Hacker News Reader

Comment by raverbashing | Hacker News Reader

100% this

These headlines is just press fodder for the grievances-industrial-complex to cry about how the gov is incompetent

Of course drinking water is important - I'm not questioning that

But there's a difference between a meaningless statement of "everybody should have the right to cleaning water" which is a vapid statement and actually building towards it (with regulation on the quality of water, EPA, working on water treatment, etc)

"Right to cleaning water" is like saying "you should move more" to a fat person

View on HN

Why is someone who wants non-contaminated drinking water incompetent?

Not everything you want - or need - is a right.

And establishing a new right is not the only way to get what you want or need.

I am absolutely mindboggled at the idea that you think the US should not guarantee safe drinking water everywhere for everyone. Unless this comment is pedantic legal snark.

Guarantee of safe water is a right (as given by EPA regulations, etc)

But it is not a constitutional right

Because putting it where it doesn't belong, without any quantification, is meaningless

What is the remedy? There isn’t a private cause of action through the state courts and suing the government itself will end up with sovereign immunity. If they can’t raise a 1993 claim, how specifically do you expect them to sue?

If a place is especially dry or inaccessible, then the lack of water should be one of the considerations for establishing a community there. This idea that no matter the expense or engineering constraints, the government must drag out the pipes and infrastructure to your private retreat, will be putting people in dangerous situations and a complete waste of scarce resources.

I think that perhaps you don't understand what a right means, in the context of government services.

>then the lack of water should be one of the considerations for establishing a community there.

People don't get to choose their birthplace, and circumstances change. Worrying about pottable water should be a solved problem in a first world country.

That's why I said "one of the considerations for establishing a community".

  > Worrying about pottable water should be a solved problem in a first world country.

I see that you've never lived somewhere with water scarcity.

I didn't get to "establish a community". For several reasons, some historical. I didn't start the fire.

>I see that you've never lived somewhere with water scarcity.

I live in the US, so no. Despite all the droughts and cautions to use less water (even though it's rarely personal water usage that is causing such water shortages), it hasn't hit a point where I need to ration liquid.

Stop editing your ridiculous comment.

Rights are enshrined by society, it’s what we choose. Nothing is a right in and of itself contrary to what your comment tries to imply.

The natural state of being is freedom, it up to society to restrict what they deemed necessary and punish the offenders. Unless the body of water or reservoir are claimed by the government then it is free for anyone to use, quality notwithstanding. Safe, clean water implies certain amount of processing and I agree that unless it is explicitly written then it is up to the users to sanitize that water

> The natural state of being is freedom

That is an ideological assertion, not a fact.

The position is not that the government needs to ensure that all bodies of water are potable or that the government needs to provide clean water to every resident.

The claim is that you have a 1983 case against state officials that tell you that the municipal water is clear when they know it is in fact contaminated with lead.

  > Stop editing your ridiculous comment.

Do I not have a right to add that second sentence to my comment? Are you offended by me exercising that right?

Your demand is ridiculous, doubly so in a conversation about rights.

If a state official interferes with this you could have a 1983 claim.

You just got called out, don’t cry.

The authorities assuring that the drinking water that is sold to you is really of drinking water grade is the most basic of the basic rights. Not a luxury. The "right to culture almonds" or to have a pool is a different question.

> Not everything you want - or need - is a right.

Ok, agreed. But safe drinking water, should maybe be one of the exceptions?

> And establishing a new right is not the only way to get what you want or need.

What's a better way to guarantee safe drinking water to everyone?

> safe drinking water, should maybe be one of the exceptions?

If we invert it to the actual reality (many places have unsafe drinking water), then we get "the right to avoid being poisoned by your government".

It sounds obvious to me that that should already be the case.

But I don't know much about water treatment. Maybe it isn't always feasible?

Do people just have to drink bottled water in some places? Or get reverse osmosis filters?

> Do people just have to drink bottled water in some places

That would be really convenient for companies that sell bottled water

I've been to a few islands that must import bottled drinking water. The citizens themselves do, not the government.

I actually got stuck on one such island once, for one night with my then-twelve-year-old. First thing we did after securing a place to sleep, was acquire water.

Not necessarily, which is also why animals do not have rights. A right isn't always the correct solution to a problem.

For example, if your tap water is poisonous, but you can get safe drinking water from a store, you right to safe drinking water would be satisfied by what the store provides.

I'd say the main issue in this story is that the danger was known, but not disclosed.

What is drinking water for then, if not for drinking?

You're not making an argument there. The people, through the government, chooses what is a right and what isn't. Not you alone. Clean drinking water seems pretty fucking important to me, and to a lot of other people too, it seems.

But this are just empty statements.

You forgot the actual argument about why this want and this way of getting it is a sign of incompetence

But maybe it should be? What does it say about the US government apparatus and its basic claims to legitimacy if it can't even guarantee safe drinking water? What lack of aspiration and ambition does such a denial demonstrate? Why should its citizens accept such an abdication of even the most basic duties?

What national government _does_ guarantee safe drinking water to its citizens? You are attacking the legitimacy of the US government by holding it to a standard that no nation on Earth is held to.

The US has regulations and they are enforced, with some local problems. Just like every other nation on Earth.

You did a neat rhetorical trick there where you swapped out "recognizing a right" for "guarantee".

A right is not a guarantee of perfect outcomes.

Most countries do recognize the right, though implementation is obviously challenging. The US abstained, tellingly: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/687112?ln=en

The rhetorical trick was not mine. There are numerous people in this comment thread that used the word guarantee as a synonym or implied outcome of the word right.

What do you think a right is, if not a guarantee?

Do you think there's never been an instance of an unfair trial in the US despite the codified right to a fair trial?

A right is always just a declaration of aspiration and an accountability mechanism should said aspiration not be lived up to - it cannot by itself guarantee any outcome because implementation will always be imperfect.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com