The theory of hypothetical approval of the governed is that the obligation to obey the government depends on whether the government agrees with it, or whether the people, if they were put in a state of nature without a government, would approve that government.  This theory has been rejected by some scholars [who?] who argue that, since the government itself can commit aggression, the formation of a government to protect the people from aggression would resemble the people, if one had a choice of which animals they should be attacked, and that they are “polecats and foxes for a lion”, a trade they would not make.  The term “call to heaven” is an important concept in Locke`s thoughts. Locke assumes that when they leave the state of nature, people form a government with a kind of constitution that determines which institutions are empowered to exercise what powers. Mr. Locke also assumes that these powers will be used to protect people`s rights and promote the common good. In cases where the people and the government argue over whether the government is meeting its obligations, there is no greater human authority to turn to. The only call left for Locke is the call to God. The call to heaven, therefore, is to raise arms against the adversary and make God judge who is right. Perhaps the most central concept of Locke`s political philosophy is his theory of natural and natural law.
The concept of natural law existed long before Locke to express the idea that there were certain moral truths that applied to all human beings, regardless of where they lived or the agreements they had made. The most significant opposition was between laws that were inherently and therefore universally applicable, and those that were conventional and were practised only where the convention had been established. This distinction is sometimes framed as the difference between natural and positive law. John Locke defined political power as “a right to pass laws with death sentences and therefore all less severe sentences” (Two Treaties 2.3). Locke`s theory of punishment is therefore at the centre of his vision of politics and is part of what he considered innovative in his political philosophy. But he also called his presentation of the punishment a “very strange doctrine” (2.9), probably because it opposed the assumption that only political rulers could punish. Locke believed that punishment requires that there be a law, and since the state of nature has the law of nature to govern it, it is permissible to describe one person as a “punishment” another in that state. Locke`s justification is that, since the fundamental law of nature is that humanity is preserved and that this law would be “free” without human power to impose it (Two Treaties 2.7), it must therefore be legitimate for individuals to punish each other before the government even exists. Locke thus contradicted Samuel Pufendorf (1934). Samuel Pufendorf had vehemently argued that the notion of punishment made no sense outside of an established positive legal structure. Simmons (1992) presents another synthesis. He joined Waldron (1988) and Tully (1980) and Sreenivasan (1995) in rejecting the transformation model.
He asserts that the references to the “making” of Chapter 5 of the two treaties are not correct for the treatment model in the proper sense of the word. Locke thinks we have property in our own people, even if we don`t make or create ourselves. Simmons asserts that Locke believed that God had rights as a Creator, but that people had another limited right as agents, not as creators.