Current Events > Is access to clean water a human right?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Magyar15 posted...

BaiusGaltar posted...

Magyar15 posted...

BaiusGaltar posted...

Magyar15 posted...

BaiusGaltar posted...

enty of water for everyone to drink.

"They are applicable everywhere and at every time in the sense of being universal,[1] and they are egalitarian in the sense of being the same for everyone."

Government's in the Middle Ages weren't violating people's rights because they didn't have clean drinking water. They were violating peoples rights in other ways. Governments in sub-Saharan Africa aren't necessarily violating peoples rights because people don't have clean drinking water. Access to clean drinking water varies by time and location, hence, it can't be a human right.

It is universal because everyone, everywhere needs it to survive as much as anyone. Its It's referring to the right, not the resource.

People can survive without clean water. Been doing it for thousands of years

I supposed it's my wording. Potable water would have been the better term.

My answer stays the same. People brewed ale in the Middle Ages in part because the water wasn't safe to drink by itself.

Give me an example of a human right
---

The right to not be assaulted, robbed, etc. are good examples of valid negative rights.
---

BaiusGaltar posted...

Magyar15 posted...

BaiusGaltar posted...

Magyar15 posted...

BaiusGaltar posted...

Magyar15 posted...

BaiusGaltar posted...

enty of water for everyone to drink.

"They are applicable everywhere and at every time in the sense of being universal,[1] and they are egalitarian in the sense of being the same for everyone."

Government's in the Middle Ages weren't violating people's rights because they didn't have clean drinking water. They were violating peoples rights in other ways. Governments in sub-Saharan Africa aren't necessarily violating peoples rights because people don't have clean drinking water. Access to clean drinking water varies by time and location, hence, it can't be a human right.

It is universal because everyone, everywhere needs it to survive as much as anyone. Its It's referring to the right, not the resource.

People can survive without clean water. Been doing it for thousands of years

I supposed it's my wording. Potable water would have been the better term.

My answer stays the same. People brewed ale in the Middle Ages in part because the water wasn't safe to drink by itself.

Give me an example of a human right

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights
"for example, human rights may include freedom from unlawful imprisonment, torture and execution."
---

Funkydog posted...

Magyar15 posted...

Funkydog posted...

Magyar15 posted...

People can survive without clean water. Been doing it for thousands of years

You're welcome to go drink cholera infested water then. Don't see why others should have to, when the means exist to not need to.

Point ->
Your head

No, I got your point. I just think it not a good one.

We also died young and in horrible pain from drinking/eating bacteria infested things. Why should we now when the means exists to not need to?

You clearly didn't. I already stated that I agree that governments should secure access to clean drinking water if need be. But it's a finite resource, so it can't be a right
---

Yes.
---

So by that logic food is also a right, huh?

Cool, I want a sammich.
---

Alteres posted...

So by that logic food is also a right, huh?

Cool, I want a sammich.

It is. It doesn't mean I or anyone has to give you a sandwich.
---

Alteres posted...

So by that logic food is also a right, huh?

Cool, I want a sammich.

That's why the United States provides food stamps to the poor.

ButteryMales posted...

Alteres posted...

So by that logic food is also a right, huh?

Cool, I want a sammich.

That's why the United States provides food stamps to the poor.

Thats a poor benchmark. The US government does plenty of things to violate rights. Not the least of which being stealing from future generations to fund current spending.
---

tennisdude818 posted...

ButteryMales posted...

Alteres posted...

So by that logic food is also a right, huh?

Cool, I want a sammich.

That's why the United States provides food stamps to the poor.

Thats a poor benchmark. The US government does plenty of things to violate rights. Not the least of which being stealing from future generations to fund current spending.

Go back to my first post. The United States is a society and a government.

Most good people of the United States have agreed that people should be able to eat.

Nah man, plenty of alternatives. You got seawater, sewage, contaminated water if youre partial to worms and stuff. A non-issue really.

ButteryMales posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

ButteryMales posted...

Alteres posted...

So by that logic food is also a right, huh?

Cool, I want a sammich.

That's why the United States provides food stamps to the poor.

Thats a poor benchmark. The US government does plenty of things to violate rights. Not the least of which being stealing from future generations to fund current spending.

Go back to my first post. The United States is a society and a government.

Most good people of the United States have agreed that people should be able to eat.

So rights are decided by the majority? Blacks in 1780 didnt have a right to freedom if they lived here?
---

tennisdude818 posted...

ButteryMales posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

ButteryMales posted...

Alteres posted...

So by that logic food is also a right, huh?

Cool, I want a sammich.

That's why the United States provides food stamps to the poor.

Thats a poor benchmark. The US government does plenty of things to violate rights. Not the least of which being stealing from future generations to fund current spending.

Go back to my first post. The United States is a society and a government.

Most good people of the United States have agreed that people should be able to eat.

So rights are decided by the majority? Blacks in 1780 didnt have a right to freedom if they lived here?

I mean if you're a scumbag who wants people to starve, you're going to be in the minority.

Use, there are public water fountains in public spaces.
---

In a 1st world country, yes.
---

ButteryMales posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

ButteryMales posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

ButteryMales posted...

Alteres posted...

So by that logic food is also a right, huh?

Cool, I want a sammich.

That's why the United States provides food stamps to the poor.

Thats a poor benchmark. The US government does plenty of things to violate rights. Not the least of which being stealing from future generations to fund current spending.

Go back to my first post. The United States is a society and a government.

Most good people of the United States have agreed that people should be able to eat.

So rights are decided by the majority? Blacks in 1780 didnt have a right to freedom if they lived here?

I mean if you're a scumbag who wants people to starve, you're going to be in the minority.

Who says I want people to starve just because I oppose violent solutions like food stamps?

Anyway this shows the difference between positive rights and negative rights, and why they cant coexist. You have to waive guns around to enforce positive rights.
---

BaiusGaltar posted...

Itt: many people don't understand what a human right is.

You're one of them.
---

tennisdude818 posted...

ButteryMales posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

ButteryMales posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

ButteryMales posted...

Alteres posted...

So by that logic food is also a right, huh?

Cool, I want a sammich.

That's why the United States provides food stamps to the poor.

Thats a poor benchmark. The US government does plenty of things to violate rights. Not the least of which being stealing from future generations to fund current spending.

Go back to my first post. The United States is a society and a government.

Most good people of the United States have agreed that people should be able to eat.

So rights are decided by the majority? Blacks in 1780 didnt have a right to freedom if they lived here?

I mean if you're a scumbag who wants people to starve, you're going to be in the minority.

Who says I want people to starve just because I oppose violent solutions like food stamps?

Anyway this shows the difference between positive rights and negative rights, and why they cant coexist. You have to waive guns around to enforce positive rights.

Well how do you enforce negative rights?

If you use force to enforce a negative right, its not the initiation of violence because you were attacked first.
---

tennisdude818 posted...

If you use force to enforce a negative right, its not the initiation of violence because you were attacked first.

So it's still violence though?

CrimsonRage posted...

no. you don't need water to survive. you know what you do need to survive? GUNZ. /murica

Well if I have GUNZ and you think theyre some sort bad thing, then I can have your clean water.
---

ButteryMales posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

If you use force to enforce a negative right, its not the initiation of violence because you were attacked first.

So it's still violence though?

Yeah. Shooting a home invader and being shot by a home invader are both violent situations. If the invader thinks he has a positive right to your stuff and you think you have a negative right to safety, those two concepts of rights dont coexist very well.
---

tennisdude818 posted...

I believe in negative rights, not positive rights. If someone contaminates your water, they are violating your rights.

How would this one be enforced, specifically?

tennisdude818 posted...

ButteryMales posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

ButteryMales posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

ButteryMales posted...

Alteres posted...

So by that logic food is also a right, huh?

Cool, I want a sammich.

That's why the United States provides food stamps to the poor.

Thats a poor benchmark. The US government does plenty of things to violate rights. Not the least of which being stealing from future generations to fund current spending.

Go back to my first post. The United States is a society and a government.

Most good people of the United States have agreed that people should be able to eat.

So rights are decided by the majority? Blacks in 1780 didnt have a right to freedom if they lived here?

I mean if you're a scumbag who wants people to starve, you're going to be in the minority.

Who says I want people to starve just because I oppose violent solutions like food stamps?

Anyway this shows the difference between positive rights and negative rights, and why they cant coexist. You have to waive guns around to enforce positive rights.

Do you not belive in any positive rights?
---

Hicks233 posted...

BaiusGaltar posted...

TalesofMedz posted...

If the system allows it like in western culture

Huh?

Rights only exist if enough people "believe" they exist, and then that belief is enforced.

They aren't inherent.

I could not agree more.

ButteryMales posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

I believe in negative rights, not positive rights. If someone contaminates your water, they are violating your rights.

How would this one be enforced, specifically?

Are we talking about in a society that is totally voluntary and is based on the nonaggression principal?

With a General Motors owning the Mississippi River, you can be sure that stiff effluent charges would be assessed on industries and municipalities along its banks, and that the water would be kept clean enough to maximize revenues from leases granted to firms seeking rights to drinking water, recreation, and commercial fishing.

https://mises.org/library/libertarian-manifesto-pollution
---

pfh1001 posted...

Hicks233 posted...

BaiusGaltar posted...

TalesofMedz posted...

If the system allows it like in western culture

Huh?

Rights only exist if enough people "believe" they exist, and then that belief is enforced.

They aren't inherent.

I could not agree more.

Are you a nihilist?
---

tennisdude818 posted...

you can be sure that stiff effluent charges would be assessed on industries and municipalities along its banks

I can be sure because what? This all seems like idealistic bullshit.

ButteryMales posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

you can be sure that stiff effluent charges would be assessed on industries and municipalities along its banks

I can be sure because what? This all seems like idealistic bullshit.

First, the rivers. The rivers, and the oceans too, are generally owned by the government; private property, certainly complete private property, has not been permitted in the water. In essence, then, government owns the rivers. But government ownership is not true ownership, because the government officials, while able to control the resource cannot themselves reap their capital value on the market. Government officials cannot sell the rivers or sell stock in them. Hence, they have no economic incentive to preserve the purity and value of the rivers. Rivers are, then, in the economic sense, "unowned"; therefore government officials have permitted their corruption and pollution. Anyone has been able to dump polluting garbage and wastes in the waters. But consider what would happen if private firms were able to own the rivers and the lakes. If a private firm owned Lake Erie, for example, then anyone dumping garbage in the lake would be promptly sued in the courts for their aggression against private property and would be forced by the courts to pay damages and to cease and desist from any further aggression. Thus, only private property rights will insure an end to pollution invasion of resources. Only because the rivers are unowned is there no owner to rise up and defend his precious resource from attack. If, in contrast, anyone should dump garbage or pollutants into a lake which is privately owned (as are many smaller lakes), he would not be permitted to do so for very long the owner would come roaring to its defense.

---

Yes. Yes it is.
---

tennisdude818 posted...

ButteryMales posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

you can be sure that stiff effluent charges would be assessed on industries and municipalities along its banks

I can be sure because what? This all seems like idealistic bullshit.

First, the rivers. The rivers, and the oceans too, are generally owned by the government; private property, certainly complete private property, has not been permitted in the water. In essence, then, government owns the rivers. But government ownership is not true ownership, because the government officials, while able to control the resource cannot themselves reap their capital value on the market. Government officials cannot sell the rivers or sell stock in them. Hence, they have no economic incentive to preserve the purity and value of the rivers. Rivers are, then, in the economic sense, "unowned"; therefore government officials have permitted their corruption and pollution. Anyone has been able to dump polluting garbage and wastes in the waters. But consider what would happen if private firms were able to own the rivers and the lakes. If a private firm owned Lake Erie, for example, then anyone dumping garbage in the lake would be promptly sued in the courts for their aggression against private property and would be forced by the courts to pay damages and to cease and desist from any further aggression. Thus, only private property rights will insure an end to pollution invasion of resources. Only because the rivers are unowned is there no owner to rise up and defend his precious resource from attack. If, in contrast, anyone should dump garbage or pollutants into a lake which is privately owned (as are many smaller lakes), he would not be permitted to do so for very long the owner would come roaring to its defense.

What stops the owner from polluting or leasing polluting rights to other companies?

ButteryMales posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

ButteryMales posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

you can be sure that stiff effluent charges would be assessed on industries and municipalities along its banks

I can be sure because what? This all seems like idealistic bullshit.

First, the rivers. The rivers, and the oceans too, are generally owned by the government; private property, certainly complete private property, has not been permitted in the water. In essence, then, government owns the rivers. But government ownership is not true ownership, because the government officials, while able to control the resource cannot themselves reap their capital value on the market. Government officials cannot sell the rivers or sell stock in them. Hence, they have no economic incentive to preserve the purity and value of the rivers. Rivers are, then, in the economic sense, "unowned"; therefore government officials have permitted their corruption and pollution. Anyone has been able to dump polluting garbage and wastes in the waters. But consider what would happen if private firms were able to own the rivers and the lakes. If a private firm owned Lake Erie, for example, then anyone dumping garbage in the lake would be promptly sued in the courts for their aggression against private property and would be forced by the courts to pay damages and to cease and desist from any further aggression. Thus, only private property rights will insure an end to pollution invasion of resources. Only because the rivers are unowned is there no owner to rise up and defend his precious resource from attack. If, in contrast, anyone should dump garbage or pollutants into a lake which is privately owned (as are many smaller lakes), he would not be permitted to do so for very long the owner would come roaring to its defense.

What stops the owner from polluting or leasing polluting rights to other companies?

The inability to sell clean access. If you already are and decide to violate agreements, then youd be a criminal.
---

tennisdude818 posted...

ButteryMales posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

ButteryMales posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

you can be sure that stiff effluent charges would be assessed on industries and municipalities along its banks

I can be sure because what? This all seems like idealistic bullshit.

First, the rivers. The rivers, and the oceans too, are generally owned by the government; private property, certainly complete private property, has not been permitted in the water. In essence, then, government owns the rivers. But government ownership is not true ownership, because the government officials, while able to control the resource cannot themselves reap their capital value on the market. Government officials cannot sell the rivers or sell stock in them. Hence, they have no economic incentive to preserve the purity and value of the rivers. Rivers are, then, in the economic sense, "unowned"; therefore government officials have permitted their corruption and pollution. Anyone has been able to dump polluting garbage and wastes in the waters. But consider what would happen if private firms were able to own the rivers and the lakes. If a private firm owned Lake Erie, for example, then anyone dumping garbage in the lake would be promptly sued in the courts for their aggression against private property and would be forced by the courts to pay damages and to cease and desist from any further aggression. Thus, only private property rights will insure an end to pollution invasion of resources. Only because the rivers are unowned is there no owner to rise up and defend his precious resource from attack. If, in contrast, anyone should dump garbage or pollutants into a lake which is privately owned (as are many smaller lakes), he would not be permitted to do so for very long the owner would come roaring to its defense.

What stops the owner from polluting or leasing polluting rights to other companies?

The inability to sell clean access. If you already are and decide to violate agreements, then youd be a criminal.

What if polluting licensing makes more money than clean access? If the agreements to polluting come first then there's no violated clean water agreements.

ButteryMales posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

ButteryMales posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

ButteryMales posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

you can be sure that stiff effluent charges would be assessed on industries and municipalities along its banks

I can be sure because what? This all seems like idealistic bullshit.

First, the rivers. The rivers, and the oceans too, are generally owned by the government; private property, certainly complete private property, has not been permitted in the water. In essence, then, government owns the rivers. But government ownership is not true ownership, because the government officials, while able to control the resource cannot themselves reap their capital value on the market. Government officials cannot sell the rivers or sell stock in them. Hence, they have no economic incentive to preserve the purity and value of the rivers. Rivers are, then, in the economic sense, "unowned"; therefore government officials have permitted their corruption and pollution. Anyone has been able to dump polluting garbage and wastes in the waters. But consider what would happen if private firms were able to own the rivers and the lakes. If a private firm owned Lake Erie, for example, then anyone dumping garbage in the lake would be promptly sued in the courts for their aggression against private property and would be forced by the courts to pay damages and to cease and desist from any further aggression. Thus, only private property rights will insure an end to pollution invasion of resources. Only because the rivers are unowned is there no owner to rise up and defend his precious resource from attack. If, in contrast, anyone should dump garbage or pollutants into a lake which is privately owned (as are many smaller lakes), he would not be permitted to do so for very long the owner would come roaring to its defense.

What stops the owner from polluting or leasing polluting rights to other companies?

The inability to sell clean access. If you already are and decide to violate agreements, then youd be a criminal.

What if polluting licensing makes more money than clean access? If the agreements to polluting come first then there's no violated clean water agreements.

in a society where everything is private, its hard to imagine a scenario where a river is the most economic way to pollute because it runs across so much other property. If you own a medical company that makes life saving pills, but it comes with a toxic waste byproduct, the most economically efficient way to dispose of it wouldnt be to send it down a river where countless people have a claim against you. I dont know what the smartest entrepreneur would come up with to take that waste off your hands for a fee. But if it impacts one million people, it would get expensive for that entrepreneur really fast.
---

tennisdude818 posted...

in a society where everything is private,

Oh well then own the police and own the courts.

ButteryMales posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

in a society where everything is private,

Oh well then own the police and own the courts.

Murray Rothbard has written good work about that subject, but its impossible to know exactly how it would look.

Anyway, both the right and left have plenty of complaints about the current legal system. So a voluntarily funded system doesnt have to be perfect, it just has to be better than what we actually have as opposed to the idealistic version of what we should have according to your 5th grade social studies teacher.
---

tennisdude818 posted...

ButteryMales posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

in a society where everything is private,

Oh well then own the police and own the courts.

Murray Rothbard has written good work about that subject, but its impossible to know exactly how it would look.

Anyway, both the right and left have plenty of complaints about the current legal system. So a voluntarily funded system doesnt have to be perfect, it just has to be better than what we actually have as opposed to the idealistic version of what we should have according to your 5th grade social studies teacher.

No a voluntary funded system needs to be better than perfect if private police forces and courts are holding society together.

BaiusGaltar posted...

Do you not belive in any positive rights?

Positive rights exist between parents and their children.
---

Right or not, it should be a goal.

I'm pretty sure you can't just take bottles of clean water off the store shelves because you think it's a right. Sometimes, it can be both a right and a privilege, and it becomes a privilege when clean water becomes hard to obtain.

the people in Chennai, India is looking at clean water as a wonderful privilege right now.
---

clean wata is a yuman right
---

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

I'm pretty sure you can't just take bottles of clean water off the store shelves because you think it's a right. Sometimes, it can be both a right and a privilege, and it becomes a privilege when clean water becomes hard to obtain.

the people in Chennai, India is looking at clean water as a wonderful privilege right now.

This brings us back to food stamps. You can get a bottle of clean water legally if you can't afford it.

Is this topic the plot to fallout 3?

This topic is so fucking ce.
---

Btw, I'm paying for this human right, and so does many people who own a home or is renting. The water bill comes due every month. They're paying their local county either separately or as a utilities package.
---

tennisdude818 posted...

BaiusGaltar posted...

Do you not belive in any positive rights?

Positive rights exist between parents and their children.

I'm glad the majority disagrees with you, and that their views are asserted over yours, in this case.
---

BaiusGaltar posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

BaiusGaltar posted...

Do you not belive in any positive rights?

Positive rights exist between parents and their children.

I'm glad the majority disagrees with you, and that their views are asserted over yours, in this case.

The majority in the West think the government should provide a lot, but they arent honest enough to pay for present benefits with present spending. Deficit spending to fund perpetual government programs is just taxation without representation on the young and unborn. You certainly dont end up with a society like that because of principled and consistent values.

Deficit spending cant last forever. When math forces a hard stop, the people who will be hurt the most are the people who rely on government benefits the most. It will be a hard lesson on why violence is not the solution to poverty.
---

Not if you live in America, apparently.
---