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:
Explanation:
POSITIVE- Inward investment by TNCs helps countries by providing new jobs and skills for local people.
TNCs bring wealth and foreign currency to local economies when they buy local resources, products and services. The extra money created by this investment can be spent on education, health and infrastructure.
The sharing of ideas, experiences and lifestyles of people and cultures. People can experience foods and other products not previously available in their countries.
NEGATIVE- They may pollute the environment, run risks with safety or impose poor working conditions and low wages on local workers. Globalisation is viewed by many as a threat to the world's cultural diversity.
Answer:
Depends!
Explanation:
It depends on what part of Colonial America you were talking about. Places like New York and the Southern colonies were typically more aristocratic, where the colony was run by a small elite number of wealthy landowners. Pennsylvania was run by the Quaker oligarchs, who held a firm control over the colonial government.
The two most "democratic" societies in Colonial America were the New England colonies and in the backcountry. Local government in New England was practiced through a "Town Meeting", where residents would get together to discuss and vote on various issues. In the backcountry, where colonial authority tended to be weak, society tended to be more egalitarian, and settlers had to work together in order to stay alive and prosper.
Ultranationalism may begin as soon as nationalists begin to feel hostile against other nations, which may lead into conflicts. The leaders of that certain nation may want to prove just how powerful their nation is, leading up to violence and discrimination.
Answer:
(A) only applies to amendments added before 1850
Explanation:
I hope I can help you :)
