Answer:
The Federal Government expanded and it virtually nationalized the ocean's shipping industry. It did nationalize the railroad, telephone, telegraph, and international telegraphic industries. It also became more deeply engaged in manipulating labor-management, sales, production and marketing, distribution of coal and oil, Also International Commerce.
This excerpt from the Anti-Federalist Papers clearly represents the arguments as to why a bill of rights is necessary. This excerpt outlines how a federal government with too much control can result in no individual liberties for citizens. Along with this, it also outlines how too weak a federal government results in an ineffective government. This is why the author of this excerpt favors a bill of rights, as this will clearly outline the rights of citizens while also allowing for the federal government to have enough power to provide protection for these citizens without taking away their liberties.
Answer:
These are some of the reasons for why the American Revolution exists Hope this gives you some ideas :)) !!
Explanation:
The Stamp Act (March 1765)
The Townshend Acts (June-July 1767)
The Boston Massacre (March 1770)
The Boston Tea Party (December 1773)
The Coercive Acts (March-June 1774)
Lexington and Concord (April 1775)
Answer:
...“The father of modern economics supported a limited role for government. Mark Skousen writes in "The Making of Modern Economics", Adam Smith believed that, "Government should limit its activities to administer justice, enforcing private property rights, and defending the nation against aggression." The point is that the farther a government gets away from this limited role, the more that government strays from the ideal path... How this issue is handled will decide whether the country can more closely follow Adam Smith's prescription for growth and wealth creation or move farther away from it.”
Jacob Viner addressed the laissez-faire attribution to Adam Smith in 1928...
Here is a list of appropriate activities for government, which goes way, way beyond Mark Skousen’s extremely limited – and vague – 'ideal' government. That ... he goes on to attribute his ‘ideal’ list to Adam Smith ... is not alright.In fact, its downright deceitful, for which there is no excuse of ignorance (before attributing the limited ideal to Adam Smith we assume, as scholars must, that Skousen read Wealth Of Nations and noted what Smith actually identified as the appropriate roles of government in the mid-18th century).
