Answer:
d) redistributive taxation is unjust unless it remedies some past injustice
Explanation:
Rawls and Nozick were two American Philosophers, who took stand for inequality and injustice in U.S.
They both oppose the progressive system, which favors increase of tax as a share of the base size increases.
According to Rawls and Nozick, redistributive taxation should provide benefit to the people who have faced injustice in past through any mechanism such as schools, direct transfer, health care or other program that improve prospects of the poorest and injustice people.
Hence, the correct answer is d.
Answer:
hunting is not legal but we need to make sure that most animals don't
go extinct but when the growth goes up we need to size down them
Explanation:
Answer:
school rules are similar to federal laws because they both (try) to restrict people from doing harmful or bad things. A typical American high school with out rules, or any consequences for breaking them would be anarchy. Kids could bully one another, fight each other, ruin school property with spray paint, fire, etc. They also might not do their homework, or school work in general. It depends on the kid with out rules. Some kids might go crazy, some kids might stay calm and collected.
Answer: the answer is 3
Explanation:
When you lose your license you get a certain amount of points added, and the more points you have the harder it is to keep your license. once you lose your license with a certain amount of points you cant get it back
Answer:
Mainly, the greatest benefit of solving problems outside the judicial system is the cost, since every judicial process necessarily entails a high cost, both in taxes, costs, fees, etc. In addition, the resolution time is much longer, since it involves a whole series of procedural steps that necessarily imply a passage in time, which can be avoided through an alternative resolution of conflicts.
Those means of alternative dispute resolution include, among others, mediation and arbitration. Mediation, on the one hand, involves a series of meetings between the parties in conflict, with the assistance of a specialist, the mediator, who seeks to bring the parties closer together and achieve the resolution of the dispute. On the other hand, arbitration implies that the parties in conflict abide by the solution proposed by an impartial third party, the arbitrator, who will decide according to the rules of law or equity, as appropriate.
