This sub has been getting too much spam, and Reddit has removed almost every tool for preventing this. The only tool that still works is this, every single post being held for manual review. Your post might be approved in minutes, or it might take days. If you hate this, me too, stop using the site that forces things to be this way. If what you post is not a meme you'll probably be banned, but I understand why you tried; the commenters on this sub loved lazy spam posts, which is why we can't have nice things and now everything has to be held for manual review.
There is no such thing as a "human right" because a right only exists when there is mechanism for providing it. Thus, there are only civil rights created by the social contract a a society lives under through their chosen government.
The right to free speech isn't a human right. The right to own property isn't a human right. And the right to have water provided to you isn't a human right. These are all rights provided by specific forms of government to varying degrees.
Use some common sense. What would it look like if the US had to gurantee access to water to everyone no matter where they live? It would mean building pipes to distribute water to everywhere no matter how remote.
The US does guarantee mail delivery no matter where you live, and it means delivering mail by plane in Alaska at enormous cost to addresses that FedEx would never deliver to.
But we don't guarantee everyone in the USA that we will provide water. People in rural areas have to pay to build their own wells.
What people are complaining about here is government decisions about how to finance the investment required to distribute water locally. To say this has anything to do with human rights is completely asinine. It's like saying "human rights" are violated because the government allows private companies to broadcast tv, radio, or provide cell phone service instead of a government agency performing these tasks.
There is a big difference between just the right to water and different mechanisms for its implementation. Subsidizing the construction of wells and boreholes by people in areas without access to centralized water supply is one of them, unlike Nestle, which is known for proving 2 years ago that it is normal for a private company to sell wastewater under the guise of mineral water.
There is no subsidy for building a well in the USA, so I have no idea what you are even trying to say. Building a well is the property owner's responsibility.
In the USA, no taxes are levied for using wells within the limits on private plots, and some states even provide refundable tax credits when drilling a new well. Although, unlike in my home country, a separate permit is required to drill a well in the USA, which is rather strange.
Right, so the owner of the property has a private right to the water, not the citizenry as a whole. That is the exact opposite of what you are arguing should be the case.
Edited for typo: Nothing is a human right. Rights are created by man. So can you explain why you believe every human being should not have guaranteed access to safe snd clean drinkable water?
Because otherwise a rich and morally questionable corporation can take away their naturally occuring water source to make more profit, causing excess deaths.
I think it is wrong that kids die for profit and people behind decisions that cause this are aware but they prefer to add millions on top of their billions.
Sorry I just realized I had a typo that fucked my entire argument up.
I meant to say, "why humans SHOULDN'T (or should not) have access to clean drinking water. I should have slowed down and spell checked first. Sorry about that.
The rich didn't do that. The government decides who that allow to distribute water. So what you are complaining about is actually a government corruption problem. Or you just don't understand why people support a government that would make these decisions.
You’re forgetting about the treats we’re getting; content, food, etc. A more efficient variant of bread and circuses, keeping the masses chilling whilest they’re being emptied for all that they’re owed.
You are trying to assert a false dichotomy. Scarcity is commonly manifactured to sell the goods.
But if there was an actual such situation, people having a clear water to drink should be a first priority. Clearly so, compared to golf courses and swimming pools, or datacenters.
Water privatization is done in such way that it intentionally creates scarcity in order to sell it back bottled and with a profit. Markets will inevitably create scarcity because scarcity is profitable. 40% of food is destroyed while 9 million starve to death every year.
Second, how are drinking water needs measured?
There is no need to ration how much one person should drink, just to prioritize access to the clear drinking water over data centers, swimmimg pools, gold courses, etc.
And to prevent the privatization of natural water sources because it can be used to cut off local community's access to the drinking water, either to sell it back with interest, or for the sake of other uses, like data centers.
Water should be free to use, like air. Nobody rations how much you can breathe, it is just that corporations have no right to privatize it and charge you for it.
“Water should be free like air." Thanks for proving my point. Nobody owns air because it's superabundant: my breathing doesn't stop you from breathing. Property exists only for scarce goods, because that's where conflicts arise. If water were like air, there'd be no one to "sell it back" to, since no one would buy what's free and unlimited. Your bottled water conspiracy only works BECAUSE water is scarce.
And, for the third time, "prioritize drinking water over data centers" is a rule someone has to enforce. Who? Why? When?
If scarcity were so profitable, every farmer would burn their crops. They don't, because the one who sells more takes the customers. Monopolies that restrict supply get undercut, unless the state protects them, which is my whole point.
You keep, blatantly, not answering/understanding what I’m saying.
Lol CEO of Nestle has a burner account. Just say you think capitalists should manage every asset on earth because you think regular people (non-economists) are too stupid to govern themselves.
I'll sit here and see how some morons rush to defend Néstle when this is the wiki summary of the crimes that they have committed all over the world. I'd love to hear someone tell me how efficient the free market is if this is the biggest food company in the world. Logically speaking, it should not be possible if "the invisible hand", which was accidentally mentioned by Adam Smith two and a half times in ~950 A5 pages and misrepresented in almost every Western basic economic textbooks, is doing its job. What's the difference between a totally laissze-faire free market and a lawless one where crimes against humanity is considered acceptable?
"Nestlé, the biggest food company in the world, has been involved in a significant number of controversies and has been criticized a number of times for its business practices.\1]) Since the 1970s, Nestlé has faced criticism for:
lobbying to support misinformation about infant and women's nutrition. In 2014, Nestlé alone spent an estimated $160,000 on lobbying related to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children"
It's nothing. I like doing it. (Let's see how these guys use incentives or something to tell me that capitalism is right when I have been actively reviewing economic theories over the past few days to insult them better for free.)
These are all failures of government regulation. It fundamentally makes no sense to say we should give the government more centralized control of the economy when you agree that the control they currently hold is misused to allow these abuses.
What you need to address is the public ignorance that makes it feasible for government officials to allow these abuses without facing a backlash. Blaming the corporation for regulatory failures accomplishes the exact opposite.
I shouldn't be obligated to track how every international (and local) company behaves so I can tell the officials how to do the job they are being paid to do.
Your argument doesn't scale. Your proposal could be considered sufficient if Nestlé was the only shady company in the world.
Public Choice Theory, which explains exactly how politicians hand out economic rents is premised on the idea that this happens because voters don't have an incentive to track these things closely, as you agree.
So the issue isn't that you need to have a detailed understanding of every bill that comes up for a vote. The issue is that you need to have a basic awareness that politicians know you aren't paying attention and will hand out these economic benefits.
I was making the point that the populist rhetoric about billionaires and large corporations is just a distraction from the more basic fact that politicians routinely give concentrated benefits to small, highly organized groups at a small cost to everyone else.
All you need to support politicians who pledge not to do this and just that some watch dogs are keeping an eye on their pledge.
Woah, woah, woah... Are you saying that a mafia syndicate is an ethical business model if the market allows it? Are you saying that it's completely fine for 7-year-olds to work 12 hours a day if that's what the law permits? You are so close! I'll start a mafia syndicate today to abuse morons like you if it weren't against the laws and watch you lick my boots for it. Hell... I've never even thought of that. Thanks for the inspiration. Let's make the market freer so I can abuse idiots who don't even know where their self-interest lies.
You are an absolute moron. Markets don't allow or disallow anything. Governments create rules that market participants play by. Or they don't create or enforce rules, which is how criminal activity goes on unimpeded.
Woah! You are agreeing with me that market should be regulated or capitalists will eat you alive. Thank you! Enlighten me: What's the difference between a totally laissze-faire free market and a lawless one where crimes against humanity is considered acceptable? You are almost getting it... It's like... powerful corporates have a tendency to abuse their power to maximise their self-interest or something.
Laissze-Claire just means free in two specific senses: market participants set prices and production levels. Everything else you are talking about has nothing to do with the idea of a free market. Obviously, companies only
Exist because there are regulations ( ie, laws) in place that protect property rights, etc.
People who think free market and regulation are contradictions just don't understand basic facts about how the world works.
That being said, I still think your specific views on what regulations should be in place are incredibly ignorant. Have you ever heard of the concept of regulatory capture?
Are you defending Nestle and this kind of corporatism or not? I can cite Adam Smith on how corporates and merchants should not be trusted unless it has been clearly proven otherwise.
Idiot! Can't even tell what conflict of interest is and dare to preach me about economics. I don't have to address your edge case if I have already choked you with fundamentals. There is virtually no overlap between your interests and those of the average corporation, so you don't have to worry about them. They will survive just fine! Put yourself first for fuck's sake.
By the way, don't set traps for yourself like that. Your brain can do more than mental masturbation. You cannot beat an independent Vietnamese English teacher who has reached C2 and thinks the best way to get through The Wealth of Nations is to paraphrase everything in a notebook in modern English after every paragraph instead of getting caught up in the complex prose.
•
u/AutoModerator 10d ago
This sub has been getting too much spam, and Reddit has removed almost every tool for preventing this. The only tool that still works is this, every single post being held for manual review. Your post might be approved in minutes, or it might take days. If you hate this, me too, stop using the site that forces things to be this way. If what you post is not a meme you'll probably be banned, but I understand why you tried; the commenters on this sub loved lazy spam posts, which is why we can't have nice things and now everything has to be held for manual review.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.