They will vary from area to area, but will involve some weight being given to historical uses, some for environmental issues, and hopefully involve the greatest good for the greatest number. The result will never satisfy all parties, of course...Seth wrote:What criteria? Don't dodge the issue.JimC wrote:Hopefully a set of rational criteria, well publicised, that can be a factor when they are up for re-election. If the people don't like the criteria, or how they are implemented, they can respond in the ballot box...Seth wrote:Based on what criteria?rainbow wrote:Big Government.Seth wrote:So in your "unowned water" scenario, how are disputes over allocation of a limited resource like water resolved?
Libbies don't watch....
- JimC
- The sentimental bloke
- Posts: 74117
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
- About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Libbies don't watch....
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!
And my gin!
Re: Libbies don't watch....
Tell that to the farmers of the Imperial Valley in California, whose crops are long-dead because the "government owned" water that made the area one of the most productive farmlands in the world was cut off in order to cater to a tiny minnow, thereby destroying thousands of lives and farms.Hermit wrote:Issue addressed here. In short, overall it's better to have access to government than privately owned water.
That can't happen when the water is privately owned by a plethora of owners who use the water beneficially...or at least it's not supposed to happen.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
Re: Libbies don't watch....
Can you be more specific?JimC wrote:
They will vary from area to area, but will involve some weight being given to historical uses, some for environmental issues, and hopefully involve the greatest good for the greatest number. The result will never satisfy all parties, of course...
And what exactly is moral about oppressing the minority in order to serve the interests of the majority?
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
- Hermit
- Posts: 25806
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
- About me: Cantankerous grump
- Location: Ignore lithpt
- Contact:
Re: Libbies don't watch....
Uhm, in this country private ownership of water would result in Victoria whithering and South Australia not getting any water at all.Seth wrote:That can't happen when the water is privately owned by a plethora of owners who use the water beneficially...or at least it's not supposed to happen.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
Re: Libbies don't watch....
And that's bad because? Ever stop to think that just because you want to live comfortably in an arid climate (like Las Vegas) that doesn't give you moral standing to strip the water from somewhere else? How about you live within your water budget in the climate in which you choose to reside?Hermit wrote:Uhm, in this country private ownership of water would result in Victoria whithering and South Australia not getting any water at all.Seth wrote:That can't happen when the water is privately owned by a plethora of owners who use the water beneficially...or at least it's not supposed to happen.
We have that problem here, where the City of Denver diverts huge amounts of water from the Western Slope of Colorado, which affects everyone who lives there, just to cater to Denver citizen's desire for bluegrass lawns and swimming pools.
Fortunately, even Denver has to BUY the water rights from their west-slope owners, they can't just take it without paying for it.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
- JimC
- The sentimental bloke
- Posts: 74117
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
- About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Libbies don't watch....
You've missed the point, distracted by your ideological blinkers. One of the critical functions of elected governments is to balance the competing demands of sectors of their society - if they do a shit job for too many people, they can be voted out...Seth wrote:Can you be more specific?JimC wrote:
They will vary from area to area, but will involve some weight being given to historical uses, some for environmental issues, and hopefully involve the greatest good for the greatest number. The result will never satisfy all parties, of course...
And what exactly is moral about oppressing the minority in order to serve the interests of the majority?
That's exactly the point Hermit was making. It would be immoral for the upstream states to strip South Australia of all its water; a system representing all states plus the feds was set up to regulate water use in our major river system so that no one player had a major advantage or disadvantage. One of the functions of competent government, yet again...Seth wrote:And that's bad because? Ever stop to think that just because you want to live comfortably in an arid climate (like Las Vegas) that doesn't give you moral standing to strip the water from somewhere else? How about you live within your water budget in the climate in which you choose to reside?Hermit wrote:Uhm, in this country private ownership of water would result in Victoria whithering and South Australia not getting any water at all.Seth wrote:That can't happen when the water is privately owned by a plethora of owners who use the water beneficially...or at least it's not supposed to happen.
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!
And my gin!
- laklak
- Posts: 21022
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
- About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
- Location: Tannhauser Gate
- Contact:
Re: Libbies don't watch....
If you really want to confuse the issues throw prior use arguments into the mix.
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.
- Hermit
- Posts: 25806
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
- About me: Cantankerous grump
- Location: Ignore lithpt
- Contact:
Re: Libbies don't watch....
It's bad because South Australia and Victoria had access to water from the Murray River in the 1850s. Population growth upstream increased water usage there to the point that the supply in the south kept decreasing to the point that it became a major problem. Instead of starting a fight the people decided to negotiate agreements. The first one was concluded in 1915 and became effective in 1917. The net result was such that overall water supply actually increased in reliability and as well as volume due to the large scale of integrated dams, weirs and locks that could never have been created under piecemeal ownership. Since 1917 such agreements not only persist to this day because they simply worked for the better, but were further refined, enhanced and expanded. It's how civilised nations handle their natural resources and build the necessary infrastructure to manage them with.Seth wrote:And that's bad because?Hermit wrote:Uhm, in this country private ownership of water would result in Victoria whithering and South Australia not getting any water at all.Seth wrote:That can't happen when the water is privately owned by a plethora of owners who use the water beneficially...or at least it's not supposed to happen.
The Murray-Darling agreement is not even the biggest water management project in Australia. That would be the Snowy Mountains Scheme. Jointly owned and managed by three governments, it consists of 16 major dams feeding 9 hydro power stations, many kilometres of tunnels and aqueducts connecting them and took 25 years to complete. It supplies 67% of mainland Australia's renewable energy. It also diverts 2,100 gigalitres of water that used to flow eastwards to the coast, where it wasn't needed, to the west and into the Murray and Murrumbidgee rivers, where it was. Side benefit is tourism. It made the development of (privately owned) skiing resorts economically feasible in winter as well as recreational trout fishing in summer. The time scale and initial outlay for that scheme made it most unlikely to be executed by private interests which are notorious for quick returns on investment rather than visions that work out well in the long term. So that is 2:0 for collective ownership over private greed. There are many more examples, but you are blinded in regard to to their benefits by your ideology, so I won't bother going on with listing them.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
- pErvinalia
- On the good stuff
- Posts: 60694
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
- About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
- Location: dystopia
- Contact:
Re: Libbies don't watch....
That's crazy, Hermit. SA should have gone to war with Qld. What kind of freedum hater are you?!?
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
Re: Libbies don't watch....
Is that one of the critical functions of government? I disagree. I believe that what you state as a critical function of "elected governments" is actually the very basis of totalitarian majoritarianism.JimC wrote:You've missed the point, distracted by your ideological blinkers. One of the critical functions of elected governments is to balance the competing demands of sectors of their society - if they do a shit job for too many people, they can be voted out...Seth wrote:Can you be more specific?JimC wrote:
They will vary from area to area, but will involve some weight being given to historical uses, some for environmental issues, and hopefully involve the greatest good for the greatest number. The result will never satisfy all parties, of course...
And what exactly is moral about oppressing the minority in order to serve the interests of the majority?
Libertarians believe that it is not the role of government to "balance the competing demands" of society because that function is properly and adequately served by the free market, which is guided in it's allocation of resources by the billions of individual voluntary individual transactions that control supply and demand with a precision and balance that no central planner (government) can possibly hope to achieve. F.A. Hayek points this out in excruciating detail in his book "The Road to Serfdom."
The proper role of government in economics and resource allocation is only to police the markets and society generally to prevent and punish the initiation of force or fraud.
What you are saying is simply a wordy "just so" redundancy of a "majority rules" claim that is unresponsive to the actual question I asked. Yes, a socialist government thinks one of its critical functions is central planning and allocation of resources, and yes a socialist government can be "elected" by the majority, but you completely evaded the actual question, which is what exactly is moral about oppressing the minority in order to serve the interests of the majority?
Seth wrote:And that's bad because? Ever stop to think that just because you want to live comfortably in an arid climate (like Las Vegas) that doesn't give you moral standing to strip the water from somewhere else? How about you live within your water budget in the climate in which you choose to reside?Hermit wrote:Uhm, in this country private ownership of water would result in Victoria whithering and South Australia not getting any water at all.Seth wrote:That can't happen when the water is privately owned by a plethora of owners who use the water beneficially...or at least it's not supposed to happen.
Why would it be immoral? Perhaps you are drawing this conclusion based on how things are now, but that's not the scenario I posited, which in this context would mean that South Australia would enjoy no inherent right to water that originates in the upstream states because, well, it originates in the upstream states, which have the moral claim to demand that the water be reserved for the use of citizens of those states if there is insufficient water to supply everyone. Again, I ask what is your moral argument for South Australia to demand that the upstream states forfeit their water merely because people want to live comfortably supplied with (someone else's) water in the desert of South Australia? Perhaps the people in South Australia should abandon the desert and go live in the upstream states, where the water is, rather than settling in a place where there is insufficient water to support them and then demanding that others supply them with water.That's exactly the point Hermit was making. It would be immoral for the upstream states to strip South Australia of all its water; a system representing all states plus the feds was set up to regulate water use in our major river system so that no one player had a major advantage or disadvantage. One of the functions of competent government, yet again...
In a free-market based society, people wouldn't live in such places because the cost of supplying water is too great...kind of like Alice Springs or other places in Central Australia where the number of people who can live there is severely limited by the unavailability of water to support them. Should Alice Springs demand that a pipeline be built from the mountains half way across the continent just so that the residents of Alice Springs can improve their lifestyle and bring in new development? If not, why not? If South Australia is entitled to demand water of the upstream states, then why is not Alice Springs equally entitled to all the water it wants? How do you resolve this moral and ethical conundrum.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
Re: Libbies don't watch....
And you think that only government can perform this act? Strange, because pretty much exactly the same thing happened in the West here, in the appropriations states, despite the water being privately owned. You see, rational self interest and free market forces are perfectly capable of resolving such issues without the expedient of government dictates that too often have less to do with intergovernmental cooperation with the best interests of the citizens in mind and more to do with political power-mongering and control.Hermit wrote:It's bad because South Australia and Victoria had access to water from the Murray River in the 1850s. Population growth upstream increased water usage there to the point that the supply in the south kept decreasing to the point that it became a major problem. Instead of starting a fight the people decided to negotiate agreements. The first one was concluded in 1915 and became effective in 1917. The net result was such that overall water supply actually increased in reliability and as well as volume due to the large scale of integrated dams, weirs and locks that could never have been created under piecemeal ownership. Since 1917 such agreements not only persist to this day because they simply worked for the better, but were further refined, enhanced and expanded. It's how civilised nations handle their natural resources and build the necessary infrastructure to manage them with.Seth wrote:And that's bad because?Hermit wrote:Uhm, in this country private ownership of water would result in Victoria whithering and South Australia not getting any water at all.Seth wrote:That can't happen when the water is privately owned by a plethora of owners who use the water beneficially...or at least it's not supposed to happen.
The thing about free markets is that when a need arises for cooperation in order to bring products to market, that cooperation happens naturally, as in the case of the Erie Canal and most other canal systems in the east, which were built with private capital not government funds. The same is true of the railroads, which are private property not public property.
It wasn't until FDR and the New Deal that the US government began undertaking massive public works projects like the Hoover Dam. Up till then, Congress wisely left most such infrastructure construction and operation to private companies that charged for use at market-controlled rates that were controlled by the laws of supply and demand, not government edict.
This claim is, of course, utter balderdash and entirely unsupported by history or fact.The time scale and initial outlay for that scheme made it most unlikely to be executed by private interests which are notorious for quick returns on investment rather than visions that work out well in the long term.
Please, go on so I can further deconstruct your blindered ideology with facts and common sense.So that is 2:0 for collective ownership over private greed. There are many more examples, but you are blinded in regard to to their benefits by your ideology, so I won't bother going on with listing them.
While you're contemplating your reply, I'd like to ask you how collective ownership worked out for the residents of Ukraine circa 1932. Have you ever even heard of the Holomodor?
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
- Hermit
- Posts: 25806
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
- About me: Cantankerous grump
- Location: Ignore lithpt
- Contact:
Re: Libbies don't watch....
Yes. Shareholders keep baying for their dividends. Too much is never enough for them, and right now is not soon enough. Company directors and CEOs don't last long if they don't meet those demands. That's why massive amounts of investment by private enterprise don't happen if a project is not expected to go into the black until a decade or two after the money on it has been spent. What you call rational self interest and free market forces don't stretch across that sort of time span.Seth wrote:And you think that only government can perform this act?
You mention the Hoover dam. It would not have been built if it wasn't for the government owned and run, nor would most of the other 475 dams it has financed, constructed and commissioned that supply water to 140,000 privately owned farms, generate 40 billion Kilowatt hours with its 53 hydro-electric power plants and contribute 46 billion dollars to the economic output of the USA. Those are claims supported by history and fact.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
- rainbow
- Posts: 13752
- Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
- About me: Egal wie dicht du bist, Goethe war Dichter
Where ever you are, Goethe was a Poet. - Location: Africa
- Contact:
Re: Libbies don't watch....
The water is full of Uranium from Ralston Creek anyway.Seth wrote: We have that problem here, where the City of Denver diverts huge amounts of water from the Western Slope of Colorado, which affects everyone who lives there, just to cater to Denver citizen's desire for bluegrass lawns and swimming pools.
Fortunately, even Denver has to BUY the water rights from their west-slope owners, they can't just take it without paying for it.
Don't drink the water if you go there. Substitute Coors.
I call bullshit - Alfred E Einstein
BArF−4
BArF−4
Re: Libbies don't watch....
does that mean coal producers can't use the atmosphere and water table as a sewer and not pay for it????, they can't just take it without paying for it.
seems they don't, seems you don't mind that at all.
Seems both require regulation...

Resident in Cairns Australia • Current ride> 2014 Honda CB500F • Travel photos https://500px.com/p/macdoc?view=galleries
Re: Libbies don't watch....
So what? Profit motive is what drives markets and drives efficiency and innovation.Hermit wrote:Yes. Shareholders keep baying for their dividends.Seth wrote:And you think that only government can perform this act?
So what?Too much is never enough for them, and right now is not soon enough.
Company directors and CEOs don't last long if they don't meet those demands.
Yup, their job is to make a profit for the shareholders, which they don't do if the system they spend millions to build becomes useless because the resource involved becomes unmarketable at a competitive price.
First, you're simply mistaken in your premise. Second, so what? If the project is not projected to be profitable why should it be built in the first place? The motive you mention is how the markets keep private enterprise from acting like governments, which waste money hand over fist through fraud, corruption and political pandering without regard to those who have to pay the bill.That's why massive amounts of investment by private enterprise don't happen if a project is not expected to go into the black until a decade or two after the money on it has been spent.
Sure they do. What do you think railroads do?. What you call rational self interest and free market forces don't stretch across that sort of time span.
First of all, you cannot say that Hoover dam would not have been built except for government ownership because it is impossible to say that economic forces would not have eventually brought Hoover dam into existence when the economy demanded it. Secondly, Hoover dam (and every single one of FDRs WPA projects) was conceived originally as a way to employ the unemployed at taxpayer expense during the Great Depression not as a market-driven response to consumer demand. Did Hoover dam produce electricity and irrigation water as a result? Of course it did, at tremendous (and excessive) expense during a time when its output in both power and water was not needed by anybody. The farmland that is irrigated by Hoover Dam did not exist as farmland at the time precisely because it could not be irrigated. Worse, at the same time FDR was opening up this new farmland, he was restricting the amount of crops that could be grown in the US by existing farmers under the AAA (Agricultural Adjustment Act) regulations that dictated how much wheat a farmer could grow, even if it was for his own personal use, which resulted in one of the worst and most evilly egregious errors by the Supreme Court since Dred Scott: Wickard v. Filburn. In short, FDR deliberately created shortages in crop staples by forbidding farmers from fully utilizing their property to produce things like wheat and corn, and he did so in order to keep commodity prices artificially high as he ignorantly meddled with the markets while trying to make himself look good to the voters.You mention the Hoover dam. It would not have been built if it wasn't for the government owned and run, nor would most of the other 475 dams it has financed, constructed and commissioned that supply water to 140,000 privately owned farms, generate 40 billion Kilowatt hours with its 53 hydro-electric power plants and contribute 46 billion dollars to the economic output of the USA. Those are claims supported by history and fact.
The simple fact is that if the markets had seen 46 billion dollars in profit available by financing these WPA projects, the market would have invested the money to build them, just as it has invested uncounted trillions of dollars to large infrastructure projects to meet consumer demand. And it would have done so without raping the taxpaying public in order to try to tie more people to government largess in the process. It would have done so when and as the demand for the product arose, just as the tens of thousands of privately-owned and constructed dams, canals and other major projects have done for centuries.
The very network system you and I are using to debate this subject is proof absolute that the markets respond to demand by increasing supply without (and indeed in spite of) government interference.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests