B i think that should do it
This is a conflict of individual rights versus state protection. For some, the individual rights come first even if it is an attack on others or could put the country at risk. For others, the protection of the country is more important and therefore a person who speaks in a way that threatens the country should and can be silenced.
Schenck v. US is a famous case where the court ruled if the speech presents a danger to the country then the 1st Amendment right is not applicable and can be denied.
Tinker v. Des Moines School District demonstrated when a person peacefully protest even in a school against the government and their decisions (Vietnam War in this case), then the 1st Amendment is applied and the individual rights upheld.
<u>This portion of the text shows Hobbes supported an absolute ruler:</u>
- <em>Men are continually in competition for honour and dignity . . . and consequently amongst men there ariseth on that ground, envy, and hatred, and finally war. ... No wonder if there be somewhat else required, besides [contract], to make their agreement constant and lasting; which is a common power to keep them in awe and to direct their actions to the common benefit.
</em>
- <em>
The only way to erect such a common power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners, and the injuries of one another . . . is to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will.</em>
Further detail:
Thomas Hobbes published a famous work called Leviathan 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). Hobbes' view of the natural state of human beings without a government held that 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. And so people willingly enter a "social contract" in which they live under a government that provides stability and security for society.
The best known system is the French Ancien Régime (Old Regime), a three-estate system used until the French Revolution (1789–1799). Monarchy was for the king and the queen and this system was made up of clergy (the First Estate), nobles (the SecondEstate), and peasants and bourgeoisie(the Third Estate).
hope this helped! :)
Answer:
The first difference is that industrialization in the United States ocurred much earlier than in Japan, China, and Russia. The U.S. began to industrialize in the mid nineteenth century, while Japan industrialized in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, Russia industrialized in the early and mid twentieth century, and China industrialized in the mid and late twentieth century.
Another difference is that the United States industrialized under a market economy system, with low taxation, albeit, high tariffs. This is similar to the model that Japan used to industrialize.
Russia and China did something different. Russia, when it was part of the Soviet Union, industrialized under a planned socialist economy, where the government controlled all enterprises.
China used a mixed strategy, in which state control and economic planning was combined with private investment in some sectors, and in specific geographic locations.
