Nestlé CEO says that water should not be a public right

[Sanji Himura]

Even the air isn't a public resource.

Purified air, pure oxygen, or even the heating and cooling of said air, sir, let's be clear, and this is the exact point that Mr. Nestle was trying to make. Sure, water is a right, for without it we die, but there are several factors, both public and private, that puts a monetary value on the resource.

Sure, one can help ease the costs by digging a well, but whatever savings that you think you are going to get is peanuts compared to the maintenance costs that you will accrued if the water quality is proven poor. I am living proof. My well that I had on my land for over 15 years puts out hard water. Then the oil companies came into town and ruined the well source, forcing us to put not one, but two water softeners at the well source, at roughly $250 a piece. That is not counting the bags of salt that we had to buy for the things.

 

[Danoff]

Nothing that requires someone else's labor can be a right. You do not have a right to force others to work on your behalf* - this is almost as fundamental as a discussion on human rights can be.

Famine has already covered this topic quite correctly, so I feel little need to contribute, but I will re-iterate briefly. If water falls on your property and you have not signed the rights to that water away to someone else, that water belongs to you and you have a right to it. You cannot and will never have a right to force thousands of people to build water treatment facilities, purify water, and pump it to your house - their labor is something you must purchase.

If you are wandering the wilderness and come across an unowned stream, you can drink the water. If you build a purification facility on that stream you may even obtain property rights to the unowned resources. But if you do so, the next passer by cannot demand the product of your hard work simply because they believe they are entitled to it.



*With the exception of the parent-child relationship.

 

[Famine]

Purified air, pure oxygen, or even the heating and cooling of said air, sir, let's be clear, and this is the exact point that Mr. Nestle was trying to make.

Those too, but also air itself.

Sure, water is a right, for without it we die

As we do without food. That's not a right either. You'll find that if you are not indoors and not clothed, you'll not survive more than a handful of days - less than that on most of the planet - and clothing and housing are not a right either.

Things necessary to prolong our existence are not rights simply because they prolong our existence.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Things necessary to prolong our existence are not rights simply because they prolong our existence.

There is an apt saying that applies here, "feed a man a fish, and he will live for a day. Teach a man how to fish, he will live a lifetime." Air, water, and food are essential things to live, don't get me wrong, however, if a modern man were to live in what is essentially a wilderness in 1776, would he survive today? No. It would be because modern man has no sense of value.

Now if you were hunting in the Ozarks, for example, and kill a deer, not only would you have meat for a couple of days, maybe weeks if you knew how to turn it into jerky, but you would also have a constant water source if you lived near a stream or a river. Now would that mean that the food and water are not rights? Absolutely not. You see, you had to purchase the land that your house is sitting on. It has been that way for over 2000 years.

The concept of land ownership isn't anything new.

 

[Famine]

There is an apt saying that applies here, "feed a man a fish, and he will live for a day. Teach a man how to fish, he will live a lifetime."

It's not apt in the slightest. The phrase exists to point out the difference between charity that prolongs a situation and charity and education that resolves it. It has nothing to do with the fact you don't have the right to things that prolong your life at the expense of others' labour.

You can apply it to the argument though. Give a man some purified water and he will live for a day, teach him how to purify water and he will be forced to give it to everyone else because apparently it's their right to have it.

Air, water, and food are essential things to live

As are clothing and shelter. None of these things are rights.

Now if you were hunting in the Ozarks, for example, and kill a deer, not only would you have meat for a couple of days, maybe weeks if you knew how to turn it into jerky, but you would also have a constant water source if you lived near a stream or a river. Now would that mean that the food and water are not rights? Absolutely not. You see, you had to purchase the land that your house is sitting on. It has been that way for over 2000 years.

The last three sentences are nothing to do with the rest of that quote - and nothing to do with the fact that food, water, air, clothing and shelter are not rights.

The concept of land ownership isn't anything new.

Indeed. It arose from working the land - exchanging your labour for ownership. We do the same still, only we work for a quantifiable recompense that we use to trade for the land other people already own.

The land itself isn't a right either. The ownership of it through trading our labour for it is.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

You'll find that if you are not indoors and not clothed, you'll not survive more than a handful of days - less than that on most of the planet - and clothing and housing are not a right either.

I think that depends on more the environment you live in.

 

[Famine]

I think that depends on more the environment you live in.

Hence "on most of the planet". Very few parts of it are survivable year round exposed.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

Hence "on most of the planet". Very few parts of it are survivable year round exposed.

I think I know what you mean by that now, misinterpreted it at first.

 

[Slash]

Is this guy stupid?

 

[Zenith]

Do you post just to post?

 

[Slash]

Do you post just to post?

No.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

Do you post just to post?

Considering he posted nearly the exact same thing in the thieving football manager thread, I'd say yes.

 

[Slash]

Because the same thing was running through my mind for both?

 

[Azuremen]

Is this guy stupid?

Are you in front of a mirror? Are you literate?

No.

You certainly seem to be posting for the sake of posting, not discussion

Because the same thing was running through my mind for both?

What is amazing is how you've actually contributed nothing to this thread with these three posts.

What is even more apparent is you've clearly not bothered to read ANY posts in this thread. At all. You simply saw the title and posted your response.

 

[Slash]

Are you in front of a mirror? Are you literate?

You certainly seem to be posting for the sake of posting, not discussion


What is amazing is how you've actually contributed nothing to this thread with these three posts.

What is even more apparent is you've clearly not bothered to read ANY posts in this thread. At all. You simply saw the title and posted your response.

That's all I need to do.

 

[Pagey279]

That's all I need to do.

You don't need to do anything.

What an idiot.

No.

Is this guy stupid?

But what's the point of posting stuff like that? It takes no thought, doesn't add anything to the discussion, doesn't add anything other than some more numbers to your post count. Which despite what you say seems to be your single motive these days.

 

[Slash]

I'm sorry, I didn't know I was obligated to reply to the last person that posted. I simply left my opinion/thought and moved on. Say what you want but that is surely not the case. I'm also sorry that I like to talk and I'm a very opinionated person.

Now can we please let this go and stop dragging this off topic even more?

 

[Azuremen]

I'm sorry, I didn't know I was obligated to reply to the last person that posted. I simply left my opinion/thought and moved on. Say what you want but that is surely not the case. I'm also sorry that I like to talk and I'm a very opinionated person.

Now can we please let this go and stop dragging this off topic even more?

You have expressed any actual opinion, beyond displaying your own profound ignorance. Generally, in a forum, the point is to contribute to the discussion, not go "Yes" or "no" or "+1" and act like that some how has contributed.

 

[Slash]

I can't agree with someone?

I know how a forum works. I've been using them for quite some time.

Anyways, I'm done here.

 

[BobK]

Did you read the other statement I posted, damn!

Why yes, yes I did. Although the entire post was lacking in thought, I chose to respond to the part that made more sense than the rest (not that it had a lot of sense in absolute terms, mind you). But since you brought it up, I'll respond to the rest of your post.

Why would Mr.Nestle ever think of doing something illogical and moronic?

What does Mr. Néstle have to do with this thread, other than having founded the company in 1866? What is this illogical and moronic act that Mr. Néstle is alleged to have done?

What's the point of privatizing something so vital that could wipe out humanity?

To answer the question: to make money. Obviously. As for wiping out humanity, do you really believe that even if one person could corner the world's water market it would wipe out humanity? What with so much water already being free and all. Step outside and open your mouth in a rainstorm.

I mean, clearly water is in the same essential-to-life category as food and clothing/shelter, right? Those should be free, too? Who do you intend to enslave to ensure you have access to them?

People could die without water

Likewise they could die without food, and shelter. Your point, again?

not many people can afford water.

So, umm, how are most of the seven billion people on the planet getting their water then? They can't afford it, you're saying. Which does bring up a question, though. Have you ever, ever seen a water bill? How can you justify saying most people can't afford it? What about people who own wells? They can't afford their free (after the well is dug) water? Did you even think at all before making that statement?

I think he is just a simpleton.

That, of course, is your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it. I don't see how you can justify that opinion, but you're still entitled to it.

 

[dautolover]

Of course they can.There's no such thing as a public resource. Even the air isn't a public resource.Why is it automatically public land if it has water on it? That's nonsensical - all land has water on it, if you dig deep enough. Around here, the water table is about six to eight feet below my garden. I own my land (by agreement I have with the nice people at the bank).

I've heard this argument before, that nothing really is public or shared.

Again, let me point out that it's the claim to water that is at question. I am not talking about water that falls on your well, or rain that seeps through the roof and drips into a bucket. We are talking about the notion that you can go to any part of the world and say, "well, this water is mine," without considering that the water could have belonged to an entire community. Has happened in history all the time, especially with land. People all of a sudden get the urge to knock something over or build something on top of an area that is used by a community, but that the community doesn't have any deed or document showing ownership. Happened all the time in Latin America, when all these fruit companies would go to places like Guatemala, Colombia, Ecuador would acquire land that was unused by the community to grow fruit, at the same time paying natives crap wages for their labor.

This notion of private goods, and the non-existence of public goods, is simply a Western thing.

Those too, but also air itself.As we do without food. That's not a right either. You'll find that if you are not indoors and not clothed, you'll not survive more than a handful of days - less than that on most of the planet - and clothing and housing are not a right either.

Things necessary to prolong our existence are not rights simply because they prolong our existence.

Then that means you have no right to a military, nor to a police force, nor any court/legal system that protects you from having your property seized. Of course you have a right to property, that is, if you can keep it from being seized from people while you're unable to get out of bed to work your land, because you're extremely ill, or because all you have is a shotgun, while the bandits have five well armed thieves with semis.

The libertarian, at this point (the way I see it), might want to argue that it is your fault for being sick or for living alone in your little ranch with one shotgun.

Except, this can all be avoided (to some extent of course) by building a society based on the notion that protection of property is PUBLIC, as is water, health, food, and yes, clothing and shelter too and thus providing it to everyone who is unable to hire a possee to protect one's land, or contract a good doctor that will treat you, etc.

 

[Famine]

I've heard this argument before, that nothing really is public or shared.

That wasn't an argument I was making.

Again, let me point out that it's the claim to water that is at question. I am not talking about water that falls on your well, or rain that seeps through the roof and drips into a bucket. We are talking about the notion that you can go to any part of the world and say, "well, this water is mine," without considering that the water could have belonged to an entire community.

That's terrific.

I'm not, of course. I'm talking about the point that no-one has the right - the right - to unlimited, unimpeded, indefinite access to any kind of water. They may retain all the water that appears upon their own private land and they may take water which is not on any private land (which includes seawater), but they do not have the right to take water from another's private land. They may treat their own water however they wish, but they do not have the right to take water that has been treated by another without recompense for the effort of that individual.

Has happened in history all the time, especially with land. People all of a sudden get the urge to knock something over or build something on top of an area that is used by a community, but that the community doesn't have any deed or document showing ownership. Happened all the time in Latin America, when all these fruit companies would go to places like Guatemala, Colombia, Ecuador would acquire land that was unused by the community to grow fruit, at the same time paying natives crap wages for their labor.

That's smashing. So fruit companies take land that others have worked and ... phase 2 ... INDEFINITE RIGHT TO ALL WATER!?

How are you rebutting the point that you can't take things from other people because you think it's "necessary" by talking about how thefts have occurred?

This notion of private goods, and the non-existence of public goods, is simply a Western thing.

Not really. Even animals understand the concept of property and theft - try taking a biscuit off a dog... But even if it were "simply a Western thing"... how are you rebutting it?

No-one has the right to my labour. I sell my labour to whomever wishes to use it for whatever recompense we agree between us. They sell the product of my labour to whomever wishes to use it for whatever recompense they agree between them - while I sell the rewards for other rewards or other people's labour for further recompense.

They can sell it for nothing if they like, but no-one may demand it's given to them for nothing. You don't have a right to another's labour. Hooray for simply Western things like that.

Then that means you have no right to a military, nor to a police force, nor any court/legal system that protects you from having your property seized.

Correct.

Of course you have a right to property, that is, if you can keep it from being seized from people while you're unable to get out of bed to work your land, because you're extremely ill, or because all you have is a shotgun, while the bandits have five well armed thieves with semis.

The libertarian, at this point (the way I see it), might want to argue that it is your fault for being sick or for living alone in your little ranch with one shotgun.

The existence of folk who'd ignore rights for their own benefit is not a rebuttal of those rights...

Except, this can all be avoided (to some extent of course) by building a society based on the notion that protection of property is PUBLIC, as is water, health, food, and yes, clothing and shelter too and thus providing it to everyone who is unable to hire a possee to protect one's land, or contract a good doctor that will treat you, etc.

Or by building a society that recognises rights and stops thinking it's just fine to steal people's work to provide water, food, clothing, houses and doctors... We all banned slavery a long time ago - there's no excuse to keep thinking it's okay because the slaves get paid through money that's also stolen...

If everyone, planetwide, stopped thinking they were entitled to things they hadn't worked for simply because they need (or "need") them, even the police force and armed forces wouldn't be necessary...

 

[Crispy]

I think that you should be able to walk in to a restaurant and ask for a small glass of tapwater for free. It is a basic need to keep surviving. However there is the fact that water does cost money for the business, and would lose profit if a lot of people came and asked for a glass of tapwater whenever they were thirsty. There would need to be limits.

One small sized paper cup filled with water, and no free re-fills. Most people I see that go and ask for some water from a restaurant are people waiting on someone or something to pick them up, like a bus or their friend. They don't need a full sized cup full of water with refills because they won't be there more than fifteen or twenty minutes. Refills for a small cup could be around 25 cents though, not too expensive. A full glass of water should be around a dollar, just keep it cheap. Heck I even think that it wouldn't be too bad if restaurants could provide you with a free packet of four or so crackers if you asked.

However I think it should be held up to the businesses to decide. A larger chain like McDonalds or Burger King won't have a problem handing out free waters to anyone who asks, but maybe the smaller restaurant owned by that really nice older gentleman down the street could really hurt from people asking for free water day in and day out.

 

[Azuremen]

I think that you should be able to walk in to a restaurant and ask for a small glass of tapwater for free. It is a basic need to keep surviving. However there is the fact that water does cost money for the business, and would lose profit if a lot of people came and asked for a glass of tapwater whenever they were thirsty. There would need to be limits.
...
However I think it should be held up to the businesses to decide. A larger chain like McDonalds or Burger King won't have a problem handing out free waters to anyone who asks, but maybe the smaller restaurant owned by that really nice older gentleman down the street could really hurt from people asking for free water day in and day out.

So basically, you've said nothing besides "leave it up to the business owner" which is already the case? Charities do exist in case you weren't aware as well, and they do give out water and food. Trying to split it down to the size and nature of what a business should be expected to give out for free is just esoteric.

 

[niky]

It's the disgression of the restaurant owner, and they do it out of goodwill, and because it doesn't cost them much. Some go further. Others offer "free" appetizers before you order. This is also goodwill.

But goodwill costs them. If the restaurant doesn't make any money on food, they can't serve water. In this case, it is written off as a public relations or advertising cost.

Our business gives visitors free water. And free coffee. And free biscuits. But if people could come in straight off the street just to get free water, we would have to stop doing so. Potable water costs money. Paper cups cost money. We don't sell food or drinks. Without the income from food service, there's no excess money to cover the cost of all that "free" water. As it is, it is already an expense that we must justify on a monthly basis.

-

No one has the "right" to free water from a private establishment. They have the privelege of it. Otherwise, they can go seek out public water sources and drink there.

 

[Keef]

What exactly do you think SCUBA divers do?

It's funny how SCUBA divers pay for air and the labor involved in getting it where it needs to be, sort of like how landlubbers pay for their water and the labor involved in getting it where it needs to be. But SCUBA divers don't pay for the water they're swimming in, and landlubbers don't pay for their air they're breathing. Isn't it strange how when a task requires effort it suddenly has a price? Mind blowing.

 

[Johnnypenso]

It's funny how SCUBA divers pay for air and the labor involved in getting it where it needs to be, sort of like how landlubbers pay for their water and the labor involved in getting it where it needs to be. But SCUBA divers don't pay for the water they're swimming in, and landlubbers don't pay for their air they're breathing. Isn't it strange how when a task requires effort it suddenly has a price? Mind blowing.

Indeed it is a hard concept to grasp that most people want to be compensated for effort.

 

[PAPPACLART]

Its been said time and time again, there is more than enough water in the world but our archaic and backward monetary system means that the majority of the population do not get enough water. I mean we are surrounded by Sea but to purify sea water into drinking water is not economically viable in most places with today's labour and tech costs to make it happen.

We have to face it, Capitalism as it stands just does not work for the majority and never will. I mean minus all of our social problems (which are mostly caused by the side effects of Capitalism) even in the 1st world we will always need people at the bottom, cleaning toilets, serving coffee, stacking shelves and being paid insufficient salaries to provide for themselves and their families while in the 3rd world there will always be people earning a dollar a day to so you can have a $3 Primark T-shirt. Lets face it even if everybody had the best education and genuine equal opportunity there never will be aenough well paid jobs for all of us to live a good standard of living.

Like Famine pointed out, we have no actual born rights. Leave a baby in a desert alone and it will die of thirst unless somebody gives that baby water which has to be got from somewhere. Nature will violate whatever rights you think you are entitled to.

All of our rights are given to us by our governments many of which had to be fought for over centuries and are enforced to various degrees today. As it stands water is not a right for many but should be, like sufficient housing, food, safety etc they should be a right for all, as humanity is smart and industrious enough to make this a realistic reality.... But if monetary system is Capitalist then providing water comes at a cost as has been pointed out. As long as there is a financial cost other than just a labour cost to provide water or anything else for that matter then there will always be people who can not afford the financial cost of it or do not have sufficient access due to corrupt governments spellbound by Capitalism.

Capitalism mostly works for us in the west likely only due to the cost to the 3rd world while our governments are only corrupt at a different level and with our Capitalism a little more tweaked so that wealth is shared a little more evenly vs the 3rd world. The whole population can not live to the standards of the West under this system, somebody has to suffer for our standard of living which in fact has actually taken a dive in the last couple of years due to the financial mess we are in.

I am trying not to make this a Capitalist vs Socialist thread but Capitalism is the real issue here. Like many of humanities problems, the issue of water for all can not be resolved until we think long and hard about the rules of the game we play. We do not have to play by these rules that are in place but we have for the past couple of thousand years. Look at history, countless wars, famine and genocide mostly all caused to some degree by money or religion or perceived indifference's between peoples. Money has played a huge role and more so to this day.

I do not have the answers but certainly the aim of any system we live under should be primarily underlined by the desire to provide sufficiently for all of earths inhabitants. Capitalism's underlining motive is profit and profit for a small few which evidently means many will go with out. The current system has been tweaked over the years with some success, as 100 years ago many in the west did not enjoy the standard of living we enjoy now. This is down to economic and technological growth which means more chance of the money being spread and of course social and economic reforms played their part as well but growth can not continue for ever at no cost.

Still though, if we are never to get rid of Capitalism then there is still along way to go before Capitalism can work better for all and it starts with ethics. If Capitalism can become more ethical then we have a chance but my feeling is that Capitalism and the monetary system is perpetually flawed in more ways then 1 and so it needs to go.

Think of the world as a business and capitalism as the business model for that business. Now think of the inhabitants of that world and their well being as the fruits or profit and ultimate objective of that business and you will see that Capitalism is a very bad business model for the world and all of its inhabitants.

So the discussion of water cost and supply is mute without tackling the reason why the topic of water and its supply is being discussed in the first place. Tackle Capitalism and you tackle the issue of water and the many other issues we face.

 

[BobK]

Its been said time and time again, there is more than enough water in the world but our archaic and backward monetary system means that the majority of the population do not get enough water.

I don't care how many times it's been said, it's simply not true. I don't suppose you'd care to supply us with a source for that, would you? From a more or less objective source, not a rabidly socialist source, I mean.

**anti-capitalism rant**

So you're making up facts to support your notion that people shouldn't be fairly compensated for their labor. Okay.

 

[Famine]

Like Famine pointed out, we have no actual born rights. Leave a baby in a desert alone and it will die of thirst unless somebody gives that baby water which has to be got from somewhere. Nature will violate whatever rights you think you are entitled to.

I didn't actually say that.

We, as humans, have one born right - the right to life. That naturally extends to the right to freedom from physical insult and captivity, and to lead our life as we wish - including the right to our own labour. They are contingent on our intelligence and our ability to recognise them.

We don't have the right to have anything handed to us as a result of this. We must pursue our own course. However our rights bear responsibilities. Our right to life means all other humans have right to life. Our right to freedom from physical insult and captivity as a result of that right to life means all other humans have that right. Our right to lead our lives as we wish means doing so without causing physical insult, killing, bestowing captivity on or taking the labour of another human.

Other species of animal - and "nature" - lack the intelligence to recognise these rights and this means they do not have the responsibility not to hold us captive, injure or kill us, while we do not have the responsibility to do the same to them.

All of our rights are given to us by our governments

Those are just legal rights. Governments cannot create or deny rights, only laws that recognise or fail to recognise them. Governments are not meant to be arbiters of rights, only protectors of them. The mess you go on to describe is as a result of too many people and too many governments thinking the exact opposite.