Good answer, but were they the first to propose this idea, or were they merely the first to emphasize it? Did their political theorist precursors emphasize a different purpose of government?

@Geremia For most of the preceding thousand years, the prevailing political theory was the divine right of kings and their subjects were viewed largely as the property of the monarch. The monarch wanted his subjects to do well for the same fundamentally selfish reason that a farmer wants his livestock to be healthy, not for their own sake. There might have been discussion in the context of the politics of the Greco-Roman classical era or in writings in the handful of medieval city-state Republics like Venice.

@ohwilleke But was the monarch not supposed to ensure the protection of the citizens?

@Gereminia, Not really. Prior to the age of enlightenment and for some a good deal after this age. Kings ruled through divine right from God. People were there to serve their king not the other way around. The Idea that a government owed something to their people, or that a government was there to provide something to the people was a new and radical idea.

@JMS In feudal law, a king might be sovereign, but the act of taking a vasall resulted in a mutual allegiance, formalized in the oath of fealty: "...the liegeman or vassal gave his lord a pledge of loyalty and acceptance of the consequences of a breach of trust. In return, the liege lord promised to protect and remain loyal to his vassal." People served their lord not because they were slaves, but because they had entered a contract where they could own land and were protected in exchange for work and military service.

@ccprog. Im not sure what point you are trying to make. Kings did not rule by consent of the governed. Kings ruled by divine right. They governed because God said so. An agreement between vassal and king is irrelevant because the people are absent in that arrangement, the king was the country. Age of enlightenment political theorists reimagined this relationship. Saying the purpose of government was to serve the people’s interest, and rulers rule through the consent of the governed.

@JMS rule by divine right was only really practised after the medieval period, when feudalism was in the process of being supplanted by (relatively) unitary states. In the medieval period there was a notion that the monarch ruled by the grace of God (as understood by the Church, which ofc was not directly under the monarch's control), but it was equally well understood that on a practical level they did so by the consent of their vassals (look at Magna Carta and the Barons' Wars for illustrations of this).

It was also the attempt by Charles I to rule by divine right rather than respecting the duties the monarch had traditionally been held to have towards the people (primarily of course the aristocracy, clergy, and to a lesser extent the gentry) that led to the English Civil War

Additionally whilst the people were absent in the agreement between vassal and king, they generally had their own contractual obligations with that vassal (the baron). There were ofc many different possible contracts the tenant could have, but in general the baron provided the land and protection whilst the tenant provided (part of) their labour. Obviously these contracts were not exactly freely entered into by modern standards, but the idea that under feudalism peasants were owed nothing by their lords shows a tremendous ignorance of the historical facts

@ohwilleke 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.

@uberhaxed try ~1500 onwards. Circa 1200 monarchs may have ruled "by the grace of God", but they didn't rule as absolute monarchs as we tend to understand rule "by divine right" today

@Tristan by that time parliaments and assemblies were the norm so absolute power kings did not have.

@uberhaxed precisely. Divine right and absolute rule was a reaction to the rise of parliaments and assemblies and developed in the early modern period. It postdates them (and the idea of the monarch owing protection to the people) rather than predating them as this answer incorrectly claims

Isn't there something transactional about these arrangements? Citizens paid taxes and provided services to the monarchy, so the monarchs protected them to ensure they could continue to do so.

@uberhaxed The period I'm targeting is pre-1600s to post-fall of Rome, about 1000 yr. ccprog tries to fit feudal fealty into a more Confucian role than it really was, window dressing notwithstanding. Even peasants weren't really free, the average medieval peasant never traveled more than five miles from the place he was born in his lifetime, and were basically bound sharecroppers. They couldn't transfer land as a commodity or relocate. Yes, aristocrats protected their lands (30% of aristocratic men died in war), but that was for themselves and their dynasty, not the well-being of the peasants.

You are probably better off looking at Locke's first treatise for this question, rather than the second.

In addition to @ccprog example of feudal obligations of a lord towards his vassals, the Muslim world had Jizia in which non-Muslims would pay a tax in exchange of protection. I have read (although I can not locate) instances of Muslim rulers returning that money when they were unable to ensure the protection of those people.

@SJuan76 Assuming that your very plausible representation is true, I'm not convinced that the justification for that is political theory. See generally A. Arda Gitmez, James A. Robinson & Mehdi Shadmehr, "Missing Discussions: Institutional Constraints in the Islamic Political Tradition" NBER Working Paper 30916 (February 2023). DOI 10.3386/w30916 In the same vein, a Christian lord might be a Good Samaritan for a reason unrelated to political theory.

@ohwilleke you seem to have moved the goalposts from the people being owed protection by their rulers (as posed in the original question) to peasants being free. Whilst the latter certainly wasn't true (although I think you are somewhat oversimplifying the various different forms of peasant tenure and focussing on some of the least free), the former absolutely was and that protection was a key part of the peasants' contracts of tenure

(noting ofc that in practice peasants had no choice in whether to enter some form of tenure, only limited choice in its form, and any court deciding a dispute between peasant and lord would be biased towards the lord, such that the peasant had little recourse should their lord fail to meet their obligations towards their tenants)

Plato and Aristotle also already promoted the idea that the Polis serves to protect its citizens. Their ideas of what is a citizen and what is a government are somewhat different from modern ideas, but nonetheless the argument stands.

@blues Plato's Republic gave rise to the Roman Republic, which wasn't about protecting it's citizens, rather Plato suggested that the role of Government was to provide "justice". Plato uses the dialogue to debate various definitions of justice and ultimately concludes that justice involves everyone performing their appropriate roles within society.

@blues, Aristotle in his work "Politics" discusses the nature and purpose of the state, emphasizing that the government’s role extends beyond mere protection. He discusses moral and intellectual virtue, justice again, and generally a monarch putting aside personal interests for the collective good.

@JMS I would agree that both Plato and Aristotle did see virtues of justice and morality as the highest goal of the government. I would also argue though that both placed the protection of the citizens as the most fundamental function of government. Especially Aristotle seems to be clear that practical considerations of survival have to come first. (Survival of the Polis. Not survival of the individual. Pretty sure they both are happy to tell you to die for their ideals, but they would never let the Polis die.)

@blues, Plato and Aristotle's writings on governance were about creating well-ordered society based on hierarchical structures not individual rights or security for all. Rights and security for all as the priority, much less the purpose of government, wasn't what they were thinking. Both were influenced by the death of Socrates, an elite citizen of Athens who was forced to kill himself, victim of the tyranny of the majority (of elite citizens). This was a primary concern in their writings, although they also addressed broader issues related to ethics, politics, and the ideal state.

@JMS It seems that a not small part in the attempt to answer this would be to define what it means to "protect the citizens". I agree with you that if that is defined as an individual right to be free from harm, that is not what Plato or Aristotle were arguing for. Equal rights for all just isn't a perspective that works in their philosophy. Nonetheless if the perspective is shifted to the citizenry (excluding woman, foreigners, slaves ...) as a whole they very much describe it as the most fundamental task of the government to protect it. (Since in their eyes that is what makes a Polis.)

@JMS The term "citizen" as such is already loaded with assumptions. When looking into the works of the ancients we need to distinguish between their definition of a citizen and modern definitions. If we apply modern definitions than they clearly did not care a lot about protecting the citizens. If we apply their own definitions they did.

@blues, Exactly, In "Common Sense," Paine appeals to "the people," a term that signifies inclusivity and universality. This is a marked departure from the exclusive notion of "citizenship" found in the works of ancient Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle. Similarly, Jefferson in the "Declaration..", and Locke in his "Two Treatises.." employ the term "the people" to encompass all individuals under a government's authority. This language reflects an Enlightenment shift towards viewing society as a collective of equal individuals, each deserving of natural rights and protection. A first