11 Comments

  1. that makes the US Forest Service illegitimate

    1. Peter Wright says:

      And so. do you have the same absurd and pernicious attitudes about oxygen? By the sound of it, you’d be all for commodifying that too, just as soon as someone could figure out how to do that. And then there is your notion that water rights are “justly acquired”. Yeah, right. Tell us about how that happens.

      1. there is one thing we have that exists in superabundance. That is our atmosphere. It exists in such a supply that it does not need distribution to get it to market, it does not need processing to make ready for consumption, it does not even have a price because it is so abundant it is effectively free. To equate the atmosphere with anything else on the Earth including water is to show your ignorance of basic economic principles of scarcity and abundance. The atmosphere exists in abundance, water does not. It needs to be labored over in order to provide it to those who want it. Piping, collecting, aqueducts, reservoirs, reprocessing plants. All sorts of infrastructure is necessary for water to get from where it is to where it is needed in a usable state. There is no comparing the two things economically.

        As to property being “justly acquired” i thought that the meaning was plain. It simply means not stolen from someone else by force or fraud. For example if I collect rain water from my roof for a small garden. The water in my cistern is mine. I made or bought the collection mechanism, installed it, and now I collect rain water, justly. It is my property. If someone comes along and siphons off my water without my permission at night, or at gunpoint, they may now have the water but they did not justly acquire it.

        I hope that is plain enough for you.

        1. Peter Wright says:

          So- the atmosphere is “free” and exists in abundance? If you’re talking about a breathable (i.e. non-toxic) atmosphere, I am sure that there are a few million residents of the manufacturing centers in China who would dispute that notion. In those areas, the atmosphere has essentially been appropriated by commercial interests (in collusion with regional governments) and is being used/polluted by those entities to the detriment of the people who, to use your word, consume it. And I’ll remind you that free oxygen is also a molecule, and an elemental one at that.

          The means by which you acquire “your” water is quaint (I do the same thing), but as an analogy to water distribution to a general population, meaningless. After all, the very infrastructure that you mention is, almost without exception, funded directly or indirectly by taxes and rate-paying consumers of water, and to suggest that water might be “justly acquired” simply because someone can pay more for is rapacious capitalism at its worst.

          By the way, if, in the future, I’m ever looking to engage in conversation with a condescending, pompous twit, I’ll look you up. Okay?

          See ya later, sport..

          1. you do realize that resorting to name calling means that your out of things to say, and realize that my point is valid.

          2. Peter Wright says:

            Your logic is just as flawed as your punctuation- but yes, I have run out of things to say… to you.

            G’bye.

          3. Your comment is ignorant of fundamental economics as most are these days thanks to government education. That atmosphere is polluted in a particular place in no way changes the fact that the atmosphere over the earth exists in super abundance. As evidenced by the fact that it does not require any distribution in order to get to where it is needed, it does not need to be “processed” by man to be usable, It is everywhere and in enough quantity for everyone.
            Secondly, how water infrastructure is actually funded today in no way has any implication for how it could be or should be funded. That is the whole point here. The debate is over how water infrastructure should be funded, but taxation or by private investment. I am making the case that private investment will provide the most good for the most people who want it.
            Unfortunately we still have socialists left overs from the 20th century who still think in the old ways. It doesn’t matter what Capitalism achieves, cell phones, computer, etc. they will always cling to the old statist ways. By your comments I take you to be one of those people.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *