• 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 more time I post on this forum the more I'm convinced that Herbert Spencer was right when he said socialism always involves slavery. Services can not be human rights for the very reason that they call for the labor and resources of others to be provided. It doesn't matter if government is providing the service or if a private individual is providing it because the fact remains it takes the labor and resources of others to be provided.

So taxation is slavery then?
 
So taxation is slavery then?

Depends on if it is used for providing common needs or used for bull****. Individuals cannot provide national defense alone, so it is something the government must do and everyone benefits from it. Then there is welfare, which is something free men and women provide for themselves and if provided by the government, not everyone benefits from it. In fact, if you look at crime statistics in relation to welfare, it is actually a very bad thing for the country.
 
Taxation=theft? This argument? How is it "in favor of others" when its applied to everyone?

If i pay $300 a month to own a truck, that truck is mine to decide as I see fit what to do with it.

If the government comes in and says that's illegal, and now 300 people each pay $1 a month and we all own the truck together (and for the sake of argument, there are 299 other trucks in this deal), why, I have no control over "my" truck anymore. I don't have a truck, but a 1/300 stake in 300 different trucks. So, who's turn is it to put the gas into the truck I get to use today? What if someone decides they want to use all 300 of them today and forgo their right for the next 299 days? No, this system sucks. I don't want to participate in it.

But in your view of the world, I *must* participate, even if I don't have use for a truck at all!

I don't care if you think the system is fair because it is "applied to everyone." When we're talking about drinking water, something fundamental to the sustainability of life, how do we stop people from watering their grass and driving up the cost for everyone? Maybe all I want to do with my water is drink it, flush toilets, wash dishes, and take showers. Why should my costs shared among those who take three bubble-baths a day, wash their car every day, and water their lawn 6 days a week? Make them PAY for their use, and their use will be moderated.
 
Perhaps you should look up the word efficient before you continue.

Your saying there are a lot of airplane crashes? That there are a lot of midair collisions? Man oh man! I better not fly ever again! Our airplanes are so unsafe because of our inefficient FAA!
 
Most of the time.

Why only most of the time? All taxes are a action of redistribution and takes a service and labor to implement, collect, and pay. It satisfies all your "requirements" for slavery.
 
And having my money that I earned through my labors and given to people who do not labor is different how?

So if water is provided by the state it means only "lazy" people will get water? :doh
 
Is the supplying of water a basic human right?

If you consider all the things the gov't spends our money on (defense, roads, bridges, justice system etc), should one of them be a simple necessity?





Nearly Half Of Detroit Water Customers Can’t Pay Their Bill « CBS Detroit

Yes, and that includes Corporations that should pay the going rate per gallon when they contaminate a water source, anywhere. I own property with multiple springs and I cannot see any justification for being made to pay for the water because I paid for the springs when I bought the property. When you move to a city, you know that these things must be provided by the infrastructure and you pay for the infrastructure because you think you will have more and better opportunities in a City.
 
Disagreement to how a organization is ran does not equate to non efficient. Overall the FAA is a efficient agency because it accomplishses its major goals.

And what are it's major goals? Safety is certainly one of them and in absolute terms the US aviation safety record for Part 121 (air carrier) operations is extremely good. Heck even Part 135 (charter for the most part) and Part 91 (general aviation) are pretty good. No one could argue otherwise. The questions that really needs to be posed are "are they as good as they could be and could they improved at a cost that the public is willing to bear?" Soucie's answer is "no." If he's right then that's a strong argument that the FAA really isn't efficient - or as efficient as it could be.
 
Last edited:
When we're talking about drinking water, something fundamental to the sustainability of life, how do we stop people from watering their grass and driving up the cost for everyone?
A basic amount of water is provided to everyone. If you use more it will be taxed as a consumption tax.
 
And what are it's major goals? Safety is certainly one of them and in absolute terms the US aviation safety record for Part 121 (air carrier) operations is extremely good. Heck even Part 135 (charter for the most part) and Part 91 (general aviation) are pretty good. No one could argue otherwise. The questions that really needs to be posed are "are they as good as they could be and could they improved at a cost that the public is willing to bear?" Soucie's answer is "no." If he's right then that's a strong argument that the FAA really isn't efficient - or as efficient as it could be.
If he's right then the

Room for improvement does not mean its inefficient. Almost every organization be it private or government has room for improvement. Does that mean they are inefficient? No.
 
A basic amount of water is provided to everyone. If you use more it will be taxed as a consumption tax.

A "basic amount"? How much is this? And who decides? What about people with medical machines in their homes that require cleaning (and a lot of water)? What about businesses that specialize in power washing and carpet cleaning? Do they bring their own water supply with them, or do you face a greater tax burden for providing neighborhood beautification or simple health code compliance? When you consider the efficiency of urban life versus the greater need for infrastructure and miles driven with suburban sprawl (or rural life), why does the system that advocate urban centers implicitly support sprawl just to avoid something like a "water tax"? Can't have a well in the city... move out of the city. People will always adapt, and the dumber the regulation the more blatant the adaptation.

You know, I have great respect for socialism as a philosophy. As a discipline and method of government, I have no respect for it since it can't stand up to the rigors of logical inquiry, nor socialists themselves for refusing to let go of their unrealistic pipe dream.
 
Your saying there are a lot of airplane crashes? That there are a lot of midair collisions? Man oh man! I better not fly ever again! Our airplanes are so unsafe because of our inefficient FAA!

Efficiency relates to costs and effort of completing a task, not whether the task is completed.

You can drive a nail with a 20Lb sledge hammer or you and use a common claw hammer. The claw hammer is more efficient, but even with the sledge, the job still gets done.

As I suggested, go look up the definition of efficiency.
 
Why only most of the time? All taxes are a action of redistribution and takes a service and labor to implement, collect, and pay. It satisfies all your "requirements" for slavery.

It really depends on who is responsible for collecting the taxes and how those taxes are paid. If the people must provide their labor to pay the taxes then it is slavery. If the government is however collecting the taxes from people using a service voluntarily then it is not slavery.
 
So if water is provided by the state it means only "lazy" people will get water? :doh

All people will get it, including those who do not provide for themselves and expect others to do it for them.

By this same token, do you really expect you're not going to have to provide more services to fill the need of servicing more people? Unless, of course, you think you're going to be an aristocrat under the new regime...
 
Exactly how many military spending scandals have there been? If you consider those agencies efficient, please don't ever try to run a business.

You said efficiently-run, not scandal free. Stop moving the goalposts and admit that you lost this point. Or is that something you are unable to do?
 
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.

The problem is that you have a right to access water. You don't have a right to have it delivered to your house free of charge. The difference is clear. In Mexico, people are able to go to local wells and access water provided by the government. The government at no point is required to construct the pipes and infrastructure required and ensure everyone gets water in their homes. In short, that means that what you're paying for is the delivery of the water. You're not paying for the water itself.
 
Absolutely not!

Municipal systems are necessary for certain functions but they shouldn't be confused with capitalist activities.

As far as bailouts and "too big to fail", that's just bull****. Better to let a diseased entity that either can't be fixed or refuses to be fixed die. Their carcass serves as food for new and, hopefully, more sustainable entities.

Municipal systems are paid for by the taxes and fees from capitalist activities, you can't really separate them. And I guarantee you that if the population starts to fail on paying for basic services the markets will fail massively. It's all connected and the corporate/political elite cannot isolate themselves from the effects of how they run things.



Yes, and that includes Corporations that should pay the going rate per gallon when they contaminate a water source, anywhere. I own property with multiple springs and I cannot see any justification for being made to pay for the water because I paid for the springs when I bought the property. When you move to a city, you know that these things must be provided by the infrastructure and you pay for the infrastructure because you think you will have more and better opportunities in a City.

The city wants to get that money twice and tell the citizens it's a necessary fee for them to provide clean water.
 
You said efficiently-run, not scandal free. Stop moving the goalposts and admit that you lost this point. Or is that something you are unable to do?

Lets see then. The Air Force spends how much on parts and maintenance because it flies antiquated Aircraft that Congress won't let them replace?
What is the current Officer to enlisted ratio?
After the draw down in the 1990's and the current one going on, how many General officers do we have?

BTW, scandals about costs are part of efficiency.

Have you ever actually served in the military?
 
Back
Top Bottom