7 votes

CEO of Nestle says believing humans have a right to water is extreme

This is just so twisted, he makes Hitler look like a sweetie-pie.

http://youtu.be/q6v4aPDp0SA



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

While a person has the right

While a person has the right to procure their own water, food, etc., if a giant company is bottling water for huge profite and totally emptying aquifers and it affects the wells of whole communities, a lynch mob should form and such company should be driven out of town by force. Screw regulation, because companies just pay to bypass regulations. One strike and you're out.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

I dont need a right to water

If it ever became so important to me that my life or the life of someone I cared about depended on it, I would resort to stealing it. Thus, there is no need for the government to declare that it will steal it for me.

23

I find myself agreeing with him

When you make water a government subsidized commodity you run into lots of problems. For example in Colorado, we are growing alfalfa in the dry mountains. The only reason its economical is because the government supports it. we also over water our lawns etc...

Also, by implying that water is a "right" is really saying that other people should be forced to provide you with water. that is obviously not right. By having water as a "right" should mean that everyone has the right to extract water on their own property.

I agree

water is not a right any more than food, clothing, or a new car is a right. We have to be careful not to step into these traps which can be tempting.

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com

Taking water from Lake Michigan for years

Sucking water from MI. aquifers in the state

Money talks and dogs bark

This company is currently...

...taking water from central Colorado with continuous trucks being filled one after another of Rocky Mountain Water. Whoever approved this unusual deal had to have been smoking high potent marijuana at the time. Do they not realize that water is more valuable than oil? Glad I have a great well.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win!"
GANDHI

"The belief is worthless if the fear of social and physical punishment overrides the belief."

YEAH, RIGHT!

I'll believe it when he gnaws down on some BT toxin monsanto gmo gutbuster corn. He has no choice but to lie.

So Nestle...

Since your coffee is crap imo and you are in the water bottling business, I can see why you want fresh water privatized.

I have a compromise, you can have all the salt water you want :)

This guy would make an ideal Stalinist imo.

donvino

Couple points: 1. Regarding

Couple points:

1. Regarding GMO - Where's this guy's proof it hasn't caused health issues in the US? What independent researcher is doing any research about it??? Source, please? Let me know when someone is studying these mass-murder's brains to see if there's a link. Moreover, wake me up when ADHD, ADD, Autism, and other childhood disorders are researched independently to cancel out any link between them and GMOs.

This guy is a Corporate Fascist with an ego the size of Mt. Everest.

2. If water has a price than the air we breathe has a price to these evil #$%@s and it just goes to show we need to STOP CORPORATISM NOW! He's trying to disguise his fascism with freemarket capitalism and people need to set this guy straight. If people demand free water, than that is the price, especially when the govt is demanding taxes from us to pay for it. What he is saying is that Nestle should be the market maker which is corporate fascism at its ugliest.

3. He's also disguising his market fascism with liberal talking points. The problem is not water or the lack thereof in certain parts of the world, the problem is corrupt fascist governments that force the hand of the people in theses areas of the world. For example, take Bali, Indonesia. The government there is more concerned with the over-saturation of tourism, hotels and restaurants in designated areas in Bali than in the rural ones. These rural areas have very little water thanks to the government providing for the Corporations more than the citizens. The citizens of Bali take backseats to hotels like the Hilton, Hyatt, and Hardrock and many, many others.

So in summary, it's companies like Nestle that are causing these water shortages.

Nestle creates the problem, then finds a solution that best suits their needs. This is pure and utter EVIL and has nothing to do with freemarkets!!!

Again I say

WATCH FLOW and THEN mouth off! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3RL0vbWZLg If it is easier to watch in parts then go here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgOOhm50OgY BUT PLEASE WATCH IT!

skippy

Huh, that's funny. From the

Huh, that's funny. From the last 3 video's I watched on this site, one of them was from a Libertarian economist ADVOCATING something similar to what this guy said: privatizing large patches of ocean currently unowned by any government. Oil spills would be damage to private property in such an event and such a case would then be grounds for a lawsuit. Though the subject was mainly the privatization of land, it would essentially mean the privatization of the water supply as well.

It's pretty ironic how the comments on both these videos are widely divergent. See here the power of headlines and labels. If a statement that could be controversial is in the headlines, people are more prone to react negatively without thinking the case through. And then there are the labels.

Since we knew the guy was a Libertarian in that vid I just mentioned, people were more inclined to think positively. Meanwhile, this guy is a CEO (in other words, a greedy capitalist) and even though he says the same thing as the Libertarian, he gets judged negatively on it.

Now, not to say that the guy in this current vid is absolutely correct. His view on GMO food for instance does make him more akin to a typical greedy capitalist. Not certain he's entirely wrong on that issue either, but I agree with Magwan77 that in the case of the privatization of water, that this is not a clearcut case.

We don't even know for sure what he exactly means by privatizing water. Does he mean rainwater as well? I remember a headline where the government went after someone that was gathering rainwater that fell on his property. A ridiculous idea of course.

Hey jonat3, this guy whom you

Hey jonat3, this guy whom you mistakenly call a "greedy capitalist" -as if we're some kind of AnComs- isn't actually a capitalist. A Corporation -especially one as large as Nestle- couldn't exist in a Free Market due to the potentioal for infinite compitition. In other words, these corporations need governments to limit compition via regulations, just so they can exist. Therefore, any Constitutionalist, libertarian, or Anarchist who supports -the actions of- an entity which couldn't exist without government, must therefore agree with and support government also; how do you reconcile that?

To me, it's irrelevant how

To me, it's irrelevant how these corporations came into power in this discussion. This thread is about the words that came out of his mouth and I judge solely based on that. Not to say that this is unimportant, but that's best left for another thread IMO. I merely evaluate the logic of the sentence coming out of his mouth.

According to the Libertarian mindset, what this CEO said was not entirely incorrect. Of course, not being wrong on this account does not mean that he can apply this principle of privatized water correctly. From what I've heard, Nestle is indeed likely to be an evil corporation and it's obvious he had ulterior motives in saying what he said. That does not mean that his initial words were wrong however.

Please Watch FLOW

I have boycotted Nestle since watching that documentary. You will too I'd bet! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3RL0vbWZLg If you prefer to see it in parts then go here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgOOhm50OgY

skippy

Yes, thank you for this

Yes, thank you for this movie. It has certainly enlightened me on some aspects. Though it must be said that Rothbard would probably agree with the initial idea of privatization.

This movie has made it apparent that privatization still has some basic problems and that if privatization is ever employed, it needs some guidelines to prevent the problems shown in the movie.

It would be interesting to hear what Rothbard or any Austrian economist (or Libertarian) would think on this video.

Very Good Post

It's true that if the same words were spoken by Walter Block (or someone like that) that most people would be fine w/ it. But coming from a Nestle CEO, it triggers a much more negative reaction in some.

I'm not sure what I think of this by the way. If we privatize water then why not take it to the next level and privatize air as well? Maybe you're not allowed to breathe the air on my property. Would people really be *for* something like that??

Thinking about stuff like this makes my head spin. It feels outrageous to be *for* a system that could, in theory, prevent people from being able to drink water. At the same time, I understand (at least some of) the counter-arguments. There is an argument to be made for putting prices on things (as anyone trying to get gas after hurricane Sandy can attest!)

I know I'm *for* the free-market in a lot of things (certainly the financial markets) but I do have concerns when it comes to the environment (I'm very concerned about fracking because no amount of money can repay people if air, land, water and food are poisoned in a mass scale) and basic human necessity type stuff (e.g. privatizing air and water).

This is not a simple issue,

This is not a simple issue, and im not sure that guy is 100% wrong. To figure it out, we have to first understand what makes private property.

Private property can only be aquired through original claim, or by purchase from a former owner.

Private property is defined as something that cannot be used in the same way, at the same time by two people.

If you get your water yourself by collecting it in a cistern, digging your own well or whatever, its your private property right?

If you are using the water that another person has managed to draw out of the ground using their own tools and equipment, it is their's and they are free to charge your for it right?

If the well on your land goes dry because some big company sucks all the water out of the aquafur which is partially on your land, does that not equivilate theft?

If water becomes very limited, and a few companies own all the water rights and are not letting others drink it without paying a price, that begs the question: Does a right to property trump a right to life? Do you have any claim on the water they have claimed ownership too just because you'll die if you don't get it? Is that self defense? Are they not justified to defend their property?

Can you own something that is vital for other's right to life, and forbid them from using it unless they give you their private property?

This is a toughy. Im leaning toward saying that no one should be able to monopolize something so basic and essential to life... but then, what about when it becomes tough to get water and we depend upon the capital ventures of companies to draw or clean water for consumption?

Im stumped. Thoughts?

PLEASE go to the reply below: "FLOW"

Watch from about 55 minutes in, for about 10 minutes. You need to have a little more background on this guy.
I cannot believe how many here are willing to give this guy a "capitalist" pass. He is no capitalist, he is a fascist. That whole "corporate - government" marriage applies to the corporate enslavers, too. Not all "business" is created equal these days. Please take the time, learn.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Thank You!

It amazes me how many people here think it's okay to steal other people's property or rights and call it capitalism. I don't think anyone here has watched FLOW except for the two of us! I quit even buying their chocolate products after seeing that documentary. They are as evil as Obama or GE yet people here naively hold up for them!

skippy

Private property

Is something you CREATE with the fruits of your labor. Anything claimed and not created is fraudulent, because you used force of some kind, against another potential claimer, to acquire it.

Since you couldn't possible defend your claim against everyone else, you should pay everyone else for your exclusive use of the resource. As it is the government gives its cronies these exclusive use rights for free.

And by the way, water is not widely available to everyone, everywhere in the world.

That's not exactly correct

That's not exactly correct ironman. Let me give you an example.

You build a tree fort on your land. You own the tree fort because it is a product of your labor yes? What if you have stolen all the materials from your neighbor?

Changes things.

You do not "own" the finished product of your labor. You own the raw materials that you used to build it, and "thus" you can say by extention that you own the finished product. But this distinction is vital to understand. This strikes at the core of the argument against the second biggest mistake of the Constitution (behind slavery) which is intellectual property rights. Or in other words, government granted monopolies which have done more harm to the progress of our species than perhaps any other single force beyond the collectivist mindset.

Either you had the original claim to the wood in the tree house (cut down a tree on your property, or in unclaimed territory) or else you purchased the wood. Its the "wood" you own, not the tree house.

Because of this, it seems that water "can" be claimed if it falls upon private property.

I am not claiming that the German Nesle guy is facist or capitalist or anything else. I could care less what his title is. Im more in the mind to discuss this from a curiosity standpoint. I am very interested in understanding free market systems and property rights, because that understanding is integral to our future liberty. To me, this is a fairly tricky issue, because I can see at what point one man's "property" rights could be used to stamp out another man's right to life in the case of dwindling supplies of drinking water.

Im sure the free market is the solution only because it always is. Im just curious "how" it is the solution. I wonder if there's a Von Mises piece on this?

here is rothbard on the subject

http://mises.org/econsense/ch24.asp

"Water, rivers, parts of oceans, have been in far worse shape than land, since private individuals and firms have been almost universally prevented from owning parts of that water, from owning schools of fish, etc. In short, since homesteading private property rights has generally not been permitted in parts of the ocean, the oceans and other water resources have remained in a primitive state, much as land had been in the days before private property in land was permitted and recognized. Then, land was only in a hunting-and-gathering stage, where people were permitted to own or transform the land itself. Only private ownership in the land itself can permit the emergence of agriculture--the transformation and cultivation of the land itself--bringing about an enormous growth in productivity and increase in everyone's standard of living."

But this ignores a lot of problems with the initial claim and ownership of these resources. Since the government currently owns the water resource, how do we get a fair price for the water from nestle. If I was selling my water, I would want at least enough money to replace the cost of all the water i would need to survive.

Apply your definition to land

Apply your definition to land and you will see why it is flawed.(Hint: can't create land)

Private Property is something that you have applied labor to, yes, but is not limited to what you simply create. You did not create your body, but it is still your private property....

...and this should put to rest the idea that the "right to property" somehow conflicts with the "right to life". The right to life is STILL a right to property, namely your physical property.

Food is necessary for "life", but we have no problem with letting the "rich greedy bastards" own and market the food. In fact, socializing the food has historically lead to LOTS of people starving to death.

Scarce resources need to be economized, and the best people to economize things are the ones who have a direct, personal stake in the economization of said resource(ie; the owner).

How does a person "make a million", exactly? Well, he has to increase human satisfaction to the tune of one million dollars. Think about it......

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

Land is not a problem.

it is the same as water. everyone should be entitled to enough land to subsist (or equivalent in money). To use any additional land, you should pay rent to everyone else.

Now I am not talking about socialization, since the extra - beyond subsistence, that people create belongs to whoever created the extra. Just like you say, if I can create human satisfaction, I deserve to benefit.

But, property rights don't let you starve someone to death - that's violence just the same as if you would have shot them, particularly when your plenty comes from violently claiming resources, rather than improving resources to create plenty.

Google Henry George ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George ) for a better explanation of how this works.

So you think that all the

So you think that all the land and water in the world should be divided evenly to everyone... and you're "not" talking about socialization?

Who owns all the land in the first place in order to be able to "divy" it up? Can you imagine the incredable power and use of tyrannical force that would be required to sieze all private property so that it could "divided" among everyone, including idiots who wouldn't know the first thing to do with it?

Can you imagine how much corruption would involved in any institution that has enough power to sieze all private property for even distribution? Do you expect the leaders of this institution would live in the same "equal" share?

Actually, we've tried this system before. In the Dark Ages. Medival warlords claimed all the land they could by force, and "gave" it to their serfs to work like slaves on. Those who lipped off got their daughters raped and their heads placed on pikes.

This kind of shit does not not not work. ever. Not even once.

There is no magic spell you can cast to "evenly" distribute land, water or wealth to everyone. Most people don't even freaking deserve to have an equal share anyway, because they are completely unwilling to earn it.

Ayn Rand said it best... im paraphrazing: "Do not bemoan the rich heir who inherits a fortune and say that it should be divided among you. You would do no better with it, but instead of one parasite, you'd create fifty."

Things that are "given" are not appricated. Only things which are earned. Ill be the first to admit that the system of facism we are fighting against now, and the POS "Lords" being created by it like the Chocloate Fuhrer deserve to be prosecuted for their crimes. But the solution isn't for some giant centralized entity to come in and take "more" power in order to make things "fair."

"Fair" is where all this shit comes from. Stop wanting "fair" and start understanding that "life" is NOT fair. We must pursue happiness, it will not be given to us.

It would be easy

There is no need to change current ownership, other than government land, which would be auctioned off. Just tax the land owners to compensate everyone for their bit of land and water - basically what they would have needed to subsist.

But there would be no tax on labor, or productivity or trade. That way, people who owned resources would have to be productive with those resources, beyond the subsistence that the resource would provide.

And no, this is not a feudal system. In the feudal system, a central authority decides how land will be used, and then taxes the production on that land. Like the wage slaves we are now.

What's scary

Is that the Left is using this as an example of what "free market" economics means.

I wonder how RP would respond to this.

"If this mischievous financial policy [greenbacks], which has its origin in North America, should become endurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debts. It will hav

What scares me is how many HERE think this guy is "free market"

I've got to be honest, I was underwhelmed with the review of Ron's speech today. With all that is afoot, he just gave his campaign speech again? Hopefully someone got a video and it is better than that, the review I read was from an unfriendly source.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

So who has enough money to buy the world's water resources?

This is really strange sounding after all the drilling that "healthcare" is a right.

But I guess there has been a plan for quite some time to "privatize" water.

Not sure how that would work. Walls and armed guards surrounding lakes and rivers? And how would this effect people who want to drill wells on property they own? I hear a local municipality is wanting to create a well tax. A drilled well in this area costs around 5,000 dollars paid to a private driller. Why would a city think it has any right to tax that unless they already believe they own the water?

The creator made water is in abundance, covering the earth. You could see through the CEOs window a gorgeous view and vast expanse of water.

I believe in free markets. But water and seeds, things that God gave man for sustenance shouldn't basic decency dictate that these things are off limit to "ownership?"

It's thought like the CEO's that makes me wonder why anyone would have trouble believing that the world is headed in the direction to at some point be ruled by antiChrist.

Anyway, he said "We have everything we want." Well here in America, a lot of us want our water(that we pay for) to be free of fluoride and other contaminants not meant to be foodstuff. And we aren't a 3rd world country yet. I wonder if the CEO drinks fluoridated water.

I am for peace: but when I speak, they are for war. Ps 120:7
--
Better to be divided by truth than united in error.
--
"I am the door." -Jesus Christ

Water

people have a right to it. Why do restaraunts give it for free?

Animals drink it for free.

How much water vapor is in air? Is air a right?

When it rains on your property....should you be taxed for it?

When it snows on your property...should you be taxed for it?

If you have a well...should you be taxed for it?

donvino