According to Locke, the “state of nature” is a far more pleasant place to be than Hobbes’. He also gives Laws of Nature, “that mankind is to be preserved as much as possible.'' This comes from the idea that we are God’s property and should not then harm one another. We must obey this law. While we must obey this law it does not follow that we would, like any law it requires an enforcer. The step Locke takes to solve this problem is to say, like Hobbes, that we are all equal and so we all have the authority to enforce the law of nature. At this point, we see how starting from the same premise of equality both make moves to separate conclusions, with Hobbes fitting within a negative framework and Locke a positive.
In applying the laws of nature man must do so to two effects; reparation and restraint. Locke believed that reason would enable the expression of collective rationality for anyone who breaks the laws of nature and has made himself an enemy to all mankind, and by definition to oneself. On this basis “every man hath a right to punish the offender and executioner of the law of nature”. He further goes on to say that a man who has received damage to his property in seeking reparation may be joined with other men who recognize the wrong he has done. Together they may enforce reparations proportionate to the transgression. The two problems Locke has with regards to impartiality and interpretation of the law, for the victim of a crime is unlikely to be proportionate in the application of punishment, which Locke himself does accept. But even with this problematic area, the state of nature is still far from a state of war. It may be one containing a few rogues and be occasionally guilty of the misapplication of justice, but man is still primarily rational rather than a desire-seeking species. Our rationality tells us to take no more than we need, to go beyond self-sufficiency is not required and so we need not be at war over resources just as we need not be at war over the fear of violent death, both of which contrast with the argument of Hobbes.
The problem Locke does identify with regard to resources is with the ‘invention’ of currency. Money allows for hoarding and instead of using what we need, we will hoard to meet our future desires. He does not view this as the beginning of the state of war, but the multiplication of the inconveniences of the state of nature. This argument of Locke’s is one that seems logically invalid though. For it does not follow that a species that expresses collective rationality would take a measure (invent currency) that allows for hoarding, which in turn contradicts his law of nature by threatening the preservation of mankind, or at least significant sections of it. For the appropriation and hoarding of currency will produce a have and have not population, and to have not is the means to the destruction of one’s self-preservation. So it would then appear that if anything man is expressing collective irrationality if rationality at all. Locke may argue that consent allows for this to happen but that does not free man from any charge of irrationality or of being an essential desire seeking to be. It perhaps even strengthens the criticism by illustrating man’s tendency towards felicity by creating a mechanism for producing richness.