Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California orders bottled water firm to stop drawing from natural springs

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–68 of 68 posts

Re: California orders bottled water firm to stop drawing from natural springs

#61

Post by dragonwriter »

Georgelemental wrote: post #41
dragonwriter wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Human need ≠ human right. By definition, a limited resource cannot be a natural right. Rights aren’t natural, that’s a quasi-religious fiction invoked as a thought-terminating cliché to avoid debate over political ideology, and the bounds you state are simply the dogma of a particular political sect fond of the “natural rights” evasion. Human rights are a matter determined by the conscience of humans, and (while no…

> Human rights are a matter determined by the conscience of humans …and the laws of physics. If there is physically not enough water around to satisfy everyone's needs, then no amount of agitation about ‘rights’ will change that. A true universal right is not contingent on a particular material situation.

> …and the laws of physics.

No, laws of physics do not determine rights. Pragmatics and rights are orthogonal.

> If there is physically not enough water around to satisfy everyone's needs, then no amount of agitation about ‘rights’ will change that.

This is, ironically, more relevant to property rights in water (which are usually entitlements to take a particular amount) than to any common construction of water as a human right, which rather than an entitlement to a particular quantity is fenerally constructed as a right to equitable priority in distribution of what does exist.

Re: California orders bottled water firm to stop drawing from natural springs

#62

Post by opwieurposiu »

lesuorac wrote: post #47
lordfrito wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you are bottling water, you are effectively removing it from the local “water system” with no chance of it ever replenishing the source. Sounds like the perfect solution to sea level rise caused by melting glaciers. Just bottle it all up. I can see it now "Every bottle of water sold fights you dealing with climate change!" /s

I mean isn't it? For all the ice on land that melts into the ocean raising the sea level, take an appropriate amount of seawater and freeze it back onto land. That might be too difficult though; maybe instead we can replace all of the oil underground with water. It's all underneath us anyways so just leave the hole open and water will naturally pool down there.

Most old oil fields already do this, it is called "enhanced recovery". You have injection wells where you pump down water and production wells where a water/oil mix comes up. The water you use is mostly contaminated stuff you want to get rid of any ways.

You do have pump the water in under pressure though, just letting it pour down the hole will not work since rock is more dense the water. Imagine you were standing on a sponge in the shower, the sponge will not absorb much water since you are squishing all the pore spaces closed.

Re: California orders bottled water firm to stop drawing from natural springs

#63

Post by tzs »

Georgelemental wrote: post #41
dragonwriter wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Human need ≠ human right. By definition, a limited resource cannot be a natural right. Rights aren’t natural, that’s a quasi-religious fiction invoked as a thought-terminating cliché to avoid debate over political ideology, and the bounds you state are simply the dogma of a particular political sect fond of the “natural rights” evasion. Human rights are a matter determined by the conscience of humans, and (while no…

> Human rights are a matter determined by the conscience of humans …and the laws of physics. If there is physically not enough water around to satisfy everyone's needs, then no amount of agitation about ‘rights’ will change that. A true universal right is not contingent on a particular material situation.

All human rights are contingent on material situations, except possibly rights that are exercised entirely in your mind.

The point of rights is that they are things that we have widely agreed governments will not try to stop you from doing. That doesn't mean that they have to ensure that you have the means to exercise those rights.

For example in much of the world (including the US) freedom of movement is a right. If I want to travel from my home in the Pacific Northwest of the US across the country to Florida on the public roads the government cannot simply forbid me from doing so because of my freedom of movement rights. However if I can't afford transportation, or the food and lodging I would need if I tried to walk to Florida, the government does not have to provide some means for me to get to Florida that fits my budget.

Re: California orders bottled water firm to stop drawing from natural springs

#65

Post by FireBeyond »

Aerroon wrote: post #23
Georgelemental wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, I don't think corporations should be able to exploit a commons (like a stream) for profit without compensating the community.

They do compensate the community. First, they make goods available: bottled water. Second, they buy the land and/or water rights to use them.

> water rights to use them

There's some rather sweetheart deals at play there. In some places, those water rights cost as little as a single digit number of dollars per million gallons.

Re: California orders bottled water firm to stop drawing from natural springs

#67

Post by Eumenes »

TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #40
Eumenes wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> water being a human right housing, jobs, healthcare, education, water ... strange how classically liberal rights, such as speech and fair trial, which if anything are antagonist to the state, have transitioned, in popular discourse, to physical and materialistic needs that require top down control of resources/institutions. not very liberal to me. nestle sucks, and shouldn't exist, but this 'human right' rhetoric i…

If enough people agree that something should be available to all, then we can decide that it's a human right. I don't think it's that complicated. Your comment seems like it takes on the problem from a platonic ideal of a reality which doesn't seem to exist.

Well, expect people to mock the endless growing list of 'rights' because at this pace, I'm starting to lose track
Post reply on HN