Bolivar stood apart from his class in ideas, values and vision. Who else would be found in the midst of a campaign swinging in a hammock, reading the French philosophers? His liberal education, wide reading, and travels in Europe had broadened his horizons and opened his mind to the political thinkers of France and Britain. He read deeply in the works of Hobbes and Spinoza, Holbach and Hume; and the thought of Montesquieu and Rousseau left its imprint firmly on him and gave him a life-long devotion to reason, freedom and progress. But he was not a slave of the Enlightenment. British political virtues also attracted him. In his Angostura Address (1819) he recommended the British constitution as 'the most worthy to serve as a model for those who desire to enjoy the rights of man and all political happiness compatible with our fragile nature'. But he also affirmed his conviction that American constitutions must conform to American traditions, beliefs and conditions.
His basic aim was liberty, which he described as "the only object worth the sacrifice of man's life'. For Bolivar liberty did not simply mean freedom from the absolutist state of the eighteenth century, as it did for the Enlightenment, but freedom from a colonial power, to be followed by true independence under a liberal constitution. And with liberty he wanted equality – that is, legal equality – for all men, whatever their class, creed or colour. In principle he was a democrat and he believed that governments should be responsible to the people. 'Only the majority is sovereign', he wrote; 'he who takes the place of the people is a tyrant and his power is usurpation'. But Bolivar was not so idealistic as to imagine that South America was ready for pure democracy, or that the law could annul the inequalities imposed by nature and society. He spent his whole political life developing and modifying his principles, seeking the elusive mean between democracy and authority. In Bolivar the realist and idealist dwelt in uneasy rivalry.
According to Functionalism, society is a whole unit, made up of interrelated parts that work together.
<h3>What is
Functionalism?</h3>
Functionalism is the theory of how the only factor that determines whether anything qualifies as a cognition, emotion, or pain is also that object's functionality, or even the position it performs inside the cognitive structure of whatever it forms part.
In the process of Functionalism, the parts are interconnected, and the data are saved and will be in a quality that presents itself to the people.
Functionalism holds that civilization is indeed a cohesive system formed of interdependent elements that operate together as a whole. The entire societal structure is constructed up of interconnected elements, each of which serves a certain purpose.
Learn more about Functionalism, here:
brainly.com/question/21145944
#SPJ4
The answer to the question is d.
The difference between a Srtike Team and a Task Force is Strike Team have similar resources while Task Forces are compromised of mixed resources.
Strike team has multiple units of the same resource category that assigned to the strike team leader and task force is a combination of any single resources.
The words of Thomas Paine in the pamphlet were enough to keep the revolution going and muster the troops under George Washington’s command in 1776. In 1777, when they were suffering heavy losses due to the winter at Valley Forge, it was loyalty to the Patriot cause and to George Washington while training and doing drills that kept the troops busy and allowed for them to leave Valley Forge in 1778 more disciplined and spirited.
The term that best fits the blank provided above is SECONDARY. When we say secondary aging, this is the kind of aging that makes changes in the bodily functions due to a disease or illness and other unhealthy habits. Hope this answers your question.
