If water is a human right, shouldn’t it be free?

Sometimes you just have to keep beating a dead horse. The water is a human right crowd demands it – http://rinf.com/alt-news/usa-news/americans-demand-president-obama-intervene-detroit-water-crisis/.

“It’s absurd that, in the twenty-first century, we have to argue about whether or not Americans have the right to water,” said Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for America, a national progressive political organization with one million members nationwide.

Progressives are infamous at wordsmithing. Treated water delivered through a public infrastructure has never been a human right. Neither is a living wage as the $15 per hour minimum wage crowd is. Minimum thresholds of what is considered essential for life are determined by society. In other words, by our peers. A right isn’t open to interpretation or subject to a law or voted on by a democracy.

Should a desert dwelling Bedouin tribe also possess this perceived “right to water”? After all, it’s the 21st century there as well. If you say no because they choose to live where water isn’t readily available, then it isn’t a right. If you say no because they don’t live in an advanced society such as America, it isn’t a right. Rights aren’t concerned with geography or the status of a society’s development.

Therein lies the key point. Clean, safe water delivered directly to your household is a result of entrepreneurs operating in an industrialized nation. Modern plumbing didn’t come about as a right. That came with a cost. Rights don’t come with a cost.

In fact, cost is completely overlooked by the water is a human right crowd. In 2009, the EPA estimated that $335 billion in infrastructure costs would be required over a 20 year period to maintain our water systems – http://www.bna.com/epa-releases-survey-n17179874350/. The American Water Works Association paints a much more dire scenario estimating $1.7 trillion would be necessary over 50 years – http://www.awwa.org/legislation-regulation/issues/infrastructure-financing.aspx.

Think the residents of Detroit can’t afford their water bill now? Imagine if they are tapped to cover the costs to maintain their water system over the next half century. Those reports are only for upgrade and replacement costs, not operating costs.

The good folks over at the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization even developed a Water Affordability Program for the city of Detroit to adopt – http://mwro.org/water_affordability_program.htm. This is simply a wealth transfer system in which the higher income pay for the lower income water bills.

The Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD) will provide annual funding for a water affordability program for income-eligible Detroit residents, funded solely by customers in Detroit.

Again, no accounting for the true cost of maintaining the “basic human right” of water delivered to your tap, just a straight up welfare program.

The entire argument is nothing more than thinly disguised collectivism. Create a dependency and enable big government to be the only entity capable of delivering it. If it is truly the duty of society to deliver all of lifes essentials to every man, woman and child, than communism is your only alternative. However, even communism comes with a cost, doesn’t it?

Air, food, water, energy, shelter, health care, education, etc. All are required and all should be equally important. All should be human rights under this logic and if so, all should be free for the taking. After all, isn’t eliminating wealth inequality a hot topic? Why not take the financial aspect right out of the equation? Oh, that’s right, you can’t because somebody always has to pay for it. Even when it’s a basic human right which should never cost a penny.

Perhaps this should be their anthem.

BTW, the water is a human right crowd have valid points about the need for clean, safe water. And wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could ensure that every human had all of their basic needs satisfied? The collectivists believe forced wealth redistribution is the way to go about it. This makes it more than clear that this isn’t a debate over rights. It’s simply another attack on individualism.

Advertisements

Yet another paid Obama mouthpiece defects

MSNBC Anchor Resigns; Admits to Spreading “Lies on Behalf of Obama”

According to inside sources, MSNBC host Alex Wagner, host of “NOW with Alex Wagner”, resigned from her post today after 2 1/2 years with the network citing ethical and moral concerns.

In a resignation letter obtained by National Report, Wagner claims she has been spreading “lies on behalf of Obama” and using her position with MSNBC to “falsely promote a brutal dictator.”

Wagner goes on to say, “I have spent my entire professional career working toward a position based on false pretenses. I have worked hard to obtain a position with a major news network and expected to be reporting on serious issues. Instead, I am handed Pro-Obama scripts and asked to be a mouthpiece for the administration.”
– See more at: http://nationalreport.net/msnbc-anchor-resigns-admits-spreading-lies-behalf-obama/#sthash.qxTS44O7.dpuf

How free water leads to even less rights

In a previous post we established that unalienable rights as endowed by our Creator only apply to those who have the capability to exercise them. An unalienable right in no way guarantees that each and every one of us will have such a right without exception. That goes against the grain of what supporters generally believe but there simply is no other rational way to interpret it. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness have never and will never exist for all people regardless.

Enter social rights. Otherwise known as socio-economic human rights, they fall under the concept of social contract theory. Supporters believe that all humans have a right to things such as health care, housing, education, etc. In the case of Detroit and the water supply shutoffs, social right supporters believe residents have a right to free water as well.

And yes, they mean free. Not just a moratorium on the bill, but 100% free. And you can’t stop at water for free, all of life’s necessities must be added into the mix.

The provision of water, electricity and other utilities and the guarantee of decent-paying and secure jobs, health care, housing and education aresocial rights over which there can be no compromise. Access to water must be freely available to everyone. All shutoffs must be immediately stopped, and those whose water has been turned off must have access to this basic necessity restored immediately.

As far as I know, the only socialist utopia theoretically capable of providing all of life’s necessities is communism. That’s certainly been a tried and failed experiment. Yet the indictment as causation for what ails us is capitalism.

These conditions are an indictment of capitalism, a system that guarantees billions of dollars to banks and big corporations while depriving workers and young people of the most basic necessities of civilized life.

This only underscores the fact that the capitalist system is attacking the entire working class in the US and around the world and that this can be stopped only by uniting all workers—black, white, native born and immigrant.

Everyone shares in the blame.

The entire political establishment—from President Obama, Governor Rick Snyder and Mayor Mike Duggan, to the City Council, the trade unions and the media—are guilty of a premeditated crime, which everyone knows will lead to devastation and even death.

He goes on from there to blame virtually everyone for the water shutoff victims so no one will accuse him of being a partisan hack.

Here’s the problem. If you support the workers paradise of communism, this author openly promotes the Socialist Equality Party, you can’t have it both ways. You want a democracy in which the workers unite of their own free will to discard capitalism. Once communism is implemented, democracy goes by the wayside.

Isn’t this always the problem with avowed communists? They can’t openly promote what they believe just as Obama couldn’t be clear of just what he meant by fundamentally changing America. It won’t sell. Thus the attack on capitalism and the standard us vs. them rhetoric. Attempting to garner support from the right by attacking Obama and the democrats is thinly veiled.

Capitalism doesn’t guarantee anything to anyone. Certainly doesn’t stop the opportunistic from exploiting it, however, this is true of any economic system. My advice would be for the author to join an anarchist group. At least then he will have the satisfaction of denying the same old rich folks benefitting regardless of the economic or class system in play.

But isn’t that the point? This author just employs a different slant of deceit in attempting to empower the little guy. The Socialist Equality Party employs their own standards for crony rewards and it certainly won’t be the little guy ending up with the spoils.

Was I totally wrong in yesterday’s post?

In light of my previous post about our endless wars over natural resources, I give you the opposing opinion. In what could be a propaganda piece directly out of the White House, wars are apparently so yesterday.

The 3 reasons?

1. The democratic peace
2. Nuclear deterrence
3. Sovereignty

Really? The current occupant of the White House is moving fast-forward to derail all 3 reasons.

There are endless examples of our Dictator-in-Chief expressing his desire to “act where Congress won’t” and other catch phrases he uses. Flagrant violations of the rule of law, trampling of our citizen’s rights, etc., etc., etc. A democracy is hardly at the top of his agenda.

Nuclear deterrence? The President has made no secret of his desire to disarm America. Our history of exceptionalism and being the only superpower left is what’s wrong with America if you listen to his rhetoric. A nuclear free world is a centerpiece of the progressive agenda.

Sovereignty is laughable as our country’s southern border has evaporated. Breaking down borders and expanding the collective is also at the top of the progressive agenda.

Wars and the manner in which they are fought have always been dynamic and they will continue to change over time. However, the core reasons behind them are in our DNA. No amount of propaganda pieces such as this video will change that.

Black Gold behind the latest Middle East uprising?

Regular readers of Spellchek know we regularly post links to those who’ve figured it out. ‘It’ in this case being the fact that natural resources make the world go round. We live in a world driven by energy wars. You generally won’t see it on the headlines which may blare religious war or political ideology war or some other distraction. But make no mistake, there is a clear path of evidence if you’re willing to look at it.

Today’s link goes to Michael Klare of TomDispatch.com. He does an excellent job of weeding through the media driven headlines to get to the real back story. Energy. Enjoy.

Twenty-First-Century Energy Wars
Global Conflicts Are Increasingly Fueled by the Desire for Oil and Natural Gas — and the Funds They Generate
By Michael T. Klare

Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, South Sudan, Ukraine, the East and South China Seas: wherever you look, the world is aflame with new or intensifying conflicts. At first glance, these upheavals appear to be independent events, driven by their own unique and idiosyncratic circumstances. But look more closely and they share several key characteristics — notably, a witch’s brew of ethnic, religious, and national antagonisms that have been stirred to the boiling point by a fixation on energy.

In each of these conflicts, the fighting is driven in large part by the eruption of long-standing historic antagonisms among neighboring (often intermingled) tribes, sects, and peoples. In Iraq and Syria, it is a clash among Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, Turkmen, and others; in Nigeria, among Muslims, Christians, and assorted tribal groupings; in South Sudan, between the Dinka and Nuer; in Ukraine, between Ukrainian loyalists and Russian-speakers aligned with Moscow; in the East and South China Sea, among the Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Filipinos, and others. It would be easy to attribute all this to age-old hatreds, as suggested by many analysts; but while such hostilities do help drive these conflicts, they are fueled by a most modern impulse as well: the desire to control valuable oil and natural gas assets. Make no mistake about it, these are twenty-first-century energy wars.

It should surprise no one that energy plays such a significant role in these conflicts. Oil and gas are, after all, the world’s most important and valuable commodities and constitute a major source of income for the governments and corporations that control their production and distribution. Indeed, the governments of Iraq, Nigeria, Russia, South Sudan, and Syria derive the great bulk of their revenues from oil sales, while the major energy firms (many state-owned) exercise immense power in these and the other countries involved. Whoever controls these states, or the oil- and gas-producing areas within them, also controls the collection and allocation of crucial revenues. Despite the patina of historical enmities, many of these conflicts, then, are really struggles for control over the principal source of national income.

Read more – http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175865/tomgram%3A_michael_klare%2C_fighting_for_oil/#more

Rev. Jackson wants $2B for Chicago violence – here’s how to solve it for less than half that!

The good Reverend Jesse Jackson appears to have a tinge of jealousy when it comes to redistributing the wealth. President Obama has thrown his support behind a proposal to send nearly $4 billion to deal with the problem of illegal immigration at our southern border. The Reverend supports this but would like us to spend a little more.

“If we can find $4 billion for those children — and we should — we can find $2 billion for Chicago. There are more children involved, and more have been killed, and more have been shot,” said Jackson.

It’s a typical government solution. Throw money at a problem and make it go away. Jackson supports forcing taxpayers from one end of the country to the other to pay for Chicago’s violence problem.

We here at Spellchek always like to promote what is in the best interest of the public. Accordingly, here is a solution to the Chicago violence problem and guess what the best part is? It’ll cost less than half of what Jackson proposes!

The solution? Have the feds provide a handgun to every resident of Chicago. The population of Chicago is roughly 2.7 million people. The average cost of a handgun is likely between $300 to $600. Of course you can spend more or less, but that would be a fair average. And if we award a government contract to a gun supplier for millions of handguns, certainly we can secure a fair price for a government issued handgun.

For example, 2.7 million handguns at $300 a pop is $945 million, a relative bargain compared to the $2 billion the Rev. Jackson wants to throw down the sewer hole.

The best part? It would work! Violent crime would plunge. The gang’s of Chicago which currently rule the city would disintegrate as their members are picked off one by one.

Deterrence is a dirty word to big government supporters because it empowers the individual to protect themselves without having to rely upon big brother to do it for them.

Heck, we could arm the entire country for less than $100 billion. That’s less than a couple of weeks of spending at the federal government level. Seems like a bargain to save countless thousands of lives, doesn’t it?