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.
The process from a disturbance destroying an area through the climax of ecological succession is called climax community.
<h3>What is an
ecological succession?</h3>
Ecological succession can be defined as a process or phenomenon through which an ecological community undergoes certain orderly and predictable changes as a result of a disturbance over time.
In this context, we can infer and logically deduce that climax community is a process that occurs due to a disturbance destroying an area through the climax of ecological succession.
Read more on ecological succession here: brainly.com/question/17622379
#SPJ1
Base on the behavior of Carlos, the best approach that will
explain the behavior that he has shown would empathy altruism hypothesis. This
is where a person has the ability of feeling empathy in other people and tries
to put themselves in their situation, where in they try to be more
understanding and tries to share the same emotion that the person would feel
because of the situation that he or she is in. It is also with this, it makes a
person help the other party without expecting anything from return and helping
them because he or she wants to and not because he or she is expecting anything
or is only obliged to do it. It is seen from Carlos actions as he helps the
woman who has been begging for alms and tries to put himself into her shoes
where he felt pain into seeing her go through in that situation.
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.
The answer is B because it's saying how he would basically sacrifice his life for his country meaning he is a devoted American
