This warning, written by George Washington in his Farewell Address in September of 1796, was meant to awaken the citizenry of the United States to the danger posed by political parties. Formal parties as we know them today were only beginning to be established in the U.S. at the end of Washington's second term. Washington himself was not a member of either party in existence at that time (the Federalist Party, headed by Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton and the Democratic-Republicans, founded by James Madison and Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson) and was generally opposed to formal political parties.

Despite this fear, Washington acknowledged the difficulty in preventing their formation, saying “the spirit of the party...is inseparable from our nature.” Washington clearly understood that parties arise out of the need for most people to belong, particularly with like-minded individuals. Looking at the modern political parties, we see this to still be true more than 200 years after Washington penned his words of caution. While members of the modern parties are not monolithic in their opinions, ideas, and outlook, they typically share sufficient similarities that they naturally gravitate towards one another.

Washington goes on to warn:

“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to the party dissention, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, it itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.”

Revenge, a battle between parties, is Washington's main concern here. By this, Washington implies that when a previously out-of-power party comes into power, it will enact policies as retribution against its main rival. These vengeful policies will escalate over time as the party-in-power changes, leading to chaos and loss of freedom. This phenomenon has played out in modern times, perhaps most famously involving Richard Nixon, while others insist that actions against Bill Clinton were similarly motivated, and that present economic policies (including automobile dealership closures) are intended to injure political opponents of the Obama administration. It is Washington's opinion that the manner in which this pattern will stop is the elevation of a tyrant to power who will abolish all opposition parties, ending with a total loss of liberty.

Washington also admonishes the citizens of the U.S. that:

“...the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of wise people to discourage and restrain it.”

He goes on to say:

“[Faction] serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policies and will of another.”

Washington makes two very interesting points here. First, that political parties “[kindle] the animosity of one part against another.” What we might take from this, from the modern American perspective, is his anticipation that political parties will Balkanize the citizenry, pitting various groups against one another. This argument is worthy of discussion because it appears that this is actually happening today. Modern media spend significant amounts of time discussing what has been termed “identity politics” - whether certain policies are good for, say, women, minorities, immigrants, labor union members. At first glance, this appears to be a worthwhile endeavor; however, what should be important is ensuring government policies are good for the greatest number of Americans, regardless of persuasion. This fracturing of the American public can only lead to distrust and animosity, and will give the appearance of governmental favoritism based upon current office holders. Some have argued that these types of preferences are meant to right the wrongs of the past, the preferences may be reversed when a different faction assumes power. And, as has been said in the past, two wrongs never make a right.

The second, and very clear, statement Washington makes is that political parties may cause more harm than good, up to and including “riot and insurrection.” It is plain, from these portions of Washington's Address, that he believes political parties will act in their own best interest, irregardless of the effect of these actions on the country at large. This may, in fact, be Washington's most prophetic statement when considering modern American politics. We often hear today of a Congressman or Senator that has “betrayed the party” by voting with the opposition. Or we hear that the minority party has voted en masse against specific legislation often out of the desire to “hurt' the majority party. What is problematic with this is that it does not allow for individual legislators to vote their conscience, and also promotes the precise attitude that Washington warns against – party over country.

Caught in the middle of the inter-party fighting are the American people, who see problems all around them – a poor economy, unfathomable levels of public debt, a devalued currency, wholesale loss of manufacturing, mass illegal immigration, deteriorating public infrastructure, substandard educational institutions – that require solutions, rather than petty partisan bickering. Whether this quarreling can be stopped long enough to solve these problems may determine the fate of the United States as a sovereign nation.

  “If...man has rights, the question then will be: What are those rights, and how man came by them originally?”

Paine's question, early in “Rights of Man Part the First,” assumes great significance when considering civil society and governance. Perhaps more important are the answers themselves, for the answers one gives provide significant insight into that person's view of government.

What, then, are those rights and from where are they derived? Paine defines two general categories, natural and civil, thusly:

“Natural rights are those which appertain to man in right of his existence. Of this kind are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to the natural rights of others. Civil rights are those which appertain to man in rights of his being a member of society.”

Paine's definition of “natural rights” were, as mentioned previously, summarized by Thomas Jefferson as being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, though Paine would also include private property as well. What is most intriguing here is that Paine argues that liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and private property are directly linked to the right to life, saying that natural rights “appertain to man in right of his existence.” Implicit in Paine's argument is that these rights are inviolable provided exercising of these rights does not infringe upon another's pursuit of their own natural rights. This is the general philosophy of the modern Libertarian Party in American and may be generally considered the dominant attitude of the American public.

These rights are also reflected in the first two amendments of the Bill of Rights. Freedom of speech, press, assembly, and petition allow for unfettered criticism of government. Freedom of religion prevents government interference in matters of conscience. Finally, the right to keep and bear arms not only allows for self-defense, but is that last line of defense against tyrannical government.

Civil rights, in this treatment, appear to be mostly an afterthought. Paine's contention here is that civil rights only exist in civil society; therefore, these would generally include the rights to vote, a jury trial, protection from criminals as well as foreign threats.

These arguments bring us now to the second question – the origin of the rights of man. With regard to natural rights, Pain says

“...the genealogy of Christ is traced to Adam. Why then not trace the rights of man to the creation of man?...Because there have been upstart governments, thrusting themselves between, and presumptuously working to un-make man.”

Paine also goes on to say:

“The illuminating and divine principle of the equal rights of man (for it has its origin from the Maker of man) relates, not only to the living individuals, but to generations which preceded it, by the same rule that every individual is born equal in rights with his contemporary.”

These statements may be succinctly summarized by another phrase penned by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence that men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” Both men are explicitly stating that “natural rights,” as Paine defines them, are derived directly from God and are a consequence of our humanity. This question has vexed America for decades now, with many believing that these rights are derived not from God but from government. It is for this reason that, as Paine asserts, governments have “[thrust] themselves between, and presumptuously working to unmake man.” Only after the connection between man and God is destroyed can natural rights be usurped.

We arrive now at our most important question – do modern Americans have more or fewer liberties than at the time our Republic was founded? In “Rights of Man,” Paine observes

“Man did not enter into society to become worse than he was before, nor to have fewer rights than he had before, but to have those rights better secured. His natural rights are the foundation of all his civil rights.”

Are then, the rights of modern America better secured or do we have fewer of them? Ostensibly, it would seem that our rights are better protected. Over the course of American history, slavery has been abolished, women and minorities have been guaranteed the right to vote, and civil rights laws have been passed which seek to end institutionalized discrimination. These are all spectacular achievements in the protection of Americans' civil rights.

But what of our natural rights? Have these been as well protected and championed? Consider the most important of all rights, without which no other right may exist – the right to life. The right to abortion on demand is considered and essential part of “women's rights” in modern America; yet, can it not be said that a woman exercising her “right to choose” is, to use Paine's term, injurious to the baby's natural right to life?

Contemplate also the right to private property. In many areas of the United States landowners are severely restricted in their use of their privately held land due to endangered species laws or other environmental concerns. Can we truly refer to this as “private property” if government controls its use?

Finally, ponder the right to liberty. Current estimates show that the United States' public debt at the end of the next decade will be in the range of $15 – 20 trillion, a sum nearly beyond comprehension. With outstanding public debt this high, are American citizens not merely slaves to their government, working simply to pay down this debt?

These are serious and important questions that deserve serious debate and reflection.

  “Government is the badge of lost innocence.”

These words, written by Thomas Paine in 1776, were the beginning of a discussion regarding the origins of government and raised several important questions. What causes men to form governments? What expectations are there once established? Is there an ideal form? These are very important questions that deserve thoughtful reflection.

Perhaps the most obvious starting point for this discussion is to understand exactly Paine's meaning. Two additional comments provide clarification:

“...the origin and rise of government...a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world.”

“Society is produced by our wants, government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affection, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions.”

These two passages make obvious Paine's opinion as to what necessitates government – the Christian belief in man as a fallen and fallible being, incapable of controlling his worst impulses and instincts.

If we accept this notion as to why government is needed, what then should government undertake. Paine offers the following:

“[S]ecurity, being the true design and end of government, whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expence and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.”

Security, but for/from what? Elucidation of this statement may be found in Paine's stated reasons for the necessity of governments in the first place. Men are fallible, susceptible to the vices of greed and envy. Hence, governments are instituted to provide security for our “inalienable rights” as Paine understood them – life, liberty, and private property. In this view, the role of government is essentially to maintain order within a society while simultaneously protecting it from outside invasion. If we consider the establishment of a government to be a form of contract, Paine defines government exactly in this manner:

“...a charter is to be understood as a bond of solemn obligation, which the whole enters into, to support the right of every separate part, whether of religion, professional freedom, or property.”

Further, Paine insists that government should come with the “least expence and greatest benefit.” Initial reading presents an obvious meaning – government should provide the greatest amount of security at the lowest possible cost to its citizens (i.e. taxation should be minimal). A more thoughtful interpretation, however, might include less tangible costs than merely money. Expense, in this instance, may also be taken to mean the inalienable rights that must be surrendered in order to establish the new government. This interpretation is clearly noted in the following passage:

“Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.”

It is precisely this surrender of liberties to the government that raises suspicions regarding it. How many liberties should be surrendered? What types? What recourse do citizens have if government gradually strips an increasing amount of liberty from its citizens? Important questions all, and in the case of a democratically elected constitutional Republic like the United States, difficult to answer. Absolute governments may simply strip all liberty from all citizens, excepting those in the good graces of the ruling class. Free and open societies, though, suffer from the incremental reduction in liberties over long periods of time.

This possibility is, perhaps, the most insidious “expence” of government. Recently, we have seen the Supreme Court of the United States allow the taking of private property from a private individual by the government to give to another merely for the possibility of higher tax revenues to the government (thereby removing the right to private property). Numerous attempts have been made to greatly curtail the right to keep and bear arms, the citizenry's last line of defense against tyrannical government (imperiling the right to liberty). In the past several months, we have seen government spending rise to levels almost unheard of in human history, leading to debt levels that will eventually enslave all American citizens.

What then is the form of government that best protects men from the tyranny of an over-active government while protecting its citizens' inalienable rights? According to Paine, it is the republic the ensures lasting liberty, saying:

“...when Republican virtues fail, slavery ensues”

stating further that:

“...in free countries the law ought to be king”

putting forth the notion that no man is above the law. What is most interesting about both of these sentiments is that the United States constitution established a republic, limited to the enumerated powers listed within.

Given what has transpired in the last 75 years, it is imperative that we ask ourselves: is our federal government still bound by the constitution? Are all Americans still subject to the law, or do we make exceptions for particular individuals or groups (i.e. elected officials)? In short, do “we the people” still control our government, or does it control us? The answers to these questions say much about liberty in the modern United States and its slow decline in the last several decades, a situation that is ominous in many ways because as Paine writes:

“The cause of America is in great measure the cause of all mankind”