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.
Answer:
B. ideas of reference.
Explanation:
The idea of reference: The idea of reference is also referred to as delusion of reference. An idea of reference reflects an individual's false belief about any irrelevant details or occurrences in the world and relate it directly to one's personality and self.
In other words, when an individual believes that his or her actions, presence, or thoughts are the reason behind something that occurs in time, then ideas of reference occurs.
In the question above, the statement signifies the ideas of reference.
Answer:
El crecimiento económico puede ayudar a varios objetivos macroeconómicos
Reducción de la pobreza. El aumento de la producción nacional significa que los hogares pueden disfrutar de más bienes y servicios. Para los países con niveles importantes de pobreza, el crecimiento económico puede permitir niveles de vida considerablemente mejores. Por ejemplo, en el siglo XIX, la pobreza absoluta estaba muy extendida en Europa, un siglo de crecimiento económico ha sacado a casi todo el mundo de este estado de pobreza. El crecimiento económico es particularmente importante en las economías en desarrollo.
Desempleo reducido. Una economía estancada conduce a mayores tasas de desempleo y la consecuente miseria social. El crecimiento económico conduce a una mayor demanda y es probable que las empresas aumenten el empleo.
Servicios públicos mejorados. Un mayor crecimiento económico conduce a mayores ingresos fiscales (incluso si las tasas impositivas se mantienen iguales). Con un mayor crecimiento, ingresos y ganancias, el gobierno recibirá más impuestos sobre la renta, impuestos corporativos e impuestos al gasto. El gobierno puede entonces gastar más en servicios públicos.
Reducción de la relación deuda / PIB. El crecimiento económico ayuda a reducir la relación deuda / PIB. En la década de 1950, el Reino Unido tenía una deuda nacional de más del 200% del PIB. A pesar de muy pocos años de superávit presupuestario, el crecimiento económico permitió reducir el nivel de deuda sobre el PIB.
Taking root around 12,000 years ago, agriculture triggered such a change in society and the way in which people lived that its development has been dubbed the “Neolithic Revolution.” Traditional hunter-gatherer lifestyles, followed by humans since their evolution, were swept aside in favor of permanent settlements and a reliable food supply. Out of agriculture, cities and civilizations grew, and because crops and animals could now be farmed to meet demand, the global population rocketed—from some five million people 10,000 years ago, to more than seven billion today.
