Privatise Water?

[bordsilver]

Further, the popularised view of the evil private owner going all Total Recall on people and turning off the air is not a part of valid contracts when Libertarians talk about this sort of privatisation of essential services. It's unconscionable under common law because it's immoral and any contracts are invalid.

 

[southerncross]

Your neglecting the needs of a good 70% of the planet that does not receive their water through a tap there M8. It will end up with a company owning the rivers, streams and lakes, the rainfall that lands in the catchments and also on private land. We currently get pristine water straight from a river fed by a mountain catchment and springs and use about a millionth or our yearly right if that.

Making people who have nothing as it is and who collect water with a bucket pay for it is totally F*&ked and they are not by any means a case of taking the fruits of another's labour. You can quibble with the details but once you start giving Company's the ownership of water people will suffer. Sure if they want to invest in distributing the supply of water go ahead but I'm pretty sure that if ownership of the actual supply was not involved they would not be interested.

Edited for clarity.

 

[southerncross]

Further, the popularised view of the evil private owner going all Total Recall on people and turning off the air is not a part of valid contracts when Libertarians talk about this sort of privatisation of essential services. It's unconscionable under common law because it's immoral and any contracts are invalid.

I understand where your coming from but it really is a case of give them an inch and they will take a mile when it comes down to this sort of thing, water is an essential just as air is. Privatising an essential is just a licence to print money and some evil FU($er will see it as such.

 

[alor]

:lol:

once drank, all need would become rawdoglet audiance :lol:

 

[ShinyStuff]

What an absolutely ludicrous piece of corporate propaganda.

Nestl is an evil corporation.

And that's not a euphemism for "big company"; they aggressively market their infant formula to mothers in developing countries as a better alternative to breast milk, despite the fact that they know most of the women can't read the instructions, they know many of the women don't have clean water to mix the formula, they know infant formula doesn't have the same antibodies produced by breast milk and they know that after thirty f---ing years of doing this that children in those countries being fed Nestl infant formula are up to 20 times more likely to die than children being fed breast milk.

Nestl literately kills babies through their inappropriate marketing.

And the guy who runs the company reckons water should be privatised because - obviously - they can make a shitload of money doing it...which they do, being the largest bottled water company in the world.

Nestl is the kind of company that would make Soylent Green if they thought they could get away with it.

No. Screw them. Water belongs to everyone.

I am not saying you are wrong..... But... When i was there working with drs without borders.... They advised women to breast feed for six months and then move to formula... It reduced the incidence of passing hiv to infants. So, it gave "breast is best" for the crucial months, and then it allowed a safer alternative. I agree 100% with breastfeeding babies... But in the case of hiv+ mother and negative baby, i like the formula to give better long term survival. But you are right about lack of clean water and incorrect mixture of formula, let alone non-sterile bottles and the like.

Shiny

 

[Big A.D.]

Did you get a few seeds in your cones tonight bord ? This is one time I can actually fully agree with AD.

About which bit? Dumb inconsiderate mothers knowingly ignoring the experience of the people around them to spend money to kill their babies because some company puts an advert on a billboard?

They're not inconsiderate, they simply don't have the benefit of an education and Nestl sends their sales reps into the maternity wards to market their infant formula directly to the mothers and the hospital staff. The reps load them up with free samples and since lactation works on a "use it or lose it" basis, the mothers can't produce enough breast milk after they've burned through the free samples. They're stuck paying for the formula because they've lost the ability to breast feed.

This isn't put-a-billboard-up-and-maybe-someone-will-pay-attention stuff. This is a considered corporate strategy that Nestl has put in place to mislead and misinform people who are susceptible to their quasi-scientific direct marketing.

It's the same tactics people who sell crack use, except there are presumably some crack dealers out there who won't risk a newborn's life trying to sell junk to it's mother.

Nestl has been doing this since the 1970s. Please, go read up on them before you listen to a word their CEO says about the ethics of food supply.

 

[bordsilver]

:lol: And yet again I'm suprised by how fast the seemingly free market advocates buckle under a non-issue. Even a couple of our biggest anarchists are shown to be wishy-washy.

Just because you can dream up a situation or have seen a movie that dramatises someone else's story doesn't mean anyone'll ever be in that situation. Short term sh*tty issues will only happen if the transition from our current system is corrupted by governments misallocating or fraudulently transferring existing property rights. Importantly, it'll be short term and the problem is with the corrupt government not the privatised market itself.

Google it on the various libertarian sites and read up on how it would all work so that you can regain your confidence

 

[Kawa]

In essence we have private water in Oz.

Look at your water bill?

Do you drink bottled water ?

He is right you just don't like his accent.

I think this guy is awesome as he actually does stuff and produces.

 

[bordsilver]

Did you get a few seeds in your cones tonight bord ? This is one time I can actually fully agree with AD.

About which bit? Dumb inconsiderate mothers knowingly ignoring the experience of the people around them to spend money to kill their babies because some company puts an advert on a billboard?

They're not inconsiderate, they simply don't have the benefit of an education and Nestl sends their sales reps into the maternity wards to market their infant formula directly to the mothers and the hospital staff. The reps load them up with free samples and since lactation works on a "use it or lose it" basis, the mothers can't produce enough breast milk after they've burned through the free samples. They're stuck paying for the formula because they've lost the ability to breast feed.

This isn't put-a-billboard-up-and-maybe-someone-will-pay-attention stuff. This is a considered corporate strategy that Nestl has put in place to mislead and misinform people who are susceptible to their quasi-scientific direct marketing.

It's the same tactics people who sell crack use, except there are presumably some crack dealers out there who won't risk a newborn's life trying to sell junk to it's mother.

Nestl has been doing this since the 1970s. Please, go read up on them before you listen to a word their CEO says about the ethics of food supply.

...knowingly ignoring the experience of the people around them. Mothers groups and gossip are so frickin natural it's not funny. There's way more to the story than an evil corporation pushing drugs on dumb, inconsiderate mums. Seriously, I know a lot of 3rd world mums are thick as two bricks but "Damn, dude" you have no respect for them whatsoever.

 

[bordsilver]

I am not saying you are wrong..... But... When i was there working with drs without borders.... They advised women to breast feed for six months and then move to formula... It reduced the incidence of passing hiv to infants. So, it gave "breast is best" for the crucial months, and then it allowed a safer alternative. I agree 100% with breastfeeding babies... But in the case of hiv+ mother and negative baby, i like the formula to give better long term survival. But you are right about lack of clean water and incorrect mixture of formula, let alone non-sterile bottles and the like.

Shiny

And looky here, the true complexity compared to evil multinational baby killing executives starts to come out

 

[Kawa]

Just a side note.My family have been blessed with the chance to fund children with World Vision contributions now for some time.Alot of this money goes to basic things like water supply in a village.
Its easy to say only 10 % gets through however I think thats OK.

Water is a food and has a price.

I recommend World Vision sponsorship to all .

 

[southerncross]

bord, do you honestly think for a moment that the likes of Nestl are a true representation of a free market economy?

Kawa, do you honestly think this bloke works for a living ?

Seriously think about it for a minute or two, Privatisation of Water.

 

[bordsilver]

bord, do you honestly think for a moment that the likes of Nestl are a true representation of a free market economy?

Kawa, do you honestly think this bloke works for a living ?

Seriously think about it for a minute or two, Privatisation of Water.

Absolutely, no doubt about it. I currently pay for every single litre now, with the majority of that simply being flushed down the drain. I can't see why you think there is an issue. Do you want people slaving away cleaning, treating and transporting water for free? Don't you want farming areas with scarce natural supplies to be able to trade them to their highest value use?

 

[Big A.D.]

Google it on the various libertarian sites and read up on how it would all work so that you can regain your confidence

We don't need to Google what some libertarian philosophers reckon would happen, we can see what does happen when rights to water have been privatized because it's been tried in Latin America and the experiment went so horribly wrong that several countries re-wrote their constitutions to stop it from happening again.

 

[Kawa]

bord, do you honestly think for a moment that the likes of Nestl are a true representation of a free market economy?

Kawa, do you honestly think this bloke works for a living ?

Seriously think about it for a minute or two, Privatisation of Water.

I own a farm that has underground irrigation and the supply is administered from Sunwater (For profit org) that charge a fixed fee quarterly enough to buy a small second hand car.On top of that I pay usage /Megl each quarter.

When I drive to the farm in the rental car I normally have bottled water in the console that is produced by Coca Cola Amatil.

Then when I fly back and have to use my toilet at home after a hard day.The flush is being added to my domestic water bill.

We already have private water supply that has a real price on all levels.

 

[bordsilver]

Google it on the various libertarian sites and read up on how it would all work so that you can regain your confidence

We don't need to Google what some libertarian philosophers reckon would happen, we can see what does happen when rights to water have been privatized because it's been tried in Latin America and the experiment went so horribly wrong that several countries re-wrote their constitutions to stop it from happening again.

...and if also search for lat. america they'll also tell you what really happened and how to avoid the same mistakes.

 

[bordsilver]

Anyway. It's all moot because Australia is one of the enlightened regions embracing water pricing and given its successes it's going to increase if and when necessary. Countries with scarce water that don't put in pricing and markets will be the ones to experience the most pain.

 

[Kawa]

Anyway. It's all moot because Australia is one of the enlightened regions embracing water pricing and given its successes it's going to increase if and when necessary. Countries with scarce water that don't put in pricing and markets will be the ones to experience the most pain.

Pricing only works where there is the infrastructure to deliver at an economical price and the customers can pay.In Oz we are so far ahead of the rest of the world with our infrastructure.

Many places in the third world don't have this infrastructure ( channels/pumps/dams etc) and water pricing becomes impossible.

I truely believe that we have an obligation to assist these countries with basic water supply issues.

Indivual families can donate to assist.

Wil get off my soap box now.

 

[FullMetalFever]

I don't see why there is such a knee jerk reaction against this.

If the price rises high enough, it'd become economical (and profitable) to desalinate seawater; wholesale adoption would secure human water supplies for centuries.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/08/us-water-idUSTRE7772GC20110808

Detractors argue trading water is unethical or even a breach of human rights, but already water rights are bought and sold in arid areas of the globe from Oman to Australia.

Australian farmers are willingly paying for water rights because they're choosing to run farms on a continent where fresh water is scarce compared to demand. Buyers of produce ultimately pay for the water used.

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/bottled-water-1.jpg

Millions of consumers are already buying a product (bottled water) when they can receive an comparable good (municipal water) for 1/100th of the price.

Farmers pay for a water right, not for the water itself, if they use less they don't pay any less, would you be happy paying for the rain that falls from the sky onto your land ? Because that is how it will end up.

Doesn't that happen already?

If you install a water tank, you get a rebate from the gubmint, then they charge you ongoing for the water you collect. (Personally I didn't claim my rebate or notify that I had installed one)

Also on my bush property, where there is no house and no services for town water or sewage, I am charged yearly water rates simply because it rains on my property and it is in a catchment area. This one in particular gives me the runs ....

 

[bordsilver]

Anyway. It's all moot because Australia is one of the enlightened regions embracing water pricing and given its successes it's going to increase if and when necessary. Countries with scarce water that don't put in pricing and markets will be the ones to experience the most pain.

Pricing only works where there is the infrastructure to deliver at an economical price and the customers can pay.In Oz we are so far ahead of the rest of the world with our infrastructure.

Many places in the third world don't have this infrastructure ( channels/pumps/dams etc) and water pricing becomes impossible.

I truely believe that we have an obligation to assist these countries with basic water supply issues.

Indivual families can donate to assist.

Wil get off my soap box now.

Fully agree (except obligation is too strong a word). It's definitely one of my favourite things to donate to.