From now on I shall continue the part that deals with this protest, that is, explaining how the cuts started, got spread and are now being implemented. Everything will revolve around the cuts in English and the local languages.

I HOPE YOU READ IT TO UNDERSTAND THE WORLD YOU LIVE IN AND ACT ACCORDINGLY.

Some links:

http://www.ei-ie.org/en/news/news_details/205

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/10/spanish-politician-accused-megalomania-monument/print

A. Any honest and thorough application of this philosophy would run counter to its aim: which is to allow the owners of capital to expand their interests without taxation, regulation or recognition of the rights of other people.

B.Briefly stated, this means that if the process by which property was acquired was just, then those who have acquired it should be free to use it as they wish, without social restraints or obligations to other people.

C.The owners of coal-burning power stations in the UK have not obtained the consent of everyone who owns a lake or a forest in Sweden to deposit acid rain there.

D.It is a pitiless, one-sided, mechanical view of the world, which elevates the rights of property over everything else, meaning that those who possess the most property end up with great power over others.

E.No story about freedom and property rights can ever justify the pollution of the air or the burning of fuels because those things affect the freedom and property rights of others.

F.As soon as it encounters environmental issues, the ideology of the new right becomes ensnared in its own contradictions.

Why Libertarians Must Deny Climate Change

Posted: 06 Jan 2012 04:45 AM PST

By George Monbiot, published on the Guardian’s website, 6th January 2012

Over the Christmas break I read what I believe is the most important environmental essay of the past 12 months. Though it begins with a mildly unfair criticism of a column of mine, I won’t hold it against the author. In a simple and very short tract, Matt Bruenig presents a devastating challenge to those who call themselves libertarians, and explains why they have no choice but to deny climate change and other environmental problems.

Bruenig explains what is now the core argument used by conservatives and libertarians: the procedural justice account of property rights ...1… Their property rights are absolute and cannot be intruded upon by the state or by anyone else. Any interference with or damage to the value of their property without their consent – even by taxation – is an unwarranted infringement. This, with local variations, is the basic philosophy of the Republican candidates, the Tea Party movement, the lobby groups which call themselves “free market thinktanks” and much of the new right in the UK.

…2… Dressed up as freedom, it is a formula for oppression and bondage. It does nothing to address inequality, hardship or social exclusion. A transparently self-serving vision, it seeks to justify the greedy and selfish behaviour of those with wealth and power. But for the sake of argument, Bruenig says, let us accept it.

Let us accept the idea that damage to the value of property without the owner’s consent is an unwarranted intrusion upon the owner’s freedoms. What this means is that as soon as libertarians encounter environmental issues, they’re stuffed.

Climate change, industrial pollution, ozone depletion, damage to the physical beauty of the area surrounding people’s homes (and therefore their value), all these, if the libertarians did not possess a shocking set of double standards, would be denounced by them as infringements on other people’s property …3… So their emissions, in the libertarian worldview, should be regarded as a form of trespass on the property of Swedish landowners. Nor have they received the consent of the people of this country to allow mercury and other heavy metals to enter our bloodstreams, which means that they are intruding upon our property in the form of our bodies.

Nor have they – or airports, oil companies or car manufacturers – obtained the consent of all those it will affect to release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, altering global temperatures and – through rising sea levels, droughts, storms and other impacts – damaging the property of many people. As Bruenig says,

“Almost all uses of land will entail some infringement on some other piece of land that is owned by someone else. So how can that ever be permitted? …4… Those actions ultimately cause damage to surrounding property and people without getting any consent from those affected. They are the ethical equivalent – for honest libertarians – of punching someone in the face or breaking someone else’s window.”

So here we have a simple and coherent explanation of why libertarianism is so often associated with climate change denial and the playing down or dismissal of other environmental issues. It would be impossible for the owner of a power station, steel plant, quarry, farm or any large enterprise to obtain consent for all the trespasses he commits against other people’s property – including their bodies.

This is the point at which libertarianism smacks into the wall of gritty reality and crumples like a Coke can…5… Libertarianism becomes self-defeating as soon as it recognises the existence of environmental issues. So they must be denied.

www.monbiot.com

Key

1.Briefly stated, this means that if the process by which property was acquired was just, then those who have acquired it should be free to use it as they wish, without social restraints or obligations to other people.

2.It is a pitiless, one-sided, mechanical view of the world, which elevates the rights of property over everything else, meaning that those who possess the most property end up with great power over others.

3.The owners of coal-burning power stations in the UK have not obtained the consent of everyone who owns a lake or a forest in Sweden to deposit acid rain there.

4.No story about freedom and property rights can ever justify the pollution of the air or the burning of fuels because those things affect the freedom and property rights of others.

5.Any honest and thorough application of this philosophy would run counter to its aim: which is to allow the owners of capital to expand their interests without taxation, regulation or recognition of the rights of other people.

Have your say : Write a facebook comment or  add a film title on the school posters! Come on!

YOU MUSTN´T CHOOSE THE SAME PROBLEM AS ANY OTHER STUDENT, SO…write the title of the problem and the web address on the wiki´s Agony Aunt page list. To avoid repetition, make sure you check the list before making your choice.

If you need ideas for your reply, check out this website:<http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/dec/02/choosing-mate-evolutionary-agony-aunt>

AGONY AUNT´S PROBLEMS

http://myagonyaunt.com/

http://www.talktalk.co.uk/lifestyle/agonyaunt/

http://www.dearcupid.org/

http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/yin-and-yang/

1-FIRST AGE, THE BABY(the text,spoonfed)
2-SECOND AGE, THE CHILD
3-THIRD AGE, THE LOVER(after the song)
4-FOURTH AGE,THE SOLDIER
5-FIFTH AGE, THE JUDGE(after the conversation)
6- SIXTH AGE, THE ELDERLY
7- SEVENTH AGE, THE DEAD
8-(EIGHTH AGE, REINCARNATION)

Glossary
FIRST AGE
Mewling=crying Puking=vomiting/throwing up/being sick
SECOND AGE
Whining=complaining Satchel=school “briefcase” Crawling=moving slowly
Unwillingly=reluctantly/against their will (Notice the funny contrast between the “shining face” and “creeping unwillingly”)
THIRD AGE
Furnace=big oven Woeful=sad Eyebrow=forehead (nowadays, haired arch over the eye)
(Notice how ridiculous the renaissance lover looks)
FOURTH AGE
Oaths=swearing/solemn promises Bearded=with a beard Pard=leopard/panther (possible confusion with lion) Bubble=empty, deceptive Canon (cannon)
FIFTH AGE
Justice=judge (not in today´s British English) Belly=stomach Capon=chicken/castrated cockerel, bred for eating Lined=stuffed Saws=wise sayings Instances=explanations (not in today´s English)
SIXTH AGE
Lean=thin Slippered=with slippers Pantaloon=old-fashion trousers Pouch=wallet carried near the hips Hose=trousers (not in today´s English) Shrunk=made small
Shank=the part of the leg below the knee Treble=high sounds
SEVENTH AGE
Oblivion=forgetfulness

Write a 200-300 word composition exploring
1-Why Argentina and Brazil stopped listening to the International Monetary Fund.
2-How Bolivia and Iceland decided not to pay their “illegitimate” debts.
3-Can a European country become another David vs Golliath?

and upload it on the wiki (or email it if you can’t)