A good comparison I found was between Thomas Paine and Adam Smith. Thomas Paine and Adam Smith were 2 major enlightenment thinkers who wanted a world with more freedom and less unfair power. As discussed previously, Paine is best known for his writings on The Rights Of Man (1791), as well as Common Sense (1776). Adam Smith on the other hand wrote The Wealth of Nations (1776), which talks more about the economy and the benefit of free markets. Despite both philosophers writing about different aspects of society, they both cared about very similar problems, corruption and equal opportunity being among topics discussed.
Paine and Smith lived at the same time, with their works being developed under the same sentiments. France and America were both rapidly modernizing as individuals realized how terrible their government systems were. All it would take is for just a little bit of propaganda to turn the people and “overthrow” the government. Adam Smith and Thomas Paine both supplied this propaganda, which assisted Europe and America in modernizing their government.
Paine and Smith both talk about “natural” principles. Paine talks about natural rights, which are defined as rights that come from nature or reason, and most certainly not from the government. Some examples of natural rights include the right to freedom, equality, and the consent to be governed. A government can only be considered legit if the government protects natural rights. If the government cannot do that, then their should be systems in place to remove the corrupt government.
Adam Smith doesn’t necessarily talk about Natural Rights, but he does talk about Natural Liberty. Natural liberty is described by Smith as people should be free to work, trade, and start businesses. The government shouldn’t give unfair advantages to special groups, and markets work best when people can make choices freely. Natural Liberty and Natural Rights are similar, especially when considering the point of the 1700’s equivalent of equal opportunity employment. The real major difference is that Paine’s freedom concept involves political and moral implications, where everyone should have equal political rights. On the other hand, Smith’s freedom concept is more economic based, in which everyone should be free to participate in markets.
More contrasts can be seen regarding what Paine and Smith thinks the government should do. Smith on the other hand believes that the government should only do a few vital tasks. Smith believes the government is responsible for protecting the country, formulating laws while ensuring courts of law are fair, and building public things that everyone can benefit from, but private companies won’t fund (roads, bridges, parks for example). Smith advocates for free markets, which just bases the economy on supply and demand, without the government in control. In The Wealth of Nations (1776), Smith uses the example of kings giving special benefits to companies that they didn’t necessarily deserve or work for. He also states that when the government is too involved in markets, a decent amount of corruption can occur. Continuing on with Paine, he believes that the government should protect natural rights and limit inequality.
Paine wants a government that does not interfere with people’s basic freedoms, but he also believes government must help people when they cannot help themselves. In The Rights of Man (1791), Paine argues for public education for all, helping the poor, giving money for the elderly lowering taxes for workers, and higher taxes on the wealthy. Paine thinks government should remove systems that give some people huge advantages from birth like monarchy, inherited titles, and unfair wealth. Contrasting these 2 opinions, I came to the realization that both Smiths and Paine’s arguments remain extremely relevant in modern political philosophy and still divide our nation. Many of the issues remain very contentious to this day, especially since there is really no right answer for a lot of these problems. Other issues in modern times include many countries figuring out how to make serious governmental reforms to modernize their society, and these issues are discussed by both Paine and Smith in their respective works.
Paine believes that rebellion against unjust governments. Circling back to my earlier point, when a government violates peoples rights, the people should have a right to replace it. Monarchies where absolute power is given to a family are fundamentally unjust and therefore they need to be abolished by any means necessary. Smith does not think in this way. He believes that society can slowly improve with the proper economic changes. When governments stop supporting monopolies, they can really start to flourish. He also believes that just laws and moral well-being will fall into place if the economy is fixed, which I found to be very confusing.
Thinking about just one example, the industrial revolution had everything Smith wanted for an economy. There were no monopolies, the government intervention was limited, and the economy was growing. However, child labor was prevalent and the working conditions were incredibly dangerous, and wages were extremely low for the majority of the population. Under Paine’s ideal society, this violation of natural rights would be unacceptable and the government should be doing a better job, but under Smith’s ideal societal rules, I couldn’t think of anything that would say the economy Smith described would be different from the economy of the industrial revolution. This leads to the conclusion of how morality and care for the disadvantaged have great importance.
In conclusion, both philosophers would share the concept that ordinary people should be able to live their lives without the elite controlling them like puppets on a string. Whether through economic or political or philosophical solutions, we as a whole need to always consider how we an better the people around us.