Final answer:
Nations were historically run by the authority of a ruler, who sometimes had a divine mandate, rather than by codified rules. Anthropological studies revealed that communities without formal leadership can govern themselves effectively through consensus. The founding principles of America stressed the sovereignty of the people and the importance of a government that serves the general will.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the context of the founder's day, nations were often run not by codified rules and regulations but by the authority and personality of a single ruler or a group of rulers. Historical accounts, like those from noted historian Sima Guang, emphasize that rulers had a mandate that was perceived as divine or of supreme importance, which allowed them to govern based on personal judgment and force. This mandate was conceptualized in the 'Mandate of Heaven', which signified the right to rule as granted by a celestial source and was essential for legitimacy in many ancient cultures, such as China's dynastic rule.
However, anthropological findings have contested the idea that human nature is intrinsically selfish without a ruler's supervision. Studies of small communities and hunter-gatherer societies demonstrated that informal leadership, often based on personal merit and consensus, can also be effective. In these societies, leadership roles were fluid and often changed based on the situation, suggesting a more dynamic and cooperative system of governance that was responsive to the needs and abilities of the group members.
The principles captured in the early foundation of America revolved around sovereignty of the people, and the idea that governments must serve the people, with people making collective decisions free of a monarch's rule. This idea underscores the importance of a government that is responsive and aligned with the general will of the populace, a concept still vital in contemporary governance.