Answer:
W.E.B. Dude Bois ........
Private ownership entails the existence of an owner/propietor, who has important economic incentives for the preservation of the value of his property and even for enhacing its future value. This occurs to a greater extent when private ownership takes place in countries with strong institutions that are able to enforce property rights if necessary.
On the other hand, when collective property forms are used instead, economists tend to forecast that it will be affected by the process known as the Tragedy of the Commons. It describes how when there is a shared resource, individual users who have access to it and use it in accordance to their own interest, end up behaving in a manner that is harmful for the common property, even tough this is contrary to their personal interests too, as then the common good will not be in the same initial conditions anymore. For example, overexploitation due to unlimited grazing on a collectively-owned field.
<span> representative i think</span>
I am pretty sure that the reason whythe USSR adopted atheism as an official state policy is being revealed by the option : <span> to eliminate one potential source of conflict and opposition. Lenin set an aim which would make people believe in ideas followed by communism and he thought that religion could pose as an obstacle for socialism.
</span>Hope it will help you!
President Richard Nixon's foreign policy was called the Nixon Doctrine. It stated that the United States would stand as the nuclear umbrella for it's allies, if ever something went seriously wrong and their security was threatened. However, he also stated that their security was something the allies would have to take care of themselves and that he would not interfere unless he was asked to. Ronald Reagan had more of a harsher stance and often supported authoritarian governments if he thought it would be more of a benefit to the United States and would oppose communism, as he was worried about the rise of communism and the Soviet Union. He was heavily involved in conflicts abroad, in contrast to Nixon.
