Reddit mentions of Common Sense

Is this the book you were talking about?

This is political philosophy 101 so pay attention.

Originally states formed under the authority of God(s). For example, the British Monarch got power from the crown and the crown got its power from God. Monarchs ruled under the authority of God. This was called 'divine right' Often called 'the divine right of kings'.

After some enlightening philosophy from, in order of date published, Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan, John Locke's Treatise of Civil Government and Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Social Contract this changed.

Leviathan first questioned the state of nature to which the theocratic government rules. Whilst he did ponder this question, his conclusions were strictly conservative and believed Kings did have the right to rule their citizens under the authority of a God.

Enter John Locke! Locke pondered the same idea of the state of nature but concluded completely differently (essentially founding liberalism). He suggested that Monarchs did not have a right to rule on the authority of God. He suggested that the individual were more important than the state. Essentially, government should be founded upon the people and not upon authority from God. Important note: Locke felt that all humans had inalienable natural rights. This is important later.

Enter Rousseau! Rousseau suggested that in order for a society to function with justice, liberty and legitimacy a government must have the consent of the people. Essentially, in order for a government/state to have legitimacy it must be elected.

Enter revolution! The starters of the American revolution were heavily influenced by Locke's ideas of natural rights being inalienable and thus rejected the british Monarch's right (under Hobbes theory) to alienate people from their property, liberty etc. Sparked by Paine's Common Sense, the American revolutionaries where the first to establish a system which embodied (1) Locke's natural rights (the Bill of Rights are the first example of natural rights being confidingly protected), (2) Rousseau's legitimate government and (3) Montesquieu's separation of powers.

All western democracies, where rights are observed follow these principals.

So why does the state protect people's rights? Because that is their primary goal. Classical Liberalism (John Locke style) demands that any government's first job is to protect the people who create it. To quote Lincoln: Of the people, By the people, For the people.

> or do you concider that anything the state does is reason enough

No. This would be circular logic. Its like saying 'whatever the state does is reason enough for the state to do it.' No. The purpose of the separation of powers is to ensure no one branch becomes too powerful and oppress the people.

What happens if the Executive (The President in the case of America) abuses his powers? He is impeached by Congress (or forced to resign before it happens...Nixon). What happens if Congress passes a law that abuses the rights of citizens according to the Constitution? Supreme Court overturns it.

The additional roles of government (in economics, for example) are to do with the modern political philosophy, which I shall not delve into here).

The crucial thing to understand is that legitimate governments must be founded upon a consensus/mandate of the people to enforce, create and protect laws that protect those people. Those laws are founded upon natural rights inalienable to the individual.

>You have not said why, why does the state protect people

Have I answered your question sufficiently?

Suggested reading materials (my own personal reading list for Political Philosophy):

1. Leviathan - Thomas Hobbes
   
   
2. Treatise of Government - John Locke
   
   
3. Common Sense - Thomas Paine