Wherever the law ends, tyranny begins, wrote an English philosopher in 1693. As the saying goes, “Tyranny starts where the law ends”. Nevertheless, it’s unclear who first said this. The phrase has been associated with tyrants throughout the centuries, and the meaning is controversial, but what is clear is that tyranny has its roots in the rule of laws.
A good parson once remarked that religion ends where mystery begins, and human laws end where the mystery begins. In the meantime, doctors of divinity and law have made greater and more lucrative progresses in their lucrative business of mystery. These scholars have erected another reason and justice, namely, their own. The result is a state that’s based on tyranny and a system of social control.
A tyrant may seize his neighbor’s cottage and garden, and then call it “his.” Similarly, a rich man could encroach on the rights of his poor neighbor, and even confiscate the latter’s land. Whether his intentions are good or not, tyranny must end where the law ends. The same applies to dictatorial governments around the world.
If a rich man had the power to seize a poor man’s garden and cottage, he could do so. This would stifle his own economy. It would also make it easier for a dictator to suppress human rights and the freedom of the press. This is why he’s often called the “rule of man.” He’s also been accused of using the suffrage clause to seize other people’s property and stifling democracy.
Wherever the law ends, tyranny begins. Locke’s words are a perfect example of this. Imagine a rich man taking over a poor man’s garden and cottage, and the poor person is unable to defend himself against the rich man’s actions. And what if he could encroach upon the property of his poor neighbor? If he did that, would he then not be a citizen?
If the rule of law ends at the door of a poor man’s house, tyranny begins there, too. The rule of man is a good rule of law, but it doesn’t work when dictators control the media, citizens, and economies. A dictator may have been born with a constitution, but he was wrong. The idea of a dictatorship ended in the end of the first one.