User:Hghudsonpstcc/sandbox

II. Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession[edit]
The second section considers monarchy first from a biblical perspective and then from a historical perspective. He begins by arguing that since all men are equal at creation, the distinction between kings and subjects is a false one. Paine saw the British monarchy in the same light as a Protestant saw the Papistry: as an organization that was an obstacle to the happiness of regular people. He also argued that God punishes people with monarchs, as is shown and backed up with Judeo/Christian tradition. Paine then examines some of the problems that kings and monarchies have caused in the past and concludes: In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived.

—  Thomas Paine Paine also attacks one type of "mixed state," the constitutional monarchy promoted by John Locke, in which the powers of government are separated between a Parliament or Congress, which makes the laws, and a monarch, who executes them. The constitutional monarchy, according to Locke, would limit the powers of the king sufficiently to ensure that the realm would remain lawful rather than easily becoming tyrannical. According to Paine, however, such limits are insufficient. In the mixed state, power tends to concentrate into the hands of the monarch, eventually permitting him to transcend any limitations placed upon him. Paine questions why the supporters of the mixed state, since they concede that the power of the monarch is dangerous, wish to include a monarch in their scheme of government in the first place.