# Who first promoted the idea that the primary purpose of government is to protect its citizens?

Who first promoted the idea that the primary purpose of government is to protect its citizens (from each other, from foreign invaders, etc.)?

**Question:** Who originated the idea that the purpose of government is to protect its citizens?

**Short Answer:**

It's an idea most closely associated with age of enlightenment philosophers to reimagined government in their time (Paine, Hobbs, Locke). More broadly though the idea like many age of enlightenment ideas stem from a Dutch philosophical forerunner of the age named Baruch Spinoza.

**Answer**

It's an age of enlightenment idea famously enunciated in Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" published January 10, 1776.

Paine said that the government's primary purpose is to create a framework for law and order, providing protection from both internal disorders and external aggressions. He believed that a just government is one that operates with the people's welfare in mind.

It was a key part of the reimagining of government associated with that age.

Thomas Paine wasn't the first to propose this idea though. Two other British political theorists **Thomas Hobbs** "Leviathan" (1651), "the primary role of government is to maintain order and prevent the chaos of the state of nature." **John Locke** "Two Treatises of Government" (1689). individuals have natural rights to life, liberty, and property. The main purpose of government, according to Locke, is to protect these rights. If a government fails to do so or becomes tyrannical, Locke believed that citizens have the right to overthrow it.

I will mention **Baruch Spinoza** , a Dutch philosophical forerunner of the Age of Enlightenment who was highly influential on those who came after him and his contemporaries. Two works **"Theologico-Political Treatise" (1670)** and **"Political Treatise" (1677)**. His ideas contribute to the broader discourse on the role of government in society. Spinoza believed that the primary purpose of government is to secure peace and safety for its citizens. He argued that the government exists to provide the conditions under which individuals can live in harmony, free from fear and conflict.

Spinoza was an atheist Jew who was excommunicated by the Jewish community in Amsterdam for violating and criticizing Jewish law. He would also have his books banned and be persecuted by the Catholic Church which he also publicly criticized.

Spinoza was a fore runner of the age of enlightened only other age philosophers predate his published works. This is because Spinoza wasn’t published during his lifetime. He died in 1670, his works were widely viewed after he had passed.

**From the Comments:**

> **From uberhaxed** **this is anachronistic**... You are confusing recent monarchies circa 1200 with monarchies that existed for 2000 years before that. Greek/Japanese/near eastern/etc kings did not rule by divine right. Populations of people regularly got assaulted by bandits and the king promised protection from these brigands in exchange for tribute, essentially paying taxes for police. For hundreds of years, Rome didn't even have a king.

It is true that the term divine right of Monarch's to rule was a middle ages european term. I would argue two thoughts. (1) The ideas of rulers right to rule coming from God date back much farther and aren't European. (2) Prior to receiving a "mandate from heaven", or "divine right from God" rulers around the world just declared themselves as gods.

As the Roman emperors did starting with Julius Caesar, who was posthumously declared a deity. Roman emperors often claimed divine status or were deified after death. This practice continued with Augustus and subsequent emperors, integrating divine status into Roman imperial ideology.

As the Ancient Greeks did starting with Alexander the great, his successors promoted the idea of Alexander's divinity to legitimize their own rule across his vast empire.

As the Ancient Pharoh's did in Egypt. As early as the Second Dynasty of Egypt (2890-2670 BCE) King Raneb (also known as Nebra) linked his name with the divine and his reign with the will of the gods.

As the Emperor of Japan did, The first Emperor, Jimmu believed to be descended from the sun goddess Amaterasu enthroned in the year 660 BC. This divine status was a fundamental part of Japanese imperial ideology until the end of World War II.

as Emperors of China did. Chinese emperors were regarded as the "Son of Heaven" and ruled under the Mandate of Heaven. While not considered gods themselves, their right to rule was divine in nature. As early as the 600s BCE, multiple inscriptions attest to this mandate.

The Confucian sage Mencius circa 300 BCE, is quoted as illustrating the concept of the Mandate of Heaven saying:

> The people are of supreme importance; the altars of soil and grain come next; last comes the ruler. That is why he who gains the confidence of the multitudinous people will be Emperor... When a local lord endangers the altars of soil and grain, he should be replaced. When the sacrificial animals are sleek, the offerings are clean and the sacrifices are observed at due times, and yet floods and droughts come [by the agency of heaven], then the altars should be replaced.

If the ruler should be replaced for endangering the altars of soil and grain (which are placed at a lower level of importance than the people), it follows that the ruler must prioritise protecting the people even moreso - that protecting the people must be their primary purpose.

**Protecting Citizens**

I don't know who was the first, but the idea of protecting the citizens seems to have been present in the Code of Hammurabi.

> In the prologue, Hammurabi claims to have been granted his rule by the gods "to prevent the strong from oppressing the weak".

**But who are the citizens who are entitled to protection?**

A related issue is defining the citizen body. Presumably slaves aren't citizens: what protections are they owed? It seems that some protection was granted during the Imperial period: the Republic was less inclined to interfere with the rights of citizens

> ...a constitution of Antoninus, ... enacted that if a man put his slave to death without sufficient reason (sine causa), he was liable to the same penalty as if he had killed another man's slave. The Constitution applied to Roman citizens and to all who were under the Imperium Romanum (Gaius, I.52, &c.). The same Constitution also prohibited the cruel treatment of slaves by their masters, by enacting that p1037 if the cruelty of the master was intolerable, he might be compelled to sell the slave; and the slave was empowered to make his complaint to the proper authority (Senec. de Benef. III.22).

> A Constitution of Claudius enacted that if a man exposed his slaves, who were infirm, they should become free; and the Constitution also declared that if they were put to death, the act should be murder (Suet. Claud. 25). It was also enacted (Cod. 3 tit. 38 s11) that in sales or division of property, slaves, such as husband and wife, parents and children, brothers and sisters, should not be separated.

What about foreigners? Athens, which surely considered that the State exists to look after its citizens, protected resident aliens, but their children remained resident aliens didn't become citizens.

In Sparta, the majority of the populations were the helots, descended from the original inhabitants. They did not benefit from the protections accorded to the citizens.

> Every autumn the Spartan polis declared war on the helots, allowing them to be killed and abused by members of the Crypteia without fear of religious repercussion

**Summary**

The idea is quite old, but it evolved from a restricted idea of the group deserving protection.

Share a link to this answer

Copy linkCC BY-SA 4.0

In the Bible, government leaders such as judges and kings are described as "shepherds" from very early on. This is consistent with curiousdannii's answer, and goes back much further.

Numbers 27:16 says, 'Moses spoke to the Lord, saying, “Let the Lord, the God of the spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation ... who shall lead them out and bring them in, _that the congregation of the Lord may not be as sheep that have no shepherd_.”

The theme of leaders as "shepherds" is constant throughout the historical books of the Old Testament, e.g. 2 Samuel 7:7.

Ezekiel 34:1-8 brings out in detail the meaning of "shepherds" as a metaphor for leaders, clearly outlining their obligation to provide for and protect their people: 'Ah, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! _Should not shepherds feed the sheep? ... The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the injured you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought, and with force and harshness you have ruled them. So they were scattered_ , because there was no shepherd, and they became food for all the wild beasts. ... because my sheep _have become a prey_ , and my sheep have become food for all the wild beasts..."

The "sheep" (citizens of Israel) became prey because of the failure of the "shepherds" to protect them, as they were supposed to be doing.

While probably not the first, the Apostle Paul in Romans (written around AD 56) states the Christian view on the purpose of secular government.

> Romans 13:1-7 (NIV): Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. **For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.** Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Save this answer.

Show activity on this post.

Gilgamesh, the mythical Sumerian ruler, has reportedly built a wall around the city of Uruk. I believe it makes sense to assume it was done to protect the citizens from attacks on their life and property, hence the idea probably backdates to the dawn of written history.

One may wonder whether it was considered the _primary_ purpose or not. I argue that it is always a speculation: a demagogue might claim his purpose is safety of the people when really he wants to seize power; a successful and thus very safe state may require little effort in terms of security; whereas for a badly run country even complete militarization may prove insufficient; so we cannot judge the success of this metric by amount of effort.

I am not claiming that security of subjects is innate to any governments. Before written history, nomadic tribes has created temple complexes in Anatolia to worship their gods, which likely required some governance in process, but it is not apparent thar it came with any security considerations.

This may be universal behavior pre-dating human civilization. Animals like wolves, elephants, lions have the dominant leader, or multiple leaders (like alpha wolfs) ready to defend the rest of the group, and organize a collective defense. This may be true for humans as well, with the dominant member defending others personality as well as organizing the collective defense. This is also useful so nobody thought to have it differently, except for some very specific or degraded groups.

The answer will depend on how much philosophical charity you wish to grant to a given author, but the concept pre-dates the current era by at least 300-400 years.

The oldest likely candidate is _Ruism_ (Confucianism), dating back to the 6th century BCE. Confucius hints at this idea by implication: Ruism elevates altruism as a key virtue of human beings, and therefore also government officials and rulers. Importantly, however, there's still plenty of room to read the relationship in the opposite direction: that the people exist to serve and protect the government, not the other way around. Confucianism is burdened with metaphysical baggage very reminiscent to the concept of the 'divine right of kings' which holds that a king's subjects owe fealty, service, and their lives to the monarch because that is how the universe was deliberate constructed. It's not immediately obvious that Confucius sees the people as the end towards which the means of altruism ("Ren") is aimed, since the whole construction is centered around achieving harmony with the universe.

The oldest definitive example is Plato's _Republic_ (4th Century BCE) which, despite advocating for the rise of philosopher-kings (a dictator with supreme power), clearly holds the wellbeing of the people to be the ends to which government is a means. Plato goes on, at length about how the interests of a ruler are at odds with the interests of their people, for example:

> Because you fancy that the shepherd or neatherd fattens of tends the sheep or oxen with a view to their own good and not to the good of himself or his master; and you further imagine that the rulers of states, if they are true rulers, never think of their subjects as sheep, and that they are not studying their own advantage day and night. Oh, no; and so entirely astray are you in your ideas about the just and unjust as not even to know that justice and the just are in reality another's good; that is to say, the interest of the ruler and stronger, and the loss of the subject and servant; and injustice the opposite; for the unjust is lord over the truly simple and just: he is the stronger, and his subjects do what is for his interest, and minister to his happiness, which is very far from being their own. Consider further, most foolish Socrates, that the just is always a loser in comparison with the unjust. First of all, in private contracts: wherever the unjust is the partner of the just you will find that, when the partnership is dissolved, the unjust man has always more and the just less. Secondly, in their dealings with the State: when there is an income tax, the just man will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of income; and when there is anything to be received the one gains nothing and the other much. Observe also what happens when they take an office; there is the just man neglecting his affairs and perhaps suffering other losses, and getting nothing out of the public, because he is just; moreover he is hated by his friends and acquaintance for refusing to serve them in unlawful ways.

The idea that justice demands we set aside our own wellbeing for the sake of others' is the core spirit of the idea that government exists for the promotion of the citizenry's wellbeing, which is then later made explicit in Book 4:

> ...but that our aim in founding the State was not the disproportionate happiness of any one class, but the greatest happiness of the whole; we thought that in a State which is ordered with a view to the good of the whole we should be most likely to find Justice, and in the ill-ordered State injustice: and, having found them, we might then decide which of the two is the happier...

Another answer offers The Code of Hammurabi as an even older contender (18th century BCE). The Code has even more metaphysical baggage than _Ruism_ , however, since Hammurabi explicitly calls out glorification of, and prosperity for, rulers who advance the Code. In similar way as the _Arthasashstra_ (3rd-2nd century BCE), it's not clear that Hammurabi's Code is not equally a 'manual for the most effective way to manage a population productively' as it could be a statement that the wellbeing of individual people/citizens are the ends to which government is a means. To the extent that Hammurabi insists that citizens know their rights and be able to avail themselves of the law, the whole thing still seems centered on 'so they can properly revere, serve, and bring prosperity to their king' as a central principle.