Both English philosophers, Hobbes and Locke, believed there is a "social contract" -- that governments are formed by the will of the people. But their theories on why people want to live under governments were very different.
Thomas Hobbes published his political theory in <em>Leviathan</em> in 1651, following the chaos and destruction of the English Civil War. He saw human beings as naturally suspicious of one another, in competition with each other, and evil toward one another as a result. Forming a government meant giving up personal liberty, but gaining security against what would otherwise be a situation of every person at war with every other person.
John Locke published his <em>Two Treatises on Civil Government</em> in 1690, following the mostly peaceful transition of government power that was the Glorious Revolution in England. Locke believed people are born as blank slates--with no preexisting knowledge or moral leanings. Experience then guides them to the knowledge and the best form of life, and they choose to form governments to make life and society better.
In teaching about Hobbes and Locke, I've often described the difference between them in this way. If society were playground basketball, Hobbes believed you must have a referee who sets and enforces rules, or else the players will eventually get into heated arguments and bloody fights with one another, because people get nasty in competition that way. Locke believed you could have an enjoyable game of playground basketball without a referee, but a referee makes the game better because then any disputes that come up between players have a fair way of being resolved. Of course, Hobbes and Locke never actually wrote about basketball -- a game not invented until 1891 in America by James Naismith. But it's just an illustration I've used to try to show the difference of ideas between Hobbes and Locke. :-)
Answer:
No
Explanation:
The 1812 war was started from America invading Canada which at the time was ruled by Great Britain at the time.
The 13th Amendment<span> to the United States Constitution is </span>important<span> because it abolished slavery in all American states. hope this helped! :)</span>
Many individuals, such as women, men, and African Americans, debated all sides of the continuum of Modernism vs. Fundamentalism in the 1920s, whether it was by authority or self-expression. In wearing short skirts, listening to jazz, bobbing their hair, which stressed self-expression during this time of the Jazz Era women like Flappers went against the traditional feminine norms. In other words, the Jazz Era called for the revolt of young Americans against many of these fundamentalist policies. The Harlem Renaissance, for instance, shows the rise of modernist philosophy in Harlem within the African American community, which was full of self-expression and reflected black culture and experience, which helped to create a position for themselves in high Western culture. Ideologies like Garveyism set the stage for the culture of African America and see their black colour as a gift rather than a gift. In the pursuit of revolt and distinctive self-expression, movements such as the Harlem Revival of 1920 and the Jazz Era of 1920 went against societal standards rather than what was supposed to be articulated by fundamentalism.
I hope this helps!
here several things that fruit merchants and the u.s. foreign-policy makers have in common:
They both participated in economic imperialism.
They both wanted to control the market they were in, to be the exclusive provider of product/policy.
They both used economic power to spread US influence abroad.
All of the thins above,were being done in order to obtain the maximum profit for themselves from all of their operations
