 Well, here's a piece of natural law. If you get caught in the rain, you're gonna get wet. Well, you know, all joking aside, Locke's not talking about natural law in this way. He's not talking about the causal laws of nature. What goes up must come down. If it's hot, it'll burn. He's not talking about that. He's talking about our state, our state according to our human nature, absent a political state. What is it that we have a right to? What is morality? Absent what a political state tells us. And by the way, political state still has to stay within some of these bounds too, but we'll leave that aside. So the natural law is going to depend upon the state of nature. What is it that we're like? What is it that we have a right to, or our morality is absent what society guarantees us? Absent a political state. Now, what he says is that our state, how we're like in the state of nature, is a state of liberty, not of license. By that he means we are free, but not free just to do anything. That's kind of what he's getting at. We have a state of liberty. And by that he means that I don't have to ask permission from anybody for how I want to live my life. I get to make my own choices. I don't have to ask permission. If I had to ask permission, I'd have to ask somebody who's and has authority, who's in power, who's a sovereign, sovereign over us. Absent a political state, there is no sovereign over me. There's still a sovereign. It's me. Everybody lives in this state. Everybody lives in this state of nature. There's no sovereign over us all. We are sovereign over ourselves. I don't have to ask permission from anybody. I don't need anybody's authority. I don't have to justify my actions to anybody. I get to live my life as I see fit according to the law of nature. According to the law of nature. Okay. So that's a state of nature. It's the state of liberty, not of license. Now with the law of nature is going to kind of fall out here. It's like, well, since I am sovereign over my own life, if I have a right, everybody else is the same situation I am. There's no sovereign over us all. We're all sovereigns over our own lives. So if I have a right, everybody else has that right too. So if I have a right, everybody else has that right too. If one person has a right, everybody has it. If one person doesn't have a right, nobody has it. So we're all equal in the sense. So I have the right to live my life as I see fit. So does everybody else. And since that's our state, the law is I get to live my life as I see fit. But I can't interfere with somebody else's life. I can't try to usurp their sovereignty, their authority over their own lives. I can't try to do away with it. Okay. So I get to live my life as I see fit, and I have to let others to do the same. You know, by the way, this is very different from Hobbes. Hobbes, conceived of the state of nature, you know, an absolute political state, is, you know, basically the ethical egoist situation, right? And when there's no state, everybody has to look out for themselves, right? Who's the most important, you know, who Hobbes was answering the question, who's interest the most important in the state of nature says, you know, who's the most important person who has two thumbs and the most important person, this guy, that's Hobbes. So it's very different from Hobbes. Hobbes would say, look, in the pursuit of your own interests, if you have to harm or kill or steal for somebody else, yeah, you got to do that. You got to look out for your own interests first. You can't worry about somebody else. Locke's like, no, in the state of nature, you're sovereign over your life. If you have a right, everybody else is the same. So you can't harm somebody else in the pursuit of your own interests. You have to live according to this law, right? If you have a right, so does everybody else. So you can't interfere. You can't harm somebody else. You can't hurt somebody else. Okay. Now, while there's that big important difference with Hobbes, there's an important similarity. Both Hobbes and Locke agree that you can't harm yourself, right? You at least can't harm yourself. That's something that they agree on. They don't agree on equality. I know they both use the term equal. But remember, Hobbes uses equality in the sense that we all have roughly equal physical mental capabilities. So one person isn't just going to be able to rise above the rest. Hobbes is trying to disallow for the probability that some person is just going to dominate overall. He's saying, well, we're all roughly equal in this regard. Locke isn't talking about equality in that sense. Locke talks about equality since that we all have equal rights, equal moral worth in this way. Okay. So they agree on equality, but they disagree. They agree that you can't harm yourself. You can't injure your own life. But they disagree on equality. Locke talks about everyone having these same rights. Now, it's easy to see, given the state of nature, the one caveat, right? You could live with your life as a UC fit, but you can't interfere with somebody else's life. So that's one part of the law of nature. The other part of the law of nature is you can't just destroy or spoil property, right? You can't just destroy things. Now, the first one's probably easy to see, given the state of nature, right? If I have a right, so do they. So does everybody else. So I can't interfere with somebody else's life. That's probably easy to see. The next one, it's a little bit different, right? It may not be obvious how that works out, but that's going to be a result of Locke's view of property.