SHOULD WATER BE FREE?

[the cac mamba]

it is free, if you wana walk up to a lake and drink it

no one is obligated to bottle it for you, or pump x amount to your house. so while it should be government controlled as a utility for minimal cost, it shouldnt be 'free'

 

[Broke Wave]

Takbir!

Why does it always have to be about Islam? Why can't we be on the same side of an issue?

I remember why I stopped posting in general

 

[88m3]

Why does it always have to be about Islam? Why can't we be on the same side of an issue?

I remember why I stopped posting in general

You want to imprison the poor and force them into labor?

Just felt familiar.


I respectfully strongly disagree with you.

 

[Red Shield]

We gonna act like the overuse in California isn't by farmers and businesses, instead of citizens?

Seriously. But that's also why nothing will be done.

 

[Regular_P]

Should life be free? Sustaining a person causes immense enviromental damage not to mention the millions of dollars a person will incur in tax dollar usage over a lifetime. The equitable thing to do is if a person cannot afford to pay the life fee, imprison them and force them into labour.

 

[notPsychosiz]

Water is only expensive due to laws put in place by rich white men.
Kill those white men and water is free.

It is not difficult to dig a well, or capture your own water. But you are prevented from doing so by threat of enslavement by these same rich white men. They tell you they own the land and so you may not build on it.
They tell you they own the water.

In fact, if you go to the beach at night they tell you the beach is closed because they own the sand and the ocean. If you do not comply, more white men show up to enslave or murder you.

These are the problems.
Not the water.

 

[ill]

Water is only expensive due to laws put in place by rich white men.
Kill those white men and water is free.

It is not difficult to dig a well, or capture your own water. But you are prevented from doing so by threat of enslavement by these same rich white men. They tell you they own the land and so you may not build on it.
They tell you they own the water.

In fact, if you go to the beach at night they tell you the beach is closed because they own the sand and the ocean. If you do not comply, more white men show up to enslave or murder you.

These are the problems.
Not the water.

You need help. Water is a resource and a utility. If you find water below your property, it belongs to you. If you turn your faucet on, it belongs to the city that built that infrastructure. Thats why people pay water utility bills. Nestle and the like should not be allowed to steal water. They should be forced to pay above market rate for the opportunity to bottle that water and re-sell it. Also, water is not expensive, yet. Its one of the cheapest utilities you can buy and its only considered expensive when you purchase bottled water. Its not expensive due to laws put in place by rich white men. It will be expensive in the future due to laws of supply and demand. If theres only 2.5% of freshwater available, at some point in the future it will be very low in supply and high in demand thus prices will rise and it will become expensive as fukk but thats not the case right now nor will be for a few decades.

 

[ghostwriterx]

Should life be free? Sustaining a person causes immense enviromental damage not to mention the millions of dollars a person will incur in tax dollar usage over a lifetime. The equitable thing to do is if a person cannot afford to pay the life fee, imprison them and force them into labour.

 

[notPsychosiz]

You need help. Water is a resource and a utility. If you find water below your property, it belongs to you. If you turn your faucet on, it belongs to the city that built that infrastructure. Thats why people pay water utility bills. Nestle and the like should not be allowed to steal water. They should be forced to pay above market rate for the opportunity to bottle that water and re-sell it. Also, water is not expensive, yet. Its one of the cheapest utilities you can buy and its only considered expensive when you purchase bottled water. Its not expensive due to laws put in place by rich white men. It will be expensive in the future due to laws of supply and demand. If theres only 2.5% of freshwater available, at some point in the future it will be very low in supply and high in demand thus prices will rise and it will become expensive as fukk but thats not the case right now nor will be for a few decades.

You are parroting what is commonly thought to be the case without looking into the actual law.
Many people do not understand the difference between rainwater and groundwater and surface water as it relates to the law. And that none of the laws are in their favor.

But first, things are expensive or inexpensive based on cost to consumption to availability. $10 is not a lot of money. But a pencil that costs ten dollars is expensive because a pencil can be obtained for around a quarter, or in many cases free.
If you ask for a pencil someone will simply give you one. It is of such availability and price that even one as low as one dollar could be considered expensive for what it is. Water is no different. Because it is plentiful and easy to obtain, and simply requesting it will usually have someone oblige you, paying anything, from a dollar to several makes it expensive. But that is rudamentery.

What is less known is the actual legality of ground water which is what I was refering to.
If you understood the true laws (written by old rich white men, like I said) on things like Rule of Capture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_capture) you would understand that even if you were to discover a stream on your land, the law IS on the side of Nestle if they steal and use all of your water before you can drink it. Thus, a large company with drainage equipment can bottom you out well within the law and you are litterally left high and dry. Also, if the state (thats more rich white men, in case you didn't know) wants to it has first pass to reappropriate your water. Just like they can commendere your land to put up a freeway they can steal your water if they choose and relocate you or provide you a fraction of its value and call it square. You have no choice in the sell.

Its also illegal to capture rain in many states in America, but I don't even feel like going into that.

TL;DR? watch the vid

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

What type of water?

 

[Yapdatfool]

Don't even matter at this point, I'll let Mos Def tell it:

 

[OfTheCross]

Should water be free, and accessible to all regardless of ability to pay?

70% of Earth is made of water, but only 2.5% of it is fresh water, and most of that water is frozen in ice or deep in the ground.

It takes substantial capital investments and operations expenses to provide clean drinking water to every home and business, and someone must pay the bill.
The activists' solution is to pay for it with taxes, rather than water utility rates. However, this leads to overuse(see California), as water users don't see a connection between their usage and costs. This IMO is an environmentally poor approach.

Activists also mean that allocation of water on a large scale (i.E., between utilities or industries, not between individual residents who normally just buy water from a utility) should be determined by the public, i.E., politicians, without the functioning of market economic forces. If one smaller city owns water rights, the activists would say that citizens of a larger city should be able to come and take those water rights based on political power, without compensating the smaller city.

According to the activists, "privatized" or "commoditized" in this case means that water may be allocated by property rules and transferred or exchanged for money. Personally, I believe a property rights and market system works better than a political one, since it allows the two cities to agree on the terms of a transfer, whereas under the political system, whoever has more votes will be able to impose their will on others. While there is a place for such actions in a democracy, we also need to protect the rights of the minority, and property rights are one of the best ways to do that... IMHO

Why can't we just regulate the usuage?

Phone companies throttle your speed when you get to a certain limit. We can make water companies do the same.

 

[Strapped]

sea water is

 

[Brown_Pride]

Should water be free, and accessible to all regardless of ability to pay?

70% of Earth is made of water, but only 2.5% of it is fresh water, and most of that water is frozen in ice or deep in the ground.

It takes substantial capital investments and operations expenses to provide clean drinking water to every home and business, and someone must pay the bill.
The activists' solution is to pay for it with taxes, rather than water utility rates. However, this leads to overuse(see California), as water users don't see a connection between their usage and costs. This IMO is an environmentally poor approach.

Activists also mean that allocation of water on a large scale (i.E., between utilities or industries, not between individual residents who normally just buy water from a utility) should be determined by the public, i.E., politicians, without the functioning of market economic forces. If one smaller city owns water rights, the activists would say that citizens of a larger city should be able to come and take those water rights based on political power, without compensating the smaller city.

According to the activists, "privatized" or "commoditized" in this case means that water may be allocated by property rules and transferred or exchanged for money. Personally, I believe a property rights and market system works better than a political one, since it allows the two cities to agree on the terms of a transfer, whereas under the political system, whoever has more votes will be able to impose their will on others. While there is a place for such actions in a democracy, we also need to protect the rights of the minority, and property rights are one of the best ways to do that... IMHO

so you taking a community college course and want some help with your homework is what I've gathered.
I say No.

People should pay for their usage, but not to a privatized company and not driven by profit.

 

[a man of the people]

Yes, water should be free.
Now getting clean and safe water of course cost money, and there is generally two way to pay for it -
Through taxes or by having a water bill.

I think taxes is better since paying for water (like all consumption) is regressive, that is to say, poor people and rich generally drink the same amount of water.
Some consideration could be done in cases where people consume shytload of water, like having pools or giant lawns, but that correlates pretty damn well with being rich.

you don't have to buy that bottle of water though. if you're so opposed to it, buying it is the sin. i don't buy bottled water and i survive just fine. i have a zerowater filter and i get nice tasting water.

The problem is that the companies that sell bottled water run a misinformation campaign getting people scared of drinking tap water and making bullshyt claims about how great bottled water is (which in many cases comes originally from the tap).