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?


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

I'm a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

and the law in this Commonwealth is that water is a resource completely owned by all residents of the state. No one can claim ownership of the water, only the property under it or around it. This means that if you wish to press the issue and hover over a private pond you can lower a bucket into it and retrieve water as long as you don't trespass upon the physical property. No entity is allowed to charge for water, only for the cost of packaging, treating and transporting it to your domicile or store.
There have been instances that have found their way into our courts where property owners which controlled both sides of a river sought to deny access to anyone other than individuals who held membership to their private clubs. A precedent was pulled from the past that if a body of water was ever used as a navigable water way in a commercial manner then those water ways were open to the public due to the water being Commonwealth (ie the peoples) property. In this particular instance the river had been used for commerce in the past for floating logs down to a mill. You can walk down the river from the high water mark to high water mark on either side but not set foot above.

There are no politicians or bankers in foxholes.

Pennsylvania's ethical take on water

I wonder if other states have similar laws - also what good they'll do if the federal gov't signs on to UN's privatisation plans.

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

Error Post


There are no politicians or bankers in foxholes.

I prefer Hershey's anyway...


And he is right.

Water may be a necessity for survival, but you do not have the right to other people's property.

You have no right to take my water bottle from me and claim it's your "essential human right".

Secondly, what does it matter that he is Jewish?

Is this supposed to convey that he is evil?

What a completely ignorant post.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

it's not about private property rights

I agree that the mention of him being Jewish was unnecessary. But I think what he is talking about is not merely about respecting private property rights, but rather the privatization of public water sources. It's the kind of thing done in public-private partnerships, where the Government gives the ownership of public property to a private organization who will then make a profit off of it while promising to maintain it and make a more efficient use of it. I suspect that he want's governments to give the ownership of water to Nestle(his company), so it's almost like he is saying that he wants the Government to give public property to him. Obviously just a push to profit at the expense of peoples rights. It's really a matter of removing your right to access what is currently public property. When all water is privatized, it's not unforeseeable that large organizations might try to monopolize water and render natural sources like rain unusable through pollution or whatever for the sake of profit, and may push to outlaw water filters because of something like a supposed terrorist figuring out how to make a bomb out of one. Yeah, let property owners sell their own water, but giving public water sources away to private companies concerned with profit doesn't seem right.

question is, what water?

question is, what water? which water, how much water? does this include the 14 springs and 5 cubic feet per second of water I own on my property?

You seriously don't know what

You seriously don't know what it is in reference to. Lets say that we(you and I) are neighbours, and we each utilize an underground aquifer-beneath both of our properties- for our water consumption. The water is under both of our land; do you have the right to drain the aquifer?

Nestle is actually draining lake Michigan via contract they got via the government. Nestle has already lowered Lake Michigan by 2 inches in a few years. Do they have the right to do this; or worse, completely drain the lake?

T. Boone Pickens bought 63k acres in Texas over part of an aquifer -which is not only beneath his property but also beneath other people's properties as well. Does he have the right to drain the aquifer? He has plans to do it, because water is becoming the new gold.

This is what the water issue is about.

Because water is a fluid it is not relegated to a set location. If some of the water is moved from the aquifer, then water from under somebody else's land moves to fill that now vacant spot. Does the person with the largest pump -aka the person with the most money- have the right to take all of the water, even when it is not solely beneath his/her property?

I obviously don't agree with everything Nestle does.

I'm just stating that the claim that water is an "essential human right" is false.

I agree that Nestle did not homestead that land or water rights, and received it illegitimately through cronyism from the State which also does not rightfully own the land or water rights.

But, the claim that water is a human right doesn't hold any water. (pun definitely intended)

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

I think it is possible to

I think it is possible to argue against what you said.

Water is necessary for life, and one does have a basic right to life does one not? Therefore, if one has a right to life, then does one not have a right to that which is needed and necessary to sustain life. This is the same premise which the right of self defence comes from; since we have a right to life, then we must also have a right to defend such life.

Make no mistake about it; I'm not suggesting that people have a right to demand somebody else provide for them. I am just stating that others don't have the right to take away that which -by one reason or another- is not the sole property of said individual(s).

I don't believe that what this man wants is . . .

ethical or moral or in any way good--

but, unfortunately, poor people around the world have, for centuries, if not longer, found it difficult to have clean water.

Even in America's fluoridated society--

it takes money some of *us* don't have (or struggle to get) to have clean water--

so, as much as I disagree with this man, he's just saying what is already happening.

I have to pay for water in my municipality, and then I have to pay to filter it so that I (and my family) can drink it healthily--

for those of us with lower incomes the cost of the water is a higher amount of our income than it is for those with more money--anyway.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

I was just turned down for a mortgage refinance

from the same company who refinanced me two years ago and I used most of the cash out then to do improvements on my property. The reason given was that my water comes from an artesian spring. Perhaps if I form a corporation which sells me the water they might reconsider?

There are no politicians or bankers in foxholes.

Everyone was mortgaging their house taking out capital.

I wish I had been more like my old man. He bought his land, built his house and debt motivated him to be debt-free.

I started thinking of my home as an asset that I would pay interest on forever. *face palm*. Everybody was doing it. That should have been a clue.

In spite of everything, when I priced my home in gold I had paid twice as much measured in ounces of gold or silver than I owe in $FRN to the mortgage holder. Priced in Gold, this place has held it value in gold for 100 years or more.

People have been fooled by real Estate prices not the Real Wealth that the home represents.

Foreclosure for banks, means nabbing an asset whose actual value is double what prices $FRN seem to indicate. It's a the great land swindle of the 21th Century

Originally we purchased this property land contract.

A private investor may see the artesian Well as an asset or a source of income. Investors want to maximize interest collected for a level of risk exposure.

Banks are more interested in their Swindle.

Free includes debt-free!

I agree about the swindle

Why let someone off the hook for 3.5 percent when you have them at 4.5? That's why I am trying to refinance. I definitely view my well as an asset and would never disturb it. The water is tested pure and is even sweet to the taste while the amount of water it produces is somewhat troublesome. The water table is about 8 inches above my basement floor and on a slow day I must pump at least 500 gallons out through a sump pump, if I were a more ambitious individual I might have started a brewery. If the power fails, as it does quite regularly in my area, and I'm not home to start the generator the basement floods within an hour.

There are no politicians or bankers in foxholes.

That's awesone. Is the pressure and flow constant?


Founded in 1926, Arbor Springs Water Company is a leading bottled water delivery company in the greater Southeastern Michigan area.

Their water is also very pleasant tasting.

The capacity to produce 100-5 gallon bottles a day.
1 - Gallon Artesian Water
$5.20 / Case of 4

5 - Gallon Artesian Water
$5.75 / Bottle

Half a mortgage payment a day, that'd tempt me.

ULINE has a case of 48 Milk Jugs for $.99ea.

A couple of pallets in the S-10 truck bed, some shrink rap and I'm off.

500 gal/day. 50% loss. 250 days/yr. 60,000 gallons/year.

Production cost: Jugs $60,000.oo
Pumping $.01/100gal $6.oo

$.10/gallon profit = $6,000 per year.

I look for things that make me money. I'm one a hill, but harvesting this wind isn't technologically feasible.

Free includes debt-free!

The cost of doing business

with the bureaucratic nightmare is the problem. I would be required to bottle off the of premises, my home is zoned residential and any type of commercial activity is strictly prohibited, and that would necessitate the purchase of a tank truck. I once had a hot dog cart which required the State Department of Agriculture to come to my home to inspect my water supply. This bozo demanded I dig up the well in order for him to ascertain it's source. I politely told him to fXXX off, that I wouldn't endanger the well and that I would get a certification from another source. You can have the water tested all you like, if they think you are not in the "norm" they will screw with you. There are about six neighbors on this same spring, back in the 50's the lake I live at was a resort area and all their homes were vacation places. This pressure from this spring supplied water to their kitchen sinks without a pump. We are surrounded by mountains and I suppose the water draining down feeds the spring. I value this water supply more than anything in the world. As far as reliability of it, I have an over flow pipe which comes through my basement wall about eight inches above the floor. Since 1994 it has never stopped running. It actually drove me crazy when I first moved in, the sound of trickling water was incessant. It took me about a year to find the pipe and realize what was going on.

There are no politicians or bankers in foxholes.

Short Lesson

Water is not a right. Physical objects are not rights. If you own the water, then you have a right to act to protect it from theft or pollution.

Because you need an object to survive does not mean you have a right to the object.

You have a right to self preservation. That does not mean you have a right to a gun, ie a right for someone else to buy you a gun.

By the same right of self preservation you have a right to arrange to trade goods or services in exchange for healthcare services. You even have a right to do so if the law says that the person may not provide those services unless the person has permission, ie a license, to do so.

You do not have a right to force that person to provide that service, nor do you have a right to force another to pay the provider.

Obviously you do not have a right to air either. Now the matter of where and when air becomes property is interesting but another lesson, but the short version is it costs more to assert property rights than one gains by doing so, so it's not property. When water is superabundant no one cares. When it's in short supply the cost to maintain property rights is lower than the cost not to do so, and water becomes property.

Wanna bet Monsanto is paying attention

and working furiously to figure out how to create genetically modified versions of oxygen and H20. Once they over come the hurdle of either not having genes look out.

There are no politicians or bankers in foxholes.

Monstanto is fully fascised

and needs to die. Monsanto is the poster child for rent seeking. They only exist at all because of state force. Subsidies, protective regulation, and IP law all force taxpayers to pay to protect their rent seeking.

Monsanto could become a force for good, if the government withdrew all support. Then it would have to compete and either succeed, or be broken up and its resource used more efficiently to please customers.

Everything bad that Monsanto does is only possible, essentially, because people believe in democracy.

The myth of democracy that waters the weed of fascism.

when you mentioned that he was Jewish . . .

I felt a sigh coming on--

yes, it's blatant disregard for humanity; how many corporate heads don't have a blatant disregard for humanity?

Nestle has always been a quagmire. They don't even have high quality chocolate.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Nestle tastes better in

Nestle tastes better in Europe. Only Amerikan's eat bad chocolate!!

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

I didn't.

I didn't.


By the fact that you included that he's Jewish. Why??? What role does that play. Do you introduce your friends like that? This is my friend Bill the Christian and my friend Betty the Atheist. How weird.

What timemark is the comment of water not being

a right?

Let's see here.... ...LIFE,

Let's see here....

...LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT of property...

Nope, water isn't there. Neither is food, housing, health care, retirement,...........

Rights are always possessed by the individual. They need only to be recognized and protected by others. An individual doesn't ALWAYS have access to water, food, etc., therefore these things can't possibly be rights.

You have the right to PURSUE water. Nestle has the right to PURSUE water. None have a right to be SUCCESSFUL in life's pursuits, only the right to PURSUE.

"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."

pursuit of property?

property = happiness ?

Actually he originally wrote

Actually he originally wrote "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property" as this was the way it was phrased. People were used to that phrase, but they couldn't put it that way because it would be too close to saying that slaves have the right to property, which slaveholders didn't like so they changed it.

The original is correct, and what they in fact wrote is meaningless. You have the right to pursue property unimpeded by coercive force, ie statist force. You do not however have the right to property.

Sure, if you're

Sure, if you're materialistic!!!

...But I was talking about bill of rights, not the declaration of independence. From THE FIF!!!:

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

"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."

That's the way it was

That's the way it was originally written but since many of the founders were slave owners they had to change it to happiness!

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

Alexander Hamilton was the proto-progressive.

We are living Hamilton's dream, but it's our nightmare.

Free includes debt-free!