Answer:
<u>Because even if the Absolutism has similarities and was applied in almost the entire Europe, each country modeled its conceptions to adapt to reality. </u>And this reality could be <u>social, political or religious.</u>
Explanation:
I believe that the better way to understand this point is analyzing the two major countries where the Absolutism was strong: France and England.
- France was ruled by Louis XIV in the 17th century. He describes himself as "The state is me" (“L'Etat c'est Moi”). This monarch is the main definition of the absolutist ruler. <u>To support his government, Louis XIV follows the idea of Divine Right of Kings which argued that the monarch had divine powers and was elected by God. Thus, his actions and laws were divine and couldn't be disrespected. </u>The question is: why this conception worked in France? <u>Because it was a catholic country, and religious perceptions were followed without question. Plus, Louis XIV had no limits in his powers. I mean, there was no law or political scheme that could limit him.</u>
- On the contrary, in England, <u>the king was subjected to the Parlament. </u>However, only this restriction was not sufficed to limit his power. The main point is that the British kings <u>followed the idea of a social contract (popularized by the philosopher Thomas Hobbes). </u>This idea attests that <u>a king has duties with its people,</u> and the Parlament was always remembering him about this. So, he couldn't do whatever he wanted.
Height, length, and width. Or time, volume, depth. Or temperature, angle, and pressure.
Answer:
Both the statements are correct about the concept of 'per capita income'. It means same even if it is calculated at the NDP, GNP and NNP levels. It is just an average and hardly says anythings about the real level incomes of the individuals.
