Answer:
The two answers are Peru and Venezuela
In his Politics, Aristotle divides government into 6 kinds, 3 good and 3 bad. The good forms are monarchy, aristocracy, and polity, while the bad forms are tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy. Each of the good forms has the possibility of turning into its bad form - i.e., monarchy into tyranny, aristocracy into oligarchy.
Seeing that democracy is listed in the "bad camp", people automatically assume that Aristotle was anti-democratic. But this is an over-simplification.
By democracy, Aristotle really means mob rule. Polity corresponds more to what we'd think of as modern democracy - a stable, orderly institution that represents and protects the people. For instance, polity is what existed in Athens during its Golden Age. Aristotle didn't oppose this by any means.
Indeed, unlike his teacher Plato, who sought to create an ideal model of the state ruled by philosopher-kings, Aristotle thought that the best form of government was determined by the situation. For a virtuous people, polity could very well be the best form of government; for a subservient people (and Aristotle believed that such people existed), monarchy or tyranny might be the natural state of affairs.
The first inhabitants of present-day South Carolina likely arrived about 11,000–12,000 years ago. Hunting and gathering typified their first 10 millennia, but they developed agriculture about 1000 BCE.
Explanation:
This'll make it easy : https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/topics/zqhyb9q/articles/zkb86v4
Adam Smith (1723 – 1790) was a Scottish economist. He was deeply critical of Christianity because of his own observation of hypocrisy within Protestantism.
In 1759, Smith published The Theory of Moral Sentiments, which established Smith’s reputation in his own days, is concerned with the explanation of moral approval and disapproval. He based his explanation on sympathy as a fundamental human motive.
In 1776, he published The Wealth of Nations that became the foundation of modern economics.
There has been considerable controversy as how far there is contradiction between Smith’s emphasis on sympathy in his <em>Theory of Moral Sentiments</em> and the key role of self- interest in <em>The Wealth of Nations</em>.
Smith’s idea of letting an economy without government intervention, called today Laissez faire was not about the government granting special economic privileges to powerful manufacturers and merchants. Mercantile monopolists and their allies in Parliament today, are the great enemies of Smith’s “free market mechanism”.
