If people without an access to clean water want it, the proper route is to trade with those who do, not victimize them. There can be no right that involves sacrifices of one man to another.

Trying to wield sacrifices at the point of a gun (by an official or legislator) is the most important and disturbing modern issue. It paves the road to all actual social conflicts, unrest, and misunderstanding.

▲

vrganj a day ago | parent [-]

The people withholding the water in this scenario are the ones victimizing the ones without. That's where the state monopoly on violence has to come in as a corrective mechanism.

▲

piekvorst a day ago | parent | next [-]

If "withholding" means actively blocking someone from acessing water they already have a right to, you'd be correct. But that's not what's in your link. Passive possession, "I have water, I'm not giving it to you," is not initiation of force. It's simply not being someone else's servant.

And it's unjust to assume humanity wouldn't help unless forced to.

By calling upon sacrifices, the first target would be engineers, plumbers, and utility workers. Forcing the people who actually produce and deliver clean water isn't justice.

▲

vrganj a day ago | parent [-]

You're completely discounting the most perfidious type of violence: economic violence.

Punishing and preventing it is the core purpose of the state.

	▲	piekvorst a day ago \| parent [-]
		What exactly do you mean by "economic violence"? If you mean fraud or theft, we already agree those are crimes. If you mean something else, I'd like to know what.

▲

cindyllm a day ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]