Utopia Talk / Politics / Water 2

xyz1 Member	Wed Apr 07 13:13:17 Aeros: "You could go all Sam Adams and say "if they can't afford water, they deserve to die because they are retards". But unfortunately, life does not work that way." Aside from the whinings of some worthless Democratic scumbags like yourself, why wouldn't it work?
Aeros Member	Wed Apr 07 13:30:24 Because if you cut someone off from something as fundamental to their survival as water? They get violent. The law of the Jungle you advocate with regards to economic policy will literally become the law of the jungle, where those who have not will try to forcibly take from those who have. At which point, those who own the water will have to turn to the Government to protect them, but its an open question on how successful they will be. Just ask Louis the XVI how successful he was at putting down bread riots.
xyz1 Member	Wed Apr 07 13:38:27 "Just ask Louis the XVI how successful he was at putting down bread riots." Louis XVI (you don't put a "the" in between Louis and his suffix you dolt) didn't have access to the Orwellian technologies that you seem to be such a huge fan of, Aeros. Crowd control is the easiest it has ever been for a government without regard for the freedom of its citizens.
Aeros Member	Wed Apr 07 13:45:03 Oh, so you are advocating that said practices then be used against mobs of rioting people who are dying of thirst?
xyz1 Member	Wed Apr 07 13:54:30 I would have thought that would have fit squarely into your philosophies regarding governmental rule, Aeros.
Aeros Member	Wed Apr 07 14:08:46 Not really, no. I believe in Authority as it works towards the common good.
habebe Member	Wed Apr 07 14:21:51 " Because if you cut someone off from something as fundamental to their survival as water? They get violent. " roughly 20% in the mentioned countries are cut off from water.Mostly poor rural areas that centralized planning has not reached, all this is advocating is to allow the people in those areas to help distribute the water more effectively. " I believe in Authority as it works towards the common good." You beleive in barking cats. I am not advocating this for everyone everywhere.Similar to healthcare. I have no problems with Europeans handling HC how ever they want, I actually support them having such systems, it seems to make them happy which is the point.But that does not mean I wish such systems on the US, not because one system is inherently better or worse, they each have their pros and cons, but more importantly some systems suit different places better than others, one size does not fit all.
Nimatzo Member	Thu Apr 08 04:16:35 >>Honestly I think that Cloud strife's argument against it is the best. It would be very hard to identify how much water is owned by each land owner (you would probably need officials and estimates etc.)<< You should really pay attention to what was being said in the other thread Habebe. CS didn't say anything that had not been said earlier in the thread by me or others. Me and others eluded to the fact that water is not a flexible commodity that can be shipped left and right. The fact that it is dangerous to leave such a vital resource in the hands of a private few was one of my main arguments. A hundred posts and you only acknowledge these things at the 100th post because someone else chimed in?
river of blood Member	Thu Apr 08 09:51:02 What happened in Water 1? I don't have time to read the whole thing.
Nimatzo Member	Thu Apr 08 10:00:11 We reached the conclusion that water through it's magical properties can cure many diseases, ranging from Cancer to Downs Syndrome.
Nimatzo Member	Thu Apr 08 10:02:28 Habebe has been arguing that privatizing water and sanitation can be a good way to provide these services in good quality to developing countries. I pointed out the flaws in that.
xyz1 Member	Thu Apr 08 10:03:12 "We reached the conclusion that water through it's magical properties can cure many diseases, ranging from Cancer to Downs Syndrome." You couldn't help yourself, could you.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Apr 08 12:20:37 let them get violent. all the more reason to kill them.
ehcks Member	Thu Apr 08 14:15:26 Yes, let's kill people when they get violent over the fact that someone's already trying to kill them?
Aeros Member	Thu Apr 08 14:41:59 ^pretty much sums it up^ Saying they should die because they are getting violent over water is like saying someone should die because you they fought over you suffocating them.
xyz1 Member	Thu Apr 08 14:43:09 Agreed. It's like saying that we should continue killing Iraqis because they keep getting violent over the fact that we're killing them.
habebe Member	Thu Apr 08 15:02:34 " The fact that it is dangerous to leave such a vital resource in the hands of a private few was one of my main arguments." First off, I used CS's post because it was one of the last, and easier to find and was much more to the point. Right now it is dangerous to leave the water in the hands of the governments there as well though, obviously when 1/5 of the population does not have clean water the current status quo is an utter failure. " Habebe has been arguing that privatizing water and sanitation can be a good way to provide these services in good quality to developing countries. " No I did not. First off I beleive you were the one to bring up water privatization (on a mass scale) The article is not arguing for the privatization of water facilities and such.But if someone has a deed to the land that they should be allowed to rent out water usage. I'll re-post the article. http://www...hts-poverty-ecotech-water.html Water Rights and Human Rights David Zetland, 04.12.10, 12:00 AM ET Bad water and bad sanitation kill 2.8 million people a year. Three in four victims are children. Reacting to this catastrophe, some philosophers argue that declaring clean water a human right would save lives. Alas, solving problems is not as easy as that. The connection between intention and result is tenuous. Fifteen countries have amended their constitutions to include a human right to potable water. What have they gained from this exercise? I compared citizens' "access to an improved water supply" (a UN definition) in these countries to access in similar countries without rights. With complete data for 12 countries, I found that access went from 74% of the population before rights to 81% in 2006. In 12 comparable countries without water rights, access increased from 77% to 82%. In other words, rights do not necessarily lead to results. A quick glance at the water rights countries (Colombia, Ethiopia, Iran, Nigeria, Philippines and others) hints at the real problem: These are developing countries with weak institutions, opaque politics and deep corruption. It's naive to hope that a "right" will lead to flowing taps in a place where free speech gets you killed, police solicit bribes from victims and politicians give state assets to cronies. So how can we get adequate clean water if not through constitutional rights? Consider the conventional wisdom that "water flows toward money." Although it seems even less likely that we can give the poor money when we can't even give them water, there is one way to square the circle: Give the poor the property rights in water they already own as citizens. As Hernando de Soto might say, give life to their "dead capital" by turning it into a tradable property right. This idea raises many questions, but let's consider three important points. First, water in many nations is owned by the people. The state, at least in theory, distributes the right to use water in such a way that its social value is maximized. For most of history we owners have not paid attention to how our water was used, but now scarcity has piqued our interest and passion. In the developed world we want to know that our water goes to environmental protection or food production; in the developing world we want our water to slake our thirst. (This is the recent lesson that the citizens of Haiti received: When disaster struck, their water was not there. It was already gone; their corrupt rulers had given it to cronies.) So I am neither proposing new property rights nor taking rights from owners; I propose that rights be distributed to their owners and taken from the politicians and bureaucrats who currently (mis)manage it. Second, it is quite possible for city dwellers as well as farmers to have a "share" of water. All owners could sell their water to those who want more. Selling water raises another objection, that people will sell their water and die of thirst. We can address this concern by dividing rights into inalienable "need" rights that cannot be traded and "want" rights that can be. The "want" water shares would vary with supply and the population. Tradable rights could be rented but not sold--protecting owners from sharp dealing and communities from drying out. For all the latest headlines visit Forbes Asia If we use a conservative figure of 36 gallons a day for one person's "need" water, then Americans would have on average 7,300 gallons a day of tradable water left. For comparison, note that per capita municipal and industrial consumption in southern California ranges from 100 to 330 gallons a day. Trade water numbers would be 130 gallons a day in water-scarce Israel and 1,100 in Haiti. Finally, consider the positive impacts on equity, governance and efficiency. Citizens will care how their water (and all water) is managed, keeping a sharp eye on bureaucrats and brokers, looking for ways to increase their wealth, reduce trading costs and improve management in all water sectors. People everywhere know the difference between a competitive drinks business and a tap-water monopolist; in a free market bureaucrats and politicians who deliver water to special interests and monopolists will be replaced with numerous buyers and sellers competing on price and value. Markets increase transparency and improve efficiency. Even better, they would generate income for sellers, allowing them to buy safe drinking water. Don't give the poor some vague, unenforceable human right to water. Give them their water and let them prosper from it. David Zetland is an S.V. Ciriacy-Wantrup Postdoctoral Fellow in Natural Resource Economics & Political Economy at UC, Berkeley.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Thu Apr 08 15:11:50 http://exi...-californias-drought-is-wrong/
Nimatzo Member	Thu Apr 08 16:20:54 >>Right now it is dangerous to leave the water in the hands of the governments there as well though, obviously when 1/5 of the population does not have clean water the current status quo is an utter failure.<< It is an utter failure of governance you dolt, we have been over this. We have 4/5 of the population of the planet getting clean water and 90% of the water is coming from public organization i.e governments. You're still telling us that water in the hands of the government is dangerous and a failure? Let me spell it out again. These countries that fail with their water supply, they also fail in pretty much EVERYTHING else. So where is the fucking surprise? How is this even relevant to the topic? Good governance = little worry Bad governance = shithole Where the fuck does water and sanitation come in? Seriously you do not have a leg to stand on, how many decently run countries are fucking up their water and sanitation out there? Ehhh none that's right. >>No I did not. First off I beleive you were the one to bring up water privatization (on a mass scale)<< When you turn water into a commodity you are privatizing it en mass!
PhunkyPhishStyle Member	Thu Apr 08 16:59:29 "When you turn water into a commodity you are privatizing it en mass!" - Ehhh...it's already been turned into a commodity. Have you been in a grocery store recently?
Nimatzo Member	Thu Apr 08 17:27:11 You are talking about Drinking +. It's no where near what is being discussed here. We have tap water and we have Evian, we can live without Evian.
Nimatzo Member	Thu Apr 08 17:27:32 You are talking about tap water plus.... It's no where near what is being discussed here. We have tap water and we have Evian, we can live without Evian.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: