Early in his life, Locke was very traditionalist and quite authoritarian: The kings are good

and the people are beasts. So, in a way he was Hobbesian.

There were really no distinction yet what sciences are: what philosophy is, and what social
sciences are. There was a difference what theology was and the rest of knowledge was.
But the rest of the knowledge was all the same, and sort of Locke was also a scientist. In
'67, he wrote an essay, the "Essay on Toleration." And this is a departure now from Hobbes.
This actually advocates the right to dissent. As we have seen, not that Hobbes at all cost
would have resisted every dissent.

Hobbes also considered if the king does not deliver, you can transfer your loyalty from the
king to another sovereign.

And there are two major Locke scholars; both spent all of their life studying Locke. Peter
Laslett suggested that the Second Treatise was written really first, in 1679; it was all
engaged in the debates about the Exclusion Bill. While Richard Ashcraft argued that the
Second Treatise was written in 1683. And it is a revolutionary work--that this is really the
theory of constitutional monarchy and kind of popular.

Locke he draws a very different conclusion than Hobbes did, or by and large a different
conclusion. And then he does agree with Locke that we need a common superior, a
sovereign; a superior is necessary to avoid the state of war. Then he develops a
fascinating theory of property, what we have to deal with, and then he makes this path-
breaking argument that what we need is rule by majority. He does not quite identify what
that majority is. Right?

And he defines the three elements of political power. Right? Well this is the right to make
law. There is also execution of law, and there is also--politics means the defense of the
commonwealth against outside enemies. There are the three functions politics is serving.
And this will be very important in his sort of divisions of powers, as such.

And he has interesting ideas about what property is, where that it is coming from. Very
important. This foreshadows Adam Smith in some ways. Also foreshadows Karl Marx in
another way. Well he starts with this idea that man had given the world to man in common,
and therefore all the fruits belong to each member of the society. It's almost a socialist
ideology, right? And he continues along these lines. He said every man has a property in
his own person, and the labor of what you produce is yours.’’

What is central for Locke's argument is the abundance. He can make this argument
because the primary assumption is that what we desire is available in great abundance to
us. We have seen that Hobbes had the opposite idea.