Water

[open mind]

is it a right or is it a good?

i say it's a right.

[thatwasamoment]

tastes good

[deFobbed14yrs]

i hate vitamin water. why weakly flavor water? :tumbleweed: :soapbox:

[Scrandon]

If you want clean filtered drinking water, it is a good. Otherwise, go live by a stream.

[Smeee]

I prefer Diet Coke.

[xshady121]

Water Sucks, GATORADE is better.

[mymusicismylife]

I like how it washes me clean of the sweat, sex, and shame.

[inthemidst]

Definitely something we take for granted, while many across the Atlantic, and even in Latin America as well don't have clean drinking water. We should consider ourselves very fortunate...

...Sorry, I felt like saying something social justice-y.

[caveBEAR]

Wow, bunch of scholarly responses in this thread. :rolleyes:

It's 2010. Water should be a right for everyone on this planet. The fact that it's not shows how fucked and ass-backwards we still are.

[AndrewCloer]

I like water.

[Theseventhson]

It should be a right.

[Manicapathy]

kN-wG6IsFVw

[sjb2k1]

you need it to live. it's a right.

i did a project my senior year of college that made me believe the next great war won't be over oil, it'll be over water.

[fishguts182]

you need it to live. it's a right.

i did a project my senior year of college that made me believe the next great war won't be over oil, it'll be over water.

If a war like this would occur I think it would be the biggest and most brutal war ever. Fighting over water is essentially fighting for the right to live...

[sjb2k1]

If a war like this would occur I think it would be the biggest and most brutal war ever. Fighting over water is essentially fighting for the right to live...
pretty much. and considering how water HAS become a good instead of a right, particularly access to clean drinking water...it's sort of scary to think about.

[fishguts182]

pretty much. and considering how water HAS become a good instead of a right, particularly access to clean drinking water...it's sort of scary to think about.

exactly. A war like this would lead to the end of the human race imo. I think nuclear weapons would be used and we would end up destroying the planet for something that is a right.

[sjb2k1]

exactly. A war like this would lead to the end of the human race imo. I think nuclear weapons would be used and we would end up destroying the planet for something that is a right.
it's so weird to think about too, as i just go into a bathroom, turn on the tap, and bam, clean drinking water. whereas there are folks in other places who have to walk miles just to get to a well or stream and there's no guarantee they can pay for it or that it's clean.

[Jennurna Gray]

Should be a right.

But we live in a fucked up world.

[fishguts182]

it's so weird to think about too, as i just go into a bathroom, turn on the tap, and bam, clean drinking water. whereas there are folks in other places who have to walk miles just to get to a well or stream and there's no guarantee they can pay for it or that it's clean.

yeah, and some of those people who walk for miles for water do not know if they will return home alive due to the violence in some of their countries already.

[sjb2k1]

yeah, and some of those people who walk for miles for water do not know if they will return home alive due to the violence in some of their countries already.
yep. but i have no idea how we'd go about fixing any of that, you know? shit like this happens in america every day.

[fishguts182]

yep. but i have no idea how we'd go about fixing any of that, you know? shit like this happens in america every day.

I dont even know if its fixable at this point. Too many people dont care about helping others who really need the help people are getting too selfish

[saysmydoctor]

If you buy bottled water, you are part of the problem.

[GuitarR0cker1]

It depends what the water is being used for. Everybody should have access to drinking water free of charge. Allocating water for agriculture, power, pointless shit(golf courses!) etc becomes tricky and is a source of international tension. You also have to factor in the environment into water allocation or bad things happen.

[sjb2k1]

If you buy bottled water, you are part of the problem.
what if the owner of your company provides it free of charge in the company fridge?

[samsara]

I have to drink it constantly or I die.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

If you buy bottled water, you are part of the problem.

I like to think that when I buy a 24 pack of Poland Springs water for $3.99 at Target, I'm helping thousands of Poland Springs employees keep their job.

[caveBEAR]

Brita Filters are the way to go. They even have those little flavor adder things, but I prefer 'water' flavor in my water.

[samsara]

I like drinking water from my grandmas house. Its from a spring so it tastes clean and its always cold.

[sjb2k1]

we have a pur fiilter on our faucet and i fucking hate the thing. at our last apartment i actually had to saw one apart to pry it off the faucet.

[Charles777]

Wow, bunch of scholarly responses in this thread. :rolleyes:

It's 2010. Water should be a right for everyone on this planet. The fact that it's not shows how fucked and ass-backwards we still are.
I always thought it was weird that people have to pay for water.

[i_am_sexy]

its a right. all restaurants in Texas give free water.

[Machu505]

I like to think that when I buy a 24 pack of Poland Springs water for $3.99 at Target, I'm helping thousands of Poland Springs employees keep their job.
I drank that stuff for the first time last week. I was like shit, this water came all the way from Poland. Imagine my disappointment when I found out it was just from Maine.

[<*)))><]

you need it to live. it's a right.

i did a project my senior year of college that made me believe the next great war won't be over oil, it'll be over water.
Wasnt that in a James Bond movie?

[saysmydoctor]

what if the owner of your company provides it free of charge in the company fridge?
Eh.
I like to think that when I buy a 24 pack of Poland Springs water for $3.99 at Target, I'm helping thousands of Poland Springs employees keep their job.
Eh.

[troubledbyinsects]

No way it's a fucking right, if you don't have water then suck it up. No skin off my back, people need to learn to take care of their own problems goddamn.

sarcasm

[Roboman]

its a right. all restaurants in Texas give free water.

Yeah...I'm pretty sure that's how pretty much all restaurants in the nation are (at least any place that I can ever remember being to). We aren't Europe, after all.

No way it's a fucking right, if you don't have water then suck it up. No skin off my back, people need to learn to take care of their own problems goddamn.

Hmmmm.

[troubledbyinsects]

Yeah...I'm pretty sure that's how pretty much all restaurants in the nation are (at least any place that I can ever remember being to). We aren't Europe, after all.



Hmmmm.
;-)

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

To quote Homer Simpson... "Water water everywhere, now let's all have a drink"

[caveBEAR]

Eh.

The hotel I work in gives out bottled water to the employees. It's either that or the water fountains the kids use, and I've had H1N1 before. I'm not looking to go through that again.

[Theseventhson]

The hotel I work in gives out bottled water to the employees. It's either that or the water fountains the kids use, and I've had H1N1 before. I'm not looking to go through that again.

Truth, I've gotten mono from the water fountains at my school.

[ace1112]

Brita Filters are the way to go. They even have those little flavor adder things, but I prefer 'water' flavor in my water.

yumm water flavored i like to put that in my koolaid you know when i want to mix koolaid but feel like drinking water

[caveBEAR]

yumm water flavored i like to put that in my koolaid you know when i want to mix koolaid but feel like drinking water

:-|

Sure.

[zion the lion]

If you buy bottled water, you are part of the problem.

how are you part of the problem when buying it bottled, but you're not part of the problem when you're paying a water bill or buying a brita filter?

I'm sorry the water here in the house tastes like shit and the guys I live with dont use cups but drink right out of the faucet, and the water is shut off regularly but I'd rather buy a fucking bottle than use something that 12 different guys put their mouth on in a day.

And hello there are jobs that people have because of bottled water.

[saysmydoctor]

how are you part of the problem when buying it bottled, but you're not part of the problem when you're paying a water bill or buying a brita filter?

I'm sorry the water here in the house tastes like shit and the guys I live with dont use cups but drink right out of the faucet, and the water is shut off regularly but I'd rather buy a fucking bottle than use something that 12 different guys put their mouth on in a day.

And hello there are jobs that people have because of bottled water.
1. A water bill is clearly different because it subsidizes the costs of the system that brings the water to you and sometimes filtrates, along with sewage costs, etc.
2. I agree, buying a filter shouldn't be necessary, our water bill payment should be used to cover the costs of filtrating the water--and modern, efficient systems at that. That's a pretty common problem, people have access to sometimes heavily polluted water--even though we've had the technology for years to purify it. That's just a poor usage of our tax dollar and generally lack of willingness by the government to overhaul (okay, there, I just started talking about Albany, but it's common in a lot of upstate towns).

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch

That's what the product and numerous others cause. And this one is incredibly preventable--why is there a market for bottled water? It's making a product of something that is a complete necessity.

Yeah, hello!, with proper investment, those people could have jobs maintaining a water system that provides water to every home.

[zion the lion]

1. A water bill is clearly different because it subsidizes the costs of the system that brings the water to you and sometimes filtrates, along with sewage costs, etc.
2. I agree, buying a filter shouldn't be necessary, our water bill payment should be used to cover the costs of filtrating the water--and modern, efficient systems at that. That's a pretty common problem, people have access to sometimes heavily polluted water--even though we've had the technology for years to purify it. That's just a poor usage of our tax dollar and generally lack of willingness by the government to overhaul (okay, there, I just started talking about Albany, but it's common in a lot of upstate towns).

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch

That's what the product and numerous others cause. And this one is incredibly preventable--why is there a market for bottled water? It's making a product of something that is a complete necessity.

Yeah, hello!, with proper investment, those people could have jobs maintaining a water system that provides water to every home.

You didnt have to link me to that garbage patch...I've known about it a long ass time and I've talked about it on here. but thanks.

Anyway, we're still adding to the "problem" if we're paying a bill for something that's supposed to be a right, arent we?

And with proper investment? Like what exactly?

[saysmydoctor]

You didnt have to link me to that garbage patch...I've known about it a long ass time and I've talked about it on here. but thanks.

Anyway, we're still adding to the "problem" if we're paying a bill for something that's supposed to be a right, arent we?

And with proper investment? Like what exactly?
Well then don't play stupid and fucking think.

It's not adding to the problem. Whether you yourself handmade some sort of system that got water from wherever it is to wherever your home is, you'd still have to "pay" the costs (probably way more)--basic economic lesson: TANSTAAFL. The bill is essentially contributing to the common good: where everyone contributes to ensure everyone gets the water they all need. It's not being made a commodity, it's being managed as a common resource (in some cases, then again there is the point that poor populations generally have access to bad water and still pay a comparable cost to others who don't--I obviously don't support this class distinction). Regardless of whether we are paying a bill or paying with our own labor and upkeep, we'd have to "pay."

Instead of pressuring our municipal or our state government to address the problem, we've decided to turn to bottled water--on top of still paying a water bill for our home. That's just wasted money in my opinion, as environmentally harmful.

I just think our money would be better spent on long term investment that goes towards to improving how we distribute water and cutting back on waste over buying a bottle of water every day or a big thing of water every month.

And I don't know. Filtration systems, improving water pressure in homes across America by improving plumbing, better sewage systems. There's all sorts of things.

[.invisible ink.]

Wow, bunch of scholarly responses in this thread. :rolleyes:


thank you, this is exactly what I was about to write. I can't believe the imbeciles around here who don't realize that potable water is a limited resource that not everyone is lucky enough to have.

Want to see a scary movie? Check out Blue Gold: World Water Wars http://www.bluegold-worldwaterwars.com/. You can watch it instantly on Netflix http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Blue_Gold_World_Water_Wars/70113047?trkid=438381&lnkctr=srchrd-sr&strkid=68420628_0_0

It's one of the most disturbing films I've ever seen and the worst part is, it's true.

[Zeran]

If a war like this would occur I think it would be the biggest and most brutal war ever. Fighting over water is essentially fighting for the right to live...

i feel like this is a scary but plausible prospect for the future, unfortunately. unless something changes...

[Praetor]

Completely believe it's a right. On a side note, water resource conservation/distribution is an area that I'm strongly considering pursuing in the future.

[zion the lion]

Well then don't play stupid and fucking think.

It's not adding to the problem. Whether you yourself handmade some sort of system that got water from wherever it is to wherever your home is, you'd still have to "pay" the costs (probably way more)--basic economic lesson: TANSTAAFL. The bill is essentially contributing to the common good: where everyone contributes to ensure everyone gets the water they all need. It's not being made a commodity, it's being managed as a common resource (in some cases, then again there is the point that poor populations generally have access to bad water and still pay a comparable cost to others who don't--I obviously don't support this class distinction). Regardless of whether we are paying a bill or paying with our own labor and upkeep, we'd have to "pay."

Instead of pressuring our municipal or our state government to address the problem, we've decided to turn to bottled water--on top of still paying a water bill for our home. That's just wasted money in my opinion, as environmentally harmful.

I just think our money would be better spent on long term investment that goes towards to improving how we distribute water and cutting back on waste over buying a bottle of water every day or a big thing of water every month.

And I don't know. Filtration systems, improving water pressure in homes across America by improving plumbing, better sewage systems. There's all sorts of things.

I never said anything about the garbage patch but I think it's interesting that you said "eh" to the two other people who responded to your whole bottled water thing and when it comes to me you go all out. As if the guy who pays $3.99 for water at target doesnt need to know about that garbage patch at all, do you know for a fact that he recycles everything he touches?

[Mitch]

http://www.economist.com/node/16136302?story_id=16136302

The proportion of people living in countries chronically short of water, which stood at 8% (500m) at the turn of the 21st century, is set to rise to 45% (4 billion) by 2050

Pretty good read.

I certainly believe that water is a human right, not sure how anyone could actually think otherwise.

[lightupthesky]

Water Sucks, GATORADE is better.
http://www.flashfilmworks.com/MovieGuide/Waterboy/waterboy01-large.jpg

[billyboatkid]

I love water.

[Sic Transit Zeb]

i hate vitamin water. why weakly flavor water? :tumbleweed: :soapbox:

agreed

[open mind]

what if the owner of your company provides it free of charge in the company fridge?

it's still a rather wasteful use of resources.

how are you part of the problem when buying it bottled, but you're not part of the problem when you're paying a water bill or buying a brita filter?

I'm sorry the water here in the house tastes like shit and the guys I live with dont use cups but drink right out of the faucet, and the water is shut off regularly but I'd rather buy a fucking bottle than use something that 12 different guys put their mouth on in a day.

And hello there are jobs that people have because of bottled water.

bottled water uses much more energy and creates much more waste in production, shipping, and disposal then tap water and filtration systems.
http://environment.about.com/od/greenlivingdesign/a/bottled_water.htm
buying bottled water is voting with your wallet to continue treating it as a over-priced good.

have you ever thought about i dunno.....wiping the faucet down before drinking?

jobs while important, can't always take precedence over the health of larger society.

[peder458]

as much as i like a nice green lawn, it disturbs me to see people with their sprinklers on 24 hours a day all summer... what a waste.

[open mind]

wow.
the american water supply is shittier then i thought.

http://environment.about.com/b/2007/08/30/tap-water-in-42-states-contaminated-by-chemicals.htm

i'd probably consider taking up bottled water if i didn't know that the regulations for it are a complete joke.
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/07/09/09greenwire-fewer-regulations-for-bottled-water-than-tap-g-33331.html

[.invisible ink.]

This Device Provides Clean Water for Pennies a Day (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/06/watercone-clean-drinking-water-for-developing-countries.php)

http://www.treehugger.com/watercone-image-02.png
Photo: Watercone
Passive Solar One Step Water Condensation FTW!
We wrote about the Watercone back in 2004 (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2004/09/augustin_solar.php), but considering how much TreeHugger's audience has grown since then, it's likely that only a handful of you were reading the site back then. I think it's time to have a second look at this very clever device that has the potential to help provide clean drinking water for millions of people who are lacking access to clean water (or if they do, maybe the access is intermittent and they could use a plan B). This could save many lives for sure. Read on for more details and a demonstration video.
http://www.treehugger.com/watercone-photo-02.jpg
Photo: Watercone
Step #1: Pour salty / brackish Water into pan. Then float the Watercone(r) on top. The black pan absorbs the sunlight and heats up the water to support evaporation.
http://www.treehugger.com/watercone-photo-01.jpg
Photo: Watercone
Step #2: The evaporated Water condensates in the form of droplets on the inner wall of the cone. These droplets trickle down the inner wall into a circular trough at the inner base of the cone.
http://www.treehugger.com/watercone-photo-03.jpg
Photo: Watercone
Step #3: By unscrewing the cap at the tip of the cone and turning the cone upside down, one can empty the potable Water gathered in the trough directly into a drinking device.


It's also very durable, easy to transport (they stack easily), inexpensive to produce, and low-tech enough that it can be used even if no other infrastructure is present.
http://www.treehugger.com/watercone-photo91.jpg
Photo: Watercone
Via Watercone (http://www.watercone.com/product.html)

[open mind]

This Device Provides Clean Water for Pennies a Day (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/06/watercone-clean-drinking-water-for-developing-countries.php)

http://www.treehugger.com/watercone-image-02.png
Photo: Watercone
Passive Solar One Step Water Condensation FTW!
We wrote about the Watercone back in 2004 (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2004/09/augustin_solar.php), but considering how much TreeHugger's audience has grown since then, it's likely that only a handful of you were reading the site back then. I think it's time to have a second look at this very clever device that has the potential to help provide clean drinking water for millions of people who are lacking access to clean water (or if they do, maybe the access is intermittent and they could use a plan B). This could save many lives for sure. Read on for more details and a demonstration video.
http://www.treehugger.com/watercone-photo-02.jpg
Photo: Watercone
Step #1: Pour salty / brackish Water into pan. Then float the Watercone(r) on top. The black pan absorbs the sunlight and heats up the water to support evaporation.
http://www.treehugger.com/watercone-photo-01.jpg
Photo: Watercone
Step #2: The evaporated Water condensates in the form of droplets on the inner wall of the cone. These droplets trickle down the inner wall into a circular trough at the inner base of the cone.
http://www.treehugger.com/watercone-photo-03.jpg
Photo: Watercone
Step #3: By unscrewing the cap at the tip of the cone and turning the cone upside down, one can empty the potable Water gathered in the trough directly into a drinking device.


It's also very durable, easy to transport (they stack easily), inexpensive to produce, and low-tech enough that it can be used even if no other infrastructure is present.
http://www.treehugger.com/watercone-photo91.jpg
Photo: Watercone
Via Watercone (http://www.watercone.com/product.html)

cool and incredibly useful.
i'd guess that these would be completely ineffective at getting out hazardous chemicals that turn to vapor at or around the same temperature as water though.

[sdbrown]

you need it to live. it's a right.

i did a project my senior year of college that made me believe the next great war won't be over oil, it'll be over water.
That's a pretty awesome thesis. New Mexico is already pressuring us to tap into our aquifer or channel some water from the great lakes down there. If it happens I wouldn't be surprised if other countries tried the same (probably not with our aquifer but with the lakes or whatnot)

thank you, this is exactly what I was about to write. I can't believe the imbeciles around here who don't realize that potable water is a limited resource that not everyone is lucky enough to have.

Want to see a scary movie? Check out Blue Gold: World Water Wars http://www.bluegold-worldwaterwars.com/. You can watch it instantly on Netflix http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Blue_Gold_World_Water_Wars/70113047?trkid=438381&lnkctr=srchrd-sr&strkid=68420628_0_0

It's one of the most disturbing films I've ever seen and the worst part is, it's true.
You always have good film recs. Will watch this soon.
This Device Provides Clean Water for Pennies a Day (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/06/watercone-clean-drinking-water-for-developing-countries.php)


Photo: Watercone
Passive Solar One Step Water Condensation FTW!
We wrote about the Watercone back in 2004 (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2004/09/augustin_solar.php), but considering how much TreeHugger's audience has grown since then, it's likely that only a handful of you were reading the site back then. I think it's time to have a second look at this very clever device that has the potential to help provide clean drinking water for millions of people who are lacking access to clean water (or if they do, maybe the access is intermittent and they could use a plan B). This could save many lives for sure. Read on for more details and a demonstration video.

Photo: Watercone
Step #1: Pour salty / brackish Water into pan. Then float the Watercone(r) on top. The black pan absorbs the sunlight and heats up the water to support evaporation.

Photo: Watercone
Step #2: The evaporated Water condensates in the form of droplets on the inner wall of the cone. These droplets trickle down the inner wall into a circular trough at the inner base of the cone.

Photo: Watercone
Step #3: By unscrewing the cap at the tip of the cone and turning the cone upside down, one can empty the potable Water gathered in the trough directly into a drinking device.


It's also very durable, easy to transport (they stack easily), inexpensive to produce, and low-tech enough that it can be used even if no other infrastructure is present.

Photo: Watercone
Via Watercone (http://www.watercone.com/product.html)
This is AWESOME

[Tec Mason]

Is it a right or a good? I believe it is a good.

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics.pdf
chapter 3 page 24 (half way down), chapter 15, and chapter 20 if you wish to understand why I believe it is not a right.

EDIT: water, like all other natural resources, is scarce and requires both labor and time to aquire. To imply that it is a right would imply that you shouldn't have to give anything up to recieve it. if we treated water like in this way, it would reduce the incentive for suppliers to supply it, and would likely reduce the worlds supply of drinkable water.

TL;DR Go to page 221 and read his example of the oasis owner in a desert. a quote: "The owner of the oasis is responsible only for the existence of his own actions and his own property; he is not accountable for the existence of the desert or for the fact that the other springs have dried up"

EDIT2: I need to clarify my point (after reading it it sounds weird). All people have the right to any unowned natural resource that they can get. this includes water. If the water is owned by another person, then you do not have the right to take it from them. If you have "no water" and someone else has "some water" then to say he must give it to you implies that your need for sustenance at time T1 is necessarily a higher good than his need for it at time T2. While i would totally agree that people should give their water to those less fortunate and those in need, this in no way implies that it is okay to take it from someone unwilling to be charitable.

[Disconsolate]

A good.

A right would be implying you deserve it on some innate costless level. Unfortunately, you have to give up something to get water. Implying it's a right doesn't change this simple notion. Regardless of how you shift the burden around, someone will be suffering a cost to bring others water. Saying its a right would mean those bearing the cost deserve no compensation because after all its a right.

In short, saying its a right is saying those who will ultimately supply it have no right to the resources they lose in the effort to supply it.

[Disconsolate]

It depends what the water is being used for. Everybody should have access to drinking water free of charge. Allocating water for agriculture, power, pointless shit(golf courses!) etc becomes tricky and is a source of international tension. You also have to factor in the environment into water allocation or bad things happen.
Free of charge? Interested in your scenario where nothing is given up, but water is supplied.

[Zeran]

http://www.economist.com/node/16136302?story_id=16136302



Pretty good read.

I certainly believe that water is a human right, not sure how anyone could actually think otherwise.

i can't believe more people haven't commented on this, it's incredibly important to understand.

[BornUnderPunches]

i like flavored water

[open mind]

A good.

A right would be implying you deserve it on some innate costless level. Unfortunately, you have to give up something to get water. Implying it's a right doesn't change this simple notion. Regardless of how you shift the burden around, someone will be suffering a cost to bring others water. Saying its a right would mean those bearing the cost deserve no compensation because after all its a right.

In short, saying its a right is saying those who will ultimately supply it have no right to the resources they lose in the effort to supply it.

no.

take, for example an elementary education.....it's considered a right but people still make a living supplying it to others.

[bung]

no.

take, for example an elementary education.....it's considered a right but people still make a living supplying it to others.

I doubt that example is going to fly. Most libertarians (if he does, indeed, have libertarian leanings) do not find any arguments for positive rights convincing, even if something happens to be 'treated as' a right in current society. That's essentially my stance. They do, however, usually make note of a difference between what can truly be considered an innate right and what is practical for most people to have.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Free of charge? Interested in your scenario where nothing is given up, but water is supplied.
No fees would be paid directly for the water, but taxes would be paid to run public utilities. How is this a complicated concept?

[bung]

No fees would be paid directly for the water, but taxes would be paid to run public utilities. How is this a complicated concept?

It's a very simple concept. But I believe he wanted you to give a scenario in which water is free of charge, and your example is not that.

[GuitarR0cker1]

It's a very simple concept. But I believe he wanted you to give a scenario in which water is free of charge, and your example is not that.
Free of charge for the disadvantaged.

There is no scenario where drinking water is free of charge because nothing is literally "free". When I say free of charge I mean that no one has to pay a fee directly to the utility providing the water, part of their tax money would be used to fund the public utility. There is a difference. Why are we even discussing this?

[bung]

Why are we even discussing this?

Because it's fundamental as to whether water is a right or a good.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Because it's fundamental as to whether water is a right or a good.
It depends what it is being used for.

[bung]

It depends what it is being used for.

Drinking water. You'll say it's a right, I'll say it's a good. And most of the arguments in favor of it being a good have already been given.

[Disconsolate]

no.

take, for example an elementary education.....it's considered a right but people still make a living supplying it to others.
But if we did not pay for it, it wouldn't exist. Therefore it wouldn't fly as an innate right we possess.

Also, education is funded through taxes which is deprivation of others' property. Someone is losing to provide you your "right". My case is, how can something be a right if it's supplied "free" if someone somewhere is losing their right to their own property. It seems in this thread, those that wish it were a right want it just there for the taking. Sadly that isn't feasible.

[Disconsolate]

No fees would be paid directly for the water, but taxes would be paid to run public utilities. How is this a complicated concept?
That just means we're taking from others to supply a good to some. That doesn't really show it's a right. It just shows some want to use the state to take from others which is far from something new.

[GuitarR0cker1]

That just means we're taking from others to supply a good to some. That doesn't really show it's a right. It just shows some want to use the state to take from others which is far from something new.
I never said it was something new...

Public utilities have been used for decades.

[Tec Mason]

The core of this discussion boils down to positive rights and negative rights. If you believe people have positive rights, it means you believe they have the right to have certain things (food, shelter, beanie babies, etc.). Negative rights are rights from certain things (rape, murder, theft, etc.). I do not believe in positive rights because a right is something that cannot be taken away. Water, and all other physical resources, are finite and capable of not existing. In a hypothetical where no water existed on the planet, you couldn't have a right to it because it isn't there at all. On the contrary, negative rights are universally capable of being protected because they are protections against actions by others (which are infinitely reproducible). No matter what your society, geographic location, or place in time, you always have the right to be free from other people rape, stealing, murdering you because it is within your human capacity to stop it.

We all agree it would be a wonderful thing if everyone had all the water they needed. But why stop there? A life of subsistence is not necessarily a desired life. Why do we not say we have the right to a car, home, xbox, waffles, and a horse? where should you draw the line? If you follow the idea that people have the right to specific, alienable, and finite physical resources, you run into a ton of unnecessary complications and moral hazards.

[caveBEAR]

The core of this discussion boils down to positive rights and negative rights. If you believe people have positive rights, it means you believe they have the right to have certain things (food, shelter, beanie babies, etc.). Negative rights are rights from certain things (rape, murder, theft, etc.). I do not believe in positive rights because a right is something that cannot be taken away. Water, and all other physical resources, are finite and capable of not existing. In a hypothetical where no water existed on the planet, you couldn't have a right to it because it isn't there at all. On the contrary, negative rights are universally capable of being protected because they are protections against actions by others (which are infinitely reproducible). No matter what your society, geographic location, or place in time, you always have the right to be free from other people rape, stealing, murdering you because it is within your human capacity to stop it.

We all agree it would be a wonderful thing if everyone had all the water they needed. But why stop there? A life of subsistence is not necessarily a desired life. Why do we not say we have the right to a car, home, xbox, waffles, and a horse? where should you draw the line? If you follow the idea that people have the right to specific, alienable, and finite physical resources, you run into a ton of unnecessary complications and moral hazards.

:-|

Meh, I don't know about this argument. Water is finite, but to say it's not a right due to that logic seems off to me, especially since in the hypothetical water-less world, arguments about 'rights' would be kind of moot and unnecessary. It's 2010. Water (in an 'amount needed to survive' sense) should be a right.

[Machu505]

What of intangible things, such as health insurance?

[Tec Mason]

:-|

Meh, I don't know about this argument. Water is finite, but to say it's not a right due to that logic seems off to me, especially since in the hypothetical water-less world, arguments about 'rights' would be kind of moot and unnecessary. It's 2010. Water (in an 'amount needed to survive' sense) should be a right.

Bear,
I think at this point we are using the word right in different ways. I would agree with you that in this day and age, it would be awesome if everyone had drinking water. I also think that if you can help your fellow man aquire drinking water, it would be a noble thing to help him. I think where we differ is that I am saying that if you choose to be a jerk and keep water to yourself, that is fine. no one has the right to take the water from you and give it to me, even if my life depended on it.

Put another way: If you have a canteen of water and me and you are in the desert dying, I think the moral thing to do is share the water with me. But I would not say that I have the right to your water. that would mean that it would be just to take it from you by force.

TL;DR: We agree that everyone should have drinking water. We disagree on the moral way in distributing it. I believe it is immoral to steal from you to give to someone else.

[caveBEAR]

Bear,
I think at this point we are using the word right in different ways. I would agree with you that in this day and age, it would be awesome if everyone had drinking water. I also think that if you can help your fellow man aquire drinking water, it would be a noble thing to help him. I think where we differ is that I am saying that if you choose to be a jerk and keep water to yourself, that is fine. no one has the right to take the water from you and give it to me, even if my life depended on it.

Put another way: If you have a canteen of water and me and you are in the desert dying, I think the moral thing to do is share the water with me. But I would not say that I have the right to your water. that would mean that it would be just to take it from you by force.

TL;DR: We agree that everyone should have drinking water. We disagree on the moral way in distributing it. I believe it is immoral to steal from you to give to someone else.

I don't agree with the bolded. I don't think it's fine to let someone else go without water if you have an excess. I'm too tired to get really anymore into it now, my brain isn't functioning at the moment.

[bard]

Wow, bunch of scholarly responses in this thread. :rolleyes:

It's 2010. Water should be a right for everyone on this planet. The fact that it's not shows how fucked and ass-backwards we still are.
Not much else could be said about it.

[majinsharingan]

Bear,
I think at this point we are using the word right in different ways. I would agree with you that in this day and age, it would be awesome if everyone had drinking water. I also think that if you can help your fellow man aquire drinking water, it would be a noble thing to help him. I think where we differ is that I am saying that if you choose to be a jerk and keep water to yourself, that is fine. no one has the right to take the water from you and give it to me, even if my life depended on it.

Rights do not exist. I'm gonna start things off like that. You do not have the right to live. You do not have the right to water. You do not have the right to your home. You do not have the right to anything. Neither do I. Rights are established by us and enforced by us. If you put two men in a situation where nature is in control then "right" means about as much as "rockupunga." You really wish it meant something but sadly it doesn't.

You two are talking about two different scenarios. Rights are dealt with by the government, not by the people. Water should be a right just like health insurance should be. No one should decide who deserves to live and who doesn't.

Put another way: If you have a canteen of water and me and you are in the desert dying, I think the moral thing to do is share the water with me. But I would not say that I have the right to your water. that would mean that it would be just to take it from you by force.

Again, two different scenarios.

[bung]

Someone should really define what exactly the word "right" is supposed to mean in this thread.

[Tec Mason]

"When we say that one has the right to do certain things we mean
this and only this, that it would be immoral for another, alone or in
combination, to stop him from doing this by the use of physical
force or the threat thereof. We do not mean that any use a man makes
of his property within the limits set forth is necessarily a moral use."

James A. Sadowsky, S.J., "Private Property and Collective Ownership," in Tibor Machan,
ed., The Libertarian Alternative (Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1974), pp. 120-21.

That is the one I am using.

[Disconsolate]

I don't agree with the bolded. I don't think it's fine to let someone else go without water if you have an excess. I'm too tired to get really anymore into it now, my brain isn't functioning at the moment.
Who determines what's excessive?

[open mind]

But if we did not pay for it, it wouldn't exist. Therefore it wouldn't fly as an innate right we possess.

Also, education is funded through taxes which is deprivation of others' property. Someone is losing to provide you your "right". My case is, how can something be a right if it's supplied "free" if someone somewhere is losing their right to their own property. It seems in this thread, those that wish it were a right want it just there for the taking. Sadly that isn't feasible.

clean water existed before us and will after we're gone.

i know it's human to feel this way, but i'm willing to pay a little more to help people and improve society.

you're gonna have to be a little clearer on what your case is because i lost you.

[Tec Mason]

I don't think it's fine to let someone else go without water if you have an excess.

I totally agree. it isn't fine. It also isn't fine to steal from the guy with water. I guess for me, the ends dont justify the means. It isn't okay to commit a wrong to correct a wrong imo.

[open mind]

I totally agree. it isn't fine. It also isn't fine to steal from the guy with water. I guess for me, the ends dont justify the means. It isn't okay to commit a wrong to correct a wrong imo.

taxes are not theft.
you're free to live where you want, but if you CHOOSE to live in this society it costs.

[open mind]

Someone should really define what exactly the word "right" is supposed to mean in this thread.

i'll say a right is something that should never be denied a fellow human being.

[Tec Mason]

taxes are not theft.
you're free to live where you want, but if you CHOOSE to live in this society it costs.

I am not free to live where I want. If I live at my house, and peacefully refuse to pay the tax, I am imprisoned or killed (depending on the nation). Taxes are not voluntary, and you are threatened if you do not pay them. That is theft.

[open mind]

I am not free to live where I want. If I live at my house, and peacefully refuse to pay the tax, I am imprisoned or killed (depending on the nation). Taxes are not voluntary, and you are threatened if you do not pay them. That is theft.

you're free to sell your house and live off the grid in a self sustaining manner that requires no money or taxes.

[Disconsolate]

clean water existed before us and will after we're gone.

i know it's human to feel this way, but i'm willing to pay a little more to help people and improve society.

you're gonna have to be a little clearer on what your case is because i lost you.
That's great you're willing to pay a little more to help improve society. I applaud your charitable nature :).

My point is that you're suggesting everyone be as charitable as you by saying water should be a right. If others are not we should steal money, through taxes, and force them to be as charitable. I disagree with that.

[open mind]

That's great you're willing to pay a little more to help improve society. I applaud your charitable nature :).

My point is that you're suggesting everyone be as charitable as you by saying water should be a right. If others are not we should steal money, through taxes, and force them to be as charitable. I disagree with that.

taxes are not theft.

[Disconsolate]

taxes are not theft.
Yes, because I have the option of not paying them.

Wait, I do not.

[open mind]

Yes, because I have the option of not paying them.

Wait, I do not.

you do have that option.....just move elsewhere and/or drastically change your lifestyle and you don't have to pay them.

if however you'd rather not do that you're choosing to live in a society that OPENLY tells you it's not free to do so....meaning you're choosing to pay taxes.

[Tec Mason]

There are only two options:

A) the U.S. Gov't owns all the land in its territory and we are merely tenants, paying "rent" through taxes.
B) The U.S. Gov't does not own all the land in its territory and other people do. The Gov't asks them for money, but punishes them if they peacefully refuse.

I have never known a person that argues A. Do you agree that B is accurate?

[Tec Mason]

you do have that option.....just move elsewhere and/or drastically change your lifestyle and you don't have to pay them.

if however you'd rather not do that you're choosing to live in a society that OPENLY tells you it's not free to do so....meaning you're choosing to pay taxes.

This is the same logic the mafia uses when they steal money. I can avoid the mafia's "protection fee" by leaving my neighborhood, but that does not excuse their theft.

EDIT: Do you agree that the mafia's "protection fees" are theft? if so how are they different than taxes?

[open mind]

There are only two options:

A) the U.S. Gov't owns all the land in its territory and we are merely tenants, paying "rent" through taxes.
B) The U.S. Gov't does not own all the land in its territory and other people do. The Gov't asks them for money, but punishes them if they peacefully refuse.

I have never known a person that argues A. Do you agree that B is accurate?

i disagree with both.

[Tec Mason]

i disagree with both.

Alright then, could you tell me what a tax is if it isn't those two?

[Disconsolate]

you do have that option.....just move elsewhere and/or drastically change your lifestyle and you don't have to pay them.

if however you'd rather not do that you're choosing to live in a society that OPENLY tells you it's not free to do so....meaning you're choosing to pay taxes.
As Mason said, most crime/mob type territorial setups make the same argument. Does that mean they are also not acting in a criminal manner by stealing from residents? After all, those living in those neighborhoods can simply leave right?

Edit: Also, those suffering the wrath of warlord scenarios in Africa can just move away if they don't want to pay the price of protection, right?

[open mind]

This is the same logic the mafia uses when they steal money. I can avoid the mafia's "protection fee" by leaving my neighborhood, but that does not excuse their theft.

EDIT: Do you agree that the mafia's "protection fees" are theft? if so how are they different than taxes?

the mafia analogy only works if i've knowingly moved into a neighborhood with a criminal organization that will steal from me.......and then use their ill gotten wealth to make my life better.

the government, unlike the mafia is totally upfront about it's existence and the cost of maintaining society. if someone tells me i've got to pay rent to live in their house and i agree to with my eyes wide open, i can't call them a thief after they kick me out for failing to pay the rent.

sure, the mob steals through protection fees.

edit:consider this a reply to your post also Disconsolate

[open mind]

Alright then, could you tell me what a tax is if it isn't those two?

the government controls the land in it's territory allowing people to live the way they choose in said territory provided they agree to live by the laws of the land.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Oh fuck a libertariangasm is happening ITT. I hate these. Will respond to these arguments later, I promise.

[majinsharingan]

Yes, because I have the option of not paying them.

Wait, I do not.

Lul, crycrycrybitchbitchbitchthegovernme ntistakingmymoney. That's great know what happens if everyone stops paying taxes? Police, schools, every state controlled organization, organizations that YOU pay for, they become private and you end up paying more in the long wrong.
Trust me the amount you pay in taxes a year is probably the same if not less than the amount it takes to send kids to a private school.

[majinsharingan]

There are only two options:

A) the U.S. Gov't owns all the land in its territory and we are merely tenants, paying "rent" through taxes.
B) The U.S. Gov't does not own all the land in its territory and other people do. The Gov't asks them for money, but punishes them if they peacefully refuse.

I have never known a person that argues A. Do you agree that B is accurate?

I'm 16, just woke up, and have gotten a total of 49 hours of sleep in the past three days. There is no reason for me to have a better understanding of something I don't even do yet than you. No reason at all.

[caveBEAR]

Who determines what's excessive?

In the hypothetical 'waterless nightmare scenario' that was described, excessive is an amount that's more than needed to survive, especially if you're holding out that amount against someone who has none.

That scenario was so far off from reality, however, that it renders most points made by it moot.

[caveBEAR]

Yes, because I have the option of not paying them.

Wait, I do not.

I am not free to live where I want. If I live at my house, and peacefully refuse to pay the tax, I am imprisoned or killed (depending on the nation). Taxes are not voluntary, and you are threatened if you do not pay them. That is theft.

Neither of you use roads right? Listen to radio? Go to parks? Have potholes filled on the roads you're not using? Buy food that's been inspected for health reasons?

Point is, most times when someone steals from you, they don't turn around and use that money in an attempt (no matter how half-assed or unfulfilled it may be) to make your life easier/better.

[open mind]

I doubt that example is going to fly. Most libertarians (if he does, indeed, have libertarian leanings) do not find any arguments for positive rights convincing, even if something happens to be 'treated as' a right in current society. That's essentially my stance. They do, however, usually make note of a difference between what can truly be considered an innate right and what is practical for most people to have.

forgot to respond to this.

what you're saying makes no sense to me.....which is probably why abhor libertarianism.

[Disconsolate]

Neither of you use roads right? Listen to radio? Go to parks? Have potholes filled on the roads you're not using? Buy food that's been inspected for health reasons?

Point is, most times when someone steals from you, they don't turn around and use that money in an attempt (no matter how half-assed or unfulfilled it may be) to make your life easier/better.
So "stealing" is okay as long as I gain some form of benefit? I realize there are varying degrees of theft. My point is, if someone (or organization) is taking my property against my will, then how can it be justified as not theft. It doesn't make it okay just because some of my stolen property is used for things I would have purchased in the absence of the state.

[Disconsolate]

In the hypothetical 'waterless nightmare scenario' that was described, excessive is an amount that's more than needed to survive, especially if you're holding out that amount against someone who has none.

That scenario was so far off from reality, however, that it renders most points made by it moot.
We're still relying on an arbitrary definition of "excess". The same thing could be said about any property people own. It's their property and I am not comfortable with a 3rd party stealing because in our opinion they don't need it.

[Disconsolate]

Lul, crycrycrybitchbitchbitchthegovernme ntistakingmymoney. That's great know what happens if everyone stops paying taxes? Police, schools, every state controlled organization, organizations that YOU pay for, they become private and you end up paying more in the long wrong.
Trust me the amount you pay in taxes a year is probably the same if not less than the amount it takes to send kids to a private school.
I do? Do you know elementary economics and theories of monopoly prices v. competitive?

[Disconsolate]

the mafia analogy only works if i've knowingly moved into a neighborhood with a criminal organization that will steal from me.......and then use their ill gotten wealth to make my life better.

the government, unlike the mafia is totally upfront about it's existence and the cost of maintaining society. if someone tells me i've got to pay rent to live in their house and i agree to with my eyes wide open, i can't call them a thief after they kick me out for failing to pay the rent.

sure, the mob steals through protection fees.

edit:consider this a reply to your post also Disconsolate
This argument works if you believe the state has a legitimate claim to all my property. If so, then it's not mine in the first place and I should leave if I don't like what the state is doing with its own property.

Obviously I disagree with that.

[caveBEAR]

So "stealing" is okay as long as I gain some form of benefit? I realize there are varying degrees of theft. My point is, if someone (or organization) is taking my property against my will, then how can it be justified as not theft. It doesn't make it okay just because some of my stolen property is used for things I would have purchased in the absence of the state.

Right. I'm gonna stay in the real world where we pay taxes (whether we bitch about it or not) and shit is done with said revenue by the government. Or theft. Whatever.

:rolleyes:

We're still relying on an arbitrary definition of "excess". The same thing could be said about any property people own. It's their property and I am not comfortable with a 3rd party stealing because in our opinion they don't need it.

It's not 'arbitrary'. In the said hypothetical non-water world, more than is needed to sustain life is 'excess', but as I've previously stated, all these points are bullshit because if this non-water world ever did come to be, polite political discussion about taxes, rights and property would fall apart and be replaced by chaos and anarchy.


Bring forth examples and make points on scenarios that matter in our real world at this moment.

[bung]

forgot to respond to this.

what you're saying makes no sense to me.....which is probably why abhor libertarianism.

No one truly has a right to food, water, shelter or whatever. They only have negative rights--a right from, say, unjust encroachment on their liberty in order to obtain such things.

[caveBEAR]

No one truly has a right to food, water, shelter or whatever. They only have negative rights--a right from, say, unjust encroachment on their liberty in order to obtain such things.

Why is that exactly? If you don't have rights to anything, why do you have rights from anything?

[majinsharingan]

I do? Do you know elementary economics and theories of monopoly prices v. competitive?

I don't? I don't think I care that much at the moment either. I was just pointing out the immaturity in complaining about something that provides funds for necessary parts of society.

[bung]

Why is that exactly? If you don't have rights to anything, why do you have rights from anything?

To be honest, it would require an essay to justify the position.

The simplest answer (which I'm giving because I'm about to see if I can max out Half-Life 2 on my new computer :-) ) is that I believe the only legitimate role of the government is to act as a protector, to prevent individuals and/or groups from violating another person's inherent human dignity and liberty. I do not view the role of the government as a provider, and I believe all forms of welfare are not ethical, but merely practical.

[caveBEAR]

To be honest, it would require an essay to justify the position.

The simplest answer (which I'm giving because I'm about to see if I can max out Half-Life 2 on my new computer :-) ) is that I believe the only legitimate role of the government is to act as a protector, to prevent individuals and/or groups from violating another person's inherent human dignity and liberty. I do not view the role of the government as a provider, and I believe all forms of welfare are not ethical, but merely practical.

What about protecting people from hunger? The elements? That would be housing and food. Probably water as well. Is the government supposed to protect us from rape while they let us starve?

[zion the lion]

So "stealing" is okay as long as I gain some form of benefit? I realize there are varying degrees of theft. My point is, if someone (or organization) is taking my property against my will, then how can it be justified as not theft. It doesn't make it okay just because some of my stolen property is used for things I would have purchased in the absence of the state.

It depends on who's stealing.

[Disconsolate]

I don't? I don't think I care that much at the moment either. I was just pointing out the immaturity in complaining about something that provides funds for necessary parts of society.
If you don't care that much about economics then you should refrain from making comments on prices. At least if you want to sound credible.

[bung]

What about protecting people from hunger? The elements? That would be housing and food. Probably water as well. Is the government supposed to protect us from rape while they let us starve?

Hunger and the elements are not individuals or groups of people, though.

For example, if I have 10 gallons of water and you have none, it would be unethical for you to steal water from me, even if you're dying of thirst. By the same accord, I have an ethical obligation to give you water, but only if it's voluntary. If it's involuntary, the exchange loses all ethical significance and, instead, becomes an ultimatum--or, in other words, an unjust encroachment of liberty.

All the millionaires and billionaires of America? They have an ethical obligation to donate/give a portion of their money to the poor of the world. Sadly, they are not fulfilling this obligation, so it becomes a necessity to tax them higher if only for practical reasons. Somewhat ironically, they are given the ultimatum for the sole reason that they are not fulfilling their own ethical obligations.

[caveBEAR]

Hunger and the elements are not individuals or groups of people, though.

For example, if I have 10 gallons of water and you have none, it would be unethical for you to steal water from me, even if you're dying of thirst. By the same accord, I have an ethical obligation to give you water, but only if it's voluntary. If it's involuntary, the exchange loses all ethical significance and, instead, becomes an ultimatum--or, in other words, an unjust encroachment of liberty.

All the millionaires and billionaires of America? They have an ethical obligation to donate/give a portion of their money to the poor of the world. Sadly, they are not fulfilling this obligation, so it becomes a necessity to tax them higher if only for practical reasons. Somewhat ironically, they are given the ultimatum for the sole reason that they are not fulfilling their own ethical obligations.

Yeah, I don't buy any of it. I get where you're coming from, but that train of thought is not for me.

For example, if I have 10 gallons of water and you have none, it would be unethical for you to steal water from me, even if you're dying of thirst.

I'd still do it. ;-)

[Disconsolate]

Right. I'm gonna stay in the real world where we pay taxes (whether we bitch about it or not) and shit is done with said revenue by the government. Or theft. Whatever.

:rolleyes:



It's not 'arbitrary'. In the said hypothetical non-water world, more than is needed to sustain life is 'excess', but as I've previously stated, all these points are bullshit because if this non-water world ever did come to be, polite political discussion about taxes, rights and property would fall apart and be replaced by chaos and anarchy.


Bring forth examples and make points on scenarios that matter in our real world at this moment.
I agree, it's stupid to go off on random hypothetical tangents.

I guess what this thread boils (c wut i did ther) down to is if someone has something others want, is it okay to take it from them? I would argue no it's not because I am against theft.

[Love As Arson]

Hunger and the elements are not individuals or groups of people, though.

For example, if I have 10 gallons of water and you have none, it would be unethical for you to steal water from me, even if you're dying of thirst. By the same accord, I have an ethical obligation to give you water, but only if it's voluntary. If it's involuntary, the exchange loses all ethical significance and, instead, becomes an ultimatum--or, in other words, an unjust encroachment of liberty.
What if the reason you have those ten gallons is you took over a freshwater pond and cut the rest of the inhabitants in the surrounding area off? I think they'd be justified in destroying your monopoly. As to charity, I think it was Zizek who said that it is the humanitarian face of an inhumane system; that is, it obscures the fact that the mega-rich have this money to give back precisely because they've rigged the system.

[open mind]

This argument works if you believe the state has a legitimate claim to all my property. If so, then it's not mine in the first place and I should leave if I don't like what the state is doing with its own property.

Obviously I disagree with that.

haha, now you're just being petulant and silly.

[Disconsolate]

haha, now you're just being petulant and silly.
I suppose. When previously questioned if the state owns all property, or if they own part while others own part, you said you disagreed with both. So it's difficult for me to understand where you're coming from. If I'm merely renting property from the government then I understand your argument.

[bung]

What if the reason you have those ten gallons is you took over a freshwater pond and cut the rest of the inhabitants in the surrounding area off? I think they'd be justified in destroying your monopoly.

What about if you drank all your water, and I have ten gallons because I spent the last month catching rainwater in a hundred little cups?

As to charity, I think it was Zizek who said that it is the humanitarian face of an inhumane system; that is, it obscures the fact that the mega-rich have this money to give back precisely because they've rigged the system.

Yeah, we get it. Capitalism is evil, rich people are manipulative and bad, Marx was a visionary, etc.

[open mind]

I suppose. When previously questioned if the state owns all property, or if they own part while others own part, you said you disagreed with both. So it's difficult for me to understand where you're coming from. If I'm merely renting property from the government then I understand your argument.

i disagreed with the 2 slanted and inaccurate characterizations of government and presented what i consider a more reasonable outlook.

with taxes you're paying what amounts to previously agreed upon membership fees.

[Love As Arson]

What about if you drank all your water, and I have ten gallons because I spent the last month catching rainwater in a hundred little cups?
Well, that isn't generally the case, is it? Wealth, or water, is generally inherited. That is, if we're still talking about billionaires and charity.

[majinsharingan]

If you don't care that much about economics then you should refrain from making comments on prices. At least if you want to sound credible.

Did I fall asleep and post in the wrong thread? Cause I was commenting on your comment regarding taxes.
And if you want to sound credible you should also probably refrain from saying things that aren't true.

[bung]

Well, that isn't generally the case, is it? Wealth, or water, is generally inherited. That is, if we're still talking about billionaires and charity.

My initial post didn't mean to equate water and wealth in the way you are, although I now see it may have seemed that way. At this point in time, they cannot be equated, for an excess of water does not mean an excess of wealth.

[caveBEAR]

I agree, it's stupid to go off on random hypothetical tangents.

I guess what this thread boils (c wut i did ther) down to is if someone has something others want, is it okay to take it from them? I would argue no it's not because I am against theft.

Don't confuse 'want' and 'need'.

[open mind]

My initial post didn't mean to equate water and wealth in the way you are, although I now see it may have seemed that way. At this point in time, they cannot be equated, for an excess of water does not mean an excess of wealth.

you sure about that?
the bottled water companies and the handful of companies that run most of the developed worlds water treatment plants make shit tons of money from water while hundreds of millions of people are left without access.

[bung]

you sure about that?
the bottled water companies and the handful of companies that run most of the developed worlds water treatment plants make shit tons of money from water while hundreds of millions of people are left without access.

It's the means to treat water into a drinkable form that is valuable.

[GuitarR0cker1]

It's the means to treat water into a drinkable form that is valuable.
There are different means to treat water supplies without going through scummy private companies. Water treatment facilties should be owned by the public, run for the public and be non-profit. Not a revolutinary concept at all considering it is how water treatment is currently done in this country. Bottled water should either be banned or have the shit taxed out of it.

Anyways it strikes me as stupid that people ITT would go against drinking water being managed by a public utility based on some abstract philosophical bullshit. At least have practical grounds to be against public ownership of facilities that manage basic life sustaining resources.

[open mind]

It's the means to treat water into a drinkable form that is valuable.

i fail to see the difference since drinkable water is the topic at hand.

[Crowe41]

The consesnus in my country, at least by the governement, is that water is NOT a human right. The Governement largely takes this stance because it is trying to protect Canada's freshwater from being shipped in mass quantities to the US. If water is classified as a human right then the United States could demand Canadian water under international obligations.

[bung]

i fail to see the difference since drinkable water is the topic at hand.

You live in Alaska. There's tons of freshwater lakes there. An abundance of lakes, you might say. You could get all the (free) drinkable water you need by going to a lake and taking as much water as you like. Then you would have to go home, filter it, boil it, and probably store some of it. But that's a lot of work, isn't it? Instead, you choose to pay someone else not only to do all that, but to distribute it directly to your home because it's highly convenient. You're paying for that process--you aren't actually paying for the water itself, per se. Water simply isn't scarce enough for it to be considered wealth in and of itself.

Someone leaves their faucet running for an extended period of time--when their response to finding out is "OH FUCK" instead of "Oops," then maybe water could be considered wealth. It may happen in the future, but not yet.

[<*)))><]

http://www.maps-continents.com/maps/globe-africa-countries.jpg
The blue stuff is water right?

[georgedcc]

you need it to live. it's a right.

i did a project my senior year of college that made me believe the next great war won't be over oil, it'll be over water.

I'm sure you've probably seen this already, but it's an interesting read for everyone.

http://globalpolicy.org/images/pdfs/052605waterconflict.pdf

[bung]

The blue stuff is water right?

Desalination generally uses a lot of energy and is very expensive. The process may eventually be adopted by coastal cities the world over, but it becomes tricky the further one moves inland because of transport costs. It can also harm marine life, especially if the plants are not properly regulated.

[<*)))><]

Desalination generally uses a lot of energy and is very expensive. The process may eventually be adopted by coastal cities the world over, but it becomes tricky the further one moves inland because of transport costs. It can also harm marine life, especially if the plants are not properly regulated.
Most major cities are near a large body of water and if people really want drinkable water http://www.thefarm.org/charities/i4at/surv/distill.htm.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Drinking water only accounts for 10% of the world's water use. It isn't even close to being the most major water issue.

[open mind]

You live in Alaska. There's tons of freshwater lakes there. An abundance of lakes, you might say. You could get all the (free) drinkable water you need by going to a lake and taking as much water as you like. Then you would have to go home, filter it, boil it, and probably store some of it. But that's a lot of work, isn't it? Instead, you choose to pay someone else not only to do all that, but to distribute it directly to your home because it's highly convenient. You're paying for that process--you aren't actually paying for the water itself, per se. Water simply isn't scarce enough for it to be considered wealth in and of itself.

Someone leaves their faucet running for an extended period of time--when their response to finding out is "OH FUCK" instead of "Oops," then maybe water could be considered wealth. It may happen in the future, but not yet.
I'm paying for the water because i'm charged by how much i use. If i was simply paying for the service i'd get a flat rate like i do with internet, cable, and cell phone service.

[bung]

I'm paying for the water because i'm charged by how much i use. If i was simply paying for the service i'd get a flat rate like i do with internet, cable, and cell phone service.

Well, I can say for a fact that there are internet plans and cell phone plans that are not flat rates, which are more practical for people to buy if they don't use the services very often.

But, I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. I'm still fairly certain that the vast majority of water usage costs comes from treatment and distribution. When the price of municipal water is $0.00105–$0.000186 per liter (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2004/JosephSabatelle.shtml), I just cannot accept the position that water itself is wealth.

[open mind]

Well, I can say for a fact that there are internet plans and cell phone plans that are not flat rates, which are more practical for people to buy if they don't use the services very often.

But, I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. I'm still fairly certain that the vast majority of water usage costs comes from treatment and distribution. When the price of municipal water is $0.00105–$0.000186 per liter (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2004/JosephSabatelle.shtml), I just cannot accept the position that water itself is wealth.

would you argue that i'm paying for the convenience of electricity in my house or that i'm paying for electricity?

the stocks of companies that work on water treatment and delivery are rising faster then oil stock so i'd say water is a source of wealth.
http://www.waterindustry.org/New%20Projects/investment.-4.htm

[bung]

would you argue that i'm paying for the convenience of electricity in my house or that i'm paying for electricity?

This is a red herring. Plus I'm too worn out to continue this discussion tonight, anyway.

[open mind]

This is a red herring. Plus I'm too worn out to continue this discussion tonight, anyway.

how so?

[bung]

how so?

Red herring is an idiomatic expression referring to a rhetorical tactic of diverting attention away from an item of significance.

[open mind]

Red herring is an idiomatic expression referring to a rhetorical tactic of diverting attention away from an item of significance.

:hammer: ........i know what the definition is....but how is it a red herring?
simply calling my question a red herring does not make it so.

[bung]

........i know what the definition is....but how is it a red herring?
simply calling my question a red herring does not make it so.

It's a red herring because we're talking about water, not electricity. If you want to create a thread debating whether electricity is a right or a good, I may eventually get around to adding my two cents.

[open mind]

It's a red herring because we're talking about water, not electricity. If you want to create a thread debating whether electricity is a right or a good, I may eventually get around to adding my two cents.

aren't they both utilities? didn't you argue that it's the infrastructure and process that we're being charged for and not the water?

[bung]

aren't they both utilities? didn't you argue that it's the infrastructure and process that we're being charged for and not the water?

They're inherently different though, which is why it's a red herring. Electricity can be created, water cannot.

[open mind]

They're inherently different though, which is why it's a red herring. Electricity can be created, water cannot.

i'll agree that water and electricity are different, but you widened the debate with your argument that the cost of water is really infrastructure and convenience.
water can be created.

[Tec Mason]

with taxes you're paying what amounts to previously agreed upon membership fees.

Wrong. Taxes are the exact opposite of a membership fee. With a membership (to a golf club or to some grocery store), You are paying to use someone else's property (the golf course or the grocery store). With taxes, your property is taken from you to provide you with a good that you may not even want. The Amish still have to pay for machines they are morally against because of taxation. Pacifists and ant-war-in-Iraq people have to pay for bombs and tanks that kill the very people they want to see alive. With a membership to a clubhouse, if the clubhouse began doing things you didn't like, you could support a different club house. With taxes, if you decide to stop supporting the bombing of Iraqi civilians, you are imprisoned.

TL;DR: Taxation is involuntary insofar that you are punished with threats of violence against you if you decide to stop paying them. Membership fees to clubs cannot threaten you, because they are in direct competition with other clubs. they know you will leave to another one.

p.s. don't rebut with: the U.S. is a club, if you dont like ti you can go to another club (canada). This ONLY makes since if the U.S. owns all my property.

[bung]

i'll agree that water and electricity are different, but you widened the debate with your argument that the cost of water is really infrastructure and convenience.

I didn't widen it enough to include electricity, I don't think.

water can be created.

No it can't. Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

[open mind]

Wrong. Taxes are the exact opposite of a membership fee. With a membership (to a golf club or to some grocery store), You are paying to use someone else's property (the golf course or the grocery store). With taxes, your property is taken from you to provide you with a good that you may not even want. The Amish still have to pay for machines they are morally against because of taxation. Pacifists and ant-war-in-Iraq people have to pay for bombs and tanks that kill the very people they want to see alive. With a membership to a clubhouse, if the clubhouse began doing things you didn't like, you could support a different club house. With taxes, if you decide to stop supporting the bombing of Iraqi civilians, you are imprisoned.

TL;DR: Taxation is involuntary insofar that you are punished with threats of violence against you if you decide to stop paying them. Membership fees to clubs cannot threaten you, because they are in direct competition with other clubs. they know you will leave to another one.

p.s. don't rebut with: the U.S. is a club, if you dont like ti you can go to another club (canada). This ONLY makes since if the U.S. owns all my property.

do you use roads? emergency services? schools? none of that is your property in any but the loosest sense.
what? last i checked all clubs allowed you to have property......so you're free to change clubs if you want.
taxation is voluntary because you knowingly choose to live in a country that has it.

[open mind]

I didn't widen it enough to include electricity, I don't think.



No it can't. Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

pretty sure you did.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090721010016AAB2E9p

[bung]

pretty sure you did.
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1830854

Not sure why you're linking that. Look at the second post. It's spot on. Water is matter, matter cannot be created. Basic scientific principle.

I also find it highly unusual that you chose answerbag, of all possible things, to attempt to reinforce your position.

[open mind]

Not sure why you're linking that. Look at the second post. It's spot on. Water is matter, matter cannot be created. Basic scientific principle.

you know what i'm talking about and are being purposefully dense.

i used answers to illustrate the fact that this shit is common knowledge.

[Tec Mason]

do you use roads? emergency services? schools? none of that is your property in any but the loosest sense.
what? last i checked all clubs allowed you to have property......so you're free to change clubs if you want.
taxation is voluntary because you knowingly choose to live in a country that has it.

Let it be clear, just because the goods and services that the state provides are good and necessary does not mean that the state provides them well or at all.

I would love for all roads, emergency services, and schools to be private. They are not, and yes I use them. If the government is going to take from me without my permission and use the funds to "help me" I'm going to at least try to salvage some of the damage they have done by using the services provided to their highest return. I look at it like making a loss less costly.

" last i checked all clubs allowed you to have property......so you're free to change clubs if you want." EXACTLY :-)
That is what is great about voluntary organizations. They cannot use the force of the gun to make you do what they want, because if they did, they know you would want to patron a non-oppressive club. Glad we agree on something.

To say a tax is voluntary because I choose to live in the geographical area where it happens is like saying Mafia protection fees are voluntary because I live in a geographic area where the mob has turf. Again I ask, If i choose not to pay the tax/mafia fee, what will happen to me? If there is no threat of punishment, than of course it is voluntary. But we all know that Tax evasion is punished by the state, just as Mafia "protection fees" are punished when not paid. At least in the U.S. the Gov't punishment is less severe than the mob. Not so in China.

[bung]

you know what i'm talking about and are being purposefully dense.

i used answers to illustrate the fact that this shit is common knowledge.

Um, no. You're actually talking about assembling water from existing molecules. That's entirely different from creating new molecules and thus matter and thus water.

Regardless, even assembling water is only possible in theory. (http://www.howstuffworks.com/manufacture-water.htm)

Water is made of two hydrogen atoms attached to an oxygen atom. This seems like pretty basic chemistry, so why don't we just smash them together and solve the world's water ills? Theoretically, this is possible, but it would be an extremely dangerous process, too.

To create water[honestly, the correct language here is "to assemble"], oxygen and hydrogen atoms must be present. Mixing them together doesn't help; you're still left with just separate hydrogen and oxygen atoms. The orbits of each atom's electrons must become linked, and to do that we must have a sudden burst of energy to get these shy things to hook up.

*Since hydrogen is extremely flammable and oxygen supports combustion, it wouldn't take much to create this force. Pretty much all we need is a spark -- not even a flame -- and boom! We've got water. The hydrogen and oxygen atoms' electrons' orbits have been conjoined.

[Disconsolate]

Did I fall asleep and post in the wrong thread? Cause I was commenting on your comment regarding taxes.
And if you want to sound credible you should also probably refrain from saying things that aren't true.
A comment in which you guaranteed me education would cost more (prices) under a private system.

I.e. you were saying going from a monopolistic situation to a non-monopolistic situation would result in higher prices for education. Which, if you know any economics at all, is pretty funny.

[open mind]

Let it be clear, just because the goods and services that the state provides are good and necessary does not mean that the state provides them well or at all.

I would love for all roads, emergency services, and schools to be private. They are not, and yes I use them. If the government is going to take from me without my permission and use the funds to "help me" I'm going to at least try to salvage some of the damage they have done by using the services provided to their highest return. I look at it like making a loss less costly.

" last i checked all clubs allowed you to have property......so you're free to change clubs if you want." EXACTLY :-)
That is what is great about voluntary organizations. They cannot use the force of the gun to make you do what they want, because if they did, they know you would want to patron a non-oppressive club. Glad we agree on something.

To say a tax is voluntary because I choose to live in the geographical area where it happens is like saying Mafia protection fees are voluntary because I live in a geographic area where the mob has turf. Again I ask, If i choose not to pay the tax/mafia fee, what will happen to me? If there is no threat of punishment, than of course it is voluntary. But we all know that Tax evasion is punished by the state, just as Mafia "protection fees" are punished when not paid. At least in the U.S. the Gov't punishment is less severe than the mob. Not so in China.

i'm not arguing the government is always efficient here, just that it provides much of what makes modern life possible.

it's not without your permission....you give them permission by choosing to continue to live in this country.

a club's security will eventually resort to violence if you refuse to follow their rules. i don't see where we're agreeing here, you live in this country voluntarily and are free to move.

you've already tried (and failed) to argue the mafia angle.

[open mind]

Um, no. You're actually talking about assembling water from existing molecules. That's entirely different from creating new molecules and thus matter and thus water.

Regardless, even assembling water is only possible in theory. (http://www.howstuffworks.com/manufacture-water.htm)

Water is made of two hydrogen atoms attached to an oxygen atom. This seems like pretty basic chemistry, so why don't we just smash them together and solve the world's water ills? Theoretically, this is possible, but it would be an extremely dangerous process, too.

To create water[honestly, the correct language here is "to assemble"], oxygen and hydrogen atoms must be present. Mixing them together doesn't help; you're still left with just separate hydrogen and oxygen atoms. The orbits of each atom's electrons must become linked, and to do that we must have a sudden burst of energy to get these shy things to hook up.

*Since hydrogen is extremely flammable and oxygen supports combustion, it wouldn't take much to create this force. Pretty much all we need is a spark -- not even a flame -- and boom! We've got water. The hydrogen and oxygen atoms' electrons' orbits have been conjoined.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/create
this is stupid, and you're basically trolling now because i'm sure you're smart enough to have figured out that i was using the term in this sense.

[bung]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/create
this is stupid, and you're basically trolling now because i'm sure you're smart enough to have figured out that i was using the term in this sense.

So when you say you can create water, you mean what? That a person can collect it through the humidity?

Still completely different from the way electricity is "created."

[open mind]

So when you say you can create water, you mean what? That a person can collect it through the humidity?

Still completely different from the way electricity is "created."

i mean it's possible to intentionally produce.

i never said the processes were similar.

want to get back to the arguments that water isn't a source of wealth and that i'm paying for infrastructure when i pay the water bill or do you acknowledge the flaws in them?

[Crowe41]

Water can be a source of wealth in certain circumstances, but as far as publicly owned municiple water is concerened I dont think its a source of wealth.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Lance Armstrong loves water (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/16/us/16lance.html)

I know the article is two years old, but this thread made me think about that article

[<*)))><]

Openmind has the most ironic username.

[bung]

i mean it's possible to intentionally produce.

i never said the processes were similar.

I thought this discussion of electricity was so you could show that the processes are similar, hence avoiding the red herring I believe you committed?

want to get back to the arguments that water isn't a source of wealth and that i'm paying for infrastructure when i pay the water bill or do you acknowledge the flaws in them?

Well sure. But I guess now I don't see this specific debate really going anywhere. :shrug:

[Tec Mason]

you've already tried (and failed) to argue the mafia angle.

I did a quick search in the thread and couldn't find a refutation to my mafia angle. Im not saying you should do the search for me, but if you find it let me know.

Back to water, I suppose I cannot say anymore without being redundant. I believe that everyone has a right to keep their property, even if it means others miss out on using it. On the moral side, I believe it is our obligation to help those in need and share if we have excess. That being said, if someone doesn't agree with my moral obligation to share, I do not believe I that gives me the right to take from them to achieve the end I prefer. The end of everyone having drinking water does not justify the means of taking it from others against their will in my opinion. I guess that is all I can say on the matter.

[open mind]

I thought this discussion of electricity was so you could show that the processes are similar, hence avoiding the red herring I believe you committed?



Well sure. But I guess now I don't see this specific debate really going anywhere. :shrug:

you thought wrong. you brought up the utilities angle, making comparisons to other utilities relevant.

[open mind]

the mafia analogy only works if i've knowingly moved into a neighborhood with a criminal organization that will steal from me.......and then use their ill gotten wealth to make my life better.

the government, unlike the mafia is totally upfront about it's existence and the cost of maintaining society. if someone tells me i've got to pay rent to live in their house and i agree to with my eyes wide open, i can't call them a thief after they kick me out for failing to pay the rent.

sure, the mob steals through protection fees.

edit:consider this a reply to your post also Disconsolate

I did a quick search in the thread and couldn't find a refutation to my mafia angle. Im not saying you should do the search for me, but if you find it let me know.

Back to water, I suppose I cannot say anymore without being redundant. I believe that everyone has a right to keep their property, even if it means others miss out on using it. On the moral side, I believe it is our obligation to help those in need and share if we have excess. That being said, if someone doesn't agree with my moral obligation to share, I do not believe I that gives me the right to take from them to achieve the end I prefer. The end of everyone having drinking water does not justify the means of taking it from others against their will in my opinion. I guess that is all I can say on the matter.

yeah, we're not gonna agree on the water issue.

[bung]

you thought wrong. you brought up the utilities angle, making comparisons to other utilities relevant.

If you say so.

[majinsharingan]

A comment in which you guaranteed me education would cost more (prices) under a private system.

I.e. you were saying going from a monopolistic situation to a non-monopolistic situation would result in higher prices for education. Which, if you know any economics at all, is pretty funny.

Going from Public to Private Schooling will ALWAYS result in higher prices for education...so I agree it's funny that I have to tell someone that but it's true. Unless you live in a backwards society where private school is free and you pay at least 4 grand a year per kid for public school.

[Love As Arson]

My initial post didn't mean to equate water and wealth in the way you are, although I now see it may have seemed that way. At this point in time, they cannot be equated, for an excess of water does not mean an excess of wealth.
My only point is this, and it goes back to the Communist Manifesto, I do not deny anyone the ability to get, say, an ipod and a vast assortment of Apple products. What I do want to deny is private ownership of social tools, i.e., natural resources, the workplace, schools and so on. The former does not effect me, while the latter impinges on the vast majority of my lived experience in this world; I did not agree to these structures and they've not yet justified themselves to me in terms of their ongoing existence.