2 ms·

No, people will not die. They will buy bottled water. Is it expensive? Well, maybe living in the middle of a desert should not be subsidized. Anyone who thinks

No, people will not die. They will buy bottled water. Is it expensive? Well, maybe living in the middle of a desert should not be subsidized. Anyone who thinks that's too expensive is free to another place. Notice the "free to". Eminent Domain is awful. As I just posted in another thread, I think the best way in general is leaving everyone free - not forcing anyone to do what they don't want to do, as I don't like the concept of force or violence. I don't care about government action as such - if it was optional, as in a "recommendation". As in saying cigarettes are bad. Not in banning or taxing them. Eminent Domain is using the force of the government and the threat of violence against whoever stands in the way. Like people whose homes are in the way of making new private buildings, as seen in many cases. All it takes is giving them enough money to make them leave on their own free will. If they don't want to, or if you're too cheap for that, what makes anyone think you have more "rights" to their property than these people do?? I can't ever agree to that, sorry.

gknoy 11y ago
If they can't afford to buy expensive water (which we need for sewers, showers, washing dishes, etc -- not merely drinking), chances are that they'd have a hard time finding the money to move elsewhere, even if it would be cheaper in the long-term to do so.
vacri 11y ago
How very strange, in that you think that water should not be a resource appropriately managed/subsidised by a government, but you're totally on-board with the concept of private ownership of land - a concept wholly enabled by government. It's only the government's "threat of violence" that allows private ownership of land in the first place. You don't want the government to manage water for the benefit of the population? Why do you want government to manage land, then? Isn't it funny how libertarianism is always so lopsided? "Freedom for everyone, as long as the elites get to keep their status quo!". There's always some flowery rhetoric protecting the power of the elite...

gknoy 11y ago

If they can't afford to buy expensive water (which we need for sewers, showers, washing dishes, etc -- not merely drinking), chances are that they'd have a hard time finding the money to move elsewhere, even if it would be cheaper in the long-term to do so.

vacri 11y ago

How very strange, in that you think that water should not be a resource appropriately managed/subsidised by a government, but you're totally on-board with the concept of private ownership of land - a concept wholly enabled by government. It's only the government's "threat of violence" that allows private ownership of land in the first place. You don't want the government to manage water for the benefit of the population? Why do you want government to manage land, then? Isn't it funny how libertarianism is always so lopsided? "Freedom for everyone, as long as the elites get to keep their status quo!". There's always some flowery rhetoric protecting the power of the elite...