The historians of the Declaration always remind us of John Locke's principle that governments exist only to protect property; when States fail they cease to be legitimate, they can be overthrown; and Locke is taken to be, more than Rousseau, the inspiration of the Declaration. The Declaration, it happens, never mentions the right to own property; but the argument for revolution is essentially the same: when a government ceases to function, it should be overthrown. The critical point is the definition of the chief duty of a government. The Colonists, in the Declaration, said it is to secure certain rights to all men; not to guarantee privileges granted by the State, but to protect rights which are born when men are born, in them, with them--inalienably theirs. So the Declaration sets us for ever in opposition to the totalitarian State--for that State has all the inalienable rights, and the people exist only to protect the State. The catalogue of rights is comparatively unimportant; once we agree that the State exists to secure inherent rights, the great revolutionary stride has been taken; and immediately we see that our historic opposition to Old Europe is of a piece with our present opposition to Hitler. The purpose of our State is not the purpose of the European States; we might work with them, side by side, but a chemical union would result only in an explosion. There is one word artfully placed in the description of the State; the Declaration does not say that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed. It says that governments instituted among men to protect their rights "derive their _just_ powers from the consent of the governed". Always realistic, the Declaration recognizes the tendency of governors to reach out for power and to absorb whatever the people fail to hold. The idea of consent is also revolutionary--but the moment "inalienability" is granted, consent to be governed _must_ follow. The fascist state recognizes _no_ inalienable right, and needs no consent from its people. It is "self-evident", I think, that we have given wrong values to the three elements involved. We have talked about the "pursuit of happiness"; we have been impressed by the idea of any right being ours "for keeps", inalienable; and we have never thought much about the fundamental radicalism of the Declaration: that it makes government our servant, instructed _by us_ to protect our rights. The chain of reasoning, as the Declaration sets it forth, leads to a practical issue: All men are created equal--their equality lies in their having rights; these rights cannot be alienated; governments are set up to prevent alienation; power to secure the rights of the people is given by the people to the government; and if one government fails, the people give the power to another. So in the first three hundred words of the Declaration the purpose of our government is logically developed. _Blueprint of America_