Answer: He hoped to find routes to Africa.
Explanation: Price Henry of Portugal sponsored voyages of discovery because he hoped to find a route to Africa. He wanted to trade with Africans. He was fondly called the “Navigator”, he never went on any of the voyages he sponsored. He colonizers island groups such as the Azores and Madeira. He was a 15th century Portuguese prince who helped originate the age of discovery and the Atlantic slave trade. He founded colonies that are previously unknown to the Europeans.
Answer:
Akbar
Explanation:
Humayun's son Akbar remembered as the greatest of all Mughal emperors. When Akbar came to the throne, he inherited a shrunken empire, not extending much beyond the Punjab and the area around Delhi.
As I understand it, Laissez-faire ideology maintains that the "free market" is the best way to determine what businesses can and should do. This means that businesses, in competition with one another, should be free to determine their paths free from any government rules or regulations. The belief is that the competition among various businesses will ultimately result in the best outcomes for society in general - Adam Smith's "invisible hand". As part of this philosophy, workers should also be free to compete with each other and choose to work wherever they wish and this process will also result in the best results for the workers as well.
However, isn't there a huge assumption in this philosophy? Doesn't the whole justification of this belief depends on the condition that there is perfect competition and that any company and any worker have the equal ability to compete with one another?
What if there is no perfect competition? What if some companies have advantages - due to any of a whole array of reasons - that place them in a non-competitive position vis a vis their competitors? Without perfect competition then other companies are not necessarily able to compete with other companies that have certain advantages. If such a situation exists, then advantaged companies may have the ability to pursue a course that results in their private benefit, but not necessarily to the benefit of society as a whole. The same would apply to workers in that reduced competition among companies would result in decreased leverage for potential employees.
To recap, if the Laissez-faire ideology maintains the best economic policy for society as a whole, and it depends on there being perfect competition on an ongoing basis with minimal government intervention, doesn't it fall apart if there is less than the perfect competition?
First Question Answer:
<span>1) All citizens had the right to equal treatment under law.
2) A person was considered innocent until proven guilty.
3) The burden of proof rested with the accuser rather than the accused.
4) Any law that seemed unreasonable or grossly unfair could be set aside
</span>
I believe the answer is religion
