Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Paying the healthcare costs of obesity

Options
1202123252629

Replies

  • robininfl
    robininfl Posts: 1,137 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »

    why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.

    So when a farmer pulls so much water out of the ground that his neighbor's house collapses? Whose water is that? It doesn't lie directly beneath the farmer's land, he is pulling from the aquifer, which holds up the land. When businesses pull too much water out, sinkholes form in other places.

    What about if you live upstream from someone else? You dam the river, they have no water. Is it yours because you are upstream? Someone is upstream from you? Does the person at the spring own the river, then?

    What about the oceans? If fertilizer runoff from a farm kills the fish in the ocean, do they pay for that somehow? They put it on land they own, but this affected other places.

    The air? I am only burning my trash, here, on my land, but the toxic smoke goes everywhere.

    I don't want to live in that world.
  • WBB55
    WBB55 Posts: 4,131 Member
    edited July 2016
    Options
    I knew exactly where you were going with it, so I made it a point to show that I completely disagree with implied contracts, but fully support voluntary ones. I never signed a social contract. Your woes should not be mine, unless I choose to make them my own.

    And I fully am supportive of people who want to live 100% of the grid, collect and purify their own rain water, grow food for their own consumption, educate their kids at home, do chores by kerosene or methane-powered generator or whatever.

    And I can get people who don't feel health care is a basic right. I do think most reasonable people feel ground water management is hard without some kind of local agreement/government/etc.

    And just like an entire community might have to pay to get groundwater protected, there might be other things reasonable people can agree to.
  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    Options
    WBB55 wrote: »
    I knew exactly where you were going with it, so I made it a point to show that I completely disagree with implied contracts, but fully support voluntary ones. I never signed a social contract. Your woes should not be mine, unless I choose to make them my own.

    And I fully am supportive of people who want to live 100% of the grid, collect and purify their own rain water, grow food for their own consumption, educate their kids at home, do chores by kerosine or methane-powered generator or whatever.

    And I can get people who don't feel health care is a basic right. I do think most reasonable people feel ground water management is hard without some kind of local agreement/government/etc.

    And just like an entire community might have to pay to get groundwater protected, there might be other things reasonable people can agree to.

    I concur 100%. It's not the fact that these systems exist that bothers me so much. I am sure there are plenty who love being a part of if. It's that there's no option to not participate in it as a whole, unless you want to live "bear crap in woods" style, and even that's getting nigh impossible now, due to "what's good for you" regulations getting passed.
    As I said, if every benefit came with an opt-out, I'd be cool with the whole thing. Hell, sit around with Congress and roll blunts with the taxes for all I care; so long as it isn't my labor value being torched, and so long as I am not forced, under threat of imprisonment for not partaking in any way.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    Options
    Let them pay for it themselves. They did it to themselves. Allow hospitals the right to turn away people who cannot afford to pay for their services.

    And this is coming from someone who refuses to have health insurance, so yeah, I'd probably get turned away too. Doesn't change the fact that I don't deserve to receive anyone else's labor value for free.

    I will happily pay a portion of my paycheck to not watch you die in the street or catch your untreated communicable disease. I'm also assuming you contribute financially to your family, so in the interest of keeping them off welfare, I'd pay to keep you healthy. Oh, and fatherless kids tend to turn to jail/drugs, so it's cheaper to patch you up and keep you around.

    A healthy population benefits society as a whole. This isn't every man for himself and never has been. We should have universal health care with a big push for preventative care and nutrition education. It'd be cheaper for everyone in the long run and I think MOST people would make good choices if they had the knowledge available to them.

    So how is the utopia paid for?
  • WBB55
    WBB55 Posts: 4,131 Member
    Options
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Let them pay for it themselves. They did it to themselves. Allow hospitals the right to turn away people who cannot afford to pay for their services.

    And this is coming from someone who refuses to have health insurance, so yeah, I'd probably get turned away too. Doesn't change the fact that I don't deserve to receive anyone else's labor value for free.

    I will happily pay a portion of my paycheck to not watch you die in the street or catch your untreated communicable disease. I'm also assuming you contribute financially to your family, so in the interest of keeping them off welfare, I'd pay to keep you healthy. Oh, and fatherless kids tend to turn to jail/drugs, so it's cheaper to patch you up and keep you around.

    A healthy population benefits society as a whole. This isn't every man for himself and never has been. We should have universal health care with a big push for preventative care and nutrition education. It'd be cheaper for everyone in the long run and I think MOST people would make good choices if they had the knowledge available to them.

    So how is the utopia paid for?

    Are you saying universal health care is utopian? New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan... all of these places are utopia you're saying?
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    WBB55 wrote: »
    100df wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    WBB55 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
    I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?
    f11.jpg

    again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.

    Our property has a well.

    I say we own water after our pump draws it into the 50 gallons main tank plus the 80 gallons hot water tank. The stored water is replenished as we use it.

    I don't think we own the water that our well draws from.

    Do you have a "right" to the water in the groundwater before it's pumped into your tank?

    That's where this question is coming from. u/Gallowmere1984 said medical care isn't a "right" in his opinion, so I was trying to get a sense of what he meant by "right" by asking if he though redress of grievances or fresh water was a right. (just in case anyone wondered where the water thing came from)

    IMO, you have a right to prevent your neighbor from putting their pollution in your water (by polluting the aquifer). It's a form of trespass.

    Also, statutes convey rights, but obviously not all here will agree with that.
  • WBB55
    WBB55 Posts: 4,131 Member
    edited July 2016
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    WBB55 wrote: »
    100df wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    WBB55 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
    I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?
    f11.jpg

    again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.

    Our property has a well.

    I say we own water after our pump draws it into the 50 gallons main tank plus the 80 gallons hot water tank. The stored water is replenished as we use it.

    I don't think we own the water that our well draws from.

    Do you have a "right" to the water in the groundwater before it's pumped into your tank?

    That's where this question is coming from. u/Gallowmere1984 said medical care isn't a "right" in his opinion, so I was trying to get a sense of what he meant by "right" by asking if he though redress of grievances or fresh water was a right. (just in case anyone wondered where the water thing came from)

    IMO, you have a right to prevent your neighbor from putting their pollution in your water (by polluting the aquifer). It's a form of trespass.

    Also, statutes convey rights, but obviously not all here will agree with that.

    I think once it comes to some things like taxes, enough people have such a deep confirmation bias that there's barely even a chance to understand their perspective. I truly want to understand where people are coming from, but it's like there's some "how to be a libertarian" and "how to be a liberal wiener" podcast I missed where the self-evident truths of individual freedoms trumping rational collective good (or vice verse) were laid out.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options
    WBB55 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    WBB55 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    WBB55 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    WBB55 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
    I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?
    f11.jpg

    again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.

    So I can poison the shared aquafer via my well, and you have no recourse?

    nwo you are moving the goalposts..you said who owns the water in the well if there is an aquifer present...

    Huh? Here's the questions I asked, if you review my posts:

    "b.) If you and your neighbor's wells are both tapping the same aquafer, who "owns" it (the aquafer)?"

    "My question is who owns the aquafer?"

    I never said anything about who owns your well.

    why is this such a hard thing for you to understand? If something is on my property then I own it, if it is not on my property then I do not own it. So the water in your hypothetical aquifer is not owned by me, until it is pumped into my well, on my property.

    So if you don't own the aquafer under your land, then you have no recourse if I your neighbor poisons it and makes it unusable in the future?

    that would be a matter for the local authorities to determine. or if we are just talking about a state of nature thing then I would have to address the issue with my neighbor ...

    not sure why this is so hard to comprehend..
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options
    robininfl wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »

    why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.

    So when a farmer pulls so much water out of the ground that his neighbor's house collapses? Whose water is that? It doesn't lie directly beneath the farmer's land, he is pulling from the aquifer, which holds up the land. When businesses pull too much water out, sinkholes form in other places.

    What about if you live upstream from someone else? You dam the river, they have no water. Is it yours because you are upstream? Someone is upstream from you? Does the person at the spring own the river, then?

    What about the oceans? If fertilizer runoff from a farm kills the fish in the ocean, do they pay for that somehow? They put it on land they own, but this affected other places.

    The air? I am only burning my trash, here, on my land, but the toxic smoke goes everywhere.

    I don't want to live in that world.

    again, those are matters that local authorities would have to determine..

    If I illegally damn a river and divert water to my well then it is not mine...just like if I rob a bank and don't get caught the money is still not legally mine.

    your comparison points are pretty ridiculous..
  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    Options
    WBB55 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    WBB55 wrote: »
    100df wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    WBB55 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
    I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?
    f11.jpg

    again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.

    Our property has a well.

    I say we own water after our pump draws it into the 50 gallons main tank plus the 80 gallons hot water tank. The stored water is replenished as we use it.

    I don't think we own the water that our well draws from.

    Do you have a "right" to the water in the groundwater before it's pumped into your tank?

    That's where this question is coming from. u/Gallowmere1984 said medical care isn't a "right" in his opinion, so I was trying to get a sense of what he meant by "right" by asking if he though redress of grievances or fresh water was a right. (just in case anyone wondered where the water thing came from)

    IMO, you have a right to prevent your neighbor from putting their pollution in your water (by polluting the aquifer). It's a form of trespass.

    Also, statutes convey rights, but obviously not all here will agree with that.

    I think once it comes to some things like taxes, enough people have such a deep confirmation bias that there's barely even a chance to understand their perspective. I truly want to understand where people are coming from, but it's like there's some "how to be a libertarian" and "how to be a liberal wiener" podcast I missed where the self-evident truths of individual freedoms trumping rational collective good (or vice verse) were laid out.

    As part of the collective, it is important to draw a line where the collective ends, and the individual begins. I draw that line at use of force as a coercive measure.

    Now, do not confuse this with me saying that we should all be able to do whatever, whenever. What I am saying, is that an inaction (in this case, refusal to participate) should never be a justification for said force.

    Solid justifications would be things like halting a physical aggressor, stopping the destruction of property, and tamping out contract fraud.

    Essentially, if there is no victim, there is no crime, and inaction can never create a victim, no matter how bad some may want it to be able to.
  • WBB55
    WBB55 Posts: 4,131 Member
    edited July 2016
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    why is this such a hard thing for you to understand?
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    why is this so hard for you to comprehend?
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    your comparison points are pretty ridiculous..
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    not sure why this is so hard to comprehend..

    I really would appreciate you stop with the ad hominem statements. I ignored your first couple. And I apologized at one point in case I'd offended you. Yet the ad hominem statements continue.
  • WBB55
    WBB55 Posts: 4,131 Member
    Options
    WBB55 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    WBB55 wrote: »
    100df wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    WBB55 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
    I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?
    f11.jpg

    again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.

    Our property has a well.

    I say we own water after our pump draws it into the 50 gallons main tank plus the 80 gallons hot water tank. The stored water is replenished as we use it.

    I don't think we own the water that our well draws from.

    Do you have a "right" to the water in the groundwater before it's pumped into your tank?

    That's where this question is coming from. u/Gallowmere1984 said medical care isn't a "right" in his opinion, so I was trying to get a sense of what he meant by "right" by asking if he though redress of grievances or fresh water was a right. (just in case anyone wondered where the water thing came from)

    IMO, you have a right to prevent your neighbor from putting their pollution in your water (by polluting the aquifer). It's a form of trespass.

    Also, statutes convey rights, but obviously not all here will agree with that.

    I think once it comes to some things like taxes, enough people have such a deep confirmation bias that there's barely even a chance to understand their perspective. I truly want to understand where people are coming from, but it's like there's some "how to be a libertarian" and "how to be a liberal wiener" podcast I missed where the self-evident truths of individual freedoms trumping rational collective good (or vice verse) were laid out.

    As part of the collective, it is important to draw a line where the collective ends, and the individual begins. I draw that line at use of force as a coercive measure.

    Now, do not confuse this with me saying that we should all be able to do whatever, whenever. What I am saying, is that an inaction (in this case, refusal to participate) should never be a justification for said force.

    Solid justifications would be things like halting a physical aggressor, stopping the destruction of property, and tamping out contract fraud.

    Essentially, if there is no victim, there is no crime, and inaction can never create a victim, no matter how bad some may want it to be able to.

    So if somehow there was a "victim" in the obesity epidemic, maybe we could consider it a just matter to consider a collective threat?
  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    Options
    WBB55 wrote: »
    WBB55 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    WBB55 wrote: »
    100df wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    WBB55 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
    I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?
    f11.jpg

    again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.

    Our property has a well.

    I say we own water after our pump draws it into the 50 gallons main tank plus the 80 gallons hot water tank. The stored water is replenished as we use it.

    I don't think we own the water that our well draws from.

    Do you have a "right" to the water in the groundwater before it's pumped into your tank?

    That's where this question is coming from. u/Gallowmere1984 said medical care isn't a "right" in his opinion, so I was trying to get a sense of what he meant by "right" by asking if he though redress of grievances or fresh water was a right. (just in case anyone wondered where the water thing came from)

    IMO, you have a right to prevent your neighbor from putting their pollution in your water (by polluting the aquifer). It's a form of trespass.

    Also, statutes convey rights, but obviously not all here will agree with that.

    I think once it comes to some things like taxes, enough people have such a deep confirmation bias that there's barely even a chance to understand their perspective. I truly want to understand where people are coming from, but it's like there's some "how to be a libertarian" and "how to be a liberal wiener" podcast I missed where the self-evident truths of individual freedoms trumping rational collective good (or vice verse) were laid out.

    As part of the collective, it is important to draw a line where the collective ends, and the individual begins. I draw that line at use of force as a coercive measure.

    Now, do not confuse this with me saying that we should all be able to do whatever, whenever. What I am saying, is that an inaction (in this case, refusal to participate) should never be a justification for said force.

    Solid justifications would be things like halting a physical aggressor, stopping the destruction of property, and tamping out contract fraud.

    Essentially, if there is no victim, there is no crime, and inaction can never create a victim, no matter how bad some may want it to be able to.

    So if somehow there was a "victim" in the obesity epidemic, maybe we could consider it a just matter to consider a collective threat?

    There can't be, because the only person aggressed upon is the person who commited the act upon themselves...well, maybe them and the poor guy who has to sit next to them on an airplane.
    Again, this assumes that, as I have suggested many times, we stop paying for their self-induced medical troubles.
  • WBB55
    WBB55 Posts: 4,131 Member
    Options
    WBB55 wrote: »
    WBB55 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    WBB55 wrote: »
    100df wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    WBB55 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
    I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?
    f11.jpg

    again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.

    Our property has a well.

    I say we own water after our pump draws it into the 50 gallons main tank plus the 80 gallons hot water tank. The stored water is replenished as we use it.

    I don't think we own the water that our well draws from.

    Do you have a "right" to the water in the groundwater before it's pumped into your tank?

    That's where this question is coming from. u/Gallowmere1984 said medical care isn't a "right" in his opinion, so I was trying to get a sense of what he meant by "right" by asking if he though redress of grievances or fresh water was a right. (just in case anyone wondered where the water thing came from)

    IMO, you have a right to prevent your neighbor from putting their pollution in your water (by polluting the aquifer). It's a form of trespass.

    Also, statutes convey rights, but obviously not all here will agree with that.

    I think once it comes to some things like taxes, enough people have such a deep confirmation bias that there's barely even a chance to understand their perspective. I truly want to understand where people are coming from, but it's like there's some "how to be a libertarian" and "how to be a liberal wiener" podcast I missed where the self-evident truths of individual freedoms trumping rational collective good (or vice verse) were laid out.

    As part of the collective, it is important to draw a line where the collective ends, and the individual begins. I draw that line at use of force as a coercive measure.

    Now, do not confuse this with me saying that we should all be able to do whatever, whenever. What I am saying, is that an inaction (in this case, refusal to participate) should never be a justification for said force.

    Solid justifications would be things like halting a physical aggressor, stopping the destruction of property, and tamping out contract fraud.

    Essentially, if there is no victim, there is no crime, and inaction can never create a victim, no matter how bad some may want it to be able to.

    So if somehow there was a "victim" in the obesity epidemic, maybe we could consider it a just matter to consider a collective threat?

    There can't be, because the only person aggressed upon is the person who commited the act upon themselves...well, maybe them and the poor guy who has to sit next to them on an airplane.
    Again, this assumes that, as I have suggested many times, we stop paying for their self-induced medical troubles.

    I get your point. And it's not like I wouldn't say there's too many "class action lawsuits" where there's seen to be some kind of collective damage that really seems to instead be more about the law firm making a name for themselves and a steady stream of income.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options
    WBB55 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    why is this such a hard thing for you to understand?
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    why is this so hard for you to comprehend?
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    your comparison points are pretty ridiculous..
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    not sure why this is so hard to comprehend..

    I really would appreciate you stop with the ad hominem statements. I ignored your first couple. And I apologized at one point in case I'd offended you. Yet the ad hominem statements continue.

    when you stop asking the same question over and over, then I will stop asking why you can't seem to understand property rights...
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options
    WBB55 wrote: »
    WBB55 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    WBB55 wrote: »
    100df wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    WBB55 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
    I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?
    f11.jpg

    again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.

    Our property has a well.

    I say we own water after our pump draws it into the 50 gallons main tank plus the 80 gallons hot water tank. The stored water is replenished as we use it.

    I don't think we own the water that our well draws from.

    Do you have a "right" to the water in the groundwater before it's pumped into your tank?

    That's where this question is coming from. u/Gallowmere1984 said medical care isn't a "right" in his opinion, so I was trying to get a sense of what he meant by "right" by asking if he though redress of grievances or fresh water was a right. (just in case anyone wondered where the water thing came from)

    IMO, you have a right to prevent your neighbor from putting their pollution in your water (by polluting the aquifer). It's a form of trespass.

    Also, statutes convey rights, but obviously not all here will agree with that.

    I think once it comes to some things like taxes, enough people have such a deep confirmation bias that there's barely even a chance to understand their perspective. I truly want to understand where people are coming from, but it's like there's some "how to be a libertarian" and "how to be a liberal wiener" podcast I missed where the self-evident truths of individual freedoms trumping rational collective good (or vice verse) were laid out.

    As part of the collective, it is important to draw a line where the collective ends, and the individual begins. I draw that line at use of force as a coercive measure.

    Now, do not confuse this with me saying that we should all be able to do whatever, whenever. What I am saying, is that an inaction (in this case, refusal to participate) should never be a justification for said force.

    Solid justifications would be things like halting a physical aggressor, stopping the destruction of property, and tamping out contract fraud.

    Essentially, if there is no victim, there is no crime, and inaction can never create a victim, no matter how bad some may want it to be able to.

    So if somehow there was a "victim" in the obesity epidemic, maybe we could consider it a just matter to consider a collective threat?

    There can't be, because the only person aggressed upon is the person who commited the act upon themselves...well, maybe them and the poor guy who has to sit next to them on an airplane.
    Again, this assumes that, as I have suggested many times, we stop paying for their self-induced medical troubles.

    seriously, why is it everyone's else's fault that person X decided to overeat for 20 plus years and is now morbidly obese and not healthy???????????????????
  • WBB55
    WBB55 Posts: 4,131 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    WBB55 wrote: »
    WBB55 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    WBB55 wrote: »
    100df wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    WBB55 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
    I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?
    f11.jpg

    again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.

    Our property has a well.

    I say we own water after our pump draws it into the 50 gallons main tank plus the 80 gallons hot water tank. The stored water is replenished as we use it.

    I don't think we own the water that our well draws from.

    Do you have a "right" to the water in the groundwater before it's pumped into your tank?

    That's where this question is coming from. u/Gallowmere1984 said medical care isn't a "right" in his opinion, so I was trying to get a sense of what he meant by "right" by asking if he though redress of grievances or fresh water was a right. (just in case anyone wondered where the water thing came from)

    IMO, you have a right to prevent your neighbor from putting their pollution in your water (by polluting the aquifer). It's a form of trespass.

    Also, statutes convey rights, but obviously not all here will agree with that.

    I think once it comes to some things like taxes, enough people have such a deep confirmation bias that there's barely even a chance to understand their perspective. I truly want to understand where people are coming from, but it's like there's some "how to be a libertarian" and "how to be a liberal wiener" podcast I missed where the self-evident truths of individual freedoms trumping rational collective good (or vice verse) were laid out.

    As part of the collective, it is important to draw a line where the collective ends, and the individual begins. I draw that line at use of force as a coercive measure.

    Now, do not confuse this with me saying that we should all be able to do whatever, whenever. What I am saying, is that an inaction (in this case, refusal to participate) should never be a justification for said force.

    Solid justifications would be things like halting a physical aggressor, stopping the destruction of property, and tamping out contract fraud.

    Essentially, if there is no victim, there is no crime, and inaction can never create a victim, no matter how bad some may want it to be able to.

    So if somehow there was a "victim" in the obesity epidemic, maybe we could consider it a just matter to consider a collective threat?

    There can't be, because the only person aggressed upon is the person who commited the act upon themselves...well, maybe them and the poor guy who has to sit next to them on an airplane.
    Again, this assumes that, as I have suggested many times, we stop paying for their self-induced medical troubles.

    seriously, why is it everyone's else's fault that person X decided to overeat for 20 plus years and is now morbidly obese and not healthy???????????????????

    So let's say the factory next door to your house has been spewing ... ammonia... mustard gas... whatever your whole life. And 20 years later you get sick and it can be tied to the fumes conclusively, as does the 50,000,000 other people in your city who've been breathing the emissions. Do you feel that the factory owner owes you or your family anything for their negligence? Or is it your fault for "overbreathing?"
  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    Options
    WBB55 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    WBB55 wrote: »
    WBB55 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    WBB55 wrote: »
    100df wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    WBB55 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
    I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?
    f11.jpg

    again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.

    Our property has a well.

    I say we own water after our pump draws it into the 50 gallons main tank plus the 80 gallons hot water tank. The stored water is replenished as we use it.

    I don't think we own the water that our well draws from.

    Do you have a "right" to the water in the groundwater before it's pumped into your tank?

    That's where this question is coming from. u/Gallowmere1984 said medical care isn't a "right" in his opinion, so I was trying to get a sense of what he meant by "right" by asking if he though redress of grievances or fresh water was a right. (just in case anyone wondered where the water thing came from)

    IMO, you have a right to prevent your neighbor from putting their pollution in your water (by polluting the aquifer). It's a form of trespass.

    Also, statutes convey rights, but obviously not all here will agree with that.

    I think once it comes to some things like taxes, enough people have such a deep confirmation bias that there's barely even a chance to understand their perspective. I truly want to understand where people are coming from, but it's like there's some "how to be a libertarian" and "how to be a liberal wiener" podcast I missed where the self-evident truths of individual freedoms trumping rational collective good (or vice verse) were laid out.

    As part of the collective, it is important to draw a line where the collective ends, and the individual begins. I draw that line at use of force as a coercive measure.

    Now, do not confuse this with me saying that we should all be able to do whatever, whenever. What I am saying, is that an inaction (in this case, refusal to participate) should never be a justification for said force.

    Solid justifications would be things like halting a physical aggressor, stopping the destruction of property, and tamping out contract fraud.

    Essentially, if there is no victim, there is no crime, and inaction can never create a victim, no matter how bad some may want it to be able to.

    So if somehow there was a "victim" in the obesity epidemic, maybe we could consider it a just matter to consider a collective threat?

    There can't be, because the only person aggressed upon is the person who commited the act upon themselves...well, maybe them and the poor guy who has to sit next to them on an airplane.
    Again, this assumes that, as I have suggested many times, we stop paying for their self-induced medical troubles.

    seriously, why is it everyone's else's fault that person X decided to overeat for 20 plus years and is now morbidly obese and not healthy???????????????????

    So let's say the factory next door to your house has been spewing ... ammonia... mustard gas... whatever your whole life. And 20 years later you get sick and it can be tied to the fumes conclusively, as does the 50,000,000 other people in your city who've been breathing the emissions. Do you feel that the factory owner owes you or your family anything for their negligence? Or is it your fault for "overbreathing?"

    They do owe, because their action (freely venting poisonous gases) caused harm.
  • WBB55
    WBB55 Posts: 4,131 Member
    edited July 2016
    Options
    WBB55 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    WBB55 wrote: »
    WBB55 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    WBB55 wrote: »
    100df wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    WBB55 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
    I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?
    f11.jpg

    again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.

    Our property has a well.

    I say we own water after our pump draws it into the 50 gallons main tank plus the 80 gallons hot water tank. The stored water is replenished as we use it.

    I don't think we own the water that our well draws from.

    Do you have a "right" to the water in the groundwater before it's pumped into your tank?

    That's where this question is coming from. u/Gallowmere1984 said medical care isn't a "right" in his opinion, so I was trying to get a sense of what he meant by "right" by asking if he though redress of grievances or fresh water was a right. (just in case anyone wondered where the water thing came from)

    IMO, you have a right to prevent your neighbor from putting their pollution in your water (by polluting the aquifer). It's a form of trespass.

    Also, statutes convey rights, but obviously not all here will agree with that.

    I think once it comes to some things like taxes, enough people have such a deep confirmation bias that there's barely even a chance to understand their perspective. I truly want to understand where people are coming from, but it's like there's some "how to be a libertarian" and "how to be a liberal wiener" podcast I missed where the self-evident truths of individual freedoms trumping rational collective good (or vice verse) were laid out.

    As part of the collective, it is important to draw a line where the collective ends, and the individual begins. I draw that line at use of force as a coercive measure.

    Now, do not confuse this with me saying that we should all be able to do whatever, whenever. What I am saying, is that an inaction (in this case, refusal to participate) should never be a justification for said force.

    Solid justifications would be things like halting a physical aggressor, stopping the destruction of property, and tamping out contract fraud.

    Essentially, if there is no victim, there is no crime, and inaction can never create a victim, no matter how bad some may want it to be able to.

    So if somehow there was a "victim" in the obesity epidemic, maybe we could consider it a just matter to consider a collective threat?

    There can't be, because the only person aggressed upon is the person who commited the act upon themselves...well, maybe them and the poor guy who has to sit next to them on an airplane.
    Again, this assumes that, as I have suggested many times, we stop paying for their self-induced medical troubles.

    seriously, why is it everyone's else's fault that person X decided to overeat for 20 plus years and is now morbidly obese and not healthy???????????????????

    So let's say the factory next door to your house has been spewing ... ammonia... mustard gas... whatever your whole life. And 20 years later you get sick and it can be tied to the fumes conclusively, as does the 50,000,000 other people in your city who've been breathing the emissions. Do you feel that the factory owner owes you or your family anything for their negligence? Or is it your fault for "overbreathing?"

    They do owe, because their action (freely venting poisonous gases) caused harm.

    Can we apply this to food manufacturers? Let's say wheat is conclusively proven to cause autism... i dunno... can farmers and the company that makes wonder bread be held to blame and be responsible for the autism treatment? Can Kroger be partially to blame for selling the wheat products?