Answer:
In the understanding of this court case, where the plaintiff (L.M.) filed a lawsuit against Pacheco on sexual abuse, the court ruled that the perpetration of the abhorrent act committed did not have to do with Pacheco´s ´´scope of employment´´ as the act happened outside the boundaries of the church and not within his working hours. However, if the plaintiff were to argue that in fact this conduct happened within the scope of employment, she would have to explain and convince that Pacheco was indeed responsible as it is a Pastor's duty and responsibility to guide and counsel at all hours, and not just limited to his church´s hours. A pastor is a figure of responsibility as a visible head for a community, not to mention that in some churches, a pastor is also a legal representative.
Employers should be held liable for the acts of their employees whenever there is a failure to supervise employees or some kind of misdemeanor is perpetrated within the employer´s work facilities or influential premises. These points of view however, are not stated by a lawyer/judicially, these are my personal observations after having researched on the case.
B is likely the correct answer.
There are very few economists who advocate for the privatization of the military as the privatization of military has interesting efficiency and national security concerns. (Militaries in the hands of CEOs...)
Instead, many economists see the military as an example of the government providing for the protection of the collective common good and that it is most efficient and necessary for the government to provide this service.
The main way in which Puritan beliefs affected government in New England during the 1600s was that they had an incredibly strong work ethic, meaning that the government championed hard work and was highly intolerant of laziness.
Pros: more equality, everyone can pay for things
Cons: Less mega rich people, don't need special skills, people may de lazy
