Water can be privatized, collected, sold and distributed

>water can be privatized, collected, sold and distributed
>sunlight can be privatized, collected, sold and distributed
>oxygen can be privatized, collected, sold and distributed

Why is the first one ok, but not the bottom two?

Other urls found in this thread:

nestle.com/ask-nestle/human-rights/answers/nestle-chairman-peter-brabeck-letmathe-believes-water-is-a-human-right
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Just wait a couple decades. Everything will be commodified eventually. The entire world will be one giant Singapore.

Sunlight and oxygen don't require expensive infrastructure to collect, unlike water. Also, water, unlikr oxygen and sunlight, aren't a scarce resource.
I'm don't even agree with him and this was obvious.

NONE IS "OKAY".

Water is a human right. if you want to go down to the river and get some water, you can.

If you want clean, purified water delivered into your home by the city, you have to pay.

I ironically believe this. Bottled, purified water required ressources and labor to create, there is no reason for it to be handed out for free to anyone, and it certainly isn't a human right.

"Human rights" in general is a weird, slippery concept that should be abolished in general.

>Water is a human right. if you want to go down to the river and get some water, you can.

WATER IS NOT A "RIGHT"; IT IS A NECESSITY, AND A NATURAL RESOURCE, AND AS SUCH IT SHOULD BE FREELY AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE, AND TO ANYONE, AT ANY TIME, ALL THE TIME.

>If you want clean, purified water delivered into your home by the city, you have to pay.

YES, ONE PAYS FOR PUBLIC SERVICES VIA TAXES, BUT THAT IS NOT EQUIVALENT WITH PRIVATIZATION, AND COMMODIFICATION, OF AN OBJECT OF A NATURAL RESOURCE.

this man is a disgrace for the memory of Henri Nestlé and his good heart.

>OF AN OBJECT [OF BASIC NECESSITY, AND A] NATURAL RESOURCE.

>Also, water, unlikr oxygen and sunlight, aren't a scarce resource.

You mean the other way around, right?

>not the bottom two
If someone could bottle sunshine and sell it you bet your ass they would.

What if we privately own the rivers?

>AND AS SUCH IT SHOULD BE FREELY AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE, AND TO ANYONE, AT ANY TIME, ALL THE TIME.

But it's not. You're being too idealistic. Clean water is not just capable of being available for everyone, there's steps which must be taken in order to ensure the purification of water, and people who're willing to take those steps deserve to be compensated when others aren't.

>ONE PAYS FOR PUBLIC SERVICES VIA TAXES, BUT THAT IS NOT EQUIVALENT WITH PRIVATIZATION, AND COMMODIFICATION, OF AN OBJECT OF A NATURAL RESOURCE.

But you're still paying for it either way. Resources can only be gained and distributed by people willing to work for it.

Tfw I already live in Singapore

>But it's not.

I AM AWARE OF THAT —THAT IS WHY I TYPED "SHOULD", NOT "IS".

>You're being too idealistic.

NOT REALLY.

>Clean water is not just capable of being available for everyone...

YES, IT IS, UNLESS SOMEONE LIVES ALONE, IN THE MIDDLE OF A RAINLESS DESERT, AND WITHOUT ACCESS TO SUBTERRANEOUS WATER.

>... there's steps which must be taken in order to ensure the purification of water, and people who're willing to take those steps deserve to be compensated when others aren't.

SO, ACCORDING TO YOU, ONLY THOSE WHO WORK IN A PURIFICATION PLANT DESERVE PURIFIED WATER?

Because you can't just forbid someone to freely consume oxygen and sunlight.

I mean technically you can, but that requires some nasty decisions.

zoning laws.

Dome cities on alien planets like in 80s anime scifi.

>YES, IT IS, UNLESS

You can't say "yes it is" and then go on to explain the time where water ISN'T available for a specific group people. You're just proving me right.

If you live in the middle of the desert, in order to get water, you have to pay someone to go through the hassle of collecting water, (purifying it), and bringing it to you.

>ONLY THOSE WHO WORK IN A PURIFICATION PLANT DESERVE PURIFIED WATER?

When I said compensation, I wasn't referring to the water they purify, I was referring to monetary payment. Therefore, the only people who deserve purified water, are the people either willing to purify it themselves, or pay for someone else to do it.

You have a right to naturally occuring resources that're capable of being obtained without causing scarcity, but the moment resources become limited, those resources become privileges.

Oxygen is a limited resource in Dome Cities. If someone has to provide labor in order to obtain it, that person determines what happens with that oxygen.

I agree with this guy . People have a right to anything which can't be naturally taken away from them, i.e. life, liberty, etc.

>You can't say "yes it is" and then go on to explain the time where water ISN'T available for a specific group people. You're just proving me right.

APPARENTLY, YOU ARE INTELLECTUALLY DEFICIENT, BESIDE BEING SPIRITUALLY DEAD.

MY "POINT" IS THAT WATER IS NOT CAPABLE OF BEING ACCESSIBLE TO EVEYRONE, UNLESS SOMEONE IS LOCATED IN AN EXTREMELY EXTRAORDINARY CONDITION IN WHICH IT WOULD BE NONSENSICAL TO LIVE.

>When I said compensation, I wasn't referring to the water they purify, I was referring to monetary payment.

YES, LABOUR DESERVES COMPENSATION/PAYMENT —DO YOU HAVE A "POINT"?

>Therefore, the only people who deserve purified water, are the people either willing to purify it themselves, or pay for someone else to do it.

WATER SERVICES —WHICH INCLUDE PURIFICATION— SHOULD BE PUBLIC, FREELY AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE, AND ANYONE, AT ANY TIME, ALL THE TIME.

PUBLIC SERVICES ARE PAID BY THE CITIZENS VIA TAXES, BESIDE THAT, WHEN SOMEONE IS IN NEED, A SOLUTION SHOULD BE PROVIDED, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY ARE PAYING TAXES.

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS THAT YOU ARE EVEN ARGUING.

>You have a right to naturally occuring [SIC] resources...

NO, I HAVE A BIOPHYSICAL NECESSITY TO NATURAL RESOURCES, BECAUSE I HAVE A PHYSICAL BODY.

>... that're [SIC] capable of being obtained without causing scarcity, but the moment resources become limited, those resources become privileges.

YOU ARE ARGUING FROM A CAPITALISTIC BIAS, THEREFORE, YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID, BECAUSE EVERYTHING THAT CAPITALISM ENTAILS IS WHAT SHOULD NOT BE.

IF YOU WANT TO LIVE IN A HYPERCAPITALISTIC DYSTOPIA RULED BY PSYCHOPATHS, AND SOCIOPATHS, IT IS YOUR OWN PROBLEM, BUT DO NOT BE HYPOCRITICAL, ATTEMPTING TO JUSTIFY YOUR FANTASY.

Human rights don't exist. Nothing should be 'private'.

Only completely idiotic society would give up societal control of water as public utility and sell it to private interests. In most places water is a monopoly so the prices are bound to increase. Though I suppose it depends on who owns the piping. If only water purification systems are sold it wouldn't necessarily be a problem.

>UNLESS SOMEONE IS LOCATED IN AN EXTREMELY EXTRAORDINARY CONDITION IN WHICH IT WOULD BE NONSENSICAL TO LIVE.

People who were born in shitty conditions don't determine where they're born. If you're born in a desert with no access to water, you had no say in it.

>WATER SERVICES —WHICH INCLUDE PURIFICATION— SHOULD BE PUBLIC, FREELY AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE, AND ANYONE, AT ANY TIME, ALL THE TIME.

This is what you sound like:

>FOOD —WHICH INCLUDE PREPARATION— SHOULD BE PUBLIC, FREELY AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE, AND ANYONE, AT ANY TIME, ALL THE TIME.

>I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS THAT YOU ARE EVEN ARGUING.

I'm arguing that, just because something is necessary to live, does not mean it will be distributed in such a way that everyone has access to it without paying for it first.

Providing taxpayers who pay a water bill with water IS privatization of water.

>NO, I HAVE A BIOPHYSICAL NECESSITY TO NATURAL RESOURCES, BECAUSE I HAVE A PHYSICAL BODY.

Everyone does. Just because you need clean water does not mean you should have access to it. It just means you need it, and in order to obtain it, you must be willing to put in the effort to obtain it.

>YOU ARE ARGUING FROM A CAPITALISTIC BIAS, THEREFORE, YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID, BECAUSE EVERYTHING THAT CAPITALISM ENTAILS IS WHAT SHOULD NOT BE.

Stop being idealistic. You keep arguing about what "should" be instead of focusing on what is.

If water is limited, not everyone will get water. The only people who get water are the people willing to obtain it; either legally, with money, or through force.

>ancap.jpg

>Selling sunlight
Ishygddt

Well, sunlight is freely available, regardless of what might try or what scheme they might envision. Barring someone trying to make a Dyson Sphere, it'd be awfully hard to charge people for sunlight.

And, eh, people do sell oxygen. To the elderly, the disabled, to gullible Chinese people, and to weird hipsters at "Oxygen Bars". And you bet your ass that if oxygen wasn't literally everywhere in our atmosphere, people would be charged for it. Be it through taxes or through private means, you think they'd just pass that out for free if people lived on Mars or some shit?

time for someone to get locked in a dungeon and made to work for time in the cage attached to the facility.

Come on dude, don't argue with a known retard.

>tfw I live in Singapore
Nervous_laughter.gif

Although IIRC our public utilities isn't privatized

Could be worse. Singapore is close to what I imagine an ideal society is like.

I bet you never lived here before. Bonus points if you hate the current mass immigration and outsourcing that is plaguing the West

The bottom 2 are ok. If someone wishes to go through the trouble of distilling pure oxygen and pumping it into canisters or setting up a solar plant and contributing to the electrical grid they surely deserve some sort of reimbursement for their trouble and using standard market mechanisms would be the reasonable way to go about this unless you want to incur legal tangles and bureaucratic waste.

>literal cyberpunk dystopia
>ideal society

>water can be privatized, collected, sold and distributed
>sunlight can be privatized, collected, sold and distributed
>oxygen can be privatized, collected, sold and distributed

>Why is the first one ok, but not the bottom two?

you just made an a fully certified, bona fide, is-ought argument

We don't have the technology for the other two

Say you dont pay gor your oxygen what are they gonna do clog your nostrils?

nestle.com/ask-nestle/human-rights/answers/nestle-chairman-peter-brabeck-letmathe-believes-water-is-a-human-right

>Yes. Our former Chairman Peter Brabeck-Letmathe passionately believes that water is a human right. Everyone, everywhere in the world, has the right to clean, safe water for drinking and sanitation.

>His critics use a video interview that Peter gave in 2005 to claim that he thinks all water sources should be privatised. This is simply false.

>He supports the United Nations' view on water: ‘There is enough freshwater on the planet for seven billion people, but it is distributed unevenly and too much of it is wasted, polluted and unsustainably managed’.

Yours first.

Clean water is a scarce resource therefore it is an economic good. The other two are not you subhuman reddit commiecuck

>water
>privatized
It doesn't have to be. In fact it's better off being in the hands of the state.

>collected, sold and distributed
Well, and the alternative is what exactly? Abolishing all water treatment plants and water supplies and force everyone to just drink straight from the river?

>using actual PR damage control as counter evidence

Capitalists are so lame. Name me one neo-liberal who knew how to party.

>Why is the first one ok, but not the bottom two?

Soon they will be, you commie fuck.
I for one enjoy the freedom of paying for oxygen.

Commies need to fuck off, air and water are not "rights"

Because the first one is viable.

Privatized in what sense?
In most of countries you pay for running water, but that's usually a small fee to the government.
Did he mean infrastructure should be privatized, or privatizing lakes, rivers and so on?
Because that goes against 2000 years of Roman legal tradition that our civilization is based on.

>Did he mean infrastructure should be privatized, or privatizing lakes, rivers and so on?
Isn't that what happened in California? Can't confirm because i'm not murrican though.

What do you mean, former or latter part?

Resources cannot be rights by definition

Whose definition?

Any definition in which rights are inalienable, self-evident, or axiomatic.
The only way a resource could be a right is if you are actually talking about privileges; something granted by other people.

Rights are granted by other people too, within the framework of society. They aren't something mystical or natural.

stfu retard, yes they are rights, only an american shitstain would think its ok for a company to literally take the air from you

when will the chinese nuke your shit cunt, jesus christ i wana see americans burned alive

>Rights are granted by other people too, within the framework of society.
That's true for legal rights (privileges), but not rights in the philosophical sense.

Capitalism is such bullshit. How fucking disgusting.

>YES, ONE PAYS FOR PUBLIC SERVICES VIA TAXES, BUT THAT IS NOT EQUIVALENT WITH PRIVATIZATION, AND COMMODIFICATION, OF AN OBJECT OF A NATURAL RESOURCE
Yes it is

I could buy the earth's atmosphere and outfit every human with a collar that measures his breathing and bills him for it. If he doesn't pay, the collar contracts and strangles him. If you refuse the collar, you are a thief and the police will force you to get one, or otherwise strangle you to death. If people try to take off their collar, it explodes.

R8 my idea, I think this would increase economic efficiency by a lot. At the moment we have pure communism and we all know how that works.

>Water is a human right. if you want to go down to the river and get some water, you can
You can't do that if the company that owns the right to collect from the spring decides to suck up all the water for export.

Jordan Belfort and his merry band of nihilists.

hmm

Is this the glorious libertarian future that was foretold?

Neither is ok and the 2nd isn't even possible.

>Bottled, purified water required ressources and labor to create,
True. But desu it's cheap as dirt. Adverising it costs more than producing it.

>desu
Wut? I didn't type that!

>the 2nd isn't even possible.
Just use the same concept behind carbon credits

>water can be privatized, collected, sold and distributed
>sunlight can be privatized, collected, sold and distributed
>oxygen can be privatized, collected, sold and distributed
All I see, is three true statements.

Any resource will be privatized to some extent. the only reasonable exceptions are things so plentiful as they are not and cannot be limited in any practical way.

So in a way he is right, as long as there is not enough for everyone to have as much as they want there will be privatization of water.

Get the fuck out you subhuman.

> Tanks for compressed gas
> Solar panels
You and op are idiots

>I actually agree with Nestle

>Why is the first one ok, but not the bottom two?- 69 posts and 7 image replies shown.
they're all right
what do you think solar panels are?
what do you think oxygen containers at hospitals are

You're the worst tripfag on this site, you and that retard "butterfly" on Veeky Forums

Why are you so mad?

fresh water courses and reservoirs should be national property and must be protected by the armed forces

This.

what you wrote is filtered as desu newfriend

As counter evidence? Dude, I just figured it was relevant.

How the fuck do you even privatise water? Does he mean the infrastructure? How are you gonna lay claim to an entire river that runs through several sovereign states? If you tried to dam it at the source or whatever you'd end up in a literal war against Egypt or India or something.

>Also, water, unlikr oxygen and sunlight, aren't a scarce resource

>stay inside because i don't want to be sunlight taxed (keep all blinds closed and cover house in mirrors so i don't get sun-property taxed
>drink my own piss because fuck paying 20 dollars for a bottle of water
>Breathe helium-nitrogen mixture with 10% oxygen so i don't have to pay breathing tax.
P A R A D I S E

This

The short answer is no; water is publicly owned, then apportioned to water users, and most infrastructure is publicly built and owned.

The long answer is complicated. California has three successive water rights legal systems, with the oldest systems getting priority: Riparian (English Common Law bullshit that doesn't fit California: you own land, you get to use as much water that crosses it as you want), Appropriative (gold miner bullshit that doesn't fit modern times: you stole water, but it's yours as long as you keep using it), and Logical But Secondary To The First Two So Policy Is Fucked.

>stfu retard
Excellent argument, a clear indication that what follows is worth reading.

most countries privatise the delivery services not the water sources

This will happen, then we'll get communism.

Commodification can only go so far without a backlash.

Damn I'd like to know who started the cycle he's continuing

under-appreciated

The problem western socialist have is they believe all governments are nice and somewhat efficient like western governments. In reality 90% of governments are wasteful dictatorships and is literally better to hand over the ressources they control to western corporations than let those warlords waste them. Who dried out the Aral Sea, which is largely recognised as the biggest single environmental damage humans have ever commited? It was the soviet government.

So by handing over the water ressources of a third world country to a company like Nestle instead of leaving it to those local warlords or whatever you are actually doing that population a huge favor.

Every right is a privilege.