Previous
Chapter 17: Of Usurpation
Themes
Key
LitCharts assigns a color and icon to each theme in Second Treatise of Government, which you can use to track the themes throughout the work.
Nature, War, and Civil Society
Consent of the Governed and the Role of Government
Power and Absolute Monarchies
The Dissolution of Government
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’s use of King James I as an example of the difference between a good king and a tyrant again suggests Locke is not against all monarchies, just absolute monarchies. No one can have absolute and arbitrary power over another’s life and property, unless they have consented to a state of war. Thus, monarchs in absolute monarchs are nothing more than tyrants, Locke implies.
Themes
Literary Devices
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.
The laws of a common-wealth must always be made and enforced for the preservation of the common-wealth and everyone in it. Thus, if a ruler who sets out to “impoverish, harass, or subdue” the people, said ruler infringes on the common-wealth’s right to self-preservation. For Locke, unjust laws in any way are examples of tyranny.
Themes
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.
This again underscores Locke’s main argument that all power is limited. So, while the king may have the power to issue a warrant for someone’s arrest, there are limits to that power. In Locke’s day, an arrest warrant could not be served on a Sunday while the subject sat in church. In addition to limiting when such a warrant could be executed, churches were seen as sanctuaries in which everyone was safe from any power or force.
Themes
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.
Locke again implies it always within someone’s rights to resist unjust force, even if there is no central authority to appeal to. However, just as in nature, force against any power is a last resort, and is only allowed if there is not a common judge to appeal to. Force infringes on one’s right to self-preservation, which is only allowed within the law of nature during a state of war.
Themes
Literary Devices
Get the entire Second Treatise of Government LitChart as a printable PDF.
