Someone explain Locke's law of nature to me. What is his idea of equality, liberty, and property?

This can be found in Locke's second treatise on civil govt.

-Thanks

In Two Treatises of Government he has two purposes in view: to refute the doctrine of the divine and absolute right of the Monarch, as it had been put forward by Robert Filmer's Patriarcha, and to establish a theory which would reconcile the liberty of the citizen with political order. The criticism of Filmer in the first Treatise is complete. His theory of the absolute sovereignty of Adam, and so of kings as Adam's heirs, has lost all interest; and Locke's argument has been only too effective: his exhaustive reply to so absurd a thesis becomes itself wearisome. Although there is little direct reference to Hobbes, Locke seems to have had Hobbes in mind when he argued that the doctrine of absolute monarchy leaves sovereign and subjects in the state of nature towards one another. The constructive doctrines which are elaborated in the second treatise became the basis of social and political philosophy for generations. Labor is the origin and justification of property; contract or consent is the ground of government and fixes its limits. Behind both doctrines lies the idea of the independence of the individual person. The state of nature knows no government; but in it, as in political society, men are subject to the moral law, which is the law of God. Men are born free and equal in rights. Whatever a man "mixes his labour with" is his to use. Or, at least, this was so in the primitive condition of human life in which there was enough for all and "the whole earth was America." Locke sees that, when men have multiplied and land has become scarce, rules are needed beyond those which the moral law or law of nature supplies. But the origin of government is traced not to this economic necessity, but to another cause. The moral law is always valid, but it is not always kept. In the state of nature all men equally have the right to punish transgressors: civil society originates when, for the better administration of the law, men agree to delegate this function to certain officers. Thus government is instituted by a "social contract"; its powers are limited, and they involve reciprocal obligations; moreover, they can be modified or rescinded by the authority which conferred them. Locke's theory is thus no more historical than Hobbes's. It is a rendering of the facts of constitutional government in terms of thought, and it served its purpose as a justification of the Revolution settlement in accordance with the ideas of the time.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/locke.htm#Two%20Treatises%20of%20Government

http://www.archive.org/details/TechnologyandSubversion5of10

The state of nature knows no government

I have to take issue with this assertion, and this is the major reason why I never liked Locke's, or even Hobbe's, ideas on government. In fact, I really can't stand the study of government as philosophy, and the major reason why I can't stand it is because almost everybody who discusses it seems to take the position that, somehow, government is an arbitrary invention of man. They always seem to believe that mankind is somehow beyond or above nature, that somehow, with the institution of governments man has "risen above" his "primitive" nature and become something more. This is ludacris when one studies nature, because animals which live in groups always have leaders, and there are always behaviors associated specifically with the leaders and with the transition from one leader to the next, etc...

The point is, it's not hard to see how the politics of a band of hunter-gatherers led to the politics of a clan, which led to the politics of a tribe, which led to the politics of kingship, which led to constitutional forms of government which don't rely on the absolute authority of one person for their direction. The state of nature does, in fact, know government.

Locke was the man, Hobbes was a puss.