1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
photoshop1234 [79]
3 years ago
8

John Locke believed that man without government was

History
1 answer:
anzhelika [568]3 years ago
8 0
The answer is D.

Locke Defended the claim that men are by nature free and equal against claims that God had made all people naturally subject to a monarch. Lock says that people have rights, such as the rate of life, liberty, and property that I have a foundation independent of the laws of any particular society. He also said that men are naturally free and equal as part of the justification for understanding legitimate political government as the result of a social contract or people in the state of nature conditionally transfer some of the rights to the government in order to better ensure the stable, comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property.
You might be interested in
Based on his New Deal plan, which of the following statements would Roosevelt MOST likely to agree with?
Sav [38]

Roosevelt's New Deal plans showed that he believed that <u>The </u><u>government </u><u>should </u><u>help </u><u>the </u><u>economy </u><u>without fully </u><u>controlling </u><u>it.</u>

<u />

<h3>The New Deal </h3>
  • Was championed by the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
  • Was meant to increase government spending in the economy to help the U.S. get out of the Great Depression.

Roosevelt believed that while the government should not control the economy entirely, it should act as a very important partner that would support it to be as best as it could be.

In conclusion, option C is correct.

Find out more on the New Deal at brainly.com/question/14642503.

8 0
2 years ago
What were the international implications of southern nationalism?
Zepler [3.9K]
This debate isn't merely historical. As could be gleaned from the flaps surrounding statements by Attorney General John Ashcroft and Interior Secretary Gale Norton during their confirmation periods, issues stemming from the Civil War go to the heart of many current political debates: What is the proper role of the federal government? Is a strong national government the best guarantor of rights against local despots? Or do state governments stand as a bulwark against federal tyranny? And just what rights are these governments to protect? Those of the individual or those of society? Such matters are far from settled.

So why was the Civil War fought? That seems a simple enough question to answer: Just look at what those fighting the war had to say. If we do that, the lines are clear. Southern leaders said they were fighting to preserve slavery. Abraham Lincoln said the North fought to preserve the Union, and later, to end slavery.

Some can't accept such simple answers. Among them is Charles Adams. Given Adams' other books, which include For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization and Those Dirty Rotten Taxes: The Tax Revolts that Built America, it isn't surprising that he sees the Civil War as a fight about taxes, specifically tariffs.

In When in the Course of Human Events, he argues that the war had nothing to do with slavery or union. Rather, it was entirely about tariffs, which the South hated. The tariff not only drove up the price of the manufactured goods that agrarian Southerners bought, it invited other countries to enact their own levies on Southern cotton. In this telling, Lincoln, and the North, wanted more than anything to raise tariffs, both to support a public works agenda and to protect Northern goods from competition with imports.

Openly partisan to the South, Adams believes that the Civil War truly was one of Northern aggression. He believes that the Southern states had the right to secede and he believes that the war's true legacy is the centralization of power in Washington and the deification of the "tyrant" Abraham Lincoln. To this end, he collects all the damaging evidence he can find against Lincoln and the North. And he omits things that might tarnish his image of the South as a small-government wonderland.

Thus, we hear of Lincoln's use of federal troops to make sure that Maryland didn't secede. We don't learn that Confederate troops occupied eastern Tennessee to keep it from splitting from the rest of the state. Adams tells us of Union Gen. William Sherman's actions against civilians, which he persuasively argues were war crimes. But he doesn't tell us of Confederate troops capturing free blacks in Pennsylvania and sending them south to slavery. Nor does he mention the Confederate policy of killing captured black Union soldiers. He tells us that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus; he doesn't mention that the Confederacy did also.

Adams argues that Lincoln's call to maintain the Union was at root a call to keep tariff revenues coming in from Southern ports. Lincoln, he notes, had vowed repeatedly during the 1860 presidential campaign that he would act to limit the spread of slavery to the West, but he would not move to end it in the South. Lincoln was firmly committed to an economic program of internal improvements -- building infrastructure, in modern terms -- that would be paid for through higher tariffs. When the first Southern states seceded just after Lincoln's election, Adams argues, it was to escape these higher taxes. Indeed, even before Lincoln took office, Congress -- minus representatives from rebel Southern states -- raised tariffs to an average of almost 47 percent, more than doubling the levy on most goods.

7 0
3 years ago
What was one consequence of the French and Indian war?
Ksivusya [100]

Hey there!

One reason people hate war is because it's extremely expensive. The British spent lots and lots of money on the war, so much that they eventually went into debt. After the war ended, they began to tax the colonies so that they could pay off their debt because they were in such a horrible financial situation! The French and Indian war really did lead to the American Revolution.

The best answer to put here as a direct consequence would be it put the British in a lot of debt.

I hope that this helps! Have a wonderful day!

5 0
3 years ago
American politics is based in competing interpretations of
kicyunya [14]

Answer: Constitution

Explanation:

6 0
3 years ago
Telescope is to astronomer as _______ is to biologist. Which word completes the analogy?
ahrayia [7]

Answer:

B. Microscope

This is because like a telescope is used by an astronomer, a biologist uses a microscope.

5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • As a United States citizen, the requirement to serve on juries if called upon is considered which of the following?
    6·2 answers
  • List any three taxes levied on the third estate
    12·1 answer
  • The Middle East has more than two-thirds of the world's
    7·1 answer
  • How did the Great War for empire change Britain's relationship with its colonies ?
    10·1 answer
  • Which roman government officials were in charge of enforcing the law
    7·2 answers
  • Who decides why a temple was built?<br> A.) historian<br> B.) archaeologist<br> C.) architect
    15·2 answers
  • Who was William Westmoreland?
    11·2 answers
  • What were the 3 monothesitic religions and where did they start, also what one was christopher columbus
    15·2 answers
  • When did George Washington Die?
    7·2 answers
  • during the first two years of the war, union forces were generally:group of answer choicesmore successful in the west than in th
    8·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!