Is "Water" a Human Right?

[Mathbud1]

^+++++++++++++++++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....!!!!!

One concern with such a system would be how the "customer" (client? citizen? user? whatever) would know when they had used up their tax-paid water. You wouldn't want people to be surprised by the bill, and not knowing would open a large oportunity for disputing the bill possibly costing money for investigation.

Also, I don't know how much taxes would have to increase to pay for that minimum amount of water.

Then, how do you determine what the minimum would be? Different household sizes would require a different baseline amount of water.

All in all, I'm not sure I like the idea that much the more I think about it. There are definitely some feasability questions that would have to be answered first, and the more I think about it, the more questions I come up with. Worth asking them? Maybe.

 

[Care4all]

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....!!!!!

One concern with such a system would be how the "customer" (client? citizen? user? whatever) would know when they had used up their tax-paid water. You wouldn't want people to be surprised by the bill, and not knowing would open a large oportunity for disputing the bill possibly costing money for investigation.

Also, I don't know how much taxes would have to increase to pay for that minimum amount of water.

Then, how do you determine what the minimum would be? Different household sizes would require a different baseline amount of water.

All in all, I'm not sure I like the idea that much the more I think about it. There are definitely some feasability questions that would have to be answered first, and the more I think about it, the more questions I come up with. Worth asking them? Maybe.

I think some of those concerns can be easily found out....

like...

I'm certain that they could easily get the average usage per household.... that could be used as just the basic water a household needs...a 2 bedroom vs a 3 bedroom vs a 4 bedroom..... bedrooms usually indicates the amount of usage.

People are surprised every month, by their bill now...

You go gingerly the first month and see how it comes out on the first bill....then you can judge from there I suppose...and modify your habits if you seem to be using too much...it seems like it would give good incentive for those that are poorest or just regular ole penny pinch-ers, to be more conservative in their water usage, knowing that they can actually have a free bill vs one they have to pay more for if they go over the standard usage? But...I dunno?

Of course they will still need security deposits as they have now....

And I don't know the tax part either...but most of the cost of water in Detroit is due to mismanagement...if they could get that part together, then maybe taxes wouldn't need to be high? right now, there is no incentive for the government to be more efficient because they just get the people to pay for it through individual water bills...so 35 billion gallons a year can be wasted because they just charge the people more and more and more and more and keep raising their prices and their fees. If they only got a flat amount in a budget from tax collection, and they are uncertain on whether any household will go over the flat amount or not...I think the budget restraints may actually help them become more proficient in supplying the water...at least you would think it would give incentive to do such?

 

[Andylusion]

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....

That does not make sense. The General Welfare clause, is a limitation on Government, not a mandate.

The General Welfare clause, requires that all laws be 'for the general welfare'.

So what is not for the General Welfare? Anything that harms one group in favor of another group.

For example, the military protecting the country, provides for the General Welfare. Everyone benefits from it, from the least homeless beggar, to the richest billionaire.

For example, police and justice, benefits everyone. The legislation providing law and order, provides for the General Welfare.

Providing free water to one group of people in Detroit, at the expense of everyone else in the country, does not provide for the General Welfare. It benefits one specific group, at the detriment of the rest of society.

Providing free water at other people's cost, to benefit one specific group of people, is in direct violation of the General Welfare clause.

 

[Care4all]

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....

That does not make sense. The General Welfare clause, is a limitation on Government, not a mandate.

The General Welfare clause, requires that all laws be 'for the general welfare'.

So what is not for the General Welfare? Anything that harms one group in favor of another group.

For example, the military protecting the country, provides for the General Welfare. Everyone benefits from it, from the least homeless beggar, to the richest billionaire.

For example, police and justice, benefits everyone. The legislation providing law and order, provides for the General Welfare.

Providing free water to one group of people in Detroit, at the expense of everyone else in the country, does not provide for the General Welfare. It benefits one specific group, at the detriment of the rest of society.

Providing free water at other people's cost, to benefit one specific group of people, is in direct violation of the General Welfare clause.

HOW is this at the expense of everyone else IN THE COUNTRY? This is a Detroit/Michigan problem and bill...they are not asking for federal help to handle this are they? This isn't about YOUR money? unless you live there....???

 

[Desperado]

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....

That does not make sense. The General Welfare clause, is a limitation on Government, not a mandate.

The General Welfare clause, requires that all laws be 'for the general welfare'.

So what is not for the General Welfare? Anything that harms one group in favor of another group.

For example, the military protecting the country, provides for the General Welfare. Everyone benefits from it, from the least homeless beggar, to the richest billionaire.

For example, police and justice, benefits everyone. The legislation providing law and order, provides for the General Welfare.

Providing free water to one group of people in Detroit, at the expense of everyone else in the country, does not provide for the General Welfare. It benefits one specific group, at the detriment of the rest of society.

Providing free water at other people's cost, to benefit one specific group of people, is in direct violation of the General Welfare clause.

HOW is this at the expense of everyone else IN THE COUNTRY? This is a Detroit/Michigan problem and bill...they are not asking for federal help to handle this are they? This isn't about YOUR money? unless you live there....???

of course they are looking for a fed bailoout.
Conyers asks Obama for help with city water shutoffs
Conyers asks Obama for help with city water shutoffs | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

 

[Mathbud1]

Turns out, NOT shutting off water for so long is what has led Detroit to the current situation:

Yet there’s no question that the department’s longstanding history of tolerance for unpaid bills has helped to create a culture that enables nonpayment by those who can afford to.

Editorial: Why Detroit water shutoffs are not an open-and-shut case | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

They let it go for so long that people just think they can get away with not paying their bills. If they had been aggressive in the first place people would have known they HAD to prioritize water in their payments.

studies found that about 75 percent of residents are able to pay for things such as cable television or cell phone usage, and only 50 percent are willing to pay for water.

Who Pays for Detroit?s Water? | Acton PowerBlog

That points out that being lax in shutting off water will only make the problem worse as more people realize not paying has no consequence. Then prices rise even further for those who are paying making it harder to pay and further incentivizing non-payment.

Their long-standing policy of not shutting water off is a major factor in the current situation there.

 

[Andylusion]

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....

That does not make sense. The General Welfare clause, is a limitation on Government, not a mandate.

The General Welfare clause, requires that all laws be 'for the general welfare'.

So what is not for the General Welfare? Anything that harms one group in favor of another group.

For example, the military protecting the country, provides for the General Welfare. Everyone benefits from it, from the least homeless beggar, to the richest billionaire.

For example, police and justice, benefits everyone. The legislation providing law and order, provides for the General Welfare.

Providing free water to one group of people in Detroit, at the expense of everyone else in the country, does not provide for the General Welfare. It benefits one specific group, at the detriment of the rest of society.

Providing free water at other people's cost, to benefit one specific group of people, is in direct violation of the General Welfare clause.

HOW is this at the expense of everyone else IN THE COUNTRY? This is a Detroit/Michigan problem and bill...they are not asking for federal help to handle this are they? This isn't about YOUR money? unless you live there....???

What I was reading was that the UN was trying to do something. Who pays for nearly all of the UN? We do as a nation.

Let's exclude the UN for a moment. The original poster referred to the General Welfare clause, which is a Federal mandate. By bringing up the General Welfare clause, they automatically made the debate about Federal benefits.

Now if the City of Detroit, or even the entire state of Michigan wants to punish all the working people and businesses left in Detroit and Michigan to pay for freebies for the non-work and unemployed of Detroit / Michigan, thereby driving out what little is left there... That's their choice. I would actually support that, given there is no better way to prove how badly socialism fails, than for Michigan to kill off what little they have left of their economy with it.

Now, if Ohio, or Columbus, even considers doing that, I'll be protesting in the streets, and harassing every council member, or legislator I can find.

 

[Care4all]

That does not make sense. The General Welfare clause, is a limitation on Government, not a mandate.

The General Welfare clause, requires that all laws be 'for the general welfare'.

So what is not for the General Welfare? Anything that harms one group in favor of another group.

For example, the military protecting the country, provides for the General Welfare. Everyone benefits from it, from the least homeless beggar, to the richest billionaire.

For example, police and justice, benefits everyone. The legislation providing law and order, provides for the General Welfare.

Providing free water to one group of people in Detroit, at the expense of everyone else in the country, does not provide for the General Welfare. It benefits one specific group, at the detriment of the rest of society.

Providing free water at other people's cost, to benefit one specific group of people, is in direct violation of the General Welfare clause.

HOW is this at the expense of everyone else IN THE COUNTRY? This is a Detroit/Michigan problem and bill...they are not asking for federal help to handle this are they? This isn't about YOUR money? unless you live there....???

of course they are looking for a fed bailoout.
Conyers asks Obama for help with city water shutoffs
Conyers asks Obama for help with city water shutoffs | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

The poorest do get financial help to pay their water bills, it said in the original article on this from the op....those on welfare automatically qualify for it....I did not realize this was a federal program but I thought it was a State program.... But the article also said that those that automatically qualify are not the ones getting their water turned off for the most part....it was the "other" poor, that are not on welfare and do not qualify for help automatically that are having a hard time getting the right information about the help that is available to them....

I presumed this was a State run program, not a Federal one...

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

Is the state forcing you to provide others with means to exercise their right to arms?
No? Then no.
My statement thusly stands.

You are making the point I'm trying to make.

Clearly not.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is an interesting subject....water isn't a right but guns are.

You fail to understand the issue here.

You have a right to arms, protected by the constitution.
Do you have the right to have others provide you with the means to exercise your right to arms?

 

[Plasmaball]

This is an interesting subject....water isn't a right but guns are.

You fail to understand the issue here.

You have a right to arms, protected by the constitution.
Do you have the right to have others provide you with the means to exercise your right to arms?

thank you for the update. My point is when you take yourself out of our bias for guns and look at the overall aspect of it. That it is quite an interesting thing to watch how people come down on the issue.


Guns are just an easy example. You literally could use any right for the point.

first amendment, 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. The idea that we put those things as rights, yet something we literally need to live we dont.

you dont need your freedom of speech, your guns, your right to search and seizure. those are luxuries and nothing more.

You dont need your guns, or freedom of speech, no more than you need a car to drive or tv to watch football. Water you need.

So then you take the concept of capitalism and paying for water etc. I get it, you pay for water at home so its clean etc. You pay for bottled water because they are out to make a product, but that product should not interfere with the fact you need water to live and thus should be able to get water whenever you need it.

very warped sense of standards that one would put the right to bare arms over the right to drink water.

 

[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.

"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.

there is nothing you are going to say to make guns more valuable than water.

 

[Rikurzhen]

If consumption of water is a human right then why isn't consumption of love and consumption of sex a human right? Think of all the star-trek uniform wearing nerds who haven't felt a woman's touch in like, forever. Women should be forced to have relationships with these guys because it is a travesty that some people go through life without ever experiencing love or sex and good liberals should work to eliminate harms.

 

[Mathbud1]

This is an interesting subject....water isn't a right but guns are.

You fail to understand the issue here.

You have a right to arms, protected by the constitution.
Do you have the right to have others provide you with the means to exercise your right to arms?

thank you for the update. My point is when you take yourself out of our bias for guns and look at the overall aspect of it. That it is quite an interesting thing to watch how people come down on the issue.


Guns are just an easy example. You literally could use any right for the point.

first amendment, 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. The idea that we put those things as rights, yet something we literally need to live we dont.

you dont need your freedom of speech, your guns, your right to search and seizure. those are luxuries and nothing more.

You dont need your guns, or freedom of speech, no more than you need a car to drive or tv to watch football. Water you need.

So then you take the concept of capitalism and paying for water etc. I get it, you pay for water at home so its clean etc. You pay for bottled water because they are out to make a product, but that product should not interfere with the fact you need water to live and thus should be able to get water whenever you need it.

very warped sense of standards that one would put the right to bare arms over the right to drink water.

And what's your proposal for water distribution?

No-charge distribution to everyone?

 

[Plasmaball]

You fail to understand the issue here.

You have a right to arms, protected by the constitution.
Do you have the right to have others provide you with the means to exercise your right to arms?

thank you for the update. My point is when you take yourself out of our bias for guns and look at the overall aspect of it. That it is quite an interesting thing to watch how people come down on the issue.


Guns are just an easy example. You literally could use any right for the point.

first amendment, 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. The idea that we put those things as rights, yet something we literally need to live we dont.

you dont need your freedom of speech, your guns, your right to search and seizure. those are luxuries and nothing more.

You dont need your guns, or freedom of speech, no more than you need a car to drive or tv to watch football. Water you need.

So then you take the concept of capitalism and paying for water etc. I get it, you pay for water at home so its clean etc. You pay for bottled water because they are out to make a product, but that product should not interfere with the fact you need water to live and thus should be able to get water whenever you need it.

very warped sense of standards that one would put the right to bare arms over the right to drink water.

And what's your proposal for water distribution?

No-charge distribution to everyone?

i dont have that answer right now...water in the future and now is becoming a really big issue.

Oh course we could do nothing and devolve into whatever that end point turns out to be..Because you know, at least you have your guns

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is an interesting subject....water isn't a right but guns are.

You fail to understand the issue here.

You have a right to arms, protected by the constitution.
Do you have the right to have others provide you with the means to exercise your right to arms?

thank you for the update. My point is when you take yourself out of our bias for guns and look at the overall aspect of it. That it is quite an interesting thing to watch how people come down on the issue.


Guns are just an easy example. You literally could use any right for the point.

first amendment, 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. The idea that we put those things as rights, yet something we literally need to live we dont.

you dont need your freedom of speech, your guns, your right to search and seizure. those are luxuries and nothing more.

You dont need your guns, or freedom of speech, no more than you need a car to drive or tv to watch football. Water you need.

And you continue to miss the point.

The fact that you have a right to someting, or that you need something, in no way means you have the right to have that sometbing provided to you by others, especially when they are forced to provide it to you by the state.

 

[Andylusion]

thank you for the update. My point is when you take yourself out of our bias for guns and look at the overall aspect of it. That it is quite an interesting thing to watch how people come down on the issue.


Guns are just an easy example. You literally could use any right for the point.

first amendment, 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. The idea that we put those things as rights, yet something we literally need to live we dont.

you dont need your freedom of speech, your guns, your right to search and seizure. those are luxuries and nothing more.

You dont need your guns, or freedom of speech, no more than you need a car to drive or tv to watch football. Water you need.

So then you take the concept of capitalism and paying for water etc. I get it, you pay for water at home so its clean etc. You pay for bottled water because they are out to make a product, but that product should not interfere with the fact you need water to live and thus should be able to get water whenever you need it.

very warped sense of standards that one would put the right to bare arms over the right to drink water.

And what's your proposal for water distribution?

No-charge distribution to everyone?

i dont have that answer right now...water in the future and now is becoming a really big issue.

Oh course we could do nothing and devolve into whatever that end point turns out to be..Because you know, at least you have your guns

No, it's not. As the cost of water goes up, because supply has decreased, the result will be that the value in investing in new sources of water, will go up.

As investment increases, supply will meet the demand.

Israel is a perfect example. The supply of water is naturally low in a desert area. But as the population continued to grow from immigrants coming into Israel, the demand increased the value of finding new supply. Israel is now the leader in both water conservation, and water production through desalination plants.

If the water was truly a crisis, Israel sure doesn't seem to have a problem.

When the free-market system is allowed to work, water is, and most other resources are not a problem.

 

[Camp]

The people of Detroit live in a location that is on a 50 mile long river that is connected to two huge fresh water lakes. The water in the lakes is publicly owned by the citizens of Detroit, the surrounding states and the federal government. Industries that are owned controlled by the richest people in the world are allowed to profit from the water and they are allowed to pollute it to increase the profitability of their businesses. The same people who argue that a rancher should have the right to graze cattle on federal property want to deny people the use of water on federal property. The cattle have a right to the resource on the federal property but the people in Detroit don't.

 

[dilloduck]

The people of Detroit live in a location that is on a 50 mile long river that is connected to two huge fresh water lakes. The water in the lakes is publicly owned by the citizens of Detroit, the surrounding states and the federal government. Industries that are owned controlled by the richest people in the world are allowed to profit from the water and they are allowed to pollute it to increase the profitability of their businesses. The same people who argue that a rancher should have the right to graze cattle on federal property want to deny people the use of water on federal property. The cattle have a right to the resource on the federal property but the people in Detroit don't.

Sure they do--they can go get it.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The people of Detroit live in a location that is on a 50 mile long river that is connected to two huge fresh water lakes. The water in the lakes is publicly owned by the citizens of Detroit, the surrounding states and the federal government. Industries that are owned controlled by the richest people in the world are allowed to profit from the water and they are allowed to pollute it to increase the profitability of their businesses. The same people who argue that a rancher should have the right to graze cattle on federal property want to deny people the use of water on federal property. The cattle have a right to the resource on the federal property but the people in Detroit don't.

Who treats the water to makes it safe for human consumption?

Does the entity that takes the raw water and makes it potable deserve to be paid for his/her efforts?

Your comparing apples to oranges when it comes to cows grazing on land that otherwise would sit idle and water needed for basic human survival.