Is access to potable water a right?

[davmat787]

No because its just not practical to do so*.

I would make it a right to have access at the lowest cost possible however.




*Granted the Romans managed it. But then, what have the Romans ever done for us?

The Romans managed to do a lot of things using the combination of taxation and slave labor. The aquaducts was not a community project that just appeared, taxation paid for it, and/or slave labor was used along with paid professionals such as stone masons and the brilliant engineers who designed it. It is amazing to think just how far the water travelled, and at such a consistent degree of slope so the water moved at just the right speed and flow.

 

[davmat787]

Typical scarcity bullshit, only a current day Tea Party Republican idiot would try to sell me on the notion that a planet covered over 2/3rds of it's surface with water is a scarcity and not a basic human right. You guys have a serious wake up call coming your way if you keep up this absurd middle ages nonsense.

Not sure what the Tea Party has to do with this, and I am not a member, but there is a huge difference between the water that covers 2/3 of our planet and what comes out of your tap or water that is even suitable for agriculture.

But help yourself to all the seawater your want, I don't think anyone will stop you. :whiste: :biggrin:

 

[DCal430]

All good questions that I don't necessarily have answers to, at least not in this thread. You're also right in your subsequent post where similar arguments may be made about other goods/services such as fire protection. However, there are places where private fire services do quite well and are beginning to emerge in cases where government protections have failed (an example and a short article from a quick googling).

In the end, water and healthcare are scarce resources that people need on a continuous basis. As I mentioned in the OP, it's literally impossible to saturate demand when the resource is free, nor is that beneficial to anyone. Thus, there exists a logical rationale for rationing. We can therefore ration based on arbitrary protections for specific groups (e.g. elderly, poor, whatever you want), but this rationing will prove less efficient and yield poorer results for everyone - including the protected groups - than rationing by market forces.

WTF so the local government doesn't private fire service for these people? Fire service is controlled by private parties in this area?

 

[DCal430]

I simply don't understand how the government could just hand over the rights to water in an area to a private company, and force the people to purchase water from this private company. California has the PUC which is suppose to regulate private owned public utlities, but the PUC is stuffed with former industry executives who never saw the rate increase they didn't love. The Public Utility Commision is a basically a big joke.

 

[davmat787]

WTF so the local government doesn't private fire service for these people? Fire service is controlled by private parties in this area?

They probably live in an area where there is no local government, only federal. In other words, they are living on unincorporated land, outside the jurisdiction of any fire dept. There is no national fire dept., only local ones.

Surely you don't expect someone living 100 miles from the nearest fire station where they pay no taxes to that city, to be able to dial 911 and expect them to come out right? What if while they are gone on that call, someones house who does pay for that fire dept. catches on fire?

Also see: volunteer fire departments AND/OR fire department jurisdiction

 

[Londo_Jowo]

But help yourself to all the seawater your want, I don't think anyone will stop you. :whiste: :biggrin:

Nothing a few dollars and a desalinization plant can't fix. Oops also need to treat this water to prevent bacteria from growing after the salt removal process.

 

[DCal430]

They probably live in an area where there is no local government, only federal. In other words, they are living on unincorporated land, outside the jurisdiction of any fire dept. There is no national fire dept., only local ones.

Surely you don't expect someone living 100 miles from the nearest fire station where they pay no taxes to that city, to be able to dial 911 and expect them to come out right? What if while they are gone on that call, someones house who does pay for that fire dept. catches on fire?

Also see: volunteer fire departments AND/OR fire department jurisdiction

Ah, I see. I lived in area with a local government though, and the local government didn't private basic services like water, and instead forced us to purchased water from a private company. Around 60 Years ago the local government sold all of the water rights to a private company, it was sold for 99 years. Legally we are not allowed to collect water on our own land, and any water piped to the home must be purchased from this company.

 

[xj0hnx]

Typical scarcity bullshit, only a current day Tea Party Republican idiot would try to sell me on the notion that a planet covered over 2/3rds of it's surface with water is a scarcity and not a basic human right. You guys have a serious wake up call coming your way if you keep up this absurd middle ages nonsense.

You're missing the key word ...potable. All the water in the oceans doesn't matter.

 

[nehalem256]

The sad thing is in the U.S, much of the water is controlled by private companies, where I use to live, water to the home had to puchased from a single private company. This private company would constantly raise rates too, and their was little that we could do. Sad that something is vital as water is controled by private companies. This was in CALIFORNA of all places too.

Are you allowed to collect rain water? EDIT: it appears you answered this just above. I would agree this is wrong.

Are you prohibited from purchasing bottled water?

Are you expecting another company to build pipes to your house?

 

[piasabird]

Potable water is a comodity, in the USA it is often freely available in many different places like public water fountains. However, this water would not be available without the investment of a water company who supplies water for a fee. Water is a comodity like salt, grain, etc. Americans are a bit spoiled. In other countries water supplies are not as clean and not as quite free from bacteria or disease. Go in your back yard and start digging and see how long it takes to reach some fresh drinking water.

If you dont pay your water bill they will cut off your water supply.

Water is not a right. However, it is necessary, but it comes at a price. It is probably what seperates civilization from savages.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Potable water is a comodity, in the USA it is often freely available in many different places like public water fountains. However, this water would not be available without the investment of a water company who supplies water for a fee. Water is a comodity like salt, grain, etc. Americans are a bit spoiled. In other countries water supplies are not as clean and not as quite free from bacteria or disease. Go in your back yard and start digging and see how long it takes to reach some fresh drinking water.

If you dont pay your water bill they will cut off your water supply.

Water is not a right. However, it is necessary, but it comes at a price. It is probably what seperates civilization from savages.

Here we go again with the corporate propogandist bullshit about Americans being spoiled. And why, this time, does the almighty corporate fat cat call us all spoiled? WATER. Yeah, we can spend trillions on a basically useless military and leave the water to the same private companies that would be dumping toxic waste into our water sources if not for the EPA. Way to work it out, idiots.

2/3rds of the world is covered in water and I am spoiled because I think everyone should have it, and one function of our government should be to keep it clean and flowing. THAT is a good use of our tax dollars. Spending $1.5trillion on another military plane is a much better use of our collective money, yay F-35...lmfao

You're missing the key word ...potable. All the water in the oceans doesn't matter.

Actually, it certainly does numbnuts.

 

[piasabird]

California gets much of its water from a river in another state at a dam that is used to make electricity. It it was not for the Colorado it would never get to California. In places in the southwest water is deliverd through pipes with the help of water pumps which have to be powered with electricity. This single source of water is used to supply many of the southwestern states. Maybe you should move out of California. California is trying to steal water from places that have it. So California pays more for that commodity because it is arrid land and it can not naturally support the population. Simple law of supply and demand.

 

[MrColin]

If I'm paying my water bill from the city, or maintaining a well that hasn't run dry then yes.

Interestingly, the law in many areas says that you do not have the rights to the groundwater under your property or to collect rainwater that falls on your land. More evidence supporting the need for violent regime change at all levels.

 

[her209]

California gets much of its water from a river in another state at a dam that is used to make electricity. It it was not for the Colorado it would never get to California. In places in the southwest water is deliverd through pipes with the help of water pumps which have to be powered with electricity. This single source of water is used to supply many of the southwestern states. Maybe you should move out of California. California is trying to steal water from places that have it. So California pays more for that commodity because it is arrid land and it can not naturally support the population. Simple law of supply and demand.

How is it stealing water if its paying for it?

 

[OutHouse]

Typical scarcity bullshit, only a current day Tea Party Republican idiot would try to sell me on the notion that a planet covered over 2/3rds of it's surface with water is a scarcity and not a basic human right. You guys have a serious wake up call coming your way if you keep up this absurd middle ages nonsense.

wow, you are really dumb aren't you.

 

[olds]

It is not a right and it certainly comes before shelter.

 

[DCal430]

California gets much of its water from a river in another state at a dam that is used to make electricity. It it was not for the Colorado it would never get to California. In places in the southwest water is deliverd through pipes with the help of water pumps which have to be powered with electricity. This single source of water is used to supply many of the southwestern states. Maybe you should move out of California. California is trying to steal water from places that have it. So California pays more for that commodity because it is arrid land and it can not naturally support the population. Simple law of supply and demand.

Wrong on so many levels, first the colorado river flows into California, the the dam and reservoir that California uses for its water is located in California, lake Meade which is what I assume you are thinking, does not supply California with water. Second less than 10% of California water supply comes form the Colorado River, more than 90% comes from the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers.

 

[shira]

Humans need shelter, water, and food (in that order) to survive. In this thread, we will simplify the discussion by focusing on water.

I stopped reading after your first sentence. There's an "order" to the things needed for survival????? And "shelter" comes before "water"????

Seems to me that a person can go a lot longer without shelter than without water or food. Just huddle up in a sleeping bag if the weather gets too cold - no shelter needed.

You also seem to have forgotten oxygen in your "ordered list" of requirements for human life. I guess that means you think that oxygen isn't very important.

I just can't take you or your thread seriously when you start with such an amateurish, clumsy statement. And let me guess: you consider yourself to be intelligent and well-educated, right?

 

[Pr0d1gy]

I stopped reading after your first sentence. There's an "order" to the things needed for survival????? And "shelter" comes before "water"????

Seems to me that a person can go a lot longer without shelter than without water or food. Just huddle up in a sleeping bag if the weather gets too cold - no shelter needed.

You also seem to have forgotten oxygen in your "ordered list" of requirements for human life. I guess that means you think that oxygen isn't very important.

I just can't take you or your thread seriously when you start with such an amateurish, clumsy statement. And let me guess: you consider yourself to be intelligent and well-educated, right?

Why would you take this thread seriously? It's like saying do you think the sky is a right or a privatized business, the fucking epitome of stupidity.

wow, you are really dumb aren't you.

Dumb enough to think that in a modern world on a planet covered mostly by water that we should not be paying huge water bills, fuck yeah. Dipshit.

 

[CycloWizard]

One of the articles you linked mentions Scottsdale but that's since gone public service because the private company could no longer deal with the size of the city growth.

Without side-tracking too much I want to point out that the focus private companies bring to the table (in general quarterly profits) can be quite dangerous for something like public works. For instance in the case of fire-fighting they may staff down to what is considered an averaged appropriate level, but this may leave them unprepared for the once a decade confluence of events that could lead to significant amount of fires spreading uncontrolled. Such logic can also be applied to a privatized water distribution system that may seek quarterly profits at the expense of being able to handle high-cost droughts/etc. that ultimately can happen. A final example is the incredible amount of subsidies we funnel into our farming industry, which ultimately is going to let us survive a spurt of weather comparable to and/or worse than the dust-bowl without mass starvation and panic.

In general I'm not completely sold on public works for everything, but there is an advantage to carrying higher than required costs to avoid the ultimate lows in times of extreme conditions which quarterly profit seeking companies would never prepare for.

I already know that ultimate free-market trumpeters would say that a completely unfettered market would account for such events, but free markets are driven by humans, whom are ultimately greedy & short-sighted, and I simply wouldn't buy into such a notion.

In the case of a very bad fire, they would have to hire in outside help just like cities do now. Indeed, in other places, some cities pay fees to use other cities' fire services (e.g. Brentwood, MO's fire service is utilized by several neighboring suburbs that don't even bother having their own). I'm not arguing that private service is the perfect solution - only that it might be better than what we have now.

 

[CycloWizard]

I stopped reading after your first sentence. There's an "order" to the things needed for survival????? And "shelter" comes before "water"????

Seems to me that a person can go a lot longer without shelter than without water or food. Just huddle up in a sleeping bag if the weather gets too cold - no shelter needed.

You also seem to have forgotten oxygen in your "ordered list" of requirements for human life. I guess that means you think that oxygen isn't very important.

I just can't take you or your thread seriously when you start with such an amateurish, clumsy statement. And let me guess: you consider yourself to be intelligent and well-educated, right?

Yes, I'm completely ignorant about what is needed to survive. As it turns out, so is the US Army, which states on page 38 of its survival manual, "In some areas, your need for shelter may take precedence over your need for food and possibly even your need for water."

 

[Brainonska511]

Interestingly, the law in many areas says that you do not have the rights to the groundwater under your property or to collect rainwater that falls on your land. More evidence supporting the need for violent regime change at all levels.

Forget to take your crazy pills today? That's hardly a reasonable solution. You can't do those things because the water "under your property" could just be the same water under tons of other neighbors' properties. Having a central governing source on how the water gets used can help preserve that resource for generations. Same goes for rain water collection; some areas require the rain to replenish water supplies.

 

[CycloWizard]

Typical scarcity bullshit, only a current day Tea Party Republican idiot would try to sell me on the notion that a planet covered over 2/3rds of it's surface with water is a scarcity and not a basic human right. You guys have a serious wake up call coming your way if you keep up this absurd middle ages nonsense.

Please, by all means go drink some water from the ocean. After you nearly die, maybe you'll feel safer drinking from a river or lake. If that doesn't kill you, maybe you'll understand that people with engineering degrees do a lot of shit that keeps your sorry ass alive.

 

[CycloWizard]

We hear so much about "rights", a right to this and a right to that. People say they have a right to decent housing, a right to adequate health care, food, a decent job and, more recently, senior citizens have a right to prescription drugs. In a free society, do people have these rights? Let's look at it.

At least in the standard historical usage of the term, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people. A right confers no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech is something we all possess. My right to free speech imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference. Similarly, I have a right to travel freely. That right imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference.

Contrast those rights to the supposed right to decent housing or medical care. Those supposed rights do confer obligations upon others. There is no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy. If you don't have money to pay for decent housing or medical services, and the government gives you a right to those services, where do you think the money comes from? If you said "From some other American", go to the head of the class. Your right to decent housing and medical care requires that some other American have less of something else, namely diminished rights to his earnings.

Let's apply this bogus concept of rights to free speech and the right to travel freely. If we were to apply it to my right to free speech, my free speech rights would confer financial obligations on others to supply me with an auditorium, microphone and audience. My right to travel freely would require that others provide me with airplane tickets and hotel accommodations. Most Americans, I would imagine, would tell me, "Williams, yes you have rights to free speech and travel rights, but I'm not obligated to pay for them!"

As human beings we all have certain unalienable rights. Of the rights we possess, we have a right to delegate to government. For example, we all have a right to defend ourselves against predators. Since we possess that right, we can delegate it to government. In other words, we can say to government, "We have the right to defend ourselves but for a more orderly society, we give you the authority to defend us." By contrast, I don't possess the right to take your earnings for any reason. Since I have no such right, I cannot delegate it to government. If I did take your earnings for housing and medical services, it would rightfully be described as an act of theft. When government does it, it's still theft; the only difference is that it's legalized theft sanctioned by a majority vote.

If you're a Christian or simply a moral human being, you should be against these so-called rights. After all when God gave Moses the Eighth Commandment, "Thou shalt not steal", I'm sure that he didn't mean thou shalt not steal unless there was a majority vote in Congress. Moreover, I'm sure that if you were to have a heart to heart conversation with God and asked him, "God, is it okay to be a recipient of stolen property, property that Congress has taken from another American?" I'm guessing He'd say that being a recipient of stolen property is also sinful.

Decent housing, good medical care and decent jobs are not rights at all, at least not in a free society; they're wishes. As such I'd agree with most Americans because I also wish that everyone had decent housing, a high paying job and good medical care.

--Walter E. Williams

Thanks for posting this - it sums up my thoughts quite well. I was interested in this thread of pointing out the paradox of calling something a right (which implies unlimited access to that thing) when that thing is a finite resource. You can't decide that potable water is a right because someone must expend their time, energy, and expertise in producing it for you. Similarly, you can't call healthcare a right because that means you legally must have unlimited access to it at all times. Since a physician presumably can't perform simultaneous boob jobs on multiple patients, healthcare cannot be a right.

 

[CycloWizard]

The Romans managed to do a lot of things using the combination of taxation and slave labor. The aquaducts was not a community project that just appeared, taxation paid for it, and/or slave labor was used along with paid professionals such as stone masons and the brilliant engineers who designed it. It is amazing to think just how far the water travelled, and at such a consistent degree of slope so the water moved at just the right speed and flow.

This is exactly right. The Romans did a lot of things very well because they didn't concern themselves with whether anyone had rights. They had a sword and it was more powerful than yours so you were going to do what they told you to do. They demanded tribute in terms of money, manpower, and resources from conquered people in exchange for not killing them all. They were firm believers that the Roman state owned the people it conquered as slaves. Modern philosophies have simply dressed it up a bit when trying to call such things "rights" that all citizens should have, conveniently leaving out the part where you weren't a Roman citizen unless you were physically born in Rome (for most of the history of the empire, anyway).