From the beginning, Paine made it clear that government was a necessary evil. But even more so, he made it clear how evil he thought British government was. Paine felt that the constitution of England, although it may have been necessary at the time it was created, was now “imperfect, subject to convulsions, and incapable of producing what it seems to promise…” (8) Moreover, Paine goes on to show his strong distaste for the idea of a king. He mentions how there was a time of no kings, during which there were also no wars. Holland is an example of this, in which he says the country has been without a king and has enjoyed more peace than any monarchial government in Europe. (11) It is not only the power of kings that corrupts, but their pride. How, Paine asks, can “a race of men come into the world so exalted about the rest?” What’s more, Paine compares the king to that of the natives, saying that “He, who hunts the woods for prey, the naked and untutored Indian, is less a savage than the King of Britain.” (47) But above all else, what made Paine detest the king was that he was a deep-rooted oppressor of freedom. Paine believed the law should be king, and nothing or no one else. …show more content…
He described it as another evil. Paine believed it was “an insult and an imposition on posterity.” (15) Paine questions the idea that just because one man may be worthy of the throne, who is to say that his descendants will also be worthy enough. With posterity in mind he questions who holds the right to say that the king’s children should reign over the people’s children forever. It would be unfair, in Paine’s eyes. An important point Paine suggests people should remember is that when planning for future generations, “virtue is not hereditary.” (44) Unfortunately, Paine does state that it is an evil that cannot be removed easily, once it is