I agree with Ross when he stated Locke’s theory on the state of nature is extremely important to his views on politics. Without making the claim that anyone from God is in the “same state of nature,” Locke’s view on hierarchy and monarchy could not be established. To lay that foundation, Locke wanted to voice his opinion about people’s standings in the world, along with where he believes everyone’s “place” in society is. Locke believed that every person was a descendant of God, therefore each person is equal in all respects, “No one having more than another, there being nothing more evident than that of creatures of the same species and rack, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of Nature, and the use of the same facilities, should also be equal one amongst another,” (8).
Locke seems to take the belief that a man would only want to leave the “state of nature” in times of war. Locke stated, “But force, or a declared design of force upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the state of war; and it is the want of such an appeal gives a man the right of war even against an aggressor, though he be in society and a fellow-subject,” (13). Locke has the opinion that even if a person was in the “state of nature”, the “state of war” would make a person want to leave the “state of nature.” I understand Locke’s point in saying if there is a common set of laws each person could have the same amount of power and live equally. However, that may not be the same case in time of war. Each person would have conflicting viewpoints in strategy that some kind of leader would have to be established. Therefore, why Locke stated a man would want to leave his place in the “state of nature”.