We Have No Right To Water?

[familydog]

You can't survive without food either. Doesn't mean you have a right to force somebody else to provide you with sustenance. It's exactly the same with water. The oceans are full of water. If you are thirsty, go distill some of it. If you claim it as a right, you are implying that somebody, through the middleman of state power, should be compelled by force to furnish you with drinkable water. That isn't right. You can't force me to carry your water.

Yes, I would argue that we have a right to food as well, since we don't have "life" "liberty" and "happiness" without it. By your argument, a middleman of state power, should be compelled to furnish me with property since it's a right. I'm not suggesting that you have to furnish me with water. I'm not suggesting that I have a right to free water, just like I'm not saying I have a right to free property, but it is a right because government can't take it away. I've never suggested what you're claiming I'm implying.

I'm simply suggesting that if water is a right government can't take it away for any reason, especially political reasons just like it can't take away property. And again, without water, we don't have "life" "liberty" and "property."

 

[SeanEdwards]

Yes, I would argue that we have a right to food as well, since we don't have "life" "liberty" and "happiness" without it. By your argument, a middleman of state power, should be compelled to furnish me with property since it's a right. I'm not suggesting that you have to furnish me with water. I'm not suggesting that I have a right to free water, just like I'm not saying I have a right to free property, but it is a right because government can't take it away. I've never suggested what you're claiming I'm implying.

I'm simply suggesting that if water is a right government can't take it away for any reason, especially political reasons just like it can't take away property. And again, without water, we don't have "life" "liberty" and "property."

How did you find a right to property in life, liberty, and happiness?

 

[familydog]

How did you find a right to property in life, liberty, and happiness?

Our modern interpretation of happiness was not the same as it was when Jefferson and others wrote the Declaration. This modern abstract notion of happiness didn't come around until the mid 19th century (in politics that is). To Jefferson and the rest of the founders, "happiness" meant property, because in their eyes one can't have happiness until one has property. Were there some people that had this modern concept of happiness back at the time of the founding? I don't doubt it if there were. But since I am stricly speaking of the framing of the Constitution and the framing of the Declaration, that is all that is relevant.

 

[angelatc]

Our modern interpretation of happiness was not the same as it was when Jefferson and others wrote the Declaration. This modern abstract notion of happiness didn't come around until the mid 19th century (in politics that is). To Jefferson and the rest of the founders, "happiness" meant property, because in their eyes one can't have happiness until one has property. Were there some people that had this modern concept of happiness back at the time of the founding? I don't doubt it if there were. But since I am stricly speaking of the framing of the Constitution and the framing of the Declaration, that is all that is relevant.

I'd say that's not entirely true. Thomas Jefferson wrote those words, based on Locke's original orthodoxy. The fact that TJ changed "property" to "pursuit of happiness" is significant.

 

[SeanEdwards]

Our modern interpretation of happiness was not the same as it was when Jefferson and others wrote the Declaration. This modern abstract notion of happiness didn't come around until the mid 19th century (in politics that is). To Jefferson and the rest of the founders, "happiness" meant property, because in their eyes one can't have happiness until one has property. Were there some people that had this modern concept of happiness back at the time of the founding? I don't doubt it if there were. But since I am stricly speaking of the framing of the Constitution and the framing of the Declaration, that is all that is relevant.

Interesting interpretation. I don't agree with it, but it's interesting.

Also, wasn't the wording from the declaration of independence actually "the pursuit of happiness", and not merely happiness? Kind of a big difference between the pursuit of something and the possession of it.

 

[Meatwasp]

Our modern interpretation of happiness was not the same as it was when Jefferson and others wrote the Declaration. This modern abstract notion of happiness didn't come around until the mid 19th century (in politics that is). To Jefferson and the rest of the founders, "happiness" meant property, because in their eyes one can't have happiness until one has property. Were there some people that had this modern concept of happiness back at the time of the founding? I don't doubt it if there were. But since I am stricly speaking of the framing of the Constitution and the framing of the Declaration, that is all that is relevant.

You are absolutly right on happiness meant property!

 

[SeanEdwards]

You are absolutly right on happiness meant property!

An adjustable mortgage ain't happiness these days.

 

[Truth Warrior]

I'd say that's not entirely true. Thomas Jefferson wrote those words, based on Locke's original orthodoxy. The fact that TJ changed "property" to "pursuit of happiness" is significant.

Jefferson changed it for the southern states approval of the D of I. Without the change some of south would've walked. Unanimous agreement was required. Slaves don't own or have a right to property, because they WERE property. Or so the argument went.

 

[angelatc]

Jefferson changed it for the southern states approval of the D of I. Without the change some of south would've walked. Unanimous agreement was required. Slaves don't own or have a right to property, because they WERE property. Or so the argument went.

But the other side of that argument would seem to indicate that "property" would mean slaves, and thusly men would be allowed to own slaves, even without government approval.

What's the source for the assertion that "happiness" was a synonym for "property?"

 

[angelatc]

Following up my own post! Arrording to this page: http://snurl.com/22sdv [www_gunstonhall_org] George Mason drafted an oft-mimicked assertion of natural rights. He defined liberty as the right to aquire and own property, not happiness.

"All men are born equally free and independent and have certain inherent natural rights, of which they can not by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

 

[angelatc]

An adjustable mortgage ain't happiness these days.

If I might veer wildly off topic, an aquaintance of mine just returned from Europe. We were discussing the fact the they're headed recklessly toward our disasterous credit-based economic model. He said that in the Czech Republic, they don't have a word that means "mortgage." Tey have historically always paid cash for their homes. But as the bankers move in on them, they have coined the phrase "American loan."

I want to go running through the country yelling "Don't do ti! Don't do it!"

 

[brandon]

Water ownership is a very complicated issue. I am a libertarian, and our usual answer to everything is get the government out, and let private enterprise in. I fail to see how this could work for water though.

Water is constantly flowing, and it is impossible to claim ownership over a water source. If you buy a piece of land with water access, that does not mean you own that water. What about your neighbor downstream? If you use up too much water then he will not have enough water.

Sure you could build a well, but that still is using water that someone else used to use. Previously that water permeated through the ground and ended up in a stream somewhere that other people were using.

So anyone have any ideas how water could be distributed without the government? Is it possible to claim ownership of water? Would it be OK for me to move upsteam of someone who is getting water for private use, dam the river, and then start selling him the water he used to get for free?

 

[familydog]

I'd say that's not entirely true. Thomas Jefferson wrote those words, based on Locke's original orthodoxy. The fact that TJ changed "property" to "pursuit of happiness" is significant.

You're right. It is significant. It tells us Jefferson was a master politician.

"Again, scholars have devoted considerable effort to understanding where Jefferson picked up the phrase 'pursuit of happiness,' which, it turns out, appeared with sufficient frequency in earlier European writings that Jefferson almost certainly encountered it 'in his multifarious reading' and, because the phrase 'caught his fancy,' it 'lingered in his memory.' In fact, references to happiness as a political goal are everywhere in American political writings as well, as anyone who can see who bothers to look...In this case, Jefferson perhaps sacrificed clarity of meaning for grace of language." -Pauline Maier, American Scripture

 

[angelatc]

You're right. It is significant. It tells us Jefferson was a master politician.

And the alternative would seem to indicate that the government should give me 2 acres and a mule when I am born if I have a right to property.

 

[familydog]

As a side note, there are two interpretations of what "property" meant in the Declaration. The one I described above, and a more abstract concept of property.

"Jefferson believed that each man had a right to the preservation of his person or life and a right to his liberty and that these rights were an inherent part of his own nature or being. Such rights could not be inwardly alienated or renounced even though external coercion or duress could cause an individual to renounce these rights externally or to lose the physical manifestations of them. The right to one's life and liberty were in this sense unalienable." - Allen Jayne Jefferson's Declaration of Independence p. 122.

So, how can one have an unalienable right to self-preservation at the same time not have a right to water? One must consume water in order to have a basic level of self-preservation.

 

[amy31416]

Water ownership is a very complicated issue. I am a libertarian, and our usual answer to everything is get the government out, and let private enterprise in. I fail to see how this could work for water though.

Water is constantly flowing, and it is impossible to claim ownership over a water source. If you buy a piece of land with water access, that does not mean you own that water. What about your neighbor downstream? If you use up too much water then he will not have enough water.

Sure you could build a well, but that still is using water that someone else used to use. Previously that water permeated through the ground and ended up in a stream somewhere that other people were using.

So anyone have any ideas how water could be distributed without the government? Is it possible to claim ownership of water? Would it be OK for me to move upsteam of someone who is getting water for private use, dam the river, and then start selling him the water he used to get for free?

Yeah, that's a tough one Libertarian-wise. I don't know the answer to it except to broach the possibility that this is one commodity that should have it's own Constitutional Amendment, crafted by someone smarter than me.

Could be a completely stupid suggestion, but it's all I got.

 

[Truth Warrior]

But the other side of that argument would seem to indicate that "property" would mean slaves, and thusly men would be allowed to own slaves, even without government approval.

What's the source for the assertion that "happiness" was a synonym for "property?"

I never claimed that it was a synonym. Merely a necessary political tactical change of wording to preserve the D of I. No D of I, no revolution, most probably. Who can say?

 

[Dr.3D]

And the alternative would seem to indicate that the government should give me 2 acres and a mule when I am born if I have a right to property.

You have a right to property.... but you have to work to get it. The right is just the ability to have it. It does not mean you should have property given to you. The right to keep an bear arms doesn't mean somebody has to give you a gun.

 

[Highland]

Air is next.<IMHO>

 

[thuja]

i have a well on my property. if you are nice while a guest of mine, and wish to use water while you are here, i will give you some. i have the right to the water as long as there is any in the well.