Hello. You did not present the answer options, which makes it impossible for your question to be answered accurately.
However, we can say that the biggest elements that exist in a market economy, but do not exist in a capitalist system is the production of goods and services determined by the concepts of demand and supply. This is because in the market economy, the production of goods and services is determined by these two elements, whereas in the communist system, this production is determined by the government.
The system of feudalism needed a lot of workers, who were tied to the land, and had to deliver a part of their harvest to their lords. The farmers generally had a poor life and struggled to make enough both for themselves and for the lords, but the lords benefited from this, as they had many farmers paying them a part of their harvest
Before the plague, the land was scarce, but people plenty, which meant that the farmers could not set conditions on their work. After the plague the number of farmers decreased, and there was a lot of work needed, so the farmers could search for a different place to work, if the feudal lords were demanding too much,.
In America, in order to become a citizen, the person has to either be born or naturalized in the country of the United States. A non-citizen; however, is anyone from a different country that does not owe allegiance to the U.S.
There are two ways by which a person can become a U.S citizen by birth: Jus Solis and Jus Sanguinis. Jus Solis is when a person has the right to citizenship for being born in the State or territories. Jus Sanguinis is the right to citizenship when the person has at least one American parent.
Naturalization is the legal process by which non-natives become American citizens. A person who is not a citizen, but wants to become one, has to meet the requirements and go through the U.S naturalization process.
Answer:
What follows is a bill of indictment. Several of these items end up in the Bill of Rights. Others are addressed by the form of the government established—first by the Articles of Confederation, and ultimately by the Constitution.
The assumption of natural rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence can be summed up by the following proposition: “First comes rights, then comes government.” According to this view: (1) the rights of individuals do not originate with any government, but preexist its formation; (2) the protection of these rights is the first duty of government; and (3) even after government is formed, these rights provide a standard by which its performance is measured and, in extreme cases, its systemic failure to protect rights—or its systematic violation of rights—can justify its alteration or abolition; (4) at least some of these rights are so fundamental that they are “inalienable,” meaning they are so intimately connected to one’s nature as a human being that they cannot be transferred to another even if one consents to do so. This is powerful stuff.
At the Founding, these ideas were considered so true as to be self-evident. However, today the idea of natural rights is obscure and controversial. Oftentimes, when the idea comes up, it is deemed to be archaic. Moreover, the discussion by many of natural rights, as reflected in the Declaration’s claim that such rights “are endowed by their Creator,” leads many to characterize natural rights as religiously based rather than secular. As I explain in The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law, I believe his is a mistake.
