3 ms·

Counterpoint: Saying water isn't a human right is different than saying not everyone should have access to water. I generally agree that water isn't a right.

Counterpoint: Saying water isn't a human right is different than saying not everyone should have access to water. I generally agree that water isn't a right. I think it's a misuse of the word "right" and a misapplication of the concept of a "right". Rights define what you're free to do for yourself, and the various ways in which those freedoms can't be infringed upon by others. For example, you have a right to free speech and people can't infringe on that. You have a right to not be tortured and people can't infringe on that. In the US, if the government is going to take your property or jail you as punishment for a crime, you have a right to a fair trial first before they can do that to you. There's a distinction between that and things like water and healthcare. One is a list of rights, and the other is a list of things people generally need to live a happy and healthy life. If we're going to dilute the definition of "right" down to that degree, why don't we just throw in housing and free trips for vacation and a loving partner while we're at it? South Africa has housing as a right in their constitution. They also have 200,000 homeless people. So who's infringing on their rights? Every citizen of South Africa? The UN General Assembly declared water a human right. The world also has close to a billion people who don't have access to clean drinking water. Who's infringing on their rights? Are you? Rights aren't about what resources (time, money, commodities, services, etc) you're free to take from others. When you start defining rights that way, rights all start contradicting each other. What about a doctor's freedom to choose who they perform surgery on? What about your freedom to live a life not solely dedicated to plumbing in Gabon?

baddox 9y ago
You're explicitly making a semantic argument. When people say "water is a human right" or "Internet is a human right," all they mean is that governments should use public funds to improve (or guarantee) access to those things. Of course you're correct about the way the word "right" is generally used in philosophy and ethics. But that's absolutely not the definition being used here.
- throwaway0255 9y ago
  It's exactly a matter of semantics. Condemning people for saying water isn't a human right is also a matter of semantics. The Nestle CEO was using the correct definition of "human right". Now people are going to attribute their inaccurate definition of the term to his statements, and condemn him for it (like the parent comment did). It's all semantics. Now how about we start using the word correctly so we can avoid this? Or how about the liberals condemning him try being intellectually honest for once, and stop deliberately and knowingly misinterpreting what he said just because it's convenient for the argument they're trying to make?
zjaffee 9y ago
I think that even by your definition water is a human right. Should we not have access to plumbing anymore lets say, and there was a freshwater lake near where we lived, we should be allowed to get our water from it and no other human should stop us from doing so simply because they said that they owned it.
- tylerhou 9y ago
  You're arguing that if there's an available source of water, people should be able to take from it as they choose. But then what incentivizes me to build a plumbing system (which, if I should build, I would claim that I owned) if anyone could just take from it?
cwkoss 9y ago
I think the key point of contention is about rainwater harvesting. Making rainwater harvesting illegal (and thus forcing people to overpay a monopolized water system) is arguably a violation of human rights. It is a prohibition of what you are 'free to do for yourself', that forces people to pay for something they need to survive (and could otherwise get for free). However, I agree on the haziness around the issue. Mandating that everyone receives X amount of drinkable water may be expensive to implement, economically unsustainable and create perverse incentives.
- agonow 9y ago
  This is similar to Thomas Paine's argument for a basic income in Agarian Justice. If civilization has deprived you the natural right to live off the land, it should compensate you somehow (access to cheap clean water or free water).
- njarboe 9y ago
  In the US people have mineral rights to the earth under the surface of their property. This can be separated from the surface rights and sold off. If one buys just the surface rights, then the entity that has the mineral rights can, in most cases, access your surface to extract their minerals. Not reading the fine print on your title and having someone want to exercise their mineral rights is a serious issue in the US. I would definitely be very wary of buying land without the mineral rights. But the right to use water that lands on your property? Never heard of "rain water rights". Unless it was previously declared somehow, forcing you not to collect rainwater would highlight the need for the right to bear arms. I would like to know more about how that came about in those cases.
  - cwkoss 9y ago
    Apparently it's technically illegal in Nevada. Thankfully, sounds like it isn't practically enforced. http://www.rgj.com/story/news/2015/05/26/ask-rgj-can-nevadans-collect-rain-barrels/27983037/ http://www.rgj.com/story/news/2015/05/26/ask-rgj-can-nevadan... I believe are some serious injustices around water privatization in South America, however.
taheca 9y ago
There is enough to disagree with Nestle about without even going into Water Rights. What they do to women with their formula in developing nations is a crime. They miseducate them by telling them that Formula is better, give them free samples until their milk dries up, and then start charging them. It's deplorable behavior, and as a result I refuse to buy any Nestle product.

baddox 9y ago

You're explicitly making a semantic argument. When people say "water is a human right" or "Internet is a human right," all they mean is that governments should use public funds to improve (or guarantee) access to those things. Of course you're correct about the way the word "right" is generally used in philosophy and ethics. But that's absolutely not the definition being used here.

throwaway0255 9y ago
It's exactly a matter of semantics. Condemning people for saying water isn't a human right is also a matter of semantics. The Nestle CEO was using the correct definition of "human right". Now people are going to attribute their inaccurate definition of the term to his statements, and condemn him for it (like the parent comment did). It's all semantics. Now how about we start using the word correctly so we can avoid this? Or how about the liberals condemning him try being intellectually honest for once, and stop deliberately and knowingly misinterpreting what he said just because it's convenient for the argument they're trying to make?

zjaffee 9y ago

I think that even by your definition water is a human right. Should we not have access to plumbing anymore lets say, and there was a freshwater lake near where we lived, we should be allowed to get our water from it and no other human should stop us from doing so simply because they said that they owned it.

tylerhou 9y ago
You're arguing that if there's an available source of water, people should be able to take from it as they choose. But then what incentivizes me to build a plumbing system (which, if I should build, I would claim that I owned) if anyone could just take from it?

cwkoss 9y ago

I think the key point of contention is about rainwater harvesting. Making rainwater harvesting illegal (and thus forcing people to overpay a monopolized water system) is arguably a violation of human rights. It is a prohibition of what you are 'free to do for yourself', that forces people to pay for something they need to survive (and could otherwise get for free). However, I agree on the haziness around the issue. Mandating that everyone receives X amount of drinkable water may be expensive to implement, economically unsustainable and create perverse incentives.

agonow 9y ago
This is similar to Thomas Paine's argument for a basic income in Agarian Justice. If civilization has deprived you the natural right to live off the land, it should compensate you somehow (access to cheap clean water or free water).
njarboe 9y ago
In the US people have mineral rights to the earth under the surface of their property. This can be separated from the surface rights and sold off. If one buys just the surface rights, then the entity that has the mineral rights can, in most cases, access your surface to extract their minerals. Not reading the fine print on your title and having someone want to exercise their mineral rights is a serious issue in the US. I would definitely be very wary of buying land without the mineral rights. But the right to use water that lands on your property? Never heard of "rain water rights". Unless it was previously declared somehow, forcing you not to collect rainwater would highlight the need for the right to bear arms. I would like to know more about how that came about in those cases.
- cwkoss 9y ago
  Apparently it's technically illegal in Nevada. Thankfully, sounds like it isn't practically enforced. http://www.rgj.com/story/news/2015/05/26/ask-rgj-can-nevadans-collect-rain-barrels/27983037/ http://www.rgj.com/story/news/2015/05/26/ask-rgj-can-nevadan... I believe are some serious injustices around water privatization in South America, however.

taheca 9y ago

There is enough to disagree with Nestle about without even going into Water Rights. What they do to women with their formula in developing nations is a crime. They miseducate them by telling them that Formula is better, give them free samples until their milk dries up, and then start charging them. It's deplorable behavior, and as a result I refuse to buy any Nestle product.