www.inven.ai
Facepalm.
Again, you are trying to refute forced service, which is what the obligation model of a positive right means. It's a bar for something you think people should be actively punished for failing to provide. The lesser demands in farming means that it's less an infringement on other rights to enact a similar obligation on them, so the common framework of balancing rights against eachother would give a stronger argument for nationalizing the food supply.
No. My position is:
There is no forced service. You imagined it, it is your fantasy.
No, there's plenty of urban municipal water systems who's general operations are handled by a nominally private corporation with day-to-day costs covered fully by utility bills, and enormous amounts of the global population in low enough population density to get away with single-household systems and ad-hoc communal work instead of a formal government apparatus.
They indicate government function is the best at-scale provider, but it isn't remotely the majority because as it turns out you can get good enough with various models of public-private partnerships and most people live in areas below the population density needing complex wastewater management.
This introduces the previously-unstated assumption that public funds for the initial capital investment entail a transitive ownership, which is at immense odds with your reliance on the commonality of heavy government involvement in urban water supplies given the lack of any such case.
...Then stop calling saying access to water is a right, because it does in fact take work to do that which makes it a positive right demanding people labor for it. Again, your argument is incoherent because you insist on describing a highly-derived series of reasoning as a specific class of basal entitlement that results in deeply undesirable externalities.
What exactly did you THINK I meant when I said polyticians and oligarchs steal your water? Did you think I meant they literally put it in a barrel and run away with it?
Previously unstated? I said it literally every single post on the subject:
I disagree with the sematics argument you are making. As well as the assumption on labor.
Extracting economically-significant value for fuck-all service, which the utility bill isn't because that's how upkeep is payed? In a fashion actually proportionate to utilization so people who are using less water aren't forced to subsidize those that are? The track-record on this sensible funding model staying under the government alone has no few incredibly bad cases of it being diverted to other projects or having severe problems papered over with other revenue sources.
And isolating the routine operation from taxation makes it drastically more difficult for bad government to fuck it over, despite a quite reasonably good government being able to do it better.
It was not included with the two premises you gave immediately prior, which is important given the previously-mentioned contradiction no government treating "public property" this way has with relying on "every" water supply project being government funded.
The WEF goon saying water isn't a human right that is the initial context is referring to a specific natural law/government legitimacy subject wherein "right" has a specific meaning. If you're going to enter such a discussion, it's rather important for you to understand that these semantics are the reason there's an argument in the first place.
lol. lmao even.
Fair enough.
It wasn't built by the tax payer in a lot of cases.
Again, there is no government that enforces public ownership as taxpayer ownership, so your standard for it being theft is directly contradictory.
But as they retain other revenue sources the operations are considerably less cost-sensitive than corporate operations. It's a good-enough compromise because we cannot assure a government that we can expect not to pull bullshit like the New York City subway system, who's incredibly long list of failings wouldn't be able to happen under a corporate "thief" because said "thief" only gets their money from the surplus of operating expenses.
No, the government is merely the middle-man collecting payment calculated according to a very complex series of grid measurements up the cost-per-kilowatt metrics of the very long list of power generation companies. Even so, this is frequently a public-private partnership itself rather than a direct government department.
No govt? really? what the hell are you even talking about.
The first section not underlined is an argument based in commonality, the second section underlined is something no legal system I am aware of has any meaningful implementation of:
Thus it contradicts itself because premises of the first are wholly inapplicable to the second.
Privately owned companies that have competition operate better than govt owned ones. As the bad companies are weeded out and replaced by superior managed companies.
I am baffled at how you could come to the conclusion that there is a contradiction between
And there is a very long list of horrible screwups demonstrating why you don't take chances with bad companies needing weeded out with major infrastructure projects.
Except that government ineptitude is fueled primarily by cost-insensitivity due to being able to fall back on taxation as a revenue stream, which is wholly inapplicable to the privately-managed monopoly. Similarly, there's a wide variety of issues with purely corporate monopolies that frequent interaction with government oversight readily defuses.
You keep failing to demonstrate any commonality of the intermediate step that this is actually the case to join "it's always payed for with taxes" to "therefor corporate management is stealing it".
Can you point me to where the law says this is because it remains the property of the individual taxpayers? As opposed to the rather more common understanding that taxes cease to be the individuals' to become resources of a distinct government entity?
that is a factor. but the main issue is idiots failing upwards and not being held accountable and they apply their idiocy to the company.
I don't think anybody has denied this. But again, some projects you simply cannot do this because "having competition" would in fact prevent a system from functioning at all.
Definitely.