Dick might want to re-think his definition of tyranny. In disagreeing with John about environmental/heritage pressure group An Taisce, he absolves them of John’s charge of “environmental fascism” and “tyranny” because, according to the notoriously pro-An Taisce Frank McDonald, they “only” review 0.4% of planning applications. This is still a lot of planning applications, but leaving aside the particular arguments about an Taisce itself - as it happens I lean more to John’s view than Dick’s - this is a weak defense.
It matters little to someone who is “tyrannised” how many share his fate. Someone who is subject to “arbitrary or despotic exercise of power; with a rigor not authorized by law or justice” is still tyrannised whether this also applies to 100%, 20% 0.001% or even 0.4% of others.