• 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:
Of course it does. There are fundamental human rights everyone is guranteed, even if the state does not gurantee them or not.
Click to expand...

So?[/QUOTE]

So people need to be very clear when they say something should be a right what exactly they mean by that, and what would be required for it to be upheld.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
not according to the UDHR
Click to expand...

Once again, the UDHR was solely to set the definition of terms used in UN documents and negotiations. So when so and so from Japan mentions "human rights" all the other members know what he/she's referring to.
 
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...

Which is a human right in America. If I could afford it then by your logic the government should buy me one.
 
Neomalthusian said:
So people need to be very clear when they say something should be a right what exactly they mean by that, and what would be required for it to be upheld.
Click to expand...

Which was the original purpose of the UDHR, to have an agreed upon definition of those terms within the context of UN documents and negotiations.
 
This answer is two part. Water is a basic human right. There should be no infringement on the collection of rain water, desalination, home purification. But should the government hand out water to people? No, thats a tremendous waste of money considering how easy it is to collect and purify rain water (assuming it's legal in your state) and other methods of reaching a water source that can be cleaned.
 
TheLastIndependent said:
This answer is two part. Water is a basic human right. There should be no infringement on the collection of rain water, desalination, home purification. But should the government hand out water to people? No, thats a tremendous waste of money considering how easy it is to collect and purify rain water (assuming it's legal in your state) and other methods of reaching a water source that can be cleaned.
Click to expand...

Though I know you're shooting for reasonable here, I disagree. Because it's rainwater doesn't make it pure or disease free. Nor can mosquito and bacterial abatement be managed by going house to house asking, "do you collect and store rainwater safely?".

There are places that are safer than others where rainwater can be safely collected with little risk of mosquito infestation. However, there are places where the risks can be significant.
 
Excon said:
:doh
:lamo
That isn't reason, and the two quotes are incompatible.

There is no such "right" to water.
Click to expand...

Sigh. There was more to the conversation than what you presented. How incredibly dishonest of you, but I have come to expect it. It is who you are.
 
clownboy said:
I disagree. Because it's rainwater doesn't make it pure or disease free. Nor can mosquito and bacterial abatement be managed by going house to house asking, "do you collect and store rainwater safely".
Click to expand...

"collect and purify"

"collection of rain water...home purification"

It is not the government's role to hold our hand. If you decide to collect rain water then it is on you to make sure that your water that you collected is safe for your consumption. See a trend? it's all on you.
 
Last edited:
Dezaad said:
Sigh. There was more to the conversation than what you presented. How incredibly dishonest of you, but I have come to expect it. It is who you are.
Click to expand...
:lamo

No! :naughty
How incredibly dishonest of you.

I quoted specifically what I was replying to.
There wasn't anything more to it than that.
The two are not compatible at all.

And then the follow up comment that there is no such "right".
If there was, you could point it out, but there isn't.
Not even in nature, absent the artificially created societal rules, does such a "right" exist.
 
SocialDemocrat said:
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.
Click to expand...

Of course you reduce poverty by paying people's way. You are supporting them. The more money you GIVE them for simply drawing breath, the less poor they are. Funny how that works. But unless you've got a money tree, that system sucks for the folks who do work and pay their own way. You also get perpetual linages of dole recipients.

That's NOT reducing poverty, that's borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. And watch the program when you can, there are other episodes, and if your blood isn't boiling by the end, then you're likely to be part of the problem.

SocialDemocrat said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, it won't. The projections are lies if they predict that. Unlike Britain's dole and council housing folks, when you are given a place to live here you're expected to be drug, alcohol and crime free. That's just not going to happen.
 
Last edited:
TheLastIndependent said:
"collect and purify"

"collection of rain water...home purification"

It is not the government's role to hold our hand. If you decide to collect rain water then it is on you to make sure that your water that you collected is safe for your consumption. See a trend? it's all on you.
Click to expand...

Again, mosquito abatement. Your mismanagement of your water collection, again in some areas, could easily cause or contribute to existing local disease outbreaks. When you live with other folks around your swing doesn't have far to go to reach another's nose.

Btw, rainwater collection systems are open to the elements, of course, have a standing pool of still water that is typically shaded. Perfect mosquito hatching conditions.

Again, in some areas this isn't a concern, in others it is a large concern.
 
Last edited:
clownboy said:
Again, mosquito abatement. Your mismanagement of your water collection, again in some areas, could easily cause or contribute to existing local disease outbreaks. When you live with other folks around your swing doesn't have far to go to reach another's nose.

Btw, rainwater collection systems are open to the elements, of course, have a standing pool of still water that is typically shaded. Perfect mosquito hatching conditions.

Again, in some areas this isn't a concern, in others it is a large concern.
Click to expand...

Then quite simply you do not leave purified water open. do you dump bottles of water in a kiddie pool to drink it? Perhaps you should not collect rain water if you are planning on drinking directly from a still pool. However, there are others that are plenty capable of generating a safe and free water source for themselves through nature.
 
TheLastIndependent said:
Then quite simply you do not leave purified water open. do you dump bottles of water in a kiddie pool to drink it? Perhaps you should not collect rain water if you are planning on drinking directly from a still pool. However, there are others that are plenty capable of generating a safe and free water source for themselves through nature.
Click to expand...

You don't have a clue how rainwater catchment systems work do you? The collection tank, usually a barrel in the small home systems, precedes the filtering.
 
Excon said:
:lamo

No! :naughty
How incredibly dishonest of you.

I quoted specifically what I was replying to.
There wasn't anything more to it than that.
The two are not compatible at all.

And then the follow up comment that there is no such "right".
If there was, you could point it out, but there isn't.
Not even in nature, absent the artificially created societal rules, does such a "right" exist.
Click to expand...

No! :naughty

You don't get to mischaracterize what I am saying by misrepresenting it by leaving out key elements, and then call yourself honest. Do not be surprised if I don't respond to you any longer. I have watched you for a long time, but have found myself fortunate not to have to deal with you. In fact, I don't have to deal with you, and will not.
 
Dezaad said:
No! :naughty

You don't get to mischaracterize what I am saying by misrepresenting it by leaving out key elements,
Click to expand...
I haven't done any such thing.
I commented specifically on what you had said.
So it is you being dishonest.


Dezaad said:
Do not be surprised if I don't respond to you any longer. I have watched you for a long time, but have found myself fortunate not to have to deal with you. In fact, I don't have to deal with you, and will not.
Click to expand...
:baby2:baby2:baby2

:doh

The truth is that you won't reply because you were wrong.

Because if you had been right, as in correct, you would have shown what you claim I misrepresented, or showed which "key elements" I left out.
But the fact is I didn't. Nothing else you said mattered to that which I specifically replied.


Regardless. I have no problem with you not answering to your ridiculous comments.
That is nothing but a reflection on you, not me.
 
Last edited:
clownboy said:
Of course you reduce poverty by paying people's way. You are supporting them. The more money you GIVE them for simply drawing breath, the less poor they are. Funny how that works. But unless you've got a money tree, that system sucks for the folks who do work and pay their own way. You also get perpetual linages of dole recipients.

That's NOT reducing poverty, that's borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. And watch the program when you can, there are other episodes, and if your blood isn't boiling by the end, then you're likely to be part of the problem.
Click to expand...

Your statements are contradictory. First you said that welfare programs in European countries are reducing poverty. That's true. Than you said they're not. Which is it, exactly? No matter how much you tax the rich, no scenario has occured where they are in need of assistance because of overzealous taxation. You're also implying that our work ethic is measured by the amount of money that we make. That's simply not true.

No, it won't. The projections are lies if they predict that. Unlike Britain's dole and council housing folks, when you are given a place to live here you're expected to be drug, alcohol and crime free. That's just not going to happen.
Click to expand...

Look at any of the sources I originally posted. Utah has already reduced homelessness by 78%. And if you think that most to all of the homeless are in their current situation because alcoholics, drug addicts, or criminals, you're letting stereotypes overrule facts.
 
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...

privileges and immunities [civil rights] are legal rights, government cannot give you a legal right, and then lay the burden of providing for the right on other citizens.

privileges and immunities apply to police, fire, governmental services it does not apply to giving people material goods.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Your right its not. Its the foundation of international human rights law
Click to expand...

but America has already its own foundation...life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.....IE... PROPERTY.

and that government is instituted for the propose to secure rights.
 
ernst barkmann said:
privileges and immunities [civil rights] are legal rights, government cannot give you a legal right, and then lay the burden of providing for the right on other citizens.
Click to expand...
Of course it can. When the "burden" is applied to everyone equally.
 
SocialDemocrat said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have not read the south African constitution in about 2 years, but if I remember correctly it states people have right to a place to live, HOWEVER it is also a constitution that says you have free speech, until you offend someone, and that you have rights, until the government says you no longer do.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Of course it can. When the "burden" is applied to everyone equally.
Click to expand...

so lets see.

first...water....... this is not federal...... its on a local or state level...... or can be private

water and the facilities which provide it, receive payments for water consumed by persons who wish that service...provide by a government or business

government also provides other services which the citizens pay for such as licensing. permits, inspection, as well as others, none of these are required in the securing of rights.

but government also provides services through the form of taxation, for securing rights, such as life liberty and protection of property....police, fire and legal services

water...... is not a service provided for the purpose of securing ..... life liberty and property.

second....since these facilities, belong to state, local, and private entities, are they going to end their revenue making ability of charging people for water, and turn it into a service which depends on new taxation placed on the people, and if government provides the water free, does it have the ability to limit every person to only so much it wishes a person to have.

is government now going to be in a position to dictate how much water each citizen can consume?
 
ernst barkmann said:
I have not read the south African constitution in about 2 years, but if I remember correctly it states people have right to a place to live, HOWEVER it is also a constitution that says you have free speech, until you offend someone, and that you have rights, until the government says you no longer do.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with it, but plenty of countries have anti-hate speech laws. Also, South Africa has pretty much been failed in a lot of areas where other countries have succeeded, such as universal healthcare. And as I previously mentioned, Utah's free housing program has already reduced homelessness by 78%. I mentioned it because it's constitution, which is horrible in so many other areas, guarantees housing as a right. South Africa alone should not be used as a barometer to measure the success of a free housing program.
 
SocialDemocrat said:
I don't agree with it, but plenty of countries have anti-hate speech laws. Also, South Africa has pretty much been failed in a lot of areas where other countries have succeeded, such as universal healthcare. And as I previously mentioned, Utah's free housing program has already reduced homelessness by 78%. I mentioned it because it's constitution, which is horrible in so many other areas, guarantees housing as a right. South Africa alone should not be used as a barometer to measure the success of a free housing program.
Click to expand...

government cannot give you a natural right, ....so if Utah, is give people a civil right of a home, ...can you explain how this civil right is not being extended to every adult citizen of the state?

since they would have the same right to a dwelling also.

civil rights are legal rights of security.........having a civil right to a home, is not for securing rights....therefore illegal, under the founding principles of America.
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
government cannot give you a natural right, ....so if Utah, is give people a civil right of a home, ...can you explain how this civil right is not being extended to every adult citizen of the state?

since they would have the same right to a dwelling also.

civil rights are legal rights of security.........having a civil right to a home, is not for securing rights....therefore illegal, under the founding principles of America.
Click to expand...

Utah is eliminating homelessness by giving a home to those who need it. I recognize that this is different than a right to housing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom