Organized government has for its object the protection of the individual against undue interference on the part of others with his enjoyment of life and the beneficial employment of his faculties. The statement in the Declaration of Independence in substance that governments are instituted among men to secure to them the inalienable privileges of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is a practically sound statement of political philosophy. The statement made in the same connection, that all men are created equal, is, of course, to be construed in the connection in which it is made as meaning that all persons have equal rights to protection and enjoyment of life and liberty and in the employment of their faculties as they see fit, so far as the public welfare does not require that they be restricted in order that others may have the same enjoyment of life, liberty, and employment of their faculties. The succeeding statement of that instrument, that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, is also to be understood in a genera] sense as a sound statement of political philosophy. Without a condition of equality as to rights to be enjoyed, there could not be a government which would substantially represent the views and wishes of a majority of the people. It is evident that the consent of the governed here referred to is simply the general assent which the majority of the people give to the government under which they live and which they choose to obey. It is plainly not meant that the government has no authority over those who do not see fit to assent to its exercise of authority.

It must be borne in mind that the Declaration of Independence was a declaration of the right to throw off the authority of an established government and institute a new government in its place. It was not intended, nor does it purport to be a statement of the obligations owed by the individual to the established government, nor the obligation of the government to the individual; but the purposes of government will not be carried out in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Independence, unless all men are guaranteed equality before the law, that is, the equal right to protection under the law in the enjoyment of individual liberty, so far as it can be secured without depriving other persons of substantially the same degree of freedom and opportunity.

The rights of person and property which are protected by constitutional provisions are sometimes spoken of as among the natural rights of human beings. In some sense this is proper, for they are among the rights of individuals generally recognized by all civilized governments; but in a strict sense there are no rights recognized by the law except legal rights. However, it is not improper to say that rights which are recognized and protected under our system of law and which are such as are generally protected by law everywhere are on that account protected as natural or inherent rights of human beings.

Closely connected with the theory of natural rights which is suggested in the Declaration of Independence and announced in many of the state constitutions, and which must be regarded as a part of the philosophical explanation of government rather than as a part of constitutional law, is the theory of the so-called social compact, also referred to in many state constitutions as well as in the Declaration of Independence, to the effect that the obligation of the citizen to the government is one arising only by the implied consent to be governed. This theory, which seems to have originated with the English philosophers Hooker, Hobbes, and Locke during the seventeenth century, was fully exploited in Rousseau's Contrat Social (1762), and obtained wide recognition in England, France, and America. It is recognized by Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, republished in America in 1765, and generally accepted throughout the colonies as a correct exposition of the English constitution and system of laws. The social compact theory has now, however, been generally discredited as a philosophical doctrine and is no longer of any significance in the explanation of the powers of a constitutional government.

It is to be noticed that nothing is said in the Declaration of Independence as to equality in the ownership of property, or in social condition, or in capacity for the enjoyment of happiness. While the tendency of civilization, especially civilization which has been influenced by Christianity, is to give better opportunities to those who by reason of lack of health, strength, or capacity are under a disadvantage in the competition of life, it has not been found possible nor probably will it be found possible in any social condition which can be conceived of, to eliminate differences of condition. The existence of a competitive struggle for betterment of condition seems to be inherent in the human constitution; but just and wise governments give protection to the individual in order that he may not be deprived of the opportunity of life, liberty, and the beneficial enjoyment of his faculties so far as his strength and capacity are employed in ways not interfering with the enjoyment of like opportunities by others.

It is also to be noticed that nothing is said in the Declaration of Independence as to political privileges or participation in the affairs of government. It is evident that governments established for the securing of the highest possible welfare of their subjects will necessarily afford some participation in public affairs on the part of those who are to be governed and who have in general the qualifications fitting them for such participation. It is conceivable that a monarchical form of government might secure the freedom and prosperity of its subjects to a fuller degree than a popular government, but this would be so only if the ruler or the members of the ruling class considered the interests of all its subjects as equally important with his or their own interests; and as this is not consistent with human nature, it is essential that a government which shall have for its sole object the best interests of all the people who are qualified to participate in such a government shall afford them the opportunity of doing so. The extent of such participation must be determined on broad principles of public policy and in any particular government largely in accordance with the established and customary forms, for it is the efficient administration of the system of government to which a people are accustomed rather than any theoretical perfection of the system which produces the most satisfactory results.

It is evident, therefore, that there is a fundamental distinction between political rights and individual rights. The enjoyment of political rights is simply a means for accomplishing the ultimate result of affording the best protection to individual rights, that is, the largest opportunities which may be given to one individual consistently with the enjoyment of similar rights by others. Under the general head of civil rights, it is now proposed to discuss briefly the various guaranties found in the federal and state constitutions which are intended as restrictions on the powers of the government, in order that the enjoyment of the largest practicable measure of liberty and opportunity shall be secured to the individual.