User Tag List

First 789101119 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 196

  1. #81
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fia View Post
    I think that is exactly the question worth asking.

    Although there is a range of practicality from the attempt to own sunlight or wind to owning coal. There could a greater problem attempting to own sunlight vs. coal, and water exists somewhere inbetween the two in terms of its ephemeral quality. Where to draw the line?

    Here's where you draw the line. Water can be controlled, sunlight and wind cannot. Definitely not sunlight, and wind, to a tiny extent, not enough to make a difference.

    I think the deeper question is the second one - whether the right to own property is valued over the right to exist.

    Where's the question here? Obviously existing (living) takes precedence over owning property.

    When water is owned on large-scale, corporate level, these two rights will certainly come into conflict. Which one does society value more? My underlying problem with capitalism is that it seems to value the right of property over the right to exist. From my understanding this implies the assumption that might makes right because that is how a claim to material is made and maintained. This is expressed in society through money as the symbol of power. While the individual freedoms associated with capitalism can provide meaningful quality of life in some contexts, this foundation of might makes right is at odds with the concepts of democracy. There are underlying tensions in our society as a result. One attempt to resolve this is to call the dollar freedom of speech. The dollar rather than the individual becomes the basis for democracy. This places property (the dollar) as fundamentally more important than the individual. This is dehumanization, and inhumane. What do you think? Do you agree, or is there an argument that can be made to show that capitalism as a philosophy values the individual over property/power?
    That depends on the over-all philosophy of the capitalists. If they believe property has more value than life, then we have nothing more than a return to the era of monarchy, or oligarchy. The Constitution of the US is designed to obviate attempts to create another type of system, although to an extent it has been created through corporate cronyism.

    Corporatism is not capitalism. I don't have time right now to tell you the difference, but Google searching should help.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  2. #82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    I call bullshit on your calling bullshit.
    I'm glad, I didnt think you had anything worth while to say, better to know sooner rather than later.

  3. #83
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    That depends on the over-all philosophy of the capitalists. If they believe property has more value than life, then we have nothing more than a return to the era of monarchy, or oligarchy. The Constitution of the US is designed to obviate attempts to create another type of system, although to an extent it has been created through corporate cronyism.

    Corporatism is not capitalism. I don't have time right now to tell you the difference, but Google searching should help.
    Do you have an issue with water rights connected to corporatism? How would this not be the outcome?
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

    I want to be just like my mother, even if she is bat-shit crazy.

  4. #84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fia View Post
    Do you have an issue with water rights connected to corporatism? How would this not be the outcome?
    In the UK mainland the experiments in water privatisation have led to some pretty drastic regional variations in supply and service, cost varies, there can not be said to be any standardisation, Scotland and Wales which have mixed markets or public tax funded services have much better track records.

    The point is that consumer sovereignty cant operate, its role is neglible anyway if you ask me, in the case of utilities like this, any supposed savings made by the government which can be passed on to the one percent richest are neglible because of the cost of running independent regulators or subsidising private providers because its an essential service. Keep in mind these are massive revenue producing natural monopolies without any of the rigor of competition because the supply and consumers are fixed, it should be impossible to run those kinds of services at a loss or sub-optimally through under investment.

    If any evidence was really required that privatisation creates as many problems as its hoped it will fix UK water, utilities and transport provide it in spades.

  5. #85
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fia View Post
    Do you have an issue with water rights connected to corporatism? How would this not be the outcome?
    I don't have any knowledge of how water rights are connected to corporate cronyism.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  6. #86
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    To an extent I do think a person in a society should be getting some amount of what other people in that society are producing with their labor. In absence of this, you hardly have a society at all.
    they are, it's called trade - we've being doing this since the first african woman carried a jug on her head while her sister was busy skinning a goat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I can see how you might argue that people shouldn't all be getting water that has been made potable, but at the very least people should all be able to get water that they can easily make potable.
    either way there needs to be a system of potable verification and delivery in place.

  7. #87
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    In the UK mainland the experiments in water privatisation have led to some pretty drastic regional variations in supply and service, cost varies, there can not be said to be any standardisation, Scotland and Wales which have mixed markets or public tax funded services have much better track records.

    The point is that consumer sovereignty cant operate, its role is neglible anyway if you ask me, in the case of utilities like this, any supposed savings made by the government which can be passed on to the one percent richest are neglible because of the cost of running independent regulators or subsidising private providers because its an essential service. Keep in mind these are massive revenue producing natural monopolies without any of the rigor of competition because the supply and consumers are fixed, it should be impossible to run those kinds of services at a loss or sub-optimally through under investment.

    If any evidence was really required that privatisation creates as many problems as its hoped it will fix UK water, utilities and transport provide it in spades.
    I quoted this again for emphasis. This is likely the most important aspect of this discussion - to examine what it looks like in countries where this concept is applied. It's worth looking at multiple instances since applying a concept can turn out a number of different ways.

    While the U.S. has positive aspects, it does lag behind other first world countries in certain aspects of human rights, so that increases my concern for applying the concept here.

    I was chatting with some friends offline about this and it would be worth researching exactly what Nestle' is doing in third world countries and who is benefitting and who is suffering as a result of these philosophies. I was given a tidal wave of info that I can't organize and recount right now, but it is a deep human rights violation that is occurring.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

    I want to be just like my mother, even if she is bat-shit crazy.

  8. #88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fia View Post
    I quoted this again for emphasis. This is likely the most important aspect of this discussion - to examine what it looks like in countries where this concept is applied. It's worth looking at multiple instances since applying a concept can turn out a number of different ways.

    While the U.S. has positive aspects, it does lag behind other first world countries in certain aspects of human rights, so that increases my concern for applying the concept here.

    I was chatting with some friends offline about this and it would be worth researching exactly what Nestle' is doing in third world countries and who is benefitting and who is suffering as a result of these philosophies. I was given a tidal wave of info that I can't organize and recount right now, but it is a deep human rights violation that is occurring.
    To my mind anyone who has those views cant care a lot about consumer sovereignty either, which capitalists usually think can stand in for it, if the market was working successfully in supplying water no one would be asserting there human rights about it, no one asserts there human right to TV and Fanta for instance

  9. #89
    Senior Member Bamboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    XXFP
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    In the UK mainland the experiments in water privatisation have led to some pretty drastic regional variations in supply and service, cost varies, there can not be said to be any standardisation, Scotland and Wales which have mixed markets or public tax funded services have much better track records.

    The point is that consumer sovereignty cant operate, its role is neglible anyway if you ask me, in the case of utilities like this, any supposed savings made by the government which can be passed on to the one percent richest are neglible because of the cost of running independent regulators or subsidising private providers because its an essential service. Keep in mind these are massive revenue producing natural monopolies without any of the rigor of competition because the supply and consumers are fixed, it should be impossible to run those kinds of services at a loss or sub-optimally through under investment.

    If any evidence was really required that privatisation creates as many problems as its hoped it will fix UK water, utilities and transport provide it in spades.
    Politely, I question the issue(s) pointed out in the first sentence.

    You're saying that in the UK there are drastic regional variations in supply and service, cost, and there isn't great standardization.

    Is this really such a bad thing? What do you mean by that?

    Let's say you have a bunch of houses in the city. Once you route water into the city itself, piped down all the major streets, the individual cost of hooking up water to each house is very low. But if you have a few houses out in the suburbs, spread apart, hooking up and maintaining those connections is expensive. At least I'd imagine it to be. You might have to put down miles of pipe to connect just a few houses.

    Or some regions are hard to get water to. Big steep mountains - hard to pump water into/around. Meaning more pipes, pumps, power, and people working.

    While this fits definitions of unfair, it seems understandable that people who cost the utility company more money and effort should pay more for the service to pay for the extra supplies, and maintenence, and worker salaries, and gas driving those big trucks around keeping things running.

    Now you might say, well, as a society it's a good thing to have people living out in the suburbs/country/mountains, so we're going to collect taxes and provide subsidies/discounts for people out in the sticks to get better utility service, that way they can afford it better, or we're going to build a new water tower, or whatever.

    Standardising everything has downsides, namely, by setting a standard price, that means that the people in the city/near the source who don't cost the utility company a whole lot end up paying more than they should to make up for the cost of the really exspensive service used by only a few people. Taxes and subsidies *are* similar, but involve more redistribution.

    Maybe I'm all wrong about what you're saying.
    Don't know how much it'll bend til it breaks.

  10. #90
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,905

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
    they are, it's called trade - we've being doing this since the first african woman carried a jug on her head while her sister was busy skinning a goat.
    If we leave trade free and leave access to water to trade, then we are indeed saying you can withhold water from people even in the event of near death. A person never has to trade anything with you, and the times they are interested in trading with you may be rare. That unfortunately makes trade a poor mechanism for this purpose.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
    either way there needs to be a system of potable verification and delivery in place.
    Sure. Government, laws, taxes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    No doubt. It's not a perfect system, it's just better at delivering the goods.
    This just brings us back to square one. How exactly will supply and demand make business better at delivering the goods?
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

Similar Threads

  1. What is possible and what is not
    By Gauche in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 12-23-2008, 06:32 AM
  2. "I" is not one person?
    By nightning in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-29-2008, 03:01 AM
  3. Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate
    By ygolo in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-27-2007, 10:18 PM
  4. Yeuck... turquoise is NOT suitable...
    By Xander in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 06-23-2007, 05:48 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO