Answer:
I dont think she will perform her task efficiently because she missed out on the actual community action programs and didn't get all of the information that she needs to do her task effectively.
Explanation:
As a judge, i would rule in favor if Bakilana
By confiscating her password and forcing her to work for long hours, Bakilana had cause intentional infliction of emotional distress toward kiwanuka.
Bakilana has intentionally inflicted emotional distress to Kiwanuka by taking extreme/outrageous conduct such as taking her passwords and mentally abuse Kiwanuka.
But, that's being said, Kiwanuka does not present any proof about her accusation. (recording or witnesses). If Kiwanuka provide them, as a judge I will rule in favour of her. But since there is still a reasonable doubt that the accusation is false, i would rule in favor of Bakilana.
Answer:
In the Preamble to the Constitution, the framers outlined their general goals: to create a just government and to ensure peace, an adequate national defense, and a healthy, free nation.
Explanation:
Goals of the ConstitutionWe the People of the United States, in Order (1)to form a more perfect Union, (2)establish Justice, (3)ensure domestic Tranquility, (4)provide for the common defense, (5)promote the general Welfare, and (6)secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish . ...
hope this helps I copy-pasted the explanation part but it is correct I've done this before. Have an awesome day.
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.