The difference between the Social contract theories of both was that Hobbs believed<u> c) that the </u><u>people </u><u>could </u><u>overthrow </u><u>their</u><u> ruler </u><u>if that ruler was </u><u>abusing </u><u>their </u><u>power</u><u>. </u>
<h3>Social Contract according to Locke</h3>
- Government owes citizens the right to protect their property.
- If a government was not performing, they could be removed from power.
Hobbes on the other hand, believed that the government owed nothing to the citizens and so the people could not remove it even if it wasn't performing.
In conclusion, option c is correct.
Find out more on Locke's theory at brainly.com/question/14308888.
Ok...
The changes in the last 10 years have been astronomical. The Microsoft Program has changed from a simple 20ghz computer (2001-2005). To a "simple" (quote from Bill Gates in his opening statement about the new 100ghz computer) 100ghz gaming hp intel power microsoft windows cpu. The changes in this last 10 to 20 years has been amazing! Alas, some of the "new" changes of this time have come at a "price." For example, the new president of the United States, Donald Trump, his election could be a good thing for America. Unfortunately, since the election of him, the country has been at a up rise against the election of the president. The change that could be good for America, has its good and bad consequences.
A good thing that has changed since the "old days" is the one and only technology. Technology has perks and quirks, but the perks out weigh the quirks by a ton. Technology has changed so much that what we didn't have in 2004, a simple 100ghz gaming hp intel power microsoft windows cpc, is now out and can be used for the people of today.
Change is a good thing, but to much change could be bad also. If we just had the right amount of change when we need it things could go just right.
H0P3 It H3LPS :)
Answer:
C.) While both the Ottoman Empire and Western European states relied heavily on forced conversions to expand and maintain their empires, the Ottoman Empire remained more religiously tolerant than the Western European empires.
Explanation:
I got this question right on the first try. Here's why I knew it was C. You would need to have some knowledge about the Ottoman Empire's role of religion. I don't know if it says in the passage, so if you do find it, then give me a heads up. Remember, how did the Ottoman Empire treat the minorities? Did they force persecution/conversion to Islam? Well, not really. Although they did develop the devshirme system, it was kinda of a force conversion because the children had to give up their Christian belief, but it was seen as an opportunity. They weren't punished, so answer A is not right. So they did practice religious tolerance. Also the Ottoman Empire tried to expand the empire to make it bigger as well. There wasn't any religious wars carried out the Ottoman Empire, and answer B does not make sense. Where in the passage does it say about those two empires having efforts of doing mass conversions. Look at Source 2. Sorry if this explanation is long, but I hope this helps :)
Consumer and society have messed up the whole
