Water as a basic right

That is kind of my point. If you live in such a locale, someone has to deliver the water to you. However, I'd be hard pressed to justify preventing someone from bending down and drinking from a river.

>First of all, outside of the power structure of the state, you already have the right to take his organs, but probably not the material power to do so. Without material power or ability, all rights are worth nothing - what does the idea of abstract property or body rights mean to a state that has a monopoly over an area, or to a warlord, or to a slaver? Well, unless you can contest their claim with violence of your own, nothing. Prescription of action requires FORCE.

Couldn't agree with you more
"""""""rights"""""""" are only what you can protect yourself
All rights come from the barrel of a rifle

Yet it is what people have been proposing that governments do when demanding "water as a basic right". I think it's important to denounce that sort of dishonesty.

Thats a privilege not a right. Although the dictionary tells me rights and privilege is synonymous, but frankly "rights" carry a moral and/or divine weight that "privilege" doesn't.

No, rights are basic an inalienable. What comes from the barrel of a rifle is their enforcement. And truthfully, rights are meaningless unless you have the ability to enforce them.

If you resist me when I come for them, then you implicitly claim to have the right to ownership of your own body.

I have the right to give you a free helicopter ride, commie.

I really fucked that post up.

No, a privilege is something granted. As an example, free delivery of purified water to you would be a privilege. Rights only become privileges if you still have them without having to enforce them.

Why are you posting the beaver picture when you aren't the beaver poster?

In his final thread he said he was stopping.

If you don't believe in rights, you are an ancom by default.

Those who think rights don't exist are stupid, and get themselves and others killed when they try to test their stupid ideas.

Again, your picture talks about privilege, not rights, unless you claim they are the same thing. If you do thats fair enough, I do believe in privilege, but otherwise kindly explain what the difference between a right and a privilege is unless its that a privilege is a right you can lose.

I don't see how that follows. Could you explain?

Uhhhh , it sounds like the ability to enforce said """""""right""""""" is the concept that is inherent and inalienable
Total violence first , then all perceived rights

If you don't believe in rights you are an egoist anarchist, ancoms 'believe' in sacred rights of the democratic collective and labor theory of property.

Give me *one* example of a right that cannot be taken away from you by someone with more material power than you?

But you have to enforce privilege as well.

Checked. He can't cause that is the truth
Total violence first then all perceived rights

see

Though if you want to be more specific, you could say that the difference between a privilege and a right is mostly an ideological one. As in, it is acceptable to deny someone a privilege, whereas it is unacceptable to deny someone a right.

Let's put it this way:

Privilege: You have access to it because someone else has granted it. If you were the only human being on the planet, you would not have it.

Right: You have access to it because no one is denying it to you. If you were the only human being on the planet, you would have it.

If you thought you didn't have a right to something, you wouldn't fight to defend it. "Rights" are an abstraction of that natural impulse, and political systems that ignore that result in massive violence, and anyone advocating for such systems must die immediately before they fuck everything up.

tbh, I don't give a fuck about your word games. If you don't believe in rights, and try to violate mine, I will kill you. If you don't believe in rights and I find out about it, even without violating mine, or even anyone else's, I might still kill you, because you are a carrier for a memetic virus that must be stopped at all costs.

No one denies me X therefore I have a right to X.
I deny you Y therefore you don't have a right to Y.

What good is a right if it ceases to be the moment someone disputes it?

You don't, because it is granted. Privileges are defined by being revocable without violence. You just have to stop providing it.

Meanwhile, if you want to revoke a right, you have to actively stop people from exercising them.

I did stop. This is very different from the threads I used to post. I decided to put up the beaver picture after writing up the whole post and seeing how much of a discussion it would be.

Thanks for proving my point, you fucking retard. In case you didn't notice, the entire point of my post was that 'Might makes Right', because a system of laws, morals and ethics that is not backed by force means nothing.

Rainwater is a basic right to those who catch it

Are you claiming that rights are nothing more than codified instinct?

No, might does not make right. Universal will to live is what makes rights. If I see you stealing from a little old lady next door, I will kill you.

You need to understand that your word games will 100% get you killed if you try to put your idiot theory into practice. Even the general of the world's largest and most powerful army dies from a sniper's bullet, or from a poisoned meal. You don't have to be the strongest to defend your rights.

Frankly, not really.

People have to do what it takes to ensure their own survival, and the survival of their DNA. White people have generally done that pretty well; I have access to clean free drinking water (unless you add in property taxes and my electricity bill) that I've never had to defend with a gun or whatever.

The various shitskins of the world, however, have not. Should we do it for them because they can't do it themselves? No, of course not. Many of them want to kill us, most of the rest wouldn't care if it happened, and regardless, they wouldn't do the same for us.

That's the thing about rights that people here are trying to tell you; you don't really have any. Now, you may have your own plot of land with well water, or some other means of getting free clean water, but that's because the people who would deny it to you are scared to come and take it, and that's because white people have their shit sufficiently together to prevent that.

"Right" is a word. Stop word thinking. It doesn't do you any good.

What you faggot commies try to do is justify your desire to steal, rape, and kill. This is why you are the mortal enemy of mankind.

It doesn't cease to be, it's denied.

No. I dumbed it down a bit to make it easier, but you don't have a right to other people's properties as long as they're not actively denying it to you, as an example. Meaning, you're not allowed to violate other people's rights.

This is nearly non-sequitur. Denial of Y doesn't remove the right to Y, it merely denies the right to Y.

Yeah, communists are well known to respect right to property, liberty, security and resistance to oppression.

Checked

SPLATTER COMMIE FILTH REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Where the fuck did I say rights are a communist idea? I said they try to think hard enough with words so they can get around them to steal, rape, and kill.

You and all your kind deserve to die. I will personally take at least one of your heads.

...

Your death warrant.

Wait, I just understood what you said. I hadn't been following the conversation and I thought you were saying rights weren't a thing because communists use them to justify their bullshit. Now I understand that you mean they focus on precise definitions in order to better circumvent them.

My apologies.

But isn't the important part of a right the moral or divine authority it carries rather than the particulars of how its enforced?

Good on you for fessing up to your mistake. That makes you a bigger man than most.

Am I talking to a literal retard here? Of course most egoists don't admit publicly that they denounce all 'rights and wrongs'. The best mask for the loss of faith in conventional moralisms is that of piety.

Example: Hence why rich and popular thieves, priests, politicians, lawyers, manufacturers etc. always did and always will pay lip service to the prevailing moral dogma of the herd - even though it's plainly obvious to even the dullest person that they themselves don't abide by the moral principles they sing praise to.

All the stupid examples your walnut brain just produced prove my point. A trained military or a state can kill a insurgent, therefore unless that insurgent has the material might to defeat that state, he will be incapable of living according to the moral principles set up for himself. A guy killing a thief that robbed an old lady is enforcing his standards of morality at the end of a metaphorical sword.

A guy that is poisoned was cunningly killed - there is more than one type of Might. A man that has a way with words, and can get the herd of human animals excited and doing whatever he likes also possesses power (example: self interested leaders of a communistic uprising). A woman that is cunning enough to poison or assassinate his enemies is also a dangerous and mighty person. A person that possesses enough brainpower to accumulate a large amount of money, or come up with some revolutionary type of weaponry, for example, is a mighty person.

I'm not sure if it should be a right, but if you are being imprisoned or held captive you should have access to clean water.

I'm not a communist you nigger.

Rationally speaking? No. In fact, it's why they're often called "natural rights" in certain cultures. You have those rights "naturally".

Simply put, no one should have the right to harm his kinsmen by polluting or changing the course of a river. A just government makes sure all of its People have access to clean water.
But that's kind of irrelevant at this point because there are more important things. When your elites hate you and want to ethnically replace you with non-Whites, that issue must be dealt with first. Once the traitors are removed from power or executed, then we can move on to improving the lives of our people.

I think is just trolling. Whether or not rights exist is an irrelevant issue. Intended to distract from the essential fact that our elites are trying to exterminate us. Once we deal with the traitors who are trying to ethnically cleans us in our own lands, then we can choose to live either in Ancapistan or in a National Socialist nation or in a democracy or in a monarchy or whatever other forms of government fit the racial and cultural soul of the People living there. But let's not start arguing over what color the curtains in the White House should be once we gain power. We'll decide that afterwards. Now there are more important issues.

Even if the source is on property owner A's property, Property B C and D still own their part of the river. If property owner A is not entitled to do anything that harms the property of anyone else, and that includes blocking their part if the river if it harms someone else's part.

See this is why its confusing to me. If theres no moral or divine authority behind a right then I don't see how its anything more than a circumstance of a particular life. IE you have the "natural right" to life until you die, which seems to be a meaningless statement to me.

Can I interject?

"Might makes right" does not refer to morality, but to reality. Meaning, might does not make right. But being right doesn't make you bulletproof.

In the end, it's not just being right which matters. It's also being mighty.

The existence and nature of rights is relevant to this thread. White genocide on the other hand is kinda off topic, although important.

I always post in beaver bro threads usually just to tell you you're a dirty french separatist. But my ideals have changed lately and if Quebec decided to secede i'd give them my blessing and hope they pulled their shit together. I think when it comes to water being a right, it really isn't, its a privilege. You earn this privilege through work and building a strong society. You can't have a prosperous nation without a solid infrastructure such as roads and clean water. Imagine going to work in the hot sun laying asphalt sweating all day and having to boil well water to keep hydrated. The clean water fuels the development of the nation.

Yes, I am a retard with a gun, who will kill you and everyone like you with zero remorse no matter what words come out of your mouth because I have seen your ACTIONS.

Regardless of whether people intrinsically have natural rights or not - that's a pretty philosophical question - it makes sense to act as if they do. The alternative is basically tyranny and having your rights decided by whomever is in power.

Just for the record, on a paltry 25k a year gross income, the federal government takes almost 10% of my income. Combined with SS/medi, state, and city tax (the last two being just shy of 5% combined), as well as the "higher of the two: 2.5% of income or ~$700" penalty for not having health insurance (which for me means $700, which is 2.8% of my income BEFORE taxes, its 3.5% of my AGI after all other taxes)…. total its nearly 25% of my gross income. That means for every dollar I make, one worthless government group or another takes their cut until they've taken a quarter out of that dollar. Then you get to toss on sales tax which is another 6-10% depending on area and anywhere between 31% and 35% of my income is going to these agencies and programs

That, again, is on a MASSIVE $25k GROSS income (ie: before taxes). Every dollar I make, I am forced to give up roughly 1/3rd of it for… what exactly? scumbag police to get a new car every six months (while I drive around in a 22 year old pickup truck) and arrest me for "hate speech laws" after a nigger rapes my g/f and I kick his teeth in and cut his dick off then he gets half a million in white liberal guilt gibs on kikefundme, so a kike judge listening to a kike lawyer can sentence me to prison, where tyrones buddies can rape me while the guards have a bowl of popcorn and jerk off watching it, and all of this paid for by me on my pissy little income

Oh, I know, how about all the GLORIOUS pothole filled roads I get to drive on to work, and the food stamps I magically don't qualify for because I'm to WEALTHY, or NSA/CIA to spy on my choice of fucking hentai, or the FBI to sit around and shitpost on fucking Holla Forums and run psyops on us, or the glorious welfare queen system that is the us military and the kikes getting even fatter off defense contracts

Thats what I'm paying for, all of that. Meanwhile, I also get to pay out of pocket for some kike to fill my water full of chemicals to fuck up my entire body slowly over my life, and charge me out the ass. You faggots know a city nearby where I live actually decided to charge a "NON USAGE FEE" for people who were on septic tanks and NOT on city sewage? Quite literally charging people a tax FOR NOT USING A SERVICE, I mean it would be like me charging the mayor for me NOT cutting his grass every weekend.

Ya know, I think we could live without all of that and maybe have our tax dollars go to, oh I dont know, clean drinking water not owned and run by kikes.. maybe stop funneling nearly 70% of our tax revenue at the federal level to paying a bunch of niggers to sit around, smoke weed, and rape white women.

This, this is why I'll be perfectly fucking happy when this whole fucking country burns to the god damned ground. We can't have clean drinking water, the best we get is some kiked up system charging us out the ass for (((clean))) water, but ooohhh we can surely afford to pay congressional reps anywhere between 150k and 250k a year to do nothing but fuck us in the ass.

(Sorry, I was going over what my taxes are going to be next year after reading that the IRS has declared they won't accept tax returns that don't answer the health insurance question portions, and it really pissed me the fuck off… THANKS TRUMP! don't, ya know, do anything about it, but make sure you say some crap about it on twitter, THATS REALLY HELPING)

If rights don't come from the divine or don't have an intrinsic moral authority then it is necessary to formulate rights as is most practical. What is most practical then depends on who gets to define the goals and how to achieve these. Who gets to decide this? The guy that commands the most guys with the biggest guns.

If you remove the moral or divine from rights then you are truly left with "might is right".

This guy gets it fairly well

No, I will just kill you. I don't need to disprove shit.

You just said that right and wrong are irrelevant as long as you have the might to act as you please

Maybe you should step away and cool down a bit, you seem to be somewhat emotional about this.

And that is why you have to die.

No emotion. Just fact. All communists must die.

There is an authority, which is the authority of nature. Yes, it has authority, if even only through the laws of physics. But it has authority.

Let's observe animals for a better idea, apply the idea of rights to them. Here, we'll take three rights: Liberty, property and security. I'll skip resistance to oppression because denying this isn't something animals do.

Imagine a bird. This bird can fly around all it wants. What is stopping it? Well, beyond the elements and its own physical limitations, the only thing stopping it would be another animal. The bird can fly freely until a man cages it.

The bird gathers twigs, leaves and feather and builds itself a nest. Again, what will stop the bird from enjoying the nest it built for itself beyond an act of nature itself? Only another animal could. The bird can enjoy its nest until the squirrel tries to steal it away.

What harm can come to the bird? Plenty of harm. Some of it accidental. Some of it not. The bird is safe until the eagle attempts to snatch it from the sky.

In every case, the bird is enjoying something which can only be denied by either nature or another individual. Its liberty, the fruit of its labor, its very safety. Now, nature cannot be argued with or threatened. You can't talk your way of torrential rains and floods, you can't make hurt a hurricane, you can't reason with a disease. The same can't be said of actual living things.

Apply the idea of rights to humans and the same truth remains.

Well I'll sleep comfortably knowing that if Holla Forums does win the culture war you wont have any offspring due to the eugenics program that is sure to follow.

He is a real philosophical powerhouse

Isn't he just.

You think that words matter more than actions, so you use words to justify the most vile actions.

This is why you must die.

Industrial age in West Europe and North America laid a fine layer of mercury and lead all over the landscape. This cannot be fixed, it's permanently fucked, we will never be able to safely drink water from a faucet. And that's why our industry (factories) are being exported. Same situation has occurred in Africa and Asia, with arrival of industry there.

The only places where water could one day be safely drank from a faucet are Australia, South America, and East Europe/Siberia.

In other words, natural authority is just might. If you want to elevate it to something beyond might you have to attach a moral or divine load to it.

This is an imageboard, words are the best we can here.

Also, I agree that action matters more than words, but action needs to be guided by something. A goal is needed and a plan to reach it. I like Holla Forums because both goals and plans can be discussed here.

Not might, but the laws of nature themselves. Reason. But yes, might is an important part of the equation. Only through might may rights be denied, and only through might may they be enforced. Might itself does not define the rights however.

I'll only respond to you once because I strongly suspect you're a troll.
"Rights" exist in the same way "Honor" and "Duty" and "Honesty" exist. You can say correctly that none of these things "exist" in the same way DNA or a mountain "exist"
You can't touch, measure, quantify, or weigh honor or rights or justice. Just as you cannot measure consciousness or put loyalty under a microscope.
Instead, these things are part of the culture of a nation. Rights in a semitic country are different from the rights in a European country. And between countries of a race, the rights, duties, and customs will differ. So in a simplistic sense, you're right. Neither honor, duty, rights, freedom, loyalty or anything else unmeasurable "exists." like a river or a beaver do (assuming we're not a computer program).
But in a practical sense, they do exist because they are the essence of what makes up a People's culture.

All of this is pretty irrelevant because at the end of the day, whether you believe rights or laws exist or not, they are enforced and a part of the culture of whatever nation you hail from. We could quibble over whether a law "should" exist or not. But that's utterly irrelevant in the face of the fact that the System enforces these laws. And as far as I am concerned, it is good to resist a System that is actively trying to ethnically cleanse White Peoples. And as far as I'm concerned, it's evil to try to ethnically cleanse White Peoples. And as far as I'm concerned, it's good to resist evil.

Does "evil" or "good" exist? I have no idea. I've never seen any proof. But I'm not fighting a philosophical enemy. I am fighting a Jewish enemy hell bent on genocide of my People. And once (((they))) are dead, we can argue philosophy again to our hearts content. But until the world enemy is dead and buried or burned, any philosophical debate is meaningless. If we lose, EVERYTHING will be destroyed. Every culture, every well thought out philosophy, every concept of justice and right and liberty will be replaced by Jewish degeneracy and liberalism. Total Jewish domination of every aspect of life. The rivers and forests of the earth will be polluted wastelands. The rainforests will be cut down. The unique cultures of the world will be blended into extinction. The entire planet will stagnate and die.
Compared to that, this debate over whether or not a concept exists is utterly irrelevant.

You're thinking in an individualistic way.

If the men on plots downriver were your kimsmen then why would you even consider depriving them of water?

If they are an enemy or foreigner then why do you care about depriving them of water?

That's why you can argue for natural rights from a utilitarian perspective, since a lot of edgy atheists aren't convinced of any intrinsic morality. If you just leave rights to be decided by "whatever's practical", in effect that just means people's rights are subject to the arbitrary whims of some ruling body, and people end up sacrificing their essential liberty for a little security, and so on.

So what does define rights then?

I'm not trolling I just have never ever heard or read a good explanation of what rights are or where they come from except for might. If I'm reading you right you're saying rights are just values, is that correct?

Also, we surely have time for a little philosophy. Used to be loads on Holla Forums back in the day.

Well, I'm not a utilitarian, but I honestly don't see how one can arrive at rights without either God or utilitarianism.

Not exactly. Rights have more in common with boolean functions than abstract ideas. Like wetness. Wetness in itself isn't a thing, but something is either wet or it isn't. Likewise, rights in themselves aren't physical object, but their state defines the physical universe, though admittedly in a very complex manner.

Let's take right to property. You grow food and have it. If your right is respected, you keep it, feed yourself and your family and live. If it is denied, you and your family starve and die.

Let's compare it to honor as a way to explain how I differentiate them from more abstract ideas. Now, in some cultures, if you dishonor yourself, they'll kill you. So, you could say that honor could itself be considered a boolean function in the same way, merely a way to define the universe. However, it is not the loss of honor itself which causes your death, but the decision of someone to punish you for it. In the case of the right however, your own suffering is the direct consequence of the denial of your right.

The "natural state of being" defines rights. What you are granted through nature. Thus, natural rights.

This comes back to the initial discussion concerning the right to water. You have a right to drinking water because it is there for you to take. You don't have a right to the delivery of purified water because someone else had to work for it. (You do have a right to it if you purified and delivered it yourself, since, you know, property). You wouldn't have it were it not for human intervention.

This is true and I suppose I am being unfair.
Yes, I'd say that these concepts are like values.

Don't think like a Kike.
While depriving an enemy of water is okay although destroying a river habitat is really extreme. If you need to destroy an entire ecosystem to fight your war, it's better to just make peace and settle your differences rather than irrevocably destroy your river systems depriving "foreigners" of water just because they're foreigners is a very Jewish mentality. It's the kind of thing Israel does to its neighbors. Why should Austria deprive her ethnic kinsmen in Hungary or Germany of water? Why should Serbia deprive her ethnic kinsmen in Bulgaria of their common river system? And why should we destroy the environment in the first place? Our racial souls are the realization of our environments. Our European soul needs rivers and forests and mountains, wild spaces. We are not meant to inhabit an urban jungle of concrete and steel. The European soul craves clean rivers to swim in and green forests to hunt in and mountains to climb.
Besides, even if you have no love of nature at all and nothing to do with your neighbors, trade is built upon mutual respect. What if your neighbors have access to resources you want? They won't trade with you if you treat them like an enemy.

Are you stating these rights are universal truths or are these cultural values where you are from like might say?

If rights are just values why complicate it by calling them rights in the first place? Theres a lot implied in the word after all.

For a right to be a right, it has to be a universal truth.

And yes, I am aware that different nations have different definitions for different rights. A lot of nations like to pretend they'll respect their citizens' rights when they won't.

I think you misunderstand me. I agree with your points and when I say that rights are values, I am not saying they're unimportant. In fact I believe that the values of a People are quintessential to their societal health. Look at today's societies in White nations. They're for now predominantly White and yet the value system is Jewish. Look at how unhealthy everyone is. Mass shootings, Whites acting like niggers, obesity, TV addiction/escapism, soulless consumerism, etc.
So in a sense I agree with you that Rights manifest in a real way. Obviously they are not the same as a physical entity like a building or an ocean. But they are very real in the same way values & culture is.
You both make reasonable points.

You sound like an impotent child. Grow up. No one is frightened of a keyboard warrior brat making empty threats on an anonymous image board. You just sound like a cunt.

Why do anything? Because it is our culture to call these values "rights."

If its a universal truth, how do you know what rights are valid and which ones are not? IE:

How do you know?

Again, how do you know?

If you derive your understanding of rights from how nature functions then I'll remind you that the cuckoo bird steals the labor of other birds by destroying their eggs and tricking them into nesting their own for them. If this is a natural right then both murder and theft are must be rights.

If rights are nothing more than the product of a peoples culture and values then they are no more than opinions and may be dismissed as such.

Thats even bleaker than might is right. At least someone has to competent in some way to be mighty.

Go to a river. Bend down. Drink. There, you did it. Not that I'd recommend doing it because river water tends to be filled with germs and what not, but you can do it unless you are being stopped either by the elements or by another person. The river is there naturally, and its water is available to you naturally.

If you ever find self-purifying self-delivering water, do let me know, I want to see that.

A right is not "something animals do", and quite frankly I'm starting to think you're pretending not to understand. Your response is like someone saying that running over someone with your car is going to kill them, then someone else going "then I guess shooting people with a gun doesn't kill them". It's so completely off the mark and non-sequitur that it might cause one to wonder whether you're being honest.

Either way, what you described, namely the cuckoo's behavior, is an example of right denial in nature. In fact, if you go back, you'll see I specifically gave that example, but used a squirrel instead of a cuckoo bird. The cuckoo did not build that nest and it did not lay those eggs, it had a right to neither. What it did is indeed theft and murder. But they're animals, so no one really cares. Animals are barely aware of their own existence in the large majority of cases, don't expect them to understand morality.

You could say that rights are what nature makes available to you I guess.

Yeah. And if you try to dismiss peoples' rights as if they're nothing, you'll probably get shot.
Try disrespecting the Koran in Saudi Arabia.
Try stealing someone's firearms in Texas.
Try celebrating the rape of Nanking in China.
Try stealing someone's property in Russia.

You can run around LARPing as an anarchist all day long if you like. But at the end of the day, you will not disregard peoples' rights lightly. It's a great way to end up dead.

Rights and values are so important to people that even the Jewish elites can't outright disregard the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And the Jewish elites have more power than you do.

So how is a right different from ability? I have a right to drink it because I'm capable of drinking it? How is that any different in any way from might is right?

You missed my point I think. How do you know that I don't have a right to the purified water someone else made? Did someone tell you that? Did you read it somewhere? Divine inspiration? Deductive reasoning?

Can you see why I'm confused by your definition of rights? You claim they are universal and you gave availability in nature as an example, but that doesn't show me where you got this idea from or how you know it is truth.

I assumed you meant that you derive your knowledge of rights from nature, hence your analogy and "natural rights", but I guess I was mistaken.

Okay, I'm done. You know damn well that this was a very specific example, which YOU requested. This is exactly what I was talking about. You ask if a cow produces milk, I say yes, then you say "So you're saying only cows produce milk".

Yes, sure. Figure it out yourself.

I'm not an anarchist, I was just trying to point out to OP that in order to discuss who has the rights to what you first need to reach consensus on what the fuck a right is and where they come from. Using your definition of a right the answer to OP's question is "whatever the people involved find acceptable".

It does beg the question though: in your view, what happens when two different cultures both claim the right of property over the same area?

I don't mean practically, but rather morally. As an impartial observer who would say has the right to Taiwan? China or the people of Taiwan?

The victor writes the moral code

I didn't ask for an example, I asked for the reason you believe it. How do you know that I have the right to drink it? If not because I can then why?

I agree.

If one or both sides is unreasonable, war happens. What happens morally? Both nations hate each other after the war unless the other one exterminates the other.

I think that both you and OP are talking about irrelevant issues. Yes, Holla Forums used to be a heck of a lot better and more philosophical than it is now. However one of the problems with current year Holla Forums is that we're wasting our time on irrelevant issues.
You ask whether or not rights exist so we can determine whether or not OP's question is valid.
But ultimately, OP is asking how society should be governed post-Jew.
Um… maybe I fell asleep and woke up in the distant future but last time I checked, the Jews are still in power and they're ethnically cleansing us. We do not have the power to change anything. We can't say you can dry up your river because rights don't exist, nor do we have the power to rigidly enforce communal ownership over nature.
And I am sick of all the anons who talk about society as if we already won and are now arguing over how to govern our nations. It's a form of escapism and escapism is death.

I think the reason people are assuming victory is because the future looks a lot brighter these days than it ever has. If you could go back in time to 4/pol/ CA 2010 and told them pedowood is being exposed, far right nationalist parties are growing across the west and that an "america first" president was elected less than a decade later no one would believe you.

in AMerica the constitution says our rights were given "By our Creator" that is not the gubmint, also we are a republic, meaning NATURAL RIGHTS better than civil rights as once again the gubmint cannot take them away. for instance the whole felons can't own guns thing… tehnically the government cannot enact any type of law denying natural rights as laid out in our constitution. they give you power OVER the government that is there to serve the people

How is a natural right different from a civil right? You say the government can't take your rights away but haven't they already? If I understand the issue correctly thats what the damn civil war was about. Also, a piece of paper doesn't give anyone power over anything.

The men who wrote it were stronger than the men of today and willing to die for their rights. The founding fathers would have picked up their guns and revolted against ZOG long before now tbh. One only has the rights they are willing to die for.

Water is a necessity, not a right

Basic rights are for humans, goy. Not you.

Access to drinking water for sustenance of your own life should be a right of some sort.
But then again, food as well. As well as air. However people need to poopoo and peepee too.
Fighting for "rights" is usually a commie op and nothing to do for it.

It's a codename for governmental ownership and distribution of water.
And it also means that you and a 3rd world shitholer that has no water has the same claim to your country's water supply as you have.
Or higher since he didndunuffin

YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS, WHITE TRASH.

It is true that the future looks brighter now than ever before (in our lifetimes). But that is because things went from utterly hopeless to "Now there is a chance."
And things went from certain death to chance of life because of the hard work of thousands of determined individuals to win over the hearts and minds of millions of other people. Now there is a fighting chance. But celebrating after winning the Battle of first Manassas/First battle of Bull Run would be foolish. We have only just begun the war.
And there are great reasons to be concerned.
1. Regardless of whether or not it's true, a large portion of Holla Forums users are convinced that almost every single pro-White voice with a name is actually a Jewish agent in disguise. If so, this would actually mean that hope is almost certainly lost. It would mean that we have been completely outsmarted and outmaneuvered. It would mean that our enemies are actually far more brilliant than we are and nothing we could do would not be coopted and destroyed. And if it is not true, it means that our enemies are still seeding powerful memes on Holla Forums.
2. Many people in our "movement", user or namefag have a mentality of "waiting for the civil war"
This is a poisonous mindset, especially when they make no real preparations for winning such a war. They just assume we'll win. These people really need to taste reality. If a civil war began today, as many want, neo-cons would almost certainly win. Where does that leave us? It leaves us nowhere.
Even worse, this mentality is antithetical to the real world we live in today. We are not fighting a shooting war. Locking our minds into shooting war thinking means missed opportunities to win the propaganda/information war that exists in real life.

In California all food service places are required to provide free water to customers. Probably because homeless people die from the heat.

Reported for bestiality.

I don't know why this is. I assume its either newfags who are overzealous in their defense or low-IQ individuals who just cant tell the difference. In any case its pretty clear that the enemy isn't invincible, they just have an incredibly powerful "meta-meme" that they have employed throughout history. The difference is now they have competition.

This 100%

In a homogeneous society and one in which the government and its officials value nationalism and the good of the people, how is that a bad thing? Just because it's a terrible, terrible idea in the current Talmudic Democracy doesn't mean it's intrinsically a bad idea.

'rights' are meaningless mental masturbation concept that doesnt exist in reality
if you can take it you are entitled to it
if you cant you arent
it is quite literally that simple

gravity doesnt take a day off, you jump off a building and you get squashed, gravity doesnt give a shit about your basic rights
neither does an ocean
neither does a wild animal
rights come from force, if you cant cancel some force, that force cancels you, its the most basic and fundamental reality of our universe and existance

how is this even a 100+ replies thread?

Tell me when we get air as a basic right back.

This is communism, water should be privatized. Forbidding people from collecting rainwater is bad? No, Fellow Goyims, this is how the Free Market works!

Because brutalist is nice but st some point we cooperate to create s bigger force

I blame the mods. They cultivate people who don't want to leave Holla Forums because it benefits them. As William Pierce once said, the thing about the Internet is that it is anonymous. People can express their opinions about anything they want without anybody knowing who they are. They all use pseudonyms or nicknames. It's the perfect environment for cowards, for shirkers. They can shoot their mouths off and act like real men without being called to account. And like shirkers everywhere, they would like for everyone else to be a shirker too, so they are not shown up for what they are. They would like for their cowardice and irresponsibility to be regarded as prudence. They want to thought of as smart guys instead of as shirkers.
Pierce wasn't anti-internet. Kek knows he loved the internet and faithfully defended the freedom of speech online. But he wanted positive action.

Nationalize water delivery! From the tax that we give to the state, we are guaranteed free drinking water.

Welcome back, beaver poster.
Tragedy of the commons is only solved through violence.

No, we can't discuss it because this shit;
Has never been said before. You just pulled that out of your faggot ass, OP. You know you're being a cunt. You're doing what anti-gun faggots do. Trying to suggest that the founding fathers only meant, single load, bolt action rifles. Your version is, yes, everyone can go and kneel on the shores of Lake Michigan and have a gulp. But anything more and my libertardien spidey sense kicks in and well, rape.

Fuck off.

Nothing is guaranteed in life. You are brought to this world against your will. From that first day on you need to learn to fight to live. Or take the easy way out and gas thy self.

this, this, this you could lose everything and everyone at any moment no matter who you if you're not careful.

"Rights" exist only within the framework of an intellectually and philosophically cohesive society.

I agree entirely. Rights, human or otherwise, do not exist universally, they are creations of mankind and are only allowed by those who have authority. If a superior entity comes to try and enforce some form of 'rights' but fails, those rights are irrelevant to the grand scheme of things if there is no might behind the 'rights'.
To summarize, rights are only as relevant and powerful as the men who enforce them. They do not exist as part of the soil, or the air, or on anything else. They are on paper and that, without authority behind it, is irrelevant. So when people appeal to rights as if they existed before us, it's really what they want to be, not what actually is UNLESS they force others to follow their line in the sand.

If the rifles are not as powerful as my cannons, then the rights are no inalienable. If you cannot defend them, they do not exist once the conquering forces roll in and remove any 'moral limitations' or 'rights' guaranteed to the people.

/thread
I don't know why the thread is still going on. Do you think the nuclear bomb over Hiroshima was stopped because 'being subject to nuclear warfare is a transgression against human rights'? No, the mighty win and 'rules' against them, or rights guaranteed to people, are worthless if they exist on paper and are not backed with weapons. People think they can just say 'healthcare is a right' and have it 'exist' universally. Preposterous.

OP, companies who pollute the water ought to pay for its purification for us.

Nobody has the right to make all the water unpotable.

There are no such things as “basic rights”. There are only basic responsibilities of a nation to its people. It perhaps is a responsibility of a nation to ensure its people have access to water, but it most definitely isn’t a “natural right” of the people to have access to water

Well, depends on which concept of "right" you are using.
Do you have a faculty to demand water as something basic? The Un would say yes, but I ultimately don't see any logic in that decision other than muh feelz.

Is water something to be regulated by the government in order to avoid conflicts over bodies of water? Yes. Even if 99% of the cases it is resolved without government intervention, which would be ideal, there needs to be a set of laws which clearly define the rights pertaining to bodies of water. Mind you, this is only a thing on romantic law countries. If you live in the UK or the USA, you are shit out of luck,since the judge will do whatever he wants with your water and you have nothing to do unless waiting 30 years for the following instances to maybe give you the case.Anglo law is SHIT nowadays. It was OK back in the day,though

Gee, I guess the Jews did nothing wrong then. You're pro-Israel, correct?

Except they lost and their state is given out of pity, not ought of might.

In a proper National Socialist society the government would, under threat of force of course, ensure that all proper citizens have reasonable and affordable access to potable water in sufficient quantity as to, at the least, sustain basic life.

idiots reply to beavers for some reason

Are you fucking retarded? They clearly won by manipulating all the greedy goyim to betray their own people and to wage war on Germany? So might is right, except for when it isn't?

Anyone who believes might is right is a legit cuckold, because you believe that any crime that is committed is justified. Someone rapes your wife? Might is right. Someone kills your kids? Might is right. Fucking idiot.

They lost the war, not the war for influence and culture. Might is right, at the end of the day, sorry. If your wife dies and you could not protect her, you do not appeal to the murderer, because criminals will always exist. You appeal to your inability to protect your family from savages. If you keep on losing, eventually you must look at your own capability to defend. If nobody defends you, all harm that comes your way starts to become your own fault.

By your own logic, the white race deserves to die. It doesn't matter that we create better societies, it doesn't matter that we've had better philosophies and art, all that matters is "muh dick, muh dominant genes" Your logic is literally nigger tier.

If might is right, then the only thing in the world that matters is being the strongest and the meanest, thus the world is just one giant shithole. Do you really not understand the implications of might is right? If you actually believed that might is right, then you wouldn't be on Holla Forums, you'd be out there fucking niggers and celebrating the demise of weak whitey.

Thereby making the argument of rights moot, this thread a waste of time, and National Socialism the obvious choice for guaranteeing the livelihood of a nation's people.

He's clearly some kind of an-cap/lolbertarian mental defective.

1. An individual sure, that would be a pretty fucking small stream (if not see next sentence.) A corporation, fuck no.
2. That would be property damage, so no.
3. Shitting in a river isn't pollution, if you're dumping masses of shit in there that's different. Animals shit in the river all the time, if you're talking about a hiker it's nothing, if you're talking about all your sewage no, build a septic system.

Water rights aren't complex - if it falls on your land it's yours, if it's under your land it's yours, if it flows through your land it's yours. None of those things give you the right to change it for anyone else - you can't just put a tarp over your land and catch if all if you own a square mile because that fucks up the aquifer for everyone, you can't suck it out of the ground to bottle it because that fucks up the aquifer for everyone, you can't dam up the river or divert it because that will eventually come undammed, change course and destroy property, or destroy the aquifer for everyone (if it's an actual river and not a small stream/brook.)

This shit is only made "complex" because you have cunts like Nestle not only sucking aquifers in Maine dry, but also lobbying to charge people who live near them taxes for the water THEY suck out of the aquifers.

Ban international corporations and the problem would disappear entirely, it only exists because some evil fucks are trying to increase Human suffering by feeding and watering the third world (taking it from the first AND giving a population which doesn't even comprehend the issues with its uncontrolled birthrate.) There were millions of starving Africans, then we started "helping" them and now there are billions - the fact it's still ongoing shows you pretty clearly the (((globalists))) hate Africans more than anyone on Holla Forums does, they hate them so much they want more of them to torture.

If there is no revivification of the European spirit and defense of the borders, nobody will do it. If even the governments have refused to defend the people and have opted to replace them, then nothing will help. And if the people have become brainwashed to believe their replacement is a moral necessity to make up for their people's success of the past, then nothing will stop them from getting to the final goal. This is an unfortunate reality you must come to terms with. It is not that I believe whites deserve to die, full stop. It is that I believe that if the European peoples have abandoned their nations/people and refuse to defend their cultures, then they will die, and nobody will come help them.
Which is whites. They have the strongest military forces, they can destroy all opposition if they so choose. Europe is allowing its demise, it is not because it has 'lost' a battle of might.
By the way, pointing out the eternal, evolutionary competition of all life doesn't mean that order cannot arise from this chaotic mess. That doesn't mean states cannot organize people.
If you show up to my doorstep and tell me to give the keys of my house over to you and you have a gun and I don't, if I cannot defend myself or have somebody defend my being on my behalf, I will lose. That doesn't mean that I don't believe in arming myself to defend against thieves. Nor does that mean I encourage white demise, you're assigning to me motivations I never said I believed in. I am pointing out what WILL happen if the current trends continue, not that I am glad that it IS happening. If I never bother to defend myself, I will have myself to blame. Obviously, the lion's share of the guilt is on the person who is the aggressor, but fool me once, shame on you…

Probably, but even then he clearly hasn't actually though through completely what might is right means. When he suggest the paramount virtue is might, he then relegates, aesthetics, spirituality, enjoyment, and other virtues to the sidelines, thus showing that he is a materialist. If he's a materialist that values strength over beauty and cruelty over kindness, then his ideal man is a Sub-Saharan nigger. Which raises the question as to why he's on Holla Forums instead of world star.

But whitey isn't weak. There is only one war, the war that has been raging since the first chimp met the second chimp for the first time. That war is still on and we are still fighting it.

If we lose I wont consider it a moral evil, but it will have awful repercussions on the technological, artistic and philosophical development of civilization as a whole.

Except I never said this. I said that might is right, not that it is the paramount virtue. When you boil everything down, the only thing that matters is who can defend what they believe in. If nobody does it for you, then you will lose.
It is very easy to assume the positions of the person you're talking to and run amok instead of actually ask the opinions if you need clarification. I can accuse you of being a nigger fetishist for having these retarded images saved on your hard drive. Does that develop the discussion anywhere if I assign motivations to your character that I cannot demonstrate?

You said might makes right. Not might wins in the end. If you can't understand the difference between those two things, you're a brainlet.

What the fuck do you think "right" means?

Why don't you tell us?

Paramount - more important than anything else

You did say it. You're just being disingenuous or using word you don't know.

the legendary furry cunt strikes again

I agree with the first and I clearly recognize that the second becomes an inevitability if you refuse to defend yourself here when I say the following: then they [European peoples] will die, and nobody will come help them.
In the context, a right society expects of its people to uphold and protect. I put particular emphasis on the protection part because, without it, rights do not exist.

I agree with that, that doesn't mean that I value brute force over all other traits. I never said that, I said that people who do not defend their beliefs (in this case, the rights they wish to preserve) will, ultimately, fail. If they continually fail, then a portion of the blame is on their shoulders for refusing to remove the pest.

To add, the main pushback I'm giving is that you think I want some chaotic world of absolute domination over others and constant struggle/endless war. I am merely recognizing that this environment is the ash that mankind arose from to create functioning civilization and that, ultimately, this is the 'barebones' environment we will find ourselves returning to time and time again if there is a refusal to defend your beliefs.

You mean photos which show the reality of African life, the reality of a continent which operates on the moral precepts of might is right? Why do you think warlords run African nations? How do you think Mugabe got into power. Might is right, these pictures are what you're defending.

When people say Might is Right, they are suggesting that morality should be based on the concept that the strongest can do whatever they want, that they are morally justified in raping,killing, etc, because they can. "Right" as in correct, as in moral, as in the paramount virtue. You truly are a fucking idiot.

No, when people say might is right they mean that the only part that matters is the practical part, IE the might to enforce and protect your beliefs. It is the understanding of rights without morality. If you believe there is some morality attached to rights I'd like you to explain what that morality is and how you know that morality is truth if you would be so kind.

What you're saying is that if something doesn't have the ability to defend itself, then it has no rights. Babies have no rights, women have no rights, animals have no rights. The system you're arguing in favor of is disgusting and it's exactly what niggers and sandniggers believe in.

But go ahead, spout some more bullshit, I can't wait to hear your opinions on morality.

If you were white you would understand what an inherent sense of morality means and would yourself feel it.

Once again, pointing out the eternal competition between all mankind doesn't mean I want to go kill children because 'might makes right'. On a fundamental basis, that is the reality of our existence. Is it wrong to kill the innocent who have done no wrong? In a society without law and order, no: might makes right (i.e. there is no right and wrong once everyone is dead). That is the foundational principle ancient man lived by and it is a part of our entire existence, whether you like it or not. That doesn't mean that we can progress beyond that, but even in the US today, the Constitution is meaningless if it is not enforced with might. Is it wrong for the government to take away all of the guns in the land? If the people do not defend themselves against that aggression, then the question is moot if they have lost their ability to fight back.

The system I'm "arguing for" is the world we have. I don't want things to be like this but we have got to face reality and the reality is that there is no such thing as a right. You either have the might to do as you please, as an individual or as a people, or you don't and suffer.

My opinion on morality is that there is no such thing.

I agree, I think that the entire world is endless suffering and murder. Man has been murdering and raping each other for tens of thousands of years. The other user thinks that accepting this competitive spirit between men means that we cannot progress to channel that competition with our own moral constructs within civilized society, for some reason. All I'm saying is that the morals we believe to be universal will be meaningless if society crumbles and barbarians flood the borders.

I do understand what an inherent sense of morality is and I do feel it but I try not to answer important philosophical questions with emotions. You don't build an understanding of math on feelings so why would you build an understanding of morality on them?

I hate non-whites like you so fucking much.

If you feel it and understand it, than it exists.

All of your issues with what I say can be cleared up if you simply ask my thoughts on what you think I believe. No, I do not believe that any law is morally 'true' just because it's some legislation. I believe that it's what the society has determined as a 'line in the sand' that is not to be crossed. That isn't always morally valid.

Besides morality, can you give me an example?

The feeling exists. Attaching some kind of metaphysical importance to it is a huge assumption.

Empathy and sympathy.. Morality is the end result thought process of these feelings. That's why those races that can't feel these emotions have no morality.

The hand of God isn't going to come down and stop you from committing atrocity, but just because you're free to make the choice to abandon your moral instinct doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Is morality nothing more than instinct? Am I morally justified to follow my instinct in all cases?

Sure, we can base our morality off of that. In fact, that's what I agree with. My entire argument has been that this is not found in certain circumstances. That is, that once the boundaries of civilized society fall apart (which I would argue is currently happening when it's okay to discriminate and destroy/revise white history in Europe with factually incorrect information, which is quote ignorant of sympathy), then it is on you to reject the teaching and destroy their 'sympathetic' policies. If you just assume that the emotions that enforce morality will be a means to an end in and of themselves, then you are in for a rude awakening. All morality must be defended, there will always be people who seek to remove it. During wartime, for example, this always happens. It is very apathetic to kill innocents during wartime, but that does not matter if nobody can enforce the morality (based in sympathy). The issue becomes amoral.

And my argument is that empathy, sympathy, and morality aren't transient. They're inherent. You can choose to ignore them, but the continued existence of them is what throw of the might = right equation. The end result, in my opinion, is guilt. The inability to rectify conscience action with unconscious, inherent morality.

This thread is proof that we have too many niggers in our midst. If you believe that might is right, then you believe that the winners of every war are justified, and in that case there's no reason for you to be on a politically incorrect board. Go back to watching the NFL and jerking off to those absolute beasts.

But isn't a cuck someone who has too much empathy and sympathy? Isn't the pathological altruism of the west our prime cause for our situation?

If you base your morality on this what is to stop society from going straight back to cucking?

People can circumstantially act moral towards people they choose, but it isn't inherent. Empathetic feelings are not inherent, during war, there is no 'empathy' towards the enemy. During total war, at least, the goal is the completely destroy the enemy, by all means. I don't think that means that they are inherent.
Not everyone feels guilt for people they despise.
Also, I don't know what you mean by rectifying conscious action with unconscious (and inherent) morality. You don't need to rectify anything, this assumes a transgression and that you care enough to rectify it.

Why don't you talk like an adult? Why do you put words in people's mouths then run off? Seems like a childish way to act. Just discuss the point in good faith. You think that pointing out the lack of universal morality means that people want to go kill babies. Again, the chaos of natural systems doesn't mean mankind cannot create law and order.

No, that's not what they're saying. This guy:
Just said morality is based on empathy. Put yourself in the position of somebody else and see if you would like the same thing to happen to you. That's his morality. It has nothing to do with cucking, but your point about pathological altruism and inevitable demise is right. But don't argue in bad faith, it gets us nowhere.

What I do and don't like is an odd thing to base morality on. What makes me so special?

I'm not trying to argue in bad faith, it just seems that people are reluctant to explain this properly. If there is such a thing as morality where does it come from and how do you know whats moral and what isn't? If you derive your morality from your emotional life and/or instincts are you morally justified to do whatever you please?

goys quit spamming your butthurt feels. the reality is survival of the fittest >>10783716
if babbys be all retarded and have low potential they have the right to be converted from a leech into something more enviromentally friendly like biofuel for muh space elevator and…

…Eventually women will be deemed useless and are replaced by automation and all unaugmented "humans" will perish humanity is not going to last an eternity

I agree that if you want to base morality on anything, it ought to be something that is emotionally 'pleasing' to the society. I don't agree with the other guy, though, because he's just talking about the Golden rule: do unto others as you want done unto you. I don't agree with that principle because it presupposes a scenario in which I will be at the mercy of another.
Yeah, I agree. I'm still waiting on a coherent point and a response to my retorts.
I don't believe in this, but I will play devil's advocate. I believe that the only 'true' morality is the one that I can defend. If I say that 'morality comes from the barrel of my gun', then whatever I defend is what is deemed morally valid. Anything that is rejected is morally invalid.
I do not derive morality from my emotional life. I don't know how those who believe in that would answer the latter half of your second question.

When I say "I don't believe in this", the 'this' is the initial part of the question. I don't believe it matters where the morality is derived from, as I made clear in the first part of my post.

Enjoying life without shitskin and kike enrichment should be a basic right but here we are.

what gives you the rights to take them?
nothing does.
thats why natural law exists so in a way you do have a few basic "rights" but those are rights you have that no government can decide to change

Beaver poster is that really you?
If it is you I'm glad you're still on the chans.

No one is saying shoot up anything. I constantly talk about why acts of "terrorism" are counterproductive. Remember, I am the one who talks about William Pierce so often. William Pierce opposed foolish acts of violence until we are ready
If you don't know what William Pierce was or what he stood for, you really need to go somewhere else and learn. Here. Start with this.
(This is an embedded video, not a picture. You need to click on it in order to view it)

There are enough water reclamation and filtration technologies that everyone can have clean drinking water, regardless of how poor they are. You just need the agency, organization, and intelligence to build a system for yourself.

I blame the mods too, dumbass brats.

Almost like what one would find in a cooperative, ethnically homogenous, National Socialist ethnostate.

Plot A. owns the water source and rights and can do Z, Y and Z with it as long as it does not obstruct Plot B., C. and D.'s water or else that would be violating their property rights, i.e. the water flowing through their land. He can dry it up, bottle it, or even turn into gold as long as it does not upset the water flow of his neighbor's. If it does, he can not do it. Also, keep in mind someone bought Plot A. fully knowing they could not obstruct other Plots' water flow from Plot A.
Does it obstruct other properties? No. He can do it. Yes? He can not.
3. What about pollution? If one of them shits in the river, the water is polluted for everyone further down the stream.
Same thing.

That was a wonderful listen user, will have to go over more of this Pierce stuff.

The "might is right" worldview, if it's the entirety of your worldview, always results in the absolute destruction or at best stagnation followed by destruction, of civilization at the hands of psychopaths.
The only thing that is right is rightness and truth itself.

I am not advocating for barbarity and absolute anarchy as a goal, but recognizing that our inner humanity is built upon ruthless, merciless competition. I have been consistently arguing FOR order from disorder, law from chaos, not for chaos, full stop.

If you had a state by, for, and of white people the system almost wouldn't matter. We'd work things out no matter what the official ideology was.

There is no such thing as a right, much less a right to live or have water.

(Checked)
DUBS OF TRUTH

Take heed anons, this is a nice and concise explanation of the issue at hand. Refrain from being a sperg about the "might" portion; being mighty does not strictly include physical "prowess", but rather, it is an encompassing of how well you can manipulate the physical world around you in order to survive. If your existence cannot be terminated, then you are mighty.

(Heil'd)
(Heil'd)
Nice back to back Hitler dubs.

We ourselves might not be the whole white race, but the ones coming after us shall follow in our footprints.

ITT: niggers who don’t understand riparian water rights

KYS

More like niggers who can't into advanced desalination

Rights don't exist. Rights and morality is just Jewish abstractions. Just spooks. Made up social constructs.

It seems especially wrong when social security is already given to make sure that everyone has enough to get by if they decide to live in an area they can afford to.

...

the idea that you have any rights to anything at all is fucking stupid, you either have the power to do something or don't

A kike might say, "oh, then you must implicitly believe you have a right to self-preservation if you object to being killed!"

How would you contest? I don't think of this in terms of a "right", but rather a natural response. Some may call that a "basic" or "inalienable right", but that is just (((semantics))).

Go into any gas station in burgerland and walk back to the bottled water cooler and look at the price for a bottle of water.
Now can anyone on Holla Forums tell me why bottled water costs more than gasoline?

Nice digits

What size are you talking about? Don't know any bottled water that is $2.50… you got jewed.

I don't have a right to self preservation. I just like every other organism is only able to survive by competing successfully enough against all other organisms for resources.
As a biological organism I am coded to preserve myself and my genes. All biology's purpose in life is to propagate itself. To spread my genes I need to live and survive.
This has nothing to do with kike legal abstractions or semantics and everything to do with the biological reality of man

The answer to that is simple. Capitalism. Monetary profit is the highest value and is to be vigorously pursued at the behest of everything else. All sense of community and folkish behavior has been lost by all White elites for a very long time and by most of the White masses. If the store owner and bottled water manufacturer can get away with selling water at that price then capitalism says that is his righteous duty to the market to get the most return on his investment and to make the most profit from his product. Capitalism is selfish greed the ideology

This whole right to water bullshit started in Detroit. Literally a judge ruled shutting of peoples water service because they didn't pay was against their basic human rights. Never mind that many were squatters and entire neighborhoods hadn't paid a dime for water in a decade or more.
It's leftist bullshit so nogs dont have to pay for water like everyone else living in cities.

You're terrible at this.

Yeah that's essentially what I was getting at. It is encoded to behave that way, and failing to do so only ensures people like that will cease to exist.

The bottled water is purchased in a prepackaged bottle instead of bulk, and is also refrigerated. Also you are going to put it into your body instead of a machine so you expect it to not have some drastic defect.

What would gasoline cost in a 16.9 oz bottle? What does drinking water cost in bulk without provided container?

...

The word "right" entails something you want not something you have. Saying you have a "right" to anything is simply saying you want it, even life itself isn't guaranteed even if claim a right to it. It's an expression of self-righteous wishful thinking. Read Edmund Burke's Reflections of the Revolution in France for a good rant on the topic. Criticism of the idea of rights is central to the creation of a right-wing that opposed the left-wing (which started in 1789.)

Interesting. Seems like the right-wing replaces "rights" with merit/ability.

Under the (((UN))) food is considered a basic right but not water, they are trying to fix that inconsistency, but the (((UN))) is trash anyway.

It's more about realism and caution against destroying traditions that infringe on alleged and imaginary rights. Anybody can claim anything under the notion of rights. Meritocracy is more of a Anglo-middle-class thing/Chinese thing than a generally conservative thing. This whole thread is cringe-worthy to be quite honest. Y'all should know this shit after seeing SJWs cry about muh women rights and BLM chimping out about muh nigger rights. Nobody has fucking rights, you either have power or you don't.

The UN can claim whatever it wants, no one is going to fucking doing anything anyway.

There is no such thing as a 'basic right' you cock-mongling faggot. You're not guaranteed even your next breath so don't present such libshit concepts in this way if you expect to be taken seriously here.
GTFO

Agreed. Also OP is suggesting they are some previous supposedly loved psyoping OP with their first image. But OP is always a fag

There's nothing free in life, we should strive to assist others like us (other whites) but "water" is not some inalienable right.

there is only one right that kikes niggers and commie filthy are entitled to and that is the right to die. And god damn it they are really going out of their way to invoke that right.

If you think that, then you don't understand what a right is. You have rights in the same way you have intelligence, lungs or height.

If you think that, then you don't understand what a right is. You don't have rights in the same way you have intelligence, lungs or height. You're not even making an argument, you're just contradicting me.

This. Rights are like countries, they only exist if you have the power to enforce them.

You confuse rights with access to rights. This is a common issue, and comes from the fact that people don't understand why we should even have defined rights if their exercise depends solely on the ability to violently enforce them.

To understand that, you need to have historical context. Rights were first truly defined during the American and French revolutions. They were first meant as a checklist of sorts, what a legitimate government working for the people should respect. This is why Americans specifically have a right to not allow the government to post soldiers in their homes, as it was something the British government did prior to the revolution.

Also, water as a human right is preposterous. Human rights themselves don't even exist if nobody decides to enforce them. If a judge says 'we all need water now', the state authorities will enforce the 'right'. The people's emotional belief that water for all is a moral duty does not supply water, some universal concept that predates human civilization does not supply water, and the piece of paper the legislation was written on does not supply water: only the state officials with guns supply water to the masses, nothing else. That's what I mean when I say 'might is right', by the way. The society who believes in that moral duty, in principle, pushes for a vote to pass so that the belief (water is a human right) can be made into a law. But just feeling one way or another does not fulfil the right, only action does that, and the 'action' is usually force.

see

Rights exist regardless of enforcement.

Okay, fair enough, I'm open to what this distinction entails regarding my argument.
Well, here you have reached a conclusion (that is, the rights that were defined during French/American revolutions functioned as checklists outlining what "legitimate government[s] working for the people should respect") that does not fit your premise ("Rights exist regardless of enforcement"). The state refraining from encroaching upon the liberties of the people is 'staying' the proverbial hand of the state. It absolutely is the absence of enforcement, it is the 'leave it be, do not aggress' framework. This does not mean that rights exist regardless of enforcement, it means that the 'checklists' for rights and what the state does not do results in a state that respects your freedoms. If the government of the US decided to kill all of its citizens and launch some war against its people (bear with me, consider a hypothetical wherein the military would not split immediately), then the rights would exist because the 'laissez-faire' government would no longer stay off the the lawn of the citizens, so to speak (by this, I mean to let the people be). This is just further emboldening my point if you take into account the historical context within which the 'checklists' for what the state should butt out of were first thought of.

I meant to say "then the rights would (not) exist because the 'laissez-faire' government would no longer stay off the the lawn of the citizens, so to speak".

No I'm not. Rights are imaginary.
By the left-wing, and in opposition to the right-wing. Read my fucking posts. Nobody has rights. America and France used the notion to justify what they were going to do regardless. A right is whatever you want it to be. Are you thick in the head or what?

Rights don't exist at all.

checked and recall that AZ literally deployed their National Guard along the ridge across the Colorado river from CA waterworks to shoot to kill anyone working on the aqueducts to suck water off over the mountains and down into the California coastal cities. They were literally going to start another civil war over it. The work was stopped until a peace agreement was finally reached between the two states over the Colorado.

Exactly my point: those with the power to enforce a future they wish to see are the ones who 'define' rights. The rights are conjured up at their behest.
So if one side decides that water isn't a moral obligation and the other thinks it is, the victor of the conflict has his concept of what is 'right' as the law. It doesn't matter how socially undesirable such a law would be, what matters is how much firepower exists behind it.
I only say this for the sole reason that the police in virtually every civilized society don't walk around and give hugs to people and appeal to their emotions when somebody breaks the law. It is always done with might.

/thread

checked again heh.
B-but user, don't the Swedish police go up and hug the rapefugees when they rape de white wyminz there? Oh wait, you said civilized…

They exist regardless of enforcement in the same way that "Does this person have pizza?" still exists as a question regardless of the answer.

Because as we all know, communists love rights.

They exist as a question for about a few seconds. "Do my rights exist" will be asked before the invading forces kill you if they so choose to aggress against you. The question without the answer of said morality being enforced is kind of a moot question. The morality that is not enforced does not exist. If the morals you reference are ignored and you are killed, then they don't exist if they are not setting a moral line in the sand (condemning immorality). Consider a Communist asking the question. No, morals don't exist once I kill them. Or at least, what they think is immoral and what isn't.
Also, pizza is tangible. You can grasp it, eat it, look at it, etc. Not an accurate analogy, because morality isn't as absolute in pizza. You should have picked a more open-ended example.

2nd

It's been too long beaver-poster. Good to know you're well.

You're just repeating yourself over and over again and you haven't made one cogent point that contradicts the idea that rights are a projection of wants.

Personally I wouldn't allow people to own water supplies or pollute them. I recognise this would be really fucking stifling for agriculture because farm runoff is unavoidable and irrigation necessary but you could limit the areas. If you only have one river then you shouldn't allow polluting industries up stream of the civilians that might use it for drinking. This, like the control of the money supply and military, is one of the few things a government should hold as a sacred duty.

For example, here's a comparison. The indigenous tribes of the New world were warring for many centuries, and the most dominant tribes that managed to survive were the ones that were left alive and 'in control' of territory when the settlers arrived. They had their own morality and drew lines in the sand, casting out immorality.
What do you think the total sum of all these moral rules was when the tribes and their territories were conquered by the settlers? This is a rhetorical question, of course. In any such setting, the framework of morality is only as powerful as the people who enforce it, and during war, there must be an absence of morality in order to compete for a set of moral beliefs to prosper in the end (which, obviously, belong to the victor).

A little off-topic, but does anyone have archives of old beaver threads from 2014-15? I remember that being some good shit when I first came here.

Im against anything being a human right. it usually means its a gibs that goes directly to niggers and whites have to supply it endlessly while being called racist.

I used to have most of them but my hdd crashed. I'd like them too.

If it's a meximonkey on the wrong side of the Rio Grande, you better believe I ain't gonna give that son of a bitch the right or the opportunity to drink from it. American resources are NOT a human right. This land was made for you and me, and that means it was made for American citizens and our permitted guests. Wetback thieves are not welcome here. They don't have the right to our soil or our water.

When someone says might makes right, that doesn't necessarily mean they believe it's literally true - they could be simply observing humanity and seeing that's how it actually operates, not how we tell ourselves it operates.

It's not. If you own a house you have to pay for utilities, or gather up rainwater, that is your choice. The idea that you can go into a restaurant and be served water for free only exist in America.

In my country we have other rights, trespassing is not a thing here. Property is regulated as inner land, you personal living space, your house and garden, and outer land, that is wild nature, wild in the sense that it is outside of the perimeter of your garden. Everyone can travel in nature and set up a camp wherever they want. There are only limitations on how long you can camp depending on how close you are to populated areas. Up on the mountain you can make camp in a single place up to 6 months. Animals, however, belong to the land owner. You cannot hunt on another mans property or fish from his waters. Berries, on the other hand, are for everyone. Another weird right is that 200 meter from where water hits land is regulated as free area regardless of how it is populated. You cannot set up camp in someones garden, but you can walk trough someones garden to get to the water. You can land a boat and have lunch in someones beach, even if they are having a garden party, or sunbathing 2 meters away. Another strange rule is that at my summer house, I am allowed to trespass on anyones land (even in peoples gardens), but they are not allowed to trespass on mine. The reason for this is that people used to move freely between the houses before they built the roads. As my family has lived in the area for hundreds of years, we are allowed to move around as we always have, I can even have domestic animals and collect grass from the land around me. If someone puts up a fence, he has to make an opening for me to pass trough, if I demand it.

The point of this little story is to tell you that rights does not exist independent of our culture and society. Rights are not a form of abstract logic that applies universally. Demanding restaurants to serve people water might make sense in a large city in America, it might not make sense in a small village with a lake running trough, or in a city with lots of fountains.

Where do you live? Are you telling me that anyone can move into your backyard and set up camp? Sounds like a commie hell hole.

I don't remember if beaversoros is a true beaver, I'm certain however that the capper did an awful job.

Well only this user came close to explaining why water costs more at the gas station than gasoline.

Lets break it down a little more bottled water $1.00 / 16 floz = 6.25 cents per fluid ounce
gasoline $2.50 / 128 floz = 1.9 cents per fluid ounce
So water costs over 3 times as much to "make" and transport.
This is something I do regularly when I am at the gas station I am always asking people why does water cost more than gasoline?
And it seems 3 out of 4 Holla Forumslacks pretty much come up with the same response I get asking at the gas station.

The other thing that always gets me rattled is watching soldiers or what ever emergency personnel has been stationed at a disaster site handing out bottled water. That is the epitome of retarded and wasted effort. For the following reason, every ship in the US navy can process potable water on board from the oceans or no matter what foul port they are anchored in. Almost every disaster area on earth specially anyplace that has flooded has ample amounts of water everywhere, there is usually a river or a drainage ditch or some source of water that only needs to be purified. All that is required is to bring in a portable water purifier (diesel powered) set up a drinking fountain, let everyone drink to their fill and then send them back to their homes with ample spare drinking water. When they run out bring the jug back for a refill. Pic related

ITT: Holla Forums raving how nanny government has to enforce some kike given abstract "right" for a resource.

These "rights" mean that
A.) The government in question has to be in complete possession of the resource to enforce it.
B.) The government defines "pure water" which means they're free to put shit in it that the public isn't aware of.
C.) Can extort you for money to provide that resource to your countrymen that don't have "pure" water aka niggers in downtown's with shit plumbing and shit treatment plants. Gibbmegibs yo.
D.) Can force the white suburban and rural communities to accept the definition of "pure water" and hand over the main springs that are located in these areas.
E.) Can be enforced solely in the case of a global government force becouse water on planet fucking Earth doesn't know the dreaded borders. Which IS the case since these "rights" are usually promoted via the UN and the marxist media. Your local "water privileged" ZOG aka Western countries in temperate climates have to provide water to "water deprived" or "water handicap due to Western funded pollution" shitholes of the 3rd world.

The rest of the anons ITT still haven't realized that these "rights" are just a form of marxist/orwellian rhetoric to bring in a one world government where all these sacred "rights" can be enforced equally.
The material reality that we live in works on the principles of "might is right" aka if you're too stupid/ill-adapted to achieve the required might to survive you're not worthy to survive. Also aka evolution. Aka the laws of thermodynamics.
Anyone that denies this is a marxist since they like to live in a fairy world of an all encompassing government where everything is provided and competition doesn't exist.
If you want to get my county's water commies, molon labe .

Addendum:
The first concepts of "rights" were in the immaterial forms to achieve immaterial goals.
F.e.
This shit is dependent on the individual to achieve. They aren't guaranteed but you are given the means to achieve them.

Leave it to the kikes to completely subvert and redefine them into a form of material wants that bind us on their control of scarcity.

Look up T. Boone Pickens. That ditry rat kike is stealing all the water he can pump and selling it to the chinks.

The problem is that it is usually the containers that people use to haul water that get contaminated with the really deadly things, not the water its self.

Glad to help. :^)
There used to be an archive full of Pierce's works. But the kikes shut it down. But there's always youtube/hooktube. Anons like myself help keep Pierce's works online by uploading his works.

the only right is might

Which gives you more bang for the disaster buck?
A pallet full of collapsible 5 gallon/1gallon jugs
Or a pallet full of little bottles of water?
And finally which pallet would weigh about 5 times more than the other pallet for a given volume?

weed too, bra. white ppl best be listnen. truth.

Weed should be granted only to be people with at least 10 confirmed kills, military or otherwise.

There is a torrent of the WiIliam L. Pierce radio broadcasts that were shoah'd from archive.org.
Mostly stuff from Bill Clinton's second term, a lot of great redpills about international jewry in the late 90s, would highly recommend listening to them. (It's very comfy to do so while browsing Holla Forums or playing vidya)
The files are of good quality, i'm about 60 broadcasts in and i haven't had any audio issues.
Here is the torrent magnet link: (please seed if you download it)
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:c6b95f36abe8b7973f179f558fd3c5d1d0bfd889&dn=Dr%20William%20Luther%20Pierce%20-%20308%20Broadcasts&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.leechers-paradise.org%3a6969&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.coppersurfer.tk%3a6969&tr=udp%3a%2f%2fexodus.desync.com%3a6969&tr=udp%3a%2f%2fzer0day.ch%3a1337&tr=udp%3a%2f%2fopen.demonii.com%3a1337

There is also a great audiobook of him reading his novel "The Turner Diaries" out there (unfortunately i don't have a complete version of it and the files are on another harddrive, the torrent i used appears to be dead)
If you don't have a (good) torrenting program use this: (Just don't update it, the new version is a shitty botnet with ads)
oldversion.com/windows/download/utorrent-2-2-1-2

morality is an evolutionary survival strategy, fools. Pic related

Genocide works.

Hmm. Is there anything from 1995? I can't find anything from Pierce from 1995 for some weird reason.

I missed you so fucking much, m8.

spooked.jpg

Why? In what fucking way? All it implies is that I want to keep my organs, and will resist you taking them. Rights are an abstract idea of someone being correct in a dispute in the eyes of an impartial, immaterial observer. But such a thing doesn't exist in reality. You want my organs, I want my organs, their ownership changes when you physically wrest them from me. At no point is invoking some aethereal umpire required. Nobody has a "right", just the condition of physically being in posession of the object of contention.

Rights exist in the context of legal systems. There raw violence when it comes to conflict resolution is outsourced to an external party in return for a set of impartial rules that can be followed. This is NOT a negative as the existence of law allows societies larger than the tribe, and thus civilizations to form. But that's it, there are no rights where humans haven't defined them and aren't enforcing them. The concept of "natural rights" is a bunch of stupid garbage invented by enlightenment apostates who wished to deny the existence of god without having to consider all the implications fully. Holla Forums is where those implications have been considered, so if you still believe in the existence of "rights" as anything but a human invention you need to lurk and ponder for a few months.

UNFLOURIDATED WATER IS A RIGHT

If you don't own one of these with the fluoride/arsenic filter in it, you're fucking up.

Don't all rivers and such belong to the government? Also, in my country, tap water is purified and drinkable, so everyone already has the access and delivery of purified water at his leisure.

I'm gonna get those fucking organs and the only way you can stop me is to defend your right to life and property at the risk of your own life or admit that humans fucking have rights.

been doing that all my life, along with the rest of my country. Recent studies even showed that the quality of tap water we have often surpasses the quality of bottled water

no, what he is going to do is call the police, which is the "might" of the government, who uses this might to impose laws and privileges upon its population as well as define "rights". Your parallel is fuckign retarded, if I go and punch an annoying faggot in the face, does that mean that punching annoying faggots is a right?

It goddamn should be.

do you live entirely alone in an area with no other living beings?
what do you suppose keeps some random cop from putting a bullet in you if not the mercy of law and legal behavior?

The correct solution is to have a well dug down to the water table and install a filter in the pump. If you don't live in a place with a viable water table, that's your fault for choosing a poor homesteading location, and you've got nobody to blame but yourself for your water situation.

No, you don't have a 'right' to water, any more than you have a 'right' to food, or shelter. Your ability to acquire these things in exchange for your labor should absolutely be preserved and defended, but giving people "water rights" is just another step on the road to Bolshevism. It's shoving pictures of starving brown children in the faces of brainwashed baby boomers and Gen Xers so we can try and wedge that Communism in just a little bit more.

Just chant might makes right and be done with it. What you are are shilling is nigger tier philosophy.

It implies none of that you fucking retard. Not once did I mention a right or a wrong, a good or an evil, a request for moderation. My organs are currently within my body, and keeping me alive. I want to keep them there. You might want to take them and sell them to someone else. I will resist that by any means necessary as I want to stay alive. At no point am I appealing to any external authority. I don't need to, that's a step that YOU added because you are still incapable of functioning without it.

An argument is about rights if there is an appeal to an external moderator, real or imagined - be it the state, a tribal chieftain, a god or even a commonly shared system of beliefs. But rights do not exist physically, in the physical world. You stupid conservatard cucks simply haven't gone through all the stages of moral development yet so you don't understand what the fuck you're talking about. Rights are a useful abstraction that the vast majority of humans have internalized to some extent, because it is quite ancient - but it DOES NOT PHYSICALLY EXIST.

You are being bluepilled.

8ch is run by intelligence contractors. It is completely compromised from top to bottom.
They enforce a clickbait-style narrative to reduce politics and philosophy to cheap entertainment, making you bitter, cynical, apathetic, and paranoid with no tangible, positive goal in sight.
They use outright censorship and AI-driven bots to detect and drown out any voices going against their agenda.
They are trying to establish this place as an 'alt-lite CNN' to make you go back to sleep. See below for proof.
The truth is that almost EVERY internet forum and chat platform is the SAME WAY.
We are being cornered systematically and we have NOWHERE to speak our minds
They infiltrate moderation positions, they hostilely take over ownership of websites, and they send swarms of bluepill AI bots to forge a false consensus that we should sit around here doing nothing while our people are being burned away from the inside by this insane jewish society.
They are taking over everywhere, they are taking over everything. Forgot about Gamergate already?
STOP tolerating this bluepill bullshit. If we don't do something soon we'll have no way to break our people out of the spell. We'll all be doomed to be mentally disabled jewish slaves FOREVER.

The goal is to keep you unmotivated and apathetic by bombarding you with irrelevant garbage, and above all, to condition you to believe that effective activism is a passive affair, eg: posting online, showing up at a rally and yelling a little.
Any message that might lead to you thinking about improving your circumstances or questioning the narrative is targeted.

Their five main strategies:
1) Delete the message outright and make a deflective excuse without reasoning
2) Flood the conversation with bots/shills posting negative comments and "entertaining memes" to try to manipulate you into a "good mood" to accept the shill's rejection of the subject at hand
3) Flood the conversation with stupidity to try to make the subject unpalatable or otherwise associate it with stupidity
4) Make replies that roughly agree with the original message but add in some element of insanity, eg: "esoterism", "meme magic", random murder/destruction to try to associate the message with mental illness etc.
5) When all of the above fails and the people reading the message start to believe they are participating in a censored and astroturfed discussion, the site's moderators and/or the shills under them will start acting childish and stupid in order to appear as "just some idiot" and not the paid shills and actual AI-driven bots that they are.
See the links at the bottom for evidence.

Simple fact: Censorship of honest speech is 100% jewish. The truth does not fear competition from mistaken beliefs and lies, because it stronger than any mistake or lie. Truth is the primary tool and weapon of Aryans in everything we do.
The solution is simple: anything that isn't remotely intelligent should be ignored/deleted/persecuted. It's not honest speech. Lies and stupidity are attacks more than they are speech.

This means you have to give up memes and popular slang. You have to give up namecalling. You have to give up incomplete responses with only your opinion. You have to take it upon yourself to read more and have more complete answers to political questions.
And most importantly you have to vocally reject people who fall below standards of rational thought in their expression. Study the 'List of Fallacies' infographic, etc., and take it SERIOUSLY.
The bots have won the social media/image board game. We have to move to higher ground.
In this society, everyone who can't move to the higher ground is worse than dead. They are being driven insane into a deep, eternal slavery.

Never forget, it is our own government that is funding this nightmare.
It is some of our own people of our own race that are betraying us to this jewish-architected living hell.
This entire society has become a trap with no long-term opportunities for rational, sane people. We are going to be destroyed utterly with our brainless husks laboring for the jew until we no longer can serve them better than machines and AI and then they will annihilate us.
We have to do more than be aware of what is happening.
We have to physically stop it.
We have to take the real redpill.

NO
It means you actually start doing what it
takes to fight back and remove the problem from our civilization.
We need Civil War and Revolution

We don't need more proof of the jewish problem. There is more than enough that anyone can find. We don't need to "redpill" more people. We already have the numbers we need.
Don't underestimate the strength of a small group of determined people (see: American Revolution). Free will and truth conquers all.
What we need is for YOU to get ACTUALLY redpilled, we need you to get in fighting shape, and BRING CIVIL WAR.

The fact is that the vast majority of people will not accept the redpill until this jewish society starts physically cracking.
They are too sedated, too enthralled with their entertainments and material goods. We must break them out of their deep sleep which no words alone can break, and inspire them to join us.

We will all have to make sacrifices for the freedom of our people. You should be thinking about what you are willing to sacrifice.
If the civil war broke out tomorrow, ask yourself honestly - what would you do? Would you be prepared? What would you have to do to be prepared?
PRIORITIZE YOUR PREPARATION
Find friends willing to take preparation seriously and don't let go of them. Don't be afraid to live your life because of spooks….they simply do not have the resources to stop you. They are completely invested in propaganda as a solution to our threat.

We do not have very much time. We can't survive another generation of this subjugation. We will have to take action soon.
Already it will be very difficult to heal our people. Things will never be the same.

One day when I refused to have this message be censored for 5+ hrs it was constantly spammed with garbage. Obviously too much energy for human autists.
This is what the jewish strategy of 'Always Double Down' looks like. They are trying to play off of the common misconception that if they are called out they would stop. No, they just keep going harder than ever. They are betting that you will find the truth of the bot swarms too much to believe. They think they can condition you into believing a manufactured consensus. Not recognizing this pattern could be a fatal mistake.

Evidence of compromised site and bot net:
part 1: ibb.co/gujKyw
part 2: ibb.co/hqJq5b

You're not entitled to anything but the own well you make. You need to treat it? Come up with your own solution that is largely available common knowledge or buy a product to do it for you.

I mean. define what a right is. Can you?

Let me spare you the effort. You'll fumble around for a few seconds and then come up with some stupid shit like "god-given", "self evident" or "natural law". Guess what all of those are - that's right, external, impartial observers. A right is a rule that governs the decision of a dispute, in the reference frame of a neutral party. It exists to give actors with possibly conflicting interests a way of resolving conflict peacefully to a common and predictable standard. It is crucial for the existence for society. But there is no actual external authority besides one created by humans to make these rights. They are entirely and completely a social construct. You need to understand this or libtards will run circles around you in any and every debate, because unlike you, they at least understand the confines of the axiomatic system they operate in.

The push for civil war right now is so goddamn obviously controlled.

or maybe you're just a paranoid coward

how can you even tell?

It's obvious, they can't control the situation so they would rather see it burn. That's why i'm confused why these might makes right faggots are so abundant. This type of thinking falls into their plans of burning it all to the ground. They want nations like the US at each other's throat. If we are too busy fighting each other and shadows then we are too busy exposing the eternal yid.

fix'd. Serves me right for posting while watching the electric jew on the computer.

Seems to me you haven't done your lurking, little faggot. You need to internalize that might does indeed make right, but that does not mean rights are not useful. If you keep living in cloud castles, you'll invariably fail. The jew will pick any and every system based on falsehood apart. You need to tell to yourself, loud and fucking clear, that rights do not exist apart from man, that man makes them. But man makes them for a purpose, to ensure the functioning of society. Just because they weren't brought down from the heavens by jesus does not make them any less worth fighting for.

Holla Forums has lived through a lot of cataclysms and newfag invasions, but low IQ conservatards like you are finally killing it. Our power was the truth, which you hate and cannot perceive.

Water? Sure. The delivery of it? No.

Sounds like the biggest problem then is the jew. What i'm saying that a lot of people here can't see the forest from the trees and would rather swing blindly instead of going for the jugular. We can either go down the path of might makes right and it will only get worse, remember the kike hides best in chaos. This is only creating a smokescreen for the yiddish to fuck off and start anew.

You don't even understand what the debate is about, do you? Just throwing out markov chain bot tier responses? Natural right does not exist. Purge the concept from your world view. Do not use it to appeal to in arguments. If your entire argument rests on an unshakeable right, all your enemy has to do is throw that right into question. When your argument is based on real world cause and effect consideration, it is much more difficult to just dismiss.

But sure, keep arguing about your god given right to carry arms. Surely the apostate population will give a shit.

Or, you could do more than try to poke. I'm quite certain you are an emotional animal with no follow through. You shouldn't play with guns.

I half wouldn't mind, if this is a part of their Samson option it's likely to explode in their face like everything else.

So we are animals and we should resort to animal instincts? Sounds like nigger tier philosophy to me. The kike really has you in their grasp.

I don't see why it would need to be a universal right.

He has a point though. "rights" only exist in the minds of the goyim who act entitled by screaming muh rights muh rights. It is all an illusion at the end of the day. At any point we can break them and await for a response from (((law enforcement))) to continue that "right" through force which is the only thing people listen to because of the absolute question of: life or death; of which most pic the former because they are pussies and don't value freedom.

Whites like you who bitch about animal instincts are just insecure faggots who will perish because you have the adaptability of a fucking boomer on 4cuck. We need to regain our natural instinct until we remove our enemies then we can return to what we should be doing now.

"Rights" do not exist even in White societies, we just uphold them because they suit us. They don't today and are being abused by beaner spics like the (((Dreamers))).

Are you a nigger by any chance?

So burn all current civilization because fixing it is too hard? At this point we might as well say fuck rights and fuck civilization as well. The kikes are banking for this scenario so keep arguing for the kikes because you are not fighting for people or your fellow countrymen at this point.

...

That is part of it, there is almost nobody beyond salvation at this point, unless they are outright mentally ill. What they truly fear, is when I myself decide when and where to war. Certainly nothing on the table presently.

Everything (((universal))) while we have (((humans))) amongst us will be detrimental.

I can't see how rolling your sleeves up and taking your country back is allowing it to fall? Being a (((rights and law))) cuck isn't working is it? I am neither saying kill people nor just be a bitch for (((law))). We need to start making money and building businesses that will get us closer to each other to work together.

The philosophy of law cucking is frustrating given how bad things are.

Stop. Even our grandfathers would start asking what the fuck is this all for? It's a fucking illusion propped up by OUR RACE ONLY - very important factor.

You are under the assumption that you will have to rebuild while the kikes are in charge. All I see is a guy who has been yanked around by the kikes so much they lost empathy towards their fellow countrymen. I'm not saying that the mudshit and spics are your fellow countrymen, i'm saying you should fight to expel them from your nation while exposing WHY they invaded. People need a beacon of light to forward the way. If you want to throw the baby out with the bath water then you will find nothing but enemies. A smart person would extend an olive branch in one hand while keeping the dagger close, just in case.
I managed to get a kike judge disbarred in my town for making rulings that benefited niggers and shat on whites. Turns out that laws still work if you know where to look. What have you done to fix this mess?

/thread

Hey Gerry, glad to see you back.

Don't do this user.

Why do you think I am saying to drop the Whites mans fucking burden of being a law cuck?Just shoot the fucking nigger and put him the river, but nooooo we have to have law cucks like you who with an IQ of 10 scream (((illegal))). Good goy.

So fighting for your Race and Nation isn't a lighted path to take? It's seems pretty fucking simple to me, lad.

I sense a fucking boomer anyway. Just look at pic related. That is what (((lawwwwssss))) get you.

Fuck off, brainlet. What animal instincts? Where did I bring up instincts? Stop trying to distract. The concept of rights is a social construct. It's a useful social construct, as I've established half a dozen times in this thread, but it's still a social construct. Which means you need to argue for it on a deeper level, you can't use it as an axiom. It cannot serve as a basis for a consistent logical system because it is arbitrarily defined, with no actual information or philosophy to back it up.

How about you read what I posted and think about it before posting a knee-jerk reply next time, faggot? You're trying to win a debate that you're simply not prepared to fight. I have no problem, I can keep replying to bump limit and I'll make a thread detailing your stupidity after that. Stop arguing to win debates and try arguing to establish the truth. It helps a lot, makes you look less like a retard. Normalfags can be fooled by semantic trickery, but you won't find many retards here. Don't try to strawman me, you dumb kid. I'll strawman you right the fuck back.

The beginning of the discussion starts with understanding the concept of a "right".

A right is a privilege that is extended through the implied or overt use of force, what you really mean when you say "people have a right to free drinking water" is a complex statement about the taxation of specific individuals to provide a resource to everyone irrespective of whether they fall into the tax paying category or not.

The 'right' is conferred by the power of the state, it's not something you have any control over, the only true "rights" anyone has, are the rights they confer to themselves, because any rights conferred by a higher authority can simply be taken away willy Nilly, and are essentially priviliges. This is what the American founding fathers had in mind with the right to bear arms.

The answer to your question is no. people collectively have no 'rights' to anything, they do however have the power of negotiation. If there are four guys on a river with guns and one of them shits upstream, what do you think the other three guys with guns are going to do?

Interesting question though user. I understand the point you were trying to make even if you got caught up in the use of language.

I happen to be an Ivy League educated hydrologist who is primarily interested in water resources, so I'll chime in;

Now I don't have too much time at the moment to formulate a very thorough answer, so I'll just write a quick summary of where the water industry is at. You're correct to say that while access to the river is a basic human right, delivery of clean water to homes is most certainly not a right, and is an incredibly expensive and difficult undertaking.

The issue is that many people consider the deliver of clean water to homes to be a right, which results in many water utilities, specifically publicly owned ones (most cities use public water utilities) to run a deficit.

Water is among one of the cheapest bills that anyone pays, yet the cost of delivering that water has two main components: drinking water - so taking it from a river or groundwater, filtering it, removing the organics, disinfecting it and sending it through a massive framework of pipes to get to your home, and wastewater - taking all of the sewage, greywater and stormwater runoff and running it through filters, disinfecting it etc, and all of this carries enormous costs.

99% of people don't understand what goes into getting this water into their homes, but they believe that they have a right to it and they equate any cost increases on their water bill to the evil government/corporation trying to take their water away, rather than as a necessary cost increase to pay for maintenance.

As far as water rights regarding the river go, the state owns the part of the river within that state on the condition that it allows public use of it. This means that essentially no one owns the river, but the state has the ability to prohibit certain damaging behavior (such as using illegal watercraft like large ships in narrow parts of the river), regulate fishing, and of course punish any entities that pollute the river.

...

And that's why we are national socialists.

I have observed an awful lot of posters like him. Their argument at its base almost sounds like people dissuading us from violence.
Perhaps (((they))) are scared shitless we might start being violent, so the constant retort is DONT BE LIKE A NIGGER.

Last time I checked the niggers were winning. Mainly because jews help them, but also because they are savages and whites have forgotten how to be savage b ack

Your Heritage will determine the Privilege you have, both from a specific family and a broader cultural sense. You have a Responsibility to use your inherited privilege to continue the legacy of your heritage. Past, Present, and Future.

I think what a lot of you guys are saying is that rights are just an objective construct created in order to help fulfill subjective wants right? That actually makes a lot of sense. Though our wants are subjective at their core they are still shaped by objective constants in human behavior, physiology and beliefs. Holy shit it all makes sense now. I always struggled with the objective/subjective question as objective seems like a commie paradise with everyone as robots and subjective as pure chaos with people doing whatever they want since *might is right*. But now I realize that our wants are shaped by objective factors like instincts, our own physical limits and beliefs passed down by our ancestors, yet the subjective will is always at the core of our behavior and only uses such objective factors to shape itself as it supports it in ways it couldn't otherwise. Being self-aware we can do whatever we want outside of physical limits yet objective factors such as human morality and the shared belief of a goal can help many humans greatly overcome their physical limits as well as ensure survival.
I now understand why you guys like an authoritarian leader like Hitler so much, he might seem like the furthest thing from a subjective leader but the policies he supports: the protection of your race, the advancement of scientific progress, economic prosperity, human rights; are just objective factors that help support existing subjective ones : the protection, freedom and future for you and your family. Without those factors we might be at risk of our racing dying out out of the inability of being able to protect ourselves alone or the depletion of resources with the inability of getting more, yet with them we cement and support our already existing subjective wants. The best kind of civilization isn't objective or subjective, but one that supports and upholds objective values in order to help support core subjective ones.
You faggots really are brilliant, if you guys learned how to simplify your arguments and give proper definitions to your beliefs you could probably take over any political community on the fucking internet.

Where I live its illegal to hoarde your own rainwater and distill it…

???

...

get your fucking facts straight retard. choose one. by what divine law are "rights" inalienable?

Just gonna put the rest of the beaver posts up here in case any anons haven't seen them. Polite sage for off topic.

2/5

3/5

4/4 - I can post 4 images at a time. Learn something new every day. Carry on.

Nice stuff dude, been looking for them for a while

Read "inalienable" as in "unacceptable to deny them".

I didn't write the Soros one. I'm not very knowledgeable about specific individuals or events, or at least not to that degree.

People can sue each other for shit like this. It is fucking crazy do involve the government in any of this. This could backfire very easily, like when they tell you what you can and can not do in your property because of water regulations and shit like that.

So, what reverse osmosis system should we buy for ourselves?

Are regular Amazon bought reverse osmosis machines good enough, or should we go the full mile and get expensive 1000$ Calligan RO systems?

Or should we RO systems entirely and either go Alex Jone's route and buy his gravity filtration Propurs, or get a personal distillation machine.

The average citizen of a developed nation has no idea what it takes to enable their lifestyles. They don't think about all the social, industrial, and educational revolutions that made it possible for clean water to come out of a fucking faucet, and just tweet "people have a right to clean water!"

It is the duty of all white men and women to care for one another and our children. We must help each other, as Hitler would have wanted.

Water is for whites only.

remove
add word filters
rem0ve word filters

...

If you want to address the issue of water access, give everyone the ability to purify water.
Depending on your location, not everyone will have available to the same amount, but at least it makes managing the commons easier.
"Rights" just don't work. They don't grand anything on themselves, and both their interpretation and enforcement are based on people.

Also stop being a liberal by fixating on rights. Address the needs.

If you are born into a first world country, an abundance of water suitable for drinking free for everyone at the point of service is better for everyone as a whole. It's such a basic necessity that the benefits of free abundance are greater than the cost involved with making everyone pay for their share.

If people are forced to ration their water then you see an increase in bacterial infections and a general decline in hygiene.

It's a fundamental requirement for absolutely everyone and everything in modern society. If your taxes don't pay for water, then what the hell are taxes for? Give everyone water and write it off as a bulk expense.

Unless of course you live in California in which case you should just kill yourself.

If I decide to move to the high Arctic, should the government still be held to this standard? Should they have to pay the full cost of transporting to me all the water I need, even if it means flying in cases of water every single week in perpetuity?

In the Canadian Arctic Territories, it costs $80 CAD ($63 FreedomBux) for a case of water bottles at the store. Everything needs to be flown or trucked in, and the huge distances mean you pay a lot more because of the fuel and other costs involved. Many are up in arms over how much more they have to pay compared with the average Canadian.

It's fine to keep things within reason. If you're deliberately putting yourself out of the way and the cost to supply you will be so many deviations away from the mean then you'll have to find your own water. Conversely, if you're a net fresh water producer then you might even get paid for some of it.

Even some thirld world places like Mexico have free water under the basic necessity logic. As in they charge you for it, but can't legally disconnect you if you stop paying indefinitely.

No we cant discuss this pathetic shill arguement

Mods do your jobs

He can do whatever he wants. As the owners of B, C, and D can then go over and tear him apart for being fucking retarded.
See the above.
See number two. You do not have rights to resources. It's up to those who depend on them to either cooperate, or fight for it.

shut up op you're a faggot

I wasn't going to spam this time but then I was banned.

victorian judges emblem brokeback exponential mississippi gloucester syrup collectible van appraisal. prognosis vat bills mozambique thereto trekking intentionally sulphur ssh allocate shrink.
tex barefoot sarah prompts gaza whistler converse stargate. continental pneumonia clarke.
adhesives occupied carole. spring undergo embroidery teaches white.
call spice resulting denton beaumont boulder yan wei oral representation nj tyson jill. rifle affiliates calendar europeans prisons successfully curse garrett downloads, team psp.
um berkshire lolitas brooks bowling 96 isbn tb. exposition civilization cradle 98.
reels brent lesbians promoters ape hardly tbh.

Ridiculous questions like who owns the water and air don't need to be asked once you get rid of kikes and their influences.

An all white society isn't going to let any of its people die of dehydration because they can't afford to buy water. But at the same time an all white society also doesn't have to deal with niggers and commies planning on not being able to afford water on the assumption that they will get gibes.

Hearsay says the clinton connections and (((related))) own the world's biggest natural water resources. They have since privatized. Nestle likes their fresh water too - NUDGE NUDGE WINK WINK

Natural Law exists.
Natural Rights do not.
Humans have no inherent rights of any kind.

All this talk about rights
Rights for this
Rights for that
Children rights
Gay rights
Left rights

People needto stop obsessing aboutrights and learn about their obligations to earn their beloved rights.

basic rights is jewspeak for let whitey pay for it