Not really a Veeky Forums question but relates to health care

Not really a Veeky Forums question but relates to health care.
Why do liberals believe healthcare is a human right? How could we benefit from changing this philosophy?

Other urls found in this thread:

statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Liberal logic:
> But we have so much money, why can't everyone have everything

Liberals don't understand scarcity or the fact that something has to be taken from one to give to another.

They don't understand that government will always create an inferior product.

They don't comprehend that their iphones reqiired the blood and sweat of many people who will never have any decent quality of life.

They don't understand that giving out "free" health care to illegal immigrants harms them and that giving out "free" education devalues their own degrees.

Liberals live in a bubble outside of teality

Their only method of debate is ad homs and insults

>Why do liberals believe healthcare is a human right?

Because it is? If you don't believe otherwise - petition the govnm to stop subsidizing vaccines and just wait till the next Spanish Flu happens.

Its incredible to me how much burgers hate their own countrymen.

>right to treatment if you're ill = having everything
Yeah, okay.

It's just an opinion. Some people think that society should help all of its citizens when they fall ill, and not just the ones who can afford it.

I'm nordic, and I never feared for ever not having food on the table or if mom and dad get injured or sick, because if that were to happen, we'd all still be okay and never in crumbling debt.

The best thing about single-payer or whatever, is that once the cost is adopted by the state, it becomes in the people's interest to have others be healthy as well, so that the state and schools take preventive measures, and in general favor reasonable industry regulations, so that not all factory workers break their back every five years.

I can see from an American perspective how taxes absolutely suck balls, because of all the fucking retarded people that do fucking stupid shit and those who devote their life to leech off every resource possible in the other side of the country, but I think that goes for all large countries/unions (EU, Soviet, whatever). And I can also see some of the hatred for the regulations, when they go too far and become just silly.

My problem with politics is that people are so extreme. Either it's no regulations whatsoever or a 90% tax on the billionaires. Ugh. Fuck people

>so the state and schools take preventative measures

I could get behind single payer in a homogeneous country where the government didn't let the lower class wreak havoc on the middle class.

We Americans just don't want to pay for illegals and sharquintas 8 kids to use the emergency room for runny noses

I honestly don't understand how USA is still one country. The states are just so different, it seems like. From nigger infested welfare states to people living in 10-citizen villages logging wood.

>has a union job, government job, or government contractor job
>is in any branch of the army
>benefits from medicare and medicaid
>when to college using GI Bill or government loans
>started a business or bought a house using GI Bill
>receives money from the earned income tax credit
>receives money from social security

lieberals are so dum why don't they realize socalism never werks?1?1212

they believe in socialism. And healthcare is probably one of the most effective ways to sneak socialism into the system.

we'd be much better off with an entirely free market healthcare system with no government interference whatsoever.

How would they compete against private healthcare services? It would lower standards throughout the country.

Healthcare is a human right.
It is included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
And it is crucial for human wellbeing.

Liberals understand that not everything need be scarce, and that it's not a zero sum game.

They understand that governments can provide a high quality product (even if the super rich can afford something better).

They understand that health care is something that benefits everyone, and that the real value of a degree relates to the knowledge and skills gained.

But the people who fail to understand this prefer ad homs and insults.

human rights are a meme

I feel if it's possible to use already existing tax money (just go with this theory) for healthcare vs just more pointless fueling of things we don't need like that situation where they built a bunch of tanks that are now just sitting in a desert because they didn't even need them. Then we should go for it. Wouldn't you like your taxes to actually benefit you?

>falling for all these buzz words

No, it's nothing to do with buzzwords; it's s genuine (though brief) explanation of the importance of healhcare and its economic effects.

You can usually spot when someone's caught in buzzword driven rhetoric, as they'll almost certainly use the word "vibrant".

>We Americans
You are not "We Americans."

You are a minority, by many millions according to the popular vote. There are many more of us than you.

If you're stranded alone on a desert island, how do you exercise your human right to free health care?

>falling for all these buzz words
t. "I'm to stupid to discuss complex topics, so I'll dismiss it as buzzwords and liberal media bias"

Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, user.

You have a right to Healthcare. You were not born with a right to FREE Healthcare.

The fact you have a right to something does not mean you have a right to get it for free.

I have a right to own gold and diamonds, but that doesn't mean you or anyone else is obligated to finance my right - I do NOT have a right to free gold and free diamonds.

I don't know what liberals think but healthcare has a strong inelastic demand. The best you can do is regulate it more strictly than other services.

Most of capitalist ideals work best when death is an option, but it's a leverage that works against individuals not an option.

Blue states have better economies and pay more in federal taxes which is then used to help the shitty red states. I wish we'd kick the southern fucks out.

>If you're stranded alone on a desert island, how do you exercise your human right to free health care?
How do you exercise your human right to free thought when I shoot you in the head?

Stop. Being. Stupid.

This. Conservative whites are the new welfare class.

Trump supporters are literally "gimme gumbermint muney" whores.

>Stop. Being. Stupid.

It's really hard to take this seriously after you drop a non-sequitur like that.

Health care is not a right. It requires the action of others who are sovereign individuals and have no obligation to serve you. Positive rights are slavery.

>my 55 year old uncle is on Social Security disability and on Medicaid
>talking to him a few weeks ago
>says he's going to vote for Trump and Republicans
>tell him they plan on gutting Social Security and Obamacare
>he says good, because the government shouldn't mess with the healthcare

I just don't understand.

>Health care is not a right.
You can type this as many times as you want, but it doesn't change the truth. And your sophistry is fooling no one, as I already exemplified.

You're free to disagree, of course. But I'm free to point out how stupid that makes you in the eyes of any intelligent person.

Dummy.

>But I'm free to point out how stupid that makes you in the eyes of any intelligent person.

You can start attempting to do that at any time. If you need help getting started, you can explain why and how exactly you are entitled to the labor of other individuals simply by virtue of existing.

Because human rights are, by definition, part of the social contract and a product of the collective society.

Did humans have the right to free thought and free expression before language was invented? No, it only came into being because society invented language and authority attempted to control it.

Does a person have the right to food and clean water when they're stranded in the desert? No, because human rights are defined by mutual social obligations, not individual circumstances.

I'm not going ng to keep playing definition games with some child. No one is making you accept the because of society any of the rights that we have collectively decided flow from it. Please free free to an hero any time now.

>tell him they plan on gutting Social Security and Obamacare
Obamacare is a disaster, provides almost no coverage, and costs more than competing insurers, not to mention how much it costs us tax payers(costs you as well if your company is forced to abide by it and is around the same cost as FICA). Would need a source on gutting social security, as I've never heard the man say that, and I've been following him quite a bit.

>I just don't understand.
Alike most liberals who don't understand that governments require slaves and/or aliens as lower class "citizens"(as Aristotle puts it). Learn economics and god ridden facts lad, take a trip to 8pol user - and maybe, just maybe, you may learn how to succeed in this world.

>Because human rights are, by definition, part of the social contract and a product of the collective society.

Assuming that the concept of a right depends on the existence of a collective is a depressingly skewed notion. Are you part of a hivemind? Are you not capable of independent thought? Again, if you were stranded alone on a desert island you would have the capability to do any number of things, and yet there are other things that would be impossible for you to accomplish. It would be good for you to reflect for a while on those capabilities and their ramifications on your worldview.

>Did humans have the right to free thought and free expression before language was invented? No, it only came into being because society invented language and authority attempted to control it.

The right to free thought and free expression is a natural right that existed in the absence of society, exists now independently of society, and will continue to exist after the end of society. Are you insinuating that a child born and raised in isolation would be incapable of independent thought? Are you insinuating that you are incapable of developing methods of communication? If so, how did they come into existence in the first place?

>Does a person have the right to food and clean water when they're stranded in the desert? No, because human rights are defined by mutual social obligations, not individual circumstances.

No one has a right to food or clean water. Again, these are items that require the work of other people to produce. You aren't entitled to the fruits of their labor; they were not created to serve your needs.

>I'm not going ng to keep playing definition games with some child. No one is making you accept the because of society any of the rights that we have collectively decided flow from it. Please free free to an hero any time now.

You sound like you're getting a little angry.

That used to be the case. With robots tho.... we future now.

it can be, internet can be a human right. buut if you are a private institution its not. anything private gives 0 fucks about rights. public hospitals why not. I mean its just retarded that people think insurance is the solution. Just make a free hospital run by the government and give taxes to that shit instead of the private insurance companies.

Guess what? Electoral college is a thing

"We" use it. You lost get over it faggot

kys

Not an argument to his points. Maybe you should be the one buying some rope.

This reply illustrates why I don't debate children on the internet. You deny the existence of the social contract, and you intentionally or through ignorance conflate human rights and natural rights.

People like you aren't worth debating because you're not intelligent enough to actually participate in the debate. Instead, you play rhetorical and definitional games seeking to end the debate altogether. That way you can run back to whatever safe-space birthed you and crow about some self-proclaimed victory.

The reality is that whatever education you received has failed you. Blame your parents, blame, blame your teachers, blamer your government, or if you're honest, blame yourself. Either way, learn to apply critical thinking to complex topics, or stay mired in the ignorance that currently handicaps your life and your prospects.

And before you dismiss this comment as an ad hominem (another go-to tactic for your kind), understand that ad hominem attacks aren't a logical fallacy if they're true. In other words, deal with it, dummy.

>You lost get over it faggot
I did? I wasn't even aware that I was running. This comes as a great shock and disappointment to me.

Thanks for your post, Gomer. It's another fine example of logic from a non-college educated White American male: the new welfare queens.

It's not free if you are paying taxes to fund it you retard

If you're stranded alone on a desert island, how do you exercise your human right to free speech? After all, free speech is reliant upon there being a recipient for the message.
Under this context, with no provider for health, your right to free health care on a desert island doesn't exist, nor do any of your rights.

Essentially what I'm saying is that "natural rights" or whatever only exist when there is a society in which one can exercise them. When you're stranded on a desert island, no such society exists, therefore no rights exist.
tl;dr Stirner is right, rights are a spook, and i should go back to

Holy fuck. Can you people at least to pretend to know what you're talking about? I know you can only think in memes, but actually reading Stirner might be a good start

Where am I wrong? Stirner believed that most aspects of society were spooks, including society itself. If society is a spook, then so are rights.

>all of this ad hominem

sad!

Everyone is equal in the eyes of a tomahawk missile. Socialism is a meme. Money is the law of the land.

statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

That doesn't make any sense.

>why do liberals believe healthcare is a right
Probably because we believe people have the right to exist. Universal healthcare isn't some new idea that's never been tried successfully. It's practically in effect in every developed 1st world nation except in countries like the US.

>taxation, subsidization, and government spending are all manifestations of socialism

liberal "logic", everyone.

>he doesn't know socialized military, medicine, education and housing are all examples of socialism

Because liberals are too fucking short-sighted to pay $150 a month for health insurance when they're healthy.

They think "I'm healthy now. So instead of insurance I'll spend money on weed, rubber bracelets, MacBook pros, and piercings." Then they get sick and cry about how they can't afford the ambulance ride to the hospital because they don't believe in personal responsibility.

t. Someone who pays $300 every two months for health insurance and is going to lose his amazing plan next year thanks to Obamacare

>to pay $150 a month for health insurance when they're healthy

Where are you paying 150 a month for health care in the US? Because here in California, it's 300 a month.

>i wanna talk politics on Veeky Forums
>oh hey another board that isnt pol
>ill make a new thread so everyone can hear my shitty opinions on politics in the BUSINESS AND FINANCE BOARD

Yeah. Maybe if you'd argued economics, but health care policy has nothing to do with Veeky Forums unless you personally run a health care business.

Well do you?!

EITC, GI bill, government jobs, government contractor jobs, and section 8 are not examples of socialism but examples of government's power to tax and spend. Medicare and medicaid are examples of socialized insurance schemes, not socialized medicine.

Blue Cross Blue Shield

It's moot now that my plan will become defunct next year.

>If you're stranded alone on a desert island, how do you exercise your human right to free health care?
Being stranded alone on a desert island would prevent you from exercising your human right to free health care, just as it would prevent you from exercising your human right to freedom of association.

>Positive rights are slavery.
Are you one of those dogmatarians who believes all duty is slavery?

>move 5% of military budget into healthcare instead of funding private corporations
>problem solved
"Free" healthcare (which is actually government subsidized healthcare, not free at all since we pay taxes) is actually very doable, but nobody wants to cut our ridiculous defense spending to pay for it because terrorism or something

>because terrorism or something
actually it's both the welfare-for-republicans work program we call "military service" (bonus- we call you a HERO for getting on the public dole!) and the backdoor handout of billions to defense contractors that such "service" is a cover for.

It's fine, republicans don't have to produce ANYTHING, they can live quite comfortably defending our "freedoms" while feeling completely justified and even respected for enforcing the will of oil companies on the Middle East. Bonus points- they get to kill infidels and make the world a more Christian place. Double bonus points- those infidels have brown skin and don't speak murrican.

the whole fucking thing is a farce.

t. veteran of a foreign war

>all u.s. service people are republicans

what

>You deny the existence of the social contract, and you intentionally or through ignorance conflate human rights and natural rights.

Your human rights don't exist; they are simply a product of other you and other people who believe in the specter of free resources gaining enough political power to impose their consumption on producers who did not ask to serve you, couching that infringement of free will in feel-good language to make it seem as if you are justified in perpetuating slavery.

The only true rights that exist are the ones that follow logically from the nature of our existence as independent consciousnesses in autonomous physical forms. You have a natural right to free thought, to communicate those thoughts, to perform actions that don't endanger the existence of other consciousnesses, to defend your body and mind from actions that endanger your own existence.

Again, you aren't entitled to anything simply by existing, and your beloved social contract does not entitle you to coerce others to serve your needs. The doctor or nurse whom you feel is obligated to take care of you expended much time, effort, and money to reach their status and they are free to exercise their talents in a manner consistent with their wishes. They were not designated from birth as medical slaves meant to ensure your comfort and they are not obligated to help you simply because you both exist simultaneously.

>Being stranded alone on a desert island would prevent you from exercising your human right to free health care, just as it would prevent you from exercising your human right to freedom of association.

It doesn't prevent you from freedom of association. You could be the Grand Wizard of the BFE Island Order of Boyloving Klansmen, no one's stopping you from doing anything. You would just be the only member, just as you might be the only member of any number of pursuits back in civilization, the only difference being that many so-called freedom-loving governments have specifically outlawed the creation of or membership in groups of certain types, regardless of the number of members.

The purpose of the desert island analogy is to delineate negative rights and positive rights. You don't have a right to health care, to education, food, shelter, etc. when you're alone on a desert island, or more accurately, your self-proclaimed right to those things accomplishes nothing. That's because, as positive rights, they aren't actually rights, just state-sanctioned theft from producers for the benefit of consumers who do nothing but exist and vote.

>Are you one of those dogmatarians who believes all duty is slavery?

No. Humans have a moral duty to do any number of things: preserve life, for example, to follow the thread topic. Medical professionals have an ethical duty on top of that, as dictated by their professional code, to, for example, serve all patients in need.

These two beliefs might prima facie suggest a right to health care. It is true that they functionally accomplish a similar goal. However, neither of them address the topic of scarcity of resources. Humans can only do what they are able to do, and no one should expect, for example, as a duty, one human to sacrifice his life to save another, or a doctor to successfully treat a patient beyond the capabilities of his education and equipment. But state-sanctioned "rights" conflict with these.

>they are simply a product of other you and other people who believe in the specter of free resources gaining enough political power to impose their consumption on producers who did not ask to serve you, couching that infringement of free will in feel-good language to make it seem as if you are justified in perpetuating slavery.
You just denied the existence of all laws and all forms of government.

You're an idiot, as I concluded days ago.

Trump is the ONLY candidate that promised to keep Social Security, retard

>ad hominem attacks aren't a logical fallacy if they're true

Wrong.

"When a statement is challenged by making an ad hominem attack on its author, it is important to draw a distinction between whether the statement in question was an argument or a statement of fact (testimony). "

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

>fucking idiot

It's like you skipped the entire page besides the one part that you thought could save you.

Nice work. Totally proven wrong. Our credibility is definitely crucial to this argument.

...

Thanks for proving his point? 54% Is far from saying that it's a republican welfare system.

>You just denied the existence of all law as and forms of government.
You just ignored almost all of the post while misinterpreting the one part you did address.

Seriously this guy is laying it out pretty clearly and you're not taking any of it on board.

What's your background? Where did you form your ideas and how old are you? And why do you come to biz?

Would you agree that "human rights" wouldn't exist if governments who supported them didn't exist?

yeah he sounds like a retard, didn't fully read his post until now. whoops

kek. all good

19 120IQ

22 114IQ

24 138IQ


What would be the point in engaging you dumbs.

Because it's 2016.

>MUH CURRENT YEAR

obamacare is a disaster because the republicans refused to allow any reforms for it, they wanted it to become untenable so they made sure it became so.

There is not a single human on the planet who is entitled to anything man-made, product or service, unless it was through a voluntary exchange.

>You just denied the existence of all laws and all forms of government.

Nothing I've said is incompatible with the notion of government or the rule of law. You can get together with any number of other people to form a government and create all the laws you like. You can even set up a system whereby you use the collective power of the state to establish and sustain a public health care system, I don't really care as long as I'm not part of it.

What you can't do is justify the necessity of that system as some logical extension of the nature of our existence, particularly when you do it as insidiously as you do by calling it a "human right", implying that anyone anywhere has an inalienable right to be treated simply by virtue of converting oxygen to carbon dioxide on a semi-regular basis, and any arrangement that does not, or, more importantly, cannot facilitate such a right constitutes some gross affront to the very notion of mankind.

Humanity existed long before the notion of public health care or even medicine existed, and it will long after our unsustainable welfare states have collapsed into obscurity. Society carried on just fine for millennia without so much as the thought of pretending health care was a human right, not because they were backwards and barbaric but because they understood the concept of limited resources by nature. We didn't suddenly discover something as innate to our existence to be called a "right" simply because we achieved (or think we achieved) the means to distribute it to everyone.

You can pat yourself on the back for your compassion all you like, just call it what it is: a mechanism for state-sanctioned slavery that benefits a consuming majority at the expense of a producing minority. You don't treat, you don't pay for treatment, and to drone on self-righteously about the "social contract" that enables you to demand the service of others is oblivious at best and selfishly dishonest at worst.

some american democrats think that america could apply healthcare like in europe.

america is UNIQUE to its issues. can't have every person have healthcare.

>WE CAN'T STOP SCHOOL SHOOTINGS says only country where school shootings happen
>CAN'T HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE says only first world country that doesn't have health care
>CAN'T HAVE CHEAP COLLEGE says only first world country with expensive college

It's funny how all of these problems ONLY happen in the USA. It's almost as if the majority of voters have no idea that Europe and Canada exist. And these are the losers who call other countries cucks.

I post this in every healthcare discussion I see. Feel free to Google it:

2/3 of all healthcare costs in America are due to obesity and sedentary lifestyle.

Sorry mr government, I'm not paying for the fatties.

>someone else's service is a human right

why dont we just make everything else a human right so no one has to work anymore and everyone can be happy? :)

Your continued refusal to accept that human rights are a societal, social construct makes your posts futile.

I hope you get paid by the word, because you have a penchant for writing long pieces of crap.

Live in the UK, just blows my mind you guys over in the US dont have national health. I just cant imagine living in a country where you didnt get your health looked after? That would be crazy. I watched sicko by micheal moore. Wow, just wow. Yeah never moving to the US.

Do governments have a right to water? Who gives rights, governments?

How does clean water require the work of others to produce? If you don't pollute the lake I could get it myself. Or are you talking about the tubes that taxes paid for? I guess I have the right to use them because taxes, but not a right to having the water that flows through them be clean.

Who does have the right to access, say, the Great Lakes? Seeing as I don't have the right to clean water, do I have the right to water? And if I don't, who does? And if no one does, well who the fuck does the water belong to? No one? Some one?

What if there were 100 that woke up on a lush, verdant green island, with a waterfall on one side, with fresh flowing water, and a stale, unmoving pond filled with nothing but bacterial diseases on the other side. Who would have a right to what?

And let's say one day 10 people showed up to their shores on a boat. Would they have any rights to the island? Why and why not?

anyhow, leave it to this cancerous board to go talk about the election like and . Like really? Trump voter here, also big believer in the electoral college as direct democracy has many negative things, the biggest being majority rule. But that is so off topic.

>this cancerous board
Yes, shocking that politics should arise in a thread about social and societal politics. What a bunch of assholes.

>Typical Trump dumbass. Too stupid to even know what the issue are, let alone how to discuss them.

Wut? Did you even see mouse-over the replies I quoted, or are you too stupid to even know what issue I'm talking about, and how to discuss it? To give you an idea, one was of some faggot hipster with a twist-up moustache, the other was someone telling that poster that he was obviously a non-educated white male.
How does the ELECTORAL COLLEGE have anything to do with the politics of healthcare?

What the fuck are "the issues" and how do we discuss "them"? And what on Earth do they have to do with having a representative democracy versus a direct democracy? Can you please explain that?

pic related, it's you.

>Your continued refusal to accept that human rights are a societal, social construct makes your posts futile.

The fact that they are a social construct is the entire point.

You've created a situation where you have decided that a good or service that requires capital and labor to produce should be available to a given person upon demand, regardless of whether 1) that person can afford the cost; 2) the producers want to associate with that person; and 3) there is a delivery infrastructure in place to make the connection.

It's slavery, by definition, not only on the part of the producers who are now beholden to the whims of the consumers, but also by anyone and everyone who has to pay to make that "human right" available to a third party. And further, people like you believe it to be morally justified simply because you want to have the goods and services without paying for them.

We weren't created to serve you.

>How does clean water require the work of others to produce?

Water of any standard of cleanliness is property. We might have arrangements whereby water somewhere is owned by everyone, or with varying degrees of access, which is fine. But like health care, education, and other goods and services, you aren't entitled to have, simply by virtue of existing, something that belongs to someone else.

>We weren't created to serve you.
Who's "we"? Last time I checked, you don't speak on behalf of the societal collective.

>Last time I checked, you don't speak on behalf of the societal collective.

Neither do you, but that hasn't stopped your using it as a bludgeon, now has it?

If one person exists who objects to having the fruits of their labor appropriated by the state for the benefit of those who do not produce themselves, then the system is immoral.

Again, I'd be less irritated by the scheme if you all simply called it for what it is—forcible theft of producers by consumers using the power of the government, presumably of, by, and for the people—instead of piously talking about "human rights" and other made-up concepts that make you feel not only justified, but righteous, in advocating for the system that you do.

>Neither do you
No I don't. But I'm fully competent to observe that myself and 99%+ of my fellow humans have come together in an agreed social and societal contract pursuant to which we perform mutual responsibilities and duties.

If you want to be a special snowflake NEET recluse, that's you're right. But we reserve the right to impose sanctions on you if you stay in our neighborhood/town/city/county/state/country or treaty unit. If you don't like it, remove thyself.

>Water of any standard of cleanliness is property. We might have arrangements whereby water somewhere is owned by everyone, or with varying degrees of access, which is fine. But like health care, education, and other goods and services, you aren't entitled to have, simply by virtue of existing, something that belongs to someone else.

So if it's not up to the standard or cleanliness, it isn't property? Who sets the standard of cleanliness?

You didn't answer the main question. Who does water belong to, and why does it belong to them? All you said was that we "might have arrangements whereby water someone is owned by everyone, or with varying degress of access, which is fine."

How is this fine? Meaning, who transferred the rights of ownership of the water? Do they hold a title to the land the water is on?

Why do you think riparian and littoral bodies are owned by anybody? If they are, who owns them? Private citizens who hold titles to the land, districts, counties, states, or the republic itself?

It's really not that crazy. It's just a convoluted system that gets clouded by personally irresponsible liberals and extremist republicans. Person A doesn't want to pay for person B's shit. It's not a difficult concept to understand. With that in mind, the USA has plenty of social programs in place to provide healthcare to those that truly do need it. Medicare for the elderly, medicaid for the poor, and then some states have their own programs in place too like MassHealth.

Obamacare was actually a good thing because it opened my eyes to just how easy it is to actually insure yourself in the United States. Entry level plans are around $300/month. That isn't bad. Stop spending your money on weed, booze, and Lil Wayne tickets and you'll be able to afford it.

The only flaw I see in the current system is it infringes on those who originally had arrangements with private insurers and it still fucks people who have pre-existing conditions.

>But I'm fully competent to observe that myself and 99%+ of my fellow humans have come together in an agreed social and societal contract pursuant to which we perform mutual responsibilities and duties.

That's a pretty generous description of the state of democracy in the first world given the sheer number of decisions made with a bare majority, if that, not to mention the decades of rule by politicians who understand how to bribe those who do nothing but vote and consume. (Speaking of, I'd love to hear you list some of the "mutual responsibilities and duties" performed by the growing percentage of the population in the West who are not in the labor force, pay no taxes, etc.) But by all means, continue to use the mere existence of society as proof positive that others must share your worldviews on "human rights", it's clearly an either/or issue.

>democracy
Who said anything about democracy?

>You didn't answer the main question. Who does water belong to, and why does it belong to them? All you said was that we "might have arrangements whereby water someone is owned by everyone, or with varying degrees of access, which is fine."

That is the answer. Don't get down in the weeds here. Water, like every other tangible object on this rock, is property. Property can be transferred between parties, it can be used by agreement, etc. You might have the right to use water that falls as rain on your land, or not, cf. Colorado River Compact. Everyone on Earth owns the open ocean, i.e., it's everyone's property, or within 12 to 200 nautical miles from a shoreline it may belong to a certain state, or that state has first dibs on fishing, oil, etc. A town may dam a stream or river to use as a reservoir for the local water authority. No matter what the arrangement is, the point is that you don't have a right to water that isn't your property, e.g., water that someone else has expended capital or labor to secure and hold title to. This doesn't have to be complicated.

for future reference, I'm going to imagine you live in the U.S.

why are you going off in a circle jerk that dude, but can answer 0 of my questions?

Also, I seem to be sandwiched between to autistic fuckers in an echo chamber.
You want to talk about ownership, and inalienable rights given to us by our creator, namely life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Again, who owns the water, and how did they get the title to the land? Assuming they have an estate at will, who transferred it to them, and how did they get possession of it?

Do you think the bundle of rights includes rights to littoral and riparian rights? If not, do you think they should, and why or why not?

>That is the answer. Don't get down in the weeds here. Water, like every other tangible object on this rock, is property.

This is like the 1000th time I've asked you this, but instead of answering my question, you proceed to try and tell me about property transfer and the rights tied to it, though you seem to not understand much of that side of RE. Anyways, here I go, 1001th time...

Who owns the property? Private citizens, counties, governments? Who? And whoever it is, who transferred the title of the property to them?

>No matter what the arrangement is, the point is that you don't have a right to water that isn't your property, e.g., water that someone else has expended capital or labor to secure and hold title to.

So, no matter what type of estate I own I have access to "water"? You do realize that even if your title grants you littoral and riparian rights, those rights are not the same as mineral rights, or air rights. They are usufractuary rights.

> the point is that you don't have a right to water that isn't your property, e.g., water that someone else has expended capital or labor to secure and hold title to. This doesn't have to be complicated.

It doesn't. Tell me specifically what gives me the rights to "water" (water rights don't exist. they are littoral or riparian) that is on my real property (can you make the distinction between property and real property, please? because you are comparing apples to horse carts)

Bump.

This is the problem with Veeky Forums. Bunch of hypothetical nonsense, or people telling how "things are" but when you call them out on it, and ask them to explain how their viewpoint corresponds with the law today, they are like deer in headlights.

To the point that some idiots think that buying a tract of land with a lake on it gives them rights to it like it were oil under the ground. Do you even real estate bruh?

brb, going to tell Warren Buffet to buy up any a >2m zone around the Great Lakes. With this he will obviously, magically, "have a right to water on his property" whatever the fuck that means, and will become rich as he keeps N.Americas greatest fresh water reserve clean and crisp and profits on fresh water sustainability in 50 years.

Go, go, Mr. Buffet.

I don't know why you're calling other people autistic after this string of posts.

>brb, going to tell Warren Buffet to buy up any a >2m zone around the Great Lakes. With this he will obviously, magically, "have a right to water on his property" whatever the fuck that means, and will become rich as he keeps N.Americas greatest fresh water reserve clean and crisp and profits on fresh water sustainability in 50 years.

You're being deliberately obtuse. You know good and well how this works. If I own a farm with a stock pond on it then I have the ability to use the water in that stock pond. If I own a farm with a stream running through it then I have the ability to use the water passing through that stream and return it to the stream. Many places have arrangements for me to dam the stream and increase the amount I have available to use, barring environmental issues. Some other places have agreements to move water from one stream to another, to make it available to a different group of people, such as the aforementioned Colorado River Compact, or limit the use of a water resource, such as the Great Lakes Compact that you forgot about while you were sperging out about the Sage of Omaha.

What you don't have, returning to the actual point I was making, is a unilateral human right to clean water, or more specifically to have it delivered to you wherever you happen to be. If you live in a condo in Arizona, your access to water depends on some public or semi-private utility treating it and delivering it to you. This arrangement is perfectly fine as long as you're paying for it but you can't just demand that you must have clean water or else it's a violation of your human rights. You live in a townhouse in the desert. It's just like health care or anything else, it's a good that required labor and capital to create, and the people who spent that labor and capital aren't obligated to give it away simply because you think you're entitled to it.

ITT: cucked euros and liberals who never asked themselves why they should be paying for someone else

Fucking commies I swear to god, they love to point out that people in EU have free healthcare, even though they don't understand that everybody has to pay 20% of their salary for insurance or else they will be locked up