What types of people would have been most likely to prefer the philosophy of daoism? a. those who liked a community‑oriented approach to livingb. those who wanted to strive for an improvement in the quality of communal lifec. those who liked an individualized approach to life that advocated a natural way of going along with the flow of eventsd. those who preferred a rigid dogma of rigid regulations and strict behavior patterns?

I believe the answer is: c. those who like and individualized approach to life that advocated a natural way of going along with the flow of events.

The vast majority of daosim is aimed to focus on self improvement. So rather than focusing on how to  make others give us what we want, it focused on the things that we can do as individual to make the chance presented itself in front of us.

It also teach that good and bad things would always coexis and sometimes there is nothing we can do to prevent bad things from happening to us. In such situation , daoism tech us to accept it as it is and move on rather than denying it.

trade regulation is a field of law, often bracketed with antitrust (as in the phrase “antitrust and trade regulation law”), including government regulation of unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive business acts or practices. antitrust law is often considered a subset of trade regulation law. franchise and distribution law, consumer protection law, and advertising law are sometimes considered parts of trade regulation law.

in general the theory of economics says that the more open to trade a country is the better   the result for the same country and the whole economies.

in real life countries impose taxes, quotas, etc which is not so good for the economies.

this kind of commercial war between the usa and china is slowing down the growth of the whole world so we can say that it is a draw back of trade regulations. and the free trade agreements are benefits of trade regulations.

the answer is the petition of right.

explanation:

offer to of right, real demand of attesting a benefit against the english crown, the most remarkable point of reference being the petition of right of 1628, which parliament sent to charles i fussing of a movement of oversteps of law. the term also implied the framework (invalidated in 1947) by which a subject could sue the crown.   taking a gander at the frameworks used by maria amidu to make a standard in 2015 commending the 1628 petition of right, which was sent to charles i by the english parliament. at uniquely based law the crown, or the sovereign in his official cutoff, couldn't be sued in the ruler's courts. since the ruler was, really, the superior ace of those courts, coordinating value in them between his subjects, he was not subject to their ward. therefore it transformed into a preparation, at whatever point a subject's certified or individual property had come into the responsibility for ruler or his specialists without legitimate perfect, for the subject to engage the master in chamber for its recovery.