Locke's Two Treatises of Government › The Right to Revolution

The most radical part of Locke's theory is his defense of the right to revolution. If government exists by consent and for the protection of rights, what happens when government betrays that trust? What happens when rulers become tyrants? ::: {.callout-note title="Tyranny"} The exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to. For Locke, a ruler becomes a tyrant when they act for their own benefit rather than the public good, or when they violate the natural rights the government was instituted to protect. ::: Locke's answer is clear: the people may resist and, if necessary, overthrow tyrannical government. When rulers violate the fundamental terms of the social contract, when they systematically attack the life, liberty, or property of citizens, they dissolve the bonds of obligation. They put themselves in a state of war with the people. > Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience. This is not a license for rebellion at every grievance. Locke is clear that people are slow to resist, that they endure much before taking up arms. Revolution is a last resort when a "long train of abuses" makes tyrannical intent unmistakable. But the right exists, and it serves as the ultimate check on governmental power. Critics worried this doctrine would lead to constant instability. Locke argued the opposite: rulers who know they can be held accountable are more likely to govern well. The right to revolution acts as a deterrent, promoting good governance rather than undermining it.