• 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
TheDemSocialist said:
Actually it is. Founded both in Universal Deceleration of Human Rights, and in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Click to expand...
Which are not law in the USA.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
You can still have a "right" and have it be provided by the state. Natural rights are natural in the sense of human nature. Human rights are the construct of men and the state provides these to all citizens equally.
Click to expand...

So you would have no problem with the state giving everyone a gun then?
 
Northern Light said:
Well we have a ****load of it, is that better? The hair splitting distinctions are getting annoying, clownboy.
Click to expand...

Well then don't set yourself up for them. Europe has plenty of water.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
You can still have a "right" and have it be provided by the state. Natural rights are natural in the sense of human nature. Human rights are the construct of men and the state provides these to all citizens equally.
Click to expand...

There is a distinction between political/civil rights (also referred to as negative rights) versus social and economic rights (also referred to as positive rights). Do you understand this distinction?
 
Neomalthusian said:
There is a distinction between political/civil rights (also referred to as negative rights) versus social and economic rights (also referred to as positive rights). Do you understand this distinction?
Click to expand...
Yes. Whats your point?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Your right its not. Its the foundation of international human rights law
Click to expand...

No, it's not. It originally was a definition document for the UN at it's creation, to universally define the terms used by UN documents. Thanks to Eleanor Roosevelt the unelected and illegitimate stand in president of the US. It has since been used, much like the UN itself, as something it's not nor never was intended to be.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Yes. Whats your point?
Click to expand...

It seemed you were having trouble understanding the difference others have pointed out in this thread. "Human rights" doesn't delineate anything.

Concerning rights to water, a negative right would be upheld by laws acknowledging others cannot take water you rightfully came to possess. A positive right could only be upheld if some external entity were obligated to ensure you possess sufficient water and, if you don't, to then provide water to you, essentially free of charge (to you).
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Your right its not. Its the foundation of international human rights law
Click to expand...

Don't care what the else world think are rights. I only what rights are in America.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Didnt know it was a human right to own a gun?
Click to expand...

In America it's aright to keep and bear arms. By your logic if I can't afford a gun then tax payer dollars should pay for me to have one.
 
clownboy said:
I suggest you watch some British reporting. After seeing the situation reported on in Benefits Britain, you should feel ashamed of yourself for even suggesting such a thing.

For the rest of you, this is where the liberals here want to take the US -

Episode 1 | Benefits Britain: Life On The Dole | Channel 5
Click to expand...

This is why a basic minimum income is one of the worst possible ways to implement welfare. There are plenty of ways to establish a welfare state; some are successes, some are failures. I personally favor guaranteeing the basic needs to survive, and capital is not one of those needs is others are accounted for. And even with all of that, the U.K. still has lower child poverty rates than the U.S. (see link) Don't treat the U.S. like it's some kind of utopia.

Map: How 35 countries compare on child poverty (the U.S. is ranked 34th) - The Washington Post

ernst barkmann said:
you picked a terrible constitution to cite.
Click to expand...

I'll concede that the South African congress is terribly corrupt and has been incapable of doing much of anything productive right now, but the claim made was that no country guarantees a right to housing.

clownboy said:
One nation in the entire world, and there's no way they do it as is anyway. And no, Utah is not doing it.
Click to expand...

What is that supposed to mean? Are you denying the existence of the program, or just disagreeing on what it does?

How Utah Will Soon End Chronic Homelessness
Utah Is Ending Homelessness By Giving People Homes
Utah's Crazy Idea Should End Homelessness by 2015
Anti-Homeless Laws with Teeth
First Step To Ending Homelessness? Provide Homes
 
Neomalthusian said:
It seemed you were having trouble understanding the difference others have pointed out in this thread. "Human rights" doesn't delineate anything.
Click to expand...
Of course it does. There are fundamental human rights everyone is guranteed, even if the state does not gurantee them or not.


Concerning rights to water, a negative right would be upheld by laws acknowledging others cannot take water you rightfully came to possess. A positive right could only be upheld if some external entity were obligated to ensure you possess sufficient water and, if you don't, to then provide water to you, essentially free of charge (to you).
Click to expand...
So?
 
cpgrad08 said:
In America it's aright to keep and bear arms. By your logic if I can't afford a gun then tax payer dollars should pay for me to have one.
Click to expand...
No. You have the right to own a gun if you wish. A human right is something provided for you no matter what.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
No. You have the right to own a gun if you wish. A human right is something provided for you no matter what.
Click to expand...

Excluding those that die while lost in a desert wilderness, does anyone in the United States die of thirst?
 
SocialDemocrat said:
This is why a basic minimum income is one of the worst possible ways to implement welfare. There are plenty of ways to establish a welfare state; some are successes, some are failures. I personally favor guaranteeing the basic needs to survive, and capital is not one of those needs is others are accounted for. And even with all of that, the U.K. still has lower child poverty rates than the U.S. (see link) Don't treat the U.S. like it's some kind of utopia.

Map: How 35 countries compare on child poverty (the U.S. is ranked 34th) - The Washington Post
Click to expand...

But you see the dole does what you suggest. It provides housing and all the basic needs. Then there is also money for food and the like. The problem is the same thing we put a stop to here at one time - they just breed entire generations of folks on the dole. Them, their children, their children's children and so forth.

We don't want that here and as peachy as your ideas sound on paper, in reality humans make a muck of it.

SocialDemocrat said:
What is that supposed to mean? Are you denying the existence of the program, or just disagreeing on what it does?

How Utah Will Soon End Chronic Homelessness
Utah Is Ending Homelessness By Giving People Homes
Utah's Crazy Idea Should End Homelessness by 2015
Anti-Homeless Laws with Teeth
First Step To Ending Homelessness? Provide Homes
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that those programs do not constitute Utah making housing a right.
 
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...

No, water is not a basic human right IMHO, it has to be paid for. Water does not magically appear from thin air in your spout. In needs collecting, needs to be purified, needs to be transported and all of that costs money. Also, with no monetary consequences for water wasting by consumers everybody will use thousands of gallons of water every year, fill their pool 2 times a week, have 1 hour long showers every night, leave the tap running freely because it is free.

No, sorry. Water has to be affordable, at cost plus a little extra for the water companies to do investments etc.

Only the sun comes up for free, nothing else, housing is not for free, water is not for free, etc. etc. etc.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
No. You have the right to own a gun if you wish. A human right is something provided for you no matter what.
Click to expand...

Nothing is provided for you in this world. Now the government IMHO has the duty to help out the ill, handicapped, unemployed etc. with some basic safety net but after that all bets are off.

Human rights are immaterial rights like the right to vote, the right to peacefully assemble, the right to address your grievances to the government, your right for a fair trial etc. etc. etc.
 
Peter King said:
\
Human rights are immaterial rights like the right to vote, the right to peacefully assemble, the right to address your grievances to the government, your right for a fair trial etc. etc. etc.
Click to expand...

not according to the UDHR
 
TheDemSocialist said:
not according to the UDHR
Click to expand...

the UHDR is toilet paper with ink on it....

great concept, extremely flawed execution....

water is not infinite. maybe I treat it like it is because I live near Seattle where it is practically infinite, try going to southern california and try giving everyone free water, they'll drain the Owens Rive and Lake Mono in about 10 days. try driving along US 395 in the Owens Valley and look what cheap water did to the environment there, imagine if it were free,,,,
 
clownboy said:
But you see the dole does what you suggest. It provides housing and all the basic needs. Then there is also money for food and the like. The problem is the same thing we put a stop to here at one time - they just breed entire generations of folks on the dole. Them, their children, their children's children and so forth.

We don't want that here and as peachy as your ideas sound on paper, in reality humans make a muck of it.
Click to expand...

Firstly, Britain's welfare system is not the ideal welfare system. Scandinavian systems, (Finland, Sweden, and the like) are the best models of how we can and should reduce poverty. As the link I provided shows, poverty in Finland is at under 5%, compared to above 20% here. And the primary problem listed in the description of that British television series is that because of government cuts, there weren't sure if they were going to make ends meet. Even with people who remain on welfare under a universal welfare state, they are making ends meet with welfare as aid. A successful welfare state is capable of reducing poverty by 15% to 20% here; maybe more if we are successful, with the ultimate goal of eliminating poverty. And those 15-20% of people in poverty now who could be lifted out of it via a welfare state is no small feat, and I don't think that should be overlooked.

No, I'm saying that those programs do not constitute Utah making housing a right.
Click to expand...

It's not a guaranteed right to housing; you're correct in that regard. But giving a home and a social worker to homeless people, which will essentially end homelessness within the next few years, according to projections, means that regardless of constitutional guarantees, there is no homelessness, and therefor it is pretty close to a right to housing.
 
Dezaad said:
Excon said:
Dezaad said:
ChezC3 said:
Without water, we cannot live. Therefore since we have a right to life we have a right to water.

The prohibition on collecting rainwater should be prohibited.


If you're not in a position to drop your own well, a "cost plus" method of delivery should be established in the locality in which you reside. The "plus" a minimal amount which covers the expenses of withdrawing, cleaning, distributing, and maintenance of infrastructure.
Click to expand...

Lachean said:
You cannot have a right to other people paying for something for you.

Just because something is required for living does not make it a right.

Rights are unalienable, inherent rather than parasitic.

If everything you needed was provided for you, at the expense of another's labor, why work? Your survival is not my problem, I do not live for your sake.
Click to expand...
These two quotes, rightly understood, are not incompatible. You don't have an intrinsic right to someone delivering water to your home, but you do have a right to the water that falls from the sky, at a subsistence level.
Click to expand...
Rightly understood?

By who's standards?

:doh

Not!
Click to expand...
By reason.
Click to expand...
:doh
:lamo
That isn't reason, and the two quotes are incompatible.

There is no such "right" to water.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom