Answer:
economic rights
Explanation:
because people can be free and do whatever they want if they follow the law
Answer:
did u find the awanser yet?? if not lmk
Explanation:
The best answer is "was not part of the Eastern Bloc",
although this answer is misleading.
Yugoslavia was indeed part of the Eastern Bloc in the sense that it was an Eastern European communist country, but it was the only one that did not align itself with the USSR after 1948. It also did no ally with the United States, choosing non-alignment instead.
This answer is the best answer simply because it is less false than the other answers, which are completely wrong. Yugoslavia never joined the USSR, choosing to split from Stalin in 1948, and never became a satellite nation of the US, and isn't located anywhere near the Baltic.
That's an interpretive question that would ask us to get inside the mind of Lincoln from a distance a century and a half away. We do know that Lincoln long had moral and political objections to slavery. He had outlined some of those thoughts in a speech given in Peoria, Illinois, in 1854. But Lincoln's views on what to do about slavery were something that took shape over time. In the Peoria speech, he suggested that perhaps slaves should be freed in order to be returned to Africa. But as the conflict over slavery grew and the Civil War became a reality, Lincoln became firmer in seeing this as a struggle not just over preserving the Union but also a battle for human dignity and the principle of equality. And so in the Gettysburg Address, in 1863, he affirmed the principle stated by the Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal. The massive number of casualties at the Battle of Gettysburg certainly gave impetus to Lincoln's words about preserving the Union and government of the people, by the people and for the people. But those ideas had been central to Lincoln's worldview before Gettysburg as well as in that speech.
In his Politics, Aristotle divides government into 6 kinds, 3 good and 3 bad. The good forms are monarchy, aristocracy, and polity, while the bad forms are tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy. Each of the good forms has the possibility of turning into its bad form - i.e., monarchy into tyranny, aristocracy into oligarchy.
Seeing that democracy is listed in the "bad camp", people automatically assume that Aristotle was anti-democratic. But this is an over-simplification.
By democracy, Aristotle really means mob rule. Polity corresponds more to what we'd think of as modern democracy - a stable, orderly institution that represents and protects the people. For instance, polity is what existed in Athens during its Golden Age. Aristotle didn't oppose this by any means.
Indeed, unlike his teacher Plato, who sought to create an ideal model of the state ruled by philosopher-kings, Aristotle thought that the best form of government was determined by the situation. For a virtuous people, polity could very well be the best form of government; for a subservient people (and Aristotle believed that such people existed), monarchy or tyranny might be the natural state of affairs.
