All of these are defensible. Of course debt rises in war, and decreasing taxes will benefit an economy where taxes are no longer needed (post-scarcity.) Political and geographical boundaries are outmoded and a world without them is not only possible but existed for much of early human civilization. As for the government, a government would run more efficiently when everyone is in basic agreement with what to do and how.
I would question your teacher on this. Anyone can defend these perspectives...
Answer:
There are several things that the people do during the French revolution that might be looked down upon today. Even though most people who live at that time period will see them as justifiable.
Examples:
- Many of the nobles who were deemed as responsible for the bad situation in France were tortured before they're killed.
- Many of the revolters believed that they should ended the Nobles' line of heritage. They feared that in the future, the children will initiate a revenge and took back the power. Because of this, many of Noble's children were also executed.
Aung San Suu Kyi is considered to be a very brave human being because <u>she </u><u>stood </u><u>against the </u><u>military dictatorship </u><u>of </u><u>Myanmar</u><u>. </u>
<h3>Aung San Suu Kyi </h3>
- Opposed the military government of Myanmar.
- Became part of the civilian government of Myanmar.
Aung San Suu Kyi braved arrest, detention, and death threats from the military to keep struggling against them all the while calling for nonviolent protests.
In conclusion, Aung San Suu Kyi can be said to be very courageous because she refused to back down and yet never called for violence.
Find out more on Aung San Suu Kyi at brainly.com/question/1253510.
