11 votes

Nestlé CEO Says That Water is Not An Essential Human Right

Peter Brabeck. The Jewish CEO of Nestle believes that access to water is not a human right and it should be charged for.

What next air?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iGj4GpAbTM&feature=player_em...

Comment viewing options

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

water is not an essential right

Individuals do not have rights to things.

Water is something that costs money to bottle, transport, and produce. Companies and individuals own springs and ponds and rivers, and even touching it without permission is against the law.

Now, Nestle can't tell you that you cannot go onto public land and collect water from a stream, or that you should be taxed for your well water at home, or that you should pay for the rain.

Therefore, the individual has no right to water except that which he/she obtains and owns lawfully. In that case, of course they have a right to their property. But the necessities for life (food and water and shelter) are simply, by principle and definition, not rights but fruits of lawful labor.

And, as for the Jewish labelling, you ought to leave that out. I understand the threat of Zionism, but that does not translate to collective prejudice toward any and all Jewish people. You know, there are Jewish anti-zionists.

well i don't think it can be broken down so easily

Do you pay a water bill? How about a waste water bill? Bottled water, do you not buy that? Water jugs for water coolers?

. That's what it breaks down to. Most fast food places will give you water for free or ask you to pay for the cup. lot of gas stations, and public places have water fountains where water is free.

this person is meaning it in a general way then I understand that circumstantially water should not be free since it was either processed through a waste water treatment plant or it was drawn from a spring it costs money to do these things and you are paying for the continued service. If you go to a fast food place and get water for free there you know that said fast food place is footing the bill since it isn't free for them but it is a courtesy. It is just something that has been done for so long it shouldn't need any explanation other than it being pretty well known by now that we need water to survive.

Homeland security statement: patriotism is now considered terrorism.
I love www.isidewith.com shared it with everyone I know. If anything they realize its not just a red and blue idiot running for reelection.

Great point!!! Nestle didn't

Great point!!!

Nestle didn't take the water. Nestle's CUSTOMERS did. That means every person who purchased bottled water. THAT MEANS YOU AND ME!!!

How is water conserved? Nestle bottles it up and charges a price. Those willing to provide for others, and spend the proceeds on the water get it. Those that don't want to provide for others and exchange the proceeds for water are no longer able to waste it.

TADA, rich, greedy bastards saving the world from wasteful collective ownership....AGAIN!!!

PS. If Nestle is lowering the water levels, then they OBVIOUSLY aren't charging enough.

"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."

I'm confused

Why is he the "Jewish CEO" and not just the "CEO"?

Take back the GOP and Restore America Now.

Would " Zionist " Have Suited You Better?

The guy is a NWO pig. He wants to take and sell ALL the water in the WORLD. In Montana Nestle took so much water out of the aquifer that it dried up peoples wells for MILES around. Nestle TOOK the water for FREE to bottle and sell and left farms with no water at all. The people sued Nestle in a class action suit and lost because Nestle had too much power and money to beat. Please watch this video on what these crony corporations are doing worldwide.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaB9wiaFzPc

skippy

Be honest, you know why he is

Be honest, you know why he is the 'Jew CEO'.

There is an undercurrent of anti-Semitism that runs through the Daily Paul and sometimes by design, sometimes inadvertently, it surfaces in posts like these.

First off

Jews are not Semites and Judaism is Talmudism.

The only anti is anti non-Jews.

Luke 3:38
Isaiah 43:3-5

Merriam Webster

hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group

This is the definition I'm using for the purpose of this discussion.

I prefer to deal

I prefer to deal in day to day reality that has a serious impact on the lives of the dumb goyim. Not some Jewish publication.

Ask yourself why Jews have been kicked out of 109 countries throughout history. If there existed a natural 'anti semitic' aversion to Jews, and there should be, how was it possible that Jewish people entered so many new territories with no resistance?

Time to drop the always the victim psychological barrier that makes non Jews their prey.

"It's a Trick, We Always Use It." (calling people "anti-Semitic")
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUGVPBO9_cA

Luke 3:38
Isaiah 43:3-5

Yup, blatant

Yup, blatant collectivism...... and prejudice.

I'm curious. Are you supportive of anti-immigration policies as well?

"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."

These people, rather this person...

is absolutely and unconscionably projecting his belief that water is not essential to human life, if in fact it is not essential as a right...

technically it may not be a "right", but it doesn't need to be, because it is already "inherent to our survival"..."rights" have nothing to do with those things inherent to survival.

Without water we die, therefore it is pretty essential and by default a right for survival itself.

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

What about food? What about

What about food?

What about medicine?

Having a 'right' to something

Having a 'right' to something doesn't mean that someone else has to provide it to you. Having a 'right' to something means that one cannot be denied the ability to provide that something for themselves.

So for food, one could say that hunting and fishing licenses would violate a persons right to food -which directly stems from ones right to life. Also, one could say that making medicinal plants illegal would violate a persons right to medicine -which may also be considered an extension of ones right to life.

However, having a 'right' to life, water, food, medicine or whatever doesn't mean that someone else has to provide those to you. Does having a 'right' to self-defence mean that someone has to defend you if you are unwilling or unable to defend yourself? Does the 'right' to bear arms mean that someone has to provide you with arms or that someone has to bear arms for you?

This is a great

This is a great answer.

You're absolutely right. What if what you need to survive is being withheld through property rights?

Would property rights be superseded by their right to pursue food and water? Should govt. step in for their relief or should they illegally resort to theft and violence?

The government has land which

The government has land which they claim to be public land; if this is the case than one need not worry about what an individual landowner would do, since everybody owns government land. Therefore the government cannot prohibit hunting or fishing on government land.

If there was no such thing as government, and therefore no such thing as government land, then one could assume that things would be far more different than they currently are; and that there would possibly be no need for people to be on other people's property.

Property rights would be equal to all other rights. A starving individual has no more authority to prohibit you from using your property -while they hunt and fish- then you have to prohibit the starving individual his life. The starving individual would actually be violating the property owners rights by hunting or fishing without permission, and therefore would be in the wrong. This is the case, because the property is static -it doesn't move- and as such the starving individual could easily move somewhere else to do his/her hunting and fishing.

bump

until you try to work land our west, you do not really understand about "water wars." But you will understand soon.
Actually, they already took the air. They control the airwaves, and retain the right to fly over you (and spy on you.) And of course, geo-engineering with no one's consent.

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say the Bush family

is somehow involved:

The land, near the town of Chaco, sits atop huge natural gas reserves, according to sources in Asuncion.

Moreover, the land deal was consummated in a dinner meeting between Bush's daughter Jenna and Paraguayan President Nicanor Duarte.

The Bush land is close to a new U.S. military installation, the Mariscal Estigarribia Air Base.

It is also nearby a huge tract of land purchased by Sun Myung Moon that sits astride Latin America's largest water aquifer, the Guarani aquifer.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol...

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know Peace." - Jimi Hendrix

You're right on

Was going to reply the same about Bush buying the land over the pristine aquifer. Before the purchase the UN had decreed water could be owned by an individual and sold. People didn't have a right to get water.

Deekey

Check this out...and then be very afraid.

UN Agenda 21 is moving very fast.
http://pambazuka.org/en/category/comment/77639

UN venture to privatise water country by country

It will probably be a "public-private partnership" that no one will even know about because it will be couched in ambiguous terms... until there is some question about price, quality, etc., when residents will be told it's none of their business. The rights of "private corporations" will prevent anyone from seeing records.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Nevada Desert

It is about the fact that when the Illuminati blow up the Hoover Dam they will empty out the deep huge underwater lakes under Nevada homeowners who have personal private wells that are tapped into to keep their Casinos and Hollywood Elitists alive...They have been trying to charge well owners for this water use for years..I still filter my well water but it tastes ten times better straight from the tap than that chemical, iodine, fluoride, ca ca invested sewer water the city uses from Lake Mead...Agenda 21 again..

This water issue has been

This water issue has been bothering me for a while. I understand the need for the recognition of property rights, but how does one legitimately homestead water that is part of a lake/aquifer/river/ocean in a sustainable fashion that does not ultimately result in all the water reservoirs becoming drained of this precious resource?

Can anybody recommend some literature or an explanation that adequately deals with the issue of water resource allocation?

Extensive magnum opus not

Extensive magnum opus not needed, actually.

The evil rich guy that homesteads the water charges a price high enough to keep it from being used on stupid things, thereby allocating the water to the most important uses.

How else are scarce resources allocated and reserved. No one complains about the oil running out, they complain about it being expensive. We would use MORE, but we can't afford it. We only use oil when we can justify the price. The evil rich guys in the mid east conserve and properly allocate the oil as a byproduct of their GREED. 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."

What happens when one

What happens when one individual, corporation, or government doesn't own the entirety of the land fore-which the resources are under? What happen when only one person out of many land owners -which the resource is under- want to sell said resource, but the other land owners do not want to sell it?

Comparing the middle east and whatever their property rights are, with the conception of property rights most Americans were raised with is illegitimate. Do you even know who 'owns' the land above the oil fields?

It is a different story if one individual owns the entirety of the land above a resource, as opposed to owning only a fraction of the land.

If you and I were neighbours and you found gold beneath your property, and the gold vein travelled beneath my property as well, you do not have the right to take the gold out from beneath my property; so why should you be able to take oil, natural gas, or water which is also beneath my property?

I was simply answering the

I was simply answering the question in the post that I replied to: How are scarce resources allocated?

The answer is to let a rich, greedy bastard own it, believe it or not, and let them charge a DEAR price for it. This way, if a person wants to waste water, it'll cost them, and they'll soon run out of purchasing power, thereby protecting said scarce resource from irresponsible uses.

"Who REALLY owns the resource" is a moral question, has nothing to do with economizing and allocating the scarce resource in question.

"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."

You are obfuscating the real

You are obfuscating the real problem, the questions I posed to you; which is, does an individual own that which is beneath the land one owns? If one does, then how can ones neighbour take that which is beneath ones own land? This is about property rights. Not all below ground resources are able to be purchased by one individual, corporation, or government. If one individual does not own the rights -in their entirety- to the resources beneath the ground, then does an individual have a right to exhaust the resources completely?

You seem to be enamoured with using the words rich, greedy bastard. Nobody is arguing against capitalism. People are just trying to figure out how somebody can claim ownership over something which is not beneath their land; or of something which they have no ownership of.

Again, I wasn't answering

Again, I wasn't answering "who owns the water". I was answering "how are scarce resources allocated".

I'm not obfuscating the problem of "who owns it". I'm simply not addressing it. I was simply answering the specific question in the post above.

I find that it quite comical that the ones worried about conserving our resources usually attempt political maneuvers AGAINST the ones that ACTUALLY conserve our resources. It's like some people thought Dr. Seuss's "The Lorax" was a documentary, lol.

I agree with you on the mess the gov't made by the violation of property rights, FWIW.

"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."

First of all, the question

First of all, the question which you say you were responding to was, "How does one homestead water?" You never actually answered that question. What you did do was to propose that one individual owns an entire water source. If an individual owns an entire water source, then who really cares what that individual does with it? The problem arises when one individual doesn't own the entirety of the water source, but they want to sell all of the water.

Here is the question I

Here is the question I intended to answer, in quotes:

"Can anybody recommend some literature or an explanation that adequately deals with the issue of water resource allocation?"

Answer: Let someone have full property rights and charge a high enough price to conserve 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."