COMMON SENSE by Thomas Paine shifted public opinion in favor of declaring independence from Britain, in favor of a revolution. George Washington said the essay erased his lingering doubts about leading the rebel army. Why was Common Sense so powerful?

Paine distilled into common language the ideas and ideals of the Enlightenment thinkers in the 18th century. Their views flowed from the Age of Reason in the 17th century, which arose from the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, which sprang from the Renaissance in the 15th century, which revived Greek and Roman philosophy after a millennium of medieval darkness in Europe.

The invention of modern printing had upset the cultural applecart. Popular books on classical thought recalled Plato’s wholistic view of life and Aristotle’s deconstruction of reality into its tiniest classifiable parts. These books restored the use of reason based on the syllogism: If A = B, and if B = C, then A = C. Using logic, “freethinkers” and scientists like Benjamin Franklin applied René Descartes’ and Francis Bacon’s useful tool for critical thinking—The Scientific Method:

1. Create a working hypothesis or theory from all available facts.
2. Test the hypothesis fairly (tests must be repeatable by others).
3. Impartially and rigorously analyze the test findings.
4. Revise the hypothesis to fit the findings (return to Step 1).

Freethinkers read The Principia by Sir Isaac Newton, who saw an apple fall straight to earth (not on his head) and deduced gravitation. Newton supported Copernicus and Galileo, who said our planet goes around the sun. Man on earth was not the center of the universe, as the Church had taught. Reason was gaining power over religion just as the Magna Carta had given the law power over the king.

Such trends raised a vital question: Can we live without kings?

Thomas Hobbes’ 1642 book, Leviathan, said that we’re all selfish animals at constant war in a world where life is “nasty, brutish, and short.” To control our animal impulses, we need absolute kings not subject to any laws, for “might makes right.” (Hobbes’ views guided Big Brother in George Orwell’s novel, Nineteen Eight-Four. Hobbes likely would praise today’s “homeland security” laws.)

Baruch Spinoza shared Hobbes’ cynicism, yet his 1677 Ethics saw benefits from more individuality and civil liberties. Spinoza imagined society providing so much gratification that state oppression was not needed to keep us in line. (His views guided Aldous Huxley’s novel, Brave New World, where people are soothed by soma. Spinoza likely would praise the media banality mollifying the masses today.)

For the record, Spinoza later influenced Friedrich Nietzsche, heir to amoral Machiavelli. Nietzsche promoted individual autonomy and a “superman” ruled only by ambition and expedience (a moral stance adopted by Nazism), where the only sin is getting caught. We see this utilitarian morality today in those seeking power at any cost.

Countering justifications for tyranny in the Age of Reason were voices of hope for our human potential in the Enlightenment.

John Locke’s 1690 Two Treatises on Civil Government said people and the state are ruled by natural law. In nature, each of us is free and equal, although different. We’re each our own moral judge. Moral self discipline must guide the “pursuit of happiness,” which sensibly leads to cooperation, not competition. Our selfish urges naturally give way to a regard for the common good. (In modern management lingo, just as Hobbes favored “Theory X,” Locke favored “Theory Y.” )

Government is powerless without the consent of the people, Locke said. To protect us from a state abusing its power, he advocated the principle of checks and balances in government constitutions.

If any state represses or denies the citizens’ natural rights, Locke asserted, a revolution in such cases is not only our civil right under natural law, but it may be our moral duty.
Locke influenced Jean Jacques Rousseau, who in 1762 published The Social Contract. “Nature never deceives us,” he wrote; “it is we who deceive ourselves.” Yet nature lacks morality or law in itself, so good people exist only if society makes them good through a social contract. Prone to competition, we may agree to cooperate.

Rousseau urged a “social compact” for democracy, warning that the majority is not always right. What is right? Religious and political morals often conflict, and religious leaders tend to abuse their power. So, he called for the separation of church and state.

Rousseau favored moral self mastery. “Never exceed your rights,” he wrote, “and they will soon become unlimited.”

If a state acts in an immoral way, Rousseau said, that government violates its social contract and ceases to be legitimate, losing the right to wield authority over us. “Force does not constitute right; obedience is due only to legitimate powers.” Fully convinced that might does not make right, Rousseau agreed with Locke that if the state loses its legitimacy, a revolution becomes a public necessity.

Inspired by Locke, Rousseau and other Enlightenment thinkers, Paine said in Common Sense that British rule in America had become illegitimate. He called for a violent regime change. His essay struck a resonant chord. The people responded with passion.

* * *

Excerpted from GLOBAL SENSE: Awakening Your Personal Power for Democracy and World Peace (an update of Common Sense) by Judah Freed. (c) 2006 by Judah Freed.