TTIP or the law of the jungle

If it is true that today the world is at a crossroads, two forces are currently in times of struggle. And if it is true that the we are the system, becomes ever more urgent that we start taking sides in this fight, because the reality seems to be happening above us, and we are not realizing.

Exists and is working now in a transnational trade agreement that will affect the whole world, will the change many of the already minimal structures of protection and of rights of the  citizens and why not say, of governments themselves. But you will have not read in any newspaper or on television, or by any means of mass communication, so that once again they have been heralded as genuine accomplices of power, not the citizenry and public opinion, by the theoretically have their rationale.

Politically, the agreement will eliminate differences between American and European regulations —’Eeuuroflags’, Javier Aristu, 2014

On November 28 2011 was created the Working Group High Level Jobs and Growth, in order to explore possible avenues for increasing investment and trade between the US and the EU. In June 2013, EU and US announced ‘the solution’: the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Agreement —TTIP is its acronym in English—. This agreement is a free trade agreement with historical and terrible precedents, terrible why none have achieved the objectives posed to social and employment level, if not the opposite. The NAFTA, for example, was predicted by the voice of Bill Clinton the creation of 20 million new jobs and after years has destroyed a million jobs and has increased the insecurity of those left standing.

Well, the TTIP has its reason for being, in theory, because will create —said by the most optimistic voices— two million new jobs and a GDP growth of 1% per annum for US and EU. However, in front of such encouraging figures, none of the powers —including Spain— has made public these estimates, neither have said a word about the treaty nor included as part of its political program, to get voters. Curious, very curious.

What pretends the treaty is to reduce all trade restrictions between the two powers, tariff and which are not tariff. Tariffs between the US and EU are already very low, almost symbolic, there is an almost free trade between the two powers. However, non-tariff restrictions maintaining sovereignty in type laws, labor, social, environmental and economic policies themselves are very different on either side of the ocean. It is here where the treaty aims to influence more strongly, and is basically his real reason for being.

Very different regulations

Europe has a policy more stringent than US levels. For start there are the welfare states in Europe stronger and more extensive in the world, compared to the US which has the weakest welfare state that exists in the Western world. In the dimension of rights cannot be further from each other, neither the regulations concerning the use, production, or use of agricultural chemicals and genetically modified products. In the US there are tens of chemicals, but are banned in Europe. In the US, for example, to determine which products are dangerous for human consumption is the government itself who studies and concludes and if you can market or not. In Europe the process is reversed, the companies who must prove that these products are not toxic, then the government approves or not for consumption.

Environmental laws are much laxer there than here, and returning it to name those concerning social rights are incomparable. Moreover, the economic models and production differ at all levels. In the EU, 99% of GDP consists of small and medium enterprises and their destruction would adversely affect their economies, something that has been said ad nauseam in EU. US has a model that is inversely based on large multinational corporations  and large armies of workers, technically called working-poors, only two of the rights established by the International Organization of Workers are met, in front of the eight rights respected in Europe. Moreover, since their model of welfare and production, US have the most deregulated, free-market and most neoliberal economy of the world.

Economically, the agreement between the United States and the European Union will affect to 60% of global GDP —’Eeuuromoney’, Javier Aristu, 2014

Leveling contingencies

Well, the TTIP it aims to standardize these differences, and on either side of these barriers or restrictions —called contingencies— want to be equivalent by both parties of the agreement. But the fact is, to achieve this, clearly Europe will have to do more lax regulations for all, because if what is needed is leveling Europe, must necessarily lower the level of its laws towards new and less restrictive. As Juan Torres López, specialist in Applied Economy and member of the Scientific Council of ATTAC, says in an interview for the website DailyMotion, this agreement as to the contingencies will mean three major changes:

1— The agreement will make the exchange of products equivalence is established,what is good there, here is good too , the rules are standardized, and products that are banned here may be marketed and therefore consumed. Some examples are:  with hormone-treated beef and veal, turkey and chicken cleaning with  chlorine or greater number of transgenic products, all hitherto banned in the EU. And it is not necessary contained on labels —another fundamental difference—.

2— Laws and specific courts for what is called ‘investment protection’. If an investor or company operates for example in the same sector as the public, can ask the same condition or better to compete with it freely and therefore the public sector be left unprotected.

3— Creation of specific courts for such regulations, that historical experience with similar treaties said to be discrete and silent publicly and often highly arbitrary.

In short, an authentic and definitive blow to democracy and sovereignty of nations, governments and the public sector. A final blow to the emerging economies, because the West is allying with the West —US and EU account for 60% of global GDP—, but with the freedom to continue relocating. And finally, the triumph of one of the two tendencies in struggle, the no democratization and free markets where the maximum benefit reigns above all else, nature, individual rights and society. The treaty still in negotiations now; the Commissioner DeGucht, one of his captains, said that negotiations should remain confidential until its end. The deal could be in place later this year or early next. In Spain, on May 6 2014, IU raised a referendum for TTIP which was rejected by voting against PP, PSOE, CiU, PNV and UPyD, i.e., all major parties. One last item of interest: nine of the ten parts that make up the treaty negotiators are formed by lobbyists and corporations.

Bye bye Old Continent, hello Mc Donald’s! What can we do?

Related posts
array(2) { [0]=> int(899) [1]=> int(25) }
array(4) { [0]=> object(WP_Post)#1640 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(5166) ["post_author"]=> string(4) "2049" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2013-08-19 00:01:28" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2013-08-18 22:01:28" ["post_content"]=> string(7548) "El triángulo de la violencia, definido por el sociólogo noruego Johan Galtung, identifica tres tipos de violencia y sostiene que el fenómeno tiene una estructura similar a la de un iceberg, ya que tras su parte visible siempre existe una mucho mayor que permanece oculta. La violencia directa, que correspondería a la punta del iceberg, tiene como principal característica el hecho de que la mayoría de sus efectos son visibles, principalmente los materiales, aunque no todos: el odio generado, los traumas psicológicos creados o la aparición de conceptos como el de 'enemigo' son efectos igual de graves que no suelen ser considerados como tales. Al ser el tipo de violencia más conocida y evidente, es común pensar que es la peor de todas las violencias, lo cual no es cierto precisamente por esa visibilidad, que la hace más fácil de identificar y por tanto de combatir. Es importante señalar que este tipo de violencia es la manifestación de algo, no su origen, y es en los orígenes donde deben buscarse las causas y puede actuarse con mayor eficacia. La violencia directa no afecta a tantas personas como las otras dos, cultural y estructural, que formarían la parte oculta del iceberg. La violencia cultural es una violencia simbólica, que se expresa en infinidad de medios —religión, ideología, lenguaje, arte, ciencia, medios de comunicación, educación, etc—y cumple la función de legitimar la violencia directa y estructural, así como de inhibir o reprimir la respuesta de quienes la sufren. Ofrece incluso justificaciones para que los seres humanos, a diferencia del resto de especies, se destruyan mutuamente y hasta sean recompensados por hacerlo: no es extraño aceptar la violencia en nombre de la patria o de la religión. Existe una cultura de la violencia en la que las escuelas y demás medios de transmisión y reproducción de cultura muestran la historia como una sucesión de guerras; la costumbre es que los conflictos se repriman por la incuestionable autoridad paterna, o por la autoridad del macho sobre la hembra; los medios de comunicación de masas venden el uso de ejércitos como la vía principal de solución de los conflictos internacionales, etc. De modo que la vida transcurre en un ambiente de violencia constante, que se manifiesta a diario en todos los ámbitos y a todos los niveles. La violencia estructural aparece cuando, como resultado de procesos de estratificación social, se produce un perjuicio en la satisfacción de las necesidades humanas básicas: supervivencia, bienestar, identidad, libertad, etc. Está originada por todo un conjunto de estructuras, tanto físicas como organizativas, que no permiten la satisfacción de esas necesidades y es la peor de las tres violencias porque es el origen de todas, la que más mata y a más personas afecta. Es también un tipo de violencia indirecta y en ocasiones incluso no intencionada: las acciones que provocan el hambre en el mundo, por ejemplo, no están diseñadas y realizadas directamente con ese fin, sino que derivan de la política económica capitalista y el injusto reparto de la riqueza. Esto provoca que, al contrario de lo que ocurre con la violencia directa, en ocasiones las causas que producen la violencia estructural no sean visibles con claridad y sea más complicado enfrentarse a ella. Siempre según Galtung, a menudo las causas de la violencia directa están relacionadas con situaciones de violencia estructural y justificadas por la violencia cultural: muchas situaciones son consecuencia de un abuso de poder que recae sobre un grupo oprimido, o de una situación de injusticia social —reparto de recursos insuficiente, gran desigualdad en la renta de las personas, dificultad de acceso a los servicios sociales— y reciben el espaldarazo de discursos que las justifican.The triangle of violence, defined by the Norwegian sociologist Johan Galtung, identifies three types of violence and argues that the phenomenon has a similar structure to that of an iceberg, in which there is always a small visible part and a huge hidden part. Direct violence, corresponding to the tip of the iceberg, has as its main characteristic the fact that most of its effects are visible, mainly the materials, but not all of them: hate, psychological trauma or the emergence of concepts such as 'enemy' are equally serious effects, but they are often not seen as such. Being the most popular and obvious, it is commonly thought that direct is the worst kind of violence, which is not true for precisely this visibility, which makes it easier to identify and therefore to combat. It is important to note that this type of violence is the manifestation of something, not its origin, and is in the beginning where it should be sought causes and act more effectively. Direct violence does not affect many people as cultural and structural violence, which are the hidden part of the iceberg. Cultural violence is a symbolic violence that is expressed in countless media —religion, ideology, language, art, science, media, education, etc— and serves to legitimize direct and structural violence and to inhibit or suppress the response of the victims. It even offers justifications for humans, unlike other species, to destroy each other and to be rewarded for doing so: it is not strange to accept violence in the name of country or religion. There is a culture of violence in which schools and other instruments of transmission and reproduction of culture show History as a succession of wars; it is usual to suppress conflicts by unquestioned parental authority, or authority of the male over the female; mass media sell armies use as the main way of solving international conflicts, etc. So life goes on in an atmosphere of constant violence, manifested daily in all areas and at all levels. Structural violence is displayed when, as a result of social stratification processes, there is a damage in the satisfaction of basic human needs: survival, welfare, identity, freedom, etc. It is caused by a set of structures, both physical and organizational, which do not allow the satisfaction of those needs and is the worst of the three violence because it is the origin of all and kills and affects more people. It is also a form of indirect violence and sometimes even unintentional: the actions that cause hunger, for example, are not designed and made ​​directly for that purpose, but they are result from capitalist economic policy and the unfair distribution of wealth. This sometimes causes that the reasons of structural violence are not clearly visible and therefore it is more difficult to deal with it. According to Galtung, often causes of direct violence are related to structural violence and justified by cultural violence: many situations are the result of an abuse of power which concerns an oppressed group, or a social injustice —insufficient resources sharing, great inequality in personal income, limited access to social services— and receive the backing of speeches justifying them." ["post_title"]=> string(117) "Violencia directa, cultural y estructuralDirect, cultural and structural violence" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(39) "direct-cultural-and-structural-violence" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2020-02-19 00:53:39" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2020-02-18 23:53:39" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(29) "http://whatonline.org/?p=5166" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" } [1]=> object(WP_Post)#1624 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(4595) ["post_author"]=> string(4) "2049" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2013-04-08 00:01:17" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2013-04-07 22:01:17" ["post_content"]=> string(5889) "Desde su nacimiento con la comida rápida en la década de los 30 en Estados Unidos, la polémica sobre la nueva industria alimentaria no ha dejado de suscitarse. ¿Constituye realmente esta industria la solución a todos los problemas de subsistencia y abastecimiento? ¿Debemos pensar que sólo gracias a ella podríamos alimentar saludablemente a todos los ciudadanos de occidente, e incluso acabar con el hambre en países no desarrollados? O, por el contrario, ¿la industria de la alimentación no sólo no ha ayudado a erradicar el hambre sino que es responsable de generar nuevas enfermedades ligadas a este sistema de producción de alimentos a gran escala? Las denuncias y las críticas proceden de diferentes frentes: ecologistas, grupos de granjeros y ciudadanos reclaman legislaciones que velen por los intereses de todos y no sólo por los de las grandes multinacionales de la alimentación. En lugar de ello, las leyes actuales de la principal potencia mundial (Estados Unidos) protegen al pequeño grupo de empresas que controla todo el proceso alimentario, desde el patentado de semillas resistentes a las diversas plagas y enfermedades —semillas que al convertirse en cereales servirán para alimentar al ganado— hasta el momento en que los productos se ponen a la venta en el supermercado. Los argumentos críticos se articulan desde diversos flancos: como demuestran los datos del Banco Mundial, casi 2.800 millones de personas viven por debajo de la línea de pobreza y el hambre en el mundo sigue siendo el mayor problema social y político. El desarrollo de la industria alimentaria no ha beneficiado al 46% de la humanidad y la obesidad, la diabetes, el colesterol o las enfermedades ligadas a la nutrición han aumentado exponencialmente con la expansión de la industria de la alimentación. Las grandes multinacionales alimentarias, con el apoyo de gobiernos y leyes, impiden el desarrollo de las formas de explotación agrícola tradicional, hasta el punto de que éstas claudican ante sus presiones y manipulaciones. Los ciudadanos se sienten engañados cuando se les oculta cómo se manipulan genéticamente ciertos alimentos, su procedencia, los procesos de maduración que siguen frutas y verduras, etc. La aparición constante de enfermedades causadas por los alimentos que consumimos —por ejemplo, la encefalopatía espongiforme o los brotes de la enfermedad producida por la bacteria E. Coli 0157:H7— induce a pensar que estamos ante un problema muy serio cuyo responsable último es nuestro sistema económico y de producción, y este sistema afecta en último término a nuestra salud y bienestar físico e intelectual. Y la responsabilidad no reside sólo en el ciudadano que se alimenta, sino en una industria que modifica los alimentos y oculta la manipulación. Parece que en gran parte somos lo que comemos. Y también que gran parte de lo que comemos está contaminado, adulterado y su proceso de producción ocurre tras misteriosas naves diseñadas para ocultar cómo se manipula lo que después nos llevaremos a la boca. © Texto basado en un artículo de Iván Teimil y Asunción Herrera, de la Universidad de Oviedo (España)From birth to fast food in the 30s in the United States, the controversy over the new food industry has constantly arise. Constitutes the industry really the solution to all problems of subsistence and supplies? Are we to think that just because she could feed healthy to all citizens of the West, and even end hunger in underdeveloped countries? Or, conversely, does the food industry has not only helped eradicate hunger but is liable to generate new illnesses linked to this system of food production on a large scale? The complaints and criticisms from different fronts: environmentalists, farmers and citizens groups demanding legislation to ensure the interests of all and not just those of large multinational food. Instead, the current laws of the major world power (the United States) protect the small group of companies controls the entire food process, from the patented seeds resistant to various pests and diseases, seed grain that will become for cattle feed, so far as the products offered for sale at the supermarket. The critical arguments are articulated from various sides: as the data of the World Bank, nearly 2,800 million people live below the poverty and hunger in the world is still the greatest social and political problem. The development of the food industry has not benefited the 46% of humanity and obesity, diabetes, cholesterol or nutrition-related diseases have increased exponentially with the expansion of the food industry. The large food multinationals, with the support of governments and laws, prevent the development of traditional farming ways, to the point that they claudican to their pressures and manipulations. Citizens feel cheated when they are hidden how certain foods are genetically engineered, their origin, maturation processes following fruits and vegetables, etc. The continuing emergence of diseases caused by the food we eat –for example, spongiform encephalopathy outbreaks or disease caused by the bacterium E. Coli 0157: H7– suggests that this is a very serious problem which is ultimately responsible for our economic and production system, and this system will ultimately affect our health and physical and intellectual. And the responsibility lies not only in the city that eats, but in an industry that hides modified food and handling. It seems that much of what we are is what we eat. And much of what we eat is contaminated, adulterated and its production process occurs after mysterious spacecraft designed to conceal how it is handled before we put into our mouths. : Based on an article by Iván Teimil and Asunción Herrera, from the University of Oviedo (Spain)" ["post_title"]=> string(74) "Somos lo que comemosWe are what we eat" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(20) "somos-lo-que-comemos" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2020-02-17 00:08:51" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2020-02-16 23:08:51" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(29) "http://whatonline.org/?p=4595" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" } [2]=> object(WP_Post)#1641 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(5593) ["post_author"]=> string(4) "2046" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2014-02-03 00:01:00" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2014-02-02 23:01:00" ["post_content"]=> string(1677) "Los medios actuales de comunicación en las redes sociales nos permiten moldear una identidad personal a medida, con la que relacionarnos con el mundo. Fotografías, mensajes, referencias, comentarios, vídeos y canciones, estratégicamente seleccionados, responden a un deseo general de mostrarnos y ser aceptados como nos gustaría ser. Sin quererlo, se ha generado un gap entre quiénes somos, con nuestras flaquezas y alegrías, y cómo nos mostramos al mundo en diferido. En la entretela de estas dos bandas separadas por la técnica digital se hacina mucha soledad, de esa que es triste. Estamos conectados con cientos de personas y tal vez más solitarios que nunca. De esto trata 'The innovation of loneliness' —La innovación de la soledad—, una pieza de animación de Shimi Cohen basada en un libro de Sherry Turkle titulado 'Alone together' —Juntos a solas—.The current social networks allow us to mold a personal identity with which we relate to the world. Photos, messages, references, comments, videos and songs, strategically selected, reflect a general desire to show us and be accepted as we would like to be. Unwittingly, it has been created a gap between who we are, with our foibles and joys, and how we show deferred to the world. In the interlining of these two bands separated by digital technology there are much loneliness, that kind of loneliness which is sad. We are connected with hundreds of people and perhaps more lonely than ever. All this is dealt in 'The innovation of loneliness', a piece of animation made by Shimi Cohen, based on a book by Sherry Turkle titled 'Alone together'." ["post_title"]=> string(124) "Juntos a solas, la innovación de la soledadAlone together, the innovation of loneliness" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(43) "alone-together-the-innovation-of-loneliness" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2020-02-19 00:15:54" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2020-02-18 23:15:54" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(29) "http://whatonline.org/?p=5593" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" } [3]=> object(WP_Post)#1779 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(7035) ["post_author"]=> string(4) "2046" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2014-09-08 00:01:22" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2014-09-07 22:01:22" ["post_content"]=> string(8371) "El paternalismo de Estado está llegando a su fin. La consigna institucional de ‘protección a los buenos ciudadanos’ está perdiendo credibilidad en todas sus formas de persuasión. No ha sido capaz de protegernos de las estafas mundiales orquestadas por la banca ni de los abusos de las multinacionales para obtener ventajas frente a los pequeños empresarios. Por el contrario, los casos crecientes y extendidos de corrupción en el seno de los mandatarios hacen pensar cada día más que es de ellos de quien debemos protegernos y a quienes debemos enfrentarnos. El Estado hoy es un ente con intereses propios que trata al ciudadano como un cliente al que debe satisfacer mínimamente para proseguir existiendo en su poder. Los partidos compiten entre ellos para sus propios intereses. En este delicado intercambio con el pueblo, satisfacen unas necesidades ociosas, económicas y de identidad, para no perder los privilegios que se han agenciado. Hoy ya no escandalizan estos comentarios. El bienestar, la palabra mágica para comprar el alma de los ciudadanos, es la moneda de cambio. Pero la propia dinámica social está socavando esta pretendida seguridad que el Estado avala con su sello para el ‘buen ciudadano’. Uno de los signos de esta revolución social son las nuevas formas de organización ciudadana que van surgiendo. Lo lamento por aquellos devotos ciudadanos insertos en el sistema de control orquestado por las instituciones oficiales, pero hay que caminar a favor de la sostenibilidad y el aprovechamiento los recursos naturales. Compartir es el nuevo paradigma de la economía colaborativa, que las nuevas tecnologías están dejando aflorar. Es necesario reconsiderar el papel intrusivo del Estado, escondido bajo esta falsa seguridad al ciudadano. No es menos sorprendente el nivel de fiabilidad que subsiste en estos nuevos tipos de intercambio social. Si hubiera habido muchos casos de fraude ya nos lo hubieran hecho saber por sus informativos. W_elfindelpaternalismo
Internet ha supuesto una revolución muy rápida a muchos niveles, y a menudo los gobernantes se ven atropellados por acontecimientos que todavía no cuentan con una legislación clara —Imagen Unknown Author
En mi barrio, so pretexto de barullo para el vecindario, no se dan licencias para apartamentos turísticos. El incivismo de algunos y la incapacidad del ayuntamiento para gestionarlo no deberían saldarse con una normativa que capa la libertad de los ciudadanos para compartir su vivienda o cederla a cambio de unos ingresos. Comprendo que el trust bancos-estado-grandes empresas esté atemorizado ante la amenaza de esta economía que tiende hacia la sostenibilidad; tal vez en números enteros signifique un decrecimiento, pero en calidad medioambiental no dudo que significará un significativo crecimiento. No es ningún secreto la presión de los hoteleros para erradicar de los barrios en lo posible este tipo de transacciones. El que alquila una habitación, está optimizando el aprovechamiento de los recursos naturales y el esfuerzo humano para construir su piso. El que comparte un viaje en coche optimiza el aprovechamiento del carburante que emplearía igualmente viajando solo, o quien alquila su piso se desplaza a otro piso más pequeño o lo comparte con otros. De este modo visto en conjunto, con menos recursos naturales y menos agentes contaminantes, puede preservarse mucho del consumo necesario. Es más sostenible y créanme, esto se siente en el espíritu de las personas que participan de estos nuevos modelos. Estoy de acuerdo, hay que crear nuevas regulaciones adecuadas para proteger al ciudadano de abusos y de posibles infractores en este nuevo tipo de organización social. Hay que minimizar los perjuicios y fiscalizar las nuevas formas de economía. Considero que este debería ser el papel de las instituciones en su misión esencial de optimizar la convivencia de los ciudadanos. Compartir automóviles, rentabilizar los pisos y cuantas formas surjan para mejorar la sostenibilidad son un adelanto para la supervivencia humana en este planeta.The paternalism of State is coming to an end. The corporate slogan of 'protecting the good citizens' is losing credibility in all forms of persuasion. He has not been able to protect us from global banking scams orchestrated or abuses of multinationals to gain advantage over small businesses. On the contrary, the growing and widespread corruption within the leaders cases suggest, reality shows us that we need protect ourselves from them, and is of them to those we must need to face. Today, the State is an entity with its own interests which treats the citizen as a customer, the State must minimally meet to continue to exist in its power. The parties compete with each other for their own interests. In this delicate exchange with people, the State meets the our needs of leisure, economics and identity, to thereby keep their own privileges acquired. Comments like these, nowadays no longer scandalize anyone. Welfare, the magic word to buy the soul of citizens, is the currency. But the social dynamics itself is undermining this false security that the State guarantees his seal to the 'good citizen'. One sign of this social revolution are the new forms of civic organization emerging. I feel sorry for those devotees citizens inserts in control system orchestrated by official institutions, but we need to walk in favor of sustainability and use of natural resources. Sharing is the new paradigm of collaborative economy that new technologies are letting emerge. It is necessary to reconsider the intrusive role of the State, hidden under the false security to citizens. No less surprising is the level of confidence that exists in these new types of social exchange. If there had been many cases of fraud, we would know  the situation, through its information and news. W_elfindelpaternalismo
The Internet has meant a very rapid revolution at many levels, and governors and rulers are often run over by events that do not have a clear legislation yet —Image Unknown Author
In my neighborhood pretext of a big din, does not  licenses are given to rent or share apartments. The incivility of some and the inability of the council to manage it, should not be paid with a rules that restrict the freedom of citizens to share their property or transfer it to  income change. I understand that the trust banks-been-great companies are frightened by the threat of this economy that tends towards sustainability; in integers numbers perhaps mean a economic decrease, but  in the environmental quality, without no doubt, this way of economy it will mean significate growth. It's no secret pressure from hoteliers to eradicate possible in the neighborhoods such transactions. Anyone who rents a room, is optimizing the use of natural resources and human effort to build your floor. Anyone who shares a travel in a car optimizes the use of fuel that also employ traveling alone, or who rents his apartment and moves to a smaller or share it with other floor. Thus viewed together, with fewer resources and less pollutants can be preserved much consumption. It is more sustainable and believe me, this feels in the spirit of the people who participate in these new models. I agree, create new laws and rules adequate to protect citizens from abuse and potential offenders in this new type of social organization . You have to minimize the damage and monitor new forms of economy. I believe this should be the role of institutions on its core mission of optimizing the coexistence of citizens. Share the automobiles, share the apartments, and any ways to improve the sustainability are arising, and this fact is an advance for human survival on this planet." ["post_title"]=> string(98) "El fin del paternalismo del EstadoThe end of State paternalism" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["ping_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(28) "the-end-of-state-paternalism" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2020-02-18 23:54:49" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2020-02-18 22:54:49" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(29) "http://whatonline.org/?p=7035" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" } }