Revolution
Thomas Pain illustrates, “It was not against Louis the XVIth, but against the despotic principles of the government, that the nation revolted. These principles had not their origin in him, but in the original establishment, many centuries back; and they were become more deeply rooted to be removed, and the Aegean stable of parasites and plunderers too abominably filthy to be cleansed, by anything short of a complete and universal revolution.” Palpably, Louis the XVIth is an isolated entity from the outdated traditions which elicit the revolution. The nation had to employ a revolution to justify the deracinating on the principles for the leaders whole cannot be trusted to fundamentally transform the system. Thus, the nation had the inherent prerogative to pursue the revolution for it accorded the chance to progress philosophies that directed their existence.
Reciprocity
Thomas Paine observes, “While the Declaration of Rights was before the National Assembly, some of its members remarked, that if a Declaration of Rights was published, it should be accompanied by a Declaration of Duties…A Declaration of Rights is, by reciprocity, a Declaration of Duties also.” Thomas Paine implies that the petition for privileges should be complemented by the willingness to undertake the citizenry duties. It would be one-sided to clamor for rights but be unwilling to bear the liability which is inherent in the rights.
Consent
Thomas Paine expounds, “In England, it is said that money cannot be taken out of the pockets of the people without their consent: But who authorized, or who could authorize the parliament of 1688 to control and take away the freedom of posterity?” Consent is an essential ingredient of rights. The government, evidently, lacks the power to invade ‘natural rights’ which consent exemplifies.
