The concept you're describing is often associated with the social contract theory in political philosophy.
The social contract is a theoretical agreement among individuals, usually seen as the foundation of legitimate government. Two major philosophers associated with this theory are Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, each with a slightly different perspective.
Thomas Hobbes:
Social Contract Concept: Hobbes argued that in the state of nature, without government, life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." He believed that people would willingly give up some of their individual freedoms to a sovereign authority (a government) in exchange for protection and order.
Implications: According to Hobbes, the social contract is essentially an agreement among individuals to create a powerful authority that would prevent chaos and ensure the protection of people's lives and property. This authority, once established, has the right to enforce laws and maintain order.
John Locke:
Social Contract Concept: Locke's perspective on the social contract is rooted in the idea of natural rights, including life, liberty, and property. He believed that people come together to form a government primarily to protect these natural rights.
Implications: According to Locke, individuals retain certain rights in the social contract, and the government's legitimacy is based on its ability to safeguard these rights. If a government fails to protect these rights or becomes oppressive, individuals have the right to alter or abolish it.