Supreme Court justices, court of appeals judges, and district court judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate, as stated in the Constitution. The names of potential nominees are often recommended by senators or sometimes by members of the House who are of the President's political party.
The Soviets were proclaiming themselves as communist, though the reality was not as the communism truly says a state should be run. If the Soviets practiced the textbook communism, then everyone in the society would have been equal. Everyone was going to earn the same amount of money and get the same things necessary for life without any problem. The economy would have been self-sustaining and that was going to be supported by excellent planning. There were not going to be social classes, but everyone would have been in the same class. The Soviets did pretty much everything wrong with those ideas, and in all fairness the human nature just doesn't allow for something like that to exist.
Mikhail Gorbachev was hated by the hardline communist. The main reason for that was that he was trying to make the country slightly more liberal, more open to the world and to modernization. That was seen as treason of the communist ideology by the hardline communist so they were against all of that.
The correct answer is ARMENIANS.
During WWI, The Ottoman Empire slaughtered 1.5 millon Armenians within the empire.
As I understand it, Laissez-faire ideology maintains that the "free market" is the best way to determine what businesses can and should do. This means that businesses, in competition with one another, should be free to determine their paths free from any government rules or regulations. The belief is that the competition among various businesses will ultimately result in the best outcomes for society in general - Adam Smith's "invisible hand". As part of this philosophy, workers should also be free to compete with each other and choose to work wherever they wish and this process will also result in the best results for the workers as well.
However, isn't there a huge assumption in this philosophy? Doesn't the whole justification of this belief depends on the condition that there is perfect competition and that any company and any worker have the equal ability to compete with one another?
What if there is no perfect competition? What if some companies have advantages - due to any of a whole array of reasons - that place them in a non-competitive position vis a vis their competitors? Without perfect competition then other companies are not necessarily able to compete with other companies that have certain advantages. If such a situation exists, then advantaged companies may have the ability to pursue a course that results in their private benefit, but not necessarily to the benefit of society as a whole. The same would apply to workers in that reduced competition among companies would result in decreased leverage for potential employees.
To recap, if the Laissez-faire ideology maintains the best economic policy for society as a whole, and it depends on there being perfect competition on an ongoing basis with minimal government intervention, doesn't it fall apart if there is less than the perfect competition?
The answer is: shifting from an agrarian lifestyle to an urban lifestyle.
