Compassion anyone?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

I cannot understand this whole SNAP debacle that is being played out and talked about. I do not understand how ANYONE can be against feeding the hungry. I am willing to concede that there will be waste and fraud. I cannot imagine what system(s) would not have *some* waste and fraud. That said, waste and fraud are bad, but, let's not go throwing the baby out with the bath water, eh?

Food is NOT an option for people. Neither is water. These two things are HUMAN RIGHTS as far as I am concerned. Nobody, anywhere, should be deprived of access to food and water. And you know what, these things, in their most basic form (ie. basic food staples, not fancy food feasts), should be free. That's right, free. For *every single person*.

I understand that to some cold-hearted demons out there, people only deserve food and water if they *work* for it. Well fuck that. Work is not the pre-requisite, IMO, for food or water. Those should be denied to NOBODY.

I have a question to ask folks here, and I'm not sure I will be able to stomach the responses, but here goes:

Under what circumstances should a hungry person be denied food/water?

Comments

[aelf.livejournal.com]

People who want to privatize water are saying they want people to die of thirst? I haven't seen that. Do you have a source?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

sure, they don't WANT people to die of thirst. Then those people wouldn't be paying for the privilege of accessing our natural resources. They WANT them to pay.

But if you don't pay?

[aelf.livejournal.com]

I'm on city water. If I don't pay, they shut off my water. Should a privately-run utility be held to a higher standard than a government-run utility?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

no, but it should be held to the same standard. Utilities can't just cut you off; your situation is taken into account.

[aelf.livejournal.com]

Are you saying they aren't held to the same standard? Electricity in my state is deregulated, and I can choose providers, and yet there are limitations are when they can turn the electricity off for non-payment (even if the non-payment is egregious and in the thousands of dollars). Is that uncommon?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

and there are those who would seek to remove those regulations. Many of them right here on this very community.

[aelf.livejournal.com]

Specifically so that people can die of thirst? I haven't seen anyone advocating that. However, for the sake of argument, I'll concede that 1 person has said that. And? Does it make it a rational or majority opinion? Does it make sense to cast it as _the_ opposing opinion?

What I see are shifting sands.
People are saying that the hungry and thirsty should DIE!
Really? Where?
Well, they want to privatize water! And turn it off and kill people!
My government turns off water for non-payment, should private enterprise be treated differently?
Err, well they can't just cut you off!
No, they can't in certain circumstances, but once those circumstances pass, they can.
Well people want them never to be told no!

... still not seeing where the hungry and thirsty should be dragged out in the desert and left for dead. Are you arguing the utilities - public or private - should never be allowed to be turned off for non-payment? That's a different argument, and it's broader than the privatization of water rights. In fact, I'd argue that being frantic about the privatization of water rights distracts from one's point, if the point is that utilities must always be provided regardless of payment.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

you're going through a lot of semantic gyrations to try to justify privatizing a natural resource that is required for life.

Of course the CEO of Nestle doesn't want people to die of thirst. But if they can't pay, well... that's just bizniz, amirite?

[aelf.livejournal.com]

I have no interest in justifying the privatization of water. I have an interest in pointing out that no one has advocated leaving the hungry and thirsty to die.

Which, you know, was the point of this conversation.

Do you want to discuss whether or not water should be able to be privatized? I'd recommend beginning another top level discussion.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

They are innately tied together, those issues (privatizing water and leaving the hungry and thirsty to die)


I mean, you see that, right?

Why do you think a company would WANT to privatize water? To turn a profit, right? What happens if some person cannot afford their product? Will the company hand it out for free?

The CEO of Nestle seems to believe that it is his biggest social responsibility to keep turning a profit for Nestle--NOT to keep hungry people full or thirsty people watered. He would not give a product away.

If one person cannot afford your product, and your product is water, and you refuse to give product(water) away for free, that person will go thirsty, and the CEO is advocating leaving them hungry/thirsty.

Did you check out the video of the Nestle CEO below? He is pretty much advocating the [morally] horrifying position that you believe no one is advocating.

Sure, nobody is saying the words "I want people to go thirsty" but it is the logical conclusion of their premises; it is an undeniably outcome of privatization.

[aelf.livejournal.com]

No, I don't see that.

I have city water - not privatized. The government can turn of my water supply for non-payment.

It seems to me your issue is that you care deeply about water being turned off.

Is that true?

If it is true, why would you ignore the government turning off water and only focus on private entities turning off the water?

And, so far as I know, water rights aren't tied into SNAP. Are you suggesting they should be? That if I were on SNAP and wished to pay my water bill with my SNAP benefits, I should be allowed to do so?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

SNAP, so far as I know, cannot be used for utility bills, though I suspect you could use EBT to buy bottled water.

I am concerned with the city turning off water for non-payment. I have never lived in a place where that could happen.
I knew Baltimore was fucked, I didn't know it was that fucked.


If you don't mind, what are the rates like, for your water?

[aelf.livejournal.com]

Per http://publicworks.baltimorecity.gov/Bureaus/WaterWastewater/CustomerCare/BaltimoreCityCountyBillingRates.aspx

The average county user uses 39 hundred cubic feet of water per quarter at $290.74/quarter.

[aelf.livejournal.com]

If http://asktheexpert.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/5264 is to be believed, you can use SNAP benefits to buy bottled water.

However, that doesn't solve the sewer and sanitation problems if the water to the house gets turned off (should we care about that?). I doubt SNAP benefits provide enough money to allow someone to purchase enough bottled water to provide for drinking and sanitation.

To return to the original conversation, should SNAP benefits include bottled water to provide for drinking and sanitation in case someone's water service gets turned off?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

when you advocate for the privatization of water, you advocate for the hungry and thirsty to die if they cannot pay, just like when you advocate for the privatization of roads, you advocate for the inability to travel for the traveler if they cannot pay.

[aelf.livejournal.com]

when you advocate for the privatization of water, you advocate for the hungry and thirsty to die if they cannot pay

Do you also believe:

when you advocate for the government regulation of water, you advocate for the hungry and thirsty to die if they cannot pay

In which case, who or what exactly should own the process of getting clean water to my house? The government can't - it wants me to die of thirst. Private industry can't - it wants me to die of thirst. I *want* someone to own the process of getting clean water to my house because the labor costs of doing it myself are more than I wish to pay, I'd rather spend money. What am I to do?

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Avoiding dysentery and cholera is in everyone's interest. Plumbing and sanitation works. Government is best suited to that pubic interest.

[aelf.livejournal.com]

Avoiding dysentery and cholera is in everyone's interest. Plumbing and sanitation works.

I agree

Government is best suited to that pubic interest.

How do you reconcile that with the government shutting off access for non-payment of water & sewer services? In this particular case, private and government owned utilities behave in the same way. How does that make government best suited?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

What city are you in?

[aelf.livejournal.com]

I live in Baltimore.