Rousseau argued that a government should be dissolved if it fails to represent the general will of the people or if it acts against the common good. He believed that legitimate political authority derives from the consent of the governed, and when a government becomes oppressive or corrupt, it loses its legitimacy. In such cases, the people have the right to reclaim their sovereignty and establish a new government that aligns with their collective interests.
The phrase "Bob and Bob had got into an argument" is not correct English. It should be "Bob and I got into an argument" or "Bob and Bob had an argument," depending on the intended meaning. The use of "got" can also be replaced with "gotten" in American English, making it "Bob and Bob had gotten into an argument," but clarity on the subjects involved is necessary.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau's main argument was that a government should be based on the collective will of the people, which he called the "general will." He believed that legitimate political authority arises from a social contract where individuals come together to form a community that prioritizes the common good over individual interests. Rousseau argued that this form of government ensures freedom and equality, allowing citizens to participate actively in shaping their society. Ultimately, he emphasized that true sovereignty belongs to the people, not to rulers or elites.
No way, they have totally different personalities, Zuko loves Mai and Katara loves Aang, that concludes the argument!
It depends if their trying to catch sexual predators then yes they should monitor chatrooms. But if their not then no.
Louis Blanc
No, Thomas Paine was influenced by Rousseau's concept that society unites for the common good and that citizens of the state surrender certain selfish desires to have their life liberty and property defended.
The colonists just gained independence from England, therefore, America should have a different type of government. If they wanted to keep the same government, they should not have immigrated to America or fought in the war.
The main argument as to whether or not the Constitution should be ratified centered around the fact that it didn't contain a Bill of Rights. Federalists wanted a strong national government. Anti-federalists felt that without a Bill of Rights, the government would have too much power.
One argument people use is that the government should not put restrictions on private property. If something is environmentally unfriendly on property you own, some people believe the government should not be able to tell you how to treat that property.
It explained that government was formed by a social contract. He imagined a time in the distant past when people first got together and created a government for themselves. Then he explained what a proper government should do.
It explained that government was formed by a social contract. He imagined a time in the distant past when people first got together and created a government for themselves. Then he explained what a proper government should do.
That people should have the right to change their government if it violates their rights to life, liberty, or property.
Opposing
That depends on what the argument was about
Whether or not government should regulate businesses.
An argument should present a clear point of view or claim supported by evidence and reasoning. It should anticipate and respond to counterarguments, showing why the claim is valid and persuasive. Ultimately, the goal is to convince the audience of the validity of the argument.
I don't know what the land itself is called, but the government does own Puerto Rico, but it is not a state. A few years back there was an argument on whether it should be or not. I hope that helped.