Second Treatise of Government: Chapter 18: Of Tyranny Summary & Analysis

Usurpation is the exercise of power that one does not have the right to, Locke explains, so tyranny is exercising power that no one can have the right to. This includes using one’s power of prerogative for anything other than the good of the common-wealth. When a ruler makes the law to satisfy their own will and ambition, not the good of the people, that ruler is a tyrant. Locke offers King James I and his speech to parliament in 1603 to prove his point. King James says that the difference between a good king and a tyrant is that the tyrant thinks his kingdom is ordained for his satisfaction, whereas a good king believes he has been ordained to protect the lives and property of his people. 

Locke warns that it is a mistake to assume that tyranny can only occur in a monarchy, as other forms of government can act in tyrannical ways as well. Whenever the government is used to “impoverish, harass, or subdue” the people of a common-wealth, this is considered tyranny. “Where-ever the law ends,” Locke says, “tyranny begins.” This begs the question if a prince or a king can be opposed or resisted if they behave in a tyrannical way. Locke answers by saying force is forbidden, except in cases of unjust or unlawful force. 

In common-wealths where the prince and law are sacred, so that everything the prince does is free from question or opposition, opposition may be applied to illegal acts made by any of the prince’s inferior officers. Unless, of course, the prince dissolves the contract of government by placing himself into a state of war with the people. There must be limitations put upon the law, Locke says. For example, if the king issues a legal writ for someone’s arrest, the executor cannot break into one’s house to arrest them, arrest them on certain days, or in certain places. There may be no exception to the king’s commission, but there are limitations, Locke argues. The king cannot, under any circumstances, order anyone to act against the law. 

In a government in which the chief magistrate is not sacred, it does not threaten the magistrate’s power if subjects resist unlawful exercises, Locke maintains. Whenever an injured party can be relieved of damage through appeal, there is no need for force. Force is only necessary when one has no right to appeal a perceived wrong. Lastly, if unlawful acts of the magistrate are maintained and appeal is obstructed, resisting such tyranny does not threaten the government either. It is impossible, Locke claims, for a few oppressed people to threaten the government. However, if illegal acts threaten the majority, the majority cannot be kept from resisting such force.