Если у вас возникли сложности с курсовой, контрольной, дипломной, рефератом, отчетом по практике, научно-исследовательской и любой другой работой - мы готовы помочь.
Предоплата всего
Подписываем
3.We live in a modern society. Every day we work, study, meet our friends and relatives, take part in sport and music competitions. Somebody thinks that it is great! But not everybody knows that it’s a big happiness to be a healthy man. And in fact, there are many less lucky people in among us. For the majority of people of our planet the problems of the other people are uninteresting. People live in a hurry , do not pay their attention to each other , and even dont respect each other. Thus, we can draw a conclusion about relations in the society to each other, and especially to the people with a Down syndrome. The disabled are the same like we are , they are just in need of help, and people instead of helping them make fun of them. Unfortunately, our world is hopeless.
The family is the most important people in the life of children with a Down syndrome . A good family never leaves their child in need, only family will always listen and help to him.
At the beginning of the 20th century parents were advised to leave their sick children to the special organizations. Now a progress in this problem exists and people who faced with the trouble can leave their children at home and look after them themselves. But they had to have a lot of money for the treatment, because they may need of special exercise machines and devices.
First of all, parents should be a very patience and not to give up to the difficulties. They shall be prepared as morally and financially.
People with disability are strong people. Living in our cruel society is difficult for them but, despite of this, they enjoy their lives.
Always diseases make people think about many things, look again to reality which surrounds us...Let`s help people who need in that and there will be much more smiles and happiness in the world.
это теория
Ownership of property may be private, collective, or common and the property may be objects, land/real estate, or intellectual property. Determining ownership in law involves determining who has certain rights and duties over the property. These rights and duties, sometimes called a 'bundle of rights', can be separated and held by different parties.
The process and mechanics of ownership are fairly complex: one can gain, transfer and lose ownership of property in a number of ways. To acquire property one can purchase it with money, trade it for other property, win it in a bet, receive it as a gift, inherit it, find it, receive it as damages, earn it by doing work or performing services, make it, or homestead it. One can transfer or lose ownership of property by selling it for money, exchanging it for other property, giving it as a gift, misplacing it, or having it stripped from one's ownership through legal means such as eviction, foreclosure, seizure, or taking. Ownership is self-propagating in that the owner of any property will also own the economic benefits of that property.
Продукт труда (от лат.(латинский) productus — произведённый, созданный), потребительная стоимость, вещество природы, приспособленное трудом работника с помощью орудий производства к человеческим потребностям. П. т. представляет собой материальный результат труда человека. Предметы труда, подвергаемые обработке в процессе производства, изменяют свою форму, превращаются в П. т., которые распадаются на средства производства и предметы потребления. Средства производства (машины, сырьё и материалы) идут в производственное потребление, а предметы потребления (продукты питания, одежда, обувь и т.п.) — в индивидуальное, личное потребление. П. т. пригоден для различных способов использования. Например, зерно может служить сырьём на мельнице, винокуренном заводе, использоваться в качестве корма на животноводческой ферме или семян для воспроизводства. П. т., существующий в готовой для потребления форме, может вновь стать сырьём для производства др. продукта, как например, виноград — для производства вина. Является ли конкретная потребительная стоимость сырьём, средством труда или П. т., всецело зависит от определённой функции и места её в процессе труда.
П. т. в условиях товарного производства изготовляется для продажи, т. е. становится товаром, который обладает не только потребительной стоимостью, но и стоимостью. При капитализме собственниками П. т. являются не рабочие, создающие продукты, а капиталисты — собственники средств производства. В социалистическом обществе в условиях господства общественной собственности на средства производства П. т. принадлежит трудящимся.
Product of labour (from lat.(Latin) productus - produced, created), use value, nature substance, adapted hard by a worker with the help of the instruments of production for human needs. P. L. represents the result of human labor. Items of work, subject to processing in the production process, change their form, become P. so that break up of the means of production and consumer goods. Means of production (machines, raw materials) are both in industrial consumption, and consumer goods (food, clothes, shoes etc) - the individual, personal consumption. P. L. is suitable for different uses. For example, the grain can serve as a raw material for the mill, a distillery, used as fodder for cattle-breeding farm or seeds for reproduction. P. L., existing in the ready for consumption form, can become a feedstock for the production of other product, such as grapes for wine production. Whether a particular use value of raw materials, means of labour or P. L., depends on a specific function and place it in the course of work.
P. L. in terms of commodity production is manufactured for sale, i.e., becomes a commodity, which not only has a use-value, but value. Under capitalism owners P. I. are not working,
creating products and capitalists - owners of the means of production. In a socialist society under the rule of the social ownership of the means of production P. T. belongs to the working people.
We have to recognise that the right of private individual ownership of property is man-made and constantly dependent on the extent to which those without property believe that the owner can make his claim stick. One way of making the claim stick is to remove it from the realm of human agreements, to mystify it, to clothe it in myths, of which the most important with respect to the so-called right of private ownership of social product and the things that make this product possible is the myth of the lone “supernormal” individual. It is only by saying – louder and louder, over and over again – “I! I! I!” that we can then get away with saying “my” and “mine”.
The ancient Jews, for one, had a very different outlook on property and ownership, viewing it as something much more temporary and tentative than we do. Mosaic law with respect to ownership of land (the only significant productive property of the time) is unambiguous: And the land shall not be sold in perpetuity; for the land is Mine; for ye are strangers and settlers with Me. And in all the land of your possession ye shall grant a redemption for the land. The buying and selling of land was based on principles very different from those we know. It was not, in fact, the land itself that changed hands, but rather the right to use the land to cultivate crops. The price of the land was determined by the number of years, and therefore the number of crops, remaining until the next jubilee year, when the land reverted to the family that originally possessed it. Under such a law, buying land is similar to the process we call leasing. The institution of the jubilee year was a specific mechanism for rectifying the in equities that had accumulated, for simultaneously restoring liberty and equality for all: And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof..
Although the law of jubilee was evaded more and more and ultimately fell into disuse, there can be no doubt that it was adhered to for many generations. Similarly, the tenure of land in the agrarian feudal ages was hedged all about with restrictions and accompanied by specific obligations that the landowner owed to his tenants. These restrictions and obligations, too, were frequently evaded and violated – perhaps more often than they were honoured – but they were unquestionably part of the structure of law and custom until the dawn of the modern era, when the very idea of land began to change and when land began to be equated with capital, as the new commercial classes began to impose their own view of private property as something with which one could do more or less what one pleased. A bit later, Europeans invented a new method of earning riches, that of “discovery”, and they came to America and claimed the land - on the grounds that they had never seen it before – and then went through the arduous labour of possessing by bounding.
In modern times, of course, we have the example of socialist countries where private ownership of any significant amount of property that constitutes “means of production” is prohibited as antisocial and antihuman. So, the ideas we have in America (and in the majority of the world's nations) about the private ownership of productive property as a natural and universal right of mankind, perhaps of divine origin, are by no means universal and must be viewed as an invention of man rather than a decree of God. Of course, we are completely trained to accept the idea of ownership of the earth and its products, raw and transformed.