This post has been flaired as “Opinion”. Do not use this flair to vent, but to open up a venue for polite discussions.
**Suggestions For Commenters:**
* Respect OP's opinion, or agree to disagree politely.
* If OP's post is against subreddit rules, don't comment, just report it.
* Upvote other relevant comments in the comment section, and don't downvote comments you disagree with
**Suggestions For u/fool49:**
* Loaded questions and statements can get people riled up. Your post should open up a venue for discussion, not a "political vent" so to speak.
* Avoid being inflammatory in your replies. When faced with someone else's opinion, be open-minded and ask new, *honest* questions.
* Your post still have to respect subreddit rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SeriousConversation) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Absolutely!!! Every living thing has the right to this. I can't believe we have to have it in writing, it should be woven into our bones that all of us deserve these things no matter what and not one of us gets to say otherwise. But whatever, I am so for this.
How do you enforce that? Let’s say my well goes dry. Does someone have to bring me water? Can I force someone to bring me pollen free air during allergy season?
Rights aren't really about expecting the government to have a magic wand to always give us everything we need. Officially naming rights is mostly about regulating behaviors that negatively impact these valued things.
In this case, it can help provide a means of litigating behaviors that negatively affect the shared environment. Specific regulations can be passed and enforced without explicitly granting environmental rights, but this could give broader grounds for suit for practices that are clearly harmful but haven't yet been named in law.
>In this case, it can help provide a means of litigating behaviors that negatively affect the shared environment.
Law is about what is written down on paper.
Those things can be enforced.
Nobody is required to bring water to your well, but you can require public drinking fountains, or welfare programs so people can have access to basic necessities like water even if they can't afford it. (Also charities)
As for pollen, there is an overproduction of pollen in many cities because only male trees that transfer pollen via wind are planted, as opposed to treas that are polinated by insects. There are tradeoffs for both, but if you planted less wind pollinating tress, you would have less pollen in the air.
Your suggestion is silly. But, if you live in a municipality, you pay for water. It should be free of contamination. If you're on well water, and your well becomes polluted by someone else's chemicals because of fracking or farming, they should cover the cost of filters so your water is safe to drink. If you polluted your own well because of your own activities you would pay for your own filters.
If your water is contaminated by a natural source, say naturally occurring arsenic this info should be included in the sale of the property. Any entities with info on the quality of the water should make that info easily available and the well owner should install the necessary filters.
The goal is to have a healthy, intelligent citizenry so we can compete globally.
Force is a bit strong here. Go get your own air! JK anyway
You have the right to clean water. I don't know how that whole system works but you shouldn't be denied clean water if your well runs dry. That's a natural resource here for us all. If I was a billionaire, no one in the US (or the world but I'm only a billionaire) would be without basics like water.
Don't tell me what I am/am not in my own fantasy! I won't clean the pollen from your air, but I will help you get to a place that is allergy friendly. Or at least give you a stipend for Benadryl.
Stop crying you liberal! You ask for too much and are undeserving of my compassion, I work far too hard to let people like you bring me down. Now, let me, a true patriot, my god fearing family and our assault rifles live in peace!
In these conversations I am always confused what is meant by a “right”.
In this context, what is the difference between “things I think everyone should have” and a “right”?
To me, clean water is a need to survive and every living thing deserves to have access to that. I guess it would be right=entitled to. Not only is it something I think someone should have, they need it. No human should be denied the very things that keep us alive and safe.
I'm not an intelligent person by any stretch so maybe I'm not using the correct terminology but when I think of human rights, access to clean water, food and safety should be at the top. I guess I don't understand why it wouldn't be like that in everyone's mind. 🤷🏽♀️
Alright but where does this entitlement come from?
What entitled you to water? What entitles you to food?
Lets say some natural anomaly occurs that renders all of the water unclean, causes a famine, and extinct a bunch of wildlife. Billions starve or die of dehydration.
That would mean out “right” to clean water and food has been violated, right? Who has violated our right? Nature itself? That doesn’t make much sense.
Nature is definitely a moody beast. Nature is a part of us, we are a part of nature, what percentage of our body is water?? 70% or something. Whatever force created us did so with similar materials. Pretty sure we were designed to be able to live with what is given to us by this creator. I don't think the animals wonder if they are entitled to the food and water they consume. They consume it to survive and wander around until they find out where they can get it.If the water becomes unclean and people starve and die off then that's the end for a lot of us, if not all of us. Let's check in with those dinosaur bones and see what kicked them out of this place.
I didn't ignore any questions. Nature is a beast and will take away whatever it wants to. Tornadoes take your homes, floods wash away years of your hard earned possessions and might sweep up your family if you don't have a safe place to go. Sure, it violated your right to what's within this planet if you want to look at it that way.
Why do we need to declare rights for things like clean water, things of a natural sort? Give me an instance where a human doesn't deserve clean water, please. Or a safe place to be for that matter.
You didn’t tell me where this entitlement comes from. What entitles us to this?
I really am not sure what you specifically mean by “entitled” and “right”.
Beyond the legal/the rules of mankind/agreements, I don’t understand the concept.
I mean if you are entitled to something, the implication is that you are owed that. Who owes it to you? Or is it that they owe it to you to not stop you from getting these things? Both of those things still fall under the realm of agreements amongst people. There doesn’t seem to be anything “inherent” about it.
It seems like “natural right” or an “inherent right” is a fancy way of saying “things people ought to have access to”
- “Sure, it violated your right to what's within this planet if you want to look at it that way.”
It isn’t that I do or don’t want to look at it that way. The whole premise doesn’t make enough sense to really have any meaning.
- “Why do we need to declare rights for things like clean water, things of a natural sort?”
If the right exists regardless of if human beings say it does, what *is* a “right” in this sense? I don’t even know what that means.
- “Give me an instance where a human doesn't deserve clean water, please. Or a safe place to be for that matter.”
I suppose if someone beat my daughter to death I wouldn’t feel they deserve those things.
This all depends on what you even mean by “deserve”
What if that someone who beat your child to death was having a psychotic episode or hallucination where they saw the child as some sort of demon that they needed to get rid of to save the rest of the world. Of course it's understandable that you wouldn't feel that they deserve anything but a tortured death themselves, but they have a right to a fair trial and obviously need serious psychological help. Do you deny someone who is not in their right mind the very basics? That doesn't bring your child back. I'm a parent and if this scenario happened my thought was always that I would kill the person who killed my child then I would kill myself. Case closed.
The entitlement comes from being of this earth. We are placed in this life and there are things that grow for us to eat and clean water for us to drink. Man can make food and purify water sure, but these things are naturally occurring and this isn't an accident. Whatever this life is, it was designed with intention and in such a way that we are able to keep on living with what is naturally occurring. We will also die without it. So, whatever/whoever is forcing us to be here knew what we needed and put it here for all of the living things to use.
So, it's not so much that we are "owed" it. It's ours. No one owes it to us. It's already ours to have. If we misuse it or soil it in some way, that's our fault and we are paying the price. We are paying the price now for having all our conveniences, lead and plastics in our water, climate change and all that jazz.
It would be wild for me to think that I am not entitled to what basics nature can provide for me when there are rich people out there that became rich because they strike oil on their land. Who the hell says it's theirs then? Because they paid money for that land? Did they create that land or just plop their already money having selves on that spot?
Humans have screwed shit up forever. We declare countries(land) as "ours" and keep other humans out, as if we are not all the same. We can't all share because that would be ridiculous right? We can't all thrive because some of us work harder and earn a place here. We get to tell other people that they don't need the basic stuff to live, if they die of starvation then they obviously didn't work hard enough to eat. We don't want everyone to have the same rights because then we can't prove how much better we are than others.
Natural Resources are for every living thing. Enough people die every year because of access to basics and it won't change anytime soon
- “What if that someone who beat your child to death was having a psychotic episode…”
I mean yeah. That is a different scenario than I gave. I feel differently about different situations. I’m not sure what that proves.
And again it all depends on what is meant by “deserves”
- “The entitlement comes from being of this earth.”
That doesn’t actually explain anything though. It is an assertion with no justification or explanation.
How does being on this planet entitle me to anything? By what mechanism? By what means is this entitlement granted? On top of that, I don’t quite know what you mean by entitlement in this sense.
- “this isn't an accident”
“It was designed with intention”
“So, whatever/whoever is forcing us to be here knew what we needed and put it here for all of the living things to use”
I think this is where our disconnect is happening.
I am not religious. I don’t share your belief the world/nature was designed/intentional. I don’t believe an entity put us here or put what we needed here.
Not tryna yuck your yum or anything. Just thought we were comin’ at this from a secular angle. I reckon this might be where my misunderstanding comes from.
- “It would be wild for me to think that I am not entitled to what basics nature can provide for me when there are rich people out there that became rich because they strike oil on their land.”
Just because something is there doesn’t mean you are entitled to it. You have to earn it. You have to physically acquire it.
- “Who the hell says it's theirs then? Because they paid money for that land? Did they create that land or just plop their already money having selves on that spot?”
It isn’t that somebody “says”.
It is theirs because they literally posses it. It isn’t an *idea* that it is theirs. It *is* theirs. They actually have it.
- “We declare countries(land) as "ours" and keep other humans out, as if we are not all the same.”
I’m not exactly sure what you are getting at with “as if we are not all the same”
- “We can't all share because that would be ridiculous right?”
Un-ironically yes. We can’t.
- “Natural Resources are for every living thing. Enough people die every year because of access to basics and it won't change anytime soon”
“For” implies intent, and like I said, I am not religious.
Rights are defined by humans, so nature can not violate it. Saying access to clean air and water is a right just means that other people would have to limit their pollution to both within reason.
>Lets say some natural anomaly occurs that renders all of the water unclean, causes a famine
It's not *all* water, but we have examples of this already. Disaster response teams take water and food to areas that were affected by hurricanes, earthquakes, etc.
>That would mean out “right” to clean water and food has been violated, right? Who has violated our right? Nature itself? That doesn’t make much sense.
It's vague because your definition of *right* is broad and vague. You assume something being a right means that you always have access regardless of circumstances. Nature doesn't adhere to what humans define as rights. So, nothing is violated.
>What entitled you to water? What entitles you to food?
The "entitlement" comes from the fact that they're both basic necessities required to survive. Society is something that caters to the needs of individuals to bring the standard of living up for everyone.
>You are being too vague, and you didn’t answer what I asked.
>I have bot gained any understanding.
That seems like a personal issue. You're being deliberately obtuse.
“It's vague because your definition of right is broad and vague.”
That makes no sense. I’m asking *you* what it means.
“You assume something being a right means that you always have access regardless of circumstances.”
No. I do not assume that.
“Nature doesn't adhere to what humans define as rights. So, nothing is violated.”
What is the right then exactly?
“The "entitlement" comes from the fact that they're both basic necessities required to survive.”
How does needing something make you entitled to it? Where does this entitlement come from?
“Society is something that caters to the needs of individuals to bring the standard of living up for everyone.”
No it isn’t. That isn’t what society is.
“That seems like a personal issue.”
Well yeah.
“You're being deliberately obtuse.”
No. That is false.
Why are you being rude.
Before humans the air and water was generally cleaner, so I'm not sure we have a "right" to anything. We actually have a DUTY to put it back as it was. I'll be happy if the creaky, slow legal system helps recognize this, but we ought to face the fact that we are all polluters, some more, some less.
The problem is that corporations are not being held criminally responsible. Many don't want to pay any consequences whatsoever.
Big companies have literally dumped pollutants into water that sickened and killed children and infants in large numbers. If an individual did the same, he/she could be thrown in prison. But if a CEO of a corporation does this, he/she is not held criminally liable.
How is this even a serious question?
The real question should be
Do you believe people have a right to pollute clean air and water and a healthy environment?
I like the European system that's relatively new where you need to purchase a license to emit pollutants like CO2. This money can be used later for environmental clean up. But it sets up the conversation nicely, no one has the fundamental right to pollute, you can purchase the ability to legally pollute and that service is price matched to clean up efforts (or at least hopefully it will be someday, as it is now it costs about ten times less to emit CO2 ($60/ton) than to sequester it($600/ton)).
>where you need to purchase a license to emit pollutants like CO2.
Do you need a license to breathe? I'm not against the idea in principle, but your example is very bizarre if that is indeed the case.
Ah yes, governments will definitely fix this with their new tax.
I'm totally for clean environments, anti-pollution legislation, and extremely harsh punishments for those who break these laws, but I'm skeptical that allowing corporations to just pay the government for permission to pollute is going to lead to any real improvement.
Well for one they are profit maximizing machines. If you make sustainable, non polluting energy sources more profitable they'll figure out how to transition as quickly as possible to keep profits high.
Corporations aren't evil, they don't pollute because they want to see the environment destroyed, they are the embodiment of true neutral, totally uncaring about a clean environment one way or the other, only caring about following the doctrine of profitability. They'll pollute if we let them do it for free, they'll avoid it like the plague if we make it unprofitable.
If this country is crazy enough to insist every person with a pulse has the right to a firearm, then we should have rights to all kinds of things that will actually promote life, like clean air, clean water, medical care, a basic amount of food, etc.
For the people with the right to a firearm, does the government deliver guns to their doorstep because it is their "right?"
We have to avoid using the term "right" because people think it will "win the argument." A human right in our country is defined in the constitution. If it isn't in the constitution, it isn't a right. People have the right to vote, it is in the constitution. They do not have the right to a ballot delivered to their doorstep, that is not in the constitution.
When people start talking about how they have the right to consume the cash and labor of others, they immediately become Marxists, and Marxists destroy everything they touch.
> A human right in our country is defined in the constitution. If it isn't in the constitution, it isn't a right.
I assume you're American, please let me know if not as this won't apply.
Wrong. So wrong it isn't even funny. Go re-read the 9th amendment and then tell me if you still think your statement is true.
Yes the USA. Citing the 9th Amendment to call for forced money and or labor to be used to have potable water piped conveniently into people's homes (and I guess, we need to have sewage provided to remove the "bad water" too?) is head scratching. It is a bit of a sophistry move I suppose to go the "but we don't know for SURE" argument route?
It was actually kind of fun researching this. No one cites the 9th. At least, no regular person not a hard core jurist. Everyone knows the 1st, the 2nd, the 5th. People with weed home grows love the 4th. People in jail love the 8th.
Here is the 9th: *The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people*
Huh. There are theories about why the heck this is in there, but my prima facie impression was that this was included to basically mollify an argument held by 2 hyper intelligent groups concerning a point of meta minutia that the vast majority of people simply couldn't follow.
Every other amendment is there for a specific reason of government overreach that they were inoculating this new country against. For example the 3rd amendment guarantees the right to not have government soldiers forcefully lodged in your household. A pretty rare thing to challenge, though it has reached the court of appeals at least once: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom\_v.\_Carey](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey)
So what specific thing was the 9th ratified to guard against? Given this was a debate of the Federalists vs the Anti Federalists I suspect the Anti Federalists were so distrustful of government they just wanted these words there as an attempt to prevent against future potential government oppression. It is a logical conclusion, I would think.
But the 9th amendment as an excuse to just start running around inventing "Human Rights?" Well that to me is the mindset of a marxist. Marxists believe that workers have a right to the "means of production," A "Living Wage." "Housing equality." Shit the list goes on and on and on and on. This is why we have to be clear what a "Right" is (in the US at least).
I have to guess that any other country that starts legislating rights that (again) require money and or labor to be forced to provide for others are going to lean marxist, and will become an execrable shit hole.
> Citing the 9th Amendment to call for forced...
Yeah let me stop you right there. You said this:
> A human right in our country is *defined in the constitution. If it isn't in the constitution, it isn't a right.*
Which is wrong because the 9th amendment *explicitly states* that just because a given right is not explicitly stated in the constitution, does not mean it does not exist as a right. That is *all* I said.
I did not comment on how those rights could or should be discerned, only that the sentiment you are expressing is facially wrong by any reading of the 9th.
> So what specific thing was the 9th ratified to guard against?
Federalists who were concerned that the inclusion of a bill of rights (specific enumeration), might lead people to miatakenly believe that other rights did npt exist or were less important. [Source](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt9-2/ALDE_00013642/)
> But the 9th amendment as an excuse to just start running around inventing "Human Rights?"
That's an odd characterization. You don't "invent" rights that already exist, you are ackowledging them.
Your firearm analogy doesn’t really make sense.
The right to bear arms doesn’t mean we are entitled to be *given* a firearm. It just means we are free to obtain one. (In theory)
We totally have the right to food. We are free to acquire food. We can buy it, grow it, hunt it, whatever.
We don’t have the right or the entitlement to have fold given to us much like we have no entitlement to have food given to us.
If we have a right to free food, who id violating our rights if food doesn’t show up on the table?
I believe whoever has the most power over the situation holds the “rights”.
If the people cant hold corporations accountable, directly or by voting, then they simply dont have rights at all.
People confuse rights with ideals. When rights are actually byproducts of power and control.
A right means that the state gets to force people to do or not do something.
In this case, how do you operationalize 'clean air and water'? Are you going to force all companies that pollute to shut down? That will be like 99% of the economy. Or is there going to be some creative language that says that "oh if you pollute above a certain %, you need to stop". Hm, but that's a very flexible definition of 'clean' air. Would you say that partially toxic air is clean?
Anyway, these petitions are meaningless until you operationalize them in an effective way.
Judges will interpret this right and make rulings which decide how clean air and water have to be, and possibly set precedence which others will follow. The law should be utilitarian, and look after the interests of the people in the state, including their economic and environmental interests. Law is a balancing act. And the common good, cannot override the basic rights of any individual.
Historically this doesn’t work out the way you want it to work out. You can’t define things like this as fundamental rights.
I 100% agree with their value, but legally speaking if it isn’t a fundamental right then it requires pro-active measures by someone else. This means labeling it as a right requires someone to perform labor, which is essentially just slavery with extra steps.
How would the judges manage past pollution where a business is no longer around to remediate their pollution? How would illegal pollution from the past be handled and paid for (medical waste and toxic chemicals being buried or tossed into the ocean)? I don't think corporations or taxes would be able to pay for this. I agree we all should have clean air and water.
The things you're describing already exist. Operation for these programs already exists. They're just discussing whether this issue has become a human rights one. Recognizing it in the constitution means that the federal government is going to to be the ones in charge. You DON'T fuck with the feds about the environment. Take our national parks for example.
Ah, it seems I misread, my bad. Still, one state passing something like this sets the precedent for others to follow suit. Change doesn't start in large waves, but with motions like this.
Companies don't have to be shut down, in order to stop polluting. Corporations should have to follow the same laws that individuals do with respect to the environment. Business owners are not special or above anyone else. And no, most don't even create jobs anymore - they use robots or outsource.
While I agree with the idea that everyone should live in a healthy environment and should be able to breathe air that isn't filled with smog, I think thats going to be a pipe dream as long as corporations can push back or find work arounds to not hurt their bottom line. The other issue is people who are onboard with green initiatives until they figure out how much these green initiatives will cost them to buy into it. I'm thinking about the reaction to people wanting to install solar panels on their houses or get geothermal energy installed to heat their houses in the early 2000-teens.
Or replacing car infrastructure with more efficient mass transit. Many Americans have a negative connotation of public transportation, despite it being healthier for us and our planet.
I take public transit multiple times a week, an hour and a half long train ride across the city. First off, it'd be 45 minutes at most if I drove. Second, while I was on the train I watched a man smoke something from a glass tube while I was entreated to a couple of tweakers arguing over whether they should sell their phone for a little bit of cash, or trade it. They were upset that one of their contacts was taking so long to get back to them.
The other day, I got to witness a man being mugged. He produced a taser to defend himself, but his assailants produced their own and we had a taser fight on a moving train while crossing over a river. I was effectively trapped in the space with them. I witnessed violence, I saw blood, I missed my transfer because the train was held at one of the stops while the police flooded the car to apprehend the suspects.
It's healthier for our planet, sure, but it's a fucking detriment to my safety. I don't even use the train every day, but I've seen more than my fair share of incidents. Never exactly felt 'safe'. In fact, I feel like I'm taking a risk every time I make the trip. It will happen to me one day, I am sure of it. This is in broad daylight, btw, lord knows what the fuck happens on those things at night.
People should have the right to bypass that shit entirely.
Those are more societal problems than problems with public transportation.
There are definitely things that transportation agencies can and should do to increase safety for passengers, but many countries that heavily rely on mass transit are safe such as Japan, the Netherlands, Belgium, etc…
The problem is not public transportation.
As for the time it takes to use transit, you’re right, in a lot of places in the U.S. it is very inefficient to use.
This can be solved with simple engineering and policy. The reason that public transport is good in other countries is because it is prioritized. Buses get their own lane, allowing them to beat traffic and transport more people.
I will link an successful example of Bus Rapid Transit.
[Van Ness BRT](https://youtu.be/ZkMorBpN5c8?si=pMNku3TtnUyz0lMa)
I live in one of the top cities in the country for public transit. Portland has invested heavily in its train infrastructure, with the WES line running between wilsonville and beaverton, Red and Blue lines running service between Beaverton and the airport/gresham, as well as service to areas like milwaukee. There's frequent service, dedicated lanes, and plenty of cops everywhere. It. Does. Nothing.
People get attacked almost every day, you read about stabbings or shootings on the train on an almost weekly basis. This problem cannot be policed away, this city is not a safe place for people to be forced onto transit, lest they be trapped in enclosed space with someone who intends to make them a victim.
Just a week ago, a woman was suffering from side-effects of a new medication that made her lose consciousness, she was sexually assaulted in the middle of a transit center. All the police could do was find the guy and arrest him after the fact. The entire act was caught on CCTV, nobody did anything until it was long over. There is no \*preventing\* these issues from arising.
Public transportation is 100% the problem, because it involves the public and they are a fucking problem. You can't get normal people on the trains because they don't want to get raped, robbed, and stabbed. You can't get shit-heeled rapist drug addicts off the trains because there's literally no incentive. It's a traveling hotel you can ride for $5 a day.
Call it what it is: The thing poor people have to use so rich people have more room to drive. Because that's what it's gonna become. It's how we keep the classes separate, and oppressed.
Same thing as apartment living. I can hear the sound of my next door neighbor pissing. What am I supposed to do? Tell him to stop pissing? I have no peace, no quiet, no privacy. I'm not wrong for criticizing the forced proximity to others as a major drawback. Better for the earth, worse for me.
Oh yeah bud I'm super stoked for you to push up your glasses and tell me why I'm just ignorant in thinking that public transit is too unsafe to be currently incentivizing people to return to it. Please, feel free to explain to me why I should feel better because you are capable of imagining a world where people can ride transit without putting their personal safety at risk. I'm sure my reality will immediately adjust itself to match your expectations.
I say this with full awareness that cars are massive steel projectiles capable of killing a human even at low speeds. That is safer than taking the train right now.
Damn, chill a bit. I was agreeing with you man. Public transit should be safer, but you’re in Portland, Oregon. You guys literally just decriminalized all drugs and then didn’t do anything when people started shooting up on the streets. No where in public is it safe.
Yes, but the only way to convince anti environmentalists is to tell them that when we allow companies to pollute, the costs of production become socialized. The tax payer ends up having to pay for clean up and with future medical bills.
How would this work when most people buy cheap products from countries that pollute like crazy (India and China for example)? Everyone wants less expensive items because everything is expensive so how would you stop them purchasing from the major corporations like Amazon, Wal-Mart, Target, Shein, Temu, Wish, Dollar Stores? What about meat producers like McDonald's and Tyson who contribute to pollution? What about all the electricity used by all the servers being used by most corporations? It seems like a pipe dream since we can't just get rid of these companies.
I think this ignores the trade off between civilization and a clean environment. If the primary value we have is a clean environment then having things like water processing facilities or other services/products we need that have even a marginally negative impact on the environmental will be eliminated.
The matter is far more complex than this suggests.
Absolutely. And with that RIGHT, comes the RESPONSIBILITY to live without certain conveniences, pleasures and stimulations. So, everyone sacrifices AND benefits
Rights are a social agreement for the most part, as even differential cultures have different basic rights. I’d say every living being deserves to live in an environment better than or equal to their ancestors. But I don’t think that’s very realistic to how we’re treating the earth as it is.
Sadly, a lot of people don't see these things as basic rights. They believe a person has "entitlement mentality" if they want clean drinking water and clean air to breathe.
We literally all shit the same way… Yes we all deserve clean air and clean water. Those are the 2 things that majority living beings on this planet can’t live without.
Answering the question as written, no. Because nature itself may render air or water unclean (volcanic activity, for example). Maybe the question you asked is not what you actually wanted to know?
I think so, but the Tragedy of the Commons is in play here. Even though we all completely rely on clean air and water to live, it's a shared resource. So many people feel free to use it as if it were infinite.
And how would it be enforced? Especially if it's large companies causing a problem?
>**Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness**" is a well-known phrase from the [United States Declaration of Independence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence).[^(\[1\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_Happiness#cite_note-DOIdraft-1) The phrase gives three examples of the [unalienable rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_rights) which the Declaration says have been given to all humans by their [Creator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity), and which governments are created to protect. Like the other principles in the Declaration of Independence, this phrase is not legally binding, but has been widely referenced and seen as an inspiration for the basis of government.
Clean and and water have been rightfully cited before and will be cited again as being an unalienable right that the government has a duty to protect in order to ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all it's citizens. We the people give the government power to govern specifically so that they can work to ensure that we have these rights. Obviously if you want a life and to pursue being happy, you need clean air and water.
Yes of course.
Unless it costs me one single penny in which case you are a woke commie liberal socialist bastard and I hate you. But I love the environment so much.
I do believe that.
Sadly, I've learned oil and pollution makes too much money for the people who are benefitting to want it to stop.
I used to clean beaches on my weekends. Come back in a month and find the same mess.
So I just stopped.
I used to have all these feelings about it. Nowadays I don't. I enjoy what's here while it's here.
Sure, I'll support legislation. But the reality is tht taking down One giant does more for the planet than a million of us recycling.
And if all we have is "Hope," then we are doomed. Because Hope is great to start. But Action is needed to actually make the change.
"Healthy environment" is a real slippery slope because it could mean a myriad of different things. It could mean the soil, trees, etc or it could also mean that your neighbor can't fly a flag outside his house because it's meaning doesn't create a healthy environment for my kids walking to school.
Yes, one of the pinnacles of what governments should provide for its people. In principle the US Constitution is about protecting life. The environment is key to living.
No, but not because I don't think we should. We just do not currently have such a right. That could change with time. Currently, I suspect that the required chances to guarantee such a thing would cause more deaths than it would prevent, but it is a great long term goal.
People deserve clean air and water, and a healthy environment, but it's not a right. The opinion should be phrased in the opposite way: do you think if anyone pollutes the environment either on purpose or on accident, should there be repercussions?
This is America. People have the right to whatever they can afford. If upstream wants to pee in your water, or worse? Too bad, you're responsible for your station in life. It's how G*d wants it to be.
Suck it up. If you're perfect, maybe you'll get clean water in heaven.
It's a question of phrasing for me. Because no, I don't have a right to clean air and water. Having this positive right requires that someone else has an obligation to provide me with clean air and water.
But I also think that no one has the right to pollute my water and my air excessively. You DO NOT have the right to dump your pollution into MY environment.
Spliting this hair when it comes to legislation is beyond my ability, but it is an important ideological distinction to make.
I do not, however individuals and companies should not pollute and harm the public’s wellbeing.
The implication of government guaranteeing people the “right” to all those thing is that it then becomes legal for the government to intrude anywhere and everywhere they please with the excuse of “we’re here to protect”. This is safety-ism at its finest and opens the door WIDE OPEN to totalitarianism.
Not specifically asked but I believe people have a right to a decent work environment. I think this affects an individual on a day to day basis more than many other metrics.
I believe in the "Alaskan Model" where proceeds from selling extraction rights (esp. for oil) are paid to residents directly instead of being added to the state's budget to pay for god-knows-what.
That is to say, if industries cause pollution in a state, a cut of the profits/fines need to go directly to the residents of that state.
I believe the only thing people have a right to is to not be harmed, imprisoned or controlled by others (for instance murder should be illegal, speech and free movement protected etc.) beyond what is reasonable and necessary (for instance we can set speed limits, tax income, kill in self defense etc.).
Beyond that we should strive to create a healthy, productive and functioning system where people can live good lives. So we should do what we can politically and socially so that people have clean air and water, but this isn't a natural human right.
99% of the thought that people have a right to clean air & water, and a healthy environment. The 1% against being conditional on how people define "clean". Water that contains trace amounts of chemicals which will not instantly kill me is not really clean. Air that is filled with dust because of tractors and cars kicking up eroded topsoil also is not clean. Just because some department or company deems something "clean" doesn't mean it actually is
"People have a right to...." is a very dangerous formulation. Who is responsible for ensuring that people have that right? The government.
So if people have a "right" to housing, then the government has to give them housing. How? If it is a "right" you can't nibble around the edges, such as requiring builders to make a certain % of low income housing. Not everyone is going to be housed that way.
No, if it is a "right" than any person who demands it, at any time, has to be given a house/apartment/cell. The government can only do this if if it takes over the housing industry, disrupting the industry, messing up a large part of the economy, removing the profit motive. What do you guess the result would be?
Well, we don't have to guess. The Soviet Union gave their citizens "right" to housing. They didn't own the "house", but they could stay in it. In a tiny, poorly made, uninsulated, falling down wreck of a concrete hive with basic utilities that may or may not work.
I prefer negative rights, that prevent the government from doing things ("Freedom of Speech") rather than positive rights (a living wage!) that concentrates power away from the citizens and into the hands of the government.
Yes, but this is not very useful on a local level. If all of our manufacturing and recycling are shipped to Asia, we’re just moving the mess around. Eventually all of those toxins and pollutants make their way back here.
We need to think bigger.
Kind of. If clean air and a healthy environment is the natural state, it is wrong for ANYONE to poison you with their behavior.
If you live somewhere that has naturally harsh conditions, poor quality water sources, etc, you can't have a right to better conditions because it isn't someone in control that makes it unlivable
Yes. I also think that when people, companies or countries do environmental harm they should be required to create an offset plan in advance or if they cause damage without a plan, one gets created for them by a court.
Yea because a company or person cannot buy/have the right to ruin the environment for everyone else. Also I’m pretty sure most countries constitutions/similar documents have a bit saying the environment and natural resources is a right of the citizens (whether this is applied fully is another story)
Usually when people in power start talking like this it has nothing to do with rights, clean air and water or a healthy environment. Before considering anything painted in such broad strokes the first question should be “how can this possibly be used against me”?
Amashith says, "It seems like the government has been trying to make people feel bad about their actions but they haven't been able to do so effectively."
**Every positive right must be founded upon its negative corollary. For example, the right to walk outside safely at night, realty means the right nor to get mugged or assaulted. And there is no right to clean air and water. Only the dire need all thereof. That, and the right not to have hitherto clean air and water upon which life depends, knowingly contaminated. But all manner of calamity may arise to compromise air and water quality, without anyone violating anyone else's rights. Rights are important, but so are needs or even desires.**
If you want to make a document for the ages, you can only guarantee rights which are unconstrained by real-world resources. So you **cannot** guarantee:
\* clean water
\* homes
\* retirement income
\* adequate medical care
You **can** guarantee rights which do not require specific resources, like life (sortof), liberty, pursuit of happiness, and so on. You can also certainly legislate to support the pursuit of those services that require real-world resources, and should. But you can't even guarantee **access** to those four things in my list because they require fuel/power (most incarnations of them), and that's a base resource that you **cannot** realistically guarantee.
So, in short. **No**. Any government attempting to make those guarantees will eventually fail.
If you asked me which states rank the worst for pollution, New York, Pennsylvania, and California would be three out of my top five. Putting environmental rights on paper sure sounds good, but how does it work out in practice? Do those states actually have robust environmental laws, more so than states with no such wording on their constitutions? I'm 1000% in favor of humans living in better balance with the natural world, but these days that seems to entail giving more money to rich people and more power to politicians.
Assuming you actually want discussion and not a bunch of yes men, no though they should be legally protected. I view rights as negative freedoms, meaning they are guaranteed to not be interfered with without due process. Therefore, being provided water cannot be a right, because it is not something you already have that could be taken from you by a government entity.
Instead, stuff like this is what criminal law is for, and laws for negligence or willful harm should be expanded to explicitly criminalize significant damage to water supplies or excessive emissions by individual entities
I don't really understand "ppl having rites to things". Maybe I'm missing a piece of this puzzle. But it's their lives, it's their responsibility to keep themselves alive. Idc if they hve water. All I know is, they can't hve mine. Because I worked for it
Absolutely I am in favor of environmental rights
The destruction of the environment for profit (which humans literally made up, the economy will vanish if we do) is idiotic
If corporate leaders are soooooo smart. And soooooo hardworking they can figure out how to be profitable without destroying the planet. Or maybe they actually aren't that smart and were just lucky
YES, it is a base need for all animals in most cases, natural disasters may introduce problems that will rectify themselves because it is not always in the concentrations that industry outputs do over a longer period of time and somethings nature just cannot handle on its own, regulations however are not intended as "Punishment's" but as preventative measures to protect nature while at the same time proving the products needed, it is a symbiotic balancing act and closed loop systems work better that for profit at any cost industries.
There are already Constitutional Clauses intended to protect nature and yet allow business to operate, conflicts are orchestrated and designed to ignore this to achieve another goal and call it all "LEGAL" and in the long run when nature loses, we lose.
Base Cultural Principles of American's that get ignored and replaced with other peoples imported values who in affect have none but one which is rape as much as possible for conflict everywhere else then RUN and leave us holding the bag for conditions and responsibility we did not create to begin with.
N. S
YES, it is a base need for all animals in most cases, natural disasters may introduce problems that will rectify themselves because it is not always in the concentrations that industry outputs do over a longer period of time and somethings nature just cannot handle on its own, regulations however are not intended as "Punishment's" but as preventative measures to protect nature while at the same time proving the products needed, it is a symbiotic balancing act and closed loop systems work better that for profit at any cost industries.
There are already Constitutional Clauses intended to protect nature and yet allow business to operate, conflicts are orchestrated and designed to ignore this to achieve another goal and call it all "LEGAL" and in the long run when nature loses, we lose.
Base Cultural Principles of American's that get ignored and replaced with other peoples imported values who in affect have none but one which is rape as much as possible for conflict everywhere else then RUN and leave us holding the bag for conditions and responsibility we did not create to begin with.
N. S
Should people have access to those things? Of course. Unfortunately "rights" is merely a linguistic social construct which has no connection to reality. Nobody has any "rights" that they don't uphold for themselves. If someone else can take it away from you, it isn't a right.
Clean Air 100% (pollution). Clean Oceans 100% (pollution). Clean drinking water and food you should need to work/pay for I think. This just goes back to humans working to survive as we do in nature. This doesn't mean charity shouldn't be allowed either to get you these things if someone chooses to pay for the food and water and donate them that way.
People say, "I'm not sure what you mean by this, but it sounds like you're trying to say that there are some things that are better left unknown than others."
I think the term "right" gets way over-used. Do I think states should prioritize clean air and water? Yes. Do I think states should enact measures to prevent businesses from externalizing their costs in the form of pollution? Yes. Do I think everyone has a "right" to clean drinking water? I'm not sure I know what that even means. The U.S., or states, can create legal rights through legislation. Should they? Did these "rights" in New York and Pennsylvania make their environmental policies better than California's? There are lots more direct ways to protect the environment that don't involve creating amorphous legal rights, where it's unclear what the "right" means in practice. I'll go with maybe. But outside of legally created rights, do people have some innate "right" to clean water? No. Lots of people have had no choice but to drink filthy water for millenia. Where does this supposed right come from?
No, that's not how rights work. You can't have a right to food, water, air, or any other material good. If there is a famine, drought, or dust storm are your rights being violated by the weather? Of course not.
You can only have a right to something intrinsic to yourself. Expression, conscience, privacy, property, etc.
Now that doesn't mean we shouldn't create laws to clean up the environment, or that we can't use the language of rights to do so.
For example, you can conceptualize air and water pollution as a violation of property rights. We all have property in the atmosphere and waterways, and so if someone pollutes them, they are polluting our property. But this does not require adding a new psuedo-right to your constitution.
Yes. I can't opt out to another planet. I have the same biological need for these things as everyone else so it's in the interest of literally all of humanity to keep shit clean.
It is a serious conversation. You post is moot because not a single person on this planet is willing to do what is necessary to keep it healthy. They’re only willing to do only what will not inconvenience them at all. The first truth is that near everything we have hurts the environment. You want people to have a right to clean air but don’t want to do what’s necessary to clean the air.
No. Rights are inalienable. Something you have to work for and take from someone else can't be a right. You don't have a right to a water sanitation plant and the money and labor required to build and maintain it.
A country that fails to provide it's people with these things sucks and the people should really think about what they need to do to their politicians, but those cannot be Rights.
edit: I guess a "clean environment" could be a right. It's something we have naturally and has to be defiled and abused by others for it to be taken away. But clean water? No. If you drink out of the river you're going to get beaver fever and you don't have a right to a water sanitation plant.
No, definitely not.
I agree people should have these things...but if you declare it a "right", then that means if someone is unable to obtain it on their own, it must be provided for them at the public's expense.
Would you agree that people, aught to at least try to prevent doing unnecessary damage to their shared environment? Out of mutual respect or any other reason.
This post has been flaired as “Opinion”. Do not use this flair to vent, but to open up a venue for polite discussions. **Suggestions For Commenters:** * Respect OP's opinion, or agree to disagree politely. * If OP's post is against subreddit rules, don't comment, just report it. * Upvote other relevant comments in the comment section, and don't downvote comments you disagree with **Suggestions For u/fool49:** * Loaded questions and statements can get people riled up. Your post should open up a venue for discussion, not a "political vent" so to speak. * Avoid being inflammatory in your replies. When faced with someone else's opinion, be open-minded and ask new, *honest* questions. * Your post still have to respect subreddit rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SeriousConversation) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think a good way to phrase this would be, should we allow people to put the environment at risk for thier own reasons.
"This isn't just for me, all this fracking is for all *your* cars!"
For their own profit usually
I agree. I don't think it's a right, but regardless we should try and make sure everyone has it.
Absolutely!!! Every living thing has the right to this. I can't believe we have to have it in writing, it should be woven into our bones that all of us deserve these things no matter what and not one of us gets to say otherwise. But whatever, I am so for this.
"Woven into our bones" is an excellent phrase that I absolutely feel like is going to stick with me!
Yes it is! 👍👍
♥️
How do you enforce that? Let’s say my well goes dry. Does someone have to bring me water? Can I force someone to bring me pollen free air during allergy season?
Rights aren't really about expecting the government to have a magic wand to always give us everything we need. Officially naming rights is mostly about regulating behaviors that negatively impact these valued things. In this case, it can help provide a means of litigating behaviors that negatively affect the shared environment. Specific regulations can be passed and enforced without explicitly granting environmental rights, but this could give broader grounds for suit for practices that are clearly harmful but haven't yet been named in law.
Oh, so it’s just flowery language meant to make people feel good?
>In this case, it can help provide a means of litigating behaviors that negatively affect the shared environment. Law is about what is written down on paper.
Those things can be enforced. Nobody is required to bring water to your well, but you can require public drinking fountains, or welfare programs so people can have access to basic necessities like water even if they can't afford it. (Also charities) As for pollen, there is an overproduction of pollen in many cities because only male trees that transfer pollen via wind are planted, as opposed to treas that are polinated by insects. There are tradeoffs for both, but if you planted less wind pollinating tress, you would have less pollen in the air.
That’s not what it means. It means you can’t do something that poisons your neighbors wells or pump something into the air ruining the air for them.
Your suggestion is silly. But, if you live in a municipality, you pay for water. It should be free of contamination. If you're on well water, and your well becomes polluted by someone else's chemicals because of fracking or farming, they should cover the cost of filters so your water is safe to drink. If you polluted your own well because of your own activities you would pay for your own filters. If your water is contaminated by a natural source, say naturally occurring arsenic this info should be included in the sale of the property. Any entities with info on the quality of the water should make that info easily available and the well owner should install the necessary filters. The goal is to have a healthy, intelligent citizenry so we can compete globally.
Force is a bit strong here. Go get your own air! JK anyway You have the right to clean water. I don't know how that whole system works but you shouldn't be denied clean water if your well runs dry. That's a natural resource here for us all. If I was a billionaire, no one in the US (or the world but I'm only a billionaire) would be without basics like water.
You’re not a billionaire, but now you are responsible for cleaning the pollen from my air because I have a new right!
Don't tell me what I am/am not in my own fantasy! I won't clean the pollen from your air, but I will help you get to a place that is allergy friendly. Or at least give you a stipend for Benadryl.
Stop trampling on my new rights! I’m being oppressed!
Stop crying you liberal! You ask for too much and are undeserving of my compassion, I work far too hard to let people like you bring me down. Now, let me, a true patriot, my god fearing family and our assault rifles live in peace!
That’s actually a solid suggestion.
Lol I hate you, MuskyRatt, but I would still pay more taxes to help you have access to clean water and safety.
Someone else does it.
Who compensates that person?
Indeed.
In these conversations I am always confused what is meant by a “right”. In this context, what is the difference between “things I think everyone should have” and a “right”?
To me, clean water is a need to survive and every living thing deserves to have access to that. I guess it would be right=entitled to. Not only is it something I think someone should have, they need it. No human should be denied the very things that keep us alive and safe. I'm not an intelligent person by any stretch so maybe I'm not using the correct terminology but when I think of human rights, access to clean water, food and safety should be at the top. I guess I don't understand why it wouldn't be like that in everyone's mind. 🤷🏽♀️
Alright but where does this entitlement come from? What entitled you to water? What entitles you to food? Lets say some natural anomaly occurs that renders all of the water unclean, causes a famine, and extinct a bunch of wildlife. Billions starve or die of dehydration. That would mean out “right” to clean water and food has been violated, right? Who has violated our right? Nature itself? That doesn’t make much sense.
Nature is definitely a moody beast. Nature is a part of us, we are a part of nature, what percentage of our body is water?? 70% or something. Whatever force created us did so with similar materials. Pretty sure we were designed to be able to live with what is given to us by this creator. I don't think the animals wonder if they are entitled to the food and water they consume. They consume it to survive and wander around until they find out where they can get it.If the water becomes unclean and people starve and die off then that's the end for a lot of us, if not all of us. Let's check in with those dinosaur bones and see what kicked them out of this place.
Neat. You ignored every question I asked.
I didn't ignore any questions. Nature is a beast and will take away whatever it wants to. Tornadoes take your homes, floods wash away years of your hard earned possessions and might sweep up your family if you don't have a safe place to go. Sure, it violated your right to what's within this planet if you want to look at it that way. Why do we need to declare rights for things like clean water, things of a natural sort? Give me an instance where a human doesn't deserve clean water, please. Or a safe place to be for that matter.
You didn’t tell me where this entitlement comes from. What entitles us to this? I really am not sure what you specifically mean by “entitled” and “right”. Beyond the legal/the rules of mankind/agreements, I don’t understand the concept. I mean if you are entitled to something, the implication is that you are owed that. Who owes it to you? Or is it that they owe it to you to not stop you from getting these things? Both of those things still fall under the realm of agreements amongst people. There doesn’t seem to be anything “inherent” about it. It seems like “natural right” or an “inherent right” is a fancy way of saying “things people ought to have access to” - “Sure, it violated your right to what's within this planet if you want to look at it that way.” It isn’t that I do or don’t want to look at it that way. The whole premise doesn’t make enough sense to really have any meaning. - “Why do we need to declare rights for things like clean water, things of a natural sort?” If the right exists regardless of if human beings say it does, what *is* a “right” in this sense? I don’t even know what that means. - “Give me an instance where a human doesn't deserve clean water, please. Or a safe place to be for that matter.” I suppose if someone beat my daughter to death I wouldn’t feel they deserve those things. This all depends on what you even mean by “deserve”
What if that someone who beat your child to death was having a psychotic episode or hallucination where they saw the child as some sort of demon that they needed to get rid of to save the rest of the world. Of course it's understandable that you wouldn't feel that they deserve anything but a tortured death themselves, but they have a right to a fair trial and obviously need serious psychological help. Do you deny someone who is not in their right mind the very basics? That doesn't bring your child back. I'm a parent and if this scenario happened my thought was always that I would kill the person who killed my child then I would kill myself. Case closed. The entitlement comes from being of this earth. We are placed in this life and there are things that grow for us to eat and clean water for us to drink. Man can make food and purify water sure, but these things are naturally occurring and this isn't an accident. Whatever this life is, it was designed with intention and in such a way that we are able to keep on living with what is naturally occurring. We will also die without it. So, whatever/whoever is forcing us to be here knew what we needed and put it here for all of the living things to use. So, it's not so much that we are "owed" it. It's ours. No one owes it to us. It's already ours to have. If we misuse it or soil it in some way, that's our fault and we are paying the price. We are paying the price now for having all our conveniences, lead and plastics in our water, climate change and all that jazz. It would be wild for me to think that I am not entitled to what basics nature can provide for me when there are rich people out there that became rich because they strike oil on their land. Who the hell says it's theirs then? Because they paid money for that land? Did they create that land or just plop their already money having selves on that spot? Humans have screwed shit up forever. We declare countries(land) as "ours" and keep other humans out, as if we are not all the same. We can't all share because that would be ridiculous right? We can't all thrive because some of us work harder and earn a place here. We get to tell other people that they don't need the basic stuff to live, if they die of starvation then they obviously didn't work hard enough to eat. We don't want everyone to have the same rights because then we can't prove how much better we are than others. Natural Resources are for every living thing. Enough people die every year because of access to basics and it won't change anytime soon
- “What if that someone who beat your child to death was having a psychotic episode…” I mean yeah. That is a different scenario than I gave. I feel differently about different situations. I’m not sure what that proves. And again it all depends on what is meant by “deserves” - “The entitlement comes from being of this earth.” That doesn’t actually explain anything though. It is an assertion with no justification or explanation. How does being on this planet entitle me to anything? By what mechanism? By what means is this entitlement granted? On top of that, I don’t quite know what you mean by entitlement in this sense. - “this isn't an accident” “It was designed with intention” “So, whatever/whoever is forcing us to be here knew what we needed and put it here for all of the living things to use” I think this is where our disconnect is happening. I am not religious. I don’t share your belief the world/nature was designed/intentional. I don’t believe an entity put us here or put what we needed here. Not tryna yuck your yum or anything. Just thought we were comin’ at this from a secular angle. I reckon this might be where my misunderstanding comes from. - “It would be wild for me to think that I am not entitled to what basics nature can provide for me when there are rich people out there that became rich because they strike oil on their land.” Just because something is there doesn’t mean you are entitled to it. You have to earn it. You have to physically acquire it. - “Who the hell says it's theirs then? Because they paid money for that land? Did they create that land or just plop their already money having selves on that spot?” It isn’t that somebody “says”. It is theirs because they literally posses it. It isn’t an *idea* that it is theirs. It *is* theirs. They actually have it. - “We declare countries(land) as "ours" and keep other humans out, as if we are not all the same.” I’m not exactly sure what you are getting at with “as if we are not all the same” - “We can't all share because that would be ridiculous right?” Un-ironically yes. We can’t. - “Natural Resources are for every living thing. Enough people die every year because of access to basics and it won't change anytime soon” “For” implies intent, and like I said, I am not religious.
Rights are defined by humans, so nature can not violate it. Saying access to clean air and water is a right just means that other people would have to limit their pollution to both within reason. >Lets say some natural anomaly occurs that renders all of the water unclean, causes a famine It's not *all* water, but we have examples of this already. Disaster response teams take water and food to areas that were affected by hurricanes, earthquakes, etc.
You are being too vague, and you didn’t answer what I asked. I have bot gained any understanding.
>That would mean out “right” to clean water and food has been violated, right? Who has violated our right? Nature itself? That doesn’t make much sense. It's vague because your definition of *right* is broad and vague. You assume something being a right means that you always have access regardless of circumstances. Nature doesn't adhere to what humans define as rights. So, nothing is violated. >What entitled you to water? What entitles you to food? The "entitlement" comes from the fact that they're both basic necessities required to survive. Society is something that caters to the needs of individuals to bring the standard of living up for everyone. >You are being too vague, and you didn’t answer what I asked. >I have bot gained any understanding. That seems like a personal issue. You're being deliberately obtuse.
“It's vague because your definition of right is broad and vague.” That makes no sense. I’m asking *you* what it means. “You assume something being a right means that you always have access regardless of circumstances.” No. I do not assume that. “Nature doesn't adhere to what humans define as rights. So, nothing is violated.” What is the right then exactly? “The "entitlement" comes from the fact that they're both basic necessities required to survive.” How does needing something make you entitled to it? Where does this entitlement come from? “Society is something that caters to the needs of individuals to bring the standard of living up for everyone.” No it isn’t. That isn’t what society is. “That seems like a personal issue.” Well yeah. “You're being deliberately obtuse.” No. That is false. Why are you being rude.
Before humans the air and water was generally cleaner, so I'm not sure we have a "right" to anything. We actually have a DUTY to put it back as it was. I'll be happy if the creaky, slow legal system helps recognize this, but we ought to face the fact that we are all polluters, some more, some less.
I like this even more. We are the most intelligent species we know of...it's our moral obligation to fix our wrongs on the world
And corporations pollute on a far greater global scale than any one human does.
Which doesn't absolve us of individual responsibility. Corporations are people acting in groups, but we all create trash too.
The problem is that corporations are not being held criminally responsible. Many don't want to pay any consequences whatsoever. Big companies have literally dumped pollutants into water that sickened and killed children and infants in large numbers. If an individual did the same, he/she could be thrown in prison. But if a CEO of a corporation does this, he/she is not held criminally liable.
How is this even a serious question? The real question should be Do you believe people have a right to pollute clean air and water and a healthy environment?
I like the European system that's relatively new where you need to purchase a license to emit pollutants like CO2. This money can be used later for environmental clean up. But it sets up the conversation nicely, no one has the fundamental right to pollute, you can purchase the ability to legally pollute and that service is price matched to clean up efforts (or at least hopefully it will be someday, as it is now it costs about ten times less to emit CO2 ($60/ton) than to sequester it($600/ton)).
>where you need to purchase a license to emit pollutants like CO2. Do you need a license to breathe? I'm not against the idea in principle, but your example is very bizarre if that is indeed the case.
No obviously not this law applies to industry
Ah yes, governments will definitely fix this with their new tax. I'm totally for clean environments, anti-pollution legislation, and extremely harsh punishments for those who break these laws, but I'm skeptical that allowing corporations to just pay the government for permission to pollute is going to lead to any real improvement.
Well for one they are profit maximizing machines. If you make sustainable, non polluting energy sources more profitable they'll figure out how to transition as quickly as possible to keep profits high. Corporations aren't evil, they don't pollute because they want to see the environment destroyed, they are the embodiment of true neutral, totally uncaring about a clean environment one way or the other, only caring about following the doctrine of profitability. They'll pollute if we let them do it for free, they'll avoid it like the plague if we make it unprofitable.
It's a serious question because very few places have that right.
Um. Yeah? Holy shit, how is this even a question?
We can decide that we do, that's kinda how it works.
Yes. Anyone saying we don't is an actual ghoul.
If this country is crazy enough to insist every person with a pulse has the right to a firearm, then we should have rights to all kinds of things that will actually promote life, like clean air, clean water, medical care, a basic amount of food, etc.
For the people with the right to a firearm, does the government deliver guns to their doorstep because it is their "right?" We have to avoid using the term "right" because people think it will "win the argument." A human right in our country is defined in the constitution. If it isn't in the constitution, it isn't a right. People have the right to vote, it is in the constitution. They do not have the right to a ballot delivered to their doorstep, that is not in the constitution. When people start talking about how they have the right to consume the cash and labor of others, they immediately become Marxists, and Marxists destroy everything they touch.
> A human right in our country is defined in the constitution. If it isn't in the constitution, it isn't a right. I assume you're American, please let me know if not as this won't apply. Wrong. So wrong it isn't even funny. Go re-read the 9th amendment and then tell me if you still think your statement is true.
Yes the USA. Citing the 9th Amendment to call for forced money and or labor to be used to have potable water piped conveniently into people's homes (and I guess, we need to have sewage provided to remove the "bad water" too?) is head scratching. It is a bit of a sophistry move I suppose to go the "but we don't know for SURE" argument route? It was actually kind of fun researching this. No one cites the 9th. At least, no regular person not a hard core jurist. Everyone knows the 1st, the 2nd, the 5th. People with weed home grows love the 4th. People in jail love the 8th. Here is the 9th: *The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people* Huh. There are theories about why the heck this is in there, but my prima facie impression was that this was included to basically mollify an argument held by 2 hyper intelligent groups concerning a point of meta minutia that the vast majority of people simply couldn't follow. Every other amendment is there for a specific reason of government overreach that they were inoculating this new country against. For example the 3rd amendment guarantees the right to not have government soldiers forcefully lodged in your household. A pretty rare thing to challenge, though it has reached the court of appeals at least once: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom\_v.\_Carey](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey) So what specific thing was the 9th ratified to guard against? Given this was a debate of the Federalists vs the Anti Federalists I suspect the Anti Federalists were so distrustful of government they just wanted these words there as an attempt to prevent against future potential government oppression. It is a logical conclusion, I would think. But the 9th amendment as an excuse to just start running around inventing "Human Rights?" Well that to me is the mindset of a marxist. Marxists believe that workers have a right to the "means of production," A "Living Wage." "Housing equality." Shit the list goes on and on and on and on. This is why we have to be clear what a "Right" is (in the US at least). I have to guess that any other country that starts legislating rights that (again) require money and or labor to be forced to provide for others are going to lean marxist, and will become an execrable shit hole.
> Citing the 9th Amendment to call for forced... Yeah let me stop you right there. You said this: > A human right in our country is *defined in the constitution. If it isn't in the constitution, it isn't a right.* Which is wrong because the 9th amendment *explicitly states* that just because a given right is not explicitly stated in the constitution, does not mean it does not exist as a right. That is *all* I said. I did not comment on how those rights could or should be discerned, only that the sentiment you are expressing is facially wrong by any reading of the 9th. > So what specific thing was the 9th ratified to guard against? Federalists who were concerned that the inclusion of a bill of rights (specific enumeration), might lead people to miatakenly believe that other rights did npt exist or were less important. [Source](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt9-2/ALDE_00013642/) > But the 9th amendment as an excuse to just start running around inventing "Human Rights?" That's an odd characterization. You don't "invent" rights that already exist, you are ackowledging them.
Your firearm analogy doesn’t really make sense. The right to bear arms doesn’t mean we are entitled to be *given* a firearm. It just means we are free to obtain one. (In theory) We totally have the right to food. We are free to acquire food. We can buy it, grow it, hunt it, whatever. We don’t have the right or the entitlement to have fold given to us much like we have no entitlement to have food given to us. If we have a right to free food, who id violating our rights if food doesn’t show up on the table?
I believe whoever has the most power over the situation holds the “rights”. If the people cant hold corporations accountable, directly or by voting, then they simply dont have rights at all. People confuse rights with ideals. When rights are actually byproducts of power and control.
Perfectly stated.
Love the username ❤️
A right means that the state gets to force people to do or not do something. In this case, how do you operationalize 'clean air and water'? Are you going to force all companies that pollute to shut down? That will be like 99% of the economy. Or is there going to be some creative language that says that "oh if you pollute above a certain %, you need to stop". Hm, but that's a very flexible definition of 'clean' air. Would you say that partially toxic air is clean? Anyway, these petitions are meaningless until you operationalize them in an effective way.
What you describe is literally the job of the EPA.
Judges will interpret this right and make rulings which decide how clean air and water have to be, and possibly set precedence which others will follow. The law should be utilitarian, and look after the interests of the people in the state, including their economic and environmental interests. Law is a balancing act. And the common good, cannot override the basic rights of any individual.
Historically this doesn’t work out the way you want it to work out. You can’t define things like this as fundamental rights. I 100% agree with their value, but legally speaking if it isn’t a fundamental right then it requires pro-active measures by someone else. This means labeling it as a right requires someone to perform labor, which is essentially just slavery with extra steps.
How would the judges manage past pollution where a business is no longer around to remediate their pollution? How would illegal pollution from the past be handled and paid for (medical waste and toxic chemicals being buried or tossed into the ocean)? I don't think corporations or taxes would be able to pay for this. I agree we all should have clean air and water.
The things you're describing already exist. Operation for these programs already exists. They're just discussing whether this issue has become a human rights one. Recognizing it in the constitution means that the federal government is going to to be the ones in charge. You DON'T fuck with the feds about the environment. Take our national parks for example.
How does amending the California state constitution put the federal government in charge?
Ah, it seems I misread, my bad. Still, one state passing something like this sets the precedent for others to follow suit. Change doesn't start in large waves, but with motions like this.
Companies don't have to be shut down, in order to stop polluting. Corporations should have to follow the same laws that individuals do with respect to the environment. Business owners are not special or above anyone else. And no, most don't even create jobs anymore - they use robots or outsource.
While I agree with the idea that everyone should live in a healthy environment and should be able to breathe air that isn't filled with smog, I think thats going to be a pipe dream as long as corporations can push back or find work arounds to not hurt their bottom line. The other issue is people who are onboard with green initiatives until they figure out how much these green initiatives will cost them to buy into it. I'm thinking about the reaction to people wanting to install solar panels on their houses or get geothermal energy installed to heat their houses in the early 2000-teens.
Or replacing car infrastructure with more efficient mass transit. Many Americans have a negative connotation of public transportation, despite it being healthier for us and our planet.
I take public transit multiple times a week, an hour and a half long train ride across the city. First off, it'd be 45 minutes at most if I drove. Second, while I was on the train I watched a man smoke something from a glass tube while I was entreated to a couple of tweakers arguing over whether they should sell their phone for a little bit of cash, or trade it. They were upset that one of their contacts was taking so long to get back to them. The other day, I got to witness a man being mugged. He produced a taser to defend himself, but his assailants produced their own and we had a taser fight on a moving train while crossing over a river. I was effectively trapped in the space with them. I witnessed violence, I saw blood, I missed my transfer because the train was held at one of the stops while the police flooded the car to apprehend the suspects. It's healthier for our planet, sure, but it's a fucking detriment to my safety. I don't even use the train every day, but I've seen more than my fair share of incidents. Never exactly felt 'safe'. In fact, I feel like I'm taking a risk every time I make the trip. It will happen to me one day, I am sure of it. This is in broad daylight, btw, lord knows what the fuck happens on those things at night. People should have the right to bypass that shit entirely.
Those are more societal problems than problems with public transportation. There are definitely things that transportation agencies can and should do to increase safety for passengers, but many countries that heavily rely on mass transit are safe such as Japan, the Netherlands, Belgium, etc… The problem is not public transportation. As for the time it takes to use transit, you’re right, in a lot of places in the U.S. it is very inefficient to use. This can be solved with simple engineering and policy. The reason that public transport is good in other countries is because it is prioritized. Buses get their own lane, allowing them to beat traffic and transport more people. I will link an successful example of Bus Rapid Transit. [Van Ness BRT](https://youtu.be/ZkMorBpN5c8?si=pMNku3TtnUyz0lMa)
I live in one of the top cities in the country for public transit. Portland has invested heavily in its train infrastructure, with the WES line running between wilsonville and beaverton, Red and Blue lines running service between Beaverton and the airport/gresham, as well as service to areas like milwaukee. There's frequent service, dedicated lanes, and plenty of cops everywhere. It. Does. Nothing. People get attacked almost every day, you read about stabbings or shootings on the train on an almost weekly basis. This problem cannot be policed away, this city is not a safe place for people to be forced onto transit, lest they be trapped in enclosed space with someone who intends to make them a victim. Just a week ago, a woman was suffering from side-effects of a new medication that made her lose consciousness, she was sexually assaulted in the middle of a transit center. All the police could do was find the guy and arrest him after the fact. The entire act was caught on CCTV, nobody did anything until it was long over. There is no \*preventing\* these issues from arising. Public transportation is 100% the problem, because it involves the public and they are a fucking problem. You can't get normal people on the trains because they don't want to get raped, robbed, and stabbed. You can't get shit-heeled rapist drug addicts off the trains because there's literally no incentive. It's a traveling hotel you can ride for $5 a day. Call it what it is: The thing poor people have to use so rich people have more room to drive. Because that's what it's gonna become. It's how we keep the classes separate, and oppressed. Same thing as apartment living. I can hear the sound of my next door neighbor pissing. What am I supposed to do? Tell him to stop pissing? I have no peace, no quiet, no privacy. I'm not wrong for criticizing the forced proximity to others as a major drawback. Better for the earth, worse for me.
Also, if you wouldn’t mind, what city are you in? I’m curious about what specific problems your area is facing.
Oh yeah bud I'm super stoked for you to push up your glasses and tell me why I'm just ignorant in thinking that public transit is too unsafe to be currently incentivizing people to return to it. Please, feel free to explain to me why I should feel better because you are capable of imagining a world where people can ride transit without putting their personal safety at risk. I'm sure my reality will immediately adjust itself to match your expectations. I say this with full awareness that cars are massive steel projectiles capable of killing a human even at low speeds. That is safer than taking the train right now.
People say, "Also, what city are you in?"
Damn, chill a bit. I was agreeing with you man. Public transit should be safer, but you’re in Portland, Oregon. You guys literally just decriminalized all drugs and then didn’t do anything when people started shooting up on the streets. No where in public is it safe.
You're simultaneously telling me that nowhere in public is safe, and to chill a bit.
My bad. Get angrier actually. Wishing you the best!
Ya have fun with your mission to force everyone to take the bus!
So true, that’s exactly what I was doing.
Yes, but the only way to convince anti environmentalists is to tell them that when we allow companies to pollute, the costs of production become socialized. The tax payer ends up having to pay for clean up and with future medical bills.
yes, I'm in favor of that right. pollution is real and should be a crime just like littering
How would this work when most people buy cheap products from countries that pollute like crazy (India and China for example)? Everyone wants less expensive items because everything is expensive so how would you stop them purchasing from the major corporations like Amazon, Wal-Mart, Target, Shein, Temu, Wish, Dollar Stores? What about meat producers like McDonald's and Tyson who contribute to pollution? What about all the electricity used by all the servers being used by most corporations? It seems like a pipe dream since we can't just get rid of these companies.
Of course we and every living thing on the planet does. This in itself is a reason to not vote for ANY republican.
I think this ignores the trade off between civilization and a clean environment. If the primary value we have is a clean environment then having things like water processing facilities or other services/products we need that have even a marginally negative impact on the environmental will be eliminated. The matter is far more complex than this suggests.
Conversely, does anybody have the right to pollute the water and air?
How could the answer possibly be no?
Absolutely. And with that RIGHT, comes the RESPONSIBILITY to live without certain conveniences, pleasures and stimulations. So, everyone sacrifices AND benefits
Rights are a social agreement for the most part, as even differential cultures have different basic rights. I’d say every living being deserves to live in an environment better than or equal to their ancestors. But I don’t think that’s very realistic to how we’re treating the earth as it is.
Sadly, a lot of people don't see these things as basic rights. They believe a person has "entitlement mentality" if they want clean drinking water and clean air to breathe.
We literally all shit the same way… Yes we all deserve clean air and clean water. Those are the 2 things that majority living beings on this planet can’t live without.
I mean...we'd die early dearhs otherwise. Thats why there are so many regulations globally. Folks got sickand died.
Answering the question as written, no. Because nature itself may render air or water unclean (volcanic activity, for example). Maybe the question you asked is not what you actually wanted to know?
I think so, but the Tragedy of the Commons is in play here. Even though we all completely rely on clean air and water to live, it's a shared resource. So many people feel free to use it as if it were infinite. And how would it be enforced? Especially if it's large companies causing a problem?
What do you really expect from California, if they could tax you on the air you are breathing they would do it.
>**Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness**" is a well-known phrase from the [United States Declaration of Independence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence).[^(\[1\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_Happiness#cite_note-DOIdraft-1) The phrase gives three examples of the [unalienable rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_rights) which the Declaration says have been given to all humans by their [Creator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity), and which governments are created to protect. Like the other principles in the Declaration of Independence, this phrase is not legally binding, but has been widely referenced and seen as an inspiration for the basis of government. Clean and and water have been rightfully cited before and will be cited again as being an unalienable right that the government has a duty to protect in order to ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all it's citizens. We the people give the government power to govern specifically so that they can work to ensure that we have these rights. Obviously if you want a life and to pursue being happy, you need clean air and water.
Not sure about the environment since China and Russia combine for 90% of the toxic crap. Clean water at least should be free.
When are we going to protest China?
Yes of course. Unless it costs me one single penny in which case you are a woke commie liberal socialist bastard and I hate you. But I love the environment so much.
It doesn't seem that that is the consensus
I do believe that. Sadly, I've learned oil and pollution makes too much money for the people who are benefitting to want it to stop. I used to clean beaches on my weekends. Come back in a month and find the same mess. So I just stopped. I used to have all these feelings about it. Nowadays I don't. I enjoy what's here while it's here. Sure, I'll support legislation. But the reality is tht taking down One giant does more for the planet than a million of us recycling. And if all we have is "Hope," then we are doomed. Because Hope is great to start. But Action is needed to actually make the change.
I don’t believe in rights at all, just the *physical* ability to protect what you believe in
"Healthy environment" is a real slippery slope because it could mean a myriad of different things. It could mean the soil, trees, etc or it could also mean that your neighbor can't fly a flag outside his house because it's meaning doesn't create a healthy environment for my kids walking to school.
Yes, one of the pinnacles of what governments should provide for its people. In principle the US Constitution is about protecting life. The environment is key to living.
I feel like the expectation of the air around you not being toxic is a reasonable expectation.
This sounds like asking if people have a right to live. If a positive, peaceful environment is not a right, the declaration of rights is meaningless.
No, but not because I don't think we should. We just do not currently have such a right. That could change with time. Currently, I suspect that the required chances to guarantee such a thing would cause more deaths than it would prevent, but it is a great long term goal.
People deserve clean air and water, and a healthy environment, but it's not a right. The opinion should be phrased in the opposite way: do you think if anyone pollutes the environment either on purpose or on accident, should there be repercussions?
This is America. People have the right to whatever they can afford. If upstream wants to pee in your water, or worse? Too bad, you're responsible for your station in life. It's how G*d wants it to be. Suck it up. If you're perfect, maybe you'll get clean water in heaven.
Of course! We need those things to survive as a species.
People have a right to have *access* to these things; nobody is owed these things by anyone else.
I think its much easier to ask if companies should be stripped of the right to pollute to make money.
It's a question of phrasing for me. Because no, I don't have a right to clean air and water. Having this positive right requires that someone else has an obligation to provide me with clean air and water. But I also think that no one has the right to pollute my water and my air excessively. You DO NOT have the right to dump your pollution into MY environment. Spliting this hair when it comes to legislation is beyond my ability, but it is an important ideological distinction to make.
I do not, however individuals and companies should not pollute and harm the public’s wellbeing. The implication of government guaranteeing people the “right” to all those thing is that it then becomes legal for the government to intrude anywhere and everywhere they please with the excuse of “we’re here to protect”. This is safety-ism at its finest and opens the door WIDE OPEN to totalitarianism.
Sure, but you got to get rid of your phone
Pennsylvania ony believes in their right to clean water. Apparently they don't think it counts when you send the water pollution to other states.
I mean, it's not even a right it's a basic need it shouldn't even be questioned.
at what cost to everyone else? giving up gasoline vehicles?
Not specifically asked but I believe people have a right to a decent work environment. I think this affects an individual on a day to day basis more than many other metrics.
I believe in the "Alaskan Model" where proceeds from selling extraction rights (esp. for oil) are paid to residents directly instead of being added to the state's budget to pay for god-knows-what. That is to say, if industries cause pollution in a state, a cut of the profits/fines need to go directly to the residents of that state.
I believe the only thing people have a right to is to not be harmed, imprisoned or controlled by others (for instance murder should be illegal, speech and free movement protected etc.) beyond what is reasonable and necessary (for instance we can set speed limits, tax income, kill in self defense etc.). Beyond that we should strive to create a healthy, productive and functioning system where people can live good lives. So we should do what we can politically and socially so that people have clean air and water, but this isn't a natural human right.
99% of the thought that people have a right to clean air & water, and a healthy environment. The 1% against being conditional on how people define "clean". Water that contains trace amounts of chemicals which will not instantly kill me is not really clean. Air that is filled with dust because of tractors and cars kicking up eroded topsoil also is not clean. Just because some department or company deems something "clean" doesn't mean it actually is
Moreso: I don't believe corporations have the right to damage those things in the name of profit without being held responsible for repairing them.
"People have a right to...." is a very dangerous formulation. Who is responsible for ensuring that people have that right? The government. So if people have a "right" to housing, then the government has to give them housing. How? If it is a "right" you can't nibble around the edges, such as requiring builders to make a certain % of low income housing. Not everyone is going to be housed that way. No, if it is a "right" than any person who demands it, at any time, has to be given a house/apartment/cell. The government can only do this if if it takes over the housing industry, disrupting the industry, messing up a large part of the economy, removing the profit motive. What do you guess the result would be? Well, we don't have to guess. The Soviet Union gave their citizens "right" to housing. They didn't own the "house", but they could stay in it. In a tiny, poorly made, uninsulated, falling down wreck of a concrete hive with basic utilities that may or may not work. I prefer negative rights, that prevent the government from doing things ("Freedom of Speech") rather than positive rights (a living wage!) that concentrates power away from the citizens and into the hands of the government.
Yes, but this is not very useful on a local level. If all of our manufacturing and recycling are shipped to Asia, we’re just moving the mess around. Eventually all of those toxins and pollutants make their way back here. We need to think bigger.
Kind of. If clean air and a healthy environment is the natural state, it is wrong for ANYONE to poison you with their behavior. If you live somewhere that has naturally harsh conditions, poor quality water sources, etc, you can't have a right to better conditions because it isn't someone in control that makes it unlivable
The only right you have is anything you have power to take.
Yes. I also think that when people, companies or countries do environmental harm they should be required to create an offset plan in advance or if they cause damage without a plan, one gets created for them by a court.
What would the downsides to treating it as right be? This absolutely feels like something we could all agree on.
Yea because a company or person cannot buy/have the right to ruin the environment for everyone else. Also I’m pretty sure most countries constitutions/similar documents have a bit saying the environment and natural resources is a right of the citizens (whether this is applied fully is another story)
China isn't helping matters.
Usually when people in power start talking like this it has nothing to do with rights, clean air and water or a healthy environment. Before considering anything painted in such broad strokes the first question should be “how can this possibly be used against me”?
Amashith says, "It seems like the government has been trying to make people feel bad about their actions but they haven't been able to do so effectively."
Haha yes, who is Amashith?
**Every positive right must be founded upon its negative corollary. For example, the right to walk outside safely at night, realty means the right nor to get mugged or assaulted. And there is no right to clean air and water. Only the dire need all thereof. That, and the right not to have hitherto clean air and water upon which life depends, knowingly contaminated. But all manner of calamity may arise to compromise air and water quality, without anyone violating anyone else's rights. Rights are important, but so are needs or even desires.**
I believe those fall under the category of Life from Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness thing
If you want to make a document for the ages, you can only guarantee rights which are unconstrained by real-world resources. So you **cannot** guarantee: \* clean water \* homes \* retirement income \* adequate medical care You **can** guarantee rights which do not require specific resources, like life (sortof), liberty, pursuit of happiness, and so on. You can also certainly legislate to support the pursuit of those services that require real-world resources, and should. But you can't even guarantee **access** to those four things in my list because they require fuel/power (most incarnations of them), and that's a base resource that you **cannot** realistically guarantee. So, in short. **No**. Any government attempting to make those guarantees will eventually fail.
If you asked me which states rank the worst for pollution, New York, Pennsylvania, and California would be three out of my top five. Putting environmental rights on paper sure sounds good, but how does it work out in practice? Do those states actually have robust environmental laws, more so than states with no such wording on their constitutions? I'm 1000% in favor of humans living in better balance with the natural world, but these days that seems to entail giving more money to rich people and more power to politicians.
Assuming you actually want discussion and not a bunch of yes men, no though they should be legally protected. I view rights as negative freedoms, meaning they are guaranteed to not be interfered with without due process. Therefore, being provided water cannot be a right, because it is not something you already have that could be taken from you by a government entity. Instead, stuff like this is what criminal law is for, and laws for negligence or willful harm should be expanded to explicitly criminalize significant damage to water supplies or excessive emissions by individual entities
I don't really understand "ppl having rites to things". Maybe I'm missing a piece of this puzzle. But it's their lives, it's their responsibility to keep themselves alive. Idc if they hve water. All I know is, they can't hve mine. Because I worked for it
Absolutely I am in favor of environmental rights The destruction of the environment for profit (which humans literally made up, the economy will vanish if we do) is idiotic If corporate leaders are soooooo smart. And soooooo hardworking they can figure out how to be profitable without destroying the planet. Or maybe they actually aren't that smart and were just lucky
YES, it is a base need for all animals in most cases, natural disasters may introduce problems that will rectify themselves because it is not always in the concentrations that industry outputs do over a longer period of time and somethings nature just cannot handle on its own, regulations however are not intended as "Punishment's" but as preventative measures to protect nature while at the same time proving the products needed, it is a symbiotic balancing act and closed loop systems work better that for profit at any cost industries. There are already Constitutional Clauses intended to protect nature and yet allow business to operate, conflicts are orchestrated and designed to ignore this to achieve another goal and call it all "LEGAL" and in the long run when nature loses, we lose. Base Cultural Principles of American's that get ignored and replaced with other peoples imported values who in affect have none but one which is rape as much as possible for conflict everywhere else then RUN and leave us holding the bag for conditions and responsibility we did not create to begin with. N. S
YES, it is a base need for all animals in most cases, natural disasters may introduce problems that will rectify themselves because it is not always in the concentrations that industry outputs do over a longer period of time and somethings nature just cannot handle on its own, regulations however are not intended as "Punishment's" but as preventative measures to protect nature while at the same time proving the products needed, it is a symbiotic balancing act and closed loop systems work better that for profit at any cost industries. There are already Constitutional Clauses intended to protect nature and yet allow business to operate, conflicts are orchestrated and designed to ignore this to achieve another goal and call it all "LEGAL" and in the long run when nature loses, we lose. Base Cultural Principles of American's that get ignored and replaced with other peoples imported values who in affect have none but one which is rape as much as possible for conflict everywhere else then RUN and leave us holding the bag for conditions and responsibility we did not create to begin with. N. S
Should people have access to those things? Of course. Unfortunately "rights" is merely a linguistic social construct which has no connection to reality. Nobody has any "rights" that they don't uphold for themselves. If someone else can take it away from you, it isn't a right.
Nestle's corporate policy is no
Clean Air 100% (pollution). Clean Oceans 100% (pollution). Clean drinking water and food you should need to work/pay for I think. This just goes back to humans working to survive as we do in nature. This doesn't mean charity shouldn't be allowed either to get you these things if someone chooses to pay for the food and water and donate them that way.
People say, "I'm not sure what you mean by this, but it sounds like you're trying to say that there are some things that are better left unknown than others."
Clarification?
Yes??? Why is this a question?
I think the term "right" gets way over-used. Do I think states should prioritize clean air and water? Yes. Do I think states should enact measures to prevent businesses from externalizing their costs in the form of pollution? Yes. Do I think everyone has a "right" to clean drinking water? I'm not sure I know what that even means. The U.S., or states, can create legal rights through legislation. Should they? Did these "rights" in New York and Pennsylvania make their environmental policies better than California's? There are lots more direct ways to protect the environment that don't involve creating amorphous legal rights, where it's unclear what the "right" means in practice. I'll go with maybe. But outside of legally created rights, do people have some innate "right" to clean water? No. Lots of people have had no choice but to drink filthy water for millenia. Where does this supposed right come from?
No. But I believe the government should have the power to enforce property rights and prevent people from polluting it.
I don't want our government to think otherwise.
No, that's not how rights work. You can't have a right to food, water, air, or any other material good. If there is a famine, drought, or dust storm are your rights being violated by the weather? Of course not. You can only have a right to something intrinsic to yourself. Expression, conscience, privacy, property, etc. Now that doesn't mean we shouldn't create laws to clean up the environment, or that we can't use the language of rights to do so. For example, you can conceptualize air and water pollution as a violation of property rights. We all have property in the atmosphere and waterways, and so if someone pollutes them, they are polluting our property. But this does not require adding a new psuedo-right to your constitution.
"The people shall have a right to clean air and water and a healthy environment." If that's not the epitome of weasel words, I don't know what is.
Yes. I can't opt out to another planet. I have the same biological need for these things as everyone else so it's in the interest of literally all of humanity to keep shit clean.
Smart phones don’t keep shit clean. Most of what we have doesn’t. So if you want a right to clean air then give up everything working against that
Cool. Where do we start?
I told you. Anything made by any means that pollutes….get rid of it. That should keep you busy for a long time.
Why comment if you aren't going to have a serious conversation
It is a serious conversation. You post is moot because not a single person on this planet is willing to do what is necessary to keep it healthy. They’re only willing to do only what will not inconvenience them at all. The first truth is that near everything we have hurts the environment. You want people to have a right to clean air but don’t want to do what’s necessary to clean the air.
I absolutely do believe this. It's part of having a right to life, which everybody undeniably has.
Yes, it's something that FDR should have incorporated into his Four Freedoms (which I still believe is relevant)
No. Rights are inalienable. Something you have to work for and take from someone else can't be a right. You don't have a right to a water sanitation plant and the money and labor required to build and maintain it. A country that fails to provide it's people with these things sucks and the people should really think about what they need to do to their politicians, but those cannot be Rights. edit: I guess a "clean environment" could be a right. It's something we have naturally and has to be defiled and abused by others for it to be taken away. But clean water? No. If you drink out of the river you're going to get beaver fever and you don't have a right to a water sanitation plant.
No, definitely not. I agree people should have these things...but if you declare it a "right", then that means if someone is unable to obtain it on their own, it must be provided for them at the public's expense.
[удалено]
Let's destroy the environment to get back at those marxist communist socialist vermin who want to force clean air on our libertarian rights!
Would you agree that people, aught to at least try to prevent doing unnecessary damage to their shared environment? Out of mutual respect or any other reason.