Government Protects Rights and Equality

Pierce K. Kozlowski

Biblical Thinking on Government

The founders understood that the “self-evident” truths of rights and equality were dictated by natural law, which is why they enshrined provisions for their protection into America’s constitutional law. Those legal protections, however, did not mean protecting the idea of natural rights or legal equality, but rather the application of those ideas. This may seem obvious, but confusing the two is the difference between the violation of rights versus their protection. Protecting the idea of natural rights literally means protecting that idea and any dissent against it—not the rights themselves. It would not make sense in any world for the government to do this because the concept of rights does not need protection in the same way that people’s rights need protection. Consequently then, the chief function of government is to merely be the protector of rights, not the encroacher of them. This is why these rights are “inalienable,” and sourced from “Nature and Nature’s God.”

If the government cannot usurp individual rights, that means that the true power resides in the individual, who is the torchbearer of those natural rights. This is significant because it highlights the emphasis the founders placed on the relation between God and humanity, rather than the relation between humanity and government. Such sentiments can also be found in the Bible directly. In the book of Deuteronomy, for example, a chain of limitations is placed on the monarchy that God instituted for the Israelites. The king had to act in accord with these set boundaries and was not permitted to act outside God’s law; nor was the King permitted to consider himself better than his fellow Israelites, much less rule over them unjustly (1). A related sentiment in more extreme terms is expressed by Samuel the Prophet, who forewarns about the nature of monarchs, passionately saying that when the monarch becomes usurpatious, “you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day” (2). Peter the Apostle, in the book of Acts, is noted for saying that “we must obey God rather than men” (3). Peter said this against the Council of a High Priest after being imprisoned in Jerusalem for spreading the teachings of Christ. Beyond the context of this particular passage, this message holds a wider significance: while the government is a valid authority, people do not have to acquiesce to a government that obstructs what is Godly and good. Hence why Peter encourages the reader to abide by the commandments of God rather than those who conflict with God, even if that means disobeying government—a right to disobey, or alternatively, a right to give or withhold consent that the individual can exercise according to the offenses the government commits.

Right to Consent, Right to Rebel

This idea of the right to consent caused a significant shift regarding the nature of government function. Consent empowered the sacred rights of individuals because it protected the freedom of the individual, thereby making consent the ultimate justification for the legitimacy of government. Locke made this exact case when writing about the purpose of government and the rule of law that government upheld: “for the law, in its true notion. . . . prescribes no farther than is for the general good of those under the law,” Locke wrote. “The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom: for in all the states of created beings capable of laws, ‘where there is no law, there is no freedom’” (4). Freedom was the primary objective of government. Since the purpose of human nature was to use reason in the pursuit of virtue, that pursuit required freedom, which is why the government has to protect and preserve freedom. Since pursuing virtue is an individual activity, it is not the job of the government to enforce virtue, lest it violate individual rights and lose its legitimacy. In other words, pursuing virtue with reason is an individual activity that requires freedom, which is why it is the chief objective of government to protect freedom. Locke further explained that any government which violated the right to consent or any other right meant that the government “forfeits the power the people placed” in it and that the people, therefore, have a right to use force to dissolve this government for the purpose of restoring their natural liberty and instituting a new legislative (5).

The founders borrowed heavily from this particular idea when drafting the constitution, so it’s no wonder why the Declaration of Independence granted people the right to “alter or abolish” the government and to “institute a new” one if it became destructive to certain ends (6). Locke’s philosophy of natural law reverberates throughout the writings of the American constitution, and while the old age ideas of natural rights and equality before the law predate Locke, it was Locke who most eloquently expressed a sophisticated, modern guide for legally instituting those principles in a functional democracy. It is for this reason that the founders so strongly adhered to that guide Locke provided, and why they carried out the task of instituting a government with such Lockean principles: namely, recognizing individual rights; recognizing that people are equal in nature and equal before the law; and recognizing that the function of government is to protect naturals rights and equality before the law.

References

1. Deuteronomy 17:14-20, NASB1995

2. 1 Samuel 8:10-18, NASB1995

3. Acts 5:25-30, NASB1995

4. John Locke, Two Treatises of Government and a Letter Concerning Toleration. Yale University Press, 2003, pp. 123-24

5. John Locke, Two Treatises of Government and a Letter Concerning Toleration. Yale University Press, 2003, pp. 197-98

6. “Declaration of Independence”. Broadside, July 04, 1776. From Teaching American History. https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/declaration-of-independence/.