Egypt's entrance into the Second Intermediate Period was caused by decentralization and quarreling, which left it helpless against assault by the Hyksos, who mounted a hostile that succeeded to a great extent due to the component of shock and their military leeway of steeds, chariots, and composite bows. The time of control by the Hyksos is recorded as "run by remote sovereigns" and at last offered path to the Middle Kingdom in the mid-1500s BCE, as Kamose and afterward Ahmose effectively crushed the Hyksos and drove them out of Egypt. In this way, Egypt tried to recapture the domain it had lost under the Hyksos and in the long run vanquished as far north as the Levant close Syria and south into Nubia.
B. saved lives. Mandatory seatbelt laws have saved lives.
<span>She can remember about seven items, with the number ranging from five to nine. The function of short term memory is to store bursts of information for a short duration of time. A phone number has seven digits, and that is a perfect example of the use of short term memory. People given a phone number can usually store it and recall it several minutes later, but in a week, they will forget.</span>
There is no objective answer to this question, as both sides have arguments that support their views.
If you believe that you are bound by Hobbes' argument, it is because of tacit consent. Tacit consent means that, even though you have not explicitly agreed to follow laws, you have indicated your agreement through other means, for example, by using the public services of the government or by remaining within the limits of your country. Also, you could argue that any rational person would prefer to follow the rules of the government than to live in the state of nature. Therefore, if you are rational, your consent is assumed. Finally, you could also argue that while you did not explicitly agreed, maybe your ancestors did, which still binds you as a member of the same society.
On the other hand, if you believe that you are not bound by Hobbes' argument, you could argue that any contract that is not freely agreed upon is not valid. As the government uses force to make you act according to the law, you cannot be considered to be freely consenting. Also, you can argue that agreeing to follow some rules does not imply following <em>all</em> of the laws of the country. Finally, a common argument against Hobbes is the lack of empirical data. As we do not know if the state of nature is actually bad, or if the contract ever happened, the government cannot gain its legitimacy in that way.
