Water -> Baptism. Monsanto wants to own all rights to water.

MKJ · Jun 7, 2013

ArmyMatt said:
yeah, but that would mean to own all of the property that has water, to include the stream that runs behind my house.

Well, if you own the body of water, under this kind of idea you would own the water. I am not sure how that would be managed in cases with streams when the water flows through - maybe the downstream people would just be out of luck if the upstream people did bad things.

But now in most places in the West, even if the body of water or aquifer is on your property, you do not really own it.

What is kind of interesting to me is the way we take these things for granted. We tend to take for granted that it is obvious that water should have at least a public interest element in its ownership, but we do not mind oil wells being privately owned.

Some people though have argued that oil or even other natural resources in the ground are more like water, and there have been times when they have been treated as such in the past. For example, all the local farmers might be able to claim some of the products of a local quarry which was administered by the local government or lord. And in some places they have nationalized things like oil reserves.

The arguments of those who want to privatize water are not that different than the arguments for privatizing a lot of these other things.

ArmyMatt · Jun 7, 2013

who would own the water in the form of rain? or the 65% that makes up me? there is no way that they can police up folks water use.

Gxg (G²) · Jun 7, 2013

ArmyMatt said:
yeah, but that would mean to own all of the property that has water, to include the stream that runs behind my house.

Technically, they've done that type of thing before when it came to pushing others out. What occurred with Indigenious/First Nations groups in their food and water supplies being confiscated - and the same with other minority communities at certain points when they were harrassed/forced to buy into the materials other big companies were pushing for if they refused to give up their land.....

ArmyMatt · Jun 8, 2013

Gxg (G²);63215250 said:
Technically, they've done that type of thing before when it came to pushing others out. What occurred with Indigenious/First Nations groups in their food and water supplies being confiscated - and the same with other minority communities at certain points when they were harrassed/forced to buy into the materials other big companies were pushing for if they refused to give up their land.....

yeah, but we are not talking about guys being moved or displaced. we are talking about a company wanting to own all water. I just don't see it happening.

MKJ · Jun 8, 2013

ArmyMatt said:
yeah, but we are not talking about guys being moved or displaced. we are talking about a company wanting to own all water. I just don't see it happening.

Ah, I think the problem is the OP was very confusing, because it was trying to make it sound scary (which should be unnecessary, because it is already scary.)

It is not that one company wants to claim all water on the planet, and whatever you use, even from your own rain barrel, you will have to pay for.

They are talking about privatizing water resources. So, theoretically water well could be treated in a similar way to an oil well, and water rights would be similar to mineral rights.

Maybe your neighbour, if he bought the water rights, could drill down and empty the aquifer that feeds your well.

As it is now, water rights usually have a strong public element - you pay taxes to a water utility, and if you want to use large amounts (say you own a bottled water plant or factory farm or whatever) you have to get permission from some sort of government body, and they tell you what you can take and at what cost.

ArmyMatt · Jun 8, 2013

ah si si, thanks MKJ. it still seems to far fetched for me, at least right now. maybe some day down the line this would be something to fret over, but not right now.

buzuxi02 · Jun 8, 2013

The only reason monsanto has these powers is because your elected officials give it to them. Patent laws need to be revised. Of couse most people are on the side of monsanto anyhow. As I said once we gave human rights to animals and can feed everyone filet mignon and corn through genetic engineering, monsanto won the PR campaign.

127.0.0.1 · Jun 9, 2013

MariaRegina said:
If they controlled all water, we Christians would be persecuted for "wasting" water used for baptism.

Only if you free-loaders pirate it instead of paying for it. You can still have baptisms, you just have to buy the water for it.
Priest says: "This Holy Baptism, sponsored by Monsanto, let us give thanks to the free market."
Choir: "It is fitting and right, amen!"

MariaRegina said:
As it is, under the Patriot Act, [Americans] are considered terrorists.

There, fixed it for you.

MKJ · Jun 9, 2013

ArmyMatt said:
ah si si, thanks MKJ. it still seems to far fetched for me, at least right now. maybe some day down the line this would be something to fret over, but not right now.

I think it is something to keep an eye on. It has happened in some other countries, and there are indications that some corpporations in the US are lobbying for that kind of thing here. You it advocated too from the kind conservatives that believe in totally free markets.

buzuxi02 · Jun 10, 2013

MKJ that's nonsense. It's allowed because you voted for it. It's democracy at work. Copyright and patent laws and the enforcement of them is the role of government. Monsanto would not have any "rights" unless your officials which you voted into power give it to them.

MKJ · Jun 10, 2013

buzuxi02 said:
MKJ that's nonsense. It's allowed because you voted for it. It's democracy at work. Copyright and patent laws and the enforcement of them is the role of government. Monsanto would not have any "rights" unless your officials which you voted into power give it to them.

Political lobbying by special interests is a very real thing. It seems to be particularly bad in the American system. When both major parties are strongly tied to these same interests, it does not leave much choice for voters.

All indications are that for a third party to make real headway in the US would be quite difficult. I think individual voters do bear some responsibility for that - they are all too willing to allow themselves to be duped by the party machines. But the way political funding works, it is hard for others to compete.

Legislation is not directly voted on by American citizens. And business and industry has a lot of influence in its development. This is not totally a bad thing - often they are the ones with knowledge of their own industry and what its needs are. But even a cursory glance shows that in many cases they are interested in pushing what is advantageous for themselves rather than what is directed to the common good or justice.

When on top of that involvement by industry and lobby groups, the politics is largely decided by money, you have a bad recipe.

So, yes, when we see those interests beginning to advocate for privatization of water, I think it would be wise to keep an eye on them. I think they would much rather people were oblivious, but I cannot see how that would be a good choice for citizens.

ElijahBro · Jun 10, 2013

Definitely a good idea to keep an eye on this. However, it would be next to impossible in some geographies. For example, in Vancouver there is so much fresh water -- rain, streams, rivers, lakes -- it would be next to impossible to enforce. In dryer areas, it could be possible.

Further, if there was any sort of crisis revolving around the control of water, there would be serious civil unrest.

buzuxi02 · Jun 10, 2013

Eli,

I think you are correct. The thing is, iF it happens it starts off with babysteps. Minor regulations involving water conservation etc. We not only will not realize they are handing over control but the reasons for the prohibitions will be applauded.

Let me give you an example from my area. From memorial day to labor day, the 5 mile stretch of beachfront is strictly guarded from morning to night. To get on the sand you need to pay the $12 fee. If your an avid beach goer like most of the residence of Long Beach you can go to city hall and pay for a summer long beach pass.

No one has a Problem with this, they need to charge for beach upkeep. Of course only 2% of the money goes to this while the rest is squandered.

Now can you imagine telling the Indians 200 years ago that stepping off the boardwalk onto the sand is strictly limited to those that can afford to pay a fee to the government.

gzt · Jun 10, 2013

That's an interesting point, but didn't we kill most of them? And the survivors got forcibly pushed West? I'd imagine that most anything we would say to those who were there 200 years ago would not be met with a pleasant reaction in light of that.

buzuxi02 · Jun 10, 2013

My point is, if we return in 200 years from now, there will be restrictions we can't fathom today but will be considered normal and good by those of that era.

So if some corporation creates porter house steak using stem cells and enriching it with vitamins, it maybe frowned upon initially , but in time the sheeple will accept it as an improvement. Afterall we no longer have to slaughter a cow, we can ban hunting, eliminate famine through genetic engineering. It's an animal rights activists dream.

You can complain about Monsanto all you want, but the sheeple have already rewarded them. Today China accepted their modified soybean seeds and it's stock priced jumped the most ever. People whose idea of food are doritos and other processed foods could care less about playing God with crops.

Dorothea · Jun 11, 2013

MKJ said:
Political lobbying by special interests is a very real thing. It seems to be particularly bad in the American system. When both major parties are strongly tied to these same interests, it does not leave much choice for voters.

All indications are that for a third party to make real headway in the US would be quite difficult. I think individual voters do bear some responsibility for that - they are all too willing to allow themselves to be duped by the party machines. But the way political funding works, it is hard for others to compete.

Legislation is not directly voted on by American citizens. And business and industry has a lot of influence in its development. This is not totally a bad thing - often they are the ones with knowledge of their own industry and what its needs are. But even a cursory glance shows that in many cases they are interested in pushing what is advantageous for themselves rather than what is directed to the common good or justice.

When on top of that involvement by industry and lobby groups, the politics is largely decided by money, you have a bad recipe.

So, yes, when we see those interests beginning to advocate for privatization of water, I think it would be wise to keep an eye on them. I think they would much rather people were oblivious, but I cannot see how that would be a good choice for citizens.

Agree.

Gxg (G²) · Jun 27, 2013

ArmyMatt said:
yeah, but we are not talking about guys being moved or displaced. we are talking about a company wanting to own all water. I just don't see it happening.

It was also assumed that at no point was it possible for others to displace (or eradicate) a people group so that they could own an extensive sphere of land/natural resources - with empires happening afterward. There's nothing saying that it cannot happen when people seek to own all water...

Gxg (G²) · Jun 27, 2013

MKJ said:
It is not that one company wants to claim all water on the planet, and whatever you use, even from your own rain barrel, you will have to pay for.

They are talking about privatizing water resources. So, theoretically water well could be treated in a similar way to an oil well, and water rights would be similar to mineral rights.

Maybe your neighbour, if he bought the water rights, could drill down and empty the aquifer that feeds your well.

As it is now, water rights usually have a strong public element - you pay taxes to a water utility, and if you want to use large amounts (say you own a bottled water plant or factory farm or whatever) you have to get permission from some sort of government body, and they tell you what you can take and at what cost.

Indeed..

And sadly, on the issue, water privatization is already occurring:

ArmyMatt · Jun 27, 2013

Gxg (G²);63447465 said:
It was also assumed that at no point was it possible for others to displace (or eradicate) a people group so that they could own an extensive sphere of land/natural resources - with empires happening afterward. There's nothing saying that it cannot happen when people seek to own all water...

there have been empires ever since the written record. I don't think humanity ever thought that we could not displace or eradicate a race for resources. but if they wanna own all water I would love to see them own the air I breathe, the water that collects on windows, etc. there is no way they can enforce the owning of all water, especially anytime soon.

Gxg (G²) · Jun 28, 2013

ArmyMatt said:
there have been empires ever since the written record. I don't think humanity ever thought that we could not displace or eradicate a race for resources. but if they wanna own all water I would love to see them own the air I breathe, the water that collects on windows, etc.

In the long term - when other groups thought "If they think they can own everything, I'd love to see them try", those people were simply wiped out - and of course, no one can control everything simply because they desire it - but it doesn't change the reality of attempt/suppression that follows because people reach for more than they deserve.

there is no way they can enforce the owning of all water, especially anytime soon.

Not legally - but attempt to do so is another matter. And on the issue, one's eschatological view will make a difference. If one believes in the rise of the Anti-Christ and a government system where a single, demonic man, will have ownership over ALL the world - and ALL of its resources (even when others fight to say "That doesn't belong to you!!"), it's not hard to see why others note that men will seek to control the land/water supplies on a grand scale.

Water -> Baptism. Monsanto wants to own all rights to water.

Contributor

Regular Member

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Regular Member

Contributor

Regular Member

Veteran

They rally 'round the family

Contributor

Veteran

Contributor

Selah-

Veteran

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.07 billion years

Veteran

One of God's handmaidens

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Regular Member

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Similar threads