The right to water

[DeletedUser]

I gotta jump in for a second.

There's these arguments being posed about what is sold at the concerts, the containers. Most of these rules are not concert rules, but band rules. Experience has taught them that it is their job to protect themselves from the crowds, and not to rely on the concert organizers to think of their safety. Now, when the concert organizers break the rules by selling glass containers, or other hard containers, the bands will sue the concert organizers if any of their members get assaulted by said containers.

After a history of concert injuries due to rowdy audiences, many bands now manage their own concerts and only rely on outside agencies to promote.

 

[DeletedUser]

My opinion is that you are whining about something pointless.

My opinion is that you're obviously an easily-led sheep and a huge step back in the critical thinking department, especially when it comes to big business stripping you of your right to a necessity.

There's no "right" to water.

The genius has spoken! Perhaps you should make another thread about how you would like venues to start making their facilities an air-less vacuum. After all, there's no right to air either and it could easily be sold!

And there's no reason for a facility to allow someone to bring in anything that they sell on site, which they would STILL be responsible for cleaning up the trash from.

Uh. You mean besides the fact that water is vital to human life, especially when you're dealing with 100+ degree temperatures.

Part of the cost of the bottle of water in the venue is the product, also the person who SELLS the product, The person who cleans up the mess, The garbage disposal, etc.

Etc? My thinking is that you ran out of bullcrap reasons after person who cleans it up and garbage disposal. Let me tell you, making $5 water bottles is not a humanitarian effort to keep the place clean -- it's an attempt to make profit on the one thing that they know everyone will need. The $45 t-shirts, $11 beers, and $6 sample bag of peanuts are a good way to make up all the TONS OF LOST PROFIT on the necessity that is water.

You don't want to play by their rules, don't go to their house.

This weekened I, fortunately, found out that most people are less-capitalistic than you and stood with a group of people who refused to allow the venue to strip them of their water. It didn't very long for the security guards to push us through and let us through with our own water.

 

[DeletedUser]

Glad to hear, Divest. I learned awhile back that if you stand your ground, especially if the ground is right, you most always get the opposition to cede.

 

[DeletedUser]

Actually, it made perfect sense.

He was supplying a Sample legal motion that you would petition the court to hear, and was supplying the courts response.

Quite correctly, imho.

Uh oh, now I gotta be careful, someone actually understood some of the stuff I wrote.

Ok, on a more serious note, that was intended to be a joke, there are tons of problems with my post.

1. Which court, European, Anglo-American? Asian? it makes a difference. Some countries recognize fundamental right such as right to education, like China. Europe also tend to have more fundamental rights listed in their ECHR, USA listed less but through judicial decision incorporated first 10 into some "fundamental rights" such as privacy, etc. That's why I said I have to make up a right, right to water.

2. If it's US, I need standing, etc. as it's most likely a federal question but still, I run into state actor problem hence my choice of anti trust or anti competitive law.

Bottom line, it's all meant as a joke. Also, disclaimer, I'm not a lawyer so....this is just what I know, read, and posted as a humor.

 

[DeletedUser]

If you don't go to their house, then they don't get money from you.
And they go bankrupt, because then they have no money.

And we do have a right to water, it's a basic human right.

If you have a house, you'll have water.
The water in your house is a lot cheaper than bottled water.
So why should you be prevented from taking it with you?

If their policies cause them to lose business, they'll rethink their policies.

If they don't YOUR water at their house, they have the right to say no.

 

[DeletedUser]

If they don't YOUR water at their house, they have the right to say no.

This is such a horrible way to look at things that it infuriates me to no end. Trust me, I had a VERY choice select bunch of words for you, but I've withheld.

 

[DeletedUser]

My opinion is that you're obviously an easily-led sheep and a huge step back in the critical thinking department, especially when it comes to big business stripping you of your right to a necessity.



The genius has spoken! Perhaps you should make another thread about how you would like venues to start making their facilities an air-less vacuum. After all, there's no right to air either and it could easily be sold!



Uh. You mean besides the fact that water is vital to human life, especially when you're dealing with 100+ degree temperatures.



Etc? My thinking is that you ran out of bullcrap reasons after person who cleans it up and garbage disposal. Let me tell you, making $5 water bottles is not a humanitarian effort to keep the place clean -- it's an attempt to make profit on the one thing that they know everyone will need. The $45 t-shirts, $11 beers, and $6 sample bag of peanuts are a good way to make up all the TONS OF LOST PROFIT on the necessity that is water.



This weekened I, fortunately, found out that most people are less-capitalistic than you and stood with a group of people who refused to allow the venue to strip them of their water. It didn't very long for the security guards to push us through and let us through with our own water.

Good for you, you expressed your displeasure where it mattered, in person, and they relented. They could also have barred you from entrance, and banned you from the property. The security guards didn't want to do the paperwork, so you got in Go you.

Still doesn't mean that they don't have the right to say you can't, just that they chose to make an exception.


Also, Yeah, I'm a capitalist, I love capitalism. It's a shame that so many people expect the Nanny-state to take care of them, and provide all there needs. You get what you want by working for it, not by using the power of the government to take it from someone else.

 

[DeletedUser]

Still doesn't mean that they don't have the right to say you can't, just that they chose to make an exception.

Actually, they avoided a publicly humiliating situation. People were getting pissed, not just us, but others as well. They relented because of the pressure of publicity. If they made a big deal about it, they would lose ticket sales because I can guarantee you it would have been in the newspapers and all over the internet. So yes, even though you don't believe things are worth standing up for and you're willing to sell your basic human necessities because you were raised on capitalism, it doesn't mean that everyone else is as much of a sheep as you are. Try standing up for something you believe in for once, it feels good. Or, maybe, when you grow up and finally get into high school or maybe even college you'll realize that some things are more important than greed and that no one has the right to deny a basic human necessity under any circumstances.

 

[DeletedUser]

Also, Yeah, I'm a capitalist, I love capitalism. It's a shame that so many people expect the Nanny-state to take care of them, and provide all there needs. You get what you want by working for it, not by using the power of the government to take it from someone else.

Yup. This is just the kind of response I would expect from a 13-year-old who thinks that capitalism is xbox making a whole bunch of money.

Capitalism is what ran this entire country's economy into the ground. Do you still feel good about it now?

 

[DeletedUser]

What 'ran this entire country's economy into the ground' wasn't capitalism, it was greed, government manipulation, unwise borrowing, and unwise lending.

If people were RESPONSIBLE, and didn't buy things (like houses) they couldn't afford, read and understood, or have someone explain to them, what a mortgage meant, before they signed it.

The biggest hit this economy took was from people who had no business buying the homes they bought, getting bad loans they didn't have any chance of being able to pay off.

The problem originated back during Bill Clinton's presidency, when the regulations governing Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were changed to promote home purchases by lower income familys. Fannie/freddy basicly said "Make those risky mortgages, we'll buy them from you.

So alot of lower income people, who had previously been renters, or who lived with family, bought new homes, on Interest only mortgages, without realizing that 5-10 years later the monthly payment was going to go up, because then they'd have to start paying on the PRINCIPAL, as well as the interest.

So now, we're 10 years later, and it's time to pay the piper.

We'll get through this, just like every other recession.

Or, maybe, when you grow up and finally get into high school or maybe even college you'll realize that some things are more important than greed and that no one has the right to deny a basic human necessity under any circumstances.

You know nothing about me, and the fact that you degenerated into comments about my knowledge level, what you perceive as my ignorance, and you make assumptions about my age because I disagree with you, says an awful lot about you.

 

[DeletedUser]

What 'ran this entire country's economy into the ground' wasn't capitalism, it was greed, government manipulation, unwise borrowing, and unwise lending.

If people were RESPONSIBLE, and didn't buy things (like houses) they couldn't afford, read and understood, or have someone explain to them, what a mortgage meant, before they signed it.

The biggest hit this economy took was from people who had no business buying the homes they bought, getting bad loans they didn't have any chance of being able to pay off.

The problem originated back during Bill Clinton's presidency, when the regulations governing Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were changed to promote home purchases by lower income familys. Fannie/freddy basicly said "Make those risky mortgages, we'll buy them from you.

So alot of lower income people, who had previously been renters, or who lived with family, bought new homes, on Interest only mortgages, without realizing that 5-10 years later the monthly payment was going to go up, because then they'd have to start paying on the PRINCIPAL, as well as the interest.

So now, we're 10 years later, and it's time to pay the piper.

We'll get through this, just like every other recession.

Thank you for summarizing the whole situation for me. You know, I haven't heard that at least ten thousand times before or anything. No worries.

Now that whole system was unregulated capitalism, which is basically what you're suggesting for the venues. Unregulated capitalism. They should be able to deny you whatever they feel they can make a profit off of. That is dangerous in every sense of the word, but you still don't realize it. I'm glad that there are far less people like you in the world than there are caring and understanding people who apply common sense to everyday situations.

To get away from the dead-horse discussion of our recession and go back to our original topic, it all boils down to necessity. You should not be able to regulate what is immediately necessary to a human's survival. There are a couple of things that should be standard and all-inclusive no matter where you go. These things are water, bathroom facilities, and air. Other than that, if people are dumb enough to pay ridiculous prices for it, then go for it. I know that you are still all for unregulated capitalism and you would probably sell off your immediate family members for a quick dollar so none of these statements will hit home for you, but I just thought I'd share a brief thought from someone who has a bit of compassion and common sense in their bones.

You know nothing about me, and the fact that you degenerated into comments about my knowledge level, what you perceive as my ignorance, and you make assumptions about my age because I disagree with you, says an awful lot about you.

So wait a minute... you're taking my comments which were based on speculation, then turning them around to form speculation? So, are you criticising my methods or agreeing? I can't tell at this point. This falls pretty much in line with all the other crap that you've tried to push that didn't make any sense.

 

[DeletedUser]

Divest is correct. And Morph, if you were truly a capitalist, you would sell your mother for a profit.

 

[DeletedUser]

As a Capitalist, I understand that things have value, and I value my mother more than I value material goods, so no, I wouldn't sell my mother for a quick buck.

And Divest, I let my statement speak for itself, I didn't say anything negative about you, other than say that they way you went for a personal attack says alot about you. I didn't even say WHAT it said about you, you were the one who immediately got defensive. I simply expressed my dismay at the fact that you took something which, until that point, had been a pretty civil debate/conversation between us, and made an uncalled for personal attack.