To the Defense of Tyranny

Joshua Christine
Greg Koutnik
PSCI 181
13 March 2017

(Word Count: 1195)

(Prompt 1) What is Tyranny for Locke? Why is locke so concerned about

the threat it poses? What steps does he recommend taking to address

tyranny when it arises? You should consider discussing the role of

natural rights, natural law, and reason for Lockes theory.

John Locke is one of the founders of liberal political philosophy, an ideology stressing

individual rights and limited government. This is the philosophy on which the American
Constitution and likely all Western political systems today are based. In the Second Treatise of

Government, Locke uses natural rights and natural law to ground his philosophy on what

constitutes a valid form of government, what constitutes a breach of that validity, and what

recourse the citizens of that state have in such a case.

Locke defines tyranny simply as "the exercise of power beyond right.[1]" He sees the

threat of tyrannical rule seriously because this breach of executive trust, in Lockes mind,

constitutes a violation of the natural law, eventually leading to the dissolution of the government

and finally chaos. He further argues that in order to prevent this eventual descent into chaos,

citizens have both the right and duty to defend themselves against it with force.

Locke begins by describing a state of nature where men are free, equal, and

independent. In Chapter Two of the Second Treatise of Government, he asserts that men in the

state of nature are free and equal, and at liberty to do as they wishbut only within the bounds

of the law of nature.[2] Lockes claim then, is that individuals have complete freedom of choice,

so long as it does not contradict their duty to respect the rights of others. He champions the

social contract and government by consent arguing that the purpose of government is to

improve upon the state of nature. By providing a space in which there was less threat of harm

and a greater abundance of resources, and thus, a space in which are more free to enjoy their

individual liberties- men are better off within a society (or government) than outside of it. He

goes even farther than Hobbes in arguing that this government must respect the rights of these

individuals however. Even in the state of Nature, devoid of government, Locke asserts that there

is Natural Law which dictates how humans may interact with one another. How much more so

then, he extends this same ideology to governments and the state, arguing that when any

member of the state exceeds his legal authority or in any way violates the law of man (much like

natural man violating the law of nature), he ceases to be a [ruler]; and, acting without authority,

may be opposed, as any other man, who by force invades the right of another. He says, more

succinctly, that Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins[3]

 A just leader by comparison is one who, bound by the laws of the state, and the power of

its legislative body, rules and works for the best interest of the people and the state. A tyrant

then, is any executive body (not just a monarch) who with no regard to any authority but their

own, nor even the authority of law, and/or for their own personal whim or gain, flagrantly breaks

the laws to act on his own behalf. In Chapter 19, Locke tells us that when the state ceases to

function for the people such as in this case, its authority is in essence dissolved, rendered null

and void by the breach of the public trust. [4]

Before the government is dissolved however, the people are free, and even it could be

said, bound by duty, to reform the legislature in order to return the civil state one that works in

their best interest before they fall into absolute tyranny. This doctrine does not lead to frequent

unrest and rebellion however for several key reasons. Firstly, people are slow to change their

deeply ingrained habits and customs, and if the people are miserable, regardless they will rebel

under any system. Furthermore, revolutions occur only when there has been a long string of

abuses or flagrant breaches of trust (how much more dangerous then, is what we see most

often- the subtle, silent breaches and usurpations). Locke argues that this system actually

protects against rebellion, rather than inciting it. Lockes liberalism allows the people to change

their laws first, rather than immediately resorting to force to overthrow them. He also notes that

these concerns about revolution are misguided in any case, because they are borne from a fear

of a good and lawful process. Indeed he argues that it is not only rightful but even dignified for

people to rebel against unjust oppression. [5] Thomas Jefferson, in reference to this idea once

wrote, in support of the first amendment that a people should not fear its government, but a

government its people.

Locke cites William Barclay, a champion of the monarchy, to prove that even a great

defender of royal privilege concedes that a king may make void his title by abusing the power of

his position, and it is only at that point that the people have the right to physically and by force,

overthrow him.[6] He argues that the people themselves, above all else, are the best judge of
whether their protector is actually protecting them. If society is to persist, the power that each

individual gives to it cannot be returned back to the individual except when they leave the

society. Likewise, so long as any government is to last, the power that society gives its laws

cannot be returned back to the society, except should that government me rendered void. Either

of these institutions may be destroyed by the reversion of the powers vested in them, people

always being free to "erect a new form, or under the old form place it in new hands, as they

think good."[4]

Civil society exists to protect the property and liberty of its members--if something breaks

down anywhere in its government and it no longer fulfills this function, the people have the

natural right to rid themselves of that government. A government is supposed to provide a

system wherein everyone's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are more equally

protected. If the government in power is not working for them, than people would be better off in

a state of nature, and so it is not a just government.

Locke's text is not meant to incite violence and rebellion, however. In fact he expends

much energy to prove that he is not providing a system by which government will easily or

spuriously be overthrown. In both Chapters 18 and 19, he devotes substantial time to showing

that, under his model, the rights of people in society are protected, but not at the expense of a

stable government. Much of Lockes work was devoted to expounding upon the stability of his

system, under which people could live more freely and in which they may fully realize and enjoy

their natural rights. He paints tyranny as simply the anathema of a just government which works

to protect these rights and that because this tyranny constitutes a flagrant breach of the

people's trust and violation of both the natural law and their individual natural rights, they have

the moral grounds to defend themselves by replacing tyranny with a just government.
 Works Cited

All Citations taken and numbered from:

LOCKE, J., Dunn, J., & Grant, R. (2003). Two Treatises of Government and A Letter Concerning

Toleration (Shapiro I. & Shapiro I., Eds.). Yale University Press. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1npw0d

[1] Ch.2/ p.6,7

[1] Ch.18/ p.2

[2] Ch.2/ p.4

[3] Ch.18/ p.4

[4] Ch.19/ p.3

[5] Ch.19/ p.22

[6] Ch.8/ p.17