To preserve the benefits of what is called civilized life,
and to remedy at the same time the evil which it has
produced, ought to considered as one of the first objects
of reformed legislation.
Whether that state that is proudly, perhaps erroneously,
called civilization, has most promoted or most injured the
general happiness of man is a question that may be strongly
contested. On one side, the spectator is dazzled by splendid
appearances; on the other, he is shocked by extremes of
wretchedness; both of which it has erected. The most
affluent and the most miserable of the human race are to be
found in the countries that are called civilized.
To understand what the state of society ought to be, it is
necessary to have some idea of the natural and primitive
state of man; such as it is at this day among the Indians
of North America. There is not, in that state, any of those
spectacles of human misery which poverty and want present
to our eyes in all the towns and streets in Europe.
Poverty, therefore, is a thing created by that which is
called civilized life. It exists not in the natural state.
On the other hand, the natural state is without those
advantages which flow from agriculture, arts, science and
manufactures.
The life of an Indian is a continual holiday, compared with
the poor of Europe; and, on the other hand it appears to be
abject when compared to the rich. Civilization, therefore,
or that which is so-called, has operated two ways: to make
one part of society more affluent, and the other more
wretched, than would have been the lot of either in a
natural state.
It is always possible to go from the natural to the
civilized state, but it is never possible to go from the
civilized to the natural state. The reason is that man in
a natural state, subsisting by hunting, requires ten times
the quantity of land to range over to procure himself
sustenance, than would support him in a civilized state,
where the earth is cultivated.
When, therefore, a country becomes populous by the
additional aids of cultivation, art and science, there is
a necessity of preserving things in that state; because
without it there cannot be sustenance for more, perhaps,
than a tenth part of its inhabitants. The thing, therefore,
now to be done is to remedy the evils and preserve the
benefits that have arisen to society by passing from the
natural to that which is called the civilized state.
In taking the matter upon this ground, the first principle
of civilization ought to have been, and ought still to be,
that the condition of every person born into the world,
after a state of civilization commences, ought not to be
worse than if he had been born before that period.
In advocating the case of the persons thus dispossessed, it
is a right, and not a charity, that I am pleading for. But
it is that kind of right which, being neglected at first,
could not be brought forward afterwards till heaven had
opened the way by a revolution in the system of government.
Let us then do honor to revolutions by justice, and give
currency to their principles by blessings.
Having thus in a few words, opened the merits of the case,
I shall now proceed to the plan I have to propose, which is,
To create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid
to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one
years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation
in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by
the introduction of the system of landed property:
And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to
every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to
all others as they shall arrive at that age.
This was the first proposal for social security. Now the
Tories, and believe me they are Tories, wish to change it
and destroy it. What would Thomas Paine say about that?
