Social-contract theory explains the move from natural freedom to political authority. People consent to form a political community because common rules, impartial judging, and shared enforcement can protect them better than private force can. Government receives authority as a trust: it may make and enforce law for public purposes, but it does not acquire an unlimited ownership of the people or their rights. Consent grounds legitimate power, while the purposes of the trust limit that power. This is why Lockean theory can justify obedience to lawful government and also support resistance when a regime persistently replaces law with arbitrary domination.

Consent does not mean that every person personally signs a document or agrees with every policy. A political system can rest on popular authorization while producing laws that many citizens oppose. Nor does one mistaken decision automatically dissolve government. Locke's resistance argument concerns a sustained pattern showing that rulers have abandoned the purposes for which authority was entrusted. Ordinary disagreements should ordinarily be addressed through lawful politics; systematic destruction of rights, representation, and legal remedies presents a more fundamental question of legitimacy.

A natural right and a legal right may protect the same interest, but they answer different questions. A natural-rights claim asks what a person is morally entitled to independent of official recognition. A legal-rights claim asks what a constitution, statute, regulation, or precedent recognizes and makes enforceable in a particular system. Freedom of expression, for example, can be defended as a natural liberty and protected as a constitutional right, but a court must identify the governing legal rule. Philosophical arguments can shape legal development without functioning as a substitute for enacted or authoritative law.

Video lesson: Natural rights, social contract, democracy, republicanism and limited government