What's your opinion on water being called "human right"? According to the U.N. humans have a "right to water." Personally I don't care what the U.N. says. They are all a bunch of bureaucrats who live off of our taxes and whatever they say is just pure and utter B.S. However, what is your opinion of the "right to water". I for one believe that we only have 3 rights: Life, liberty and Estate. In order to keep our life we need water. Therefore it is a necessity, not a right. That is just my opinion.
Yes, a "necessity" is not a right. I mean, so what, "food" is now a right? And a "job" is a right, because we need money to get the food, and our other right, "medicine." And a "home" is propably a right to these people with a narrow view of humanity and the world.
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
It is wet.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Its a bit more basic than whether water is a right or not. I agree with you that there are 3 fundamental rights: life, liberty, and property. But there can be no right that infringes on the fundamental rights of others. So what does the UN mean by a right to water? Does it mean that they will take it upon themselves to be sure that you are provided with water? How will they do this? Through programs funded by taxation? in that case they are claiming that your "right" to water supercedes the fundamental right of others to their own legitimatey acquired property. While every person has the right to life, it is contrary to individual rights to force oner person to give up a part of their rights to provide for the individual rights of another
What's your opinion on water being called "human right"? According to the U.N. humans have a "right to water."
Rights are just referring to who is acting in the right in any given situation. For example, if I have right of way, that means that if you and I have a dispute about travel, one of the ways we resolve this dispute is to look at who had the right of way, but sometimes there are other factors. Now, let's look at what it means to have a "right to water". Presumably, what this means is that no one can deny you access to water - they would be acting in the wrong. So this would mean that not only could you homestead or trade for water, you could also steal it from someone else. In any of these situations, you would be acting in the right.
Well, what happens if the person you want to steal the water from defends against you? Does your "right to water" trump his "right to property"? After all, don't both of you have a right to water? So, what makes your right to water stronger than his right to water?
The whole purpose of property rights is to resolve disputes. It's the same with norms and laws. When someone throws out a line like "right to water", they are confused as to the purpose of rights/property/norms/laws. They are trying to sound like they are generous and charitable. But when you dissect their statements, it becomes entirely clear that they are asking demanding others to be generous and charitable.
I for one believe that we only have 3 rights: Life, liberty and Estate.
Life, liberty, and property are certainly very important, but calling them the only rights confuses the issue. Property rights especially can be very confusing, as they can end up being defined very specifically. Property rights are not just about property lines around houses. How loud can you play your music during the day? How loud can you play it at night?
Thanks everyone, I really like all of you answers. I agree that if you dissect the argument of "right to water" you are gonna end up with someone paying for someone else via taxation, which is theft.
Property rights are not just about property lines around houses. How loud can you play your music during the day? How loud can you play it at night?
I assume that as long as someone else doesn't complain, you are O.K. However, if your neighbor calls you and asks you to please lower the volume then it is because you are "stepping over his right". This is just my opinion and I'm speculating here. I'm not an expert on the subject.
On the bright side at least they still care about human rights once in awhile. Anymore, that's better than a lot of trendier things that gets thrown out there.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
Oh, I meant those questions to be rhetorical. The important thing to understand about property rights is that they are not always universal when examined more closely. Social norms/laws may allow you to blast your music during the daytime, but at night you may need to be quieter. Not only that, some areas may differ. An area with lots of college kids may allow for people to blast their music even at nighttime, while a middle or upper class residential neighborhood may not allow it even during the daytime.
No one answer is "correct". We can understand the system of law from our armchairs, and we may be able to figure out what laws and norms are more likely to emerge, but we cannot know what all of the laws ought to be or will be, especially the more specific they become.
According to the U.N. humans have a "right to water."
I should check with the UN to see if that includes a right to a CamelBak too, because I just bought one and that sh*t is expensive. Maybe they'll reimburse me.
Ha ha, they'd have to! Otherwise, when you got thirsty on your ultra run, you could say you'd been injured by society at large, and specifically the sellers of CamelBaks.