The "intro" answer is the aristocrats but it's problematic. For one thing, the concept of classes is sort of misapplied. The medieval/enlightenment era society in Europe consisted of estates, as the industrial revolution had not regimented everyone into a working class, or an organized class, or, what is the same, a soldier class. So the bourgeois, or merchant class, was in the same "estate" as everyone else in the Third Estate. The first estate was clergy, second was nobility, and Third was "everyone else."
At the outset of the 18th century France had inherited a lot of taxes and debts from English wars. The taxes were killing the peasantry, the third estate. There was no unified tax code, and taxes varied everywhere. There were arbitrary taxes on everything, such as road tolls, the "taille," and the corvee. The corvee was an indirect tax, since it was a requirement for forced labor that took farmers from their own land right when they were needed, in order to work the seigneur's land at harvest time. This is only a small part of the hardship the peasants faced. There were bread riots and even a "Flour War." So the aristocrats were the first to be in danger from the revolution.
However, the Red Terror is called a "Terror" because everyone was hunted and murdered. There is a death toll of some 20,000 people over the course of a year. So it's clear from the numbers that they were not all nobles. Those guillotines were going, ka-chunk, ka-chunk, 24/7. What happened is this.
Several aristocrats supported the popular uprising. The revolutionaries were genuinely sympathetic to the plight of the week and the poor and wanted to do something. Some, I'm sure, sides with the revolutionaries partly because they were smart enough to see the potential for increasing their own power, by eliminating the competition; and thus would have sided with the Jacobins out of self-preservation.
So you get these guys like Duc d'Orleans, Herbert Seychelles, and Saint-Just. When the rebels took control of the government, they formed a ruling body called the Committee of Public Safety, and there were just as many aristocrats as any one else on the committee, which numbered 12. These new rulers started seeing plots against freedom everywhere, and they became the worst threat to freedom themselves as they formed Revolutionary Army which terrorized the countryside. Euphemistically named "Representatives of the People," who were just members of the CPS, traveled to country town and village and mass-murdered people. The peasants hated them. They had killed the King in a Catholic country, so the peasants resisted them. To the peasants, they were terrorists and regicides who brought the full force of the state against them when all they wanted was to be free.
Lyons and the Vendemeer are conspicuous examples. One working-class member of the CPS, named Collot, went to Lyons and exacted personal revenge on the townspeople. The Vendemeer was a huge slaughter, and here, as in other places, the peasants were forced to live in the woods. Meanwhile, the Constitution was a joke. It's a famous phrase, "the Constitution is suspended until there is peace." Just a total sham.
Nobody was safe. They passed a law called 22 Prairial, which fast tracked executions: no due process, the trials were a sham, and accusation amounted to a death sentence. And some of these deaths were drownings. Families would be stripped naked, tied together, and pushed off boats in what we're called "Republican marriages."
Happy ending: Robespierre and another member of the CPS, Couthon, were upstairs in the palace called the Tuileries with Robespierre's brother, Augustin, when guards burst through the door to arrest them. They fully showed consciousness of guilt, too--as if mocking the people they were killing and mocking the idea of self rule by calling forced drownings "Republican marriages" didn't show it enough-- because they tried to escape. Couthon fell down the stairs. Augustin tried to jump out the window and was stopped. And Maximilien tried to shoot himself. It is not clear what happened, but a guard named Merdà shot at the same time, and one or the other bullets went into his jaw. The next day they all had nice gruesome, painful, degrading deaths at the guillotine.
Who really was Andrew Jackson? Most people know that he was a United States president and a war commander. However, he was much more than that. He was a self-made man that didn't come from money or power. He was a major slave owner. Also, he and his brothers were in poverty when they were younger. He was a lawyer in Nashville, Tennessee. Jackson made inadequate choices during his presidency. In my opinion, Andrew Jackson was a far bigger hero than a villain.<span> </span>
For the communist powers, the end of colonialism was an effective strategy for undermining the Western alliance and its historic control over the international political economy. Decolonization was integral to the cold war confrontation and the struggle for ideological supremacy in the wider world.
A presidential government is based on the relationship between the legislative power and the executive.
The presidential system or presidential system is a form of government in which, once a Republic is constituted, the Constitution establishes a division of powers between the executive power, the legislative power, the judiciary, and the head of state, in addition to holding representation formally of the country, is also an active part of the executive power, as Head of Government, thus exercising a dual function, because he has the powers of the Government, being elected directly by the voters and not by Congress or Parliament.
The president is the body that holds the executive power, while the legislative power usually concentrates the congress, without prejudice to the powers that the president has in legislative matters.
Throughout the clarification segment elsewhere here, the definition including its concern is mentioned.
Explanation:
Through me, the demand for amounts of unhealthy food seems to be inelastic in terms of costs. I acknowledge that as the cost goes up, consumers will consume less junk food, but perhaps the decrease in the supply is lower than that of the rising rise. It might be because, already though, substitutes for junk foods, particularly across the Us, are challenging to find. Unhealthy food is just the shortest and simplest meal to consume.
The reasoning here seems to be that every customer would have to purchase food even though the price rises by 1%, so consumption will still decrease by somewhere around 1%. So perhaps we can assume that quality does not influence quantities throughout the Junk Food industry.
The reduction of excess baggage would be small since it is inelastic. This symbolizes the corporation's low incompetence and as the cost is changed, the market for quantities is approximately the same, not so much impact.
I thought taxing junk foods, especially to maximize welfare spending, is a smart option. But obesity over here Is not going to help. The incorrect method for combating obesity as well as making our diets balanced is taxes. The irony is that all clients are impacted by taxes regardless of their weight status. The impact of food taxes is unclear and may result in the replacement of items that may comprise of calories that seem to be equivalent or higher.
