Rights of Man

by Thomas Paine

Book Overview

One of the great classics on democracy, Rights of Man was published in England in 1791 as a vindication of the French Revolution and a critique of the British system of government. In direct, forceful... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 1853264679
• ISBN13: 9781853264672
• Release Date: August 1997
• Publisher: Wordsworth Editions
• Length: 240 Pages
• Weight: 0.36 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.5" x 5.0" x 7.8"

Customer Reviews

This is a good read that shows how important freedom is

Paine compares how aristocracy leads to the degeneration of mankind's natural free state and how the French Revolution reflected many decades of a gradual loss of man's rights. A good read especially since some of what he talks about is currently an issue today

Does it still have meaning today?

Paine wrote RoM while in France, during the early years of the revolution, in response to an antirevolutionary pamphlet from his previous friend Burke. There is lots of polemics going on, and the crux of the matter is that Burke makes light of The Declaration of the Rights of Man, which was adopted by the French National Assembly in August 1789, after the storm of the Bastille. The Declaration, written by Lafayette with some input by Jefferson, is a brief and concise document. It became the preamble of the constitution of 1791. Here a shortened version. 1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good. 2. The aim of all political association is the preservation of the ... rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression. 3. The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. ... 4. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; ... These limits can only be determined by law. 5. Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law. 6. Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. ... 7. No person shall be accused, arrested, or imprisoned except in the cases and according to the forms prescribed by law. ... 8. The law shall provide for such punishments only as are strictly and obviously necessary, and no one shall suffer punishment except it be legally inflicted in virtue of a law passed and promulgated before the commission of the offense. 9. ...all persons are held innocent until they shall have been declared guilty ... 10. No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law. 11. The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law. 12. The security of the rights of man and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those to whom they shall be intrusted. 13. A common contribution is essential for the maintenance of the public forces and for the cost of administration. This should be equitably distributed among all the citizens in proportion to their means. 14. All the citizens have a right to decide, either personally or by their representatives, as to the necessity of the public contribution; to grant this freely; to know to what uses it is put; and to fix the proportion, the mode of ass

Every generation and age must be as free to act for itself

This was required reading for a graduate course in the history of the French Revolution. For Thomas Paine, the eighteenth century was the Age of Enlightenment because for the first time humankind was throwing off the millstones of religious dogmatism and political despotism. Paine essentially believed that the rights of man encompassed, "...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" (Paine, 68). Paine's Rights of Man was an eloquent yet blistering rebuttal to Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France. Paine got right to the crux of the disagreement he had with Burke when he admonished him for his argument that governmental enactments of previous generations had the force and authority to bind citizens for all time. An example that Burke used was the English Parliament of 1688, which he praised as a model of the type of reform French citizens should emulate. Paine's answer was swift and cutting "Radical Enlightenment" reason. "Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself, in all cases, as the ages and generations which preceded it. The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave, is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies" (41-42). Paine also took Burke to task for his narrow understanding of French socio-political and economic problems leading up to 1789. Unlike Burke, Paine understood that the French Revolution, unlike the others that took place in Europe, was not just a revolt against the king. "Between the monarchy, the parliament, and the church, there was a rivalship of despotism, besides the feudal despotism operating locally, and the ministerial despotism operating everywhere" (48). Thus, what Paine witnessed, Alexis de Tocqueville and Georges Lefebvre observed, agreed with, and commented on, in their history's years later. The institutions that Burke defended in his Reflections, such as the nobility, Church, and monarchial rule, all became "fodder" for Paine's "grist mill" in his defense of France's new constitution. Paine abhorred the institution of nobility and supported its dissolution for several reasons. "Because the idea of hereditary legislation is as inconsistent...and absurd as an hereditary mathematician....Because it is continuing the uncivilized principle of governments founded in conquest, and the base idea of man having property over man, and governing him by personal right" (83). No friend to tradition, Paine took Burke to task for defending the notion of, "...hereditary rights, and hereditary succession, and that a Nation has not a right to form a Government for itself" (Paine, 116). Paine defended the French constitution's eradication of tithes to the Catholic Church and it "...hath abolished or renounced Toleration, and Intolerance also, hath established UNIVERSAL RIGHT OF CONSCIENCE" (85). Finally, Pa

The Hobo Philosopher

In reading Tom Payne it is best to go right to the horse's mouth. Don't buy a volume with a modern day author's interpretation. Tom expresses himself clearly, logically and in up to date readable language. He needs no interpreter. Read what he has to say for yourself and make your own judgements. This work is rather amazing when you consider the date that he penned these masterpieces. Don't pay any attention to the right-wing attempts at slurring Tom even today. He made sense in 1776 and his arguments makes sense today. If there were no Tom Paine I doubt if their would be an independent United States today - even George Washington admitted that fact. Tom Paine was simply too outspoken and too honest (and too courageous) for his time - or for today's times for that matter. If you love history, philosophy, or politics as an American this is a man that you must read. Tom Paine writing style and ability is "inspirational" to say the least. Books written by Richard Noble - The Hobo Philosopher: "Hobo-ing America: A Workingman's Tour of the U.S.A.." "A Summer with Charlie" "A Little Something: Poetry and Prose" "Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother" "The Eastpointer" Selections from award winning column.

Paine's prescient screed against authoritarian precedent

"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

Defender of Self Government

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".