I was raised in rural in a deeply conservative environment. But I can pinpoint the exact moments everything started to crumble.
I was right there waving flags at troops and was completely caught up in the "OOH-RAH" feeling of righteous anger. I had people connected to me who died in the attacks. My last memories of American warfare was the Gulf War where the USA basically went on a murder-vacation across Kuwait and all the way to Bagdad. It was surreal and removed from reality, it was winning. I wished I was going, I deeply wanted to go over there and be a part of this winning-machine, but I had just started my adult life and joining the service wasn't in my cards.
Then fast forward to me watching FOX news in my first apartment, eating dinner and watching coverage of the invasion of Iraq. There was a clip they played from the perspective of a hummer entering a city, and a box truck was passing on the opposite side of the road, obviously fleeing the city. The hummer opens up with its automatic grenade launcher, and I distinctly remember the simultaneous mixture of awe seeing the box truck get chewed to molten shards of sparkling metal instantly, and a sick punch to my gut understanding that was probably just a family trying to leave with their possessions. The segment cut to the host, festooned with American flags, smiling at US might.
That image haunted me for weeks, and then they found no WMD's, the war raged and raged. Atrocities caused by our troops kept coming out, the question of why we were there was getting asked louder and louder.
The disillusionment was pretty much complete at this point and I had already sworn off FOX news for the rest of my life, and then a few years pass and people I cared about started coming home maimed, or were not coming home, or came home unable to go on and took their own lives. More people than I thought I would know. There was no satisfying ending, no victory, nothing to be proud of.
Realizing I live in the homeland of the villains of the story radicalized me.
You're missing the point. When the state catches you being a decent human being, it is incumbent upon the state to crush you like a bug. What's next? Feeding the hungry?!
My parents are 80 years old and their car died in April, so I had to loan them mine, basically permanently, because the alternative is that they have no income at all.
The country that the Democrats and Republicans have built would be a-okay with letting them starve to death.
Being old in the US is hard mode. I mean old people in other countries live with and are supported by family. Imagine tossing la nona in a retirment home, mama mia.
Worth noting that like 25% of the population live in the 2-3 cities with acceptable public transit options. Another sizeable chunk are either too young or too old to drive, so a third being unable to drive isn’t shocking or that bad honesty
Being too young or too old to drive shouldn't exclude you from full participation in society in the ways you are otherwise able. You should be able to go grocery shopping even if your reflexes aren't up to the task of driving. You should be able to go to your baseball game without getting a ride from your parents.
The country that the Democrats and Republicans have built would be a-okay with letting them starve to death.
The trick is to just blame THEM for it. American Dream: if you can't make it, it's because you're lazy - it's the bully saying "stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself!".
My parents, sadly, were very irresponsible with their money, but it's insane to me that we have 100+ billionaires in this country and we're just letting people die left and right whose lives can be saved.
I'm European, from a left leaning, liberal (in the sense we actively recognize individual rights and liberties but one individual freedom can not tramble the next), and this exact same legal disposition exists.
Allow me to share the explanation I was given.
Fresh water is not easy to manage, sanitize transport and distribute. The operation is insanely complex and expensive, with huge expenses for quality control, infrastructure and machinery.
Water is a public service here; it is a guaranteed right. You need to reach extreme lengths to have your water service shut off, like having several months of delinquent bills.
however, all of this infrastructure needs to be paid for and it is paid through a serious of added charges, some percentually calculated based off the amount of water you use, others are fixed values charged as service fees (like sanitation and garbage collection).
This implies that if all the water consumed in an entire building was being paid by a single person, the water itself would be paid, but related costs would only be charged once, meaning the portion of money collected to cover the entire maintenance of the services would be severely reduced.
By enforcing that for each home there must be a separate service, the overall cost is diluted and the value service is maintained as cheap as humanly possible and the basic services are maintained as public services, out of the reach of private sector interest.
And, please take my word for, you do not want water, sewage or garbage collection controlled by private companies.
These are sectors where there is a limit for how much expense you can cut. It requires constant investment in machinery and infrastructure to just maintain operations. Improving efficiency requires even higher investment that is only recoupable after several years, if ever.
Privates work for profit. These entities work to just break even, although some can be highly profitable, but profit is always destined to reinvest.
You're definitely right about the reasons why, but it's extremely frustrating to have this kind of situation when we could probably just find another way to find it and treat water like a basic human right!
I would argue that doesn't apply. This post and whatever you call lemmy subr's is specific to the idiocy in the USA. In Europe like Canada to the best of my knowledge the public utility maintains the infrastructure up to your main. If it leaks before where you get charged, it's their problem and their pipes.
In most of the USA, their responsibility ends at your property line. Utility companies are already all privatized, electric, gas, water, and sewer. If you have an issue with a leak or distribution, they will shut you off at the property line and let you figure it out.
The added infrastructure cost for supplying water through 1 extra valve or not is paid for by the homeowner when the house was built. The labour to turn your water on and off is paid for at the time through fines and fees for disconnection and connection. There is literally no cost that they bear for your lack of water.
This post and whatever you call lemmy subr's is specific to the idiocy in the USA.
I find myself divided between idiocy and a complete lack of sense of humanity. Maybe it's the sum of both.
In Europe like Canada to the best of my knowledge the public utility maintains the infrastructure up to your main.
Where do you think the funds for that come from?
If it leaks before where you get charged, it's their problem and their pipes.
Yes and no. The money expended to install, maintain and repair those systems are raised either through indirect taxation, to then be transfered via a municipal or some other publi entity budget (which is a very bad practice), or by charging complementary fees directly added to the service, which are then directly managed by a publicly held company, that manages such services and is under public scrutiny.
In most of the USA, their responsibility ends at your property line.
Here, likewise. The service providers are required to make sure whatever is to be dispensed reaches the meter.
Utility companies are already all privatized, electric, gas, water, and sewer.
I am sadly aware of that.
If you have an issue with a leak or distribution, they will shut you off at the property line and let you figure it out.
In your house? Your problem. But shutting your service with no reason? That's rich.
The added infrastructure cost for supplying water through 1 extra valve or not is paid for by the homeowner when the house was built.
You forget the cost to maintain the main lines. Whatever it is to be provided requires a way to reach the destination.
The labour to turn your water on and off is paid for at the time through fines and fees for disconnection and connection.
The labour costs are already calculates for the salaries. The extra fees and fines are extra income.
There is literally no cost that they bear for your lack of water.
The main lines need to be kept in working condition, even if unused. That costs money.
You're missing the point that the meter is not the property line in the USA. At least I hope that's the only thing your rambling is missing. And arguing semantics about taxation on a public service is stupid. It costs more money to staff the hotline to answer calls than the cost to maintain a shutoff valve to your property because all the costs are born to the homeowner and service subscriber already.
Incase it wasn't clear, this is NOT true in almost everywhere else in the world. My properties outside the USA the utility must maintain to high standards all the way through my meter which is located on my property, but usually in my dwelling. All the subterranean pipe, the pipe through the foundation, the pressure regulator, the backflow valves, that's all owned by the city and I can't touch it. But I also don't pay for it when it breaks. And when it leaks they dig the ground up and fix. That's NOT how it works in the USA.
Not to mention the cost of maintaining a utility like that could easily be socialized. There is no reason why we need to distribute the cost of maintain a public utility to individuals when it's something everyone benefits from (and should be a basic human right, anyway)
And, please take my word for, you do not want water, sewage or garbage collection controlled by private companies.
I'm glad I have the freedom to choose between one private water company and one private garbage collection company, and I hope my sewer system is soon given away to a faceless multinational and not paid directly to my local government.
Your sewage system is already partially private. I can say this with confidence if you live anywhere on earth outside of maybe North Korea.
It's a question of how much. Like my city for example: if you had a sewage emergency at night the people who show work for a private company. All the people working, part-time, there are pretty much retired government workers. Now is this a big deal? I personally don't think so. The same company that services the night for my city has it for the neighboring ones. It just makes sense to have this be a part time job that spans a big area vs hire someone full-time to only work in one city.
Now who built your system? It was almost certainly a private company. That subcontracted it out to other private companies. Is this a big deal? Meh, it depends. I have seen incompetence in both government engineers/project managers and I have seen it in private sector as well.
Now who maintains your system? Well again it depends. Some special snowflake equipment you are going to have to call the OEM or their rep, day to day stuff the local government employees can usually handle.
I guess my point is your system is already partially private and I am not really convinced altering it more government or less government would add any additional benefit. We have a system that basically works.
When it comes to infrastructure, I don't particularly mind the government contracting out maintenance. What I mind is the infrastructure not being owned publicly.
Hmm I have not personally seen that. Can you give me an example? The only thing I can think of is privately owned septic systems but I don't think you meant that.
I'm sure a vc would approve an ewaste app that sorts your trash and recycling for you! They just go through your trash to see what products you buy, how often you go through them and be sure to share that data with their advertising partners!
Edit:the point is they want to sell your data, not that we need someone to filter our recycling; but I feel the love.
We have a municipal garbage service and they already use a combination of collection workers and cameras to reject recycling bins which have non recyclables. They'll leave you a note about it and everything.
I don't get it. Part of the price for water goes to sewage removal. So if You use more water, You pay more, You can remove more sewage. If one person is paying for 2 people, the same amount will be spent, what's the problem?
Unhoused genuinely seems like a tip toe attempt to make saying homeless less ugly or like it’s a word to sidestep bs YouTube guidelines like unalive. It’s dumb. Not having a home sucks.
If I were to pick between the two then “dehomed” explains it better than “unhoused”. But “homeless” definitely defines what it feels like when it happens to you.
I think that one is only appropriate for those who choose to not have a fixed location home. Calling those who are just struggling to survive without a home nomads feels like it dismisses and even romanticizes their struggle.
They mention dollars and social security, so I'm assuming they're from the USA. I can believe it would be illegal in some states to give out water. Georgia for instance made it illegal to handout water bottles.
Yeah, that has to do with not allowing people to try to sway votes as people are going to vote, I think. I can't find anywhere that even claims anyone in a US state is not allowed to give their neighbor water.
No it doesn't. It has to do with Republicans wanting people standing in line for hours to vote to get thirsty, give up, and leave without voting. This is because (a) Democratic-leaning areas tend to have longer lines for "reasons," and (b) lower turnout favors Republicans.
I believe this was also passed after they unexpectedly closed a bunch of polling places in predominantly Democrat voting areas just days before the Presidential election, which led to lines several blocks long of people standing out in the sun with no shade or access to water or bathrooms.
“Although the water provided to the third party is still being paid for, the water previously provided to the third party for which that third party had not paid remains unpaid and the incentive to pay that debt is reduced,” Court of Appeals Judge John Melanson wrote for a unanimous court. “This threatens the city’s ability to provide low-cost water services.”
"We depend on fining disadvantaged people for revenue and you will not threaten that."
I could see a utility company or township having some local rule written as something like 'running a hose between houses' being prohibited without any condition of intent to make it easier enforce when people are stealing water, and then using it against someone sharing on purpose because vague rules/laws tend to be twisted to punish people in a way far different than the intent.
Or it could be intentional in the same way as anti-homeless laws where people are just being punished for helping out the poor.
Since OP used American terminology, probably they're claiming America, which would mean you need to ask which state, as water bills and such are a state law thing.
So far as I know there is no state with a law like this, but odds are very good OP never learned the nuances of the situation and something else illegal was going on, like delinquency or fraud on the water bill, or if they were in drought conditions and going over their ration due to supplying a bonus household.
In fact, my first guess is fraud, if this "hose" was connected before the meter, meaning the family was drawing more water than they were paying for.
It's probably considered stealing like if you were to use a cable splitter to take your neighbor's Internet. Except that's bullshit for a metered water connection so fuck whoever made that law or regulation.
He noted that Spirit Lake charges just a $15 flat monthly fee per residence for water service, which covers 12,000 gallons of water, plus another $1.25 for each additional 1,000 gallons used.
If they weren't already over the limit, the extra water would be "free." Not that I think they should have any right to actually enforce it, but you can kinda see why they wouldn't want people using the flat fee portion of the water like that.
At least where I live, you get billed separately for the incoming water and drainage. So if I'm not paying the utility, and get water to my property from my neighbor, then I'm not paying for the drainage I'm using when I flush that water down my drain.
Of course the situation is ridiculous, but this is how I'd imagine this being illegal, you are "stealing" the drainage service.
Sewage is most likely still just calculated by how much water you use. In my state they are separate but you can pay for a sewer deduction meter to go on outside spigots so you're not paying for the sewage for outside use, but they're almost $700 so I haven't bothered.
Yes, there is a line item. There is also a line item for taxes. But saying "it's on my bill too" supports the OP's claim despite the OP being wrong.
If you pay for your friend's dinner at a restaurant, they aren't stealing just because the bill has separate line items for food, service, taxes, etc. You are paying it all.
You have to realize, the United States has many laws in most jurisdictions that criminalize poverty, and politicians on both sides of the aisle are quickly moving to pass more. It is not a good country to live in. People here get arrested for giving food to the homeless.
As a few have guessed, it could be related to how the sewer usage is accounted for, but that’s unlikely since they are neighboring addresses. It could also be due to local water restrictions but they likely wouldn’t have cut off the water due to a relatively light civil penalty. What few have guessed, it is almost surely a public health restriction to prevent cross contamination and backflow between two serviced addresses.
There are very good reasons why we all want every exit to the public water network to be isolated, which comes with safety inspections and other requirements. As soon as your break down that model of one address serving more than one address, it makes a massive mess of maintaining and inspecting the safety of the water delivery network.
When water mains need to be repaired, the water company connects homes with hoses so they have water during repairs. My mother in law got her water from a hose connected to her neighbor for two weeks during repairs.
It’s also illegal to have a water break for workers working outside in the heat.
It's simultaneously more and less evil than that. The ruling was that the state cannot compell employers to provide water breaks for employees working in the heat. So those people who can't take a water break while working 13 hrs a day in direct sun are forced to do so by their employers greed, and not because of some legal obligation.
The water company will do this intentionally when they have water mains to repair. When the street my mother in law lived on had a water main repaired, the water company hooked a hose from her neighbor's house to supply her water. Later they came and hooked her water to the next house down as they worked there way down the street.
But I could still see police doing it because they don't know the law.
Republicans masturbate to the idea of elderly people being denied the basic necessities in life because they were unable to earn enough for a retirement due to the uncontrollable greed of the ultra wealthy.
RepublicansConservatives masturbate to the idea of elderly peopleothers being denied the basic necessities in life because they were unable to earn enough for a retirement due to the uncontrollable greed of the ultra wealthyConservatives.
The ultra wealthy wouldn't make enough money from this to give a shit. This type of petty, ideological driven cruelty is a hallmark of conservatism (see school lunch cuts). Keep in mind, most Democrats trend to the right of center (aka "conservative") compared to the rest of the developed world.
If it were true that Democrats are conservative, and conservatives want to deny people basic necessities, then we would expect Democrats to not support things like government healthcare, public transportation, or SNAP (food) benefits.
An authoritarian abusive father. The state gave him custody. Mom was a mess because of his abuse and the state believed at the time that boys need to be with their father.
Dad didn't really want us. Just wanted to win and punish mom for leaving him. Make her pay child support. Not pay alimony himself. Preferred the bar to being a father.
Been dealing with bullies since literally the crib. And the state has rarely been helpful, often harmful.
