Its becuase people of some countries wanted that each and every person of that country should be equal, as they wanted that each and every person, whether a foreigner or born in that country if wanted to be a citizen of that country, they should be. And especially because in ancient times, the usefulness and strength of woman was not being recognised by people, and many people had the wrong idea that men are superior to women and should always be discriminated...this was also the condition with the unequality on the basis of the ranks of people and the property they owned. the rich people were always supported, the middle class people,were dicriminated little, but weren't recognised even though they were great minds, and the poor people were highly dicriminated. So, many countries adopted democracy.
i hope i helped..
Answer:
Personal family system
Explanation:
A family in which parents and children all participate in negotiations as to where to go on vacation, what college the child will go to, how to handle family holidays, and other decisions is operating under personal type of family system where parents and children all participate in negotiations of everything they do such as where to go on vacation, what college the child will go to, how to handle family holidays, and other decisions.
Answer:
Ethically , a manager should follow the same ethical principles as everyone else: honesty, integrity, respecting other people, but as managers have a great degree of responsability, they should be more careful in keeping those principles.
Socially, managers and companies have the responsability of adding a benefit to society. Not only through the sale of goods and services at a reasonable price (which benefits consumers and society as a whole), but also through charitable actions that help society.
As a CEO of an organic food enterprise, Andy Berliner is being socially responsible because he is offering a good that is of high quality, enviromentally sustainable, and most likely healthy.
Answer: Dissenting Opinion
-----
Usually when decision is written, justices can write a concurring opinion if they would like to add something to the decision or if they agree with the decision, but disagrees with the reasoning. On the other hand, if they do not agree with the majority (aka the decision), they can write a dissenting opinion.
