Gee, I think corporations should not have personhood, nor be able to own anything.
Nestle's CEO just forfeited his right to life....
He has the Schwab disease.
If I recall, I read a story years ago that they ,or someone else, but I think it's them were taking California's ground water near the mountains where I live. How did they do it? Well, it had something to do with the one who has the biggest pump wins. So. privatizing our free water benefits them and whoever they're paying off.
They gave the most money to election campaigns and other fundraisers. Read fundraisers as bribery.
The almond farmers are almost as bad.
I don't know how they legally get away with this crap since bribery is illegal no matter what euphemism is used.
When you look at the laws that would apply, you find that it isn't bribery. Yet, when you discuss it with normal people that are paying even a smidgen of attention to what is going on, all we see is bribery.
Somebody shoot the faggot in the throat with a nigger load! He dont seem hydrated enough!
A better irony would be to set him on fire and then calmly sit down to negotiate a fair market value for the water he needs to extinguish the flames.
Fukn NICE! Id pay to see that shit for sure!!
It's a shame the Lord doesn't smite this demon.
It is a shame, but there's still time.
Ah, there is the famous German arrogance. I've always heard of it but never seen it before quite this direct.
Corporations don't have a right to exist, if their operations aren't beneficial to the volk.
PUBLIC DRINKING FOUNTAIN $5/5 SECONDS
Brought to you by Nestle
Cool well then I HEREBY OWN THE OCEAN AND ALL YOU BITCHES HAVE TO PAY A TOLL TO TOUCH MY WATER.
Going only by the post title, this is correct -- no one has a "right" to water. The only rights one has are natural rights -- the right to be free of violence to your person and to your property. YOUR property, not someone else's.
Anything else that someone calls a "right" is either a property right derived from natural rights, or it's a legal privilege that is being falsely marketed as a right.
All property should be privatized, because the only alternative is government ownership of "public" property leading either to the tragedy of the commons, where resources are squandered because no one exercises the authority to limit their consumption, or to government restricting the use of some resource to only the people it permits (i.e., nepotism or other politically-connected individuals). You can see what's wrong with both of these scenarios.
In a truly free society, companies would face much greater competitive pressures and would not have the protection of government to subsidize them and to regulate away their competition. They would not be able to grow without the continued support of their customers. So how could they "buy up" all the water?
They couldn't. They wouldn't have enough money.
Even supposing one company got so wealthy, that they truly wanted to buy up all the water, the more water that they took off the market, the higher the price of the next water source would be. Lower supply in the face of greater demand leads to a rise in prices. It would be prohibitively and perhaps impossibly expensive for any company, or any coalition of companies, to own ALL the water. It's simply economically impossible.
A proper understanding of natural rights theory and basic economic principles would do a lot of people a hell of a lot of good.
What this guy actually means is that you shouldn't be able to collect rainwater on your property or from public waterways. They tried this in Bolivia (I think?) and it worked for a while until the people just went and lynched all the politicians that put the policy in place.
This is the subtext that is not being said, right. His position is the setup for precisely this point.
I spoke with an American recently who moved to Bolivia and he said living there is like living without a government in a way. Just like you said, the neighborhood people will literally fight against unjust rules. He said, he feels safe there.
I too need to learn more about this. Good reply.
"Right" here means people vs a corporation not a nog saying gibs me water.
Regarding your theology of lone wolf capitalism (all things private) vs collective responsibility. No, that is the tool of the jew. The purpose of civilization is to grow, leave a better world for the children than we found, and eventually get of the rock.
Anyone who places their own personal benefit in front of that goal AND represses others from achieving said goals must not be tolerated.
Nothing you've said here makes any sense or has any actual theory behind it.
(post is archived)