This is a very philosophical question, so it requires your own opinions and reasoning. I will help as much as I can for you to develop your thoughts, but I cannot write them for you.
One of the most important things for you to reference in question two is the natural state of man. How was it like? Are we peaceful and individualistic, as John Locke states in <em>Two Treatise of Government</em>, or are humans selfish and natural life would be "nasty, brutish, and short" as Nicolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes state in <em>The Prince </em>and <em>The Leviathan </em>(respective titles)? Why is this so?
These philosophers also give a reason as to why government is necessary for humankind. For Locke, it is to protect the people from larger threats. For Hobbes, it is to make man civilized. For Machiavelli, it is for a leader to align their self-interest with those of the people and make a prosperous community.
If you need any more help, ask me! I hope this helps :)
Washington DC was made the nation's capital after a backroom compromise deal was made for Madison, a Virginia, to get Alexander Hamilton, of New York, the votes he needed to pass a bill wherein the Federal government would subsume the various war debt of the colonies in return for the capital being moved out of the north.
Answer:
between 7,000 and 10,000 years ago, during the Neolithic era, or the New Stone Age.
Explanation:
<span>In the mayor council government, the city council is the legislative body, while the mayor is the city's chief executive officer. In this government they have a weak mayor plan, which limits the power of the mayor and gives more power to the city council, and the strong-mayor plan, which gives more power to the mayor and less to the city council. In this type of government city council members and mayors are usually elected. The council-manager government is a commission with a city manager. Voters elect a city council. The council then appoints a city manager. The city manager then appoints the heads of city departments. They are the same because in both they elect a city council.
</span>I hope this helps, if you have any questions about this, feel free to ask. If it is no trouble, would you also be so kind as to mark this response as the brainliest?
This question is incomplete, here´s the complete question.
It is only in the past few years that women in the armed services of the United States have been permitted to be active combatants in a battlefield setting. While this has taken place over a number of years and has evolved for a variety of reasons, it is also reasonable to suggest that it has happened in part because of:
a. increased militarization worldwide.
b. greater global threat levels.
c. increased terrorist activity.
d. a shortage of qualified male soldiers.
Answer: a. increased militarization worldwide.
Explanation:
Women have been allowed to serve as an official part of the U.S. military in noncombat positions after Congress founded the Army Nurse Corps (1901). Women were also radio operators, logistical personnel and even helicopter pilots and tank technicians.
Increased militarization worldwide has expanded the United State´s female participation in combat since the early 1990s, when women were allowed to work in aviation and naval combat, and especially since 2016, when they were allowed to work all ground combat jobs.