of correspondence that had been put in place by Adams and others concerned about the increase in British tyranny. People were inspired to get involved, and momentum toward independence continued to build.
It is the author’s hope that, like its inspiration, this pamphlet will create some brushfires. If it ignites a passion for increased freedom in you, please share it with everyone you know as quickly as possible. The world is waiting for inspiration.
When COMMON SENSE was published, the identity of the author was unknown. In the last paragraph of Paine’s introduction he stated, “Who the author of this Production is, is wholly unnecessary to the Public, as the Object for Attention is the Doctrine itself not the Man.” Paine simply signed the book COMMON SENSE. This writing too is about the message, not the author.
Understanding the nature of power is the key to understanding all relationships between humans and their institutions. To understand this, it is necessary to understand what Jefferson called the “laws of our being.” All humans are created with unique characteristics. All have free will. All have the capacity to grow and evolve and appreciate the nature of their being. The Founders saw the reality of the unique nature of humanity as “self-evident.” In other words, it is just plain common sense to conclude that we are different from all other inhabitants of the planet because we have free will and the ability to manifest thoughts into concrete form through action. Since each individual human has this power, it follows that the only true source of power is the individual. Since power originates and occurs naturally within each individual it is called indigenous power. The other type of power is that which human beings delegate to others, which could be called surrogate power.16
When two individuals form a business entity together they have created a surrogate. If understood properly and supervised equally by both, the structure they have created can be useful. However, if one of the parties assumes the rights of the other, the surrogate entity will become corrupt.
Most parents delegate the power to educate their children to surrogates. That is fine if the education received reflects the values and desires of the parents. Problems will arise, however, if that power is used to undermine the indigenous power that exists between parents and their children.
A government is a surrogate. The only power it has is that which has been delegated to it by the individuals who created it. As long as it does not usurp indigenous power and as long as it respects the indigenous power which created it, then it can be very useful. However, as soon as a government, or any surrogate, assumes the rights of indigenous power, it has become corrupt. This corruption will always be accompanied by force, intimidation, dishonesty, and other forms of coercion.
Surrogates can be effective only when they openly acknowledge the true source of their power. If coercion and fraud are being used to give the impression that the surrogate has real power, this is when indigenous power must reassert itself or the oppression, deception, and tyranny will only continue to grow.
When this kind of oppression occurs, nothing is more effective than a declaration of the sovereign rights held by those with indigenous power. This is exactly what the Founders of our nation did in 1776. Such a declaration of sovereignty is what will naturally happen when any individual, or group of individuals, acknowledges the indigenous power established by the Creator. Surrogate power may fight back, but it can never win once indigenous power is clearly declared because surrogate power, in reality, has no true power of its own!
Surrogate activities, duties, and limitations are usually laid out in a written agreement. These types of agreements can be in the form of contracts, partnership agreements, corporate charters, constitutions, labor union agreements, or any other kind of agreement between the individuals who are creating the specific surrogate and those who will be managing that surrogate.
In the 1700s, the leaders of the American freedom movement knew that they had to reclaim their indigenous power. They also knew they had to declare, in a clearly written document, their authority to create their own government. This is what they did in the opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:
“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”17
These were highly educated individuals who were well aware that if separation from the most powerful nation on earth was successful the world would never be the same. They had a very clear understanding of indigenous power and surrogate power. The Declaration they created, which is one of the most powerful spiritual-political documents in the history of the human race, clearly states who has the power and who does not:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Understanding the difference between surrogate power and indigenous power is the key to liberation from any surrogate that is out of control. Surrogates can use force and deception to create the illusion that they have power. However, the only true source of power is the individual. A declaration of indigenous power is the first step to recapturing the power that has been usurped by any surrogate. That is what happened with the American colonists, it is what happened with Gandhi and the people of India, and it is what happened more recently with Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.
One thing the Founders understood very clearly is that it is much easier for a government to usurp the indigenous power of the people if it is physically far away from them. Therefore, it is best to have more severe limitations on the government entities that are farther away from the people. That is why state governments have constitutions that limit their power, but the national constitution places much more stringent controls and limitations on the federal government, which is even farther removed from the people.
The Founders created a constitutional republic, not a democracy. They knew that it was way too easy for the majority in a pure democracy to violate the natural rights of the individual. As Jefferson stated, “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Their intention was to do everything possible to put into place a form of government that was unable to usurp indigenous power from the people. The only way to keep government from usurping indigenous power is to structure it from the bottom up.
The Founders had a vision of a country totally in tune with natural laws. They had studied Cicero, Locke, Hutcheson, and many of the early Greek philosophers as well, all of whom wrote about natural law in great depth. In their view, God’s law and natural law are essentially the same; natural law is God’s will expressed. In their Declaration, the Founders termed it the “laws of nature and of nature’s God.” Understanding the fundamental principles drawn on by the Founders dissolves misconceptions and provides a framework for understanding where the nation went wrong and how the people can restore their indigenous power.
Examples of these principles and how they work can be found at various points in history and within different institutions (surrogates) other than government. The different surrogates people create—corporations, partnerships, unions, political parties, and governments—are all made up of other people. Human beings operate according to basic laws of nature. If surrogates are structured properly, there is less chance that the surrogate will usurp the indigenous power of its creators and a better chance that the surrogate will be highly effective at achieving its purpose.
Consider the story behind Visa International. Dee Hock founded the company in 1968 with nothing but a list of principles that he had gleaned from a lifetime of observing nature. Within a few years, Hock’s company was the largest commercial enterprise on the planet, with $1.25 trillion in annual revenues. The amazing thing about Visa was that nobody could find the center of the company. As one observer said, “The center was like a non-coercive enabling organization that existed only for the purpose of assisting owner members to fulfill their activities with greater capacity, more effectively, and at less cost.”
Hock's company was a "chaordic" organization, embracing both the chaos of competition and the order of cooperation. In his book, The Birth of the Chaordic Age, he lists the principles behind a chaordic organization as follows:
It should be equitably owned by all participants.
It must not attempt to impose uniformity.
It should be open to all qualified participants.
Power, function, and resources should be distributed to the maximum degree.
Authority should be equitable and distributive within each governing entity.
No interest, particularly management, should be able to dominate deliberations or control decisions.
To the maximum degree possible, everything should be voluntary.
It should be non-assessable.
It should introduce, not compel, change.
It should be infinitely malleable yet extremely durable.
This list of Hock’s is a very good description of a freedom formula for any surrogate institution. What’s more, the observer’s description of the company’s center serving as an “enabling organization” is an accurate description of the Founder's perspective of government in the form of a republic.
In addition to Hock’s story, there are far earlier examples of success in following the principles of natural law in governments. Both the Anglo-Saxons and the early Israelites under Moses were bottom-up societies.26
The governing principles followed by both the Anglo- Saxons and the people of Israel were remarkably similar. They both contained the following principles:
Equal representation
Unalienable rights of the individual
Local resolution of problems to the maximum extent possible
Few laws; those that did exist were well known by the people
A justice system based on complete reparation to the person who had been wronged
Small groups in which every adult had a voice and a vote
Family units of 10, each with an elected leader; within units of 50 families, each with an elected leader; then 100, then 1,000, and so on
Both systems were firmly based on the principle of individual sovereignty and indigenous power. It was up to individuals to be responsible for their own actions. If they weren’t, then it was up to the family to deal with the situation. If that didn’t work, it went to the leader of the 10 family unit, and then to the 50 family leader and so on.
What is remarkable is how similar these organizing principles of the Anglo-Saxons and the early Israelites are to Hock’s list of principles, which he gleaned from his observations of nature. As with his chaordic organization, VISA International, the bottom-up model worked well for the early Israelites and Anglo-Saxons, and led to greater peace, prosperity, and freedom for their people.
Three of the most knowledgeable Founders—John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin—all believed these civilizations were the most worthy of copying. In fact, they proposed that the first national seal for the United States of America reflect these two civilizations.
The base of the pyramid represents the highest degree of power. Pyramid One Organizing Principles of the Early Israelites
The Founders’ vision of a bottom-up republic was thriving by the time French historian Alexis de Tocqueville came to America in the 1830s. He was astonished that “government was more or less invisible.” What he saw instead was a country in which local problems were solved by individuals, families, and a plethora of community and civic organizations.
Proposed Seal by Benjamin Franklin
By 1905, the United States was one of the richest industrial nations on the planet. With 5 percent of the world’s land and 6 percent of its population, the country was producing almost half of everything produced in the world, including clothes, food, houses, transportation, communications, and luxuries. Most importantly, people were coming to the United States from all over the world to enjoy unprecedented freedom.
CONTINUED - PART TWO
Note to my husband after an unjust accusation of being "radicalised Far-Right" was flung at me.
9/11/23
Self-sovereignty knows no politics. It leans neither left nor right. It is centred upon individual conscience which supercedes all external "authority". It is the inalienable right of every human, not a privilege given by government. It is not removed just because of the latest manufactured "emergency".
I am as I have always been. I think as I have always thought. I have not changed. I have never, nor will I ever give consent to the horror and incompetence that is the governance of this world. As an empath, my heart and soul bleed for the billions of victims of that governance.
"The ultimate tyranny in a society is not control by martial law. It is control by the psychological manipulation of consciousness, through which reality is defined so that those who exist within it do not even realize that they are in prison."
Teachings from the Pleiadians
Well written and reasoned piece, though not without a hedge. Margaret Thatcher once famously questioned the existence of "society" and posited only individuals and families as the most fundamental organizing principle of humanity.
I am the polar opposite of Thatcherism (socialism for the rich, austerity for the rest of us), and though I agree that "society" is an abstract, emergent epiphenomenon ... I question the status of 'individual' as the fundamental ground of a social primate, and prefer families and small communities as a more defensible position for our default of organization.
Here in Japan, for example, there was no Japanese word for individual until a translation of Jean-Jacques Rousseau required a new word ... "koujin". Prior to that coinage, individuals were not invisible, but they were defined in terms of relationships. Even now, there is no Japanese word for "brother" or "sister". It is either "older" or "younger" brother or sister.
Certainly individual autonomy is necessary for biological survival at the most basic level, but for a social primate prior to the evolution of transportation and larger heterogenous populations, banishment was pretty close to the death sentence among all cultures.
Meh, it may just boil down to the limits of language and logic in defining 'individual' outside of a social context. After all, I do believe that individual choice (moral autonomy), even if it means sacrificing one's self for the good of the marginalized 'other' (e.g. a mother for her new-born, a father for his family, etc.) is paramount.
I was glad to see the importance of social context, with a small "s", weighed heavily on the minds of the founding fathers.
Good post!