John Locke explains usurpation as a means a person getting into power, where many people are seen as having the authority to usurp. He describes it as a “domestic conquest”, and argues that the usurper has no legal mandate to extend their selfish will. Locke postulated that a government should be restricted to only securing the betterment and the life of its people. He asserts that the law-making arm must follow the established laws when governing. Locke presupposes that the government should be checked to safe-guarding the will and the general well-being of the people. As per this point, Locke argues that the legislature should not pass taxes without the permission of the citizens.

From Locke’s perspective, tyranny comes when one exercises power beyond where they are allowed by law. Again, when one exercises power to promote their selfish good, instead of the welfare of the citizens, they are said to be exercising tyranny. In addition, when the leader acts without the intention to protect the property, as well as, the lives of the people, they are practicing tyranny. In connection with these, Locke defines tyranny as; practicing leadership and powers which they are not allowed by law to practice or that are beyond the set law, or that are not for the welfare of the masses. For a good understanding of Locke’s concept of monarchy, it is important to recall the aspect on usurpation. From Locke’s perspective, everyone can get the right to usurpation. In regard to monarchy, it may qualify as a form of government, because it undermines the law, that everyone has the right to lead. Its difference with tyranny is that it applies some form of the welfare of the electorate. Also, a monarchy is perpetual, different from a tyranny which exists for some period of time. The fact that a king does follow some established rules differentiates them from tyrants.