Is water a right
-
Oh my God !!! I am so converted. The elegance, compassion and humanity of your argument completely carried the day.
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Personal Music Player[^]
-
They can politely ask, and I will help them. People are born with a responsibility to take care of themselves. You have a right to live, but you have the responsibility to make sure you get your work done so you may survive. If I am working in my gardens and feeding the cattle, and some guy down the road is sitting in the dirt chugging beer, why would he have a right to whats mine?
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
So basically what you are saying is that if they fit an arbitrary criteria set by you then you will grant them life but if they do not fulfil for standards for what you personally deem to be a valid human being then you will let them die.
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Personal Music Player[^]
-
So basically what you are saying is that if they fit an arbitrary criteria set by you then you will grant them life but if they do not fulfil for standards for what you personally deem to be a valid human being then you will let them die.
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Personal Music Player[^]
Oh like you wouldn't do it too. :P If CSS came begging for water you'd let him mummify on your lawn while sipping iced tea on your porch. Come on, admit it. We all would. Except maybe Christian. He'd give him the water on condition that he get a psych eval.
-
Oh my God !!! I am so converted. The elegance, compassion and humanity of your argument completely carried the day.
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Personal Music Player[^]
well, your answer was refuted as easily as presented. Just sayin... Oh and Evian selling something that is a right for more per ounce than gasoline sorta speaks to it maybe not being one.
-
Oh my God !!! I am so converted. The elegance, compassion and humanity of your argument completely carried the day.
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Personal Music Player[^]
-
Is having clean fresh water a right? We all have to have it to survive, but for those of us in the US it certainly isn't in the bill of rights. It's a phrase often used by talking heads and some folks every day. If the bill of rights is what defines rights in this country then I would have to answer no.
There are two sorts of rights. First up are legal right, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has recently recognized the human right to water. Of course these can be repealed, the government can fall, law and order can break down and such rights change from society to society. So legal rights have limited validity but, in a just society, they are enforced. However, in many societies these rights are not enforced or legal rights are overrden by rival countries/ groups. In the Middle East, for example, access to water supplies have been the key to political/military success for centuries an example would be the [Battle of Hattin], such processes continue to this day: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_politics_in_the_Jordan_River_basin[^] The second sort are natural rights, these are "universal" and cannot be taken away (sometimes described as inalienable rights). The problem with these as they rely upon an absolute authority to grant them. As nature doesn't have the agency to do this, the only being capable of granting such rights would be god. Of course this now poses three further problems, namely god needs to exist, god must enforce the rights and finally we have no way of knowing what these rights are. So No. In fact no-one has any absolute rights at all.
CCC solved so far: 2 (including a Hard One!) 37!?!! - Randall, Clerks
-
There are two sorts of rights. First up are legal right, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has recently recognized the human right to water. Of course these can be repealed, the government can fall, law and order can break down and such rights change from society to society. So legal rights have limited validity but, in a just society, they are enforced. However, in many societies these rights are not enforced or legal rights are overrden by rival countries/ groups. In the Middle East, for example, access to water supplies have been the key to political/military success for centuries an example would be the [Battle of Hattin], such processes continue to this day: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_politics_in_the_Jordan_River_basin[^] The second sort are natural rights, these are "universal" and cannot be taken away (sometimes described as inalienable rights). The problem with these as they rely upon an absolute authority to grant them. As nature doesn't have the agency to do this, the only being capable of granting such rights would be god. Of course this now poses three further problems, namely god needs to exist, god must enforce the rights and finally we have no way of knowing what these rights are. So No. In fact no-one has any absolute rights at all.
CCC solved so far: 2 (including a Hard One!) 37!?!! - Randall, Clerks
While I agree with the basic principle, I have to extend the second point a bit further for pedantry's sake using an example: You have a universal right to breathe where: - There's a breathable atmosphere - Your personal breathing apparatus is unimpaired - You aren't iredeemably (sp?) stupid So a person stranded in the wilds anywhere in the World would still have it, regardless. So with water...there's arguments for and against, you should be able to get to it anywhere in the world but nature might disagree by putting you on top of a very very tall rock. So...tricky. An agreement but I guess i'm trying to say that all things being equal, there would be unalienable rights that could exist but things generally aren't.
-
Is having clean fresh water a right? We all have to have it to survive, but for those of us in the US it certainly isn't in the bill of rights. It's a phrase often used by talking heads and some folks every day. If the bill of rights is what defines rights in this country then I would have to answer no.
Exploring Constitutional Law, provides comprehensive information about the U. S. Constitution, including commentary, cases, questions, images, historical information, learning games, etc. www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/home.html[^]
-
While I agree with the basic principle, I have to extend the second point a bit further for pedantry's sake using an example: You have a universal right to breathe where: - There's a breathable atmosphere - Your personal breathing apparatus is unimpaired - You aren't iredeemably (sp?) stupid So a person stranded in the wilds anywhere in the World would still have it, regardless. So with water...there's arguments for and against, you should be able to get to it anywhere in the world but nature might disagree by putting you on top of a very very tall rock. So...tricky. An agreement but I guess i'm trying to say that all things being equal, there would be unalienable rights that could exist but things generally aren't.
JHizzle wrote:
You have a universal right to breathe where: - There's a breathable atmosphere - Your personal breathing apparatus is unimpaired - You aren't iredeemably (sp?) stupid
Surely "There is a breathable atmosphere" alone limits the Universality of the right, or, taking your the argument further, a right would be universal where it can never be broken. In this case the right is useless because you can never be placed in a circumstance where can be breached. The point I was trying to make was more a philosophical one, no Universal rights can be shown to exist, and legal rights are transient and subject to abuse at best. This was all heavily debated in 17th and 18th centuries.
CCC solved so far: 2 (including a Hard One!) 37!?!! - Randall, Clerks
-
JHizzle wrote:
You have a universal right to breathe where: - There's a breathable atmosphere - Your personal breathing apparatus is unimpaired - You aren't iredeemably (sp?) stupid
Surely "There is a breathable atmosphere" alone limits the Universality of the right, or, taking your the argument further, a right would be universal where it can never be broken. In this case the right is useless because you can never be placed in a circumstance where can be breached. The point I was trying to make was more a philosophical one, no Universal rights can be shown to exist, and legal rights are transient and subject to abuse at best. This was all heavily debated in 17th and 18th centuries.
CCC solved so far: 2 (including a Hard One!) 37!?!! - Randall, Clerks
I had a more debateable point when i'd started that post, it ran away in fear at what I was going to do with it :) So yes agreed, an inalienable right would be one where there would be absolutely no pre-requisites/limitations to it. By extension then, what would be the term for a right which would exist within certain "normal" assumptions (in my example, the breathable atmosphere, etc. thing) and where would these boundaries themselves be limited to? Is it a subjective viewpoint that would govern this? I suspect a vast majority of people would include breathable atmosphere as a normal assumption with other requirements having less support (like alien space rayz penetratingz mah fail hat to mess wiz mah brainmeats) which is extreme but some people might consider normal. ...not me.
-
Is having clean fresh water a right? We all have to have it to survive, but for those of us in the US it certainly isn't in the bill of rights. It's a phrase often used by talking heads and some folks every day. If the bill of rights is what defines rights in this country then I would have to answer no.