NationStates Jolt Archive

Water is the most immediate of our needs. We can do without food for sometime, we can live without sex (though few would want to:)) but we just can't do without water! The recommended daily amount of water per person is 50 litres, but you can get by on 30. That's 5 litres for drinking and cooking, and 25 for maintaining hygiene. The average person in the US uses 500 litres a day.

An incredible amount of water is used for agriculture. A wasteful amount is used just to keep lawns green. Already, water is becoming a valuable commodity. Uruguay recently voted in a public referendum against allowing the privatisation of water. This essentially means that they have decided water should be a right, not a privilege.

What are your thoughts on this issue?

Well, if you don't have water, you die. I wouldn't support privitization because water is necessary for life, even moreso than food (albeit just barely), and only poor nations would suffer.

However, I wouldn't mind selling OPEC barrels of water at $50 or $60 and gallons at $2.25 just to see how they like it. The Great Lakes, Mississippi, and other rivers would make the US and Canada set. We could form an OWEC or something. Ahh, but I digress....

Well, if you don't have water, you die. I wouldn't support privitization because water is necessary for life, even moreso than food (albeit just barely), and only poor nations would suffer.

However, I wouldn't mind selling OPEC barrels of water at $50 or $60 and gallons at $2.25 just to see how they like it. The Great Lakes, Mississippi, and other rivers would make the US and Canada set. We could form an OWEC or something. Ahh, but I digress....
perhaps a WPEC? :) (Water Producing Export Country.)

perhaps a WPEC? :) (Water Producing Export Country.)

Even better. :)

I too think it should be a human right. That is, guaranteed, and as much as possible, provided in a clean state. Then again, how would we prevent water from being used up so wastefully by those who have abundant supplies? Should it be guaranteed for everyone, or just for those lucky enough to live in countries with a safe supply?

My answer of course would be everyone...but I realise there are logisitcal problems...still...

And no offense...but you wouldn't catch me drinking Great Lake water:).

Yes water is a human right. If you think that it is not, then you might as well say that the right to life is not a human right.

Yes water is a human right. If you think that it is not, then you might as well say that the right to life is not a human right.
No, water SHOULD be a human right. It isn't currently protected as such by any laws (outside of Uruguay's anti-privitization law which still doesn't mean it will be provided as a right...). How can we MAKE it a right, and who do you think would oppose this?

Personally I think clean water and food should both be human rights. It's the 21st century. You'd think we'd have that starvation thing solved by now.

An incredible amount of water is used for agriculture. A wasteful amount is used just to keep lawns green. Already, water is becoming a valuable commodity. Uruguay recently voted in a public referendum against allowing the privatisation of water. This essentially means that they have decided water should be a right, not a privilege.
Doesn't it essentially mean that they have decided to let the government manage the handling of the water, and the price of water? Not allowing the privatization of water just means that you are letting the government set the price. It becomes a right when the government doesn't charge you for it.

What are your thoughts on this issue?

Not really. The supply of water is diminishing to a certain extent and there are plenty of people who actually predict that we will be fighting wars over the control of fresh water. When things are in limited supply its kind of hard to argue that it is a right that all people should have it. That goes for food, shelter and medical care as well. Rights are abstract things, such as the freedom of the press, not literal things like guaranteed access to water. We have the right to try and get water, but not a right to be guaranteed water.

No, water SHOULD be a human right. It isn't currently protected as such by any laws (outside of Uruguay's anti-privitization law which still doesn't mean it will be provided as a right...). How can we MAKE it a right, and who do you think would oppose this?

Well, should demand outpace supply, I can pretty much guarantee there will be a crop of private water ventures that will try to pump/extract water and sell it, and from there it will evolve in to a commodity like oil or anything else.
It's sad, but likely true.

My biology teacher told me that they're soon (a decade or two perhaps?) going to ban the normal water-toilets in the EU to preserve water. This means that we'll get those dry-toilets where you'll have to throw something in to bear the smell.
This sounds rather stupid to me since they say that the greenhouse-effect is going to bring MORE rains up here but, what the hell, we can always sell water to drier countries. :D

Here is some possible opposition I can see to making water a human right:

Water could not be privatized, therefore it could not be profitable.

Countries would have to take steps to provide clean water in the necessary abundance to their citizens. This might take water away from profitable agriculture, and would no doubt be expensive to do.

Those countries that overuse water supplies would not want to cut down just so everyone could have enough. They would see this as 'unfair'.

etc.

No, water SHOULD be a human right. It isn't currently protected as such by any laws (outside of Uruguay's anti-privitization law which still doesn't mean it will be provided as a right...). How can we MAKE it a right, and who do you think would oppose this?
I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I think perhaps the best way would be to establish a fund that rich countries pay into which could be used by poor countries to build desalination plants and water purification facilities. Also the water service should not be privatized. Non profit government owned companies could deliver the water at a lower cost.

Who would oppose it? Well, private water companies, the WTO (which I beleive has pressed many poor governments to privatize their water companies), and perhaps some wealthy nations who don't want to put up the cash.

This sounds rather stupid to me since they say that the greenhouse-effect is going to bring MORE rains up here but, what the hell, we can always sell water to drier countries. :D

Well, you can join our WPEC then.

Doesn't it essentially mean that they have decided to let the government manage the handling of the water, and the price of water? Not allowing the privatization of water just means that you are letting the government set the price. It becomes a right when the government doesn't charge you for it.True. It's a step though. It means private (and likely foreign) businesses can not monopolise the water supply. The government is going to have to keep supplying it to the Uruguayan people. A private interest would not have to. I agree though, that the necessary minimum should be provided freely.



Not really. The supply of water is diminishing to a certain extent and there are plenty of people who actually predict that we will be fighting wars over the control of fresh water. When things are in limited supply its kind of hard to argue that it is a right that all people should have it. That goes for food, shelter and medical care as well. Rights are abstract things, such as the freedom of the press, not literal things like guaranteed access to water. We have the right to try and get water, but not a right to be guaranteed water.
The need for water is not abstract. It is absolute. You can not survive without it. Full stop. Why is the supply diminishing? Because of overuse and gluttony. Water should not be a commodity. WANTS should be commodities, not basic needs.

water is not a Human Right. It's a Necessity. big difference.

Rights can be taken away, Necessities can't without dire consiquences.

BTW... OPEC sells crude oil... it still needs to be refined... so will WPEC sell Barrels of Ocean water? if the answer is no, then the Desalinization process has to be factored into the cost per barrell ;)

Given the miserable failure of laws to guarantee intanigble rights: like free speech, free association, freedom of religion throughout the world; I can only see guaranteeing access to a tangible substatance -like water- being even more laughable.

Here is some possible opposition I can see to making water a human right:
Water could not be privatized, therefore it could not be profitable.

Water could easily be privatized, should demand outpace supply. Then, corporations from water rich countries could begin selling their water, and the cycle would go from there. Since it is absolutely vital to living (unlike oil, which only sustains our lifestyle, not our species), it would be the ultimate commodity, since if you don't have it, you die.

Well, should demand outpace supply, I can pretty much guarantee there will be a crop of private water ventures that will try to pump/extract water and sell it, and from there it will evolve in to a commodity like oil or anything else.
It's sad, but likely true.
Absolutely this will happen (and is). So how do we stop it? Do you think we should stop it?

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I think perhaps the best way would be to establish a fund that rich countries pay into which could be used by poor countries to build desalination plants and water purification facilities. Also the water service should not be privatized. Non profit government owned companies could deliver the water at a lower cost.

Did you just say that the government could provide something at a lower cost? Water? Lower cost? Yeah right. Invariably as time goes on the layers of bureaucracy and over all stagnation that exists in government would either a) lead to increases in taxes to subsidies the company or b) shortages.

Given the miserable failure of laws to guarantee intanigble rights: like free speech, free association, freedom of religion throughout the world; I can only see guaranteeing access to a tangible substatance -like water- being even more laughable.Why is the opening scene for 'Ice Pirates' playing in my Head? :headbang:

BTW... OPEC sells crude oil... it still needs to be refined... so will WPEC sell Barrels of Ocean water? ;)

I don't know, that might lower our prices too much. :)

We need more global warming so we can melt the ice caps, then there will be plenty of water.

How does water get wasted anyway?
If I drink it, it comes back out.
If I water my lawn it goes back into the atmosphere and ground.
If I mix it with concrete, it evaporates.

Should those in countries with an abundance of water be required to supply those in arid places with water?
How about not living in a desert.

Water could easily be privatized, should demand outpace supply. Then, corporations from water rich countries could begin selling their water, and the cycle would go from there. Since it is absolutely vital to living (unlike oil, which only sustains our lifestyle, not our species), it would be the ultimate commodity, since if you don't have it, you die.

It's actually fairly easy to desalinate these days, it's just not done for two reasons:

1) the majority of countries that can afford to do it don't need to.

2) It is still not cost-effective.

However, increasing shortages will make it cost effective, and people will start doing it. We are not going to run out of water however.

as a person who lives in the desert where the water has to be shared pretty carefully....

water is a basic human right, but on a LOCAL level.

canada has an abundance of clean fresh water. they do NOT owe this water to the people of the sahara desert, for example. they owe it to the people who live in the specific watersheds of the various sources of that water.

it should be (must be) illegal to ruin the local water supply with some nasty industrial process no matter how lucrative that business might be. to say "we can truck in water from the great lakes to replace it" is not a good solution.

there are times when the local water supply, no matter how carefully managed, isnt enough to support all local water uses. there has to be a priority list that starts with drinking water and ends with golf courses and lawns. communities end up being faced with outlawing development because more people would mean a loss of quality of life (no more grass in parks for example)

on an international level, as i started with before, we do not OWE water to any other country (as long as it doesnt share the watershed) if india or africa cant manage its water, that is for them to deal with. we dont have to spend billions to fix what they mess up (by bringing in water from our supply to give them, i mean, we SHOULD help them fix their own local water problems if our technology and advice can do so )

water is not a Human Right. It's a Necessity. big difference.

Rights can be taken away, Necessities can't without dire consiquences.

BTW... OPEC sells crude oil... it still needs to be refined... so will WPEC sell Barrels of Ocean water? if the answer is no, then the Desalinization process has to be factored into the cost per barrell ;)
Yes, but once things become enshrined as human rights in law, it is rather more difficult to violate those rights to necessities. Saying it is a necessity does not mean it will be provided. Making it a human right puts the onus on governments to make sure that need is met.

Life is a necessity. It is also a human right.

Absolutely this will happen (and is). So how do we stop it? Do you think we should stop it?

I don't know. If the UN does it, countries just won't listen. If we make a treaty, they'll just refuse to sign it.

Yes we should stop it, because this isn't cars or plastics that are hurt unlike oil. These are lives, and to subject peoples' very survival to profits would be the greatest injustice of all.

Given the miserable failure of laws to guarantee intanigble rights: like free speech, free association, freedom of religion throughout the world; I can only see guaranteeing access to a tangible substatance -like water- being even more laughable.
Miserable failure hmmmm? Cynical today? Incredible progress has been made...and steps backwards have eroded some freedoms, but the push is STILL for guaranteeing human rights. Law has had a big role in that. The fact that you can be here, online, speaking freely about whatever you wish is proof enough that your intangible rights have been guaranteed to a certain extent. To what extent is going to be in flux, no doubt, and as I said, steps backwards may be taken. It is up to you, and to ALL people to ensure that those intangibles remain guaranteed. How would you do this without laws?

It's actually fairly easy to desalinate these days, it's just not done for two reasons:

1) the majority of countries that can afford to do it don't need to.

2) It is still not cost-effective.

However, increasing shortages will make it cost effective, and people will start doing it. We are not going to run out of water however.

Actually, that might be a start. If we can encourage these facilities as part of a global initative, I think all of our water problems are solved. It would just be another facet of humanitarian aid. Still, research would have to be done to make them cost effective.

Yes, but once things become enshrined as human rights in law, it is rather more difficult to violate those rights to necessities. Saying it is a necessity does not mean it will be provided. Making it a human right puts the onus on governments to make sure that need is met.

Right...

Life is a necessity. It is also a human right.

Its not a human right. You can't provide for yourself you don't have a right to life.

Did you just say that the government could provide something at a lower cost? Water? Lower cost? Yeah right. Invariably as time goes on the layers of bureaucracy and over all stagnation that exists in government would either a) lead to increases in taxes to subsidies the company or b) shortages.
So do something to stop that stagnation. The biggest problem with bureaucracy is that people just leave it up to the bureaucrats and never involve themselves in policy setting. Get active, get loud, and threaten to vote every bastard out who doesn't bloody well drop those damn water prices:).

It worked in Ayacucho, Bolivia.

It worked in my home town.

Did you just say that the government could provide something at a lower cost? Water? Lower cost? Yeah right. Invariably as time goes on the layers of bureaucracy and over all stagnation that exists in government would either a) lead to increases in taxes to subsidies the company or b) shortages.
The government doesn't need to make a profit. That keeps the price down.

We need more global warming so we can melt the ice caps, then there will be plenty of water.

How does water get wasted anyway?
If I drink it, it comes back out.
If I water my lawn it goes back into the atmosphere and ground.
If I mix it with concrete, it evaporates.

Should those in countries with an abundance of water be required to supply those in arid places with water?
How about not living in a desert.
Great. Open up your immigration policies then. I'm sure they will then choose not to live in a desert.

Where is water being wasted? 70% of it goes into agriculture. 22% is used in industry. That leaves 8% for domestic use. Yeah, you drink it, and it comes back out, but not in a drinkeable form. Same goes for irrigation, or factory use. 97% of fresh water is found in underground aquifiers, which will renew themselves if they are given time to do so. Unfortunately, those aquifiers are being polluted, or used up at a rate faster than renewal.

as a person who lives in the desert where the water has to be shared pretty carefully....

water is a basic human right, but on a LOCAL level.

canada has an abundance of clean fresh water. they do NOT owe this water to the people of the sahara desert, for example. they owe it to the people who live in the specific watersheds of the various sources of that water.

it should be (must be) illegal to ruin the local water supply with some nasty industrial process no matter how lucrative that business might be. to say "we can truck in water from the great lakes to replace it" is not a good solution.

there are times when the local water supply, no matter how carefully managed, isnt enough to support all local water uses. there has to be a priority list that starts with drinking water and ends with golf courses and lawns. communities end up being faced with outlawing development because more people would mean a loss of quality of life (no more grass in parks for example)

on an international level, as i started with before, we do not OWE water to any other country (as long as it doesnt share the watershed) if india or africa cant manage its water, that is for them to deal with. we dont have to spend billions to fix what they mess up (by bringing in water from our supply to give them, i mean, we SHOULD help them fix their own local water problems if our technology and advice can do so )
Good ideas all. However, we should not then be allowing our businesses to pollute or deplete the water supplies in other countries. That means that water would have to be an internationally recognised right, protected by all governments. As it currently stands, many international trade agreements do not respect the right of governments to protect their domestic water supplies.

The government doesn't need to make a profit. That keeps the price down.

Poppy cock. The Government needs to make a profit as much as the private sector. The difference is the Government doesn't try and is happy to let costs mount and just pull more from the general fund. While a private company has to watch costs and keep them down.

So do something to stop that stagnation. The biggest problem with bureaucracy is that people just leave it up to the bureaucrats and never involve themselves in policy setting. Get active, get loud, and threaten to vote every bastard out who doesn't bloody well drop those damn water prices:).

It worked in Ayacucho, Bolivia.

It worked in my home town.

You can't vote in, or out, middle managers working for CalTrans or EDD or any number of other organizations.

Right...



Its not a human right. You can't provide for yourself you don't have a right to life.
Don't be obtuse. The right to life is guaranteed not only by the UN Declaration of Human Rights, but also by domestic laws in most every country. Murder is a crime because it violates that right. That of course does not mean the right to life will NOT be violated. Of course it will, as are all rights, and all laws. It is however, still a fundamental human right.

Poppy cock. The Government needs to make a profit as much as the private sector. The difference is the Government doesn't try and is happy to let costs mount and just pull more from the general fund. While a private company has to watch costs and keep them down.
So your solution is to privatise water because the market forces would of course keep the price more reasonable that the government.

Like it has done with all things.

Oh wait, that's utterly false.

Poppy cock. The Government needs to make a profit as much as the private sector. The difference is the Government doesn't try and is happy to let costs mount and just pull more from the general fund. While a private company has to watch costs and keep them down.
The government only needs to break even. The ammount spent should match the ammount taken in through taxes.

Water is the most immediate of our needs. We can do without food for sometime, we can live without sex (though few would want to:)) but we just can't do without water! The recommended daily amount of water per person is 50 litres, but you can get by on 30. That's 5 litres for drinking and cooking, and 25 for maintaining hygiene. The average person in the US uses 500 litres a day.

An incredible amount of water is used for agriculture. A wasteful amount is used just to keep lawns green. Already, water is becoming a valuable commodity. Uruguay recently voted in a public referendum against allowing the privatisation of water. This essentially means that they have decided water should be a right, not a privilege.

What are your thoughts on this issue?
Sine the right to live is the most basic of rights ( please don't interpret this as "right to life" ), and since water is basic to survival, I would have to say yes.

You can't vote in, or out, middle managers working for CalTrans or EDD or any number of other organizations.
No, but you can vote in the ministers in these ministries who can then fire people for inefficiency. Our entire water board was shitcanned for inflating prices through inefficiency. The new employees are being scrutinised much closer. A public corporation is still controlled by the government. It gives more opportunity for public participation than a completely undemocratic private corporation.

Poppy cock. The Government needs to make a profit as much as the private sector. The difference is the Government doesn't try and is happy to let costs mount and just pull more from the general fund. While a private company has to watch costs and keep them down.
New Jersey Transit runs rail and bus lines. It's a state run company. On a NJ transit light train I can go from Trenton, NJ to Camden NJ for $1.10. If I had to take a taxi, or even drive myself it would cost me a whole lot more. The cab would run about $50. The gas I'd waste in my car would cost about $6. The government monopoly is a pretty good deal.

No, but you can vote in the ministers in these ministries who can then fire people for inefficiency. Our entire water board was shitcanned for inflating prices through inefficiency. The new employees are being scrutinised much closer. A public corporation is still controlled by the government. It gives more opportunity for public participation than a completely undemocratic private corporation.

A Corporation has a rather large amount of public participation if it is public, aka, traded on the stock exchange. You'll also find that firing government employees in America is on the verge of impossible unless part of state-wide/nation-wide budget cuts. Which basically means you can not fire a government employee for inefficiency in America.

The government only needs to break even. The ammount spent should match the ammount taken in through taxes.

There is no incentive for the Government to control costs because of exactly that. They "only need to break even" which means, hey, we'll spend as much as we like, increase taxes to match the spending and up the price a bit to make up for our shoddy cost-control.

New Jersey Transit runs rail and bus lines. It's a state run company. On a NJ transit light train I can go from Trenton, NJ to Camden NJ for $1.10. If I had to take a taxi, or even drive myself it would cost me a whole lot more. The cab would run about $50. The gas I'd waste in my car would cost about $6. The government monopoly is a pretty good deal.
Comparing a mass-transit rail/bus system to a cab (individual transport), car (individual transport) is the equivalent of comparing a private 20ft boat to a Cruise Ship. The economics of scale create the benefit. Not the government.

A Corporation has a rather large amount of public participation if it is public, aka, traded on the stock exchange. You'll also find that firing government employees in America is on the verge of impossible unless part of state-wide/nation-wide budget cuts. Which basically means you can not fire a government employee for inefficiency in America.
No offense, but that is a problem with your government then. I am a government employee in Canada. If the new Minister decides that Spanish teachers are not necessary, gone am I. And don't give me that stock-exchange crap, it drives me nuts. I pay my taxes, and I vote, and I make damn sure my voice is heard locally, provincially and federally. You simply do not have that voice within a corporation unless you have MAJOR stock shares. Again, the point of a corporation is profit. It can not simply break even and hope to survive. The government does not have to make profit.

There is no incentive for the Government to control costs because of exactly that. They "only need to break even" which means, hey, we'll spend as much as we like, increase taxes to match the spending and up the price a bit to make up for our shoddy cost-control.
Right, and that explains why government run energy companies charged substantially less than private companies. Oh wait, no it doesn't...quite the opposite actually.

Comparing a mass-transit rail/bus system to a cab (individual transport), car (individual transport) is the equivalent of comparing a private 20ft boat to a Cruise Ship. The economics of scale create the benefit. Not the government.
Economics of scale are inherent in government. Not so in numerous private companies. There's a redundancy in having several different companies using different water purification facilities, different distribution methods, different accountants, work crews, etc.

Comparing a mass-transit rail/bus system to a cab (individual transport), car (individual transport) is the equivalent of comparing a private 20ft boat to a Cruise Ship. The economics of scale create the benefit. Not the government.
It's still an apt comparison. It is like comparing government provided water through existing water mains compared to private bottled water. One is cheaper, the other is not. One is for profit, the other is not. One is a better choice than the other. The government can take advantage of existing infrastructure, or build new infrastructure without having to worry about making a profit. A private corporation can not. The benefit to the government is in terms of the whole society. The benefit to the private company is only to itself.

No offense, but that is a problem with your government then.

Yes it is.

I am a government employee in Canada. If the new Minister decides that Spanish teachers are not necessary, gone am I. And don't give me that stock-exchange crap, it drives me nuts. I pay my taxes, and I vote, and I make damn sure my voice is heard locally, provincially and federally. You simply do not have that voice within a corporation unless you have MAJOR stock shares. Again, the point of a corporation is profit. It can not simply break even and hope to survive. The government does not have to make profit.

You have more of a voice inside a corporation because there are less people. In the Public arena the volume of your voice is only as strong as the number of people behind your postion in the rest of society. No offense, but your particular voice is probably heard by no one at the Federal level, probably no one at the provincial level and maybe a few people at the local level. And even if your voice is heard at those levels most people's voices aren't.

Yes, I believe water should certainly be a human right as should food, housing, clothing, healthcare, education, transport, a job and every other requirement for a decent standard of living.

Yes it is.



You have more of a voice inside a corporation because there are less people. In the Public arena the volume of your voice is only as strong as the number of people behind your postion in the rest of society. No offense, but your particular voice is probably heard by no one at the Federal level, probably no one at the provincial level and maybe a few people at the local level. And even if your voice is heard at those levels most people's voices aren't.
Uh-huh. How many corporations do you have a voice in? I'll choose a flawed, yet democratic entity over a completely private for profit only one. At least I have some chance at affecting things (as we have done locally with our own water supply). I am not willing to put out more money to 'buy a voice' in a company I don't believe in.

It's still an apt comparison.

No it is not. The benefit is derived from the size, not who is running it.

It is like comparing government provided water through existing water mains compared to private bottled water. One is cheaper, the other is not. One is for profit, the other is not. One is a better choice than the other. The government can take advantage of existing infrastructure, or build new infrastructure without having to worry about making a profit. A private corporation can not. The benefit to the government is in terms of the whole society. The benefit to the private company is only to itself.

Corporations, if allowed to, could take advantage of existing infrastructure and take advantage of the same economics of scale that allow the Government to currently charge less than bottled water. Meanwhile when you buy private company provided water in large quantities its price is barely more than the price you pay for water out of the tap as it is.

No, water SHOULD be a human right. It isn't currently protected as such by any laws (outside of Uruguay's anti-privitization law which still doesn't mean it will be provided as a right...). How can we MAKE it a right, and who do you think would oppose this?

Isn't water a human right though ? no one is denied the right to drink water... if avalible to them they may access it... Everyone has the right to life and may not be denied it (even if abortion is allowed)... but are we obligated to give life ?

If water is a human right does that mean it falls on those countries with stable safe water supplies to redistribute it to the rest of the world ? Shouldn't food then be a human right.. while you can last much longer without food then water.. at the end of the day without nutrician you die. So should food be restributed as well... and house ? quality of life significantly deteriorates without stable housing form the elements (not talking luxury but basic housing) shouldn't housing then be provided to all people....

I think we presume too much to make all these so called rights for people.. let us face facts, in nature you are garanteed nothing other then life. Survival is up to the individual to acheive for as long as they can. Why is it humans are born with these so called inherent rights but the rest of nature exists without them ?

shouldn't all life forms have the inherent right to access to water ? is this even fesiable ?

Uh-huh. How many corporations do you have a voice in?

4. I let my votes go to the proxy vote because personally I don't know what is best for the company. Likewise I wouldn't trust you with whats best for my water supply either.

I'll choose a flawed, yet democratic entity over a completely private for profit only one. At least I have some chance at affecting things (as we have done locally with our own water supply). I am not willing to put out more money to 'buy a voice' in a company I don't believe in.

:rolleyes: You pay your taxes. You essentialy bought your vote in your current government.

4. I let my votes go to the proxy vote because personally I don't know what is best for the company. Likewise I wouldn't trust you with whats best for my water supply either.



:rolleyes: You pay your taxes. You essentialy bought your vote in your current government.

very true on both counts

No it is not. The benefit is derived from the size, not who is running it.



Corporations, if allowed to, could take advantage of existing infrastructure and take advantage of the same economics of scale that allow the Government to currently charge less than bottled water. Meanwhile when you buy private company provided water in large quantities its price is barely more than the price you pay for water out of the tap as it is.
This is the same argument that was given to us when liquor stores, energy boards, water and telephone services were privatized. It would be more effective, and cheaper than government provided services. Not once has that panned out. Prices are volatile, and have increased far beyond inflationary demands. Why? Because of the profit motive. Period.

In any case, what is your position on water as a human right? Yea or nay?

4. I let my votes go to the proxy vote because personally I don't know what is best for the company. Likewise I wouldn't trust you with whats best for my water supply either.
I could care less about your water supply, outside of caring that you HAVE a supply. I certainly know more about the needs of my own community in terms of water, and I want to be able to affect the decision making at a local level, not go begging someone in France to lower my bills.



:rolleyes: You pay your taxes. You essentialy bought your vote in your current government.
I so knew you were going to say that :p . You don't have more votes if you pay more taxes. Taxes are a sort of social contract...you don't expect to make a profit off of what you put in, but you do expect certain services will be funded with the help of your contribution. Not so with stocks.

This is the same argument that was given to us when liquor stores, energy boards, water and telephone services were privatized. It would be more effective, and cheaper than government provided services. Not once has that panned out. Prices are volatile, and have increased far beyond inflationary demands. Why? Because of the profit motive. Period.

Wrong. The causes always vary and generally come down to current market conditions. It also occurs when improper measures are taken to ensure competition. Meanwhile when, liquor stores? Canada only has state run liquor stores? J'fing christ. That’s messed up. Anyway, telephone services, energy etc... has worked out many times when privatizing it and other times prices have gone up, generally to their truer market price, it is a result of poor planning by the government when privatizing the operation. IE, you privatize during a period of high demand and low supply prices will go up.

In any case, what is your position on water as a human right? Yea or nay?

Go back in the thread, I've already answered that question.

I could care less about your water supply, outside of caring that you HAVE a supply. I certainly know more about the needs of my own community in terms of water, and I want to be able to affect the decision making at a local level, not go begging someone in France to lower my bills.

The reference was made under the assumption we lived in the same community. I trust a profit and competetion driven corporation to manage the water supply better than my neighbor.

I so knew you were going to say that :p . You don't have more votes if you pay more taxes. Taxes are a sort of social contract...you don't expect to make a profit off of what you put in, but you do expect certain services will be funded with the help of your contribution. Not so with stocks.

Taxes are a social contract, and people do fundamentally expect profit. They expect to get stuff for their taxes. They expect a product for their investment. And they expect that the product they get will be worth more than the taxes they paid out, generally.

Wrong. The causes always vary and generally come down to current market conditions. It also occurs when improper measures are taken to ensure competition. Meanwhile when, liquor stores? Canada only has state run liquor stores? J'fing christ. That’s messed up. Anyway, telephone services, energy etc... has worked out many times when privatizing it and other times prices have gone up, generally to their truer market price, it is a result of poor planning by the government when privatizing the operation. IE, you privatize during a period of high demand and low supply prices will go up.

No, our liquor stores are now private, which is why I listed them will all the other privatised industries.

Has worked out many times? Where exactly? Now it's the government's fault that prices suddenly rise once the industry is privatized? Funny...you didn't give them credit when they kept the prices down. Fair market price? I could care less. I want it to be affordable, and available to all. That is not going to happen through privitization.

Don't be obtuse. The right to life is guaranteed not only by the UN Declaration of Human Rights,

So F'ing what?

but also by domestic laws in most every country. Murder is a crime because it violates that right.

Murder is a crime because it violates someone's right to live. Not their right to life.

That of course does not mean the right to life will NOT be violated. Of course it will, as are all rights, and all laws. It is however, still a fundamental human right.

bollox.

The reference was made under the assumption we lived in the same community. I trust a profit and competetion driven corporation to manage the water supply better than my neighbor.
I might not trust only one of my neighbours to decide what we do with our water supply, but I would certainly respect the wishes of my community, the REAL stakeholders in this issue, over some corporate interest who doesn't have to live here and could care less what happens with our water as long as it makes a profit. That's democracy. Consensus building, and dialogue. Why would you want to turn over everything to strangers whose only interest is profit?


Taxes are a social contract, and people do fundamentally expect profit. They expect to get stuff for their taxes. They expect a product for their investment. And they expect that the product they get will be worth more than the taxes they paid out, generally.Granted, but you don't get MORE just because you pay more taxes, and you don't get nothing if you are under the poverty line and pay no taxes. Nor do you lose your voice (vote) if you don't pay taxes.

Has worked out many times? Where exactly? Now it's the government's fault that prices suddenly rise once the industry is privatized?

If the government decides to privatize an industry when there is high demand and low supply, yes its their fault.

Funny...you didn't give them credit when they kept the prices down.

They don't. All the government does is limit the price you pay when receive the product itself. It doesn't lower the cost. Indeed it increases the cost. Anything you buy from the government is tax subsidized. You may only pay 50 cents for something at time of purchase but you already paid $15 in taxes. When it goes private the price might be $15.50 or it might be $13 or it might be $16. Ultimately proper privatization will lead to lower prices.

Fair market price? I could care less. I want it to be affordable, and available to all. That is not going to happen through privitization.

Won't happen through any means. The only things that are affordable and available to all are things that have a supply that outstrips demand.

Murder is a crime because it violates someone's right to live. Not their right to life.


Semantics. And pointless.

If the government decides to privatize an industry when there is high demand and low supply, yes its their fault.



They don't. All the government does is limit the price you pay when receive the product itself. It doesn't lower the cost. Indeed it increases the cost. Anything you buy from the government is tax subsidized. You may only pay 50 cents for something at time of purchase but you already paid $15 in taxes. When it goes private the price might be $15.50 or it might be $13 or it might be $16. Ultimately proper privatization will lead to lower prices.No, it will lead to the individual paying higher prices. I for one, would rather my tax dollars went to guaranteeing an affordable price for water than watching seniors and others on fixed incomes struggle to pay for it.

Yes. I believe that no matter what the cost to the government is, basic water, food and shelter should be free.

I might not trust only one of my neighbours to decide what we do with our water supply, but I would certainly respect the wishes of my community, the REAL stakeholders in this issue, than some corporate interest who doesn't have to live here and could care less what happens with our water as long as it makes a profit. That's democracy. Consensus building, and dialogue. Why would you want to turn over everything to strangers whose only interest is profit?

There is a reason why Lumber companies are among the largest planters of trees in the world. Corporations care a great deal about what happens to their source of income. They care far more than some politician who doesn't have to live there, is virtually guaranteed their livelihood and has no real stake in the issue. A corporation handling the water supply has a much greater stake in that water supply than the consumers of the water. Consumers can always go to a different source, the corporation dies if it mis-manages its means of making a profit.

Granted, but you don't get MORE just because you pay more taxes, and you don't get nothing if you are under the poverty line and pay no taxes. Nor do you lose your voice (vote) if you don't pay taxes.

Doesn't change much in reality. Your votes don't end up meaning too much and the actual power is held by the people who pay more taxes, and pay more campaign bills.

No, it will lead to the individual paying higher prices. I for one, would rather my tax dollars went to guaranteeing an affordable price for water than watching seniors and others on fixed incomes struggle to pay for it.

:rolleyes: It leads to people actually paying the real price upfront. Period. Manage your own use of water and provide your own money and savings to provide for yourself in your retirement.

Semantics. And pointless.

Not semantics and not pointless. You have a right to try and provide for yourself via fair means. You do not have the right to be provided for by others. You can be lying on your death bed without a penny in the world unable to afford a 10 cent pill that would save your life and you still have no right to it, nor do you have the right to live at the expense of someone else's pocket change.

There is a reason why Lumber companies are among the largest planters of trees in the world.
Speaking as someone living in a heavily deforested area, I can answer that...and it isn't out of any altruistic need to 'help out' or even to 'maintain their income'. They only started replanting when the government made them. They replant because people got pissed off at seeing bare hills where old growth once stood. The corporations couldn't care less, because they would just move onto the next stand of trees. Don't fool yourself into thinking that they see that far ahead to 'manage' their resources. Not unless they have to. Yes, governments are also filled with this sort of disgusting gluttony, but we at least have some control over politicians. The problem is that not enough people exercise that control. We have ZERO control over a corporation outside of the laws we have our governments pass to regulate them. Outside of the 'select few' that have shares in that corporation.

As for having more power based on how much you contribute to campaigns...assuredly rich lobby groups pack a lot of punch. But it's pretty amazing what a bunch of low-income folks can get done in their own community, and frankly, our water supply here at home affects us a lot more than who gets appointed to the Senate.

:rolleyes: It leads to people actually paying the real price upfront. Period. Manage your own use of water and provide your own money and savings to provide for yourself in your retirement.
We're going to have to agree to disagree. You are pro free-market, I am not, and it's a fundamental difference I don't think either of us are going to budge on.

But I have to thank you...you've turned a fairly dull morning into a blood-pounding bash-fest:) (and I mean that in the best possible way!)

Not semantics and not pointless. You have a right to try and provide for yourself via fair means. You do not have the right to be provided for by others. You can be lying on your death bed without a penny in the world unable to afford a 10 cent pill that would save your life and you still have no right to it, nor do you have the right to live at the expense of someone else's pocket change.
Again, that's where you and I are going to differ in opinion :D

Speaking as someone living in a heavily deforested area, I can answer that...and it isn't out of any altruistic need to 'help out' or even to 'maintain their income'. They only started replanting when the government made them. They replant because people got pissed off at seeing bare hills where old growth once stood. The corporations couldn't care less, because they would just move onto the next stand of trees. Don't fool yourself into thinking that they see that far ahead to 'manage' their resources. Not unless they have to. Yes, governments are also filled with this sort of disgusting gluttony, but we at least have some control over politicians. The problem is that not enough people exercise that control. We have ZERO control over a corporation outside of the laws we have our governments pass to regulate them. Outside of the 'select few' that have shares in that corporation.

Bollox, corporations have been replanting their tree stands for decades. Some didn't, others did. And they've been doing so because they don't need old-growth trees and it is rather easy to simply tree farm.

As for having more power based on how much you contribute to campaigns...assuredly rich lobby groups pack a lot of punch. But it's pretty amazing what a bunch of low-income folks can get done in their own community, and frankly, our water supply here at home affects us a lot more than who gets appointed to the Senate.

Yes you water supply at home affects you more than it affects the Senate. Ultimately the Senate controls it. :shrug:.

Bollox, corporations have been replanting their tree stands for decades. Some didn't, others did. And they've been doing so because they don't need old-growth trees and it is rather easy to simply tree farm.
Dog's bollox? (sorry, bad movie quote)
Yes, they have been replanting here for decades. They started right after a law was passed that forced them to do so. The half a century BEFORE that law, not a single tree was planted. Hmmm...cause and effect?


Yes you water supply at home affects you more than it affects the Senate. Ultimately the Senate controls it. :shrug:.
Sorry...your Senate is a bit different than mine:). Our Senate is really just a rubber stamp for federal laws, but people go crazy trying to get 'their man' appointed to it. Our Senate has no control over our water whatsoever, as it is a municipal issue.

Again, that's where you and I are going to differ in opinion :D

Eh.

Eh.
Uh?

Come to the Dominion of Sinuhue...I'll make sure you have that life-saving 10 cent pill, even though I don't like your politics :D

Dog's bollox? (sorry, bad movie quote)
Yes, they have been replanting here for decades. They started right after a law was passed that forced them to do so. The half a century BEFORE that law, not a single tree was planted. Hmmm...cause and effect?

Different regions are different. In some of the vast and widepsread forests of Canada there isn't much of a reason or need to replant.

Different regions are different. In some of the vast and widepsread forests of Canada there isn't much of a reason or need to replant.
Why exactly? Because there are only small communities there? The degradation of the soil due to lack of root systems is not an issue because people aren't farming there? The loss of natural habitats is unimportant because only natives are hunting those areas? It is as much an issue in our 'vast and widespread forests' as it is anywhere else. When you log to excess, it creates problems. Now, companies are selectively logging. Why? Again, because laws were passed to force them to do so. It was not a private decision, it was a public one.

Ah...I love the winding route that these threads take...we started with water, and now it has become a private versus public debate:) With logging to boot!

Why exactly? Because there are only small communities there? The degradation of the soil due to lack of root systems is not an issue because people aren't farming there? The loss of natural habitats is unimportant because only natives are hunting those areas?

Pretty much.

It is as much an issue in our 'vast and widespread forests' as it is anywhere else. When you log to excess, it creates problems. Now, companies are selectively logging. Why? Again, because laws were passed to force them to do so. It was not a private decision, it was a public one.

Great, lets assume for a moment that it was entirely a public decesion. Proper regulation is sometimes needed. :Shrug: Doesn't matter much to me. The public can impose whatever laws/rights it desires to, doesn't make the laws correct nor the rights real.

Pretty much.
Wow. No really. That's scary. Especially considering I come from one of those communities in the 'vast forests' of Canada that you could apparently care less about. Thankfully my government has regulated logging there...because I doubt your private interests would have done it themselves.


Great, lets assume for a moment that it was entirely a public decesion. Proper regulation is sometimes needed. :Shrug: Doesn't matter much to me. The public can impose whatever laws/rights it desires to, doesn't make the laws correct nor the rights real.
No, it doesn't...but it DOES mean the people have the power, not private for-profit interests. As your comment above has highlighted, corporations will care when people, via their governments, MAKE them care. Not profit, not 'self-interest'. Laws. Regulations. People.

Wow. No really. That's scary. Especially considering I come from one of those communities in the 'vast forests' of Canada that you could apparently care less about. Thankfully my government has regulated logging there...because I doubt your private interests would have done it themselves.

Nope, I'd have voted to kick you out to drop the price of lumber by a few bucks.

No, it doesn't...but it DOES mean the people have the power, not private for-profit interests. As your comment above has highlighted, corporations will care when people, via their governments, MAKE them care. Not profit, not 'self-interest'. Laws. Regulations. People.

Profit and Self-interest cause it just as much as Laws, Regulations and People will cause it. Especially if its going to come down to something like water.

Nope, I'd have voted to kick you out to drop the price of lumber by a few bucks.
Well, hey, stealing the land from my ancestors in the first place sure did wonders for the land values :p ...why not repeat the process?



Profit and Self-interest cause it just as much as Laws, Regulations and People will cause it. Especially if its going to come down to something like water.
Again, I ask, when exactly? Because so far I haven't seen that happen. I haven't seen a corporation clean up its act unless threatened with penalties. They dumped radioactive tailings into the Big Bear Lake for decades until it became illegal. It wasn't profitable to clean them up. Now it's profitable, because if they DON'T, they get shut down. See the point? Self interest only works when there is incentive or regulation. Piping all the water from the North West Territories down to California, and damaging the environment as well as taking the water from the people who live there is more profitable than maintaining those ecosystems. It isn't the BEST decision however. Nor is it the most viable. Profit doesn't care. Governments have to. Which is why I would want our water supply controlled by democratic means, not by private ones.

Again, I ask, when exactly? Because so far I haven't seen that happen. I haven't seen a corporation clean up its act unless threatened with penalties. They dumped radioactive tailings into the Big Bear Lake for decades until it became illegal. It wasn't profitable to clean them up. Now it's profitable, because if they DON'T, they get shut down. See the point? Self interest only works when there is incentive or regulation. Piping all the water from the North West Territories down to California, and damaging the environment as well as taking the water from the people who live there is more profitable than maintaining those ecosystems. It isn't the BEST decision however. Nor is it the most viable. Profit doesn't care. Governments have to. Which is why I would want our water supply controlled by democratic means, not by private ones.

What makes a decision the 'best' one. IIRC California can't exactly support its population with the water supply available inside California. Sending water here creates a thriving argiculture industry, gives cash and resources to various states and overall works out nicely so far.

Again, I ask, when exactly? Because so far I haven't seen that happen. I haven't seen a corporation clean up its act unless threatened with penalties. They dumped radioactive tailings into the Big Bear Lake for decades until it became illegal. It wasn't profitable to clean them up. Now it's profitable, because if they DON'T, they get shut down. See the point? Self interest only works when there is incentive or regulation.

Damanging Big Bear Lake doesn't hurt the company doing the dumping, hence why they did it. Mismanaging the water supply does hurt the company that is doing it. It doesn't hurt the government much.

What makes a decision the 'best' one. IIRC California can't exactly support its population with the water supply available inside California. Sending water here creates a thriving argiculture industry, gives cash and resources to various states and overall works out nicely so far.
At the expense of our environment, and our water supply (hypothetically speaking of course). Of course people in California will think that is the 'best' decision, and we will not. Private water interests would go with the profit. The governent would (hopefully) stick to protecting the interests of its own citizens over yours.

Damanging Big Bear Lake doesn't hurt the company doing the dumping, hence why they did it. Mismanaging the water supply does hurt the company that is doing it. It doesn't hurt the government much.
Dumping in the lake now hurts the company, which is why they stopped. Of course, logging an area completely out will hurt the company...but only if they don't have somewhere else to go, which so far is not a problem in Canada. Not making a profit on water sales hurts the private company. Not making a profit on water sales does not hurt the government. Ultimately, we are comparing a restricted market (those who can afford water only) to a public, open market (everyone gets water). Clearly, I prefer the latter, and you the former.

At the expense of our environment, and our water supply (hypothetically speaking of course). Of course people in California will think that is the 'best' decision, and we will not. Private water interests would go with the profit. The governent would (hopefully) stick to protecting the interests of its own citizens over yours.

And eventually when the people of California start to starve from lack of water you'd probably discover some very strong arm tactics being imposed on Canada, assuming you guys are supplying the water. From what I remember most of our water comes either locally or from else where in the USA.

Dumping in the lake now hurts the company, which is why they stopped. Of course, logging an area completely out will hurt the company...but only if they don't have somewhere else to go, which so far is not a problem in Canada. Not making a profit on water sales hurts the private company. Not making a profit on water sales does not hurt the government. Ultimately, we are comparing a restricted market (those who can afford water only) to a public, open market (everyone gets water). Clearly, I prefer the latter, and you the former.

Not making a profit on water sales hurts the company. Allowing the government to run a business hurts the public at large just as much. As noted earlier, the price of water might stay at X for 100 years, but the real price behind the scenes in your taxes could have risen to 1000X.

And eventually when the people of California start to starve from lack of water you'd probably discover some very strong arm tactics being imposed on Canada, assuming you guys are supplying the water. From what I remember most of our water comes either locally or from else where in the USA.
Then stop using your water so wastefully, and you won't have a problem. Don't be pigs about it and expect us to feed you when your supply has run out.

Every nation should be taking great pains to conserve their water supply. Foreign private interests should not be allowed to interfere with something so vital to human life. If we share our water, it must be willingly, and be done with due environmental and social consideration.

Is there like over 133% representation in the poll?

Not making a profit on water sales hurts the company. Allowing the government to run a business hurts the public at large just as much. As noted earlier, the price of water might stay at X for 100 years, but the real price behind the scenes in your taxes could have risen to 1000X.
Bah. Taxes go up whether or not industries are privatized. All taxes are 'temporary' permanently. I'll pay the price to make sure everyone has the basics rather than let others die to fuel the greed of some corporation.

Then stop using your water so wastefully, and you won't have a problem. Don't be pigs about it and expect us to feed you when your supply has run out.

Seeing as we buy it, I assume, we can use it however we like.

Every nation should be taking great pains to conserve their water supply. Foreign private interests should not be allowed to interfere with something so vital to human life. If we share our water, it must be willingly, and be done with due environmental and social consideration.

You are drawing the line of "provide for yourself" at the national level. I'm drawing it at the personal level. At least my justification is simple, everyone is responsible for themselves. Arguing that drawing the level of responsibility at arbitrary population figures along historical boundaries is hard to justify if your attitude is that everyone should be entitled to water. By your reasoning so far you have the obligation, that you cannot reject, to provide California with water and California has the right to deprive of you of your water.

Is there like over 133% representation in the poll?
That's pretty wacky, isn't it? What the heck?

Well, while I would say water should be a "right"...I agree with an earlier poster who stated that it is primarily a local and regional issue.

That said, the whole idea that we're going to be fighting wars over water when the supply runs low is absolutely ridiculous.

As soon as some people *COUGHtreehuggingliberalsCOUGH* get over their hang-ups about nuclear power, we can use that power source to power the desalination plants...and kick the fossil fuel addiction at the same time! :eek:

Pretty cool, huh?

Bah. Taxes go up whether or not industries are privatized. All taxes are 'temporary' permanently. I'll pay the price to make sure everyone has the basics rather than let others die to fuel the greed of some corporation.

Ours went down recently. And so far you've contradicted your statement there because you have decided that you'll let the greed of a certain corporation, Canada, screw over the needs of people outside of that corporation.

That's pretty wacky, isn't it? What the heck?

Your poll allowed for multiple selections from each person, IIRC. Its not over-representation at all.

Seeing as we buy it, I assume, we can use it however we like.
Go ahead. But again, when you waste it, and dry up your aquifiers, don't blame us, and don't think 'strong arm tactics' are justified to get you more.



You are drawing the line of "provide for yourself" at the national level. I'm drawing it at the personal level. At least my justification is simple, everyone is responsible for themselves. Arguing that drawing the level of responsibility at arbitrary population figures along historical boundaries is hard to justify if your attitude is that everyone should be entitled to water. By your reasoning so far you have the obligation, that you cannot reject, to provide California with water and California has the right to deprive of you of your water.
Simple...simplistic. Yes.

I am drawing the line at the national level, because every nation has a national government. There is no real international government, and municipalities alone are not comprehensive enough to guarantee 'everyone' water. National governments are as close as we can get. That means an international treaty, then national laws, and international cooperation.

Less than 1% of freshwater is usable, amounting to only 0.01% of the Earth’s total water. Even this would be enough to support the world’s population three times over, if used with care. You have already said yourself that corporations will follow profit over all, and service those with the most money. Making water a human right would negate that. It would mean that national governments would have to focus on providing the minimum amount of water to its citizens, and they would be held to that by law. Corporations can not operate that way, because their ultimate goal is profit. They will get the highest price the more scarce water becomes. That does not bode well for conservation efforts. Regulations FORCING corporations to clean up water they pollute, or not pollute at all, regulations FORCING agri-business to use water more efficiently, regulations FORCING water to be conserved and used to meet the necessities FIRST are only possible through governments. Not through private corporations.

Ours went down recently. And so far you've contradicted your statement there because you have decided that you'll let the greed of a certain corporation, Canada, screw over the needs of people outside of that corporation.
Now you are calling a national government a corporation? You are stretching it pretty thin. No, I said that this 'corporation' would not allow your 'corporation' to 'screw us over'. There is a difference. Again, pollute and abuse your water supply and suffer the consequences. That is the fault of your government for not regulating a basic human need. Keeping you from taking our water, degrading our environment and depleting our own water supplies is not greed. It is preservation. Governments do that. Corporations don't. But you know that. You're just looking for loopholes.

Your poll allowed for multiple selections from each person, IIRC. Its not over-representation at all.
Yeah...I just don't get how it's broken down...oh well:)

Go ahead. But again, when you waste it, and dry up your aquifiers, don't blame us, and don't think 'strong arm tactics' are justified to get you more.

:yawn: I'm sure the mighty Canadian military will be very resentful.

Simple...simplistic. Yes.

And reasonable. Unlike yours. Which is quite contradictory. "Everyone deserves water and everyone should have easy affordable access to it, but only if you're living in Canada, otherwise we don't have to do anything to help your needs." Its a direct contradiction. "Everyone deserves it and everyone should do what they can to provide it, but we don't need to help you."

I am drawing the line at the national level, because every nation has a national government. There is no real international government, and municipalities alone are not comprehensive enough to guarantee 'everyone' water. National governments are as close as we can get. That means an international treaty, then national laws, and international cooperation.

Still doesn't draw the justification for the line to be drawn there. The aviabaility of water is localized even if it is wide spread. If Canada has a surplus, by your reasoning, it is required to give that surplus to countries in need, regardless of why they need it.

Less than 1% of freshwater is usable, amounting to only 0.01% of the Earth’s total water. Even this would be enough to support the world’s population three times over, if used with care. You have already said yourself that corporations will follow profit over all, and service those with the most money. Making water a human right would negate that. It would mean that national governments would have to focus on providing the minimum amount of water to its citizens, and they would be held to that by law. Corporations can not operate that way, because their ultimate goal is profit. They will get the highest price the more scarce water becomes. That does not bode well for conservation efforts. Regulations FORCING corporations to clean up water they pollute, or not pollute at all, regulations FORCING agri-business to use water more efficiently, regulations FORCING water to be conserved and used to meet the necessities FIRST are only possible through governments. Not through private corporations.

You make the incorrect assumption that highest price = most profit.

Now you are calling a national government a corporation? You are stretching it pretty thin. No, I said that this 'corporation' would not allow your 'corporation' to 'screw us over'. There is a difference. Again, pollute and abuse your water supply and suffer the consequences. That is the fault of your government for not regulating a basic human need. Keeping you from taking our water, degrading our environment and depleting our own water supplies is not greed. It is preservation. Governments do that. Corporations don't. But you know that. You're just looking for loopholes.

Wrong. Apparently Governments don't do that because the water system in America is heavily regulated. And either way it doesn't matter in the end because the purpose of calling Canada a corporation was metaphorical. Canada is control of X amount of water. It most certainly has more than it needs. It has no justification, under your reasoning, to keep that water. Indeed under your reasoning it has to give it away to those that need it. Period. Keeping it is merely greed, not self-preservation.

:yawn: I'm sure the mighty Canadian military will be very resentful. *sticks out tongue*
Might doesn't make right.



:And reasonable. Unlike yours. Which is quite contradictory. "Everyone deserves water and everyone should have easy affordable access to it, but only if you're living in Canada, otherwise we don't have to do anything to help your needs." Its a direct contradiction. "Everyone deserves it and everyone should do what they can to provide it, but we don't need to help you."
Na, you're just deliberately misunderstanding the point that you should not be able to force a nation to give away or sell its water if it would damage the environment or take deplete domestic water supplies, therefore depriving those people of the necessary amounts of water. Your premise seems to be, "we can use all the water we need, and then we'll just come smash your puny army and steal yours when we need more. for profit. yeah."



:Still doesn't draw the justification for the line to be drawn there. The aviabaility of water is localized even if it is wide spread. If Canada has a surplus, by your reasoning, it is required to give that surplus to countries in need, regardless of why they need it.
Nope. Nice try though. Kind of how the US runs things internationally anyway though...we are pigs with our oil, so give us yours...yeah.

Yes, water is localised. So are resources. So are communities. Which is why only a national government can run things with any degree of efficiency on a national level. You need to coordinate those resouces and people, and a corporation simply doesn't have the infrastructure or the reach to do it. A corporation should not be given the power over a natural resource NECESSARY FOR SURVIVAL. The government must regulate that resource to the best benefit of its own people FIRST (meaning conservation, not the gluttony we now have in BOTH our countries) before it can turn to aiding other countries. This of course would be a goal, keeping in mind that environmental standards and domestic use must be cared for. We are more likely to want to help a country will limited water supplies who are trying to conserve that supply, than a country like the US that wastes water with no thought of tomorrow.

You make the incorrect assumption that highest price = most profit.
No, I make the assumption, proven again and again in practice, that a corporation driven by profit will cut corners wherever possible, raise prices as much as the market will bear, and pollute and waste to their heart's content unless laws are in place to prevent this.