The question asks, "What is YOUR philosophy?" I can't really tell you what YOU should think ... but I can present for you the ideas of a couple different political philosophers who took opposing stands on the issue.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were both English philosophers who wrote during the 17th century.
Hobbes published a famous work called <em>Leviathan </em>in 1651. The title "Leviathan" comes from a biblical word for a great and mighty beast. Hobbes believed government is formed by people for the sake of their personal security and stability in society. In Hobbes view, once the people put a king (or other leader in power), then that leader needs to have supreme power (like a great and mighty beast). The people are too divided and too volatile as individuals -- everyone looking out for his own interests. So for security and stability, authority and the power of the law needs to be in the hands of a powerful ruler like a king or queen. That was Hobbes' view.
John Locke famously published <em>Two Treatises on Civil Government </em>in 1690. According to Locke's view, a government's power to govern comes from the consent of the people themselves -- those who are to be governed. This was a change from the previous ideas of "divine right monarchy" -- that a king ruled because God appointed him to be the ruler. Locke repudiated the views of divine right monarchy in his <em>First Treatise on Civil Government. </em> In his <em>Second Treatise on Civil Government, </em> Locke argued for the rights of the people to create their own governments according to their own desires and for the sake of protecting their own life, liberty, and property. Locke always favored the people remaining in charge, and asserted that the people have the power to change their government and remove government leaders if the government is not properly serving the needs and well-being of the people.
As you write your own answer to this question for your class, you will want to decide, perhaps, if you agree more with Hobbes, that security and stability are most important ... or with Locke, that the authority and liberty of the people are always paramount.
If no presidential candidate gets 270 electoral votes, the House of Representatives decides who will be the next president.
This has happened in the US before, during the election of 1824. In this race, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, and Henry Clay ran for president. None of them got enough electoral college votes to become president. Even though Andrew Jackson got the most electoral college votes out of all the nominees, the House of Representatives picked John Quincy Adams to become America's next president.
Answer:
I guess it's c a confidentiality agreement I'm not really sure
Answer:
- Effective, but not efficient.
Explanation:
Leadership is associated with a blend of effective as well efficient performance to attain the quality goals within a specified time-limit.
As per the given description, Brenda would be called an <u>'effective, but not efficient'</u> manager as she, however, produced the desired quality results effectively but could not ensure the 'maximum utilization of time'(as she took more time as compared to the other managers). This wastage or not using time efficiently demonstrates that she was effective but not efficient as she failed to employ the resources in the supreme possible manner.
<span>Its the reverse I am afraid political correctness has destroyed any notion of assimilation into our society we're all told to celebrate difference - apparently !</span>
