Knowing who authors a paper is not an attack.

That I stated, the who. You attempted to broad brush paint the author because of the school they attended, not even knowing if they took a class taught by the professor you mentioned.

Whether Prof. Gardner took a class from Friedman is irrelevant, what is relevant is that he is a fellow of The Independent Institute, an American libertarian think tank based in Oakland, California. That is not an adhominum attack, merely stating a fact.

Gosh, libertarian ...
http://www.independent.org/aboutus/saying.asp wrote:

“The Independent Institute, the Oakland, Calif.-based think tank, is widely praised as being one of the best and least partisan public policy research institutions in the country.”
—UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL
“I am very pleased to commend you for the program of The Independent Institute, one of the best known public policy research and educational organizations. I want to extend my sincere appreciation for the impressive professional contributions you have made in economics, government regulation, and many other areas.”
—DIANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S. Senator

Could being orthogonal to the political spectrum actually be a positive?

Its one of the things you do not like about me. I technically fall under the anarchist part of the Libertarian spectrum.

I thought you said it was a bad thing for water service to be private?

anarchism noun:
A political theory favoring the abolition of governments.

Are using a different dictionary?

You seem to fall on the neo-conservative right wing side of the Libertarian spectrum. Betreger's comment about Ayn Rand seems fair to me.

You slosh around very comfortably in the Chicago School of Economics pool, and the fact is that it does promote a right wing philosophy.

As you see above, I'm pointing out knee jerk reactions and logical inconsistencies in thinking or lack thereof.

Since you now seem to think water is a function of government, and that water bills are subject to being labeled regressive, a term applied to taxes, I have to assume you agree that tax bills aren't being paid in Detroit. Then you ask about debtor's prisons. I'll ask you, what do you think should happen to people who don't pay their tax bill? Prison?

However if the water bill isn't a tax, but a user fee, would it be unreasonable to think if you didn't pay it, you cease to be a user?

Now as to a water delivery system being a right ...
Obviously government has to pay for them. How does government get its funds? General tax? User fee?
Does this mean other delivery systems are rights? Roads. Post Office. Air Port. Railroad.

So how would you structure a water tax? A fixed cost part for the employees, treatment plant and pumps? A connection size part for the size of the delivery pipe to your location? A per gallon fee for the cost to run the pumps and the chemicals to treat the water? If you have some brilliant scheme, please describe it.

Finally you seem to be making assumptions because I won't let claptrap media reporting pass unchallenged. That somehow I want to see Detroit's water system in private hands. Why don't you try asking instead of assuming.

Oh, as to the report, it was the first scholarly hit returned by Google. I'd expect you would have posted dozens of contrary ones by now.

---

I'll ask you, what do you think should happen to people who don't pay their tax bill? Prison?

That depends on how much tax and the reason. But water is a product not really a tax. Water is the only utility I have that is government run. If I don't pay telephone it gets shut off, if I don't pay water it gets shut off and a lean is put on my house but I can't be put in jail.

---

Knowing who authors a paper is not an attack.

That I stated, the who. You attempted to broad brush paint the author because of the school they attended, not even knowing if they took a class taught by the professor you mentioned.

Whether Prof. Gardner took a class from Friedman is irrelevant, what is relevant is that he is a fellow of The Independent Institute, an American libertarian think tank based in Oakland, California. That is not an adhominum attack, merely stating a fact.

Gosh, libertarian ...

http://www.independent.org/aboutus/saying.asp]“The Independent Institute, the Oakland, Calif.-based think tank, is widely praised as being one of the best and least partisan public policy research institutions in the country.”
—UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL
“I am very pleased to commend you for the program of The Independent Institute, one of the best known public policy research and educational organizations. I want to extend my sincere appreciation for the impressive professional contributions you have made in economics, government regulation, and many other areas.”
—DIANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S. Senator

Could being orthogonal to the political spectrum actually be a positive?

Its one of the things you do not like about me. I technically fall under the anarchist part of the Libertarian spectrum.

I thought you said it was a bad thing for water service to be private?

anarchism noun:
A political theory favoring the abolition of governments.

Are using a different dictionary?

Just a more detailed one. There are several forms of anarchy. You are one form of anarchist...if you are actually a libertarian.

Just because I am against capitalism, it does not mean I am for big government. It is other people that have made that claim on my behalf. Narrow thinking if you ask me, but I mostly let it slide.

You seem to fall on the neo-conservative right wing side of the Libertarian spectrum. Betreger's comment about Ayn Rand seems fair to me.

You slosh around very comfortably in the Chicago School of Economics pool, and the fact is that it does promote a right wing philosophy.

As you see above, I'm pointing out knee jerk reactions and logical inconsistencies in thinking or lack thereof.

Since you now seem to think water is a function of government,

Seem being the operative word there. I thought you were an orthogonal thinker?

and that water bills are subject to being labeled regressive, a term applied to taxes, I have to assume you agree that tax bills aren't being paid in Detroit. Then you ask about debtor's prisons. I'll ask you, what do you think should happen to people who don't pay their tax bill? Prison?

It is hard to answer a question on what I'd do about a stance I don't take, so I'm not going to bother.

However if the water bill isn't a tax, but a user fee, would it be unreasonable to think if you didn't pay it, you cease to be a user?

Does one group have to be in charge to all exclusion of everyone else? Water should be held in common. How you decide to manage that is a whole other debate. It should not be privately owned or government owned. It should be people owned.

Now as to a water delivery system being a right ...
Obviously government has to pay for them. How does government get its funds? General tax? User fee?
Does this mean other delivery systems are rights? Roads. Post Office. Air Port. Railroad.

I am pretty sure I would survive without roads, a post office, air port etc if I had to. Water? Not so much. You have claimed a false equivalency.

So how would you structure a water tax? A fixed cost part for the employees, treatment plant and pumps? A connection size part for the size of the delivery pipe to your location? A per gallon fee for the cost to run the pumps and the chemicals to treat the water? If you have some brilliant scheme, please describe it.

That is a really big topic that links into how you would set up an anarchistic society in the first place. You are stuck on the idea that we need money. We do not need money. We need food, water, shelter and healthcare. How you collectively decide to arrange that people get those things doesn't necessarily have to involve the fiction called money.

Finally you seem to be making assumptions because I won't let claptrap media reporting pass unchallenged. That somehow I want to see Detroit's water system in private hands. Why don't you try asking instead of assuming.

Coming form you, that's funny.

Oh, as to the report, it was the first scholarly hit returned by Google. I'd expect you would have posted dozens of contrary ones by now.

You may find this strange, but I don't have all day to sit and find things on google. I come here, type out some reply, and go away again. Sometimes I have more time to back up what I have to say than others. Sometimes I don't care enough.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Does one group have to be in charge to all exclusion of everyone else? Water should be held in common. How you decide to manage that is a whole other debate. It should not be privately owned or government owned. It should be people owned.

Tell that to the fat cats pulling in one million dollars a year running the Windsor water company. You are so transparent, I see what you are doing there.

---

Since you now seem to think water is a function of government,

Seem being the operative word there. I thought you were an orthogonal thinker?...

Does one group have to be in charge to all exclusion of everyone else? Water should be held in common. How you decide to manage that is a whole other debate. It should not be privately owned or government owned. It should be people owned.

If there is no government and there is no private company then you are talking about a fictional utopia, or a dictatorship.

Now as to a water delivery system being a right ...
Obviously government has to pay for them. How does government get its funds? General tax? User fee?
Does this mean other delivery systems are rights? Roads. Post Office. Air Port. Railroad.

I am pretty sure I would survive without roads

I am pretty sure you could not. How is that pipe you need to get the water from point A to point B going to get to your utopia? While you are waiting how are you going to go down to the lake and get your buckets of water? Oh I know, no more land ownership. Well, in that case you won't need a pipe at all because you can't stay in one spot. No farming. Are you getting hungry?

I know there was once a great society in North America that had many of these ideals, except they even had government.

Perhaps before you implement your utopia I commend you to do a bit of reading.
http://www.janegoodall.ca/about-chimp-behaviour-social-organization.php

Now that you have done a bit of reading, does any of this sound similar to any human societies you have heard of?

I could go on, but it is obvious you are being intellectually dishonest even with yourself.

---

I could go on, but it is obvious you are being intellectually dishonest even with yourself.

What no troll cartoon?

---

I'll ask you, what do you think should happen to people who don't pay their tax bill? Prison?

That depends on how much tax and the reason. But water is a product not really a tax. Water is the only utility I have that is government run. If I don't pay telephone it gets shut off, if I don't pay water it gets shut off and a lean is put on my house but I can't be put in jail.

Drill a freaking well then. Problem freaking solved.

---

[/quote]

Old James

Drill a freaking well then. Problem freaking solved.

Until the fat cat industry next door pollutes your ground water. Then you will be screaming for the government and the courts to do something.

---

Tell that to the fat cats pulling in one million dollars a year running the Windsor water company.

You obviously didn't read, or couldn't understand, the link I posted about Enwin. Those million dollar salaries are paid by the owners of Enwin - the people of Windsor. They pay this because you get what you pay for when it comes to hiring administrators. We call this free market. I though you yanks understood that. If the people of Windsor don't like this, they can vote in new management (the Chairman of the Enwin management board is always, by law, the mayor of Windsor).

Don't take my word about whether or not this works. Just look at how long the current mayor of Windsor has been in office (11 years so far and counting), or look at Enwin's credit rating (Standard and Poors recently gave them an A).

---

Since you now seem to think water is a function of government,

Seem being the operative word there. I thought you were an orthogonal thinker?...

Does one group have to be in charge to all exclusion of everyone else? Water should be held in common. How you decide to manage that is a whole other debate. It should not be privately owned or government owned. It should be people owned.

If there is no government and there is no private company then you are talking about a fictional utopia, or a dictatorship.

Now as to a water delivery system being a right ...
Obviously government has to pay for them. How does government get its funds? General tax? User fee?
Does this mean other delivery systems are rights? Roads. Post Office. Air Port. Railroad.

I am pretty sure I would survive without roads

I am pretty sure you could not. How is that pipe you need to get the water from point A to point B going to get to your utopia? While you are waiting how are you going to go down to the lake and get your buckets of water? Oh I know, no more land ownership. Well, in that case you won't need a pipe at all because you can't stay in one spot. No farming. Are you getting hungry?

I know there was once a great society in North America that had many of these ideals, except they even had government.

Perhaps before you implement your utopia I commend you to do a bit of reading.
http://www.janegoodall.ca/about-chimp-behaviour-social-organization.php

Now that you have done a bit of reading, does any of this sound similar to any human societies you have heard of?

I could go on, but it is obvious you are being intellectually dishonest even with yourself.

Anarchy means "without Kings"

As you yourself espouse anarcho-capitalism it seems to me that you are being intellectually dishonest.

There are forms of government that share the responsibility of decision making rather than accumulating power in one central place. Small businesses are being successfully set up all over America today based on this co-operative method. People have taken over where traditional free market profit driven capitalism has let them down. If they can run factories this way, I am sure they can run a water processing plant this way.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Drill a freaking well then. Problem freaking solved.

Until the fat cat industry next door pollutes your ground water. Then you will be screaming for the government and the courts to do something.

Was just thinking about sinkholes... Of course they can occur all by themselves, but... Oh! Hello everyone :) How are you all? Just me... pondering again :)

I'm not familiar with the geology of this particular region of the USA under discussion, but in drought conditions and to avoid paying high water bills during the Apartheid era, wealthy South African land owners, golf clubs, etc, decided to tap into the water table by sinking boreholes (aquifer pumping is what I believe it is called in other parts of the world). Sinkholes (often miles away) were the unfortunate result :/ Are they much of an issue in America? Obviously... plummeting feet first into the ground when the opportunity suddenly presents itself doesn't give you much time to wonder if it was your neighbour's fault one just happened along beneath you, because all your worries are over but... they might be of some concern to others I suppose. Anyway - sorry for intruding :)

There are forms of government that share the responsibility of decision making rather than accumulating power in one central place.

Pure democracy. [or do you means USA with strong 9th and 10th and no commerce clause?]

Small businesses are being successfully set up all over America today based on this co-operative method. People have taken over where traditional free market profit driven capitalism has let them down. If they can run factories this way, I am sure they can run a water processing plant this way.

Small is the operative word.

As soon as the business progresses in growth to the size it has to have management, then it is no longer a pure democracy. While the co-operative may hire the manager, how is this in any way different than the shareholders hiring the CEO? [you should check out the etymology of the word share and shareholder]

Now as to a water company, I have real reservations that a cooperative can safely and effectively operate a water company long term. One thing that water company needs is to be able to respond to disaster. While next to the great lakes that may mean tornado, here in California that means earthquake and drought. A cooperative is not going to have the resources to respond to such an event in a timely fashion. A cooperative is also not going to be able to respond if their source becomes contaminated. On the Great Lakes, consider a ship oil spill. In California rocket fuel contamination of ground water.

As I happen to have an acquaintance who is in charge of a community water system I have heard stories. It is not much but a well, pump and pipe. If that well only supplied him, then there are no regulations. However because others may drink the water, regular testing for a myriad of chemical and biological contaminants is required. Strict logs of the amount of water pumped must be maintained. In his case if there is disaster or contamination the water is shut off and won't be coming back on. The list goes on, but I realize you have issues with actual operational details believing that some form of magic juju will make them not be important.

Of course if your cooperative is free to deliver raw sewage and call if potable because there is no government to tell them they can't ...

---

There are forms of government that share the responsibility of decision making rather than accumulating power in one central place.

Pure democracy. [or do you means USA with strong 9th and 10th and no commerce clause?]

Small businesses are being successfully set up all over America today based on this co-operative method. People have taken over where traditional free market profit driven capitalism has let them down. If they can run factories this way, I am sure they can run a water processing plant this way.

Small is the operative word.

As soon as the business progresses in growth to the size it has to have management, then it is no longer a pure democracy. While the co-operative may hire the manager, how is this in any way different than the shareholders hiring the CEO? [you should check out the etymology of the word share and shareholder]

Now as to a water company, I have real reservations that a cooperative can safely and effectively operate a water company long term. One thing that water company needs is to be able to respond to disaster. While next to the great lakes that may mean tornado, here in California that means earthquake and drought. A cooperative is not going to have the resources to respond to such an event in a timely fashion. A cooperative is also not going to be able to respond if their source becomes contaminated. On the Great Lakes, consider a ship oil spill. In California rocket fuel contamination of ground water.

As I happen to have an acquaintance who is in charge of a community water system I have heard stories. It is not much but a well, pump and pipe. If that well only supplied him, then there are no regulations. However because others may drink the water, regular testing for a myriad of chemical and biological contaminants is required. Strict logs of the amount of water pumped must be maintained. In his case if there is disaster or contamination the water is shut off and won't be coming back on. The list goes on, but I realize you have issues with actual operational details believing that some form of magic juju will make them not be important.

Of course if your cooperative is free to deliver raw sewage and call if potable because there is no government to tell them they can't ...

So what you are telling me is that you don't think that all things can be managed by private business without government intervention? I never got that impression from you.

I agree that in a crisis you need a fast turn around, but these are events that every company, no matter how it is run, has to prepare for in advance. It would be unusual for a business not to have an emergency plan. I am not sure why there cannot be one for businesses that are run for the people rather than for profit.

If a business is run by the people, for the people, there would be as much incentive to cut corners and put themselves at risk by delivering raw sewerage to themselves, as there is for you to fill your fridge with raw sewerage.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Detroit activist slams reporter on air for misreporting reasons for water shutoff to thousands

---

Reality Internet Personality

[So what you are telling me is that you don't think that all things can be managed by private business without government intervention? I never got that impression from you.

Then you have not been paying attention. [But I know it is always convenient to label, bin and discriminate.]

I agree that in a crisis you need a fast turn around, but these are events that every company, no matter how it is run, has to prepare for in advance. It would be unusual for a business not to have an emergency plan. I am not sure why there cannot be one for businesses that are run for the people rather than for profit.

A plan is one thing, but having the ability to obtain capital to execute it is another. A small private company has its bank account. After disaster, could it even obtain a loan? A government has a much larger bank account, has taxation, and may well be able to get a loan after a disaster.

If a business is run by the people, for the people, there would be as much incentive to cut corners and put themselves at risk by delivering raw sewerage to themselves, as there is for you to fill your fridge with raw sewerage.

I believe you have assumed that everyone is delivered the same water. That may not be the case in real life. So, how much trust do you place in the other people. This is where game theory would come into play.

---

Detroit activist slams reporter on air for misreporting reasons for water shutoff to thousands

From the OP's original linked article ...

In May, for example, DWSD sent out 46,000 notices. Of those, only 4,531 customers — less than 10 per cent of the total — had their water service cut for any period of time, according to the department.

Within 24 hours, 60 per cent of the affected customers paid their accounts in full, the department said.

“Many of the properties that we shut off are actually vacant structures, not occupied homes,”

We must not allow facts to get in the way of a good rant.

---

I pay approximately $40/mo. for water service. Over half is for treating the sewage that leaves my house. If I am more than 5 days late they cut off my water. I know because I forgot to pay the bill one month. It costs money to make water drinkable and even more to treat the inevitable waste water so we can keep our waterways clean. From what I've heard about Detroit they can't pay their water bill because their money goes to pay for crack cocaine.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Detroit activist slams reporter on air for misreporting reasons for water shutoff to thousands

From the OP's original linked article ...

In May, for example, DWSD sent out 46,000 notices. Of those, only 4,531 customers — less than 10 per cent of the total — had their water service cut for any period of time, according to the department.

Within 24 hours, 60 per cent of the affected customers paid their accounts in full, the department said.

“Many of the properties that we shut off are actually vacant structures, not occupied homes,”

We must not allow facts to get in the way of a good rant.

Even assuming those numbers are true, and there appears to be some dispute over that...they are saying that around 1800 people who could not pay had their water cut off?? These would be the most vulnerable people. Not good. Not good at all. :/

---

Reality Internet Personality

I pay approximately $40/mo. for water service. Over half is for treating the sewage that leaves my house. If I am more than 5 days late they cut off my water. I know because I forgot to pay the bill one month. It costs money to make water drinkable and even more to treat the inevitable waste water so we can keep our waterways clean. From what I've heard about Detroit they can't pay their water bill because their money goes to pay for crack cocaine.

I think that was the point of the article I just posted.

What you've heard and some of the offensive assumptions about the people of Detroit are not being challenged by the mainstream media. If that is what you've heard about Detroit I strongly recommend you change your news sources.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Detroit activist slams reporter on air for misreporting reasons for water shutoff to thousands

From the OP's original linked article ...

In May, for example, DWSD sent out 46,000 notices. Of those, only 4,531 customers — less than 10 per cent of the total — had their water service cut for any period of time, according to the department.

Within 24 hours, 60 per cent of the affected customers paid their accounts in full, the department said.

“Many of the properties that we shut off are actually vacant structures, not occupied homes,”

We must not allow facts to get in the way of a good rant.

Even assuming those numbers are true, and there appears to be some dispute over that...they are saying that around 1800 people who could not pay had their water cut off?? These would be the most vulnerable people. Not good. Not good at all. :/

How many is "Many of the properties that we shut off are actually vacant structures, not occupied homes" Also how many were businesses and not dwelling units?

Now do your math again ...

As to the truth of the 24 hours 60% full payment, all I've heard is the rant of a biased activist who can not actually know the numbers. I'm not sure that raises to the level of "dispute."

Now ask what how many paid in part and had their water turned back on. You do remember that original story don't you ... that payment in part got the water back on.

We must never let facts get in the way of a good rant.

---