Final answer:
Thomas Paine's Common Sense argued against having a king and criticized the British government for failing its duty to the colonists.
Step-by-step explanation:
Thomas Paine, in his critical work Common Sense, made the case in clear language that spoke to the average colonist that equality was a natural condition for humans and having a king was not. He argued that there was no justification for a hereditary monarchy and that if the king did not see to the interest of his subjects, the subjects had no reason to have a king. Paine believed that the British government had put its own interests ahead of the interests of the colonies, thereby failing in its duty to the colonists.
In his influential work "Common Sense," Thomas Paine conveyed a compelling argument to the average colonist, articulating that equality was a natural right and that the institution of monarchy lacked justification. Paine passionately contended that hereditary monarchy was inherently unjust, asserting that if a king failed to prioritize the welfare of his subjects, there was no legitimate basis for retaining such a ruler. Paine criticized the British government, contending that it prioritized its interests over those of the colonies, thereby neglecting its duty to the colonists. By articulating these ideas in straightforward language accessible to common people, Paine played a pivotal role in shaping public sentiment towards independence, contributing significantly to the intellectual foundation that fueled the American Revolution and the subsequent drive for self-governance.