31 of 33 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
CONTINUING TO DEFEND THE RIGHTS OF HUMANITY TODAY, July 16, 1999
By A Customer
The Rights of Man is a riposte to Edmund Burke's criticism of the French Revolution. Its message is the superiority of reason, in the form of Republican government armed with the Declaration of the Rights of Man, over despotism which holds populations in ignorance. With the American and French revolutions fresh in his mind, Paine was writing in a world on the threshold of freedom and that comes through in his forceful and forthright style. That said, and most important for the reader to appreciate, much of what he has to say still applies today. Paine in scathing in his critique of hereditary monarchy and privilege. He says "the idea of hereditary legislation is.......as absurd as an hereditary mathematician, or an hereditary wise man." He rejects the notion of government laws being justified by tradition and therefore irrevocable. His argument against Burke's defence of the 1688 revolution in England is perhaps the best in the book. Paine argues that the only thing that is truly hereditary is the Rights of Man : "The Rights of men in society, are neither devisable, nor transferrable, nor annihilable, but descendable only." The book is a superb polemic when both understood in its historical context and applied to world politics today. His arguments for reform of the House of Lords strike a particularly pertinent note. He expresses liberal doctrines that many people take for granted but in our own genocidal times Paine reminds us that many of the topics that impassioned him should continue to impassion everyone with an interest in humanity. The style of the writing may put off a few as many themes disappear and reappear throughout the book instead of being dealt with in a coherant whole. The fact that it was written in two parts and that he is one of the greatest pamphleteers of modern times should compensate for this minor irritation.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
30 of 33 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Defender of Self Government, May 20, 2001
Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man" is truly a classic defense of self government and reprsentative republicanism. Paine copmletely demolishes Edmund Burke's defense of aristocracy and monarchy as outmoded and absurd institiutions. Paine shows the immorality of monarchy and the plunder that it commits on it's own people through high taxes,unjust property laws,and priveleges for the nobility. Paine shows the virtues a representative system has over the monarchial form. He denounces aristocracy and monarchy as "frauds" and based upon tyranny. The first review by Will Murphy critsizing Paine as a sort of statist is way off the mark. Paine did recommend many ideals of the welfare state. It must be remembered he was speaking to an age where a large wealthy aristocracy ruled alongside the monarch, living in luxury off the high taxes drained from the middle, lower and working classes. Paine was one of the formost defenders of freethought in religion,speech, and ideas.To imply Paine was a sort of 18th century fascist is utterly absurd and ahistorical. Paine was not an enemy of property, just an enemy of aristocracy,who in his day did not obtain property by hard work. Usually property rights in monarchial nations were written to favor the wealthy and powerful, and grant them priveleges at the expense of the populace. Paine completely destroys the ideal that a chosen few were meant or ordained by God to rule. If you love freedom, you can't go wrong with the "Rights of Man".
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
16 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Paine's prescient screed against authoritarian precedent, May 11, 2004
"Rights of Man" (1791-92) is Thomas Paine's famous response to Edmund Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution of France" (1790). Although it helps have read Burke's essay, a general background is sufficient to understand and appreciate Paine's basic and groundbreaking arguments.
Paine and Burke were originally allies; Burke not only supported self-rule for the American colonies, he also supported the emancipation of the House of Commons from monarchical control and the independence of both Ireland and India. Many of his allies, then, were bewildered by his fervent opposition to the French Revolution; Burke drew the line between territorial autonomy from a distant or aloof government and the total overthrow of existing monarchies and institutions. For Burke, humankind's real enemies were drastic change and "unsocial, uncivil, unconnected chaos," and he proved himself a staunch defender of the status quo, of precedent, and of gradual reform.
Jerry Muller, in his recent--and superb--book "The Mind and the Market" asserts that Burke's denunciation of the French revolution is "the single most influential work of conservative thought published from his day to ours." (This, of course, depends on what one means by "conservative.") Yet Muller and likeminded historians inevitably cherry-pick Burke's more attractive economic and philosophical arguments and foreground Burke's critique, in Muller's words, "of the revolutionary mentality that attempts to create entirely new structures on the basis of rational, abstract principles." (Muller doesn't even mention Paine, much less the example of the United States.) Such a focus inevitably sidesteps Burke's brief for the supremacy of European monarchical institutions and of the landed aristocracy. And that's where Paine comes in.
With his usual acerbic wit and extravagant rhetoric, Paine, in the first part of his treatise, makes mincemeat out of Burke's sillier statements. For example, he finds especially unspeakable Burke's claim that that "the English nation did, at the time of the [1688] Revolution, most solemnly renounce and abdicate [the right of self-rule], for themselves, and for all their posterity for ever." Paine correctly challenges the primacy of a decision made by members of that generation over desires of other generations, questions the right of any generation to surrender the rights of their descendants, and notes that "government is for the living, and not for the dead, it is the living only that has any right in it."
He also chastises the English for a system of hereditary government that virtually guarantees unfettered rule by children, madmen, idiots, and foreign-born pretenders (and he certainly has plenty of examples from which to choose), many of whom led their realms into chaos and terror without the help of radical revolutionaries. And Paine argues that wars would cease with the promotion of democracy and the cessation of the selfish interests of absolutists. His critics rightly respond that the rise of democratic institutions has hardly stopped wars, although one might pose the counterargument that, relatively speaking, democratic governments go to war with each other much less frequently.
In the second part, Paine proposes a radical agenda for an overhaul of the British government. Although his anecdotally based statistics and figures must be viewed with skepticism and a few laughs, the prescience of his proposals is startling: poverty relief, social security, public education, maternity care, homeless shelters, workfare, veteran's benefits, and progressive taxation. His is the agenda of the idealist: "When it shall be said in any country in the world, my poor are happy; neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want, the taxes are not oppressive . . . when these things can be said, then may that country boast its constitution and its government."
Paine, of course, had the nascent United States to cite in support of his proposals, but he and Burke were debating these matters before the onset of the Jacobin Reign of Terror, which dismayed Paine and seems to have realized Burke's worst fears. Yet, throughout history, for every Robespierre or Lenin, one can find a Mandela or a Walesa; monarchies too were no strangers to upheaval. Paine hardly argued for "mob rule" or even "majority rule"; the French Revolution failed in part because it violated the fundamental tenet that the citizens of each nation have a right to choose whatever rule they please, even "a bad or defective government, . . . so long as the majority to not impose conditions on the minority, different to what they impose on themselves"--a caveat we all should take to heart in today's political climate.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
