• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we pay for water?

Should we pay for water?

  • Total voters
    68
The transportation and sterilization of water is not free. If you refuse to pay those costs, then you have no right to water. Its pretty simple. You do not have the right to benefit from the labor of others. That's called charity.
 
SocialDemocrat said:
First of all, you're talking about collective power of the people to have a say in what their government is doing, not economic collectivism. Secondly, the idea that the people should not have a say in electing the governmental body that represents them is disgustingly elitist.
Click to expand...

the purpose of the senate is to stop the collective capacity of the people from creating laws, which defy the founding principles of America and the Constitution.

because the house is a collective body...the senate is not a collective body.


SocialDemocrat said:
So schools cannot create classes specified for the mentally or physically disabled? Equality under the law refers to preventing government enforced discrimination. It doesn't mean we can't address issues that affect segments of the population. This is the flaw in constitutional literalism.
Click to expand...

equally under the law, means all laws will adhere to all the people equally........

meaning you cant give me a ticket, and not give another person the same a ticket for doing there same thing.
 
Why do fascists deny their fascism?

"Fascism seeks to control businesses for the sake of the people. But really it is for the sake of the state. It is a totalitarian concept. You embrace it."
SocialDemocrat said:
I embrace it?
Click to expand...
Yes. See the bolded parts...

How can you possibly come to that conclusion? Unless you've been reading more of my posts, all you know about my ideology is that I support paid parental leave and water as a right, along with other basic needs.
Click to expand...
Your own words betray you. How doe these magical things happen without government coercion of privately owned businesses?
 
I think that since our governments will happily foot the bill for bombs to drop on innocent children in foreign countries, this ought to be a no-brainer.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
Ensuring access to water is usually a good way to not promote anarchy.
Click to expand...

The U.S. has consistently opposed the U.N. push to define clean water as a fundamental human right. In 2007, the United States government submitted a detailed explanation of its views to the Office of the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights. In it, the U.S. recognized the importance of providing water while rejecting the view that a “right to water” exists under current formulations of international human rights law.

The 2007 U.S. rebuttal to the U.N. argued: Understanding how the United States addresses these issues [equitable access to safe drinking water and sanitation] requires an understanding of the U.S. system of federalism, under which, state and local authorities play the primary role in promoting access to safe drinking water and sanitation. Over time, the U.S. Congress and the courts have increased the involvement of the federal government in certain areas. Today here are a wide range of federal laws and regulations aimed at promoting safe drinking water and sanitation. However, state sovereignty over many water issues remains.

The Barlow report charged that Detroit’s water crisis has resulted from decades of public policy that have put corporate business and profit ahead of the public good and human rights. The report alleges: The case of water cut-offs in the City of Detroit speaks to the deep racial divides and intractable economic and social inequality in access to services within the United States. The burden of paying for city services has fallen onto the residents who have stayed within the economically depressed city, most of whom are African-American. These residents have seen water rates rise by 119 per cent within the last decade. With official, understated unemployment rates at a record high and the official, understated poverty rate at about 40 percent, Detroit water bills are unaffordable to a significant portion of the population.

U.N. to intervene in Detroit water shutoffs
Click to expand...

I simply find it ridiculous that we clothe, house, feed and provide water for illegal immigrants, pour billions into overseas aid but won't even supply US citizens, with a basic necessity when they can't afford it. We've got our priorities all screwed up.
 
grip said:
I simply find it ridiculous that we clothe, house, feed and provide water for illegal immigrants, pour billions into overseas aid but won't even supply US citizens, with a basic necessity when they can't afford it. We've got our priorities all screwed up.
Click to expand...

U.S. is indeed a weird country.
 
Last edited:
`
So long as water is a "public utility" restricted to charging only enough to treat, maintain and distribute it, I see the logic of paying taxes for it.
 
With reguards to the overall issue, I would highly recommend that people read Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. TANSTAAFL

clownboy;1063439817You're begging for the return of mass water and mosquito bourne disease throughout densely populated areas. [/QUOTE said:
Like anything else, such as land maintenance, if someone is not taking proper care of their collected water they can be fined and if necessary the local government can step in to make it safe. It is no different than having to fine and then cut the grass of property that a person is not maintaining so as not to attract rodents and other vermin and insects.

grip said:
The reason I brought this up, because if a major US city has half its population unable to afford basic water supply, it speaks to how broken our capitalist system is becoming.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Since the water is a government run operation you are not looking at how the capitalist system would be run. To use a government run system to call out capitalist systems is disingenuous.
Click to expand...
 
maquiscat said:
Not necessarily. Since the water is a government run operation you are not looking at how the capitalist system would be run. To use a government run system to call out capitalist systems is disingenuous.
Click to expand...

If half a major city can't make enough money or find gainful employment to even afford water, then the capitalist system is becoming fubar.
 
Capitalism isn't magical, anyway. Wealth is created and redistributed through the fulfilment of contracts, you can't resort to violence or the threat of violence.

But, there's nothing to stop you building wealth, buying out resources, and denying people access to those resources.
 
grip said:
If half a major city can't make enough money or find gainful employment to even afford water, then the capitalist system is becoming fubar.
Click to expand...

You made no mention of wages and jobs before. You left the statement wide open to interpretation. However, you still have not shown that it is the capitalist system that has failed. Are the taxes excessively high such that business are leaving or not starting up in said major city? Are the taxes upon the workers so high that they have too little money to spread over the various costs of living? Is the government run water distribution system so full of red tape, corruption and/or bloated salaries that the cost is too high for the poor or unemployed? None of these factors are part of the Capitalist system but of the government system. They can however have a negative impact upon the capitalist system and result in what we are seeing.
 
maquiscat said:
You made no mention of wages and jobs before. You left the statement wide open to interpretation. However, you still have not shown that it is the capitalist system that has failed. Are the taxes excessively high such that business are leaving or not starting up in said major city? Are the taxes upon the workers so high that they have too little money to spread over the various costs of living? Is the government run water distribution system so full of red tape, corruption and/or bloated salaries that the cost is too high for the poor or unemployed? None of these factors are part of the Capitalist system but of the government system. They can however have a negative impact upon the capitalist system and result in what we are seeing.
Click to expand...

It's broken in the sense that people at the top use it to the extreme. They ship out jobs, lobby and control legislation, manipulate markets and basically do anything for increased market share and profit. And they say "we'd go broke if we didn't do all these unpatriotic things", which is a lie. They'd make less in the short run, but more in the long run, because their base of buyers would be better situated to keep sales and purchases up. They basically use up, squeeze and burn everything to the ground with their tactics. The larger corporations are cohorts with gov't and not as positive a force as they once were in the scheme of things.

How do we know this, because corporations are making record profits, stocks are at record highs, CEO, executives and shareholders income has increased and people are less employed than ever.
 
Given that drinkable water is quite scarce in so many places, it is an absolute must to pay for it. Giving out free water would discourage conservation of water, resulting in damaging effects to the environment. The best way to conserve limited resources is to ensure they are exchanged on the free market. If there are shortages of water and fear of running out of supply, prices must be higher to curb demand.
 
Lakryte said:
Given that drinkable water is quite scarce in so many places, it is an absolute must to pay for it. Giving out free water would discourage conservation of water, resulting in damaging effects to the environment. The best way to conserve limited resources is to ensure they are exchanged on the free market. If there are shortages of water and fear of running out of supply, prices must be higher to curb demand.
Click to expand...

The problem here is both an ethical and practical one.

1. If water is run through the free market, a natural, public reasource becomes a private commodity. Ethically, this is an issue, because it makes the earth something that certain people own, and others don't.
2. Chilean forestry and the agriculture of the Great Plains are examples of how capitalists, in their desire to produce more and more profit, tend to overexploit natural resources without managing them effectively.
 
Of course we should pay for water just like any other damn bill. I not that old but i recall a time when it was unheard of to even buy bottle water, now its just something we do.
 
So all those who work on providing communities a safe, stable and capable water supply should work for their obummercare handout and EBT cards? We going to throw in some section 8 housing and olooserphones ?


TheDemSocialist said:
No. Housing, which includes water, in my opinion is a basic human right and should not have to pay for it. It should be provided.
Click to expand...
 
Jaygodmedia said:
Of course we should pay for water just like any other damn bill. I not that old but i recall a time when it was unheard of to even buy bottle water, now its just something we do.
Click to expand...

The question shouldn't be whether we should pay for it, because in some form or another, we always have (Wether "paying" for it in the time/energy it took to attain it, in some form of labor, or in money.) It should be to whom does the payment go.
 
Org said:
The problem here is both an ethical and practical one.

1. If water is run through the free market, a natural, public reasource becomes a private commodity. Ethically, this is an issue, because it makes the earth something that certain people own, and others don't.
Click to expand...
Water and drinkable water are two very different things. Furthermore, transporting that water into the home or into bottles is yet another additional step. Making natural water drinkable and then transporting it into people's homes is an intrinsically private commodity, not a public resource. That is the key difference--we are not talking about charging people for drinking out of lakes or rivers.

2. Chilean forestry and the agriculture of the Great Plains are examples of how capitalists, in their desire to produce more and more profit, tend to overexploit natural resources without managing them effectively.
Click to expand...
This over-exploitation is a problem, but also is not in the best interest of these capitalists. Over-farming, for example, destroys the land and makes it impossible to farm in the future. That leads to reduced profits. Unfortunately we have had to learn this the hard way before making changes. Many of the issues with deforestation and the like result from land that is not privately owned. I would agree, however, that government regulations ensuring the protection of natural resources are acceptable and often necessary. The destruction of the natural world is arguably and act of aggression and harm to individuals, so limits must be set.
 
Lakryte said:
Water and drinkable water are two very different things. Furthermore, transporting that water into the home or into bottles is yet another additional step. Making natural water drinkable and then transporting it into people's homes is an intrinsically private commodity, not a public resource. That is the key difference--we are not talking about charging people for drinking out of lakes or rivers.


This over-exploitation is a problem, but also is not in the best interest of these capitalists. Over-farming, for example, destroys the land and makes it impossible to farm in the future. That leads to reduced profits. Unfortunately we have had to learn this the hard way before making changes. Many of the issues with deforestation and the like result from land that is not privately owned. I would agree, however, that government regulations ensuring the protection of natural resources are acceptable and often necessary. The destruction of the natural world is arguably and act of aggression and harm to individuals, so limits must be set.
Click to expand...

The issue isn't whether water distribution should be private, it's whether water resources should be owned privately. 2. The logic of expansion can be constrained by government, but only if government actually does it. Liberal and neoliberal states (the USA and Chile, respectively, in my example) have histories of failing and refusing to do this. Wheter this is embedded in them due to their coexistence and cooperation with powerful business leaders isn't known for sure, but it's a reasonable stance to take.
 
ernst barkmann said:
the purpose of the senate is to stop the collective capacity of the people from creating laws, which defy the founding principles of America and the Constitution.

because the house is a collective body...the senate is not a collective body.
Click to expand...

There are many different forms of collectivism. Economic collectivism is not equivalent to that of the people. Out of curiosity, why do you think that the government listening to the will of the people is a bad thing, or are you looking at the issue from a purely constitutional standpoint?

equally under the law, means all laws will adhere to all the people equally........

meaning you cant give me a ticket, and not give another person the same a ticket for doing there same thing.
Click to expand...

That is a good example of government enforced discrimination that is bad and a violation of equal protection under the law. How is a housing program which services a specific part of the population that is in need discrimination?

Misterveritis said:
"Fascism seeks to control businesses for the sake of the people. But really it is for the sake of the state. It is a totalitarian concept. You embrace it."

Yes. See the bolded parts...


Your own words betray you. How doe these magical things happen without government coercion of privately owned businesses?
Click to expand...

:roll: You can't cite yourself as a source. I support regulation of business. How that makes me a fascist you have yet to prove with any worthwhile evidence.
 
SocialDemocrat said:
There are many different forms of collectivism. Economic collectivism is not equivalent to that of the people. Out of curiosity, why do you think that the government listening to the will of the people is a bad thing, or are you looking at the issue from a purely constitutional standpoint?
Click to expand...

yes, everything from me is from a constitutional standpoint....

because to have a "will of the people"...... is dangerous

if the people can have their will, they will use that power against other people....history proves this.

so to prevent the misuse of power.....by the President or states[pre17th] or the people......you divide power among them, and neither one of them as all the power to become tyrannical.

democracy....as a FORM of government is tyranny.

the founders of American government created democracy as a element of a republican form of government.....making it a mixed government"....no single entity in it having all direct power.



SocialDemocrat said:
That is a good example of government enforced discrimination that is bad and a violation of equal protection under the law. How is a housing program which services a specific part of the population that is in need discrimination?
Click to expand...

because government must treat everyone equal, it cannot say, "oh that person has a greater need then you do, so we will help them and not you"

this is why our federal government was never designed to be involved in the personal life's of the people, .....because of the inequality it would create.
 
ernst barkmann said:
yes, everything from me is from a constitutional standpoint....
Click to expand...

So before the 13th and 19th amendments were passed, would you have opposed women's suffrage or a ban on slavery?

because to have a "will of the people"...... is dangerous

if the people can have their will, they will use that power against other people....history proves this.

so to prevent the misuse of power.....by the President or states[pre17th] or the people......you divide power among them, and neither one of them as all the power to become tyrannical.

democracy....as a FORM of government is tyranny.

the founders of American government created democracy as a element of a republican form of government.....making it a mixed government"....no single entity in it having all direct power.
Click to expand...

So tyranny in the hands of the people is worse than tyranny out of the hands of the people? Just because a government does not grant power to the people does not mean it cannot be a tyrannical government.

because government must treat everyone equal, it cannot say, "oh that person has a greater need then you do, so we will help them and not you"

this is why our federal government was never designed to be involved in the personal life's of the people, .....because of the inequality it would create.
Click to expand...

Even if offering housing exclusively to the poor was discrimination in its traditional fashion, how on earth will not offering homes to people who already have homes while offering them to the homeless create inequality? It does precisely the opposite.
 
SocialDemocrat said:
So before the 13th and 19th amendments were passed, would you have opposed women's suffrage or a ban on slavery?
Click to expand...

slavery is an abomination, and most of founders wanted it abolished.

voting was a privilege, based on taxes and land ownership, the founders wanted people who had a stake in America to vote, they knew if you were to give people who had nothing at stake the vote, they would use their vote to take from those who have property.

regulation of voting was in state hands, not the federal government, most women of that time, did not have property landownership, and because of the regulations did not vote.

even in the 20th century, i still remember when my mother could not get a car though a bank because she was a woman.



SocialDemocrat said:
So tyranny in the hands of the people is worse than tyranny out of the hands of the people? Just because a government does not grant power to the people does not mean it cannot be a tyrannical government.
Click to expand...


but the people have power, in the house, that is their power base, the senate is the power base of the states, and the president represents the union as a whole.

the people are not given all direct power of officials election in our federal government because that would make it a democracy, rule of the people.

the founders wanted NO ENTITY, not the people, not the states, not the president, to be a dominate factor in our government.........all 3 are to be elected by separate methods......the house by the people, the senate by the state legislatures, and the president by electors of the electoral college.......this separates power, keeping it out of one entity, and prevents tyranny.


SocialDemocrat said:
Even if offering housing exclusively to the poor was discrimination in its traditional fashion, how on earth will not offering homes to people who already have homes while offering them to the homeless create inequality? It does precisely the opposite.
Click to expand...

you cannot create laws, that are designed for classes /groups of people, it is unlawful, because of constitutional law.

it would be illegal to create a law, and call it blacks rights, gay's rights, white's rights, or hispanic rights, the poor's rights...the government cannot draw distinctions between people and treat them differently, no matter what their social or financial status is.
 
Water is a necessity to live. Without it you will die. So of course it should be free or at the very least pad for by taxation all depending on where you live.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom