Thus people would be represented through a democracy established by the people themselves. Thus all men decide to delegate the watch-over function to selected others who will do this job on the behalf of all and would act in the best interest of others not selected. The government wields limited power, which can be changed anytime by those who established them.
Where an individual has put in effort (labor) to try to improve the previous state of certain property, then the individual can go ahead and claim ownership of the property because he has done something extra which others have not done, in as long as there is still some left of the same enough for others. Therefore for an individual to justify ownership of certain property there has to be a proven element of invested labor in that property. They thus claim some extra interest in the property they have tried to improve by spending their time and energy. This can be supported by the following case laws; Insurance Co. vs. Wilgus, Central law journal, 88 P9, St 107; Chandler v Insurance Co., Central law journal, id 223, Insurance Co. v Dyches, Central law journal 56 Tex 565; Swift v Insurance Co., Central law journal, 40 Mo. 16. Which support the idea of John Locke.
.
This can not be practical in a state of nature as people are free to use whatever is around without being bound by any restrictions. Anything that is available is for the common use of everybody. People are thus supposed to act according to their free will, do what their mind tells them. The introduction of the private property concept by John Locke is in great conflict with the state of nature idea. People would thus live in conflict where others will want to take what is supposedly the "private property" of others. .
In order to avert this, John Locke proposes a shift from the state of nature idea to a state where there is a group selected by the people to help protect the rights of private property for peace and order to be restored.