Slashdot Mirror


Nestle Makes Billions Bottling Water It Pays Nearly Nothing For (bloomberg.com)

Nestle, the world's largest food and beverage company, has been bottling water since 1843 and has grown into the largest seller of bottled water. But a detailed report on Bloomberg uncovers the company's operation in Michigan, revealing that Nestle has come to dominate in the industry in part by going into economically depressed areas with lax water laws. It makes billions selling a product for which it pays close to nothing. Find the Bloomberg Businessweek article here (it might be paywalled, here's an alternative source).

275 of 406 comments (clear)

  1. So.... fix the laws, I guess? by King_TJ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've heard a lot about how "evil" Nestle is for these practices. But as usual, we're simply dealing with shrewd businesses taking advantage of situations where they can make huge profits because the law of the land doesn't prevent any of it.

    IMO, laws can be changed at any time -- so blame the governments for this.

    1. Re:So.... fix the laws, I guess? by the_skywise · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah - the article paints Nestle as evil but gives the city leaders a total pass for charging only a $200 extraction fee.
      Either the city leaders are completely incompetent and should be kicked out or they took kickbacks in someway and should be kicked out and imprisoned.
      My only thought is that the city leaders decided it'd be worth the cost in terms of jobs and increased tax dollars to the city (which this article pooh-poohs as not worthwhile to research). I know a nearby town has a nestle plant and it's been a boon for the survival of the town.

    2. Re:So.... fix the laws, I guess? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      In fact, this could be fixed on either end: either increase the requirements on the gathering side or increase the requirements on the selling side. If my state has strict laws in place to ensure the quality of tap water, I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that bottled water should be required to be at least as safe, though obviously that isn't how it works yet.

    3. Re:So.... fix the laws, I guess? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      so blame the governments for this.

      I'll blame the lawmakers and the companies. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's right, and when someone engages in legal behavior that is wrong, they shouldn't get off the hook just because they didn't break the law.

    4. Re:So.... fix the laws, I guess? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To be fair, Nestle SHOULD be painted evil in all this after their CEO's statement that he didn't think water was a human right.

    5. Re:So.... fix the laws, I guess? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      I don't blame anyone. Why is there "blame" here ... for what? What is actually wrong here? They pay for water, at a price that makes it profitable. You, me, my neighbor, just about everyone NOT involved has almost no say in the matter.

      I mean, what is "wrong" here? Profit? They pay "next to nothing" for something they resale? None of that is anyone's business except Nestle and where they get their water from. Would we be okay with hundreds of jobs disappearing because we're butt hurt over something that is not any of our business?

      Here's a thought, instead of finding some "outrage" over something that has nothing to do with anyone, we go back to minding our own business. If we don't want Nestle's water, then fine, don't buy any. I am sure Coca-Cola would sell us some of their water (same deal though, nearly free water ...blah blah). Or Shasta Spring water, or Alhambra or we can get ourselves a Brita or Pur or ZeroRes filter.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    6. Re:So.... fix the laws, I guess? by megamind · · Score: 2, Insightful

      YOU HAVE TO FIGHT!! FOR YOUR RIGHT!!! TO PAAAAAARRTTAAAAY!! No one has inherited rights to a limited resources and fresh water is the most precious of all. You are all lucky someone is even willing to bottle it up and ship it to your locale.

    7. Re:So.... fix the laws, I guess? by EndlessNameless · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah - the article paints Nestle as evil but gives the city leaders a total pass for charging only a $200 extraction fee.

      It's basically corporate welfare---a handout to a big corporation in exchange for jobs.

      If they increase the fee to a significant level, Nestle will just move to another economically depressed area and offer them hundreds or thousands of jobs in exchange for free access to water.

      When you have hundreds of communities willing to sell out, it's awfully nice to be the buyer.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    8. Re:So.... fix the laws, I guess? by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Its even dumber than that.

      Nestle's bottled water product is the same as Coke's flagship product, less a 1/100th a penny worth of flavoring. Are we made about that too now?

    9. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The idea that someone can lay claims to something they didn't create is idiotic.

      OK, so you don't believe in property. Most people disagree, though.

    10. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      Access to water is a human right.

      If that's true, then it is because it is a granted right - there's no way you just have this inherent right to drinkable water no matter where you live. That's making a demand upon others - infringing upon their intrinsic rights.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    11. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by slasher999 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Access to water isn't a right. If you want water, dig a well and get some. Of course you'll need equipment or someone to dig it. And you'll need to own the land to have rights to do that, and in some cases local laws may prevent you from pumping that water or even digging the well. If the land you own happens to have a spring, creek, river or lake that can be your water source, if none of the above you can collect rain water just about anywhere without restriction so long as it's raining.

      My point here is most of these methods have some cost associated. Nothing, or virtually nothing is free. If someone provides you water or a source from which to get water there is going to be a cost associated with that.

      What we as citizens should be pissed about isn't Nestle taking advantage of a Michigan's generosity, it's that Michigan politicians are so generous with resources that belong to the people of Michigan. If nestle wants to pump water anywhere they should be paying FAIR MARKET PRICE for that water, period. Go after the politicians. Hold them accountable. Demand that your communities resources are sold at a fair price if they are sold at all.

    12. Re:So.... fix the laws, I guess? by Cyberax · · Score: 2

      Also, a typical bottling plant water use is minuscule compared to agricultural water use. The only problems happen when bottling is competing with municipalities for fairly rare "spring water" (which has to come from an actual spring).

    13. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by slasher999 · · Score: 1

      You stopped too soon. Demand a fair market price, if Nestle moves on let them. Once all of the communities willing to sell out their people run out of water you'll still have plenty and it's price will have increased significantly. Capitalism at work.

    14. Re:So.... fix the laws, I guess? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      instead of finding some "outrage" over something that has nothing to do with anyone, we go back to minding our own business.

      I'm not outraged -- this is pretty much standard big business misbehavior. But it deserves to be called out. But I disagree that this sort of thing has nothing to do with anyone but the company and the water source itself. I think that this sort of issue affects us all. It's not even new -- this has been an ongoing problem for a long time.

    15. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Demand a fair market price, if Nestle moves on let them.

      "Next to nothing" is a fair market price for water. I pay about $1 per HCF (hundred cubic feet) at the retail level, for water pumped to my house. That is about a 30th of a cent, or $0.0003 per liter. This is in drought threatened California. In most other areas, water is even cheaper.

      The prices listed in TFA are reasonable, and only sound otherwise to people that have no idea just how cheap water is. Any government is going to get way way way more from jobs and property taxes that they could ever expect to get by charging a few extra pennies per HCF for the water.

    16. Re:So.... fix the laws, I guess? by barc0001 · · Score: 1

      > we're simply dealing with shrewd businesses taking advantage of situations

      Not only that, the speech that the head of Nestle gave a few years back where everyone villified him for "wanting to put a price on water" ? THIS is what he was talking about, that water is basically "free" for industrial use and unless there are some prices added to it, companies will just take as much as they can.

      He was literally warning against this exact situation. But until something is done, Nestle would be fools to pass on bottling the water for nearly free, because if they don't someone else will.

      Don't hate the player, hate the game.

    17. Re:So.... fix the laws, I guess? by inhuman_4 · · Score: 1

      Freedom to not have to pay taxes!

    18. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by pushing-robot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're splitting hairs. Intrinsic rights don't exist; all rights are entitlements.

      Thus, anything can become a right; it is up to society to decide which are beneficial to civilization and which are detrimental.

      Terms like 'natural rights' are simply rhetorical devices indicating rights which are so fundamental to civil society that denying them would threaten the whole enterprise.

      Clean water absolutely deserves to be a right anywhere sufficient infrastructure exists to provide it affordably. It's inarguable that potable water benefits civilization far more than it costs, unless you want to return to an era when cholera, typhoid, and dysentery were leading causes of death.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    19. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're splitting hairs. Intrinsic rights don't exist; all rights are entitlements.

      Only if you live under the "might makes right" law of the jungle. For instance, is the right to free speech an entitlement, because the government is benevolent enough to not kill you before you exercise it?

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    20. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Well, since you are saying that not everyone has the inherent right to live, I vote we rescind yours first.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    21. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by sjames · · Score: 1

      So I see some drinkable water but you demand I not drink it because you have a piece of paper that claims it is 'your' water even though you didn't make it. Who is making a demand upon another there? You are.

    22. Re:So.... fix the laws, I guess? by mspohr · · Score: 1

      The problem is that Nestle doesn't follow the law:
      http://www.latimes.com/busines...
      "Environmental groups sued the U.S. Forest Service on Tuesday, alleging that the agency has allowed Nestle Waters to draw water from a creek in the San Bernardino Mountains under a permit that expired more than 25 years ago.

      The company, owner of the Arrowhead bottled water brand, has drawn millions of gallons from the west fork of Strawberry Creek under a permit it apparently acquired in 2002.

      At a time when residents have been asked to cut back water use during the record-setting drought, the diversion for commercial bottling to consumers once again has put Nestle in the cross hairs of the state's water squabbles. The company faces scrutiny over its water withdrawal activities elsewhere in the state."

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    23. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by udachny · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are wrong obviously, a right is a protection against government oppression, it is not a product or a service or a resource. Government must not be able to prevent a person from drinking, it is not the same thing as declaring that clean water must be made available for a person just because that person is born, whether he does or does not pay for the privilege of *somebody cleaning* the water.

    24. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by mspohr · · Score: 2, Informative

      Universal Declaration of Human Rights
      http://www.un.org/en/universal...
      (US has signed this)
      Article 25.
      (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    25. Re:So.... fix the laws, I guess? by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Article 25.

      (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    26. Re:So.... fix the laws, I guess? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Why is it evil, it's the stupid consumers basically paying $1-5 for a bottle of tap water which costs $0.01 from your own tap. You probably use several cubic meters of water (3-5000 gallons) per month for $20 which is basically $20-50,000 worth as a bottle in a store, get a bigger meter, you get a bigger discount.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    27. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Eh, yes?

      Free speech is only a right because a sufficient number of us considers it important enough to be described as such, and make our governments enshrine that in legal code. In other places, governments are able to resist that pressure (more or less successfully) and thus free speech is not a right in those countries. Pretty simple really...

    28. Re:So.... fix the laws, I guess? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Freedom to not be hungry, freedom to not be thirsty, freedom to not be afraid, freedom to not be insulted. Great, now they are all rights.

      Nice. Please post your home address. What time will dinner be ready?

    29. Re:So.... fix the laws, I guess? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      what is "Misbehavior? What are you outraged by? What they pay for water? That is none of your business. How much money the make (profit), then don't do business with them. The ethics you have, are yours. Collective Ethics are codified in law.

      You say, "I think that this sort of issue affects us all." but then don't elaborate, and I'm at a loss why this matters at all to anyone but the people where the water is, and the people who want Nestle bottled water. You say "ongoing problem for a long time." and yet haven't actually elaborated what the problem is, and why anyone should care.

      Are you upset that you can't get the deal for the water? have you tried?
      Are you upset that they are making money? Have you tried competing?

      You say "I'm not outraged" and " this has been an ongoing problem" which seems a bit related. Don't you think?

      Seriously, I have no idea what the "ongoing problem" actually is. You say "But it deserves to be called out." but I have no idea what for. Again, you haven't articulated it.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    30. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by Pascoea · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So I see some drinkable water but you demand I not drink it because you have a piece of paper that claims it is 'your' water even though you didn't make it.

      I don't quite get your point. Are you suggesting that the concept of property doesn't apply specifically to water, because the person claiming ownership didn't make it? Why does that stop at water? I didn't make the dirt my house sits on, are you able to come dig it out?

    31. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      I guess the Republicans didn't read that part.

    32. Re:So.... fix the laws, I guess? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I assumed that you had a passing familiarity with the issues around bottled water. This is a complex issue with a lot of history, so instead of writing an essay, I'll just recommend doing a web search on the topic. None of this is exactly low profile.

      As to "outraged", I'm honestly not. It's entirely possible to be critical and concerned over something without being outraged. When you do your research on the issue, you'll know the nature of my concern by simply knowing that I'm in the "designer water industry is bad for everyone" camp.

    33. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 1

      Well, that was super regionally based. Certainly, if you lived in certain areas of the world, this was true. Other places, you could probably find clear running water or natural wells in a lot of places. The world to population ratio was much better then.

    34. Re:So.... fix the laws, I guess? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      I don't buy bottled water, for the most part. I drink filtered water I have at home. So I don't know about bottled water other than even for the cheapest crap, it seems expensive. I do know that some places don't even filter the water before bottling, which is why I don't bother.

      But again, I don't have an issue with any company that has secured rights to water and puts in in a bottle and sells it however they want. Seriously, don't give a shit, until it makes people sick and die.

      And if bottled water was that unsafe, in general, nobody would buy any.

      And designer water is more or less a way to extract money from idiots. But again, I have no problem with that.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    35. Re:So.... fix the laws, I guess? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      hyperbole. How about we not use it to make points. Hmmm?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    36. Re:So.... fix the laws, I guess? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1
      Searching online, I found that an acre-foot of water sells for between $70 and $2000.

      An acrefoot of water contains over 1 million liters, pinky in the air.

      Why is this news to anyone with a brain?

    37. Re:So.... fix the laws, I guess? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      To be fair, Nestle SHOULD be painted evil in all this after their CEO's statement that he didn't think water was a human right.

      And how is he wrong? Show me where the list of human rights includes water. Water may be cheap. It may be free in some cases and still controlled by people who provide it. It may be donated in vast quantities to the poor. But it sure as hell isn't a "right". You can't sue your local government for charging for water. I can't take my government to the court of human rights for sending me a monthly bill. I sure as hell can't fault Nestle for paying for water at the rate at which it was sold to them.

      Water is important. Collecting your own water makes it yours. But the liquid itself isn't a "human right".

    38. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      California desalinated water is $2000/1.233x10^6L of water, or 0.16220cents/L, ~6litres/penny.

    39. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by skam240 · · Score: 1

      You are wrong obviously,

      https://www.merriam-webster.co...
      (see second definition)

      "something to which one has a just claim: such as
      a :the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled"

      You're using a politically slanted version of the word which isn't accurate.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    40. Re:So.... fix the laws, I guess? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1
      Outrage all the things.

      The choice of the millennial generation. This posting brought to you by Pepsi.

    41. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by sjames · · Score: 1

      I'm suggesting that a system where nobody ever makes demands upon another doesn't actually exist, including in TMY's visions.

      Water is just an example.

    42. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      Intrinsic rights don't exist; all rights are entitlements.

      Except the concept of entitlements is not intrinsic, it is created.

      Everyone by nature has every right. They can only be taken away. And they mostly are.

      Thus entitlements...

    43. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 2

      Doesn't have any effect in the United States. The USSC, in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, concluded the Universal Declaration of Human Rights "does not of its own force impose obligations as a matter of international law."

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    44. Re:So.... fix the laws, I guess? by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      Yeah, who actually thought the cost of the source water was a significant expense for bottled water?

      The major costs are the marketing, bottling, distribution and the purification. Water itself, except in certain drought-prone areas, tends to be really cheap.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    45. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is no right to something which must be provided by someone else. Otherwise, their rights must be violated to force them to provide it. So maybe there is a right to rainwater falling from the sky, but definitely not for the water delivered from a dam, or from city infrastructure.

    46. Re:So.... fix the laws, I guess? by gravewax · · Score: 1

      excellent, the simple solution then is remove Nestle execs rights to water, this problem will all be solved in under a month.

    47. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Which regions where cholera free? At the time they hadn't got that putting the outhouse uphill from the well was a bad idea.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    48. Re:So.... fix the laws, I guess? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "To be fair, Nestle SHOULD be painted evil in all this after their CEO's statement that he didn't think water was a human right."

      Wow, way to take something out of context. The CEO stated that necessity water should be a human right. Anything else should be charged for so that water is a properly-managed resource.

      Typical COWARD spreading lies.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    49. Re:So.... fix the laws, I guess? by epine · · Score: 1

      Either the city leaders are completely incompetent and should be kicked out or they took kickbacks in someway and should be kicked out and imprisoned.

      Giving kickbacks is twice the crime.

      There seems to be this strange sentiment in modern America that given any illicit transaction between two parties, figure out who has less power, and throw that bastard in jail.

      Seems backwards to me.

      Sure if you want to make street walking illegal, lock up the prostitutes. But if you really want to make prostitution illegal, lock up the Johns—all the bankers, and bakers, and candlestick makers.

      Same goes for the drug trade. Lock up the Hollywood celebrities who toss largess into the welcoming arms of Central Casting's dark corridor of thugs.

      And while we're at it, lock up the California fruit farmers who pay Mexicans (for generations at a time) who don't have legal work permits.

      Many problems, one solution.

    50. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "This is in drought threatened California"

      That last set of storms last year broke our drought. Try again with the alarmist bullshit when it's actually happening.

      ~Actual Resident of SoCal.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    51. Re:So.... fix the laws, I guess? by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

      Seriously? That's what we're doing here? Defending Nestle? How many corporations, organisations, or individuals can you name that do more harm than Nestle?

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    52. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      That list of rights has one glaring error.

      Article 29.
      (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

      Your "rights" can be changed or taken away at the whim of the United Nations because THEY define, at any given time, what THEIR purposes and principles are.

      I prefer a government that was formed to PROTECT the rights ennumerated in its constitution, and those rights are extremely hard to take away. You know, like the United States Constitution.

      Yes, the US signed your UN declaration, but we generally think the UN is full of shit anyway.

    53. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      So... where does it mention "access to water"?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    54. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      What if there is no water within, say, 100 miles... is it still my "right"? Who is forced to bring it to me? Why isn't that a violation of their rights?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    55. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      "Life" is the very first inalienable right. Your argument is a straw man.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    56. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      You're splitting hairs. Intrinsic rights don't exist; all rights are entitlements.

      Intrinsic rights don't violate anyone else's rights. You have a right to your life, you have a life to do whatever you want, you have a right to make your situation better by your own standard. Only when these rights butt up against someone else's do you have a conflict. You are born with these rights, and they form the basis for modern civilization.

      Granted rights by definition require a stable government and have no limits, really. That's not splitting hairs - that's a major conceptual difference.

      anywhere sufficient infrastructure exists to provide it affordably.

      That's a pretty major caveat! Who would disagree with that?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    57. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Your "right to life" means that no one can take it from you, not that someone else is obligated to feed you.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    58. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      There's a crime where I live, something like "failure to supply the necessary needs for life", which is used to prosecute people who do things like starve their children or anyone else that they are in a position of power over like old parents, to death.
      Sounds like you think this is violating someones rights to not take care of people (or even animals) that you are legally responsible for. I disagree.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    59. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      It's like you didn't even read the following three paragraphs.

    60. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      It's your right to get water. No one should be able to stop you from building a solar still and extracting the water in the air.
      There are actually places in America where it is illegal to collect rain water

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    61. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      There's always countries that are founded on the idea that freedom means being free to take others freedom.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    62. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      True, a Constitution that allows owning people is much better. Freedom includes the freedom to own people and steal savages land.
      As for your other rights, try going into a government building such as a school and use fucking in your speech and see what happens.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    63. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      "Show me where the list of human rights..."

      What list are you going by? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights contains language about things needed to sustain life, quoted elsewhere in this thread. The US Constitution contains similar language, and you don't even have to read past the preamble. You can also construct your own definition of human rights, but i haven't seen much of that in your post. It seems more like you have been backed into a corner where your fundamentalist, inflexible ideology forces you imply ridiculous shit like humans don't really need drinking water, just to avoid the cognitive dissonance.

    64. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by udachny · · Score: 1

      Clearly you are unable to think for yourself, let us try this:

      1. A right is not something that a government should be able to take away from you, do you agree or disagree?

      2. A right is something that should be protected by the system (be it the law or the court system).

      3. A right cannot be upheld if in order to provide it rights of others must be violated. - this is where I suppose you disagree with me, however, you call it 'politically slanted'.

      You see, the reason why an entitlement cannot be considered a right is because an entitlement assumes 2 sides to this argument: person A entitled to something and person B who is obligated to provide it. That's the basics of it. If a person B is forced by a government to provide you with something then that thing is not a right, it's an entitlement. I am talking about rights here, not about entitlements.

      A right is protection against government oppression. A right only exists as a concept because in order for a right to be protected the system must be prohibited from violating it.

      If a generic person or a generic company (I consider businesses to be people, by the way, people that own companies) murders you then they are not actually violating your right. They are committing an act, which can be considered a criminal act but not because they 'violated your right to life'. No, they did not violate your right, because there is a criminal system that declares the act of murder to be a crime in the first place. There is a way to enact punishment against a *specific person* who murders you.

      A government cannot be punished by punishing any specific person.

      A government is a system and it is much more powerful than any specific person.

      A government can only be stopped from oppressing you by ensuring that the government has no legal power to oppress you in certain ways.

      So a right as a protection against government oppression makes sense. A right as an entitlement to the product or service provided by somebody who is then obligated to provide it does not make sense because it is not something that you need to be protected against the government for. A government does not need to be prohibited against anything in this case, a separate entity ( a person) or a group of people (the tax payers) can be forced and criminally obligated to provide something, that's an entitlement.

      Merriam Webster is as wrong on this as the general population is confused about it.

    65. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by sjames · · Score: 1

      In that case, reality itself is violating your right. Unfortunately, we haven't a clue how to prosecute reality :-)

      More properly, suffice to say that the subject of water rights is far far more complex than my property, my water. It is a subject that has occasionally lead to blood shed as well as keeping the courts busy.

      But a general principle in all of that is that if there is drinkable water where you are, others do not have a right to make it go away or remove your existing access to it.

    66. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by skywire · · Score: 1

      The problem here is not that Nestle owns this scarce resource, but that no-one does. So they just grab all they want.

      --
      Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    67. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by skywire · · Score: 1

      What bilge.

      --
      Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    68. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by skywire · · Score: 1

      You are either too lazy to read that document, or seriously deficient in reading comprehension ability.

      --
      Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    69. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      You are the one who is wrong here, like most of the antigovernment nuts. Rights are enumerated in the basic law. Some of them are explicitly rights from a governmental oppression, other rights are more general and nobody is allowed to deny them.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    70. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Your birth already collides with other people rights and interests, making your claim a bullshit one.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    71. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You can also construct your own definition of human rights

      Sure you can. But can it be enforced anywhere? Those people who do are typically the ones we see on those funny cop videos "shouting" this is abuse I know my rights as they are getting arrested.

    72. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by Jesus+H+Rolle · · Score: 1

      Metric is dull and flavorless. Easy to calculate with, but lacks poetry.

    73. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      For instance, is the right to free speech an entitlement, because the government is benevolent enough to not kill you before you exercise it?

      Yes. The right to free speech was granted to you by your government (through the moderation of war). It along with a lot of your other "rights" are always at the mercy of the more powerful (4th amendment free zones anyone?)

      Personally I don't have a right to free speech. I live in a place where that is not inscribed in our constitution. That doesn't mean the government is persecuting me right now. A "right" is nothing more than a legal protection concept and legal protections don't stand up to truly powerful and benevolent actors.

    74. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      You can't live without water dumbshit.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    75. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by rundgong · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that the concept of property doesn't apply specifically to water

      In many cases water is a shared resource, so if you pump water from a well on your property it may very well reduce the supply of your neighbors.
      So at least there are some cases where you should not be able to do whatever you want with water.

    76. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by pots · · Score: 1

      Most people don't think about it too hard. The argument for the existence of property is usually tied to development of that property. In other words, it's the work that you put into something which makes it yours. This is what the parent is referring to.

    77. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      The right to life does not mean that people bear a responsibility to keep you alive, "dumbshit". It means they can not deprive you of life. Why did you resort to name calling?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    78. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      My birth is what endowed me with my inalienable rights. Same with yours. And it's not "my claim" - inalienable rights underpin most of the concepts of Western civilization. The entire founding of the US is based upon it, as is the Constitution.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    79. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      "Reality" can't violate rights - only people. I never mentioned property - I just bristle at the notion that people could think that you have a "right" to water that is somehow fundamental... like you were born with water and people are taking it away from you. We can use the government to give people anything we want, and we can even call it a "right" if we want - but I want to make sure that we make a distinction because I think the concept of inalienable rights is very important.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    80. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      It's illegal to collect "your" rainwater because that deprives people with the downstream "rights". Water "rights" are a very complicated subject, indeed. But it's well-worn legal territory.

      But that's a tangent. Of course you have a right to "get" water - that's a natural extension of the right to life. But that is YOU taking an action, not someone else. The moment your "right" demands action from someone else, it ceases to be a fundamental right as it now infringes on someone else's fundamental right.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    81. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you think this is violating someones rights to not take care of people (or even animals) that you are legally responsible for. I disagree.

      Yikes! No.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    82. Re:So.... fix the laws, I guess? by argStyopa · · Score: 2

      Because it isn't a human right?

      You can't just wave your hand and assert that a limited resource is a "right".

      --
      -Styopa
    83. Re:So.... fix the laws, I guess? by valnar · · Score: 1

      Drinkable water is not a human right because it took the time, talent and money of someone to make it, and they are not giving it away for free. To do so would put them out of business and then there would be no more free filtered water.

      You can have all free seawater you want.

      And..why stop at filtered water? What about flavored water, or carbonated? At what point would it pass the free line?

    84. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by mspohr · · Score: 1

      You are a clever fellow. Are you a lawyer?
      Water is implied in food and housing

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    85. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Ah, so now we have gone from discussing what is and isn't an inherent right to differing interpretations of some UN document. I think that qualifies as a tangent.

      An inherent right is something that you are born with. You can only be deprived of them. I have no problems saying that people who live in reasonable places should have a right to clean water - I just want to make it clear that this is a right that we are, as a society, choosing to grant and not something they are naturally born with.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    86. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I guess you ran out of arguments? I don't even know what you are trying to argue - where did I mention carrying anything?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    87. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Our founding fathers decided that slaves didn't have a right to freedom.
      Is it correct to say that there is no inherent right to freedom?

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    88. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Actually, I hoped my comment about prosecuting reality would have called it out as humor.

      However, you may have to accept that inalienable rights can get pretty complicated. For example, if life is an inalienable right, then food and water must be (else, no life). If not then nothing else is since we can just kill anyone who inconveniently exercises any other right they might have (or cut off their food and water until they shut up or die of thirst).

      I am forbidden to grow crops on my own land here in suburbia. The only source of food is the store, which demands money (there used to be berries growing wild, but they were cut down to cram a few more houses in). So I am now obliged to work for others (either as an employee, a contractor, or a proprietor) in order to have food necessary to my having life.

    89. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by udachny · · Score: 1

      Again, a right is a word, words actually have meaning, denying a meaning of a word and redefining it to fit your political agenda does not actually change the meaning of the word.

      The perception of people can change, the people are very often uneducated about issues, they are ignorant, some are actually incapable of understanding even mildly complex subjects.

      There cannot be a 'basic law' that is a 'right' that puts an obligation on a person A to provide an entitlement to a person B. That's not a 'basic law' and that's certainly not a right. It is a pair of things: an entitlement and an obligation, and as all entitlements+obligation pairs it demands destruction of rights of the person who is forced to provide this entitlement. When an obligation is placed on one person (or on any group of people) to give away their product or time or money to somebody because that somebody (anybody) is entitled to it because a government decreed so, the actual right of that person or a group of people who are forced to provide the entitlement are destroyed, while an extra surplus of unearned product/service is provided to the entitled individual (or a group).

    90. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      commoditize the air we all breathe

      I don't know why you think I advocate commoditization. Air is available everywhere on earth. Potable water is not. If someone screws with the air, that is indeed a violation of your rights. If someone pollutes the water, that is indeed a violation of your rights.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    91. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      For example, if life is an inalienable right, then food and water must be (else, no life).

      Only if someone is actively depriving you of those things. Inalienable rights cannot be granted - you are born with them. You are not born with clean water - that is something that someone needs to take action to secure. Thus, not an inalienable right. If on the other hand someone is actively working to thwart your access to potable water, that is indeed an infringement on your right to life.

      I am forbidden to grow crops on my own land here in suburbia.

      Crops as a commercial enterprise or crops for personal use (most people would say a garden)? If the latter, that is a pretty strange restriction and I'd say does cross a line. I'm fairly libertarian-leaning - but I depart with many libertarians on property rights... it does indeed get complicated!

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    92. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Clearly you cant read. I have no desire to waste my time picking apart your obnoxiously long post so I'll just ask you to please reread the deffinition, it makes no reference to protection from government. Just because our country's constitional rights were framed in that context does not make your ideological spin on that word correct.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    93. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Well for starters, I'm not anti government at all, I'm generally left wing. I have no clue as to how you got to that rediculous conclusion but clearly you're the "nut" on that point.

      Furthermore, if the literal deffinition of the word doesnt match what you're saying what should logically infer about what you are saying?

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    94. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      your right to kill someone who is preventing you from dipping your cup into a lake when no other water source exists.

      Or, you know, sue them.

      I understood the argument perfectly - the author that I was responding to was invoking human rights in a dispute that has nothing to do with human rights. This is a case of a company receiving a subsidy, not people dying of thirst. You have to get pretty creative or have a very dire situation to tie water access to inalienable rights, and that point irked me. Maybe I'm being "dickish" by insisting on reserving words like "rights" for actual rights - but it's even more dickish to resort to name-calling.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    95. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Is this just going to be an unceasing torrent of attempts to stuff words into my mouth? Can we agree that slavery is bad and then move on to the next straw man?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    96. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by skam240 · · Score: 1

      "Again, a right is a word, words actually have meaning, denying a meaning of a word and redefining it to fit your political agenda does not actually change the meaning of the word.

      The perception of people can change, the people are very often uneducated about issues, they are ignorant, some are actually incapable of understanding even mildly complex subjects."

      So your current attempt to redfine this words meaning from the above posted definition is an example of this, right?

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    97. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by mspohr · · Score: 1

      But, is it an inherent right to not be a slave?

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    98. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by sjames · · Score: 1

      A small garden is OK, but if I plowed enough to feed a family, I would certainly hear from county code enforcement. And I certainly wouldn't be allowed to keep chickens or a cow.

    99. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by udachny · · Score: 1

      Oh, I am sorry, I was wrong on one thing. Not on the correctness of definition of what a right is, I was wrong on something else.

      I was wrong to assume that you are a person who can be informed about something, so I spent a few minutes of my life unnecessarily trying to teach you why thinking for yourself is more important than following whatever it is that is written down by some form of an 'authority' (a dictionary at this point). An 'authority' that repeatedly redefined words to fit a new political agenda.

      An 'authority' who demonstrably follows the course set in front of it by a changing political scenery. Words like *inflation* (in the context of money), which that same dictionary only in 1864 used to define as *undue expansion or increase, from over-issue; â" said of currency.* and nothing more, in 1909 the definition changed to "Undue expansion or increase, as in paper currency, prices, etc.", and by 1934 the definition swelled all the way to this:

      "Disproportionate and relatively sharp and sudden increase in the quantity of money or credit, or both, relative to the amount of exchange business. Such increase may come as a result of unexpected additions to the supply of precious metals, as in the period following the Spanish conquests in Central and South America or the period following the opening up of large new gold deposits; or it may come in times of business activity by expansion of credit through the banks; or it may come in times of financial difficulty by governmental issues of paper money without adequate metallic reserve and without provisions for conversion into standard metallic money on demand. In accordance with the law of the quantity theory of money, inflation always produces a rise in the price level. "

      Inflation was defined by that dictionary as expansion of the money supply. Now of-course the definition is redefined into something irrelevant:

      "a continuous rise of price levels"

      (though they still couldn't embarrass themselves completely, so they followed that by

      "usually attributed to an increase in the volume of money"

      ).

      That is your authority. OK, so I completely admit that I was wrong and you are not a thinking person (even ever so slightly) as I assumed you might be (which was the only reason for me replying to you in the first place). My bad, won't happen again. Cheers.

    100. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by dougdonovan · · Score: 1

      nestle is doing it right. $ talks. you have to work smart.

    101. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you have an inalienable right to liberty. Why are we going down this path?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    102. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Your expending an awful lot of effort to talk your way around a definition. Complete with personal insults no less. Truely you are the thinking man here!

      It's great you desperately want your own political slant to be put on a word but sadly reality gets in the way a bit.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    103. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Zoning laws in general are very problematic if you take a view of property as an inalienable right (or an inevitable consequence of other inalienable rights). A lot (the vast majority?) of libertarians take this viewpoint, but I've never been able to follow them. I think you can have a society that is quite respectful of individual rights while also having alternate ownership models. Property tax makes any claim of real "ownership" somewhat specious in any event - what is this if not rent? And a shitty form of rent, too - with no formal lease, and all the power to change the terms on one side.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    104. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      a Constitution that allows owning people is much better.

      Hello, Mr. Van Winkle. You've had a long nap - you have a lot to catch up on.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    105. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by sjames · · Score: 1

      I think the problem they run in to is that absolute property rights inevitably collide eventually. My activities on my land impact the value of your land. The river on my land is also the river on your land, etc.

      And, agreed about property tax.

    106. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      In my opinion, a natural right is one where nobody but yourself has to take action on order for you to exercise that right, and that right doesn't infringe on the natural rights of others when exercised. A government would have to take action for you to not exercise that right.

      With regard to water, suppose somebody decides to live in a very remote desert region. If water is a human right, then who is responsible for delivering water to this person? Argue all you want about how the government must do so, but unless your government promises this somehow, there isn't any inherent reason that it must do so.

      Now if a government entity required private citizens to take action that they don't want to take, then that government is violating their natural rights. Thus, there is no obligation for Nestle to provide water.

      Oh, and as for the earlier comment that people can't claim ownership of things they didn't create, the poster must believe that he doesn't own his computer either.

    107. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      In perfect libertarian nirvana, you would use your ability to sue people for impacting your land. This, IMHO, is the weakest part of libertarian ideology. It's completely unrealistic to expect every individual to track down the source of every pollutant and then prove to the majority of a jury that the defendant cause harm. Especially when - for reasons that I don't understand - libertarians are often also fairly supportive of corporate entities and even limited liability(!!!). This is without things that pay little attention to our notions of individuality (like epidemiology and the way vaccinations need to be social to be effective). So yeah, I tend to depart with most libertarians on property as the bedrock of individualism...

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    108. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by sjames · · Score: 1

      I've always been skeptical of the Libertarians, but when they forgot that corporate charters were yet another problematic government interference I lost all respect. The whole system fails hard if corporate charters are allowed to continue, especially with limited liability still in place.

      I suspect they underestimate the overhead of everyone taking everyone to court and millions of individual negotiations by several orders of magnitude.

    109. Re:So.... fix the laws, I guess? by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      ... and their campaigns against breastfeeding, and the way their animals are treated.

    110. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by WeezulDK · · Score: 1

      You obviously don't understand American history, the right to free speech wasn't granted to us by government, the ability to limit speech that was already free away from the government. The U.S. Constitution was designed to tell the *Government* what it can and cannot do. In fact, the whole document is a LIMIT on government that has been chipped away at for the last 200 years by power mongering authoritarians who wish to return us to a Feudal state.

    111. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      It sounds like we share a common frustration. I get weird looks whenever I say, you know, corporations are just an extension of government power...

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    112. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      the right to free speech wasn't granted to us by government

      The U.S. Constitution was designed to tell the *Government* what it can and cannot do.

      Who designed it? Did you write it for yourself to give you rights over someone more powerful than you? Or more likely did your ancestors pool their collectively lobbying power of their state governments, and appoint someone to speak on their behalf to place limits on congress? You can put lipstick on a pig, and it's still a pig. Your rights were granted to you by a government of the day, just because that government was more powerful than another government doesn't make you any less governed.

      Repeat after me: You have zero rights other than those more powerful than you grant you. Hiding behind a piece of paper has never stopped a dictator, a civil war, or any other person or group in position of power.

    113. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by WeezulDK · · Score: 1

      Respecttfully: NO. You're 100% wrong. Again, the PEOPLE designed it. There wasn't what we know now as a US "government" at the time other than the British-created governments to which the colonies were abolishing and wanting to create a new governmental order. The Constitution was written to define the limits of the new goverment's rights against the people, not the other way around. In fact, it started being written DURING the Revolutionary War against Britain. Repeat after me: In America, the PEOPLE tell the GOVERNMENT what RIGHTS the GOVERNMENT has. Not the other way around. That's not how our country works. Read up on "Enumerated Powers" in the US Constitution and understand the Framers wrote the Constitution as a set of NEGATIVE LIBERTIES for the GOVERNMENT. (caps for emphasis, not shouting)

    114. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Likely so. I would at least like to see some restraint shown by enforcing the whole for the public good part. Surely a company with multiple felony convictions can no longer be considered to be operating for the public good. Of course, corporate personhood is over the top crazy.

      There's no point in even pretending that natural people have the rights, resources, legal options, or market power on par with these many headed corporate behemoth "people"

    115. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I'm not strictly anti-corporate. I think it is a powerful economic tool. Even limited-liability for non-activist owners (pension funds, 401(k), your average investor that is just along for the ride) is probably fine. But at no point should they be considered anything but a streamlining process. Corporate personhood is an abortion, and while I was not a fan of Sander's whacked-out economics (he doesn't even know what socialism is?) I was a big fan of his amendment keeping unions and corporations out of politics.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    116. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Those laws are limited in scope as to whom they cover. You won't find anything that is wide open and almost without question you're only legally required to provide the necessaries of life for your dependents. The short list would be your children, if they're not of the age of majority or of an age where they can obtain a job, someone who is your dependent who is not your child that through illness or disorder unable to provide the necessities for themselves, and in some cases your spouse regardless of your spouses ability to provide its own necessities.

      Strictly speaking, if some stranger wanders up to my door and claims to be homeless, starving, and thirsty I almost certainly have no legal requirement to provide shelter, food, or water to the individual nor does the individual have any right to enter my home or to any food or water that he can obtain on my property.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    117. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Again, the PEOPLE designed it.

      Yeah sure. And how?

      Sorry but there's more "government" than that thing you call the current democracy. Government is a generic term. Just because it's not the current form of government doesn't mean it wasn't done through a form of government.

      The Constitution was written to define the limits of the new goverment's rights against the people, not the other way around.

      Yeah, by who? Did several 10s of millions of you gather in a room to decide on the wording?

      In America, the PEOPLE tell the GOVERNMENT what RIGHTS the GOVERNMENT has

      LOL. Like REALLY!

      Also if it weren't so laughable in light of all that your government has done for you in the past 15 years it would still be wrong. You hold no power. Even with all your guns collectively you neither stand up to the government, nor would you be capable of doing so given the modern war machine you created.

      You can wave your pieces of paper around all you want. The sole reason it has value is because those who have power over you are happy with the status quo and prefer not to drop the country into anarchy.

    118. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by WeezulDK · · Score: 1

      Ok I'm done with you, you obviously aren't an American so you're not an authority on how our government works, or you're a troll. Take your pick.

    119. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Not American. That among other things means I can see things without my red white and blue filter applied.

      Enjoy your 4th amendment free zones that the government deemed you don't deserve anymore.

    120. Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess? by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      The definition I'm using, which includes access to water, is absolutely enforceable. In fact, violence often happens specifically because that right is *not* being protected. People in power have simply made all kinds of other, irrelevant shit their priority. And here you are excusing them. It's pretty sad.

  2. Well... by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    I have spectacular well water where I live. How do I get in on this gig?

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Invent a name
      Design a logo
      Get bottles
      Fill bottles at your well
      Have a statistically representative sample of your bottles tested (it's easier than the municipal water test in most states)
      Negotiate for shelf space at stores

      You probably want to start a LLC somewhere in there, pretty cheap to do and it limits how much business debt can be claimed from your personal property.

    2. Re:Well... by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      If it's that easy, surely more people would do it no?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    3. Re:Well... by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Have you ever looked at how many different brands of bottled water there are for sale now? It is in the thousands.

      The real trick is distribution, shelf space, etc....

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    4. Re:Well... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The 'get bottles' step is complicated. Buy injection molding/blow molding machines, design and make molds to make bottles and lids. Or you can pay someone to do it for you.

      'Fill bottles' is also complicated. Bottle filling lines cost.

      Then you get to compete for shelf space. Hope you enjoy blowing supermarket managers.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re:Well... by the_skywise · · Score: 3, Funny

      Fluffernutter springs(r)(tm) "ahhhhh"

    6. Re:Well... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      No, the old 'Idiots don't understand business' story.

      If you think business is simple and Nestle is evil for making a profit, that means you don't understand.

      A bottling line will likely cost a million dollars plus, turnkey. That's a surprise to you, but that didn't stop you from shooting off your mouth.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    7. Re: Well... by adolf · · Score: 1

      So don't bottle it at the source. Nestlé doesn't.

      Just deliver water to a local bottling plant using a tanker truck and pay them to put it into fancy-printed bottles on your behalf.

      For the right price, chances are good that they'll handle distribution, too.

      Now you're left with marketing and shelf space as unsolved problems.

    8. Re: Well... by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I was just thinking I'd sterilize 100 bottles I collected from somewhere, sell them, and be happy with the $100 I made. No reason to get greedy about it.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    9. Re: Well... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      That _would_ be a cheaper way to fail at this business.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    10. Re:Well... by tattood · · Score: 1

      If I have the choice at the store between buying "Fluffernutter" brand water, vs Nestle, Arrowhead, Crystal Geyser water, I think I'll go with the names that I know over the one I don't.

      --
      WTB [sig], PST!!!
    11. Re: Well... by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      How can you ever fail at a business that doesn't cost you any money?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    12. Re: Well... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Tanker trucks are free? Contract bottling/distribution is free? Just trading cap costs for ongoing by farming it out.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    13. Re:Well... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      You may not know the name Fluffernutter, but it isn't uncommon. I'm pretty sure the GP picked his name because he is a fluffer who nuts while he is doing it though.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    14. Re: Well... by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      Make some homebrew beer. Sterilizing bottles by hand is a huge pain in the ass.

      Wholesalers are lucky to get 30 percent of the retail price of things like bottled water. Which retail for about 10 cents/half liter. Don't even consider the ripoff prices paid at convenience stores, much less entertainment venues. You won't see those.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  3. Sigh. by ledow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    THEY'RE BOTTLING WATER.

    Their biggest expense is probably the bottle, and then moving it to somewhere they can sell it.

    This isn't news.

    Nor is it news that stupid people will pay again for something that already comes out of their bathroom taps or falls from the sky for free all the time.

    Dasani (Coke-owned?) were bottling River Thames water and selling it to Londoners. Everyone bought it UNTIL it made the news. They hadn't even noticed or cared up until then.

    Bottled water has its place, sure, but paying for a bottle of water if you live in a huge house with hot and cold running water is like buying a can of air.

    1. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Dasani is RO and then has minerals added back. The source of the product has no bearing on the output.

    2. Re:Sigh. by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Biggest expense is definitely shipping the water. The bottles are nearly free at the scale Nestle operates. It's trucking around all of those tons of water that get expensive. Plus advertising, warehouse expenses, salaries, etc...

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    3. Re:Sigh. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Economics of scale does not reduce the cost of a single item (magically?) to zero.
      Considering that the article said, they make billions, and a bottle probably costs a dollar, they probbaly sell a few nillions of bottles.
      Considering 10 bottles cost a single cent in production, we still look at millions of cost for the bottles ...
      Wow that was easy again ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re:Sigh. by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...falls from the sky for free all the time.

      There are many places in the US (typically in the West) where unless you own the water rights to the land you are on, you do not own the water that falls onto that land. So rainwater is only free for certain values of free.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    5. Re:Sigh. by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      Biggest expense is definitely shipping the water.

      If they could dehydrate it first then that would substantially lower the shipping costs.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    6. Re:Sigh. by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nor is it news that stupid people will pay again for something that already comes out of their bathroom taps or falls from the sky for free all the time.

      Unfortunately, many times that I am in need of water I am neither in my bathroom (or even in my house at all), nor is it raining.

      Yes, you could claim that it is stupid for people not to carry a refillable bottle of water with them at all times, but you'd be wrong. It's called "convenience", and everyone pays for convenience. Even if you don't use the convenience (and pay for it) of getting a bottle of clean, drinkable water when and where you need it, you pay for the convenience of having someone else make your clothing, build your cars, create your electricity, and almost certainly growing your food. Sometimes, I bet, you even pay for the convenience of not having to prepare your own food or not having to carry it around with you all the time so you can eat it when you need to.

      Calling people stupid because they make use of modern conveniences, despite it costing more than doing everything themselves, is just arrogance.

      Yeah, maybe using bottled water in your own home is overkill, but maybe it isn't -- if you live in Flint, for example. But using bottled water when you're at some event where it would be INconvenient to carry a water bottle is not.

    7. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you think air is free, you've never purchased a bag of potato chips.

    8. Re:Sigh. by omnichad · · Score: 1

      You joke, but there are people on Amazon doing exactly that.

    9. Re:Sigh. by edtice1559 · · Score: 2

      As an AC has pointed out, Dasani does do work to make their water *taste* better. First, you have to Chlorinate tap water to keep people from getting sick. But the Chlorine really tastes awful. So they filter it out right before bottling. The bottles have to be air tight to keep bacteria from growing. But removing the Chlorine removes minerals. Distilled water doesn't taste good either. So then they add back a tasty blend of minerals. Why we can't have machines to do this at home, I don't know. There are RO filters out there but they tend to do your whole house which is a huge problem as you now may get bacteria growing in the indoor plumbing. You can buy crappy brita filters (and I also have a filter in my refrigerator). They suck as they tend to leech charcoal into the water. What would work well is a device that did RO filtering and mineral injection right at the tap. They could even use proprietary mineral cartridges like printers do in order to make a huge profit on consumables.

    10. Re:Sigh. by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Where I live, the problem is simply way too much chlorine and far too high of mineral content. Even cold, it's not tasty. Thankfully, bottled is under 10 cents per half liter bottle in big packs.

    11. Re:Sigh. by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      Replying to myself, it does look like these contraptions exist. https://www.amazon.com/iSpring...

    12. Re:Sigh. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Why don't they just dehydrate the water? A heavily-distilled source mixed with a powdered mineral profile, aerated, and sterilized would achieve the same result.

      Maybe if I get elected and save up my Congressional salary, I can start a new bottled water venture. I'll have water profiles to match all kinds of water from around the world--Evian, Sheffield water (the basis of Bass Pale Ale), the wells of various famous European monestaries, you name it--and I'll synthetically produce matching water by mixing distilled or RO water with the correct minerals.

      I could even work out a filter-and-feed product tuned to each city, built from an on-demand mixing station. Get water profiles from Baltimore or Seattle, produce a filter to clean it up (or bench it against a 3M AP905), then produce a cartridge profile which a mundane mixing machine can spit out on-demand but call it "3D Printing". You hook this contraption inline and it converts the whole-house-filtered water at your kitchen tap to Sheffield or Evian water.

    13. Re:Sigh. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The convenience store might get $1, the concert venue might get $5. Nestle gets 10 cents, if they're lucky.

      10 cents for the bottle? No. Not unless your talking a very fancy bottle, more like Fiji water or something equally stupid.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    14. Re:Sigh. by tattood · · Score: 1

      Penn & Teller did an episode of Bullshit! several years about bottled water. They set up hidden cameras at a restaurant and offered a "premium bottled water" menu to the guests. Each and every glass of "premium" water was just filled from the garden hose outside the restaurant, but none of the patrons could tell the difference.

      --
      WTB [sig], PST!!!
    15. Re:Sigh. by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      Back in the '90's I was living in Malvern, PA and commuting to Camden, NJ every day to work. My cube-mate used to bring a bottle of store-bought water in every day. Every day I'd joke about taking the empty home, filling it at the tap, and selling it back to him an nickel cheaper.

      Then one day I looked at the fine print on the label: "Bottled in Malvern, PA".

    16. Re:Sigh. by tquasar · · Score: 1

      My tap water tasted fishy or like warm lake water during the summer. There are taste and odor compounds that are nearly impossible to remove with chlorine or potassium permangamate. The water quality has improved recently so they must have found some improvement in the treatment process. I drove by a Crystal Geyser bottling plant in California. "Bottled at the source" in the Sierra Nevada mountains. Their big use of local water must affect the local streams, rivers, and wildlife.

    17. Re:Sigh. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      you do not own the water that falls onto that land.

      The trick is to catch it before it hits the land anyway. Otherwise it gets dirty.

    18. Re:Sigh. by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1
      You can walk into a starbucks and ask for water and they'll give you a free glass full. I haven't done it myself, but have a friend who does it all the time. Sometimes he gets one for his dog too..

      I don't know where you live, but think that it's a requirement, at least in CA that there be at least 2, preferably four, starbucks on every corner.

    19. Re:Sigh. by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1
      I have exactly that filter setup at mu house.... bottled water out of the faucet. Also, of you are into designer waters, I have a carbonator, a gram scale and a few bottles of food grade minerals for making my own Perrier.

      https://blog.khymos.org/2011/0...

    20. Re:Sigh. by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      There's 1.3million bottles/acrefoot of water.I doubt they're taking that much.

    21. Re:Sigh. by Solandri · · Score: 2

      The primary cost isn't the water as TFA is making it out to be. It's the filtration. Nestle, Coca Cola (Dasani), and Pepsi (Aquafina), Budweiser, etc. use reverse osmosis fiiltration to purify city tap water for use in their beverages as well as for bottled water. So do most restaurants for that matter.

      The typical reverse osmosis filter in your home operates at a low enough volume that it can run off of pressure from the city water supply. In that case you're basically stealing electricity from the city water company's pumps to power your RO filter. But to produce the quantities these companies require, they have to power their own pumps to increase the pressure on the RO filters to generate sufficient volume.

      This whole thing is kinda like complaining that Intel makes billiions of dollars each year selling silicon microchips from sand which they get practically for free.

    22. Re:Sigh. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      garden hose outside the restaurant, but none of the patrons could tell the difference.

      Yeah, the ability of humans to detect many pollutants just by taste is pretty limited. "Garden hose" is certainly a great source of pure potable water, isn't it? That hose filters out all kinds of things, like chlorine, lead, arsenic, bacteria, etc, doesn't it?

      You know, when people buy bottled water in a restaurant they aren't always doing so because they are snooty and think they need to drink Perrier for the social status, it's because they know the tap water in their city is not the best and they want to avoid the contaminants. Like people living in Flint might want to avoid "garden hose" water.

      I've watched and listened to P&T, and they are arrogant enough to think that serving chlorinated, unfiltered water to people who paid for better is funny and those people just deserve to be ridiculed. There are ways of testing whether people can detect the difference, by using volunteers, and giving people junk water when they paid for good is not it.

    23. Re:Sigh. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, many times that I am in need of water I am neither in my bathroom (or even in my house at all), nor is it raining.

      That's an interesting thought. I'm in the same position often but I can't say I've ever bought bottled water as a result. Does your city not have water fountains available for the public? Or laws that required places that serve alcohol to also serve water for free?

      I always figured the problem was cultural or pollution based (i.e. I did drink bottled water in China because I was told to, ... but I never paid for it), it didn't occur to me that some western cities don't actually provide water to people.

      Mind you given the cost of water in some places I'll probably still drink beer instead.

    24. Re:Sigh. by ledow · · Score: 1

      That's nitrogen, or the crisps would be bad before you got to them.

    25. Re:Sigh. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Does your city not have water fountains available for the public?

      I don't know, actually, since I don't wander about the city looking for water fountains. I have better things to do with my time. And the city doesn't provide maps of them, either. I know of none, but that doesn't mean they aren't there.

      Or laws that required places that serve alcohol to also serve water for free?

      Irrelevant. I rarely go to bars, and when I do it isn't to drink water. I can drink water at home. Why would I go to a bar to drink just plain water?

      it didn't occur to me that some western cities don't actually provide water to people.

      I don't know why you think that it is the city's responsibility to provide water everywhere people might me.

      I do know, I am not going to leave the event I am at, which I usually pay to get into, to go find a free water fountain if any might exist close by. And when I am in a strange place and have the choice between knocking on doors begging for water or paying a street vendor standing right in front of me, I'll pay the vendor because it is still more convenient.

    26. Re:Sigh. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      looking for water fountains.

      The answer must be no then. Water fountains don't need looking for. They are just there all over in public places.

      Irrelevant. I rarely go to bars

      So the ability to get free water is irrelevant because you don't go and get the free water, and that is irrelevant in a discussion of going to a shop to get bottled water? This is one of the most perplexing statements I have seen on Slashdot.

      I don't know why you think that it is the city's responsibility to provide water everywhere people might me.

      I didn't say it was. It's just what most cities I've been in seem to do. I mean it makes sense given that the infrastructure is essentially free in the grand scheme of things and so is the resource. The city and the government actually don't have responsibility to do jack shit. They just do it because it makes sense.

      I do know, I am not going to leave the event I am at, which I usually pay to get into

      Okay like WTF? You have paid events that aren't legally required to offer free water? I remember a music festival I went to getting a fine for being in breach of their event license because the free water was deemed too warm to drink.

      I'm not suggesting you leave your event, go anywhere, search for anything. I'm just in awe that you live in a place where free water isn't ... basically everywhere.

  4. In other words, its a good business. by hey! · · Score: 1

    As to the social consequences of what they do, it's up to government to regulate those if they're a problem.

    For example there are third world countries where Coca Cola's bottled water business is sucking up the water supply that locals need to survive. It can do this because governments there care more about wealthy businesses than they do about people.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:In other words, its a good business. by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      So the people doing the terrible things have no responsibility for their terrible actions if government doesn't stop them?

      Bullshit.

    2. Re:In other words, its a good business. by hey! · · Score: 2

      They have moral responsibility, but no legal responsibility. Maybe this is not the way the world should be, but it is the was the world *is*. Where there is money to be made, people are no better than they are forced to be.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:In other words, its a good business. by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Without fear of the (yes, yes, I know: mythical) Eye In The Sky punishing you, who decides wrong from right?

      Government, that's who.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    4. Re:In other words, its a good business. by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Government, that's who.

      Umm, no. Government decides what's legal and illegal. Society decides what's right and wrong.

    5. Re:In other words, its a good business. by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Government decides what's illegal. Until they do, everything is legal, at least in the US.

    6. Re:In other words, its a good business. by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Eventually, legal/illegal merges with right/wrong.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  5. Disruptive!!! by jabberw0k · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Shhh, now Everybody who's Anybody is going to have to breathe exclusively canned air, because Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk say so. The truly elite breathe iAir, natchurally.

    1. Re:Disruptive!!! by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Judging by Slashdot, many people would rather breathe Elon Musk flatulent.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  6. just like dead tree books by turkeydance · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the largest expense is transportation. my dictionary costs $0.44 to make.

    1. Re:just like dead tree books by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Get one like Trumps has ... it's weightless and free!

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    2. Re: just like dead tree books by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      It has nothing to do with politics. I have known that Trump is a worthless loser and moron since reading The Art of The Deal, decades before everyone else found out.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  7. Whiskey's fer drinkin', water's fer fightin' over. by Jeff+Archambeault · · Score: 1

    How about those cross-country water pipelines?

    Oh, not as valuable as oil yet?

    --

    Plus ca change, plus c'est les memes choses.

  8. That describes nearly every soft-drink maker by JoeyRox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A 2-liter of Coca Coca cost pennies to make.

    1. Re:That describes nearly every soft-drink maker by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 1

      If you ever want to give up drinking soda, go take a tour of a soda-making/bottling plant. The stench will forever quell your desire to drink soda ever again

      --
      So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    2. Re:That describes nearly every soft-drink maker by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      incorrect. you don't know how to calculate the cost of making, marketing, distributing. They don't make 10,000X profit on a bottle, guess again.

    3. Re:That describes nearly every soft-drink maker by dddux · · Score: 2

      And it costs billions to cure diabetes.

      --
      "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
    4. Re:That describes nearly every soft-drink maker by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Funny

      If you ever want to give up Taco Bell, get a good smell of 'Ol' Roy' brand canned beef dog food, then goto a Taco Bell and inhale. You will recognize the smell.

      Not this nonsense again.

      Unlike Taco Bell, Ol' Roy brand canned beef dog food contains actual beef.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    5. Re:That describes nearly every soft-drink maker by vux984 · · Score: 1

      The difference between Nestle's bottled water, and a bottle of coke is a fraction of a cent worth of syrup. That's it. Drop 1/10000th of $1 worth of flavoring from a bottle of coke, and its now a bottle of water.

      If we're going to act all outraged at nestle for selling us overpriced water, then we should be just as outraged at coke for doing the exact same thing with coke.

      Because that is the entire difference between the two products. 1/10000th of a $1. The rest, the packaging, bottling, marketing, distribution, quality control, etc is all exactly the same. The only difference between the business model for bottled water, and the business model for pop is a 1/10,000th of a dollar worth of syrup per unit.

      What exactly makes Nestle worse? or even meaningfully any different?

      And that's just the beverage industry... you should look at all the truly massive quantities of water that goes into various other manufacturing processes; and wait for it... companies pay almost nothing for it.

    6. Re:That describes nearly every soft-drink maker by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Nevertheless the workers involved earn so low wages, that plenty need a second job.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    7. Re:That describes nearly every soft-drink maker by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      In Germany?
      Yes.

      In the US?
      I don't think so.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    8. Re:That describes nearly every soft-drink maker by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      false, ingredients need to be delivered, mixed and water carbonated in the case of coke, costs *much* higher. So you know nothing about manufacturing, figures. Some of us do know.

    9. Re:That describes nearly every soft-drink maker by vux984 · · Score: 1

      ingredients need to be delivered, mixed and water carbonated

      Fair point, I missed a couple inputs.

      So you know nothing about manufacturing, figures.

      That's a leap.

      Some of us do know.

      Well, then, if you know, then how about giving us some better. Anyone can say the costs are much higher. How much higher?

      What does a 500mL plastic bottle of Coca-Cola cost to produce vs a 500mL bottle of Dansani bottled water?

    10. Re:That describes nearly every soft-drink maker by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      you stlil don't understand what goes into *costs*, you seem fixated on the bottled. product. Their costs are public information. To sell 9.7 billion U.S. dollars of stuff, Coca Cola's costs were 3.7 billion, or 38% of what their products sell is their costs. That does NOT include the 3.1 billion sales, administration and general expenses which are then subtracted from gross profit.

    11. Re:That describes nearly every soft-drink maker by vux984 · · Score: 1

      you stlil don't understand what goes into *costs*, you seem fixated on the bottled. product. Their costs are public information.

      The question at hand is what the cost difference in producing and selling bottled water vs producing and selling pop, per unit.

      Everything else is an irrelevant distraction.

      . To sell 9.7 billion U.S. dollars of stuff, Coca Cola's costs were 3.7 billion, or 38% of what their products sell is their costs. That does NOT include the 3.1 billion sales, administration and general expenses which are then subtracted from gross profit.

      And unless you separate out Coca-cola from Dasani; those numbers tell us absolutely nothing that informs the question at hand.

    12. Re:That describes nearly every soft-drink maker by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      just look at companies that only produce water, cost of roughly 15 cents for liter unit, selling for 45 cents.

  9. Crossing State Lines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Water that stays within a state need only conform to what comes out of the tap.
    Literally, they take available water, and put it into a bottle: Bottled Water

    When bottled water crosses state lines, it must conform to federal water standards.

    FDA Bottled Water Regulations

    Read your bottle; find out where the water inside came from.

  10. Peddle junk food down Amazon... by js290 · · Score: 1

    Floating supermarket of Nestle products in Brazil. http://bit.ly/1U7PTC9

    --
    "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
  11. wow by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    So paying $3.00 for a bottle of water at an event is a rip-off when you can bring your own bottle of tap-water for nearly nothing from home? I am so surprised.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:wow by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      So paying $3.00 for a bottle of water at an event is a rip-off when you can bring your own bottle of tap-water for nearly nothing from home?

      If you bring your own bottle of tap-water to an event . . . U R TERRORIST!!!!

      This is why it's banned at events and on airlines. They want to protect you from TERRORISTS!

      They don't ban it so the airport shops and event vendors can make tidy profits . . . like some skeptical folks might assume.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:wow by crtreece · · Score: 1

      Most events, and the airport, will let you in with your empty reusable water bottle. Fill it from the water fountain once you get in. The last few airports I've been in even had the wall-mounted bottle filling stations.

      --
      file: .signature not found
    3. Re:wow by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      I am not a water drinker as a rule at events, but I don't bring my own beverages either. Why? Because I like my beverages cold, and it is a lot more convenient to let the vendor handle that part of the equation. Indeed it is generally cheaper, and depending on how long the time span is between when I leave home and consume the beverage, it might not even be feasible to keep it cold that long.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    4. Re:wow by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That's reasonable......but since you're reasonable, I'll bet you're not complaining that Nestle is charging you a ridiculous markup for water they get very cheaply.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re: wow by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      It's not something I have time to worry about.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  12. Problem isn't laws... Stupid consumers by MerlynEmrys67 · · Score: 2
    Even if they don't get a discount... Tap water costs pennies a bottle volume to fill, yet we as consumers pay dollars per bottle.

    Yes Nestle has to pay for the bottle, shipping and other markups for things that aren't water, but it is a huge discrepancy in pricing. Why don't we as consumers buy reusable bottles (maybe even a simple glass) and fill them up ourselves for the same rates. This would be like people getting mad that oil only costs 50 dollars a barrel, yet they get about 31 gallons of gas/diesel out of that barrel of oil that they turn around and sell for about 90 bucks here in California.

    --
    I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
    1. Re:Problem isn't laws... Stupid consumers by King_TJ · · Score: 2

      "Stupid consumers" aren't even the problem, IMO. Clearly, plenty of consumers feel that the convenience of a sealed, labeled bottle of fresh water is worth the price being charged. And maybe it is? For example, if I try to take my own drinks in to a sporting event like a national league baseball game, they won't allow it past security unless it's in a sealed container. My reusable bottles I filled myself won't cut it. But the crazy concession prices in the stadium mean the bottled water, bought ahead of time, was a far cheaper way to drink water during the game.

    2. Re:Problem isn't laws... Stupid consumers by sunking2 · · Score: 1

      Put your own tap water in a bottle. How is it price gouging when just about every home has running water in it, with the exception of those very few places where its suggested not to drink it.

    3. Re:Problem isn't laws... Stupid consumers by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      Why don't we as consumers buy reusable bottles (maybe even a simple glass) and fill them up ourselves for the same rates.

      I can buy 24 bottles of store brand water for around $2. That's less than 10 cents a bottle. I keep a case in my car for when I'm thirsty. Yes, I could fill up a few dozen bottles and keep them in my car but then I would have to remember to fill them, make sure to rotate them, worry about them leaking, etc... Let's say all that only takes me 30 minutes for 24 bottles, my time is worth more that $4/hour.

    4. Re:Problem isn't laws... Stupid consumers by gnick · · Score: 2

      Yes Nestle has to pay for the bottle, shipping and other markups for things that aren't water...

      My guess is that shipping dwarfs the other expenses (advertising?) If only there was a better way to transport water than by bottle and truck...

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    5. Re:Problem isn't laws... Stupid consumers by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm not sure if Nestle makes billions, either. At this point it's not worth looking (I'm not about to sit down and tackle this problem right now), especially since Nestle's practices are known-harmful and how much they make off them is irrelevant.

      Still, on the subject of how much a company makes: the gross profits are often the subject of discussion when we want to attack a business for price gouging, or for any other reason. A Wendy's franchise, for example, charges twice as much for a hamburger as the cost of the burger flipper, the burger maker, the gas, the grease, and the burger itself; yet the franchise makes an 8% average yearly profit.

      Net profits include a lot of organization and things like rent and power, while gross profits skip all that and just focus on what specifically went into the assembly of a product. You also get things like the cost-of-risk, which ends you with e.g. Eli Lily making some 40% profits one year and -21% profits another year, with a five-year average of around 12% (not small, but not egregious). It's a great narrative in the prescription drug debate to call out Lily for making 40% profits [one year], or to point out that those pills cost 11 cents to manufacture; it just happens to be lies told entirely by careful arrangement of true facts.

      So does Nestle have billions in revenues, or enormous revenues and billions in profits?

      (The problem with seeking the truth--or maybe the best part, depending on your perspective--is you'll routinely say things that make someone on every point on the political spectrum squirm around a lot. Sometimes they throw things at you because they don't like having those thoughts.)

    6. Re:Problem isn't laws... Stupid consumers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Or you can just bring empty reusable bottles to the game and fill them up at a water fountain once inside.

    7. Re:Problem isn't laws... Stupid consumers by crtreece · · Score: 2

      I do this when flying, and the rules for the stadium of the local national league baseball team say it's permitted as well. Take your _empty_ reusable bottle and fill it up from the drinking fountain once you get past security.

      --
      file: .signature not found
    8. Re:Problem isn't laws... Stupid consumers by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Just like the oil companies...wanting to build yet another pipeline across our land. When that breaks down and spills out, they're going to have a real mess to clean up.

    9. Re:Problem isn't laws... Stupid consumers by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Why don't we as consumers buy reusable bottles .... and fill them up ourselves for the same rates.

      We get their large packs of bottled water, or in some cases filter our own water, because the available municipal water available has made us sick before.

      We regularly get postcards months later from the water district informing us that "Our water was contaminated" above coliform limits.... (Gee thanks!).

      And the quality of municipal water in the city 10 miles away isn't too great either.... "Brown water" coming out of everyone's taps is a common complaint, and despite numerous promises from the mayor and other crony politicians, hasn't been fixed after 2 years.

      Perhaps by getting our water packaged a PRODUCT with an Accountable Company; there's actually some serious $$$ Value in the additional safety worth paying for.... I mean, who is anybody other than the buyer to legitimately judge that it isn't worth paying for a bottled drinkable product from a brand much more consistent and trustworthy than the local product that comes through the tap?

    10. Re:Problem isn't laws... Stupid consumers by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      What, with toilet water?

    11. Re:Problem isn't laws... Stupid consumers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Terminology review:

      Gross profits: No such thing. The term is either 'gross' or 'revenue' which means the total income before expenses.
      Net profits: This is redundant. The term is 'net' which means the total income after expenses. If this total is positive, we call it 'profit' and if it is negative, we call it 'loss'.

      Revenue or Gross - Expenses = Net
      Net > 0, Profit
      Net 0, Loss

    12. Re:Problem isn't laws... Stupid consumers by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Most people, when buying bottled water, are not really paying for the water. They are paying for a cold, transportable bottle of reasonably pure water. Likewise, with gasoline, you're paying for the refining and cracking, not just the oil.

    13. Re:Problem isn't laws... Stupid consumers by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "We get their large packs of bottled water, or in some cases filter our own water, because the available municipal water available has made us sick before."

      And you haven't sued them into the ground for negligence because...?

      "We regularly get postcards months later from the water district informing us that "Our water was contaminated" above coliform limits.... (Gee thanks!)."

      and you haven't sued them into the ground for negligence because...?

      "And the quality of municipal water in the city 10 miles away isn't too great either.... "Brown water" coming out of everyone's taps is a common complaint, and despite numerous promises from the mayor and other crony politicians, hasn't been fixed after 2 years."

      And you haven't sued them PERSONALLY into the ground because...?

      Oh, right. Fucking sheep. Carry on sheep. Baa some more while you stand around doing nothing but chewing grass. This is EXACTLY what your lazy ass deserves.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  13. Yeah, poor Nestle! by Rujiel · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's not, their fault that sociopathic behavior in the buying of our political system is so darn lucrative! I'm having a hard time believing that anyone actually thinks this shit-- Nestle has more power over our political system than any of us individually could ever hope to have, and yet they're the victim?

    1. Re:Yeah, poor Nestle! by King_TJ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why does it have to be so polarized? (EG. Nestle = victim, OR Nestle = evil sociopaths)

      I really don't find Nestle as either one. I think they're just taking advantage of the opportunities presented to maximize profits, as they've promised their stockholders all along. If Nestle was really SO evil, they'd be putting highly addictive substances into their water bottles causing you to crave Nestle branded water - or something like that?

      Yes, corporations tend to have enough money to buy influence in the political system. That's why I've always felt we need to both pay attention to what's going on and vote in an informed manner, AND reduce government's size and scope. The more power and influence central government has in the first place, the more ability it has to selectively grant businesses specials favors or privileges - despite the will of the people being against it.

      I'd love to see political lobbyists outlawed, period. There's no reason someone should get paid just to try to win a politician's favor on an issue when that's the job of the voting public to decide. My elected representatives are supposed to be up there, doing the lobbying for the issues those of us in their district believe should be handled a certain way. Individuals trying to influence them with gifts, dinners, and what-not? They're clearly only there to subvert the process.

    2. Re:Yeah, poor Nestle! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough, if 10% of the Democratic voters in my district gave me $5, I'd have $275,000. I can win this election in $50k; whether I actually will is another matter, but it's in the realm of firm possibility.

      Of course not even 10% of people who want to volunteer their time are throwing me $5, so I'm reading the FEC's public records on who in my area has made political contributions (large and small) and canvassing their streets knocking on every door asking for donations. For those folks I've profiled, I've got individual plans on what to talk about and even on precisely how much to ask--if you ask for just the right amount of money, people take you seriously, and are highly-likely to give it to you.

      So yeah. I need rich doctors and CEOs to give me large donations because the half a million voters here won't pitch a few dollars into my pot (not that I actually want to spend my time handling the accounting--I am so glad my financial disclosure filings are quarterly and not annually).

      On the other hand, I have the sheer audacity to walk into a particular CEO's office and tell him I want him following my campaign if I start looking like I'm going to win, and to prepare his business for the policy changes, because what I have in mind needs exactly what his business supplies. Folks think rich folks donate for the privilege of having a Congressman's ear when they want something done; I'm ready to tell them I'm hitting them up for money so I can have their ear and prepare them for what I need them to do for the American people.

      You've got more power than you think. The question is: do you know how to use it?

    3. Re:Yeah, poor Nestle! by gnick · · Score: 1

      If Nestle was really SO evil, they'd be putting highly addictive substances into their water bottles causing you to crave Nestle branded water...

      They wouldn't be the first.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    4. Re:Yeah, poor Nestle! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Campaign contributions from corporations are illegal; however, you're quite right they can buy influence. They can pay full-time lobbyists to represent themselves. They can legally own PACs which, so long as they don't coordinate with any campaign committee, can do whatever they want--and the corporation can put as much money as it wants into a PAC it owns.

      Using the right terms there, chief.

      I'd love to see political lobbyists outlawed, period. There's no reason someone should get paid just to try to win a politician's favor on an issue when that's the job of the voting public to decide.

      It'd be a hard thing to ban without causing a lot of downstream damage. Beyond that, individual citizens aren't very good at getting their ideas organized, and so communication doesn't exactly happen.

      I wonder if there's a way to fix that. I'm starting to realize that the broad masses can tell me what hurts, but can't tell me how to fix it--they just don't know how. They try: they propose solutions which are really, really terrible ideas; but they don't say anything useful about good policy. The best I've got so far is to try to organize the pain points and get any expertise I can get my hands on to explain why exactly these things are happening, then search for a solution.

      The UBI crowd is a good example of that. I responded to Charles Murray's interview recently, where he suggested we cut every welfare benefit, every tax deduction, Medicaid, every mobility program (e.g. education grants, things to help the poor fight their way out of poverty successfully), the lot, and just give people $10,000/year. It's all stuff like that. Georgists are on the fringe of even the UBI crowd, although I still cringe whenever someone starts going on about a land value tax.

      The clear pain points are that our welfare system doesn't do what it's supposed to do; Social Security is going insolvent in 2034; people are going homeless and hungry; technical progress creates transitional unemployment (somebody loses their jobs) which, given the above, doesn't drop you onto a very strong safety net; taxes are too damned high (government spending out of control) and yet none of this works; and we have poor inner cities with broken economies, failing school systems, and resulting crime and opium problems.

      Okay, so I fixed it. After four years, I've given up getting any elected official's attention; I'm just running for my district's seat myself, because damn.

      So when it's my turn, how in the hell do I not miss the one guy who mows lawns for a living but has the solution to poverty? The pain points--what's broken in our system--are easy to sort out of the volume of noise; but anyone who has a real solution is a very weak signal.

      My brain's already working out a potential approach. That might go nowhere, but I can already see it trying. The end result is always lobbying--a filter that sorts out the signal from the noise--but the question is... who controls the input to that filter?

      Hmm....

    5. Re:Yeah, poor Nestle! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I'm tempted to throw you a buck, just to fuck with the Ds in your district. But no.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:Yeah, poor Nestle! by blindseer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd love to see political lobbyists outlawed, period.

      How would that work? First, you'd have to define a political lobbyist. Second, you'd need an enforcement mechanism.

      Part of the problem in making political lobbying illegal is that everyone has the right to communicate with their elected officials. Are you going to say that once someone makes a profession of communicating with a politician that they cannot talk to them any more? Okay, define the point at which a person is a professional lobbyist.

      For an example let's assume I want clean water for my community. So, I start a little group, Keep My Water Clean. I collect donations, hold fundraisers, and so forth so that I can spend my time traveling through the state and the nation telling those in public office that there needs to be government enforcement on keeping municipal water safe to drink and to fund the creation of municipal water sources for growing communities. You want to ban that?

      Let's say there is a ban. How should I be punished if I violate this law and create Keep My Water Clean in spite of the ban? Would you have me jailed? Should I be fined? How do you think that would look in a court of law? Or, the court of public opinion?

      I've seen arguments like this before and the typical response would be that non-profit corporations would be exempt. Okay, did you know that the NFL was a non-profit until there was enough public outrage that they changed their legal status? Being a non-profit doesn't mean the entity cannot be very large and make a lot of people a lot of money. Also, suppose a bunch of people got together to make a non-profit that made it no secret of it's affiliation with a large for-profit entity. Let's call this group Pepsico Employees for Clean Water. Every member of the group is a Pepsico employee, and the board is identical to the board of Pepsico. When they hold a meeting they "rent" a conference room at Pepsico headquarters, and Pepsico then "donates" this rent to the non-profit Pepsico Employees for Clean Water, which is then noted on their tax return as a donation to a non-profit.

      I say let people say what they want.

      I've heard this somewhere before and it comes to mind here, liberals want people to shut up while conservatives want people to keep talking. Go ahead, keep talking. Let the best argument win.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    7. Re:Yeah, poor Nestle! by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      I'd love to see political lobbyists outlawed, period. There's no reason someone should get paid just to try to win a politician's favor on an issue when that's the job of the voting public to decide. My elected representatives are supposed to be up there, doing the lobbying for the issues those of us in their district believe should be handled a certain way. Individuals trying to influence them with gifts, dinners, and what-not? They're clearly only there to subvert the process.

      Then get the voting public to decide on their own, and slowly the companies will realize that their lobbying is ineffective, so will stop doing it.

      Plus, similar to what another response said, that seems very much against the First Amendment, since you're trying to let the government control one's speech.

      (I would go the opposite way. Get rid of basically if not completely all donation limits, but make ALL donations traceable back to the source, whether Joe Public gives $5, or Evil Tobacco Company gives $1 million.)

    8. Re:Yeah, poor Nestle! by yorgasor · · Score: 1

      My dad did lobbying at the state level for the newspapers. As a lobbyist, his job was to inform lawmakers how certain laws would affect the press, either in a positive or negative way. Lawmakers don't always see the ramifications of their laws on each industry because they aren't experts in each area. In my dad's case, he was fighting to make sure laws were written such that the press had access to government records, things like the FOIA, or preventing the government from holding secret meetings, or changing locations at the last minute such that the press couldn't be present.

      Not all lobbyists are evil, some are actually fighting for our rights. I suspect you'll find the EFF and the ACLU have lobbyists also working on our best interests.

      --
      Looking for a computer support specialist for your small business? Check out
    9. Re:Yeah, poor Nestle! by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      I've heard this somewhere before and it comes to mind here, liberals want people to shut up while conservatives want people to keep talking. Go ahead, keep talking. Let the best argument win.

      Close. It's "Conservatives don't care what you think as long as you do what you're told. Liberals don't care what you do as long as you think as you're told".

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    10. Re: Yeah, poor Nestle! by guruevi · · Score: 1

      All donations are already traceable. However anyone can use shell corporations (e.g. PAC) to obfuscate the amount they give.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    11. Re: Yeah, poor Nestle! by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      But thatâ(TM)s basically what I mean - make the shell company part go away or âoesee throughâ or whatever. I honestly have no idea how to do that at the moment, but o think things could be improved from how they are now WITHOUT restricting donations (which I consider a free speech issue, even from corporations).

    12. Re: Yeah, poor Nestle! by guruevi · · Score: 1

      You would have to demand full insight into every US corporations' financial dealings. No corporation would go for that.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    13. Re:Yeah, poor Nestle! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Would be appreciated, although my point was more that folks don't understand what power they actually have.

  14. Stop buying the damned water by JohnFen · · Score: 1

    Pretty much everyone should be aware by now that designer bottled water is an enormous, expensive scam that is harmful in pretty much every respect.

    1. Re:Stop buying the damned water by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      True -- that's why I said "designer water". In most places that I've been, you can buy filtered water in gallon (or larger) jugs. In my area, a gallon of this costs less than a dollar. From a health and safety point of view -- as well as ecological -- these are better than designer water.

      In most areas of the US, the water coming out of the tap is safer than anything coming in a bottle. But if you don't trust the tap water (or don't like its taste -- there are a lot of areas of the country where the water is safe, but doesn't exactly taste or smell good), then a water filter is the way to go. Even one of those pitcher-style ones work well, and they aren't that expensive.

    2. Re:Stop buying the damned water by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I can top it.

      Lady found the Keurig machine empty of water. So she filler her, never washed, coffee cup with 1 cup of water, poured it into the tank and made her cup of coffee.

      At least it was heated to 'boiling', for a second.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  15. Why is this here? by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This has absolutely nothing to do with nerds, technology, internet, or anything even close. It's a food company putting water in bottles. WTF. Not news that matters.

    1. Re:Why is this here? by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      Bottles that end up as landfill waste.

    2. Re:Why is this here? by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Would you prefer that the petroleum that went into the bottles is burned?

  16. Ask the right question or stop it! by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

    So what? The question is and has always been (and always been ignored or avoided) WHO OWNS NESTLE????? Who is the majority shareholder of Nestle???? Who are the owners. Stop talking about monolithic corporations without naming the owners --- otherwise you are just spinning.

    1. Re:Ask the right question or stop it! by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Why even that? What's the problem? You buy a million liters of water for $2000 (cost of desalinated ocean water), bottle it and resell for $2/liter. Why should this be illegal?

  17. All bottled water by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

    I can not say this about other countries, but in the US, if you purchase bottled water for ANYTHING other than an emergency back up to existing water supplies, you deserve EVERYTHING that comes with it. The actual cost is around a 2000X markup. But I think a Tusser quote pretty much sums it up. A foole and his money be soone at debate: which after with sorow repents him too late.

    1. Re:All bottled water by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      wrong, plenty of cities have water that tastes like ass or has bad thing in it, perfectly worth it to buy bottled water.

      if you think bottled water is expense of note, get a real job.

    2. Re:All bottled water by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Yup! My GF and I used to drive to Southern Missouri to visit her relatives. We stopped in Rich Hill for a break and the first time we did, she told me to try the water. Ugh, I never did THAT again!

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    3. Re:All bottled water by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

      I dunno. $4 for a pack of 21 1-liter bottles of water from Costco doesn't seem like a budget breaking decision.

      And I'll be frank, tap water is disgusting almost everywhere. It might just be tap water they're putting into the bottles, but there's some serious filtration going on, that makes that water tastes 2000X better than tap water.

      But personally, I only use bottled water when I drink it directly. For coffee, food prep, or anything else that needs water, the tap is fine.

      For what it's worth, if you're like me and MUST have bottled water, at least make a responsible decision regarding buying it: Buy the largest containers you can. I like the 1-liter bottles myself. But not long ago, I had to use bottled water for everything, in that case, I bought my own 1 gallon jugs and refilled them. You can use bottled water is an environmentally less-impacting manner. Definitely don't buy small bottles, that is not cool.

    4. Re:All bottled water by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      That is just because you have become accustomed to the taste of your local water source. I have had people say the same thing when they first moved into the area where I live. At first they say "Oh god, this water tastes strange", or sometimes even worse. Yet, when compared nation-wide, this area always ranks in the top 10 for the best taste. Why, because with water (flavorless) it all has to do with the minerals that they are ADDED to it during the filtration/transport process (which varies). Unless it is coming directly from a well (my instance) with no filtration.

      So about that job, I don't need one. I have everything I need.

    5. Re:All bottled water by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      Oh no, let's be clear, where I live Chicago water tastes like the ass of a zebra-mussel in the hot months, because of the invading zebra mussels (and similar creatures) passing the water through their asses, I mean siphons.

      In surrounding suburbs not using Chicago water, water has sulphur content, it's even worse. So bottled water is superior

    6. Re:All bottled water by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      Sounds to me that someone needs to make a new delicacy consisting of zebra mussels. Much like the nutria and feral hogs down here in the south, coyotes are just plain fun to hunt. When an invasive species starts to take over a region, you make it a culinary delicacy that people will pay a crap load for all the while having an open season. Problem solved. :P

    7. Re:All bottled water by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      unfortunately, the hugest ones are the size of a fingernail, smallest less than a hair's width in diameter. you can look up pictures of the nasty things clogging irrigationa and filtration systems.

      There are fish that will eat them, raising hopes of a predation based solution, but hopes were dashed when controlled studies done and it was found the things pass through fish digestive systems mostly unharmed. In other words, instead of being predators the species in question were more like free public transit for the critters.

    8. Re:All bottled water by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      wrong, I'm over 50 years old and know after decades that nothing will be done for "fixing taste". what a fantasyland you have between your ears. What exaclty do you imagine could be done for "fixing taste" that wouldn't cost tens of millions of dollars a town won't have?

  18. Relevant docu by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 1

    Bottled Life - Nestlé's Business with Water (English with some German commentary, YT auto-translate of subtitles may help)

    This docu is about Nestlé's bottled water operations in (mostly) poor countries. But with some parts about this subject as well - taking a public resource & selling that for profit.

  19. Good investment stock by CharlesAKAChuck · · Score: 1

    Sounds like I need to invest in Nestle...there's always a lot of fools who will pay a premium for water in a bottle.

  20. 100% by Weaselmancer · · Score: 2

    I wish I had mod points right now.

    You're exactly right, of course. In every other civilized nation in the world bribery is a crime. In America, we call it lobbying and that somehow makes it legal.

    I'd love to see lobbying made illegal. It can take gerrymandering and forfeiture laws with it too on the way out the door.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:100% by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      You're exactly right, of course. In every other civilized nation in the world bribery is a crime. In America, we call it lobbying and that somehow makes it legal.

      Bribery is still a crime, but you have to be able to prove it, and proving what was in someone's heart is a tricky proposition.

      There is, supposedly, a difference between "Person A gives politician cash in exchange for Politician changing his vote" and "Politician votes a certain way, so Person A gives money to campaign to make it more likely those goals are represented." The former is bribery, the latter is lobbying. But again, it's not easy to tell when one becomes the other, so lots of folks get away with stuff, and donating to a campaign often becomes "gains influence over."

  21. Re:So? by Nutria · · Score: 1

    their tap water is for all practical purposes just as good if not better than whats in the bottle.

    Our tap water is clean and potable, but tastes nasty. Too much chlorine.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  22. Water Buffalo by SeattleLawGuy · · Score: 1

    I've heard a lot about how "evil" Nestle is for these practices. But as usual, we're simply dealing with shrewd businesses taking advantage of situations where they can make huge profits because the law of the land doesn't prevent any of it.

    IMO, laws can be changed at any time -- so blame the governments for this.

    Having had nice refreshing drinks from water buffaloes on a hot day (what we called an old military water tank on a trailer), I can say there are clearly alternatives to water bottles that result in a LOT less pollution. There should be a more meaningful tax on small water bottles sold outside of an emergency situation.

    Incidentally, very few things are as annoying as people who buy a lot of water bottles and leave them half-empty all over the place. (Yes, these people exist.)

    --
    Real lawyers write in C++
  23. Might be okay by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    If, for example, you live in Flint MI, it might be worthwhile to buy their water. Unless they used Flint water.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  24. Re:So? by omnichad · · Score: 1

    Same here. A bit too much iron/rust and mineral, too.

  25. michigan water... by bobmajdakjr · · Score: 1

    bottling michigan water? nothing could go wrong with this plan...

  26. The two biggest scams by Dracos · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ... by which mankind has swindled itself are religion and bottled water.

    1. Re:The two biggest scams by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

      ... by which mankind has swindled itself are religion and bottled water.

      Buy low and sell high, that's the way to make a profit. If you can make something for nothing and get people to pay you in droves for it, that's great -- More is Better!

      And then they're Nestle putting water in bottles and moving them around for your convenience. Known good (just check the seal), clean, portable, the guy before you didn't absorb the entire fountain with his mouth, etc.

      And if it costs too much for it don't buy it. TRUST ME -- they'll quit selling it when it stops making a profit. They HAVE to. Or they'll continue until they go broke, when they'll stop.

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
  27. Re:Hey ! That wouldn't be ... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Nestle is too smart to put a business in Flint. Duh.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  28. Americans complaining about capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    and being the biggest source of unintentional comedy on the planet since forever. Classic.

  29. Prepositions by WillgasM · · Score: 1

    The end of the sentence isn't where they go at.

  30. Same for anyone by RobinH · · Score: 1

    I have a co-worker who lives out in the country and he can legally pull something like 20,000 L a day from his well. He pumps it into a couple big holding tanks he has, and he has a water truck and he sells it to people who want to fill their swimming pools. He's basically just charging for delivery. The water is free. Nurseries around here don't pay for water either, depending on how much they use. On the other hand, my house is near a town well so I'm in a source water protection area, and I can't even put a sand point in to water my lawn (they're trying to prevent contamination, but also means I have to purchase their town water at a rather high rate). That's part of the homeowner's agreement. Anyway, if you're getting short of water, then regulate the resource. It can be done.

    --
    "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
  31. Re:Stop Shipping Water! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Waterroo. Water 'cold squeezed' from bags you have to get by subscription.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  32. OOOOLLLLLLLDDDDD news (The Nation) by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    This sh!t is over 3 years old.
    There are bigger fish to fry.

  33. tax em, by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    tax the hell out of Nestle, the locales where this free water comes from the local governments should tax the hell out of them

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  34. Water by shayd2 · · Score: 1

    I have a right to your water. A famous quote: Whiskey is for drinking water is for fighting over.

  35. The first step to changing the law by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    It's knowing they need to be changed. This is why Bernie Sanders is pushing a Medicare for All bill he knows won't pass. You have to start somewhere.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  36. How is this news? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

    I thought everybody knew that most bottled water was someone else's tap water.

  37. Re:Typycal fucktarded USian attitude by mattack2 · · Score: 1

    You do realize that bottles are recyclable, right?

    (BTW, I don't buy bottled water myself.. I definitely buy _flavored_ water [diet soda] though.)

  38. Re:Income trade-offs for cities by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

    Water is very cheap everywhere (relative to bottled water). Even desalinated water, about as expensive as you can get, is 0.16cents/litre. And it's not like you can bottle a significant part of the natural water supply anywhere in the world. The biggest water user in the desert near where I live is the electric utility (for cooling).

  39. Pittance by JBMcB · · Score: 1

    Extraction fees are assessed at the county level in Michigan. Usually they are for farms and golf courses.

    Compared to the amount of water those two categories of users suck out of the ground, what Nestle is pumping out is practically rounding error.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
  40. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's bitztream the autism-hating, custom EpiPen-hating, Musk-hating, Qualcomm-hating, Firefox tabs-hating Slashdot troll!

  41. Makes sense by iamacat · · Score: 1

    Whatever else bottled water is, the amount of water needed is trivial compared to other consumers such as agriculture. Materials and environmental impact of the bottles is much more problematic.

  42. Re:Typycal fucktarded USian attitude by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

    using disposable bottles is using the limited fossil fuel that the planet has.

    It's funny how the same people who complain about using up our precious oil are the same people who are complaining about global warming. Probably one of the best uses for oil is turning it into indestructible plastic and reburying it. Trees don't make a very good carbon sink because as soon as they rot, they release the carbon. Non-biodegradable plastic on the other hand makes an excellent carbon sink. On the other hand, if we use all the limited fossil fuel for car fuel and release it all into the atmosphere, then we will make the earth uninhabitable long before we run out of oil.

  43. Re:So? by BitztreamNotARealNam · · Score: 2

    How's life in the hypocrite lane?

  44. Bottled in Michigan? by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    Source Flint.

    Rich in trace elements.

  45. Why is this here by JohnStock · · Score: 1

    Why is this on /.?

  46. re: lobbying by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    I probably should have added the "professional" or "career" qualifier to my original comment about lobbyists.

    If you're going to say any activist who tries to put together some kind of small "awareness" group is outlawed from speaking with politicians because that's construed as lobbying them? Obviously no ... that's not what I'm suggesting.

    What I'm saying is that it's a very real thing that you've got individuals, today, who make a career job out of lobbying politicians for very specific agendas. They're PAID to do this day in and day out. Sometimes? I'd agree 100% with what they're trying to do. (I met a guy out here in the DC suburbs who was doing this for marijuana legalization, and I think he was completely right with his arguments.)

    But ultimately? I think we need to draw a line with this stuff and say IF you're going to get paid to try to push a certain political agenda? Then you need to be limited to influencing the voting citizenry. Give THEM the info they need to vote the way you want them to vote to make the change happen, or give them the list of their senators and congressmen who are already on-board with the idea. Unless you do this, you're accepting a situation where the voice of the masses is always worth less than money spent to bend the ear of the decision-makers directly, bypassing the masses.

  47. In case of Poe's Law by q4Fry · · Score: 1

    +1 Funny

  48. Outrage, blah blah... by greywire · · Score: 1

    Oh yeah lets show lots of outrage for their arguably immoral business practices, the fact that their ceo is a total douchbag, etc... .. and then proceed to do nothing about it.

    --
    -- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.