Skip to main content

Black helicopters and MexAmeriCanada? Not with OUR water, Canadians say

This just smuggled past the Council on Foreign Relations and the AFSBHOPAC*:

In the growing push toward eliminating borders and border restrictions between the US, Mexico, and Canada, from superhighways to black helicopters landing illegal immigrants at construction hiring stations in the local Wal-Mart parking lot, comes a reality check:

Canadians are not only queasy about this idea, but they don't want to give us their water, reports The Eco-Libertarian:

“Water needs to be regarded as a fundamental human right and not as a commodity,” said international trade lawyer Steven Shrybman. “That is critically important. We need to strengthen sovereignty and negotiate an agreement with the United States that makes it very clear that we will determine when and where Canadian water resources will be used. And that agreement needs to trump any right of any claimant in a trade agreement to assert a claim on Canadian water.”


Dan Reevely, who publishes The Eco-Libertarian, disagrees with Shrybman's logic, but agrees with his conclusion:

Simply, anyone who wants to take water out of a river needs to pay by the litre, perhaps into funds run by each province. As diversion goes up, so does the price, probably quite sharply. Municipalities might get a break for their drinking-water systems, but they’d also have a reason to charge on a sliding scale to punish wastefulness. Consumers would have a direct incentive to use rain barrels for their gardens and “grey water” in their toilets.

Use the money to pay for efficiency measures, improved waste-treatment facilities so the stuff going back into the rivers is cleaner for downstream use, and research into technologies to, for instance, suck water vapour out of the air.

Above all, it wouldn’t make economic sense to ship water to Phoenix unless residents there were willing to pay through the nose. And if they did, the benefits would accrue not to a company that had managed to get a water-taking permit, but to the people who own the resource in common.


Read the whole post; it's a complicated issue, as most environmental issues are.

*--Association For Supporting Black Helicopters Oppressing Patriotic American Citizens

Comments

The Last Ephor said…
So if I have this right:

1. Water is a human right
2. Canada will determine which Americans get human rights and in what measure at what cost

Strange view of human rights.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...