Answer:
It is likely that Rawls claimed that there is no certainty in the statement that you deserve the wealth that you have and that it was acquired through the exploitation of your own talents. This, therefore, is a doubtful statement and must be carefully evaluated.
Explanation:
John Rawls was not in favor of the idea that individuals who use their talents to generate their income are worthy of all their income. That's because For Rawls, the money these individuals get is not, in fact, generated by the talent they have, but by the demand that society imposes on these talents. Therefore, these individuals owe a debt to the society for which they work. This debt must be paid by taxing their income. This taxation will generate the resources that will pay the society that benefits these individuals.
Carroll was a wealthy planter, slave owner, and large land owner who risked his socials and economic position by supporting the Patriot cause of American independence. He was concerned that the Revolution might fail and bring economic ruin to his family as well as mob rule. He was a friend and strong ally of George Washington; he believed in and "worked for a strong central government that could secure the achievements and fulfill the hopes of the Revolution." In the Convention, Carroll fought for a government that would be responsible to the people directly.
Because white people did not want black sitting next to them on a bus and not share water fountain. hope it helps u :)
The shays rebellion, led by Daniel shays, erupted between 1786-1787 in Massachusetts. The cause of the revolt was money. Or the lack of money.
The first and second questions should be answered by you according to your classes. You should think of: how was President Andrew Jackson elected (1828)? What was he famous for before his candidacy? And according to this, what could be expected from his speech? Jackson was famous for his military victories over Indian tribes and for working actively on the occupation of previous Indian land. Thus his defense of the Indian Removal and his feelings of superiority over Indians wasn’t surprising.
On his opinions about the United States being better in 1830, it is due to an authoritarian view according to which the ways of the Indian’s – who preferred their territories covered with forests – were inferior to the ways of the Americans’, supposedly full of cities, Art, happy people, liberty, civilization, and religion.
Since President Jackson wasn’t thinking from the point of view of the Indians, for whom the relationship with their territory was fundamental, he thought Indians would be happy being left in peace away from the whites and free to live their own way.
He also thought Indians would be glad about this policy for believing it was “kind and generous” as the Indian Removal Act compromised to pay for the Indian’s immigration and for their first year in new territory. That was an offer, he said, “our own people would gladly embrace… on such conditions”, referring to the whites occupying lands east of the Mississipi River.
In order to predict what Elias Boudinot said about Indian Removal you should remember that he was a member of the Cherokee Nation where he was part of a minority who believed their nation would have more chances of surviving if they integrated themselves into the American society. This explains why Boudinot was in favor of Indians making treaties with the United States and willingly giving up on their lands.
