• 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!

Nestle CEO Says Water Is Food That Should Be Privatized

Do you believe water is a basic human right? According to Nestlé CEO water is a foodstuff that should be privatized, not a human right. Nestlé CEO Peter Brabeck says that with the global population rising water is not a public right, but a resource that should be managed by businessmen. Please do share your thoughts.

Read more at Nestlé CEO Says Water Is Food That Should Be Privatized - Not A Human Right - American Live Wire*|*American Live Wire



Water is already privatized. Don't believe it? Go hook up to your neighbor's hydrant and water your lawn. Or buy a herd of cattle and drive them over to your neighbor's lake to water. There is, however, in law a concept known as 'riparian rights.' Look that one up. There are some interesting cases around it.
 
I guess you didn't understand my question. How much is your bill if you use 0 water for the month? That is the fixed cost.

Where I live, we have a 'community well.' Everyone pays $20/month every month. I pay for the entire year in January and then I don't have to worry with it again for the remainder of the year. If I wanted a well of my own, that would cost about $5,000.
 
Access to free water should not be a human right, it may be a privilege by the government in a nation but if you own the water no one else should force you to give it away or take it from you. I'm fine with companies owning water and wells and selling it, I'm also fine with governments distributing water from government owned land.

It appears to me that that is not what this guy is talking about. He is talking about making it so that companies control ALL water so that they can profit from it. Just like the food chain is now. If something goes wrong, especially in the cities, people will die because there is no food. Water is all the more critical. If companies control it and government controls companies, they can shut the flow off and kill people off who disagree with them. Take a look at history, it's full of power hungry and greedy people suppressing, enslaving or killing people for their own gain. NOBODY OR COMPANY should have this power.
 
It appears to me that that is not what this guy is talking about. He is talking about making it so that companies control ALL water so that they can profit from it. Just like the food chain is now. If something goes wrong, especially in the cities, people will die because there is no food. Water is all the more critical. If companies control it and government controls companies, they can shut the flow off and kill people off who disagree with them. Take a look at history, it's full of power hungry and greedy people suppressing, enslaving or killing people for their own gain. NOBODY OR COMPANY should have this power.

I think you might have wanted to post this in the conspiracy theories board.
 
I think you might have wanted to post this in the conspiracy theories board.

If it were a thread, yes, but it was response to someone else's comment. It is valid though. There are many examples of business' and governments getting out of control and hurting their people for financial gain and/ or power... including our own in the US at this point.
 
Where I live, we have a 'community well.' Everyone pays $20/month every month. I pay for the entire year in January and then I don't have to worry with it again for the remainder of the year. If I wanted a well of my own, that would cost about $5,000.

Interesting. Where is this at?
 
If it were a thread, yes, but it was response to someone else's comment. It is valid though. There are many examples of business' and governments getting out of control and hurting their people for financial gain and/ or power... including our own in the US at this point.

Fine, should there be any control over water in any way, shape or form?
 
I guess you didn't understand my question. How much is your bill if you use 0 water for the month? That is the fixed cost.

If I used no water then my water bill would be zero. However I would still be charged for trash pickup and sewage.

Fine, should there be any control over water in any way, shape or form?

The water is already controlled by the state and city. We don't need Nestle trying to control it.
 
If I used no water then my water bill would be zero. However I would still be charged for trash pickup and sewage.



The water is already controlled by the state and city. We don't need Nestle trying to control it.

You have a very rare arrangement with your water company. Most have at least some fixed cost.
 
A person has a right to life, not the materials that sustain life. One must make, find, earn or buy those things that sustain life.

That's absolute nonsense. A right on paper is meaningless without the means to actually exercise it.

Fine, should there be any control over water in any way, shape or form?

Yes, by public entities for the public benefit, to ensure that everyone has clean water.
 
That's absolute nonsense. A right on paper is meaningless without the means to actually exercise it.



Yes, by public entities for the public benefit, to ensure that everyone has clean water.

So you trust public entities to be judge, jury, prosecutor and defender to look out for your interests? I would prefer private entities with public oversight.
 
So you trust public entities to be judge, jury, prosecutor and defender to look out for your interests? I would prefer private entities with public oversight.

What's the difference if the public is ultimately in charge?
 
What's the difference if the public is ultimately in charge?

Because I have less confidence in government doing the right things than in overseeing others to ensure they are doing the right things. It's a lot cheaper for the taxpayer to oversee people who understand water and electricity than having every municipality having an expert on staff for each of those utilities.
 
So you trust public entities to be judge, jury, prosecutor and defender to look out for your interests? I would prefer private entities with public oversight.

I pay less than a cent a gallon for water from the city. Nesly charges over $10 a gallon for water. I vote government does it better.
 
A person has a right to life, not the materials that sustain life. One must make, find, earn or buy those things that sustain life.

What right have you to demand that someone pump out and pipe water to you? Who pays for that infrastructure? Who pays for its maintenance? You think you have a right to other people's materials and labor?

To anyone with a problem with what the Nestle CEO said: where's your water well?
The huge problem is Nesle is pumping out way more water for profit from major aquifers at a rate that is unsustainable. These natural aquifers that everyone's well draws from don't just refill overnight or decades - no water, no life!

Yes, he and the like are scum.
 
Access to free water should not be a human right, it may be a privilege by the government in a nation but if you own the water no one else should force you to give it away or take it from you. I'm fine with companies owning water and wells and selling it, I'm also fine with governments distributing water from government owned land.

So, basically you are giving the government or people with money absolute power over life? No one can live without water - a privilege it is not. More like a necessity. You have heard about companies pushing for regulations to forbid people collecting run-off water off their own property haven't you? It's cutting into their profit. When that happens only a couple people will "own" the water.
 
Fine, should there be any control over water in any way, shape or form?

In my opinion, you don't wait for your rights to be taken away and your ability to survive diminished before you fight. As Edward Burke once said, "all that is needed for evil to flourish id for good men to do nothing".
 
In my opinion, you don't wait for your rights to be taken away and your ability to survive diminished before you fight. As Edward Burke once said, "all that is needed for evil to flourish id for good men to do nothing".

Fine words, but I don't think that answers my question: Should there be any control over water in any way, shape or form?
 
Fine words, but I don't think that answers my question: Should there be any control over water in any way, shape or form?

In my opinion, no. With the exception of on cities where the water has to be purified.
 
In my opinion, no. With the exception of on cities where the water has to be purified.

I'm confused, you are saying there should be control in cities because of purification? Seriously, no other reason should water be controlled in any way? Should someone be able to build a business in rural areas that depletes the neighbors water supply?
 
I'm confused, you are saying there should be control in cities because of purification? Seriously, no other reason should water be controlled in any way? Should someone be able to build a business in rural areas that depletes the neighbors water supply?

There is a huge difference between regulating water use by a company and keeping water away from people unless they pay a premium. You're comparing apples and oranges. Let's be intellectually honest here. We are talking about a company like Nestle controlling water so that everybody has to pay them for it, or they get to die. We are not talking about regulating water use as it applies to running a business.
 
There is a huge difference between regulating water use by a company and keeping water away from people unless they pay a premium. You're comparing apples and oranges. Let's be intellectually honest here. We are talking about a company like Nestle controlling water so that everybody has to pay them for it, or they get to die. We are not talking about regulating water use as it applies to running a business.

I can't make the same reach you are about Nestle's CEO or Nestle as a company and their objectives. I'm trying to find a position I can agree with. If the water is being controlled and it requires payment, then in theory it can be shut off. Whether it is a government entity or a private company, the water is still off without payment. Are you advocating that all water should be free? Just some of it? None of it? I can't tell.
 
Back
Top Bottom