its how you want to keep your money there
SO i think its A
if it is wrong i am so so so so sorry
It is morally impermissible to treat people differently unless there are factual differences between them.
Factual differences. The possibility that the facts with respect to which this Agreement is entered into may differ from the facts that each Party currently knows or believes to be true is recognized and accepted by each of the Parties. The Parties concur that any such discrepancies in reality will not cause the termination or revocation of this Agreement, which shall remain in full force and effect.
If there is a disagreement regarding the interpretation, application, operation, or any alleged violation of the Agreement between the Employer and any employee(s), or between the Employer and the Union, the employee(s) shall continue to work in accordance with the Agreement until the disagreement is resolved.
Learn more about Factual differences here
brainly.com/question/21864490
#SPJ4
Answer:
B.
Explanation:
Mobilizing the economy for world war finally cured the depression. Millions of men and women joined the armed forces, and even larger numbers went to work in well-paying defense jobs. World War Two affected the world and the United States profoundly; it continues to influence us even today.
Belgium lead Europe in adopting industrialization because it had rich deposits of iron and good water transport.
Before Industrial Revolution started, Belgium enjoyed a vibrant trading tradition for many years. Its textile production flourished in Flanders, its iron processing flourished in Walloon, and there was a large coal reserves in the south and east part of the country. With those available resources, the Industrial Revolution in Europe started in Belgium.
Industrialization is a process of developing machines for the production of goods. It requires naturals resources such as water, iron ore, rivers for transportation, and harbors.
There is no objective answer to this question, as both sides have arguments that support their views.
If you believe that you are bound by Hobbes' argument, it is because of tacit consent. Tacit consent means that, even though you have not explicitly agreed to follow laws, you have indicated your agreement through other means, for example, by using the public services of the government or by remaining within the limits of your country. Also, you could argue that any rational person would prefer to follow the rules of the government than to live in the state of nature. Therefore, if you are rational, your consent is assumed. Finally, you could also argue that while you did not explicitly agreed, maybe your ancestors did, which still binds you as a member of the same society.
On the other hand, if you believe that you are not bound by Hobbes' argument, you could argue that any contract that is not freely agreed upon is not valid. As the government uses force to make you act according to the law, you cannot be considered to be freely consenting. Also, you can argue that agreeing to follow some rules does not imply following <em>all</em> of the laws of the country. Finally, a common argument against Hobbes is the lack of empirical data. As we do not know if the state of nature is actually bad, or if the contract ever happened, the government cannot gain its legitimacy in that way.
