Answer:
1)Considering major new infrastructure and arranging best possible transport coordination. Managing waste disposal, maintaining green belt, managing housing development, implementing green building code, best use of laws, implementation of zoning laws, etc.
2)Good jobs in rural areas, more clean energy, fighting deforestation and climate change, tax revenue and payments to developing countries. These are some examples of the various development impacts that are generated by the companies Finnfund finances.
<h2>
Please mark me as brainliest</h2>
Answer:
All The Above
Explanation:
Articles of confederation initially made to create a form of government that give the power to the local rather than central government. At that time, we just got our freedom from the British Empire and the founding fathers swore to create a government that does not give power to small groups of nobles such as the monarchy.
So huge responsibilities such as Taxing citizens and Regulate trade was given to the states rather than the national government.
'Require states to contribute money to the national government
' ,and could 'not Pass a law unless nine of the 13 states agreed' also made as a form of protection to the states. This rule was created to make sure that the national government could not coerce the states to conform to their will.
Angela's. I'm pretty sure that's what the answer is.
The question asks, "What is YOUR philosophy?" I can't really tell you what YOU should think ... but I can present for you the ideas of a couple different political philosophers who took opposing stands on the issue.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were both English philosophers who wrote during the 17th century.
Hobbes published a famous work called <em>Leviathan </em>in 1651. The title "Leviathan" comes from a biblical word for a great and mighty beast. Hobbes believed government is formed by people for the sake of their personal security and stability in society. In Hobbes view, once the people put a king (or other leader in power), then that leader needs to have supreme power (like a great and mighty beast). The people are too divided and too volatile as individuals -- everyone looking out for his own interests. So for security and stability, authority and the power of the law needs to be in the hands of a powerful ruler like a king or queen. That was Hobbes' view.
John Locke famously published <em>Two Treatises on Civil Government </em>in 1690. According to Locke's view, a government's power to govern comes from the consent of the people themselves -- those who are to be governed. This was a change from the previous ideas of "divine right monarchy" -- that a king ruled because God appointed him to be the ruler. Locke repudiated the views of divine right monarchy in his <em>First Treatise on Civil Government. </em> In his <em>Second Treatise on Civil Government, </em> Locke argued for the rights of the people to create their own governments according to their own desires and for the sake of protecting their own life, liberty, and property. Locke always favored the people remaining in charge, and asserted that the people have the power to change their government and remove government leaders if the government is not properly serving the needs and well-being of the people.
As you write your own answer to this question for your class, you will want to decide, perhaps, if you agree more with Hobbes, that security and stability are most important ... or with Locke, that the authority and liberty of the people are always paramount.
