Field focuses on the role in political theory of the concept of potentia of the people—power understood as the informal, natural power of the people—as distinct from potestas understood as the formal arrangement of power under the constitution of a given state. In a close analysis of the arguments of Hobbes and Spinoza on popular power and sovereignty, the book critiques democratic interpretations of both theories. While correct about that, the book neglects fundamental dissimilarities in their views of popular power. Of profound importance is the meaning of the concept “multitude”: unlike Hobbes, Spinoza distinguishes between the great mass of individuals and “the wise,” seeing the “multitude” as encompassing most kings. Also, there is a great gulf between their understandings of the “common good.” For Spinoza, obedience to the sovereign, Hobbes’s desideratum, is only compatible with freedom in the context of a state directed to the common good.

Field 侧重于政治理论中人民的潜力（权力被理解为人民的非正式的、自然的权力）这一概念在政治理论中的作用，与potestas 不同理解为特定国家宪法下的正式权力安排。在仔细分析霍布斯和斯宾诺莎关于人民权力和主权的论点时，这本书批评了对这两种理论的民主解释。虽然这一点是正确的，但这本书忽略了他们对流行权力的看法的根本差异。“多数”概念的含义极为重要：与霍布斯不同，斯宾诺莎区分了大量个人和“智者”，将“多数”视为包括大多数国王。此外，他们对“共同利益”的理解也存在巨大鸿沟。对斯宾诺莎来说，服从主权者，即霍布斯的愿望，只有在一个面向公共利益的国家的背景下才能与自由相容。