View Poll Results: Should we pay for water?

Voters
80. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    59 73.75%
  • No

    15 18.75%
  • Maybe

    6 7.50%
Page 30 of 31 FirstFirst ... 2028293031 LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 303

Thread: Should we pay for water?

  1. #291
    Professor
    Jaygodmedia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    City of angles
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 07:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,283
    Blog Entries
    16

    Re: Should we pay for water?

    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.

  2. #292
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Denio Junction
    Last Seen
    11-13-14 @ 12:09 AM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,039
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Should we pay for water?

    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 ?


    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    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.

  3. #293
    User Org's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    08-26-15 @ 03:16 PM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    135

    Re: Should we pay for water?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaygodmedia View Post
    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.
    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.

  4. #294
    Guru
    Lakryte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    06-02-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,982

    Re: Should we pay for water?

    Quote Originally Posted by Org View Post
    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.
    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.
    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.
    "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
    "When we live authentically we create an opportunity for others to walk out of their dark prisons of pretend into freedom."

  5. #295
    User Org's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    08-26-15 @ 03:16 PM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    135

    Re: Should we pay for water?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lakryte View Post
    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.
    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.

  6. #296
    Educator SocialDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    The beautiful Pacific Northwest
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 04:30 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    922

    Re: Should we pay for water?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    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.
    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.
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    "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?
    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.
    Social democrat is no longer an accurate description of my views.

  7. #297
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Should we pay for water?

    Quote Originally Posted by SocialDemocrat View Post
    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?
    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by SocialDemocrat View Post
    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?
    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.

  8. #298
    Educator SocialDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    The beautiful Pacific Northwest
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 04:30 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    922

    Re: Should we pay for water?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    yes, everything from me is from a constitutional standpoint....
    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.
    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.
    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.
    Social democrat is no longer an accurate description of my views.

  9. #299
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Should we pay for water?

    Quote Originally Posted by SocialDemocrat View Post
    So before the 13th and 19th amendments were passed, would you have opposed women's suffrage or a ban on slavery?
    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by SocialDemocrat View Post
    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.

    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by SocialDemocrat View Post
    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.
    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.

  10. #300
    User
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14

    Re: Should we pay for water?

    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.

Page 30 of 31 FirstFirst ... 2028293031 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •