In this situation, Thomas Hobbes would presumably recommend the institution of a strong government led by the body-building policeman. If you followed Hobbes's advice, you would give this person absolute power, not just during the battles to come but also during the more peaceful periods. The fact is that although you fear the unknown intruders, you also fear your rival fans; so even if the new source of insecurity is warded off, the original dispute is likely to re-emerge. If you allowed all of the passengers an equal vote, the result would be a tie and nothing would be decided. The best solution would be to make the policeman into something like an absolute monarch – particularly since he is on your side!

Alternatively, you might remember that your possession of the fertile land was down to luck rather than any special effort on your part. Maybe, then, once the conflict with the intruders is over you might want to strike a compromise with the rival fans. After all, future attacks might occur unexpectedly; and in a crisis your rivals have shown that they will help you. At the very least, you might want to say that the most productive rivals can work on your land, so long as you take a share of the crops that result.

If you take the first option, then you broadly agree with Thomas Hobbes's account of the state of nature. If you prefer the second option, you are more in tune with the ideas of John Locke. There is, though, a third option: that even though you have the balance of force on your side - the muscle-bound policeman is your friend – you have come to feel that your possession of the most fertile land is unjust. You might, in short, conclude that everyone's needs should be catered for, and that they should be supplied by an equal amount of work by everyone, according to their different abilities. No-one should 'own' the productive land; it should be regarded as common property.

If you accept this third option, you are in broad sympathy with the ideas of Karl Marx (see pages 41-3, 45-6, 114-5, and 120-2).