9 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.


Comment viewing options

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

Not Yet

Please watch FLOW! Please please please


Where I live...

Where I live in Washington State, there is a rain water tax. The more land I own that has an impervious surface such as pavement or a building, the higher the tax. Also, in some jurisdictions land owners don't own the rain water that falls onto their property.

Regarding Nestle, my father used to be the Assistant Chief Engineer for the entire company back in the 1950s. At that time, Nestle made most of its profits from arbitrage, the buying and selling of currencies. Over the past 50 years, Nestle has become a corrupt criminal enterprise and I do my best to avoid buying any products it makes including those made by subsidiary companies. That is not an easy task BTW since Nestle has acquired so many other food companies.


A Guy Got Jailed I Hear

For collecting rain water in his ponds. OH But it's okay because he has no right to it because the corporations and their government whores say so! See it infringes on their bottom lines!


When I was young, there was a law that you had to give it to

travelers in many of the western states.

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:

This is why gun contol is needed.

So that people like this can control everything.

We have an inalienable right

We have an inalienable right to PURSUE water, cellphones, health care, retirement funding, education, or anything else that we relate to happiness.

We don't have a right to RECEIVE, but the right to PURSUE. That's an extremely important difference when we are seeking peace and prosperity.

All of these things can in no way be inalienable rights, simply because they can be taken from you without your cooperation. The ability to develop your OWN definition of "happiness" and to pursue it in whatever way YOU think is effective under the circumstances cannot be taken away.

Others can coerce, persuade, and threaten to try and make you submit to their will, but the choice between following and fighting is always made by the individual.

This is what is meant by "inalienable". The individual always has to make that choice himself, and can always change his mind.

"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."

On the economic side.......

Water is a resource that exhibits the quality of scarcity. I order for that resource to increase human satisfaction as much as it can, it MUST be economized.

What better way to economize a scarce resource than by letting some rich fuQer apply economic calculations and set a price high enough to keep greedy people from wasting it. Water, or any scarce resource, should only be used for projects in which the input is LESS VALUABLE than the output. This is the profit/loss test.

That's right, greedy rich guys protecting our scarce resources from the rest of us greedy poor folks from wasting what water we do have. Can we do the same for health care, please?

"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."

A better way is for

People who use water - like this greedy FUQER, should pay the rest of us significant rent for the water he takes out of circulation - equal to the lost value of all the others that want to use it. Then we would see how bad he needs it. Otherwise the economics are based on luck - who finds the water or who has the excess capital at the time to sequester it and save it to use in the future.

Basically, we divide up all of the water on earth evenly amongst all of the people. Nestle could make us an offer for the water, that each of us(or our agent) could either accept or reject. The closer we get to the minimum amount of water needed to survive, the higher the price would get for nestle. If we all wanted lake Michigan to stay as it is, his price would be really high and he might re-examine his priorities.

I agree the chocolate fuhrer

I agree the chocolate fuhrer here should probably be held to criminal charges and forced to pay resitution for stolen property taken from the people whose wells went dry because his company was sucking water from an aquafur that was partially under their private property. If we had a system that understood property rights, what this guy is doing would be criminal. Theft.

I see no problem with a guy draining an aquafur dry to sell the water if he owns 100% of the land above the water source, though I imagine some environmental group or another would have a thing or two to say on the matter(for better or worse).

Sucking people's well's dry is a direct assault against them. It completly destroys the value of their private property and forces them to move. Its an attack against their property and liberty rights.

Companies like Nestle who want to monopolize water are the argument for citizens owning their own land in mass, and courts upholding those property rights. One of the more frightening and possibly intentional consequences of the housing crash, is that it is wiping out citizen ownership of land in America. Our property is being confiscated by the cartel banks in staggering amounts. If you don't own your land, you have no say in who is sucking the water out of the ground beneath it.

Property rights are absolutly integral to a free society.

FLOW - For The Love of Water

PLEASE watch this video when you can. Even if you have to watch it in segments. It is long but VERY informative. Nestle took control of water in Montana I think it was and drained so much water out of the aquifer that it caused rural wells to dry up for miles around. Not to mention what damage their plastic bottles have caused. They didn't pay one dime to the state for the water either. PLEASE learn about this! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3RL0vbWZLg


Thank you.

Inspiring video.

Start at 55 minutes in for today

The part about Nestle is only 10 or 15 minutes, and it really puts this interview into context.
Thanks for posting skippy.

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:

Thank you.

Inspiring. Beautiful.

I disagree with him about

I disagree with him about organic foods, but as for water, he is spot on!

Water is a resource like any other.

If you want it, someone has to do all the work to bring it to you.

If you are really that thirsty you can get the water for yourself, but never demand someone provide water for you.

I like this man, we probably disagree on a few more things, but it seems like he understands market principles.

Nobody is demanding others

Nobody is demanding others provide them with water. If you want to know why he was talking about water you should look into it. Nestle has a lease for Lake Michigan and they have already pumped 2 feet of water, or so, out of lake michigan to be sold to the Chinese. They already have plans that in the near future they wont have to hide their dealings and will be able to nearly drain the lake in a very short amount of time.

Similar, T. Boone Pickens, the billionarie oil tycoon owns 60k acres in Texas and is installing a pumping system to drain the aquifure which is under his property, but it is also under at least one town which utilizes that water for their own survival.

The "Gold" of the 21 century has been said to be water; this is the main resource and huge corporations will be taking from those who are incapable of taking it. You will see, even rural areas begin to utilize public water -which uses leass water than if everybody had their own wells- so the city,town,township could lease water rights to huge corporations to siphon the water from underneath the ground.

Well, who "owns" Lake

Well, who "owns" Lake Michigan? If you believe it isn't "owned" by the citizens of Michigan, sound off. Isn't a lake a type of property? If the citizens of Michigan own Lake Michigan, how are they benefitting by leasing the lake?

Actually, Michigan doesn't

Actually, Michigan doesn't benefit at all from it, because the money they receive goes to pay the Feds for all of the things which the Feds force the States to accept; this is just the way Michigan(the State) decided to handle the situation, however, the people were never actually notified of such an agreement. It was only discovered when the water level was noticed to be lower, and upon investigation pumps were found. Upon digging further into this it was found the Michigan leased the Lake to Nestle. Unlike a land lease, it is entirely possible for Nestle to leave the lake dry, whereby it is no longer a lake.

Also, you cheerleaders never seem to answer to the fact that under the Constitution or Anarchism, Nestle would never be able to exist. So, how can Constitutionalists, libertaraian, or Anarchists support a corporation which needs an authoritarian government for itself to exist in the first place? I find it ironic, that a group of people who think the government either is too big and involved with business too much, or think that government shouldn't even exist at all, are supporting an entity which is the sole creation of the government which this group of people condemn. Don't any of you actually believe in principles or consistency?

The fact that people can use public waters

for this purpose is wrong.

Most of us dont and never had

Most of us dont and never had the right to water. Do you pay property taxes? Not your water. Water bill? Not your water. Drink water from a stream on federal land or park? Not your water. The government (a corporation) owns the water and youve always paid them to drink it.

Some get close to drinking water that is not owned

if you have a dug well that provides the water, your own garden, and a septic field that returns the water back to the land.

It also helps if you live on a river that flows past your house.

That is how I live and I am thankful not to be drinking from chemical water in old city pipes.

If you live in a city you are paying for the chemicals added and the pump to get the water to you and the employees at the treatment plant.

Try not paying your property

Try not paying your property taxes and you can kiss "your" happy well and river goodbye :)

The right to own vs the right to use water

No one has the right to own water. We all have the right to use water, since it is an integral part of the right to life.

How cute. Try telling that

How cute. Try telling that to your city after not paying your water bill or property taxes when they kick you off the property. Try not paying your taxes which goes to support parks and federal parks which has water on it. In the end youll be in prison drinking water that is still owned by the government which is a corporation.

We pay the city monopoly for the pipes

and the fluoride.

But yeah, taxes don't always follow natural rights.

The thing that bugs me is that when I return the water down the toilet. - they charge me again.

This might be my favorite comment of the week.

I stole it and posted it on Facebook.

So what I gathered from that is...

• Nestle is the world's largest "foodstuff" corporation bringing in approximately $65 Billion/year
• This Corporation is providing a "balance TO nature"? [not WITH nature]
• GMO Foods are "Safe" to consume
• It seems hard to find the words to express that humans have a Natural right to Nature
• It's better to classify WATER as a Value-driven resource for profit
• The role of any CEO is to maintain the success and growth of his/her enterprise
• It's more important to create jobs rather than provide access to clean water for human beings


"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Yes. Well said.


he who controls...

... a nations water supply, cares not who makes its laws.

I use Blue Wave, but don't expect one of THEIR silly taglines.

Water privatization isn't the issue.

People don't have a right to water, no more than they have a right to land. What they do have is a right to an environment in which they are able to acquire land and water and then protect it.

If you own land on a lake, a portion of the lake becomes your property. If another person or corporation pollutes or drains the lake on their own side, yet it affects the quality or stability of your water, it is a destruction of your property.

The issue is that these corporations are in league with the government. They are using money and influence to get away with polluting and ravaging water sources that belong to OTHER PEOPLE. They are attempting to create artificial shortages where none naturally exist by lobbying to control entire bodies of water that others use and possess. It's sick.

How can you own something you didn't create

And why should you ? In particular, water is reused, and recycled, so why should someone be able to sequester it, for their own personal benefit.

property rights are not universal, it is not a natural property right to own another human (even if they were to agree) (denying them Liberty), or the resources that the Human needs to live.

The reason the globalists and corporatists defeat libertarians is because we let them get away with, and even facilitate their owning of natural resources essential to life - Land, water, oil, etc.

It seems clear that natural law gives you the right to own the fruits of your labor, but I can't think of how natural law justifies why you should have a right to hold resources for only your own personal use (or simply to hoard if that's what you choose)? -Some things are not ever allowed to be money.