The economic term for this is "opportunity cost".
Opportunity cost is the cost of the options that one is not choosing. This means that if one has to choose between A and B, opportunity cost is the cost of "giving up B" when one chooses A.
Developed in 1965, affirmative action is a policy that attempts C. to make up for past discrimination policies.
Through this action, more women and African-Americans were supposed to gain more rights than they had at that moment.
Answer:
b. when restraining forces are removed, driving forces will produce change
Explanation:
Force field analysis is a theory of Kurt Lewin in his contribution to change management.
This model suggests how change agents may diagnose the forces that drive and restrain proposed organizational change. It draws from this that change agents can only cause change to happen if they eliminate forces restraining order resisting this change.
Lewin list four forces in his research: change forces, driving forces, restraining forces and resisting forces, suggesting that in order for a change to happen the driving forces have to be more than the restraining forces and an equilibrium means no change.
There is no objective answer to this question, as both sides have arguments that support their views.
If you believe that you are bound by Hobbes' argument, it is because of tacit consent. Tacit consent means that, even though you have not explicitly agreed to follow laws, you have indicated your agreement through other means, for example, by using the public services of the government or by remaining within the limits of your country. Also, you could argue that any rational person would prefer to follow the rules of the government than to live in the state of nature. Therefore, if you are rational, your consent is assumed. Finally, you could also argue that while you did not explicitly agreed, maybe your ancestors did, which still binds you as a member of the same society.
On the other hand, if you believe that you are not bound by Hobbes' argument, you could argue that any contract that is not freely agreed upon is not valid. As the government uses force to make you act according to the law, you cannot be considered to be freely consenting. Also, you can argue that agreeing to follow some rules does not imply following <em>all</em> of the laws of the country. Finally, a common argument against Hobbes is the lack of empirical data. As we do not know if the state of nature is actually bad, or if the contract ever happened, the government cannot gain its legitimacy in that way.
