It was Hurricane Katrina that devastated New Orleans.
Answer:
A monopoly is complete domination over an industry. Ex. Rockefeller, Carnegie, etc.
Explanation:
When monopolies exist, competion is usually low because they can use vertical/horizontal integration and other methods many may consider "unethical"
<span>-in a report, called "Instances of the Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad 1798-1945", 103 interventions in the affairs of other countries between 1798 and 1895 were cited
-expansionism was increasingly encouraged by the millionaire press, the military, the gov't, the eager-to-please scholars of the time
-ideology of expansion was widespread in the upper circles of military men, politicians, businessmen, and among some of the leaders of farmers' movements who though foreign markets would help them.</span>
I would say that the probable order of the cartographic events would be 1) a first attempt at a world map in the 5th and 6th centuries 2) the travels of Marco Polo 3) the Mercator projection in the mid 1500's and finally the 4) Robinson projection in 1963.
The writings of Jean Bodin provides us with an early theorisation of the idea of sovereignty even though the examples he uses are quite extensive. Essential to Bodin's notion of sovereignty is that the power the sovereign holds must be absolute and permanent. If a ruler holds absolute power for the duration of his life he can be said to be sovereign. In contrast, an elected official or some other person that holds limited powers can not be described to be sovereign. Although at times Bodin suggests that the people are sovereign, his definition of sovereignty as absolute, unlimited and enduring power points purposively towards a positive association of sovereignty and a singular monarchical, or even tyrannical, power.
Another qualification that Bodin introduces into the definition of sovereignty as absolute and perpetual is one that will become increasingly important in subsequent theorisations, culminating in the work of Carl Schmitt. For Bodin, a sovereign prince is one who is exempt from obedience to the laws of his predecessors and more importantly, those issued by himself. Sovereignty rests in being above, beyond or excepted from the law. Although it occupies a subordinate place in Bodin's theorisation, it could be said that this exception from being subject to the law is the quintessential condition of sovereignty in so far as it is understood politically.
Although for Bodin sovereignty is characterised by absolute and perpetual power he goes on to make a series of important qualifications to this concept. These come from two principle concerns. The first is real politics - Bodin seems to be aware that absolute power could licence behaviour injurious to sovereign authority. Hence for example a sovereign cannot and should not confiscate property nor break contractual agreements made with other sovereigns, estates nor private persons. The second reason is Bodin's underlying theological notion of divine authority and natural law. A sovereign may put aside civil law, but he must not question natural law (in which it appears right of property is sanctioned). Saying this, it is ultimately from this divine authority that the earthly right of sovereign power is legitimated. The prince literary does god's bidding, and yet by virtue of this can do wrong. Hopefully this helps out some :)
