Is "Water" a Human Right?

[Mathbud1]

The thing about rights...

If someone else has to provide the means to exercise a certain "right", especially if they are forced by the state to do so, the right in question is a privilege, not a right.

You have no more right to water than you do a Mercedes.

Here is a good discussion of rights:

Rights (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

It is uber complex.

Any right that does require someone to act for you imposes a duty on the other person. I would think to impose any duty on another person you would have to show compelling reasons why your right to have them perform the duty is more important than their right not to be forced to perform the duty.

In essence, can your right make me a slave?

Forcing people to provide goods and services to others w/ compensation is involuntary servitude.
The state forcing people into involuntary servitude is tyranny.

Any "right" that requires action from any other person is in the same category. If I have a "right" to have food provided for me, someone has to be a slave to that need and provide the food. You can spread that slavery out to multiple people, but they are still slaves required to fullfill a part of my need.

Discussing those kinds of rights is immensly dangerous. On the large scale you make millions of people slaves to the needs of millions of others.

Evil is not one large entity, but a collection of countless, small depravities brought up from the muck by petty men. Many have traded the enrichment of vision for a gray fog of mediocrity--the fertile inspiration of striving and growth, for mindless stagnation and slow decay--the brave new ground of the attempt, for the timid quagmire of apathy. Many of you have traded freedom not even for a bowl of soup, but worse, for the spoken empty feelings of others who say that you deserve to have a full bowl of soup provided by someone else. Happiness, joy, accomplishment, achievement . . . are not finite commodities, to be divided up. Is a child’s laughter to be divided and allotted? No! Simply make more laughter! Every person’s life is theirs by right. An individual’s life can and must belong only to himself, not to any society or community, or he is then but a slave. No one can deny another person their right to their life, nor seize by force what is produced by someone else, because that is stealing their means to sustain their life. It is treason against mankind to hold a knife to a man’s throat and dictate how he must live his life. No society can be more important than the individuals who compose it, or else you ascribe supreme importance, not to man, but to any notion that strikes the fancy of the society, at a never-ending cost of lives. Reason and reality are the only means to just laws; mindless wishes, if given sovereignty, become deadly masters.

 

[DriftingSand]

Is "Water" a Human Right? The Constitution protects the "General Welfare". I've heard 101 thing's that don't apply to that "General Welfare of People" ruling that we can't ask our ancestors about...........but NOTHING is more "General Welfare" than water. I can live without everything else longer.

Discuss perspectives.

'Water Is a Human Right': Advocates Call for End to Detroit Water Shutoffs

Guns are a freedom. But water isn't, because no one in their right mind ever thought it would be necessary....

Is water a "human right?" No. Water is water.

 

[AntiParty]

The thing about rights...

If someone else has to provide the means to exercise a certain "right", especially if they are forced by the state to do so, the right in question is a privilege, not a right.

You have no more right to water than you do a Mercedes.

Here is a good discussion of rights:

Rights (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

It is uber complex.

Any right that does require someone to act for you imposes a duty on the other person. I would think to impose any duty on another person you would have to show compelling reasons why your right to have them perform the duty is more important than their right not to be forced to perform the duty.

In essence, can your right make me a slave?

Forcing people to provide goods and services to others w/ compensation is involuntary servitude.
The state forcing people into involuntary servitude is tyranny.

So the State FORCING Gun rights is tyranny?

You are making the point I'm trying to make. You do realize that THE PEOPLE don't want by majority Assault "style" weapons" but the CURRENT Constitution does. What is even more ironic is that you ask "Can your right make me a slave"..............

Since when did we stop listening to the people and start listening to Fox News?

"In essence, can your right make me a slave?" This shows you have no political background knowledge at all. The entire reason we started deciding Nation over State was because of Slavery!

 

[DTB7]

good question

 

[AntiParty]

Here is a good discussion of rights:

Rights (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

It is uber complex.

Any right that does require someone to act for you imposes a duty on the other person. I would think to impose any duty on another person you would have to show compelling reasons why your right to have them perform the duty is more important than their right not to be forced to perform the duty.

In essence, can your right make me a slave?

Forcing people to provide goods and services to others w/ compensation is involuntary servitude.
The state forcing people into involuntary servitude is tyranny.

So the State FORCING Gun rights is tyranny?

You are making the point I'm trying to make. You do realize that THE PEOPLE don't want by majority Assault "style" weapons" but the CURRENT Constitution does. What is even more ironic is that you ask "Can your right make me a slave"..............

Since when did we stop listening to the people and start listening to Fox News?

"In essence, can your right make me a slave?" This shows you have no political background knowledge at all. The entire reason we started deciding Nation over State was because of Slavery!

^NOTE; I'm not bias on the topic. I love to hear what people have to say about the topics of guns. But this bias of ignoring the public on certain catagories is ignorance.

 

[AntiParty]

Is "Water" a Human Right? The Constitution protects the "General Welfare". I've heard 101 thing's that don't apply to that "General Welfare of People" ruling that we can't ask our ancestors about...........but NOTHING is more "General Welfare" than water. I can live without everything else longer.

Discuss perspectives.

'Water Is a Human Right': Advocates Call for End to Detroit Water Shutoffs

Guns are a freedom. But water isn't, because no one in their right mind ever thought it would be necessary....

Is water a "human right?" No. Water is water.

So.......

What rights do humans have there smart guy? I would LOVE to hear a brainy response.

 

[AntiParty]

Calling it nonsense is not a solution. Propose a better one.

Here's one from the school of "The best way to convince a fool he's wrong is to let him have his own way".

-Tell the water company to supply water for everyone for no cost.
-Without income, the company will lay off its workers and close.
-With no water company to supply water, everyone is without water.
-Now they're back to square one except instead of just the deadbeats out of water, everyone is.

Now that they're back to square one, the city will have to solve the problem of water delivery since the give everyone free stuff plan didn't work--again.

^+++++++++++++++++20000000. Look at this absolutely ignorant fear.

"Tell the water company to supply water at no cost", -> HOW IGNORANT IS THIS, IT'S CLEARLY A TAXATION ISSUE WE ARE DISCUSSING. But only Right Wingers like to paint Taxable necessities as "freebies". Makes it hard to be a non-bias mind. . (Everything in taxation is paid for, NOT FREE.....heh)

"Without income the water company"..................WHAT AN IDIOT...............POLICE OR WATER............POLICE OR WATER............. BRIDGES OR WATER............BRIDGES OR WATER............ You simple minds don't seem to have a grade school grasp of what taxation is. "I'm ok with parks and highways but water should be worked for"..........IGNORANCE.

 

[Plasmaball]

This is an interesting subject....water isn't a right but guns are....one you need to live and the other you don't. .that is an interesting argument.the idea someone would claim that is true..

Starve a people and watch them revolt faster than taking away any guns.

You go to jail if you starve someone and they die...as in its murder...literally stripping them of their right to live.

This is a rather complex issue and I don't feel like typing it all out on my phone.

 

[Politico]

Wow you nuts managed to equate water to guns. This forum never fails to amaze me lol.

 

[EverCurious]

Alright, I'll bite.

Regarding Detroit specifically:

IMHO, IF it truly came down to a matter of life or death, those who wished to survive should be willing to go get their own water and not die. The issue, however, is not actually a "matter of life and death," as the media sensationalizes, but rather an 'inconvenience' to the delinquent bill payer. "Convenience" is NOT a right.

To quote: "Johnson said 89,000 customers owe about $91 million. Detroit had 176,879 active residential water accounts as of June 30. Thousands of those had water restored within 48 hours after paying their overdue bills or getting into a payment program." (From The Detroit News - can't link yet sorry)

It's clear the 'provider' is willing to work with folks and set up payment programs. It's also of note that they turned those folks' water back on, in good faith, despite prior delinquent behavior, and NOT receiving full payment due. The article also details (one of?) their general payment plan(s), and also notes that there is a financial assistance program for those with a hardship.

It is noted that the average delinquency is $540, and that the average residential bill is $75/m - so the average is 7 months of not paying their bill. Seven months is well within 'reasonable expectation' to determine a customer is refusing to pay and (likely) gives them, not only, full legal recourse to terminate said service, but even to sue for recompense.

How many of these 'customers,' who are behind on their bills, have made any effort to set up a payment plan for their 'convenience' of water delivery? Further, if we suppose, based upon the average 7 month delinquency, that most have 'not' attempted to set up a payment plan: then doesn't that invalidate the entire life and death 'human rights' argument brought forth and repaint it as more of an 'irresponsibility' issue?


Do I have a 'right' to free electricity to pump water up from my well "so I don't die"? Can I ignore my electric bill and be unwilling to obtain water from any source other than my electrically driven well pump and claim that is a "human rights issue"? Most folks in my state don't have city water or sewers, in fact, a lot of them use outhouses and get water from natural sources like lakes and rivers - are their "rights" being violated by their villages or the state? I think not.

 

[Redfish]

They can walk down to the Detroit river with a bucket and get all the water they want or can carry, and its FREE.

your water bill is for the piping and pumps and filters that bring it into your house, not the water itself.

That comment was devoid of thought or reason...Redfish

can you imagine 40,000 people down at this place on the river that they can get water that you claim, all at once? And water is very heavy...and they need a lot of it to be able to flush their toilets, wash up and drink....if they have cars they would probably use their car to load the water in...is there a parking lot by 'the river' to hold 20,000 cars driving in and out of it?

like most liberals, you totally missed the point. The point----------------you are not paying for the water, you are paying to have it delivered to your house by pipelines.

If you cannot pay for city water delivery, then your option is to go get it and carry it home yourself.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Is "Water" a Human Right? The Constitution protects the "General Welfare". I've heard 101 thing's that don't apply to that "General Welfare of People" ruling that we can't ask our ancestors about...........but NOTHING is more "General Welfare" than water. I can live without everything else longer.

Discuss perspectives.

'Water Is a Human Right': Advocates Call for End to Detroit Water Shutoffs

Guns are a freedom. But water isn't, because no one in their right mind ever thought it would be necessary....

No. Water is not a human right.

 

[Mathbud1]

Here is a good discussion of rights:

Rights (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

It is uber complex.

Any right that does require someone to act for you imposes a duty on the other person. I would think to impose any duty on another person you would have to show compelling reasons why your right to have them perform the duty is more important than their right not to be forced to perform the duty.

In essence, can your right make me a slave?

Forcing people to provide goods and services to others w/ compensation is involuntary servitude.
The state forcing people into involuntary servitude is tyranny.

So the State FORCING Gun rights is tyranny?

You are making the point I'm trying to make. You do realize that THE PEOPLE don't want by majority Assault "style" weapons" but the CURRENT Constitution does. What is even more ironic is that you ask "Can your right make me a slave"..............

Since when did we stop listening to the people and start listening to Fox News?

"In essence, can your right make me a slave?" This shows you have no political background knowledge at all. The entire reason we started deciding Nation over State was because of Slavery!

Gun rights do not require action from someone else. They only require that nobody act AGAINST that right. You didn't read the content of the post.

 

[Mathbud1]

Calling it nonsense is not a solution. Propose a better one.

Here's one from the school of "The best way to convince a fool he's wrong is to let him have his own way".

-Tell the water company to supply water for everyone for no cost.
-Without income, the company will lay off its workers and close.
-With no water company to supply water, everyone is without water.
-Now they're back to square one except instead of just the deadbeats out of water, everyone is.

Now that they're back to square one, the city will have to solve the problem of water delivery since the give everyone free stuff plan didn't work--again.

^+++++++++++++++++20000000. Look at this absolutely ignorant fear.

"Tell the water company to supply water at no cost", -> HOW IGNORANT IS THIS, IT'S CLEARLY A TAXATION ISSUE WE ARE DISCUSSING. But only Right Wingers like to paint Taxable necessities as "freebies". Makes it hard to be a non-bias mind. . (Everything in taxation is paid for, NOT FREE.....heh)

"Without income the water company"..................WHAT AN IDIOT...............POLICE OR WATER............POLICE OR WATER............. BRIDGES OR WATER............BRIDGES OR WATER............ You simple minds don't seem to have a grade school grasp of what taxation is. "I'm ok with parks and highways but water should be worked for"..........IGNORANCE.

The difference is that clean water is a consumable resource. If you move it to a tax paid structure, individuals can use as much as they want with no repurcussion. They have no incentive not to waste water. Pay as you use is fair.

It might be possible to do some sort of hybrid plan where taxes cover the first x number of gallons (a minimum based on requirement to live) every month then you have to pay for what you use beyond that amount, but that isn't the structure they had set up in Detroit (or anywhere else I'm aware of.) They might be able to move to it once they get the current crisis under control, but until they do they have to work with what they already have in place. I haven't though through the possible repurcussions of moving to a hybrid system like that though, so it may or may not be a good idea.

 

[Mathbud1]

This is an interesting subject....water isn't a right but guns are....one you need to live and the other you don't. .that is an interesting argument.the idea someone would claim that is true..

Starve a people and watch them revolt faster than taking away any guns.

You go to jail if you starve someone and they die...as in its murder...literally stripping them of their right to live.

This is a rather complex issue and I don't feel like typing it all out on my phone.

"Needed to live" isn't a requirement for a right. There are other considerations than immediate need to sustain life that are justification for gun rights.

 

[Mathbud1]

Alright, I'll bite.

Regarding Detroit specifically:

IMHO, IF it truly came down to a matter of life or death, those who wished to survive should be willing to go get their own water and not die. The issue, however, is not actually a "matter of life and death," as the media sensationalizes, but rather an 'inconvenience' to the delinquent bill payer. "Convenience" is NOT a right.

To quote: "Johnson said 89,000 customers owe about $91 million. Detroit had 176,879 active residential water accounts as of June 30. Thousands of those had water restored within 48 hours after paying their overdue bills or getting into a payment program." (From The Detroit News - can't link yet sorry)

It's clear the 'provider' is willing to work with folks and set up payment programs. It's also of note that they turned those folks' water back on, in good faith, despite prior delinquent behavior, and NOT receiving full payment due. The article also details (one of?) their general payment plan(s), and also notes that there is a financial assistance program for those with a hardship.

It is noted that the average delinquency is $540, and that the average residential bill is $75/m - so the average is 7 months of not paying their bill. Seven months is well within 'reasonable expectation' to determine a customer is refusing to pay and (likely) gives them, not only, full legal recourse to terminate said service, but even to sue for recompense.

How many of these 'customers,' who are behind on their bills, have made any effort to set up a payment plan for their 'convenience' of water delivery? Further, if we suppose, based upon the average 7 month delinquency, that most have 'not' attempted to set up a payment plan: then doesn't that invalidate the entire life and death 'human rights' argument brought forth and repaint it as more of an 'irresponsibility' issue?


Do I have a 'right' to free electricity to pump water up from my well "so I don't die"? Can I ignore my electric bill and be unwilling to obtain water from any source other than my electrically driven well pump and claim that is a "human rights issue"? Most folks in my state don't have city water or sewers, in fact, a lot of them use outhouses and get water from natural sources like lakes and rivers - are their "rights" being violated by their villages or the state? I think not.

It has been pointed out several times also that once the water is shut off, it stays shut off for less than a day in most cases because the account gets paid on right away then.

Fair usage of the water we have requires a pay-as-you-use structure. I can't think of a better way to enforce fair usage. It is up to people to prioritize this need over cable and cell phones.

 

[Mathbud1]

Think about it this way:

Do YOU want to pay for the water use of a rich guy who has his servants wash 10 cars every week, waters an acre of grass daily, fills his pool and hot tub, takes a relaxing bath as well as a long shower every day... and on and on and on.

Under a tax-paid structure we would all have to share that cost.

Under a pay-as-you-use structure the rich guy can pay that bill all by himself.

 

[Esmeralda]

We have the right to water, but we don't have the right to have someone else build reservoirs and dams as well as complex systems for cleaning and piping the water into our homes. Someone has to pay for that, whether by taxation or individual billing. If you are too poor to pay for the water that comes into your home through your municipal system, then get government assistance. People who have wells don't pay the government for their water. But they own the well and its water as part of their property.

In the Old West days, people had range wars over who owned the rights to water. In past times, Bedouins fought tribal wars over water rights. The sensible thing is to share in responsibly. In olden times, every village had a well and people shared. The apparatus for hauling the water to the surface was shared by everyone, and the village together paid the man who built it.

We must share in the responsbility for bringing clean, healthful water into our homes and help those who are poor to have that water too.

 

[Care4all]

They can walk down to the Detroit river with a bucket and get all the water they want or can carry, and its FREE.

your water bill is for the piping and pumps and filters that bring it into your house, not the water itself.

That comment was devoid of thought or reason...Redfish

can you imagine 40,000 people down at this place on the river that they can get water that you claim, all at once? And water is very heavy...and they need a lot of it to be able to flush their toilets, wash up and drink....if they have cars they would probably use their car to load the water in...is there a parking lot by 'the river' to hold 20,000 cars driving in and out of it?

like most liberals, you totally missed the point. The point----------------you are not paying for the water, you are paying to have it delivered to your house by pipelines.

If you cannot pay for city water delivery, then your option is to go get it and carry it home yourself.

Those pipelines have not been fixed or repaired in decades, if not a century.... The city of Detroit's water pipes are leaking everywhere and they lose 35,000,000,000 gallons a year, 35 BILLION gallons a year is just running in to the ground, from these rotted pipes...

IT'S a HUGE problem, and this is why Detroit customers have to pay nearly DOUBLE the price for water than the average in the Nation....

So, it would be NICE to THINK that the money people in Detroit are paying is for the maintenance of the water lines etc with their bill....but apparently it's not....who knows where the money is going and who it is going to....?

it's just total MISMANAGEMENT of the City, all around...imo.

 

[Care4all]

Here's one from the school of "The best way to convince a fool he's wrong is to let him have his own way".

-Tell the water company to supply water for everyone for no cost.
-Without income, the company will lay off its workers and close.
-With no water company to supply water, everyone is without water.
-Now they're back to square one except instead of just the deadbeats out of water, everyone is.

Now that they're back to square one, the city will have to solve the problem of water delivery since the give everyone free stuff plan didn't work--again.

^+++++++++++++++++20000000. Look at this absolutely ignorant fear.

"Tell the water company to supply water at no cost", -> HOW IGNORANT IS THIS, IT'S CLEARLY A TAXATION ISSUE WE ARE DISCUSSING. But only Right Wingers like to paint Taxable necessities as "freebies". Makes it hard to be a non-bias mind. . (Everything in taxation is paid for, NOT FREE.....heh)

"Without income the water company"..................WHAT AN IDIOT...............POLICE OR WATER............POLICE OR WATER............. BRIDGES OR WATER............BRIDGES OR WATER............ You simple minds don't seem to have a grade school grasp of what taxation is. "I'm ok with parks and highways but water should be worked for"..........IGNORANCE.

The difference is that clean water is a consumable resource. If you move it to a tax paid structure, individuals can use as much as they want with no repurcussion. They have no incentive not to waste water. Pay as you use is fair.

It might be possible to do some sort of hybrid plan where taxes cover the first x number of gallons (a minimum based on requirement to live) every month then you have to pay for what you use beyond that amount, but that isn't the structure they had set up in Detroit (or anywhere else I'm aware of.) They might be able to move to it once they get the current crisis under control, but until they do they have to work with what they already have in place. I haven't though through the possible repurcussions of moving to a hybrid system like that though, so it may or may not be a good idea.

I think your Hybrid idea, is a pretty darn good one....!!!!!