Toronto Bans Bottles Water

[Pawn Power]

Toronto has become that largest city to ban the selling of bottled water. It is being hailed as a major victory for the environmental movement. More importantly there are provisions to ensure wide spread access to clean tap water.

http://www.alternet.org/water/112079/toronto_is_the_latest_city_to_ban_bottled_water/

[Woland]

amen

[scarletghoul]

It's nice that they made a 'commitment to ensuring access to tap water in all city facilities' but I think banning bottled water is bad, especially while access to tap water is apparently not ensured in all city facilities.

I personally prefer tap water anyway, but the tap water around here is much better tasting than in other parts of the country from my experience.

[Dóchas]

how is bottled water damaging the environment?

[Woland]

Im just disgusted with the view of water as a consumer product. Maybe now they can help those without it.

[scarletghoul]

Why couldnt they help those without water anyway, without banning bottled water?

[revolution inaction]

Toronto has become that largest city to ban the selling of bottled water. It is being hailed as a major victory for the environmental movement. More importantly there are provisions to ensure wide spread access to clean tap water.

http://www.alternet.org/water/112079/toronto_is_the_latest_city_to_ban_bottled_water/

It sounds like a victory for Coke/Pepsi

[jesper]

I personally can not see any problem with banning the water, it is a good thing for the environment that is is banned, due to the production of bottles and the long transport of the water, before it is sold. It would only be an issue if the quality of the tapped water was not good enough.

[Pawn Power]

It sounds like a victory for Coke/Pepsi

Actually the exact opposite. This is a huge blow for the big beverage industry. Bottled water is the fastest growing beverage industry and two of the biggest companies are Coca Cola and Pepsi who produce, Dasani and Aquafina respectively, two of the most profitable brands of bottled water.

[Pawn Power]

Why couldnt they help those without water anyway, without banning bottled water?

I don't think the point of banning bottled water was to "help" those without water but as an act of environmental protection. The provisions to provide clean, accessible tap water was to ensure that people would still have access to water (and free, to boot).

[Dr Mindbender]

We're reclaiming our water, good. Hopefully next, healthcare and education will follow.

[Dr Mindbender]

Why couldnt they help those without water anyway, without banning bottled water?

theres only a limited amount of drinkable water in the world and it doesnt help matters when you have a few fat bastards syphoning it off for a profit.

[Pawn Power]

how is bottled water damaging the environment?

Besides the tremendous about of non-biodegradable plastic it produces? There is also the fact that this water is bottled. Necessitating water bottling plants which obviously are burning fossil fulls and producing CO2 admissions. Moreover, and probably the strongest argument, is that this bottled water is then shipped great lengths, again using transportation that emits green house gases, to be consumed when there is already readily available water within a given region (and often just as clean, if not cleaner).

Since water has zero caloric purpose, the energy to ship it always out weighs the energy that we gain from its consumption. However, what environmentalists and technocrats argue most ardently is that this is all so unnecessary and inefficient compared to city water systems. It is thousands of times more efficient to pump regional water to peoples homes that to pump water to a plant which is then bottled and then trucked across a time zone to a store and then bought and driven home. But then again that does not produce large profits.

[Pawn Power]

We're reclaiming our water, good. Hopefully next, healthcare and education will follow.

And the means of production? :unsure:

[Dr Mindbender]

of course. For the immediate time being though, i'd settle for free medicine and education, its a fucking disgrace that it costs such a fortune for good health and self-embetterment.

[Dóchas]

Besides the tremendous about of non-biodegradable plastic it produces? There is also the fact that this water is bottled. Necessitating water bottling plants which obviously are burning fossil fulls and producing CO2 admissions. Moreover, and probably the strongest argument, is that this bottled water is then shipped great lengths, again using transportation that emits green house gases, to be consumed when there is already readily available water within a given region (and often just as clean, if not cleaner).

Since water has zero caloric purpose, the energy to ship it always out weighs the energy that we gain from its consumption. However, what environmentalists and technocrats argue most ardently is that this is all so unnecessary and inefficient compared to city water systems. It is thousands of times more efficient to pump regional water to peoples homes that to pump water to a plant which is then bottled and then trucked across a time zone to a store and then bought and driven home. But then again that does not produce large profits.

good point...thanks :thumbup1:

[Raúl Duke]

I like bottled water...oh well.


Im just disgusted with the view of water as a consumer product.
Does Toronto's water utilities charge water for profit, no profit, or do they charge at all?
I mean, in Puerto Rico we had (or still have) the water utilities privatized and I bet water from the tap was a "consumer product" for profit just as bottled water.

[Vanguard1917]

This is an example of how environmentalism relies on authoritarian state measures to enforce its politics on to the populace. Since bottled water is an increasingly popular product (with its consumption increasing each year), environmentalists know that the only way they can halt its rise is by appealing to the state to enforce bans against the masses' consumption. Did these Toronto state officials consult the bulk of the population which drinks bottled water in Toronto?

This is not necessarily about defending bottled water (i rarely drink it myself) but about exposing the way in which environmentalism relies on authoritarian measures in order to impose its policies and ideology. It sets a dangerous precedent. The environmental movement has little regard for the opinions and desires of the public, since, for its part, the public has little time for environmentalism. People want to be wealthier; they want to consume more; they want to go on more holidays abroad; they want to drive cars; they want to have children, etc. The environmental movement, on the other hand, is hostile and sometimes vehemently against such things. Because it's unable to win people over to its ideas, environmentalism is more than aware that it needs dictatorial tools to implement its prejudices and save the masses from their reckless ways by dictating their behaviour through the means of state legislation.

[lombas]

There is some difference in tap water, especially between city environments and the country. In Antwerp or Brussels, where I work and study during the week, tap water tastes like there is an overload of minerals in it. When I spend my weekends in the country, water is more tasteful.

Anyway, I just want to add that I support this issue, but that efforts should continue to be made to ensure everyone can enjoy good standard tasteful tap water.

:)

[Decolonize The Left]

This is an example of how environmentalism relies on authoritarian state measures to enforce its politics on to the populace. Since bottled water is an increasingly popular product (with its consumption increasing each year), environmentalists know that the only way they can halt its rise is by appealing to the state to enforce bans against the masses' consumption. Did these Toronto state officials consult the bulk of the population which drinks bottled water in Toronto?

This is not necessarily about defending bottled water (i rarely drink it myself) but about exposing the way in which environmentalism relies on authoritarian measures in order to impose its policies and ideology. It sets a dangerous precedent. The environmental movement has little regard for the opinions and desires of the public, since, for its part, the public has little time for environmentalism. People want to be wealthier; they want to consume more; they want to go on more holidays abroad; they want to drive cars; they want to have children, etc. The environmental movement, on the other hand, is hostile and sometimes vehemently against such things. Because it's unable to win people over to its ideas, environmentalism is more than aware that it needs dictatorial tools to implement its prejudices and save the masses from their reckless ways by dictating their behaviour through the means of state legislation.

Ok... but this isn't the fault of 'environmentalism.' It's the fault of a system which encourages such practices, silences environmentalist objections, pacifies the majority of the population, and necessitates actions such as you've mentioned on the part of environmentalists.

- August

[DesertShark]

Good on 'em! There's no reason to drink bottled water in places where tap water is clean. Also, you're already paying for the tap water. In addition, "If a container holds 1 litre it requires 3 to 5 litres of water in its manufacturing process (the higher estimate includes power plant cooling water). By one estimate (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/pablo_calculate.php) the total amount of water used to produce and deliver one bottle of imported water is even 6.74 L." (http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Bottled_water)
-DS

[Vanguard1917]

Ok... but this isn't the fault of 'environmentalism.' It's the fault of a system which encourages such practices, silences environmentalist objections

Far from "silencing environmentalist objections", the political representatives of the ruling class are embracing them -- as the OP shows.

The point is, because environmentalism cannot ever really be a popular cause, it is forced, by necessity, to appeal to state authoritarianism in order to implement its ideology. Like Marxist writer James Heartfield put it in his book Green Capitalism, "By definition, an ideology that sees mass consumption as the problem cannot be adopted by the masses". The only way that the environmentalist agenda of lowering living standards/mass consumption can ever be implemented is through top-down measures, since the working masses aren't going to accept a cut in their consumption voluntarily (nor, of course, should they).

The banning of water bottles is one thing; it is merely an example of how environmentalism relies wholly on state authoritarianism. We all know that environmentalism has far more wide-ranging plans. We can thus look forward far greater state-enforced eco-measures in the future.

[Delirium]

Besides the tremendous about of non-biodegradable plastic it produces? There is also the fact that this water is bottled. Necessitating water bottling plants which obviously are burning fossil fulls and producing CO2 admissions. Moreover, and probably the strongest argument, is that this bottled water is then shipped great lengths, again using transportation that emits green house gases, to be consumed when there is already readily available water within a given region (and often just as clean, if not cleaner).

Since water has zero caloric purpose, the energy to ship it always out weighs the energy that we gain from its consumption. However, what environmentalists and technocrats argue most ardently is that this is all so unnecessary and inefficient compared to city water systems. It is thousands of times more efficient to pump regional water to peoples homes that to pump water to a plant which is then bottled and then trucked across a time zone to a store and then bought and driven home. But then again that does not produce large profits.

Bottled water companies also take huge amounts of bottled water from local aquifers at a unsustainable rate. Besides this is a victory against the commidification of our most basic resources.

[Vargha Poralli]

The point is, because environmentalism cannot ever really be a popular cause, it is forced, by necessity, to appeal to state authoritarianism in order to implement its ideology. Like Marxist writer James Heartfield put it in his book Green Capitalism, "By definition, an ideology that sees mass consumption as the problem cannot be adopted by the masses". The only way that the environmentalist agenda of lowering living standards/mass consumption can ever be implemented is through top-down measures, since the working masses aren't going to accept a cut in their consumption voluntarily (nor, of course, should they).

:rolleyes: But if workers indeed fight with the environmentalists then you would happily support bourgeoisie governments killing them ? Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=903459&postcount=49)

So according to your logic if governments submits to environmentalists demand then that proves how environmentalism is bad becuase it uses the bad bourgeoisie government to focrce their demand but if government ignores the malpractice of the Industires and when environtalists fight for it then it has full right to kill them at that time it is very much progressive.

Anyway on topic this is very progressive and needs to followed everywhere. Regardless of Vanguard's rhetoric in many areas actualy Coke and Pepsi are the one's who is winning these battles by bribing the governments.
eg 1 (http://www.rediff.com/money/2006/feb/21mspec.htm)

Link2 (http://www.indiaresource.org/campaigns/coke/2005/gangaikondan.html)

[Vanguard1917]

So according to your logic if governments submits to environmentalists demand then that proves how environmentalism is bad


No, that's not my logic at all. In fact, it has nothing at all to do with my argument. Follow the argument and pay closer attention.


eg 1 (http://www.rediff.com/money/2006/feb/21mspec.htm)
(http://www.rediff.com/money/2006/feb/21mspec.htm)

That's a report about Indian farmers being ripped-off by Coca Cola. In what way is that related to environmentalist politicians in Toronto banning bottled water? They banned bottled water because they felt that it went against their environmentalist ideals.


Link2 (http://www.indiaresource.org/campaigns/coke/2005/gangaikondan.html)
(http://www.indiaresource.org/campaigns/coke/2005/gangaikondan.html)

Again, see my previous paragraph.

As i already said in a previous post, you don't have to be a fan of bottled water to realise what is going on here: environmentalists using the state to pass authoritarian measures in order to enforce environmentalist policies, because they are unable to win mass support for their agenda.

[Decolonize The Left]

That's a report about Indian farmers being ripped-off by Coca Cola. In what way is that related to environmentalist politicians in Toronto banning bottled water? They banned bottled water because they felt that it went against their environmentalist ideals.

No. "They" banned bottled water because it's a good idea. Why? Because our planet - yes our planet, you know, that thing we all live on and require to survive - is involved in huge anthropomorphic changes which endanger our lives as a species. That's why they banned it.

Get over yourself.


As i already said in a previous post, you don't have to be a fan of bottled water to realise what is going on here: environmentalists using the state to pass authoritarian measures in order to enforce environmentalist policies, because they are unable to win mass support for their agenda.

By this logic, the socialist parties throughout history have been "using the state to pass authoritarian measures in order to enforce" socialist "policies, because they are unable to win mass support for their agenda."

Oh, and women are "using the state to pass authoritarian measures in order to enforce" equal rights "policies, because they are unable to win mass support for their agenda."

You have obviously idealized and fetishized the working class, turning them into some beacon of all powerful rightness of moral certitude - as a Marxist you should be ashamed of yourself.

- August

[butterfly]

^ I completely agree with this.

The ban on bottled water is well overdue. The US population discards 2.5million bottles every hour.
http://www.cleanair.org/waste/wastefacts.html

[Vanguard1917]

No. "They" banned bottled water because it's a good idea. Why? Because our planet - yes our planet, you know, that thing we all live on and require to survive - is involved in huge anthropomorphic changes which endanger our lives as a species. That's why they banned it.

In other words, any authoritarian policy is OK as long as it is justified as being necessary to 'save the planet'.

What about banning cars or foreign travel? What about reducing living standards or mass meat consumption? Such things are seen by environmentalists as 'bad for the planet'. Should they be banned too?


By this logic, the socialist parties throughout history have been "using the state to pass authoritarian measures in order to enforce" socialist "policies, because they are unable to win mass support for their agenda."


Really? Bourgeois governments have been introducing socialist policies, have they?

In capitalist society, socialists have called for reforms which expand the realm of freedom for workers and improve living standards. Environmentalists demand the opposite: laws which reduce freedom and lower living standards. As i have argued, environmentalism cannot win mass support, since working class people are not going to voluntarily support cuts in their living standards/levels of consumption.

It's as a result of this that environmentalism relies fundamentally on top-down, authoritarian state legislation to enforce its policies and make the public toe the line.


You have obviously idealized and fetishized the working class, turning them into some beacon of all powerful rightness of moral certitude - as a Marxist you should be ashamed of yourself.


Lol, wtf are you talking about? Do you even know?

It might be a good idea for you to actually try addressing the arguments.

[BobKKKindle$]

No. "They" banned bottled water because it's a good idea. Why?

The assumption behind your argument is that the state has right to intervene in the personal lives of its citizens and tell them how they should behave so as to ensure that the perceived interests of the community are protected - if this is a valid principle then surely the state should also be able to ban smoking and imprison people who try to buy cigarettes on the grounds that smoking harms the health of the individual smoker and is also detrimental to society as a whole? Communists uphold the right to every citizen to make their own consumption choices and believe that the individual should be able to act according to their own wishes as long as the rights of other members of society are not violated as a result of their actions. If a group of citizens living in Toronto or any other city honestly feel that the consumption of bottled water is harmful to the environment then they can simply stop buying bottled water and hope that the resulting fall in revenue will either drive the companies out of business or force them to change they way they produce, possibly by recycling used bottles - this allows each individual citizen to formulate their own opinion and act as individuals, whereas a ban removes the element of choice and ignores the rights of people who want to drink bottled water.


Good on 'em! There's no reason to drink bottled water in places where tap water is clean.

This is absurd - there are plenty of reasons why someone might want to do this and we know this is the case because if no-one wanted to have bottled water then companies would not be producing it in the first place.

[Decolonize The Left]

The assumption behind your argument is that the state has right to intervene in the personal lives of its citizens and tell them how they should behave so as to ensure that the perceived interests of the community are protected - if this is a valid principle then surely the state should also be able to ban smoking and imprison people who try to buy cigarettes on the grounds that smoking harms the health of the individual smoker and is also detrimental to society as a whole? Communists uphold the right to every citizen to make their own consumption choices and believe that the individual should be able to act according to their own wishes as long as the rights of other members of society are not violated as a result of their actions. If a group of citizens living in Toronto or any other city honestly feel that the consumption of bottled water is harmful to the environment then they can simply stop buying bottled water and hope that the resulting fall in revenue will either drive the companies out of business or force them to change they way they produce, possibly by recycling used bottles - this allows each individual citizen to formulate their own opinion and act as individuals, whereas a ban removes the element of choice and ignores the rights of people who want to drink bottled water.

Your argument is well-received, though I disagree.

In the first place, you disregard all forms of social conditioning, material circumstance and historical materialism. You seem to believe that people can, at any time, choose anything they want! Miraculous indeed, but highly unrealistic. People are conditioned to believe, and act, a certain way. I do not need to explain this point further as you are well versed in Marxism.

In the second place, let me ask you a question. Do you disagree with laws prohibiting discrimination in the workplace? Surely you don't, as I believe I am familiar with your general position. But alas you stumble upon your own argument. For according to your logic in the above post, if people didn't want discrimination in the workplace, they could simply choose not to discriminate against others!

Given the context of industrialized, capitalist, nations, with little widespread class consciousness, some laws are good ideas. Many are not, but some are.

Let me further state that I agree with your emphasis on grass-roots, local organizing and the tactics of boycotts, etc... I am in full support of this as a primary source of progressive change. But when this is not feasible, as in the case in question (for it is was, it would have happened, no?), a law which is highly beneficial to the environment and hence humanity is a good thing. It is not good as a law, but it is a good law.

I oppose all laws, but I am not so short-sighted that I don't acknowledge the relative value of certain laws over others.

- August

[butterfly]

Communists uphold the right to every citizen to make their own consumption choices and believe that the individual should be able to act according to their own wishes as long as the rights of other members of society are not violated as a result of their actions.
As in the right to clean air and an abundance of water and food, fertile land...which would produce the tobacco, etc.
The large majority of the waste produced is shipped overseas, which violates the rights of other members of society.
It has been suggested that the US has a landfill capacity of 18 years left.
So what would be the alternative?

[Devrim]

I drink bottled water. I also use it to cook, and make tea. The basic reason for this is because the tap water in our city is poisonous (this isn't a joke, studies show that the arsenic and cyanide are over ten times the level that is considered safe for human consumption).

Devrim

[Post-Something]

I drink bottled water. I also use it to cook, and make tea. The basic reason for this is because the tap water in our city is poisonous (this isn't a joke, studies show that the arsenic and cyanide are over ten times the level that is considered safe for human consumption).

Devrim

Yeah, but you live in Turkey.

In Jordan, you have to get water from a well twice a week, and even then, that's only enough to shower once a week. Bottled water is a must in the middle east in general though

[Junius]

I drink bottled water. I also use it to cook, and make tea. The basic reason for this is because the tap water in our city is poisonous (this isn't a joke, studies show that the arsenic and cyanide are over ten times the level that is considered safe for human consumption).

Devrim
When I lived overseas I even used it to brush my teeth.

[butterfly]

Toronto has access to an abundance of clean drinking water from the tap and therefore a ban in the instance can be justified.
Instances in which an individuals health is at stake must be carefully considered. It would be preferable to have a larger water container (6-7litres), that can be reused.
There is of coarse the question of water availability, which should be the primary concern of such a discussion.
As only 3% of the worlds water is free from contamination, water availability is decreasing in many parts of the world and ecosystems have been damaged almost beyond repair, we need to begin to consider large scale production of desalination plants, which I believe to be an inevitability.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think there are more important government activities to worry about than the banning of bottled water in places where clean tap water is readily available.

[butterfly]

Agreed.

[Vanguard1917]

The assumption behind your argument is that the state has right to intervene in the personal lives of its citizens and tell them how they should behave so as to ensure that the perceived interests of the community are protected - if this is a valid principle then surely the state should also be able to ban smoking and imprison people who try to buy cigarettes on the grounds that smoking harms the health of the individual smoker and is also detrimental to society as a whole?

Yes. For the environmentalists, the state needs greater dictatorial powers to save the feckless masses from themselves and to save the planet from the feckless masses.

Socialists used to demand greater wealth and freedom of choice (social, political, economic) for working people. Environmentalism openly calls for less freedom and less wealth, which is why it can't appeal to the working masses. That's the reason why environmentalism must necessarily resort to authoritarian measures against the public.

Like leading environmentalist campaigner George Monbiot puts it:

"Unlike almost all the public protests which have preceded it, [environmentalism] is a campaign not for abundance but for austerity. It is a campaign not for more freedom but for less. Strangest of all, it is a campaign not just against other people, but also against ourselves."

[Devrim]

Yeah, but you live in Turkey.

In Jordan, you have to get water from a well twice a week, and even then, that's only enough to shower once a week. Bottled water is a must in the middle east in general though

Actually, Ankara water was ok until this year. The problem was that there wasn't enough. There was a point where we were ten days without water, and then they piped in the Kızılırmak (river), which solved the lack of water problem only now you can't drink it.

Not all of the Middle east has a problem with water, just large areas.:(


When I lived overseas I even used it to brush my teeth.

I think that is taking it a bit far.


It would be preferable to have a larger water container (6-7litres), that can be reused.

That is small. The standard one in Ankara is 19 litres.

Devrim

[JimmyJazz]

This is an example of how environmentalism relies on authoritarian state measures to enforce its politics on to the populace. Since bottled water is an increasingly popular product (with its consumption increasing each year), environmentalists know that the only way they can halt its rise is by appealing to the state to enforce bans against the masses' consumption. Did these Toronto state officials consult the bulk of the population which drinks bottled water in Toronto?

This is not necessarily about defending bottled water (i rarely drink it myself) but about exposing the way in which environmentalism relies on authoritarian measures in order to impose its policies and ideology. It sets a dangerous precedent. The environmental movement has little regard for the opinions and desires of the public, since, for its part, the public has little time for environmentalism. People want to be wealthier; they want to consume more; they want to go on more holidays abroad; they want to drive cars; they want to have children, etc. The environmental movement, on the other hand, is hostile and sometimes vehemently against such things. Because it's unable to win people over to its ideas, environmentalism is more than aware that it needs dictatorial tools to implement its prejudices and save the masses from their reckless ways by dictating their behaviour through the means of state legislation.

This was not a particularly good thread to use as a launching pad for one of your anti-environmentalist tirades. Bottled water is no different from purified tap water (duh). People only consume it either out of stupidity or because the gov't offers them only shitty, unpurified tap water (or no tap water at all in some parts of the world--not Toronto). Secondly, you're not an "environmentalist" because you're unhappy about the local landfill encroaching on your backyard. Try to let up on it a little.

[Junius]

I think that is taking it a bit far.
My cousin thought so too. And he ended up getting violently sick. Better safe than sorry. ;)

[Vanguard1917]

This was not a particularly good thread to use as a launching pad for one of your anti-environmentalist tirades.

As i have explained, it is an example of the inherently authoritarian nature of environmentalism. So it is very pertinent.



People only consume it either out of stupidity or because the gov't offers them only shitty, unpurified tap water (or no tap water at all in some parts of the world--not Toronto).


Actually, a large reason for the consumption of bottled water in places with safe-to-drink tap water is its convenience. When you're out and about and thisty, it's a good thing to have access to.

And by calling the millions of consumers of bottled water 'stupid', you're merely displaying your snobbery and intolerance. That people do not abide by consumption habits that you approve of is no justification for calling them 'stupid'. There are many things which many people consume and that i don't (e.g. cigarettes, video games, soybean, port wine). But that doesn't mean that i have the right to get these products banned.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Actually, a large reason for the consumption of bottled water in places with safe-to-drink tap water is its convenience. When you're out and about and thisty, it's a good thing to have access to.

What's wrong with washing out a plastic drinks bottle and carrying filtered/distilled tap water in it?


And by calling the millions of consumers of bottled water 'stupid', you're merely displaying your snobbery and intolerance. That people do not abide by consumption habits that you approve of is no justification for calling them 'stupid'.I don't know, what else do you call someone who pays for something that you can otherwise get pretty much for free? :lol:

But seriously, bottled water is a travesty in places where clean tap water is widely available.


There are many things which many people consume and that i don't (e.g. cigarettes, video games, soybean, port wine). But that doesn't mean that i have the right to get these products banned.Those things don't come out of a tap. It's not like people are being banned from acquiring clean water full stop.

[Vanguard1917]

What's wrong with washing out a plastic drinks bottle and carrying filtered/distilled tap water in it?

Nothing, if you can be bothered, if you carry a bag, if you have space in your bag, if you don't mind carrying a bottle around with you all day.

Instead, you can pop into a shop, buy a bottle of water, drink its contents, then dump it.



I don't know, what else do you call someone who pays for something that you can otherwise get pretty much for free? :lol:


1. Tap water is not free. The average household in Britain pays more than £300 a year in water and sewage bills (link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7264594.stm)).

2. As we have established, bottled water has advantages which tap water does not have - e.g. convenience.

3. Obviously, millions of people do not think that bottled water is 'stupid' or they would not consume it. We want a democratic society which allows its members to decide for themselves which products they wish to be produced for consumption. What we don't want is government officials dictating which consumption choices are and aren't permissible. That sets a dangerous precedent.

Again, if i don't like the things that you consume, if i think that they are 'stupid' and worthless, i should be allowed to have them banned, too, should i?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Nothing, if you can be bothered, if you carry a bag, if you have space in your bag, if you don't mind carrying a bottle around with you all day.

Instead, you can pop into a shop, buy a bottle of water, drink its contents, then dump it.

And contribute to wasted energy, wasted materials, and general pollution.

Only someone with no sense of responsibility towards the environment would waste their own money and everyone's resources on bottled water when they most likely have access to clean tap water in the first place.

We should be encouraging people to have that sense of responsibility. That's not going to happen if the bottled water companies are free to peddle their overpriced goods.

Seriously, carrying around a small bottle you've recycled for the purpose is not that onerous. Plus you can refill it for free.


1. Tap water is not free. The average household in Britain pays more than £300 a year in water and sewage bills (link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7264594.stm)). So if you're already spending £300+ on tap water, why spend any extra money?


2. As we have established, bottled water has advantages which tap water does not have - e.g. convenience.So we should encourage the waste of thousands of tons of plastic instead of say, re-introducing public drinking fountains? Because, like it or not, that what bottled water encourages - criminal wastes of energy and resources.


3. Obviously, millions of people do not think that bottled water is 'stupid' or they would not consume it. We want a democratic society which allows its members to decide for themselves which products they wish to be produced for consumption. What we don't want is government officials dictating which consumption choices are and aren't permissible. That sets a dangerous precedent. Looks like a Slippery Slope Fallacy to me.


Again, if i don't like the things that you consume, if i think that they are 'stupid' and worthless, i should be allowed to have them banned, too, should i?The point is that something as basic as water shouldn't be a consumer product. It is antithetical to the idea of collective responsibility.

[Vanguard1917]

And contribute to wasted energy, wasted materials, and general pollution.


Who decides that it's 'wasted'?

What if i feel that cigarette or video game production is a waste? I don't really consume them, i think they're a waste of time, waste of life, waste of resources. They don't add anything to the world. Should they be banned?

That bottled water is wasteful or useless is, in this case, entirely a subjective viewpoint.



So we should encourage the waste of thousands of tons of plastic instead of say, re-introducing public drinking fountains?

Ok, we can, and see if they work and if people take to them. Why should that necessitate banning anything?

The reason that it does is because government officials, guided by environmentalist ideology, see the public itself as the problem -- as irresponsible and feckless -- and do not trust it to make up its own mind about things as trivial as its own consumption choices. That's why it requires bans to make the public toe the line.


Looks like a Slippery Slope Fallacy to me.

Why? We already know that the government wants to restrict our freedom to smoke, to drink, to eat what we want, to drive. The whole environmentalist agenda is one of controlling public behaviour. Why expect them to stop with bottled water when we know that they have much wider-ranging plans?


The point is that something as basic as water shouldn't be a consumer product.

But it is. Water is a consumer product whether it comes out of a tap or a bottle.

Perhaps you mean that water should not be a commodity. I agree. But that's an argument against the market, not against bottled water.

[BobKKKindle$]

As we have established, bottled water has advantages which tap water does not have - e.g. convenience.It should also be pointed out that if you carry a bottle of water but then decide to drink it late in the day it may have gone cold - whereas if you buy a fresh bottle you will be able to savour its icy freshness.

[Decolonize The Left]

In other words, any authoritarian policy is OK as long as it is justified as being necessary to 'save the planet'.

No, I made no such generalizations - but you have, in an attempt to avoid logical thought.


What about banning cars or foreign travel? What about reducing living standards or mass meat consumption? Such things are seen by environmentalists as 'bad for the planet'. Should they be banned too?

That depends upon their context.


Really? Bourgeois governments have been introducing socialist policies, have they?

In capitalist society, socialists have called for reforms which expand the realm of freedom for workers and improve living standards. Environmentalists demand the opposite: laws which reduce freedom and lower living standards. As i have argued, environmentalism cannot win mass support, since working class people are not going to voluntarily support cuts in their living standards/levels of consumption.

It's as a result of this that environmentalism relies fundamentally on top-down, authoritarian state legislation to enforce its policies and make the public toe the line.

Ok, I'm getting tired of this. A few things you need to do to hold any consistency:
1) Define "environmentalism" and "environmentalists." You keep using these terms as though we're all clear on what you mean - well, we aren't.
2) Explain how these so-called "environmentalists" "fundamentally" (your word) use top-down measures. You certainly can't be forgetting all the grass-roots environmentalist campaigns, can you? No...
3) Explain how reducing our ecological footprint on the planet doesn't improve living standards and expand freedom.


Lol, wtf are you talking about? Do you even know?

It might be a good idea for you to actually try addressing the arguments.

Of course I know what I'm talking about. I have been entirely coherent and clear throughout my posts in this thread. On the contrary, you have been highly incoherent and I have asked several questions here which will aid with the coherency of your arguments.

And finally, I cannot address "the arguments" when you haven't made any. You have made numerous claims, to which I have responded...

- August

[Vanguard1917]

No, I made no such generalizations - but you have, in an attempt to avoid logical thought.

You argued that such top-down measures are justified because they 'save the planet'.



That depends upon their context.



Answer the question.


1) Define "environmentalism" and "environmentalists." You keep using these terms as though we're all clear on what you mean - well, we aren't.

The kind of people who want to ban bottled water to 'save the planet'.


2) Explain how these so-called "environmentalists" "fundamentally" (your word) use top-down measures.

Read the OP.



3) Explain how reducing our ecological footprint on the planet doesn't improve living standards and expand freedom.


My living standards are improved by me being wealthier, and my freedom is expanded partly by the bourgeois state sticking its nose less into my everyday life. The environmentalists are against increased wealth and for increased state intervention into my life.



Of course I know what I'm talking about. I have been entirely coherent and clear throughout my posts in this thread.


You say that at the end of a post pretty much totally devoid of any response to my arguments.

[Devrim]

There is a problem with the basis of VG1917's arguments. It lies here:


My living standards are improved by me being wealthier, and my freedom is expanded partly by the bourgeois state sticking its nose less into my everyday life. The environmentalists are against increased wealth and for increased state intervention into my life.

He plays the argument off as if it is a struggle between environmentalists who want to keep the working class in poverty, and capitalism which will enrich them.

However, in reality the working class is being increasingly impoverished by capitalism without the environmentalists help.

Of course that doesn't mean that communists should call for the banning of bottled water either.

Devrim

[cleef]

So the leaders have decided that selling water is illegal BUT selling soda/soft drinks is fine?

This isnt about saving the environment if it was then soda would also be banned (how much would the environment be saved if there weren't empty coke cans everywhere- surplus aliminium etc)

[Vanguard1917]

He plays the argument off as if it is a struggle between environmentalists who want to keep the working class in poverty, and capitalism which will enrich them.

Of course, i argue no such thing. Please provide evidence for your claims. You have totally failed to understand my argument.

Capitalism cannot raise the living standards of the working class to a sufficient level -- and environmentalism, by arguing that capitalism gives way to too much mass prosperity in the first place (too much mass consumption, too high living standards), provides ideological apologism for the current system. Hence its inherently conservative nature, and part of the reason why it has come to play a central role in contemporary ruling class thought.

[Pawn Power]

This is an example of how environmentalism relies on authoritarian state measures to enforce its politics on to the populace. Since bottled water is an increasingly popular product (with its consumption increasing each year), environmentalists know that the only way they can halt its rise is by appealing to the state to enforce bans against the masses' consumption. Did these Toronto state officials consult the bulk of the population which drinks bottled water in Toronto?

This is not necessarily about defending bottled water (i rarely drink it myself) but about exposing the way in which environmentalism relies on authoritarian measures in order to impose its policies and ideology. It sets a dangerous precedent. The environmental movement has little regard for the opinions and desires of the public, since, for its part, the public has little time for environmentalism. People want to be wealthier; they want to consume more; they want to go on more holidays abroad; they want to drive cars; they want to have children, etc. The environmental movement, on the other hand, is hostile and sometimes vehemently against such things. Because it's unable to win people over to its ideas, environmentalism is more than aware that it needs dictatorial tools to implement its prejudices and save the masses from their reckless ways by dictating their behaviour through the means of state legislation.

It is funny that Vanguard1917 uses the logic that if the "bulk of the population" drink bottled water it must be desirable, which is precisely the same argument promoted by libertarians and free marketers. The idea that if a product does well in the market (i.e. it produces a profit) it is desired by the public. In his own words he lays claim that bottled water "is an increasingly popular product" because its "consumption [is] increasing each year." This whole notion of consumption correlating neatly with popularity in the sense of approval is completely off base. It is one of the main contentions against capitalism and specifically free market capitalism.

"Demand," in the economic sense, does not equal people's wants of desires. It is a form of acquiescence, a reluctant agreement, currently bound by a system which is driven by profits and which offers no real alternative. There is popular consumption of a wide range of products which are popularly seen as undesirable. This includes mass news media (which is seen as largely erroneous by the public), baby formula, inefficient automobiles, and various poor quality foods. The public is forced into this agreement in consumption because there is little alternative given by this system.

Moreover, people get duped. For real. We all do to some extent. Companies spend billions of dollars every year to convince us to consume there crap (much more money then they actually spend of producing the actual product). This money is aimed at turning us into uninformed consumers making irrational choices. It is not an even playing field. They want us to by their stuff and are constantly trying to convince us (in ways we probably aren't wholly aware of) of all the benefits or happiness it will bring. When we "chose" to consume it is not an impartial decision. In Vanguard1917 world we are always, to use the free market dictum, rational consumers making free and informed decisions, and it is this which allows consumption to be an opinion poll.

[Devrim]

VG17, I actualy agree with many of your points. I reduced your argument to the absurdity to demonstrate the point. There are many thing about it where you are right, for example here;


environmentalism...provides ideological apologism for the current system. Hence its inherently conservative nature, and part of the reason why it has come to play a central role in contemporary ruling class thought.

I would take issue with this though:


Capitalism cannot raise the living standards of the working class to a sufficient level

I don't think that capitalism can raise the living standards of the working class at all, let alone to a sufficient level.

Devrim

[Vanguard1917]

VG17, I actualy agree with many of your points. I reduced your argument to the absurdity to demonstrate the point.


What point was that? Your accusation was a completely false one, and you have completely failed to back it up.



It is funny that Vanguard1917 uses the logic that if the "bulk of the population" drink bottled water it must be desirable, which is precisely the same argument promoted by libertarians and free marketers.


No, but it is an argument made by Marxists, who believe that "consumers" should decide for themselves which products they wish to have produced for consumption -- which is why we call for a socialist organisation of production.

You, on the other hand, believe that capitalist government officials know whats best for the feckless and "duped" public, and that they should be allowed to decide how working class people should be allowed to behave and what they should and should not be allowed to consume. This line of reasoning is, of course, identical to that shared by reactionaries the world over, e.g. those on the religious right.

Marxists, on the other hand, oppose any attempts by the bourgeois state to control the consumption and everyday behaviour of the working class. We believe that working class people are capable of deciding such trivial matters like whether or not to drink a bottle of Evian, for themselves.

[Devrim]

What point was that? Your accusation was a completely false one, and you have completely failed to back it up.

The point that you believe that capitalism can improve workers' living standards. I don't need to 'back it up'. I can ask you. Do you think it is true?

One can argue that environmentalism is used as an ideological weapon against the working class. This is all well and true.

Your argument goes beyond this though. I will explain why I think it does when you have answered the question.

Devrim

[apathy maybe]

Funny thing though, if I were given the choice, I wouldn't buy bottled water. Except that often I'm not given a choice.

The most perfect example of the "free market" being interfered with is airports. If I go into an airport (where I am currently at least), before I go through security, I have to drink or discard all liquids. However, once through security, there are no water fountains to refill my water bottle, and I am forced to buy water or something else if I want something to drink while waiting for a flight, or while on the flight itself (and at the other end, and so on until I find a safe source of water to refill my bottle).

My purchase of bottled water at any time is an indication that I don't have the option of an alternative source of safe drinking water.

More public drinking fountains, or other public free places to obtain good drinking water please.

[BobKKKindle$]

More public drinking fountains, or other public free places to obtain good drinking water please.Of course we should have more of these facilities and the extensive provision of drinking water would be a progressive development - but this is no reason to ban water under the status quo, and communists should oppose all attempts to restrict the consumption choices of the proletariat.


Companies spend billions of dollars every year to convince us to consume there crap What you're basically arguing is that people have been deceived through prolonged exposure to advertising and so the state needs to step in and tell people what they should be allowed to spend their money on by restricting certain products which are seen as inimical to the good of the community, or, in the context of this discussion, the environment. In other words, the state is able to make rational choices, whereas individuals cannot be trusted to spend their money wisely. This is a grossly illiberal (not to mention Rousseaian*) principle which could be used to justify any form of state intervention - and by putting forward this argument you are also adopting a paternalistic view of the proletariat which disregards the ability of individuals to make choices reflecting their needs and preferences. People are not being forced to buy bottled water or any other commodity despite the alleged pressure of advertising - we've already established in this thread that there are multiple legitimate (not that legitimacy should depend on the agreement of the community, of course) reasons to buy bottled water instead of taking a bottle from home ,and you have yet to show that this ban is actually necessary and something communists should support.

*You might as well have quoted right out of 'The Social Contract', Rousseau conveyed his paternalism much more eloquently than you:

"Our will is always for our own good, but we do not always see what that is; the people is never corrupted, but it is often deceived, and on such occasions only does it seem to will what is bad"

'The Social Contract', Book Two, Chapter Three

[Guerrilla22]

I can see positive and negative aspects of this. People usually simply throw out the plastic bottles used for bottled water, plastic bottles are not bio degradable and take forever to decompose in a landfill. Perhaps if a deposit on bottled water was implemented. Here there is a ten cent deposit on all bottled or canned carbonated liquids.

There also is the issue of where the water comes from. Here Nestle was allowed to remove natural groundwater, which led to a significant decrease in water levels in local waterways, aside from that, it makes the water unavailable to be tapped for public water.

At the same time, you have situations such as the one in my city where a company was dumping illegally in a lake for years, causing contamination and leading to the public water tap being heavily cloronated. There are also times when problems can occur (even in the US) leaving the water tap unsafe to drink. In such instances it would be handy to have bottled water available.

[Pawn Power]

I can see positive and negative aspects of this. People usually simply throw out the plastic bottles used for bottled water, plastic bottles are not bio degradable and take forever to decompose in a landfill. Perhaps if a deposit on bottled water was implemented. Here there is a ten cent deposit on all bottled or canned carbonated liquids.

There also is the issue of where the water comes from. Here Nestle was allowed to remove natural groundwater, which led to a significant decrease in water levels in local waterways, aside from that, it makes the water unavailable to be tapped for public water.

At the same time, you have situations such as the one in my city where a company was dumping illegally in a lake for years, causing contamination and leading to the public water tap being heavily cloronated. There are also times when problems can occur (even in the US) leaving the water tap unsafe to drink. In such instances it would be handy to have bottled water available.

Obviously, this measure is only reasonable in regions where is possible to provide sanitary tap water.

[Pawn Power]

Crying "Marxism!" isn't an argument.




No, but it is an argument made by Marxists, who believe that "consumers" should decide for themselves which products they wish to have produced for consumption -- which is why we call for a socialist organisation of production.

Yes, we do call for socialist organization of production and distribution. However, "consumers" are not the ones who should decide this. "Consumers" is the capitalist term for individuals (workers, students, children, etc.*) who are only agents through their purchasing power of goods,. It signifies that we are not able to make decisions around society and that we are only capable of making decisions on what to buy, what to consume. "Consumers" should not decide on what is produced. This decision should be made by workers, by communities, and by people. We need to stop looking at ourselves and our class as primarily "consumers" we are worker, we are student, we are active agents. We are not defined by what we consume, despite what the capitalists tell you (although many people are increasingly charactering them selfs in this way; as a Apple or Windows person, as a consumer of a certain fashion, as a consumer of certain "green" products, as a consumer of certain corporate media, etc).

We actually produce things, provide services, and have social relationships and interests beyond what products we buy.


You, on the other hand, believe that capitalist government officials know whats best for the feckless and "duped" public, and that they should be allowed to decide how working class people should be allowed to behave and what they should and should not be allowed to consume. This line of reasoning is, of course, identical to that shared by reactionaries the world over, e.g. those on the religious right.

This is exactly what I don't believe. The public should have control of there own consumption. This is not the case now, and I think this is where you differ. People do not have complete control over what they consume under capitalism except the rich.

*Thus, "consumer" excludes the very poor since they have little to no purchasing power. The down trodden of our society, the homeless, the "dregs," are of no use to the capitalist class since they do not produce surplus labor and do not consume there goods. It is no wonder that they go completely forgotten. When "consumers" decide production and distribution (which is not completely the case since we do not live under a free market) these people not a factor. They don't fit in the equation. Under a socially worker run society, a communist society, all deserve the necessities of life and more.

[Rosa Provokateur]

I hate bottled water and dont see why people buy it but to ban the stuff, thats just stupid. It's government intervention at its worst both in the fact that its stupid and that they were willing to do it. Apparently Canada has nothing better to do.

[Pawn Power]

To Van1917:


I just thought of a good example. If people freely and unrestrainedly make consumption choices then why does increased advertisement of a brand or product correlate so strongly with increased consumption on said brand or product? Are we just coming to realize what we really want? Should we thank advertisers for helping us come to this realization.

Not surprisingly, the growth in bottled water consumption correlates with increased advertising for bottled water. How would we have ever known that we needed to drink so much water, and that our tap water was disgusting, without these companies telling us! They are truly looking out for our health and trying to make our lives more convenient and pleasurable.

[Pawn Power]

I hate bottled water and dont see why people buy it but to ban the stuff, thats just stupid. It's government intervention at its worst both in the fact that its stupid and that they were willing to do it. Apparently Canada has nothing better to do.

While I don't agreed with the State intervening in basically anything I don't think it is government intervention at its worst, obviously. State intervention at its worst is sending thousands of troops to the middle east and decimating Iraqi and Afghani society. Local government intervention at its worst is sending out hundreds of cops to patrol and brutalize people. Government intervention at its worst is catering to corporations through tax cuts and incentives and cutting or privatizing social services. I would rather have the government intervene by raising minimum wage, providing universal single payer health care, or better unemployment benefits. Though these things will only happen if we struggle for them.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yes, we do call for socialist organization of production and distribution. However, "consumers" are not the ones who should decide this. "Consumers" is the capitalist term for individuals (workers, students, children, etc.*) who are only agents through their purchasing power of goods,. It signifies that we are not able to make decisions around society and that we are only capable of making decisions on what to buy, what to consume. "Consumers" should not decide on what is produced. This decision should be made by workers, by communities, and by people. We need to stop looking at ourselves and our class as primarily "consumers" we are worker, we are student, we are active agents. We are not defined by what we consume, despite what the capitalists tell you (although many people are increasingly charactering them selfs in this way; as a Apple or Windows person, as a consumer of a certain fashion, as a consumer of certain "green" products, as a consumer of certain corporate media, etc).

We actually produce things, provide services, and have social relationships and interests beyond what products we buy.

*Thus, "consumer" excludes the very poor since they have little to no purchasing power. The down trodden of our society, the homeless, the "dregs," are of no use to the capitalist class since they do not produce surplus labor and do not consume there goods. It is no wonder that they go completely forgotten. When "consumers" decide production and distribution (which is not completely the case since we do not live under a free market) these people not a factor. They don't fit in the equation. Under a socially worker run society, a communist society, all deserve the necessities of life and more.

A very good point. Also, it's not just the destitute that have little power as "consumers" - those on lower incomes are forced to live within a budget, and this might mean they're forced to buy products and services from "unethical" companies simply because they can't afford the alternatives.

[Vanguard1917]

The point that you believe that capitalism can improve workers' living standards. I don't need to 'back it up'. I can ask you.

Working class living standards under capitalism are subject to fluctuation and the ups and downs of the market. Can we say that working class living standards in Britain in 1992 were not lower than they were in 2002 and that they will potentially be lower in 2009 than they were in 2008?

It's not the case that 'capitalism' is pro-wealth and 'environmentalism' is anti-wealth. One provides ideological apologism for the other by excusing its utter inability to raise living standards and provide the goods to all.


This decision should be made by workers, by communities, and by people. We need to stop looking at ourselves and our class as primarily "consumers" we are worker, we are student, we are active agents. We are not defined by what we consume

I agree, which is why i put the word in quotation marks.



This is exactly what I don't believe. The public should have control of there own consumption. This is not the case now, and I think this is where you differ. People do not have complete control over what they consume under capitalism except the rich.



This is where your argument falls apart.

You're right: under capitalism people 'do not have complete control over what they consume'. People's freedom to consume what they need and desire is heavily restricted by, primarily, their poverty.

By calling on the capitalist state to dictate consumption, what you want to do is remove people's control over their consumption ever further. You want even greater restrictions on people's freedom to consume.



I just thought of a good example. If people freely and unrestrainedly make consumption choices then why does increased advertisement of a brand or product correlate so strongly with increased consumption on said brand or product? Are we just coming to realize what we really want? Should we thank advertisers for helping us come to this realization.

Not surprisingly, the growth in bottled water consumption correlates with increased advertising for bottled water. How would we have ever known that we needed to drink so much water, and that our tap water was disgusting, without these companies telling us! They are truly looking out for our health and trying to make our lives more convenient and pleasurable.


So the reason why i fancy a couple of cold beers after work is because i've been duped into feeling that way by adverts i see? I like a can of coke with a kebab because of TV commercials?

That is an immensely patronising and degrading view of people. Of course adverts have an effect on sales. They advertise -- i.e. alert and give information about -- products available on the market. People then make up their own minds about whether or not they want or are able to consume those products. That's why increased marketting can tend to correlate with increased sales.

The idea that working class people watch adverts and then turn into zombies in a shopping frenzy is the attitude of the middle class snob, not the socialist who respects working people enough to see that they're capable of making their own minds up about what they buy at the shop and do not need government officials to make such decisions for them.

Yours is an extremely paternalistic view of the working class, like Bobkindles, whose post you unfortunately did not address, points out.

[Devrim]

It's not the case that 'capitalism' is pro-wealth and 'environmentalism' is anti-wealth. One provides ideological apologism for the other by excusing its utter inability to raise living standards and provide the goods to all.

I agree with this absolutely.


Working class living standards under capitalism are subject to fluctuation and the ups and downs of the market. Can we say that working class living standards in Britain in 1992 were not lower than they were in 2002 and that they will potentially be lower in 2009 than they were in 2008?

This contradicts it though. How can you claim that there is an 'utter inability to raise living standards' and then say that 'Working class living standards under capitalism are subject to fluctuation and the ups and downs of the market'?

What you are saying there is that if the market goes up living standards can be raised.

Devrim

[Vanguard1917]

This contradicts it though. How can you claim that there is an 'utter inability to raise living standards' and then say that 'Working class living standards under capitalism are subject to fluctuation and the ups and downs of the market'?

I mean to a sufficient level and extent. The rise is limited and cannot be sustained for the long-term.

The point is, environmentalists campaign and call for government action against even these modest and temporary rises in standards of living.

[Devrim]

I mean to a sufficient level and extent. The rise is limited and cannot be sustained for the long-term.

The point is, environmentalists campaign and call for government action against even these modest and temporary rises in standards of living.

Again I agree that there can be no permanent improvements in working class living standards.

However, the way that you put it sounds like the environmentalists are fighting against an increase in living standards that capitalism provides rather than their ideology being used to justify an attcak on living standards.

Devrim

[Vanguard1917]

However, the way that you put it sounds like the environmentalists are fighting against an increase in living standards that capitalism provides rather than their ideology being used to justify an attcak on living standards.

Environmentalists argue that the problem with capitalism is that it gives way to too much mass wealth and economic progress. So, yes, by railing against even the extremely limited levels of development and prosperity enjoyed today, environmentalists put forward a backward and reactionary "critique" of the status-quo. Of course, it's not really a critique at all; it's ideological defence of the status-quo. After all, if capitalism is giving way to too much progress, why demand a better system?

[Pawn Power]

You're right: under capitalism people 'do not have complete control over what they consume'. People's freedom to consume what they need and desire is heavily restricted by, primarily, their poverty.

By calling on the capitalist state to dictate consumption, what you want to do is remove people's control over their consumption ever further. You want even greater restrictions on people's freedom to consume.

Yes, I think poverty is probably the greatest factor in curtailing and influencing peoples consumption habits, but it is not the only factor.

Furthermore, I have never called on "capitalist state to dictate consumption." Please don't slander my good name. Posting an article does not mean I condone the action (though I don't necessarily condemn it because the people of Toronto don't seem upset about the decision). I don't want to "remove people's control over their consumption." I want all people to have equal access to life's necessities and pleasures and for individuals to have more freedom in making consumption decisions. I don't think capitalism allows for either of those things. I don't know how clearer I can be on this point.



So the reason why i fancy a couple of cold beers after work is because i've been duped into feeling that way by adverts i see? I like a can of coke with a kebab because of TV commercials?

The world is more complex then that. Capitalism is more complex then that. Social relations are more complex then that. Perhaps an advertisement had some influence on your purchase, or maybe not. Maybe a friend recommended that particular beer? Maybe the bar provides a pleasant atmosphere to relax after work and since your there you buy a beer? I don't know. There are countless factors involved when we make decisions.

We don't live in a vacuum. We live in a particular culture. We live in a particular region surrounded by particular people. We also live under capitalism. Capitalist want us to by their stuff. They spend tons of resources to influence us to do this. It is common knowledge that they have succeeded in this. I don't think they are the only force, or even the most influential force in many cases, in effecting our decisions and world view. But it is a factor. And one that shouldn't be discounted.


That is an immensely patronising and degrading view of people. Of course adverts have an effect on sales. They advertise -- i.e. alert and give information about -- products available on the market. People then make up their own minds about whether or not they want or are able to consume those products. That's why increased marketting can tend to correlate with increased sales.

The idea that working class people watch adverts and then turn into zombies in a shopping frenzy is the attitude of the middle class snob, not the socialist who respects working people enough to see that they're capable of making their own minds up about what they buy at the shop and do not need government officials to make such decisions for them.

Yours is an extremely paternalistic view of the working class, like Bobkindles, whose post you unfortunately did not address, points out.

I will respond to this last point and to Bobkindles point later (I didn't read all the posts in this thread, but thanks for bring bob's to my attention), I have to catch a train. I think you both make good points here but are to a bit irrational when it comes to "free will" and social and cultural influcences and don't consider all the factors involved.

[Vanguard1917]

Furthermore, I have never called on "capitalist state to dictate consumption." Please don't slander my good name. Posting an article does not mean I condone the action (though I don't necessarily condemn it because the people of Toronto don't seem upset about the decision). I don't want to "remove people's control over their consumption." I want all people to have equal access to life's necessities and pleasures and for individuals to have more freedom in making consumption decisions. I don't think capitalism allows for either of those things. I don't know how clearer I can be on this point.



If you agree that government attempts to dictate working class consumption are reactionary and should be opposed, we're in agreement and there is not much else worth me adding.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Obviously this wasn't the reasoning behind it, but good...water, of all things, should not be a commodity to be exploited for personal profit.

[The Intransigent Faction]

I hate bottled water and dont see why people buy it but to ban the stuff, thats just stupid. It's government intervention at its worst both in the fact that its stupid and that they were willing to do it. Apparently Canada has nothing better to do.

Stupid? Banning the exploitation of a commodity essential for life is stupid?
Oh and nice job making a broad remark about Canada over something passed in Toronto.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe this was done out of concern for workers. The movement for new "green technology", a new source of fuel etc. is a legitimate concern, but it's been exploited as a publicity scheme by various companies, each claiming to have the most environmentally-friendly products.

Our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, said a while before he became the Conservative leader that "[The Kyoto Accord] is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations." Although environmentalism can be exploited for profit, this does show the potential antithesis between being pro-big business and environmentalist.

Environmentalism is often viewed as standing in the way of profits for big or small businesses, but it doesn't necessarily mean that.

So, to sum it up, I won't contend that environmentalism is anti-capitalist, but I will suggest that preventing the exploitation of water for personal profit is not, in and of itself, a bad thing.

[Vanguard1917]

Stupid? Banning the exploitation of a commodity essential for life is stupid?



That water bottles have been banned does not mean that water has stopped being a commodity, and neither was that the purpose of the ban.

Whether something is a commodity is determined by whether it's produced for the purpose of exchange, not whether its distributed in bottles rather than taps.

[Pawn Power]

What you're basically arguing is that people have been deceived through prolonged exposure to advertising and so the state needs to step in and tell people what they should be allowed to spend their money on by restricting certain products which are seen as inimical to the good of the community, or, in the context of this discussion, the environment. In other words, the state is able to make rational choices, whereas individuals cannot be trusted to spend their money wisely.

Firstly, I have not condoned (or condemned) the State's action (though, in this case it wasn't a decision by the Canadian State but by local government council of Toronto). I have not stated that the state "needs to step in and tell people" what to do and how to do it. I would really wish if people would not use their assumption to characterizes my position.

But to your fist point, yes, I am basically arguing that people have been deceived, in some way and to some extent, by prolonged exposure to capitalist media. I don't know if "deceived" is the right word in all contexts but is some cases it is defiantly true. Nevertheless, we are all influenced to some extent by capitalist media. Sometimes we are completely swindled. To say otherwise would be naive.

great example is bourgeois elections. People openly admit after the election the the winner has taken office that the media's portrayal of the candidate and campaign machine completely misrepresented or outright lied about how the candidate would govern. People admit to having been deceived. Capitalist spend tons of cash to deceive people to have their buddies elected and to sell their stuff.


This is a grossly illiberal (not to mention Rousseaian*) principle which could be used to justify any form of state intervention - and by putting forward this argument you are also adopting a paternalistic view of the proletariat which disregards the ability of individuals to make choices reflecting their needs and preferences.


I will bypass the state intervention stuff because I have not taken that position. By and large I agree that the state does not know better then people what is better for us- the states job is to protect capitalists not to take of its people.

However, in regards to individuals abilities to make choices "reflecting their needs and preferences" there is something to be said. I do think that people know what they want and what they need. Nevertheless, people's wants and need are not divorced from the realities of state capitalism.

Again to take the example of bourgeois elections, many people wanted, and did, vote for Obama because of rational reasons and desires- he was the "anti-war" candidate, he was the "universal health care" candidate, he was the job creating "candidate," etc. However, the Obama machine, including his rhetoric and advertising, along with a uncritical media (at least in useful ways) masked that he actually doesn't plan on ending the war (want tens of thousands of residual forces), never advocated single payer universal health care (which a majority of American do want), etc.

You could say that many people were "deceived," hoodwinked, or have been bamboozled, swindled, cheated, cajoled, cheated, or mislead. This is what campaign and product ads aim to do. They don't aim to merely inform people about the product or candidate (as Vanguarge1917 has said). If that was they case they wouldn't need all that frippery around the actual details (even if they didn't lie, which they often do, about the actual details).


People are not being forced to buy bottled water or any other commodity despite the alleged pressure of advertising - we've already established in this thread that there are multiple legitimate (not that legitimacy should depend on the agreement of the community, of course) reasons to buy bottled water instead of taking a bottle from home ,and you have yet to show that this ban is actually necessary and something communists should support.


Please show me where I have said communist should support this ban? If you cannot you have completely misrepresented my position (akin to how the mass media work in misrepresenting things).

In this case people are not being "forced" to buy bottled water. Though, I have (as well as another person in this thread) have been in spaces where people are forced to buy bottled water. This is also the case with other products. But in regards to advertising I agree, it does not "force" people to buy certain commodities in a rigid sense. However, there are many forces involved in commodity consumption. Advertisements do not just work to inform. And even if they did there wouldn't be a level playing field for people to make decisions because some have much more resources to "inform" people.

Again, the rise in bottled water consumption is related to the rise in advertising for the product. Advertising that included admonishing tap water as unclean and unhealthy and promoting bottled water as pure and pristine (this has been shown to not be the case in most instances in the West where bottled water sales are highest).

There are many "legitimate" reasons for people to buy bottled water and there are many legitimate reasons for people to not buy bottled water. The thing is, the promotion around around these reasons are imbalanced and thus we see related result. If there was billions poured into advertising in promotion of tap water and against bottled water you can bet peoples wants and desires around purchasing bottled water would change.

If you don't buy into this hypothetical there are similar instances. A perfect example of this is the tobacco industry. In the US, after tobacco television commercials were baned and the increased spending on anti-smoking ads tobacco consumption dropped. People changed their minds, they didn't want to smoke any more. People change their minds. People are influenced by culture and media. This is normal. This is not patronizing, its common sense.


By the way, I liked your invoking of Rousseau! Though I don't think it does me justice you made an interesting point.

[Patchd]

Well I wouldn't see this as a victory for the working class or "the environment", no doubt the environment is still being exploited by the same bourgeois politicians who have passed this ban.

Its just to increase popularity amongst their electorate, and although its not necessarily a bad thing (the banning of bottled water), we don't need to support state sanctioned attempts to look nice, nor do we have to oppose it outright.

[Vanguard1917]

Its just to increase popularity amongst their electorate


It's a policy against their electorate, or at least a bulk of it.

[The Intransigent Faction]

That water bottles have been banned does not mean that water has stopped being a commodity, and neither was that the purpose of the ban.

Whether something is a commodity is determined by whether it's produced for the purpose of exchange, not whether its distributed in bottles rather than taps.

*Sigh* i hate it when people respond without reading the whole post first.

I did say that

Obviously this wasn't the reasoning behind it

Other than that, fair enough.

[Patchd]

It's a policy against their electorate, or at least a bulk of it.
As well as gaining support from the more "environmentally inclined" community, which I'm guessing the Canadian media is also beginning to target and attempt to expand?

So what, are you stating that the state has introduced this ban for the working class of Toronto's benefit?! When has the state ever done anything for us which didn't result in a benefit for themselves and the class they represent?

[Vanguard1917]

So what, are you stating that the state has introduced this ban for the working class of Toronto's benefit?!

No, i'm saying that the policy is directed against the public, since, after all, it is the public which consumes bottled water.

[Module]

It hasn't taken away the public's access to water, only the public's ability to spend money on it when it is already free.
I think this is a good thing - bottled water is a total sham which has absolutely zero benefit for anybody except the people selling it.

[Patchd]

What the lovely Des said.

[Vanguard1917]

It hasn't taken away the public's access to water, only the public's ability to spend money on it when it is already free.


Tap water is not free, so that's not what has happened at all. Also, the government can make tap water free without banning bottled water. And as we have already explained in this thread, bottled water has advantages which tap water does not have, e.g. a convenient supply of water for when you're not at home, so it is not true that it 'has absolutely zero benefit'. The millions of people who consume it certainly don't agree with you.

As i showed in this thread, the ban is simply an example of how environmentalism relies on top-down authoritarian measures, i.e. state bans and restrictions, to control public behaviour and make the public toe the eco-line.

[Patchd]

Tap water is not free, so that's not what has happened at all. Also, the government can make tap water free without banning bottled water. And as we have already explained in this thread, bottled water has advantages which tap water does not have, e.g. a convenient supply of water for when you're not at home, so it is not true that it 'has absolutely zero benefit'. The millions of people who consume it certainly don't agree with you.

It is if you drink it from public places. Even so, this does not suffice as a counter argument, bottled water was never free either. The millions of consumers can drink tap water kept in bottles.

Also, please note that I am neutral on this subject, I don't support the state restriction of it, nor do I support the continual of the bottled water industry.


As i showed in this thread, the ban is simply an example of how environmentalism relies on top-down authoritarian measures, i.e. state bans and restrictions, to control public behaviour and make the public toe the eco-line.
Oh I agree, my point of criticism was your opinion that it was a policy against the electorate, while I agree to an extent, I asserted that this policy was to gain support from the "eco-friendly" sector of the public.

[Vanguard1917]

It is if you drink it from public places. Even so, this does not suffice as a counter argument, bottled water was never free either.


So, what?

Banning something because it's not free achieves what exactly?

[Patchd]

So, what?

Banning something because it's not free achieves what exactly?
Nothing, you fail to realise that I am not for or against this. It achieves nothing, I was merely dealing with certain parts of your posts which I disagreed with.

[Module]

You can fill a bottle with water anyway. You can also get free tap water from pretty much all fast food places on request, and in many countries food places are forced by law to provide free tap water to you if you ask for it.

No, you're right it's generally not totally free, but it's as good as. People in Toronto (I Googled this) would pay less than 30 cents per litre. That would be less than 15 cents for 500 ml of water. How much more do people pay for that 500ml of water when it's in a bottle? Over here a bottle of water would cost at least 2.00. In Canada that would be 1.65.
There has for a long time been this myth, created by misleading advertising, that tap water isn't as good for you, so you need bottled filtered water, and it's a myth that only now seems to be getting a lot of attention. It's a total scam and the only people this effectively restricts are drinks manufacturers.

[Vanguard1917]

You can fill a bottle with water anyway. You can also get free tap water from pretty much all fast food places on request, and in many countries food places are forced by law to provide free tap water to you if you ask for it.

What justification is that for banning anything?

[Patchd]

I believe she gave another reason which you've chosen to overlook;


It's a total scam and the only people this effectively restricts are drinks manufacturers.

Although with this, I still think there's a problem. Even though it may seem like the state is acting in opposition to the manufacturers, it is still doing so in the interests of other capitalists. It is like social democracy, or fascism, which seeks to nationalise at the expense of some capitalists, but to the benefit for the rest of the oppressing class so as to continue to maintain the capitalist economic system.

[Guerrilla22]

Obviously, this measure is only reasonable in regions where is possible to provide sanitary tap water.

Yes, but is it possible to ensure sanitary tap water at all times? You could have situation where a water main or pipes either crack or burst, causing the tap to become contaminated for a period of several days.

[butterfly]

Yes, but is it possible to ensure sanitary tap water at all times? You could have situation where a water main or pipes either crack or burst, causing the tap to become contaminated for a period of several days.
Once again in such a situation one would not go about buying dozens of 600ml bottles but rather purchase a larger container that can be used over a prolonged period of time.

[apathy maybe]

What justification is that for banning anything?

I quote you merely to address this post to you, and it is addressed to everyone, but I specifically wanted your opinion.

Was the "state" justified in banning leaded petrol? It was a popular product, with many "consumers" purchasing it multiple times a week.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banning_of_leaded_petrol

What about lead in paint? Another act by the "state" of banning something...

There are probably a good many examples like this, except I can't just think of them. Basically, the state steps in and bans something, even though it is being purchased regularly by "consumers". The reasons are invariably "environmentalist" or "health" related.

[Pawn Power]

If you agree that government attempts to dictate working class consumption are reactionary and should be opposed, we're in agreement and there is not much else worth me adding.

Took you long enough to realize this! I think most of those on the left who understand the State as an subordinate appendage of the ruling class would come to the conclusion that we should oppose government control over consumption, distribution, the courts, public health, public space, the environment, etc.

However, you appear to see the problem only (or most pertinently) as a dichotomy between between state control and non-state control. This position I have most often see come from anarchists or libertarians (the American variety).


This is extremely problematic. Firstly, just because something, say consumption, is not under state control doesn't me it is then in our control. Capitalism continues to operate and dictate consumption where the state has less influence. The mainstream argument concerning regulation and deregulation of economic institutions somewhat fits in here, however they are mainly discussed in relation to the prosperity of the whole system (the one we want eliminate).

People are not free to consume/control their lives and that of their community with or without state intervention. Removing state regulation does not eliminate the confines of capitalism, which are fare greater in the manipulation of most working people's lives. Capitalism and the market dictate our work, pay, and time. These things effect how we live and consume.


And as we have already explained in this thread, bottled water has advantages which tap water does not have, e.g. a convenient supply of water for when you're not at home, so it is not true that it 'has absolutely zero benefit'. The millions of people who consume it certainly don't agree with you.

I thought we already went over this, consumption rates are NOT opinion polls.

[Vanguard1917]

Firstly, just because something, say consumption, is not under state control doesn't me it is then in our control.


No, it doesn't. But when the state does attempt to dictate consumption through authoriatarian measures, the limited control that we do over our consumption is even further undermined.



Was the "state" justified in banning leaded petrol? It was a popular product, with many "consumers" purchasing it multiple times a week.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banning_of_leaded_petrol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banning_of_leaded_petrol)



Lead is toxic. The ban was intended to put pressure on companies to use alternative additives.

[KC]

Bottled water is regulated by the FDA, whereas tap water is regulated by the EPA. Because of this, tap water is actually a healthier choice, as the EPA applies stricter regulations to tap water than the FDA does bottled water. Also, the plastic in bottles can have a negative effect on the water contained within it, which is why you're not supposed to reuse plastic bottles (metal containers are preferred). So from a health perspective, tap water is preferrable.

However, bottled water is incredibly convenient, as Vanguard1917 has said, for when you are not at home or around tap water. When you buy bottled water, you are essentially buying the bottle and not really the water contained in it; you are buying the convenience of having a bottle. Sometimes this is important.

Because of that, the outright banning of bottled water is ridiculous. However, I think they could have implemented some kind of program or regulations to promote the consumption of tap water and discourage the consumption of bottled water.


Yes, but is it possible to ensure sanitary tap water at all times? You could have situation where a water main or pipes either crack or burst, causing the tap to become contaminated for a period of several days.

As I said before, tap water is much more strictly regulated, so you are safer drinking tap water than you are drinking bottled water.

[apathy maybe]

Lead is toxic. The ban was intended to put pressure on companies to use alternative additives.

Lead is bad for the environment, that's why it was banned.

But still, it was a very popular product, people want to buy leaded petrol, indeed, in the UK it is now possible to buy leaded petrol after it was banned because of the demand for it!

Anyway, this ban on bottled water is, as I understand, another environmental thingy. The number of bottles that aren't being recycled...

[Cory]

For all those in favor of banning bottled water: I hope your happy when you disagree with the government and your tap water "suddenly" is turned off and you have no recourse.

Seriously guys, don't you see the obvious dangers of letting the capitalist state decide who does and does not get water? :confused:

[Pawn Power]

For all those in favor of banning bottled water: I hope your happy when you disagree with the government and your tap water "suddenly" is turned off and you have no recourse.

Seriously guys, don't you see the obvious dangers of letting the capitalist state decide who does and does not get water? :confused:

So instead we should rely on the 'free market' to provide us with water? That doesn't make much sense.

[Cory]

So instead we should rely on the 'free market' to provide us with water? That doesn't make much sense.

No, I'm saying both should be avalible.

[Pawn Power]

No, I'm saying both should be avalible.

Well, worker and community control over water is what should be advocated. Both city and corporate control over what is inadequate. I don't think we should be advocating the corporate control of anything, especially water.

[KC]

Just found this on Consumerist, and thought some people here that don't really know about it would find it interesting:


There Is All Kinds Of Nasty Crap In Your Bottled Water

A new study challenging the idea that bottled water is "purer" than tap water found a laundry list of nasty substances in major brand name water, and named two brands that exceeded California's health standards. Here are a few choice goodies found in the water: Coliform bacteria, caffeine, the pain reliever acetaminophen, fertilizer, solvents, plastic-making chemicals and the radioactive element strontium.

All brands met the federal standards for drinking water, though researchers were concerned enough about two of the brands to release their names.

Sam's Choice sold by Wal-Mart and Acadia of Giant Food supermarkets contained chlorine byproducts above California's (stricter) standards, according to the Washington-based Environmental Working Group, an organization founded by scientists that advocates stricter regulation.

(http://consumerist.com/5063874/study-there-is-all-kinds-of-nasty-crap-in-your-bottled-water)
Source (http://consumerist.com/5063874/study-there-is-all-kinds-of-nasty-crap-in-your-bottled-water)

[bcbm]

For all those in favor of banning bottled water: I hope your happy when you disagree with the government and your tap water "suddenly" is turned off and you have no recourse.

If they're turning off your utilities, you think they'll let you stroll to the corner store for a bottle of water? Nevermind that buying bottles instead of jugs would be horribly inefficient for this purpose.

[Pawn Power]

If they're turning off your utilities, you think they'll let you stroll to the corner store for a bottle of water? Nevermind that buying bottles instead of jugs would be horribly inefficient for this purpose.

That's a good way to put it. :lol:

***

I don't know why so many people separate the role of the state with capitalism, as if there is no correspondence between the two. And, moreover, as if markets have our best interest in mind. While some many are saying that this a an example of government intervening in our lives and that they ignore the fact that even before the ban government is involved in the distribution of goods.

It is much easier to recognize government intervention in this case because it is obvious (a legal ban) however, many overlook the more subtle ways in which governments intervene and dictate consumption, including tariffs, taxes, import and export policies, tax cuts to certain corporations, and other deals which favor certain industries, products, and companies. All of these things are determined by government and contribute to what we are consuming.