Chapter XVIII

Locke defines tyranny as the exercise of power beyond right, when a governor makes his own will rather than the law the rule and pursues private advantage rather than the preservation of his people's property.

Locke cites King James I's 1603 speech to parliament distinguishing lawful kings from tyrants: lawful kings seek the commonwealth's wealth while tyrants seek their own desires and appetites.

Locke quotes James I's 1609 speech asserting that a king is bound by oath to observe the fundamental laws and protect his people, and that a king degenerates into a tyrant as soon as he ceases to rule according to law.

Locke quotes James I stating that non-tyrant kings will willingly bound themselves within the limits of their laws, and those who persuade them otherwise are enemies to both king and commonwealth.

Locke synthesizes James I's teaching: the difference between a king and a tyrant consists in whether the ruler makes laws the bounds of his power and the public good the end of government.

Locke argues that tyranny can occur in any form of government when power is applied to ends other than governing and preserving property, citing examples of multiple tyrants in Athens and Rome.

Locke establishes that where law ends, tyranny begins; magistrates who exceed their legal authority become private men using unjust force and may be opposed like common criminals.

Locke illustrates the principle with the example of an officer with authority to arrest someone but not to break into their house, showing that legal authority has bounds even for officers.

Locke argues the same principle should apply to the highest magistrate as to subordinate officers, and uses familial and property analogies to show that great power does not justify exceeding authority.

Locke presents the objection that allowing resistance to a prince's commands whenever someone feels aggrieved would destroy all government and cause anarchy.

Locke answers that force should only be opposed to unjust and unlawful force, and opposing only unjust force will not lead to anarchy because no danger follows from resisting unlawful action.

Locke explains that in some countries the king's person is protected by law from violence, but this does not prevent resistance to the illegal acts of officers commissioned by him or force them into a state of war.

Locke argues that protecting the king's person from violence is wise policy because the king cannot single-handedly subvert laws or oppress the people, and this arrangement protects government stability.

Locke argues that subordinate magistrates can be questioned and resisted when using unjust force, even with the king's commission, because the king's authority derives from law and cannot authorize acts against law.

Locke distinguishes between cases where the injured party can appeal to law for remedy and cases where legal remedy is blocked; only where someone is prevented from appealing to law is hostile force justified.

Locke illustrates through the example of a highwayman threatening life versus someone retaining property by force: life-threatening force can be met with lethal resistance because appeal to law is impossible, but for recoverable property loss, legal remedy suffices.

Locke argues that even when magistrates maintain unlawful acts and obstruct legal remedy, the right to resist will not easily disturb government because isolated oppressed individuals cannot overturn a settled state without the people's support.

Locke contends that if illegal acts extend to the majority or threaten all people's laws, estates, liberties, and lives, the people cannot be prevented from resisting, though he acknowledges this is an inconvenience of all governments.

Locke argues it is easy for governors to avoid being suspected and opposed if they genuinely mean the good of their people, just as a father easily shows his love and care to his children.

Locke describes how a pattern of divergent words and actions, use of arts to elude law, misuse of prerogative power, selection of officers to serve arbitrary ends, and experiments with arbitrary power reveal a ruler's true intentions.

Locke uses the analogy of a ship captain steadily steering toward Algiers despite temporary course changes caused by weather to illustrate how a pattern of deliberate actions reveals the ruler's true course toward arbitrary power.