Water rights and the laws surrounding them are always tricky
10
deleted
· 4 years ago
No, they're not tricky at all. Water is public property and "owning" water rights is completely fucked up. A resource like fucking drinking water CANNOT be private. Anything else is dystopic. How long will it take for some schmuck to throw something like "Breathing rights and the laws surrounding them are always tricky" into a debate?
My property draws from a well and has a creek running through it. I have absolute and exclusive rights to the well.
As for the creek, I can sue or press charges if someone upstream does something to effect the water negatively, but I myself can do whatever I want to it because it settles on my property into marsh.
Nobody can come onto my property to tap into my well, and nobody can interfere with my creek.
Don't even ask what happens if it overflows and runs into a neighbor's property, or if it spills into a roadway, or is contaminated by the state's waste water system.
"As for the creek, I can sue or press charges if someone upstream does something to effect the water negatively"
.
And why would that be? What if that guy on the upstream is a selfish psychopath whose only creed is to keep what's his and the creek has its source "on" his land? And what if the water you're taking from "your" well has its source under your neighbor's real estate, who would rather poison "his" water before anyone else could use it?
.
And what has any of this to do with a corporation that is allowed to lease the rights to a public water resource? You as an individual should be allowed to use natural resources on your land but not own it like something you built, bought or have grown on it, You have the right to refuse anyone else access to the resources on your land, and to an extent use the resources to build or produce something you can sell or lease
My well's water is all on my property. As for poisoning the water: Obviously I would magically know it happened and pray to my pagan gods to have the bastard's guts replaced with lasagna.
No, I would fucking die. Do you have a point?
And I do effectively own my water. Is it a semantics thing? The water's on my property, I have exclusive access, and I can decide at a whim who can or can't use it. Mine.
My point is, if the corporation owns the land, the wells, the purification facilities, and distribution network, then it's their prerogative who gets their water.
They’re gaining money off a human necessity while making others devoid of it. Bottled water is the dumbest concept of all time.
Also, I’m not sure why the bottling plant is related.... why is Toronto relevant?
Toronto is several hundred miles away from Attawapiskat. It's not Nestle's fault that they have poor water there. Nestle isn't taking it. It's just like saying that McDonald's is profiting still. The two things aren't related
Bottled water is dumb until you don't have the means to purify water. Literally shitting yourself to death is one of the worst possible ways to go, but for many people that wind up stranded, it's the end result.
Not making light of the situation, because it is serious, but this is like comparing apples to shoes. A private company that has installed it's own wells and filters, on it's own dime and land, to draw water to sell and government owned facilities that are supposed to draw and filter it to make it potable for it's citizens are completely separate issues. Should the government forcefully take over their facilities and use them for public use? That's called theft. Could the government tax nestle just like they tax any other natural resource that's exploited for profit? Certainly. Instead of blaming a company that's making money legally because the government allows it to do so you should be blaming the government for not doing it's job and putting it's citizens first.
Capitalists: "greed and selfishness are good and help people improve, don't blame people for being greedy"
Also capitalists: "if govt officials weren't so greedy and easy to bribe the problem wouldn't exist"
Can't we just agree that the assholes who deny clean water to people for profit are just as bad as the assholes who get bribed by them into not pushing for sensible regulations?
The government is ineffective largely because the bureaucrats have no profit motive. Why should they give a shit when they can pass the buck to an elected official and are guaranteed a steady paycheck and an exorbitant package if anyone tries to relieve them of their position?
Change the bureaucratic state, watch everything change.
▼
deleted
· 4 years ago
I have a pretty clear idea of what you'd like to change it into, Mr. Famoussolini. Your generic rant against "the government" and "the bureaurcrats" says I'm right.
.
I'm all for changing things, like not leasing essential resources to corporations. Install a system of check and balance within institutions. There's ways of changing things without "Ride of the Valkyries" as soundtrack.
Mussolini wanted to marry the state to corporations. He was a fascist and a fool who simultaneously didn't care about individual rights and thought that the state could effectively and cleanly control everything.
You are far more authoritarian and statist than I've ever been, which puts you a lot closer to fascist then I've ever been, Hauptscharführer hammerhead
So real quick I'll respond to the scenarios people used to rebuttal my post. "hacker crashing your game, blame the devs". Okay this one is easy your still comparing apples to shoes. The hacker isn't crashing your game because the game he's crashing you aren't playing. Instead you're turning on a light in a shed and the light bulb goes out but instead of getting the light bulb fixed you're to busy blaming a hacker crashing a game you're not playing.
Capitalist, also captitalists, and closing statement. Nestle isn't denying anyone clean water, (we're not going to go into water rights in other countries, cause that's a whole other can of worms, we're talking about this specific occasion). It's not their job to make sure the water coming out of your sink is potable and clean. The water they're drawing is not depriving anyone of water. They have water. The issue is not not having enough water but having unclean water that's not healthy to use. You may not like capitalism, or large
corporations but blaming them for every problem someone runs into is not helpful and takes away the focus from the real source of the problem. In this case it's the government not doing their job and everyone's letting them get away with it because they're mad at Nestle. Instead we should be getting onto the government to do their job and once that's done then we can focus on whether or not the laws regarding corporations need to change and what they should be.
1
·
Edited 4 years ago
deleted
· 4 years ago
Then tell me Benito, who of us is in favor of a literal dog eat dog society cause he thinks he's strong enough to kick everyone else's ass? I'm in favour of social solidarity, the strong carrying the weak.
.
Lucky, I'm not against capitalism or even corporations per se at all, I',m for strong control of corporations. I'm not mad at a corporation for doing what a state allows them to do, I'm for more effective control of corporations and I'm strongly against privatizing vital, primary resources. And I think it's a fucking scandal how corporations use national resources and infrastructures and are allowed to get away without nearly paying appropriate taxes.
Then carry the weak all you want. I'll carry myself, my family, and my friends.
And don't confuse me with a social darwinist or anarchist, I want to curtail the state, not abolish it.
·
Edited 4 years ago
deleted
· 4 years ago
Funny how you go to great lengths and detail stating what you don't want, but stay rather hazy about what you do want.
Reduce the feds back to constitutional bounds. Empower state and municipal governments to handle their issues as they need to. Ideally the entire nation will take back control over their own lives and take care of themselves and their own in peace. Realistically, I'd like to at least break off enough laws and programs so that I can fuck off to the Midwest, the South, or the Breadbasket while the coasts and urban centers can program apps to better track human shit and used needles on their own time with their own money.
We've had this conversation a dozen times, I still haven't turned Nazi and advocated for everyone to trust the state and give everything to our glorious leaders, and I never will, so you can stop holding your breath.
deleted
· 4 years ago
So many words to not say anything tangible at all except hating on dem city slickers.
Nestle isn't preventing clean water from going to Attawapiskat, don't try to combine two separate issues. You won't get anywhere trying to solve either of them that way.
As for the creek, I can sue or press charges if someone upstream does something to effect the water negatively, but I myself can do whatever I want to it because it settles on my property into marsh.
Nobody can come onto my property to tap into my well, and nobody can interfere with my creek.
Don't even ask what happens if it overflows and runs into a neighbor's property, or if it spills into a roadway, or is contaminated by the state's waste water system.
.
And why would that be? What if that guy on the upstream is a selfish psychopath whose only creed is to keep what's his and the creek has its source "on" his land? And what if the water you're taking from "your" well has its source under your neighbor's real estate, who would rather poison "his" water before anyone else could use it?
.
And what has any of this to do with a corporation that is allowed to lease the rights to a public water resource? You as an individual should be allowed to use natural resources on your land but not own it like something you built, bought or have grown on it, You have the right to refuse anyone else access to the resources on your land, and to an extent use the resources to build or produce something you can sell or lease
No, I would fucking die. Do you have a point?
And I do effectively own my water. Is it a semantics thing? The water's on my property, I have exclusive access, and I can decide at a whim who can or can't use it. Mine.
My point is, if the corporation owns the land, the wells, the purification facilities, and distribution network, then it's their prerogative who gets their water.
Also, I’m not sure why the bottling plant is related.... why is Toronto relevant?
Also capitalists: "if govt officials weren't so greedy and easy to bribe the problem wouldn't exist"
Can't we just agree that the assholes who deny clean water to people for profit are just as bad as the assholes who get bribed by them into not pushing for sensible regulations?
Change the bureaucratic state, watch everything change.
.
I'm all for changing things, like not leasing essential resources to corporations. Install a system of check and balance within institutions. There's ways of changing things without "Ride of the Valkyries" as soundtrack.
You are far more authoritarian and statist than I've ever been, which puts you a lot closer to fascist then I've ever been, Hauptscharführer hammerhead
Capitalist, also captitalists, and closing statement. Nestle isn't denying anyone clean water, (we're not going to go into water rights in other countries, cause that's a whole other can of worms, we're talking about this specific occasion). It's not their job to make sure the water coming out of your sink is potable and clean. The water they're drawing is not depriving anyone of water. They have water. The issue is not not having enough water but having unclean water that's not healthy to use. You may not like capitalism, or large
.
Lucky, I'm not against capitalism or even corporations per se at all, I',m for strong control of corporations. I'm not mad at a corporation for doing what a state allows them to do, I'm for more effective control of corporations and I'm strongly against privatizing vital, primary resources. And I think it's a fucking scandal how corporations use national resources and infrastructures and are allowed to get away without nearly paying appropriate taxes.
And don't confuse me with a social darwinist or anarchist, I want to curtail the state, not abolish it.
.
(or was it Pol Pot? Elizabeth Warren maybe?)