If we consider the speech of Barack Obama, when he leaves the presidency of the United States of America, we will believe that there is reason to believe that democracy is threatened.
According to Obama, there are currently 3 threats to democracy, the first of which are forces such as terrorism, increased inequality and demographic changes that threaten the country's security, solidarity and prosperity, but these same forces also threaten democracy
. if opportunities are not created for all people in the country, division and dissatisfaction will only become clearer in the coming years, threatening democracy.
Obama also highlighted a second threat, which is the racial issue. "So if we're going to be serious about the racial issue, then we need to maintain anti-discrimination laws - in hiring, housing, education, and the criminal justice system." Said the former president who pointed out that only laws will not suffice to resolve the racial issue. "Hearts must change. It will not be a change overnight." Social attitudes sometimes take generations to change".
Obama also mentioned a third threat to democracy, which is when a group of similar people joins a bubble, be it a community, a church, a social network or a college, and that group brings together similar people with the same political vision. One person never questions the other's hypotheses.
It is C Japan because they knew the best literacy I hope this helped
Answer: A) Hobbes thought people were innately violent.
<u>Further explanation</u>:
Both English philosophers believed there is a "social contract" -- that governments are formed by the will of the people. But their theories on why people want to live under governments were very different.
Thomas Hobbes published his political theory in <em>Leviathan </em> in 1651, following the chaos and destruction of the English Civil War. He saw human beings as naturally suspicious of one another, in competition with each other, and violent toward one another as a result. Forming a government meant giving up personal liberty, but gaining security against what would otherwise be a situation of every person at war with every other person.
John Locke published his <em>Two Treatises on Civil Government </em>in 1690, following the mostly peaceful transition of government power that was the Glorious Revolution in England. Locke believed people are born as blank slates--with no preexisting knowledge or moral leanings. Experience then guides them to the knowledge and the best form of life, and they choose to form governments to make life and society better.
In teaching the difference between Hobbes and Locke, I've often put it this way. If society were playground basketball, Hobbes believed you must have a referee who sets and enforces rules, or else the players will eventually get into heated arguments and bloody fights with one another, because people get nasty in competition that way. Locke believed you could have an enjoyable game of playground basketball without a referee, but a referee makes the game better because then any disputes that come up between players have a fair way of being resolved. Of course, Hobbes and Locke never actually wrote about basketball -- a game not invented until 1891 in America by James Naismith. But it's just an illustration I've used to try to show the difference of ideas between Hobbes and Locke. :-)
They basically had the same motive which was to contain communism
Sorry can't help you, but you can look it up on google
