In Locke's state of nature, there was never any need to assume that one should divide possessions equally. Locke's notion of the right to property was crucial because it was considered on an equal footing with rights such as life and liberty respectively. In this way, property becomes subject to the whims of political processes just as any similar right would require. This means that Locke was able to justify inequalities in property through the need for political regulation of property. There was also a drastic imbalance in Locke's civil society due to the two classes created by the unlimited accumulation of property. Locke suggested that everyone is a member of society and yet only those who owned property could fully participate in society. Those who did not own property were unable to participate fully, because this might give them the opportunity to use their newfound legitimate power to equal ownership of property, going against Locke's core belief of unlimited accumulation. According to Locke, due to the enormous abundance of properties, there has never been a need for a method to ensure impartiality. The inequality stems from Locke's failure to realize that the discrepancy would become increasingly apparent as men used money to expand their possessions. This structure established two different types of classes within society, the higher-level citizens who share sovereign power and the second-class citizens.