State of Oregon now owns all the water?

105 posts / 0 new

http://www.naturalnews.com/036615_Oregon_rainwater_permaculture.html?fb_...

Semi permeable memebrain's picture
Semi permeable ...
Joined:
Nov. 10, 2011 8:36 am

Comments

It's as scary as it is ridiculous. Oregon is full of progressive , all for the commons, communitarian, idiots that do not believe in individual rights.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am

That's probably better than Bechtel owning all of the water including the rainfall.

That was the case in Bolivia. The people threw out the government that allowed it and took it back. Once again, Bolivians own their water..

Legally, if Bechel's rain fell on your garden, you could have been charged for it. If you didn't pay, it was theft. Is there a stop-the-rain dance to avoid bankruptcy? I don't think so.

What's next to be privatized. Air?

I always thought it kind of cool when i was growing up as a kid that the people in Colo. owned the rivers and streams. Landowners bordering them were only allowed to own the land, not the streams and rivers that flowed through it.

Thje people of the state own the water through the only thing they own in common...their government,

Public ownership of rain/water has many thousands of years of human history behind it. Oregon is just acknowledging that, isn't it?

Western states began adjudicating water useage a long time ago. It ended the water wars....shootings between its users. Probably adjucating water will become more common as the resource becames more and more scarce relative to demand for it. Western Oregon is wet. Eastern Oregon is arid. Same as Washinbgton State.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease'

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I basically agree Polycarp, but this still strikes me as potentially dangerous as well. I am not convinced of any firewall existing between the governemnt acting in the public interest as opposed to being co-opted to corporate interests. In some ways I see any central control as dangeorous in the present mileu.

Beyond that do we really want to discourage the self sufficiency aspects of water catchment, or the idea that we can bring some of our most essential needs closer to home?

Semi permeable memebrain's picture
Semi permeable ...
Joined:
Nov. 10, 2011 8:36 am

Nope. And rainbarrels are still legal in most states...though they have been illegal in Colorado for many, many years. Some idiot got it into their head that even rainfall falling on a roof eventually makes it to a public stream and is therefore a public resource..

Intent of original law was to fairly distribute water without allowing someone to dam it up and price gouge for it...or drive another farmer/rancher broke by denying the flow of it to their properties and snapping the property up on the cheap, etc. Under private water ownership, that sort of thing happens frequently where rainfall is scarce. It's in our own past. as a country.

That wasn't so in the eastern states where water was relatively abundant. In the west, it's scarce.

Personally, I think the state should prove harm to another before blocking a pond,.Have a hydrologist sort it out. Sometimes an application of a law isn't its intent.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote camaroman:

It's as scary as it is ridiculous. Oregon is full of progressive , all for the commons, communitarian, idiots that do not believe in individual rights.

It's not only gullible Camaro owners that believe right-wing propaganda, apparently, since no one has yet pointed out how terminally skewed the story referenced is.

Are there any Mustang owners that would like to weigh in on this?

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am
Quote anonymous green:
Quote camaroman:

It's as scary as it is ridiculous. Oregon is full of progressive , all for the commons, communitarian, idiots that do not believe in individual rights.

It's not only gullible Camaro owners that believe right-wing propaganda, apparently, since no one has yet pointed out how terminally skewed the story referenced is.

Are there any Mustang owners that would like to weigh in on this?

I'm a mustang owner. Actually it's my wife's POS six banger.

I think the problem always arises when a STATE makes claim as a government. When in reality the law should be the RESIDENTS own the water rights equally. It should mean the same thing but in reality, legally, it can be manipulated.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

So, despite your wife's incredibly good taste in sports cars, you would dam up a stream on your land and hold the water hostage?

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am
Quote anonymous green:

So, despite your wife's incredibly good taste in sports cars, you would dam up a stream on your land and hold the water hostage?

No, how do you come to that conclusion. I say that NO ONE PERSON or entity should be able to hold title to waterways. I just don't like it when they word it the way that they do. When they say that the "state" maintains water rights it sounds so .....governmental. I hate the word government for that matter. The Federal government is even worse. I prefer.

We The People maintain the water rights. We The People maintain the right to universal healthcare. Instead of "The Federal government maintains the water rights of the country." Most people forget that our government is for the people by the people. It's easier to hate "a government" than to hate ourselves for voting some nimrod into power.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

The AG, in all your infinite shithead wisdom, point out how "terminally skewed the story referenced is". Whatever the fuck that means. A land owner should have the right to capture water that originates within the boundaries of his property, like the water that runs off his roof. The oregon law is indicative of the idiotic communitarian ideation. Oregon is one of many states full of moonbats of the AG kind.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am
Quote camaroman:

The AG, in all your infinite shithead wisdom, point out how "terminally skewed the story referenced is". Whatever the fuck that means. A land owner should have the right to capture water that originates within the boundaries of his property, like the water that runs off his roof. The oregon law is indicative of the idiotic communitarian ideation. Oregon is one of many states full of moonbats of the AG kind.

Oh... a landowner 'should have the right'....

Jesus, Linda, how can anyone argue with logic like that. You 'should' have said that up front. I would have immediately understood that water shouldn't trickle down naturally to your neighbors garden, and anyone who wants to build a dam to prevent this 'should' be able to steal their neighbors water.

You must be absolutely right. Despite being terminally wrong.

Montag

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am

AG- In terms of holding water hostage. First off it is easy to argue the hostage argument either way. You seem to take for granted that the public entity that is insisting the water is theirs is holding it hostage from the person upstream is trusted as a legitimate arbiter of the common good. Maybe, but probably not. In this case the shelter dweller will be pelted by the rain and have to deal with its runoff in the service of the downriver grabber. What you say may be true in a perfect world, but such a world should also include landowners agreeable to the process,

Are we saying folks can't build berms and swayles to prevent the runoff which is providing environmental damage?I say perhaps put limits on how much large landowners can collect in containers, but this is too much. You have also got to consider the enforcement cost for such an idea, and the cost to pump the water back to the landowner and lay pipes in the process. Still not getting it from a sustainable perspective

Semi permeable memebrain's picture
Semi permeable ...
Joined:
Nov. 10, 2011 8:36 am
Quote Semi permeable memebrain:

First off it is easy to argue the hostage argument either way.

It's easy for Manchurian Americans to argue everything, every way, trained as they are from birth to fight against even their own ideas, exactly like the manchurian candidates that predominate the Republican Party, and have infested Homerland with ridiculous lies.

It's not always darkest before dawn, and monkeys typing, even for a million years, still come up with nothing more than gibberish infused monkey literature.

The incredible thing is that the monkeys actually believe they are saying something.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am

One of the strongest-held beliefs of a right-winger is the absolute right to do whatever she wants to do with her land. It must be unique to Americans, the Daniel Boone mythology, "this is MY land, I killed that redskin fair and square." It is pure fantasy. You don't want your neighbor to have a Bengal tiger in his backyard, you don't want him to plant a tree that obstructs your ocean view, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundle_of_rights

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

It is government run amok over the rights of private property owners. Oregon state bureaucrats are claiming they own the RUNOFF water from rainwater that falls on your own land! Some of the communist-minded critics who are defending state officials in this case are lying and trying to claim this man "dammed a stream," implying it was a stream that ran through his property. That's a lie. All this man did was dam up his own runoff which later dumps into a stream. Thus, he only captures his own rainwater. He takes no water from anywhere else. And when his own ponds are filled, that rainwater overflows directly into the stream where it used to flow before he built his dams.

This practice of capturing rainwater has been used throughout the history of civilization to restore landscapes, preserve soils, grow food and live more sustainably. Do not fall for the disinformation campaigns being waged on this issue by the Oregon communists and socialists who believe no individual has any right to anything.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am

Camaroman wrote: This practice of capturing rainwater has been used throughout the history of civilization to restore landscapes, preserve soils, grow food and live more sustainably

poly replies: That's certainly true. And it was done before the "everything for profit" system came into being. From the U.S. Anasazi to the irrigation canals of the Maya, they were communal efforts to channel communally-owned water..

When Bechtel or any other corporation is allowed to privatized even rain (as they did in Bolivia) the private landowner had best stop excess amounts from falling on his property if he doesn't want a bill that drives him into bankruptcy.

In the U.S., a landowner is not allowed to dam a stream and hold those downstream hostage for a glass of water in areas of scarce water supply. Some would like to change that, The demand for water increases annually in the west. Rainfall doesn't.

If you'd prefer Bechtel Corp. to own your rainfall rather than the people through their government...go for it. Watch the weather forecasts to see what your monthly bill for Bechtel's rain will be. Heaven help you it it floods. instead of just paying to get the mud removed from your home, you'll get billed for the water that caused the damage.

.Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote camaroman:

Do not fall for the disinformation campaigns being waged on this issue by the Oregon communists and socialists who believe no individual has any right to anything.

This from a fool who fell for the Camaro. The repressed anger you feel after being so badly hoodwinked by false advertising is leaking, like the windows and roof and doors of a Camaro do, out and drenching your entire life with self-hatred.

Park the stupid car outside and collect all the water you want. Suck the last few drops out of the ugly floor mats you bought to cover up the deficient carpets Chevy used.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am

I do not want Bechtel or the government owning the rains that falls on my land. The governnment is not of, by, and for the people. We need to shoot any Bechtel asshole or government bureaucrat that tresspasses on our private lands.

In Texas, a landowner can capture up 200 acre feet or 65 million gallons of water from a creek or stream without a permit. They have a more commonsense approach to water rights with respect ot landowners in Texas.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am

Is this guy for real or just an idiot? What has my Camaro got to do with this thread, moonbat?

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am
Quote camaroman:

I do not want Bechtel or the government owning the rains that falls on my land. The governnment is not of, by, and for the people. We need to shoot any Bechtel asshole or government bureaucrat that tresspasses on our private lands.

In Texas, a landowner can capture up 200 acre feet or 65 million gallons of water from a creek or stream without a permit. They have a more commonsense approach to water rights with respect ot landowners in Texas.

Assuming, of course, that amount of water is still available from the creek and not depleted by the "owner" upstream. If only enough water flows in the stream to assure every entitled landowner 30 million gallons, then what?

If water is privatized, it's only a matter of time before big money buys it all up...including the rainfall. Bechtel didn't 'steal" Bolivia's rain. They bought it. The government that sold it at the beheest of the World Bank was booted from office and the sale declared void.

The people of Bolivia now own their own rainfall again...communally through the one thing they all hold a share in...their government. Government doesn't bill them for the rainfall that falls on their property.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote camaroman:

Is this guy for real or just an idiot? What has my Camaro got to do with this thread, moonbat?

The same thing your tiny philosophy has to do with a true democracy.

Like your copycat Camaro, you've copied someone else's ideas into your head.

Another Manchurian Blogger types furiously in monkey language, hoping, against true hope, that something resembling sense will some out of it.

Again, like the dirty effluent from a Camaro's exhaust pipe, only foulness is emitted.

Your pussy Camaro has everything to do with everything you do.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am

No poly, in a severe drought everybody suffers. It becomes a chain reaction leading right down to higher pricers for everybody, including poor working families. When the state (government) claims ownership and control of water (rainwater, snow, ground water, etc) and the right to control what you do with your private land, that is exactly what will happen to water rights and land rights through the existing corporate/goverment collusion. I do not trust our corporate owned government to anything "for the people". That is the progressive delusion that government is of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Poly, have you ever read John Perkin's "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"? If not, I would highly recommend it for an indepth understanding of how corporations control, not only our government, but governments all over the world.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am

Oh, yeah, Camaros suck, did I say that?

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am
Quote Semi permeable:

You seem to take for granted that the public entity that is insisting the water is theirs is holding it hostage from the person upstream is trusted as a legitimate arbiter of the common good. Maybe, but probably not. In this case the shelter dweller will be pelted by the rain and have to deal with its runoff in the service of the downriver grabber. What you say may be true in a perfect world, but such a world should also include landowners agreeable to the process,

I think that gets to the crux of this problem, doesn't it? How does anyone know that the entity that is claiming to be 'for the public good' is really 'for the public good'? What's to prevent such an entity just making that claim--and, then, selling the water for corporate interest like Bechtel's case? The bigger question may be that when it comes to the distribution of water, what is in the public interest?

To imply that it just is to 'endorse the natural environment' (like it appears polycarp is saying is done in Colorado) reminds me of a case where a home owner in California had his home in the line of a wildfire and was prevented from plowing up the foliage around his house to create a fire break (and maybe save his house) because some endangered kangaroo rat lived in the area and he might be plowing up their habitat.

And, if you think about it, even Colorado has a 'financial interest' in keeping the streams running in the state (and against all other interest--even to the point of making it illegal to capture water off your roof?)--tourism is a big industry in Colorado and some of that tourism involves its streams.....So, even that claim on Colorado's 'public interest' may have the less lofty cause of 'accumulated profit' in mind.....

It appears that some here that claim to be 'progressive' are more in line with centralizing power and authority and less in line with requiring such centralization to prove its justifications--and I do think that that is dangerous no matter whether that centralized authority claims to be 'government' or 'corporate'--and in today's political environment it is more like to be 'government' with 'corporate' interest.....as the so-called 'progressives' here appear to look the other way when an Oregon landowner is jailed for capturing water on his own land--apparently without those who imprisoned that landowner even having to show how that landowner's capture of water is really against any other's 'public interest'....remarkable that 'we' have stooped so low in removing anything that resembles 'individual rights' in power politics.....

Sometimes in this area of Texas, especially in drought times (which is not now, actually), there gets to be an argument over the access to the water table--and the 'claim for public good' is always offered on both sides. One comes from the larger cities stating they need to protect the water supply for their inhabitants. The other comes from the irrigating farmers that claim they need to keep their water to grow their crops to supply the public's food. Then, on top of that (remembering the issue with the guy in California's house risking being burned down and he couldn't plow up the foliage to try to prevent that because it may plow up the habitat of an endangered kangaroo rat), I know that the Sierra Club reopens up an ongoing lawsuit against the city of San Antonio everytime the Edward's Aquifer goes below a certain level because it may dry up a stream in a cave near San Marcos that is the only known habitat for an endangered form of salamander. This has been going on for years. A few years back, the San Antonio newspaper had reported that that ongoing court case (that apparently 'automatically' kicks in once the Edwards Aquifer drops below a certain level that may have that San Marcos stream dry up and exterminate that salamander) had already cost 5 million dollars--and the kicker to that was that the taxpayer was paying for both sides of the case. Is that in the 'public interest'? And, who gets to decide that--and what confirms that?

As even the founders of our own nation knew, centralizing authority under any guise should always be seen as suspect--but, that is, of course, if you really trust a government 'of, by, and for the people' and have anything like 'individual rights for each citizen' in mind--otherwise, just any excuse to centralize power can be offered for the sheeple if they don't see any need to have its centralization prove its political premise in every case......and determine how that proof is to be met.....even if it claims to be 'for the public good'....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Camaroguy, I am sure Poly will let you know what he knows about the John Perkins revelations, from the inside. He was in finance, not in "covert operations," but we do know about the helicopter rides, etc.

You have not learned the lessons Perkins taught, or you have taken that out of context. Governments are what we need to get right, not what we need to eliminate in some fantasy about "freedom." Democracy is the institutional form of political freedom. The economic design that serves that social vision is about a healthy economic democracy, not a variation on rape and pillage. "The People" is who the "WE" in the preamble refers to. Democracy is "the people." Your dismissal of government is incoherent.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

drc2, READ ABOVE POST #24.

I do not need a lecture from you on Mr. Perkin's mission, or your ideation of an overreching, overbearing, omnipotent centralized, individual rights trampling government.

I am awared that Mr. Perkins was only a front man and his failing to convince the government of a country to become indebted for some corporate project (for the public good of course), a dam for instance, garnered the government hitmen, if they failed then the military was brought in, ie Panama and Iraq. He exposed how corporations use corrupt centralized government for huge profits.

Where did the "authorities" demonstrate that Mr. Harrington had harmed anyone, or anything, other than to violate the arbitrary rules of an overreaching governmental entity? What I discern from your meme is that a goal of progressives would be to do away with all private property rights, all for the "common good", of course.

AG, "I would have immediately understood that water shouldn't trickle down naturally to your neighbors garden, and anyone who wants to build a dam to prevent this 'should' be able to steal their neighbors water."

Hey, moonbat, so, does that mean that I would have no right to SOME of the water for my garden? What a dipshit you are!!!

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am
Quote camaroman:

AG, "I would have immediately understood that water shouldn't trickle down naturally to your neighbors garden, and anyone who wants to build a dam to prevent this 'should' be able to steal their neighbors water."

Hey, moonbat, so, does that mean that I would have no right to SOME of the water for my garden? What a dipshit you are!!!

Now you want to steal water and dip shit in it as well. What on earth is wrong with you? What shit are you planning to dip in the water you steal from your neighbors?

Some people are never satisfied, and you apparently feel that the water that soaks into your garden isn't enough, and your neighbor's grass is too green, so you would make sure that none of 'your' rain made it off 'your' land.

Exactly like a bankster would, and did, and still does.

You represent the worst of human nature, and the phony picture of 'your' Camaro is obviously a fake.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am

Well, anonymous green, I know that picture of the camaro is not fake--and I'm not quite sure how that relates to the issue of water conservation and who has the right to water--nor the idea that the 'progressives' here don't honor private property rights just like they don't really honor individual rights--all, of course, for what someone in power says is 'for the public good'......or 'common/community interest' or something along that line no matter whether their intentions are real (and honest) or hypocritical (and manipulative)....and, thinking of the bad parts of human nature, I think hypocrites can do a whole lot more damage in stealth than what you may claim 'selfish people' do out in the open.....

It appears that the 'progressives' here only honor particular cases as 'politically correct' victims (not individuals) and allow general cases with government having free rein--and unlimited power--apparently as long as it claims to be 'for the public good' without having to confirm that claim in every particular case. And, it's that type of non-critical thinking that allows things like what John Perkins is talking about to go on right under their noses--as long as the claim is for something lofty (in its general sense) like 'for the public good' or 'for national security' without having to confirm its intent in any particular sense or particular case.....and the so-called 'progressive' sheeple play right into that as if nothing else has to be considered (especially property rights and individual rights, right?--maybe as long as it's not your property or you as the individual, right?--otherwise, that's all 'too selfish', isn't it? After all, Ayn Rand said so--and all 'individual rights' are now claimed by corporations and their administrative predators, anyway.....)......

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

It's not a progressive thing texas did the samething.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am

Well, in my area of Texas, at least no one can claim that 'they' hold 'the best public interest'--and get Texans to believe that without questioning.....as the song in the ad goes, 'That's what I like about Texas'....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I suppose the west can go back to private ownership of the streams and rivers...and right back to shootings and killings over them until some private corporation buys them all up and solves the problem.

What's the price for a commodity required for human survival? Whatever the market will bear. In times of scarcity, every last penney.

Your money or your life isn't limited to the mugger with a gun.

I'm beginning to tire of right wing gibberish.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

What if that "private corporation" is in collusion with the government and the sheeple are told it's it's for the "public good". Progressive gibberish is just as phony.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am

So you admit that what you say is gibberish Camaromad...

That's a baby step towards enlightenment.

Try one more.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am

No, your attmept at commenting , moonbeam, is just irrelevent bullshit. You are incapable of intelligable communication.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am
Quote polycarp:

I suppose the west can go back to private ownership of the streams and rivers...and right back to shootings and killings over them until some private corporation buys them all up and solves the problem.

Again, I'll go back to the same question that I made on the other forum that is discussing this issue. And, I didn't even read the specifics of this issue about the Oregon man. But, if this man is not catching water directly from a running stream, how is that affecting any of his neighbors or their property? Or, is that the problem? And, if not, what is the problem?

Can someone in such states catch the water off of their roof? Or, does it depend on how big the roof is? How far does this not catching water on your own property go here?

Quote polycarp:

What's the price for a commodity required for human survival? Whatever the market will bear. In times of scarcity, every last penney.

Was it 'human survival' that was at stake when the lawyers went to court over San Antonio's water rights to its citizens and how the endangered salamander in the San Marcos stream was to be considered? Or, the California man not being able to plow up his own property to attempt to save his house in a wildfire because it may have disturbed an endangered kangaroo rat's habitat?

Is this really about 'human survival'? If the man was dying of thirst (or his garden was drying up and, just like in Bolivia, he couldn't afford what was charged for water use from the company--the 'government-approved' company), is the law that prevents him from catching the rain water off his roof or on his property still in effect? How far does 'the rule' go?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

When Bolivia's rainfall was owned by Bechtel Corp....it was owned by Bechtel. Since when does any corporate controlled government order a firm to give away its product?

Bolivians threw the corporate lacky's out on their ear and took their government and their rainfall back.

The rain is owned by Bolivians...through their government...the only thing they own in common. If we toss out the corporate lacky's maybe we'll own our government again as well. Not likely. The two wings of the Corporate Party are pretty well entrenched.The evil wing or the less evil wing is the usual option.. Great choice.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote camaroman:

No, your attmept at commenting , moonbeam, is just irrelevent bullshit. You are incapable of intelligable communication.

In your case, it's spelled intelligarble, but type some more.... Shakespeare is inside you somewhere Linda, and you are absolutely right.

Montag

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am
Quote polycarp:

When Bolivia's rainfall was owned by Bechtel Corp....it was owned by Bechtel. Since when does any corporate controlled government order a firm to give away its product?

A government in Bolivia gave that opportunity to Bechtel, did it not? Did I say that such a government was to 'order a firm to give away its product'? No, just the opposite. In the collusion between government and corporate interest, corporations were to capitalize and profit off of such a product (even 'God's water') in collusion with its appeasing government officials 'legitimizing' it--for, of course, their own 'accumulated profit' interests....even if they can hypocritically claim it being 'for the public interest'....

Who's to say that can't happen in any situation where the government says 'no one has the right to such an availability without going through a company process that we sanction'....thus, the collusion of government with corporate interests....

Quote polycarp:

Bolivians threw the corporate lacky's out on their ear and took their government and their rainfall back.

Good for them. But, how big was the Bolivian army--and who, or what, did those armies incline to be supportive of? Are you supposing that 'we' could man a revolution against 'our army'? Or, even 'should' since Thom Hartmann has been claiming that our founders never believed the 'right to own guns' meant the 'right to overthrow our government'--apparently, even if 'our government' lost sight of 'securing and guaranteeing rights to individuals' as the Declaration of Independence claims....

Quote polycarp:

The rain is owned by Bolivians...through their government...the only thing they own in common.

Well, as I recall, one of the things that involved was a water well in the center of a community that had been there for decades that no one 'regulated' or 'charged for'--everyone got their water there for free--until the Bolivian government allowed Bechtel to take it over. So, in that light, I'll ask my question again:

Is this really about 'human survival'? If the man was dying of thirst (or his garden was drying up and, just like in Bolivia, he couldn't afford what was charged for water use from the company--the 'government-approved' company), is the law that prevents him from catching the rain water off his roof or on his property still in effect? How far does 'the rule' go?

And, then, this:

Quote polycarp:

If we toss out the corporate lacky's maybe we'll own our government again as well. Not likely. The two wings of the Corporate Party are pretty well entrenched.The evil wing or the less evil wing is the usual option.. Great choice.

Is the state of Colorado immune from 'corporate lackeys'--even in determining the issue of water rights 'for the public interest'?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

You'll all find, sooner or later, that attempting rational discourse with the Camarofool is wasted effort. I and others have taken him on in other threads. He's a troll, just here to spew discord and annoy people. (He hasn't lived until he's ridden in a vintage Mustang Mach I.)

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Coming from someone like Ulysses who I, also, know does nothing but throw trash around without rational justification, even if with the 'wise moniter's (DRC's) blessing', the idea that Ulysses even has 'rational discourse' in mind is suspect. After all, Ulysses' wise moniter (DRC) claimed that all the 'new paradigm thinkers' (such as they claim to be) are 'above rational thought', anyway. So, what's the claim on 'rational discourse' now?

By the way, I would let camaroman come in and fend for himself but, apparently, the 'wise moniter' has seen to it to throw camaroman off, once again.....is that correct, 'wise moniter' (DRC)? Who lets Ulysses throw just about any personal insult my way--including assaulting my capacity in my profession without one iota of knowledge to substantiate that claim.....other than the rather irrational excuses that Ulysses offers that, of course, have no bearing whatsoever to the insult involved....as Ulysses claims to be all about 'rational discouse' here....so 'fair, equal, and just'....oh wait, that's 'rational' (ie. 'comparative') too....and the 'new paradigm thinkers' are all 'above that'.....but, they aren't 'above' telling me to go to hell, are they, DRC?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

And, I want this to be up there with my other comments to Ulysses on the other thread about 'women's issues'.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Camaroman wrote: A land owner should have the right to capture water that originates within the boundaries of his property,

poly replies: And if all landowner in the arid west did that, streams and rivers would soon run dry.That's why the laws came about in the first place. That was happening.

Kerry wrote: Is the state of Colorado immune from 'corporate lackeys'--even in determining the issue of water rights 'for the public interest'?

poly replies: Of course not. That's how the nation is run. City Council on up. You have to remember that Colo. was the state that used the state militia to machine gun miners, their wives and their children when they demanded to be paid in U.S. currency instead of co. monopoly money.(Ludlow Massacre). It did so on behalf of well-heeled private interests..... not in the interests of the well-being of its citizens.

Private interests also want to control your water supply. I expect they have their fingers dabbling in the water supply...and will dip their toes in as well as the resource becomes more scarce. Fresh water in the west is not only finite, rainfalls are diminishing. Demands upon it continue to grow..

The difference is, Bolivians threw corporate lackies out of office just like Argentinans did in 2001. The Argentine Pres. resigned and fled the capitol in a helicopter. It's just a matter of time before the corporate lackies buy their way back into office...their peaceful overthrows were half-a--ed, At least they didn't celebrate the rip-offs with a Tea Party.

I did receive an apology...sort of...with my water/sewer bill today for the rate increases. The EPA set reasonable water/sewer rates...not to exceed an areas median income by more than 2% Half in my area make more than $44,000 over year and half make less than $44,000 per year. So, $44,000 is the median income..

In my area that means a reasonable water/sewer bill of about $150 a month.....about 15% of my income. Some in my neighborhood consider me fairly well off! With more belt-tightening, I can manage it....barely. Some can't. Now I smell evictions coming in this really cheap slum area from an inability to pay the rent. Might as well put the nails in their coffins and hit them with a flat 15% income tax rate as well.

Pity I'm not a millionaire. The bill would be about 1/1000th of 1%...or an equivalent of one cent out of my income.. Just have to wonder how out-of-touch the millionaires/billionaires plying the nations laws really are, don't you?

Maybe we out to toss the lacky's out like Bolivians did.

It's getting to the point where the decision of what to have for dinner has changed from choosing between beans or rice to having beans or water. Now...how do I cook beans without water? Will they pop like popcorn?

The problem isn't government Kerry. The problem is who has taken control of it. Whenever large concentrations of wealth are encouraged, wealth ultimately captures government to serve itself. When in history has that not been so?

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

[quote\.....but, they aren't 'above' telling me to go to hell, are they, DRC?

I've certainly never been above that, but only because you're an Obnoxioid from the planet Obnoxion.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

And, I want this to be up there with my other comments to Ulysses on the other thread about 'women's issues'.....

Up where?

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

Coming from someone like Ulysses who I, also, know does nothing but throw trash around without rational justification, even if with the 'wise moniter's (DRC's) blessing', the idea that Ulysses even has 'rational discourse' in mind is suspect. After all, Ulysses' wise moniter (DRC) claimed that all the 'new paradigm thinkers' (such as they claim to be) are 'above rational thought', anyway. So, what's the claim on 'rational discourse' now?

By the way, I would let camaroman come in and fend for himself but, apparently, the 'wise moniter' has seen to it to throw camaroman off, once again.....is that correct, 'wise moniter' (DRC)? Who lets Ulysses throw just about any personal insult my way--including assaulting my capacity in my profession without one iota of knowledge to substantiate that claim.....other than the rather irrational excuses that Ulysses offers that, of course, have no bearing whatsoever to the insult involved....as Ulysses claims to be all about 'rational discouse' here....so 'fair, equal, and just'....oh wait, that's 'rational' (ie. 'comparative') too....and the 'new paradigm thinkers' are all 'above that'.....but, they aren't 'above' telling me to go to hell, are they, DRC?

The poor halfwit never has learned to spell "monitor."

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

A "time out" ? How about you both count to ten and restore a bit of civility to the forum?

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I lived in Oregon for 20 years. I applied for water rights from the McKenzie River when I bought a house in Vida. What a gorgeous place.

Coloquial wisdom said that it was fine to stick a pipe in the river and use as much as you wanted, and there was lots of water there, and the previous owners of the land I bought had, like many landowners there, simply stuck a pipe into the river and had been sucking it out for years by way of quaint electric pumps.

Having been granted a conscience by God, I instead paid for a surveyor, and applied for a permit, knowing that local practice, (like, no ni--ers in town after dark), was no indication of morality or legality.

It was fairly simple to get the permit, and I didn't need that much water anyway, but I am still glad that there was some control on the local population in a state where the Governor as late as the 1940's was a member of the KKK.

I'm certain the guy who owned the land just outside of Springfield (home of the Oregon Citizen's Alliance), on the way to Vida on Hwy. 126, who perennially posted signs like "Kill all the Homos" at the end of his driveway, wouldn't think twice about exercising his God given right to steal as much water as he could, and drown Homos in it if he could get away with it.

"One thing leads to another..." The Clash

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am

If camaroman is gone that is disappointing. Yes he got caught up with that other guy but it seemed to be well balanced in the rudeness to one another. One of the more interesting conversations for me at least. For what its worth I consider myself a progressive if not a radical, but I hope I have made it nonetheless clear that I question government and centralized government in particular. I do not reject or even strongly question the ideal, but as Kerry and Bushwacker have pointed out, the idealis nonetheless available for the hijacking,. As for private property, I have lot of respect for Kerry's position and do not think such thoughts are a betrayal of my progressive principles. Individual and property rights can be seen on a continuim from rights regarding a minimum existence and claims to land to the largest claims for owned extravagance of all sorts. So it is from the perspective of minimal individual or property rights that I believe the left should recognize as having import, as opposed to the notion that any property rights claims serve only as avenues for domination and exploit. I should backtrack and mention that a suggestion of minimal property rights should not infer that I am suggesting an edge of subsistence existence is a suitable ends, i am rather suggesting it as starting point to reconsider the question

Also it is hard for me to not just see a basic absurdity here in the general logistics of all of this. I think Kerry or someone got at this with the example of the person dying from thirst not being able to drink the water around him. Yes it is important that the culture of dominion over nature be drastically reconsidered, but the alienation from the products of the natural world in the name of supposed distant authority is not necessarily the final answer either

Semi permeable memebrain's picture
Semi permeable ...
Joined:
Nov. 10, 2011 8:36 am

"One Thing Leads To Another" was The Fixx.

Here are The Clash lyrics you want:

We will teach our twisted speech
To the young believers
We will train our blue-eyed men
To be young believers

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Probably, Kerry, people should stop blaming DRC for something he has nothing to do with.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2010/06/isnt-libertarian-free-market-message-board-here-thom-hartmann-program

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote polycarp:

The problem isn't government Kerry. The problem is who has taken control of it. Whenever large concentrations of wealth are encouraged, wealth ultimately captures government to serve itself. When in history has that not been so?

The point that I was making with Bolivia is that, at least with respect to that community well, there was no overriding government regulation restricting them to it, or government-endorsed company charging them for it, until the then government of Bolivia gave it to Bechtel--I am sure for a price that the government officials, themselves, profitted off of. And, since our officials have a tendency to be more hypocritical (manipulated as a 'public relations effort') in their explanations to the little people over how they kowtow to corporate interest (think Obamacare), I suspect when our corporate colluded government claims to be 'for the public interest', as the old adage goes, you better start looking for--and following--the money.....

I'm not against a government 'of, by, and for the people'. But, like Bob Dylan sings in his song ('They talk about a life of brotherly love, show me someone who knows how to live it'), where is that government--and where are those people.......or, are you saying that any government that claims to be 'of, by, and for the people' has no responsibility to prove it to the people--and what would that 'proof' look like? I'm still thinking a government 'securing and guaranteeing individual rights to its citizens' in a manner that indicates a minimal state liberalism or active state liberalism capacity depending upon what we are talking about. I am NOT seeing it as a state whose primary interest is offered by career politicians as if they were 'government'--no matter how they couch it into the PR of 'public interest'. Also, I am NOT seeing it as a state who, once again, shows its primary interest as being 'national security interests' to be kept from 'the people'--at least, 'the little people'.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Why the Web of Life is Dying...

Could you survive with just half of your organs? Think about it. What if you had just half your brain, one kidney, half of your heart, one lung, half a liver and only half of your skin? It would be pretty hard to survive right? Sure, you could survive losing just one kidney or half of your liver, but at some point, losing pieces from all of your organs would be too much and you would die.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system