But how can it be argued that people must honor and submit to rulers who are not enemies to wrongdoing, but to what is good—rulers who are not a blessing, but a curse to society? The purpose of government, as even Scripture explains, is to restrain those who do evil and to protect and encourage those who do well. Only those who act wrongly should have reason to fear authority.
When rulers are unjust—when they are partial, abuse power, or reward wrongdoing—those who act rightly have just as much reason to fear them as those who do wrong. In such cases, there is no safety for the innocent and no justice for the guilty. The very purpose of civil government is defeated.
Why, then, should people submit to a government that no longer fulfills the purpose for which it exists?
Some claim that people must submit to rulers out of conscience, simply because rulers hold authority. But this argument only applies when rulers actually act as rulers—that is, when they govern for the public good. It does not apply to those who encourage injustice and discourage what is right. Such individuals may hold the title of ruler, but they no longer deserve obedience.
The same reasoning applies to paying taxes. Taxes are owed because rulers are supposed to devote themselves to the welfare of society. But how can this justify paying tribute to rulers who are actively working to destroy the public good—especially when that payment helps them continue their harmful actions?
The argument for obedience is clear and reasonable when applied correctly: rulers who serve society deserve honor, obedience, and support. But it does not follow that people owe obedience to those who use their power to injure the public. Tyrants and oppressors, though they claim authority, have no just claim to obedience.
In fact, when submission no longer serves the public good, the argument for obedience disappears. If obedience brings not safety but ruin—if it produces misery rather than protection—then it becomes a reason against submission. In such cases, concern for the welfare of society requires resistance.
If a king rules for the good of his people, obedience is a duty. But if he turns tyrant and makes his people prey instead of protecting them, allegiance must be withdrawn. To continue submitting in that case would be to help bring about the suffering of society itself.
This does not mean resistance should be reckless or constant. But it does mean obedience is conditional. Government exists for the good of the people, not the destruction of them. When rulers act in direct opposition to that purpose, resistance becomes not rebellion, but a defense of society and its rights.