In these and the like cases, when the government is dissolved, the people are at liberty to provide for themselves, by erecting a new legislative, differing from the other, by the change of persons, or form, or both,  as they shall find it most for their safety and good: for the society can never, by the fault of another, lose the native and original right it has to preserve itself, which can only be done by a settled legislative, and a fair and impartial execution of the laws made by it. But the state of mankind is not so miserable that they are not capable of using this remedy, till it be too late to look for any. To tell people they may provide for themselves, by erecting a new legislative, when by oppression, artifice, or being delivered over to a foreign power, their old one is gone, is only to tell them, they may expect relief when it is too late, and the evil is past cure. This is in effect no more than to bid them first be slaves, and then to take care of their liberty; and when their chains are on, tell them, they may act like freemen. This, if barely so, is rather mockery than relief; and men can never be secure from tyranny, if there be no means to escape it till they are perfectly under it: and therefore it is, that they have not only a right to get out of it, but to prevent it.
The Basil edition (1549), contains merely the translation into Latin, of the Greek text of this work of Hippocrates. That of Venice, (8th, 1609,) has three commentaries of Galen thereon, translated by M. Alatinus, a Jewish physician, which supplies the want of the Basil edition, and which it acknowledges by saying, “Galeni commentaria desiderantur.” Having, however, pursued the order of arrangement in the edition of Basil, I have not adverted to these commentaries, farther than to notice where they may be found; and especially as I have in the abstract of Hippocrates’ writings given the translation of this book of his. I merely remark, that the first commentary is on the part that treats of the variation of the air, and diversity of situations, arising from the direction of the winds in different places; the second treats of the waters, their nature, and influence on the temperaments in different bodies, and according to their respective character; and the third, the salubrity or insalubrity of different seasons; and how the of the air and condition of the heavens influence the nature of the human body; and how it is affected by the influence of society, according to age, sex, temperament, and season, &c. A variety of other topics are incidentally treated of, some of which are of a singular character, connected with the Scythians and their habits of life, &c.
John Locke On The Question Of The Legality Of Marijuana Use
This outline of Locke's theory of property and the relationship to the origin of government conceals a plethora of difficulties. Almost anyone who has taken the trouble to study carefully Locke's theory of property comes away with a great sense of puzzlement. The exposition seems fraught with inconsistencies and partially explained ideas. Locke seems to raise more problems than he solves and one cannot help but wonder not only what Locke meant to say, but also what he actually said. The problems are by no means trivial ones. The kinds of questions Locke scholars try to answer are some of the most profound in political philosophy: Did Locke believe in natural law? What were the characteristics of the state of nature where men were presumed to live without government? Was it peaceful or chaotic, poverty stricken or comfortable? The answer to these questions implies a view of the contribution of government to human welfare. How much property did Locke think any one individual was entitled to own? Did he approve of acquisitive behavior? Why should men be willing to trade their natural freedom for the restrictions of civil society? Once they do, what is the status of property in civil society? Each of these questions appears to have conflicting answers in the text of Locke's Two Treatises.