You're taking this phrase out of context. What the Declaration said was: 1. There are certain universal human rights, like life, liberty, and property^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H the pursuit of happiness. 2. To protect these rights, people form governments. Only the baddest kid on the block can protect her own rights, and only if she never sleeps. The rest of us need the police. 3. Ergo, government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. I read this more as a conclusion than as a premise. This is all that Hobbes, Locke, and Montequieu said. Rousseau was different, but he was a kook. This is quite different from saying, "The government has the right to do what the majority says it can do." Government doesn't have any rights, only delegated powers. A utilitarian like Mill or a positivist like Comte or a trader like Smith, or I, would say that government power shouldn't be restricted to the protection of basic rights. Public goods should also be pooled to do things that people can't or won't do by themselves -- garbage collection, health and disability insurance, protecting "the commons" with environmental regulations, etc. But these utilitarian-type interests don't really fall into the power/rights game. -rich