Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Water in Objectivist Society

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

How would water work in Objectivist Society?

Would'nt it just be possible for Companies to buy the water and make it nearly impossible for people other then the incredibly wealthy to purchase?

This is a question that has been plauging me for awhile, because water is'nt like cars, or food, there is no alternative, you need water or you'll die very quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no economist, but it seems to me that water-selling businesses wouldn't do that, because their main consumer would be the lower and middle classes. Also, I think the lower classes would turn to local landowners with water on their properties, and would try to find viable sources of water themselves, which would take customers away from the major companies, not something any business wants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no economist, but it seems to me that water-selling businesses wouldn't do that, because their main consumer would be the lower and middle classes. Also, I think the lower classes would turn to local landowners with water on their properties, and would try to find viable sources of water themselves, which would take customers away from the major companies, not something any business wants.

So that basically there would be a vacuum in the market for affordable water that would be filled by a different company? In that case the buisness that had less pricy water would force the other company out of buisness or force them to lower their prices down?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you can already buy water from a number of private sources, or if you live in an area that will allow it, dig your own well. Besides that, I would imagine it would be run much like it is now, except instead of the government running it, private businesses would run it and do a far better job. I don't see what good it would do for the business to price the water out of range for its consumers because who would then buy it? Also, I can't help but wonder how many more advances there would be by now if the government hadn't been controlling the water supply all this time. Perhaps making sea water potable would be the norm by now? I don't know, those are just my thoughts, but I'm still new to all this too. I'm sure someone else will throw some other thoughts at ya. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen multiple posts/questions on this very question ("necessary" natural resources in a free-market society), including one posted yesterday here

The search feature is very helpful to browse old posts, I'd suggest checking the archives incase your question has already been expertly answered :)

and welcome

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[in a society built and governed on Objectivist principles], would [it not] be possible for Companies to buy the water and make it nearly impossible for people other then the incredibly wealthy to purchase?

Let us suppose there is a hypothetical Ellsworth Toohey water conglomerate that seeks to purchase as much of the vital resource as it possible for the nihilistic purpose of watching human civilization dehydrate. Even then, I still doubt that Toohey's hypothetical conglomerate would accumulate enough water to be of significant influence. Most importantly, I doubt that a rational populace would continue selling this unscrupulous company water, especially after their diabolical plot is exposed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt that a rational populace would continue selling this unscrupulous company water, especially after their diabolical plot is exposed.

Not only that but they would also most likely refuse to buy from such an unscrupulous business, opting instead to support a good/rational businessman or provide for their own source like capturing rainwater or drilling a well on their own property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only 'problem' I see is groundwater which is a resource like oil or coal in some areas, i.e. limited or only slowly regenerating. Here is the question if you may drill for water pumping away the water resources of your neighbor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would water work in Objectivist Society?

Wouldn't it just be possible for Companies to buy the water and make it nearly impossible for people other then the incredibly wealthy to purchase?

This is a question that has been plaguing me for awhile, because water isn't like cars, or food, there is no alternative, you need water or you'll die very quickly.

This is the kind of questions where Ethics and Metaphysics meet. See ethics is based on the nature of humans, but also on the nature of the world (that is my take on it, I didn't actually read it in Objectivism anywhere).

To quote Ayn Rand:

"What is morality, or ethics? It is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code."

(The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 13)

Further, Ayn Rand identifies that the purpose is one's own life, or his happiness (happiness being a "successful state of living" to quote Rand.)

In social context, Objectivism holds that each man must live for his own sake, not as a slave nor as a master. This gives rise to the concept of rights.

Fine. But ethics for man is not ethics is a vacuum. We live in a certain environment that allows us to live.

What would be the point of telling a man that he must think in order to produce his value, if no substance for producing his values existed? None. In such a case ethics would have been useless because men would not have a choice or means to sustain their lives.

In the case of limited water, men do have the means to sustain their life, but more limited. Each man with access to water will have to decide the kind of life he wants to have; if others know of the water fountain as well, he can expect them to uprise against him if he tried to deny them access (because for them this would be a fight for survival). He will need to chose if he wants to live as an individual warrior or as part of peaceful society. If he wishes to live as part of society, he will need to agree to divide the water in a way that allows others to survive as well.

In my view, the guidance ethics can offer in this case is to provide the question - which course of life is better suited for man's nature? Which can bring him more happiness?

This could be an invalid question because different people may have different answers (because they have different nature), but in my view, this is the question that ethics as a science needs to answer, in order to answer the question of appropriate action in case of limited resources.

So my approach is that ethics is always needed as long as a man has a choice about living (that the nature of his environment is such that it provides the means to live). It is just metaphysics that changes (the nature of his environment), so ethics should change accordingly, or provide further guidance accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ifat, if you're trying to figure this out, then why are you speaking in the form of an answer, rather than in the form of a question? It's fine that you've said you're not sure of Objectivism's answer to this question, but that doesn't change the fact that this forum is a place for questions about Objectivism and answers from the perspective of Objectivism (or at least, that's the idea). It is not a place for answers from perspectives other than Objectivism or from those who do not know Objectivism (again, that's the idea anyway). The tendency on the internet is for everyone to just feel free to chime in with whatever is on the mind, as if that is valuable thing from anyone and everyone (no matter their knowledge or philosophy) - but that is explicitly not the purpose of this place.

I'm not saying that's what you're trying to do here. I'm sure you can re-phrase your post into something that fits the purpose of this forum. But you may be accidentally wandering into that territory and I'd just like to remind you and everyone else what this place is supposed to be.

If you think you have the correct answer about or application of Objectivism, then by all means try to answer the question. If you don't or aren't sure, then please restrict your posts to asking questions, rather than trying to give answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think you have the correct answer about or application of Objectivism, then by all means try to answer the question.

That's what I did.

If you don't or aren't sure, then please restrict your posts to asking questions, rather than trying to give answers.

Even if I want to ask questions, I should first present the relevant material (and/or conclusions from it) that my questions are based on, which is also what I did.

So in short, your advice is completely rejected. And also not appreciated.

If you wish to continue arguing about my post, you'd have to do it through a moderator. Because I don't consider such argument with you worthy of my time, and therefore will not invest any more time into it unless forced to.

And FYI: I am going to continue my next posts in exactly the same manner as this last one was (which means, using knowledge of Objectivism side by side with independent thinking and analysis). I see no collision with forum rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the kind of questions where Ethics and Metaphysics meet. See ethics is based on the nature of humans, but also on the nature of the world (that is my take on it, I didn't actually read it in Objectivism anywhere).

How is the nature of the modern world not one in which man depends on resources that others have in order to survive? Your water scenario is no different than the scenario of a person who lives in the middle of the city with no easy access to farmland to grow his own food. Is the city resident justified in going into the grocery store and simply taking what he wants?

Fine. But ethics for man is not ethics is a vacuum. We live in a certain environment that allows us to live.

Mans survival depends on his reason. Man changes his environment to support his own life.

What would be the point of telling a man that he must think in order to produce his value, if no substance for producing his values existed? None. In such a case ethics would have been useless because men would not have a choice or means to sustain their lives.

If no substance for producing his values existed, there would be no man to be told to think. Life is a value, and to keep life we must sustain our lives - if no substance exists by which we can sustain our lives, then we're dead. The dead need no ethics.

So my approach is that ethics is always needed as long as a man has a choice about living (that the nature of his environment is such that it provides the means to live). It is just metaphysics that changes (the nature of his environment), so ethics should change accordingly, or provide further guidance accordingly.

Man is a rational being. Everything we know from infancy comes from the rational development of concepts from precepts. Reason tells us that as rational being, ethics are, in fact, not dependent upon variances in environment.

If the man in your scenario controls all the water, and denies access unilaterally and irrationally, than of course he can expect an irrational response. Does that make his total denial of water to all others ethical?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is the nature of the modern world not one in which man depends on resources that others have in order to survive?

I never said such a thing.

Your water scenario is...

What is my water scenario? I don't see what scenario you're talking about.

Mans survival depends on his reason. Man changes his environment to support his own life.

I agree - what's your point?

If no substance for producing his values existed, there would be no man to be told to think. Life is a value, and to keep life we must sustain our lives - if no substance exists by which we can sustain our lives, then we're dead. The dead need no ethics.

Again, I agree. What's your point? It seems like your answers are in opposition to mine by the way you present them, but I don't see any collision.

Man is a rational being. Everything we know from infancy comes from the rational development of concepts from precepts.

I agree, but don't see your point.

Reason tells us that as rational being, ethics are, in fact, not dependent upon variances in environment.

What do you mean by "variance in environment"?

If the man in your scenario controls all the water,

I never had such scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...if others know of the water fountain as well, he can expect them to uprise against him if he tried to deny them access (because for them this would be a fight for survival). He will need to chose if he wants to live as an individual warrior or as part of peaceful society.
Ifat, How is this different from the argument that some make about the mixed economy and welfare, saying it is necessary to throw some charity to the poor so that they do not rise up and overthrow others? I assume you'll say that the water situation is more specific because it can be objectively shown that rational people must have water to survive. In other words, are you saying that there are some things that are really core "survival needs" to which people have some type of right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's fine that you've said you're not sure of Objectivism's answer to this question, but that doesn't change the fact that this forum is a place for questions about Objectivism and answers from the perspective of Objectivism (or at least, that's the idea).

I think it's fair to say that Ifat was trying to answer the question from the perspective of Objectivism--she's been on this forum for a while and we know her to be a genuine student of Objectivism (albeit one I very often disagree with). It is certainly important to keep the non-Objectivist lurkers from mistaking opinions of posters for official Objectivist positions, so we do thank you for your alertness, but in this case, I think it is reasonably clear from Ifat's posting that she was just sharing her own take (and I see other posters, including softwareNerd, are already challenging her on it).

*** Mod's note: For follow-up discussion on what is allowed/not-allowed within the forum's rules, check this thread. - sN ***

Edited by softwareNerd
Added topic-split notice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is my water scenario? I don't see what scenario you're talking about.

This water scenario:

In the case of limited water, men do have the means to sustain their life, but more limited. Each man with access to water will have to decide the kind of life he wants to have; if others know of the water fountain as well, he can expect them to uprise against him if he tried to deny them access (because for them this would be a fight for survival). He will need to chose if he wants to live as an individual warrior or as part of peaceful society. If he wishes to live as part of society, he will need to agree to divide the water in a way that allows others to survive as well.

I agree - what's your point?

That your assertion that ethics must change based on the scenario is incorrect.

What do you mean by "variance in environment"?

"It is just metaphysics that changes (the nature of his environment),"

Variance in environment means changes in the nature of his environment.

I never had such scenario.

Then what was your discussion of a case of limited water?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ifat, How is this different from the argument that some make about the mixed economy and welfare, saying it is necessary to throw some charity to the poor so that they do not rise up and overthrow others? I assume you'll say that the water situation is more specific because it can be objectively shown that rational people must have water to survive. In other words, are you saying that there are some things that are really core "survival needs" to which people have some type of right?

No, I am definitely NOT saying politics should be such to give people some sort of "right" for a product produced by someone else, or a right to get food on their table. Not even in a case of limited resources.

I want to step back and examine the concept of rights. (this is gonna be a bit long, but if you follow this the conclusion at the end should be clear, I hope).

O'ist ethics hold that one's own life is one's purpose (his life, not anyone else's). Now if environment is such that men can survive by producing what they need from the planet, then people can co-exist in society respecting each others actions to maintain their individual life. Ethics, as a science, tells us that the only way for ethics for a single man to exist for all men in society is by "rights".

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life
(The virtue of selfishness, man's rights).

What happens in a situation when men's only option of survival is by turning other men to means to sustain their lives? (like a lifeboat situation). The concept of rights is completely impossible in that case. Ethics as a science cannot resolve the question of how can man survive in such a society. Ethics as a science can only go as far as telling each man that his own life is his purpose, but it cannot establish a political system that would not contradict ethics for a single man. It cannot say "you sir, it's ok for you to kill this man" "but you, sir, it's not ok for you fight back". If it tells both men that their own life should be their purpose, it must be consistent in a social context and say to men that they should respect each other's lives.

So in my view, the concept of rights is non-existent in situations when men are forced to choose between their own existence and the existence of others.

Rights do not exist, but ethics for a single man still do. Which is why if the world is such that resources are limited, I would be justified in fighting in whatever way I can to get hold of those resources. So fighting another man for access to water is justified.

Now suppose a group of people, who all share a lake, wants to live together, in the best way possible for them under circumstances, they can establish some sort of agreement among themselves. (would be somewhat cruel) but something like limitations on amount of kids they can have, and how much water each men gets.

But I don't think you can ethically impose this rule on a grown man. This is a tough subject though, I'll need to think about it some more.

So now to finally get to your question about welfare:

In case of welfare, the world is such that it has all the resources necessary for men's survival. Some men just fail to extract it. In case of limited water, the resources are limited. Even if each man was super-efficient, super-rational and smart, resources would still be lacking. In such a case, like I explained, I don't think the concept of "rights" is valid, I don't think it can exist in such context. The question of existing in society becomes practical (what is best for each man to do under his specific circumstances) but not moral.

I may have been wrong here somewhere along the way, this subject is tough (smoke coming out of ears)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, Ifat, if I were to summarize, you are saying that the following is part of the context or assumption upon which we derive a political system: man can survive independently if he really has to; while it is a great advantage to associate and trade with other men, it is not a requirement for survival.

In other words, the example of a man controlling all the water available "blows the orignal context".

So, the "man buys all the water" is like a life-boat scenario, only the lifeboat reaches an island, and the 10 occupants head out to set up camp. One finds a fresh-water spring, but cannot claim -- in the context of the political system that they would require -- that he has sole right to it.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I'm going to have to reject this question as absurd.

So someone will - somehow - have enough money to buy up all the water everywhere, on planet earth, and then refuse to sell it.

Remember, this isn't a set price here. The beauty of capitalism lies in the fact that money flows to the safest investments. Even assuming some retarded heir running his business into the ground by purchasing up more water sources but selling to only a tiny fraction of his customer base, so as he expands selling water will become a safer and safer investment. He eventually goes out of business, whatever water he controls is sold off piecemeal, and all is right with the world.

So the answer to your theoretical question is: it wouldn't happen. Freedom guards capitalism from such monstrous people succeeding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This must have been asked before but I can't find anything specifically. A more plausible problem with water is how does one commodify ground water, or rivers and streams? Can someone own an aquifer? What if I own a huge amount of property and am able to seed clouds to induce it to rain only or mostly on my property, denying rain water to others? Can I dam up water of a river that runs through my property to make hydroelectricity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This must have been asked before but I can't find anything specifically. A more plausible problem with water is how does one commodify ground water, or rivers and streams? Can someone own an aquifer? What if I own a huge amount of property and am able to seed clouds to induce it to rain only or mostly on my property, denying rain water to others? Can I dam up water of a river that runs through my property to make hydroelectricity?

Those are good questions I've never seen directly addressed here either. I have no idea how you could own a resource that migrates like water within, say, the several drainage basins of the United States. But at the same time, in a true Objectivist world, everything is owned by someone, so it would have to be worked out somehow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...