First of all, I was under the impression that the “Federal Funds” for campaigns mostly came from that box that you tick on your income taxes that says I’d like such and such dollars from my return to go to campaign finance. These measures were in place as campaign finance reform to make elections more fair. Also, even after Obama backed out of it, he stuck with it even though it limited the amount of money he could spend. I think that says more about his character then the fact that he’s getting money from the government.

As far as Obama’s tour of the foreign countries, I didn’t hear terribly much criticism that he should have gone there more, but that he hadn’t gone there more. That is more of an indication of his inexperience rather then a lax in something he should have been doing. After all, he hadn’t been a senator for 200 days when he started running for president, and I can’t imagine a community organizer needing to go to foreign countries much.

Yes, the bible admonishes those who ignore the cry of those in need, but that means there are religious repercussions for our actions, not state repercussions. While your convictions and mine might lead us to generosity, that same generosity should not be forced onto others through government policy, especially in a country that was founded on the freedom of religion. As much as we like it or hate it, Americans should have the right to be as generous or as stingy with their own money as they wish.

Jesus said we should give to Caesar what is Caesar and give God what’s God’s. He didn’t say give Caesar what’s Caesar’s and God’s, and let Caesar sort it out.

Of course, as an avid captialist you probably should know that one candidate is accepting government money for his campaign, and one is doing it on his own- and McCain’s the one taking the federal money.

And Obama’s critics were lambasting him for not going abroad and talking to the rest of the world, then they blast him for doing so. Catch-22.

All through the Bible, scripture admonishes those who ignore the cry of those in need, and rebuffs the rich who do nothing. Christians frequently lament the lack of faith in government but also seem most against some of the bible’s most fundamental rules about how society should work.

Jesus also doesn’t say to sit on your ass and do nothing, as evident in the parable of the talents- he wants us to do our best with what we have. But what we have is never truly ours.

Great thoughts. The very subject of personal transformation is indeed complex, and it could be that each of us will experience it in a unique way. That said, I really connected with what you said about relaxing into the process, accepting ourselves because God has accepted us, and then allowing His presence to do the transforming work in us.

Thanks for being open about your journey and for tackling a subect that is so difficult to put into words. And thanks for being a fellow travelor on the Way!

Wes

I know that you are not going to respond, however I should clarify a few points to you. The basic argument I am trying to make, though in a relatively roundabout way, is really in a few parts.
1. If there was no benefit to buying bottled water then we wouldn’t have so much of it around.
2. I don’t necessarily believe that profits and money should take precedence over a clean and healthy living environment, but I do believe that basic freedoms are more important then the environment. Humans come first, just like it says in the Bible. We should take care of it, yes, but it is still subject to us.
3. Even if it might be directly harmful to the environment, I simply wonder why you are trying to ban bottled water over anything else that is very much easier to do and has arguably a better effect; why ban bottled water instead of argue for the recycling effort?
4. You talk about bottled water as if there is no value-added portion to it that we should pay for, like extra filtration or the convenience. Sure, big companies use municipal sources for water, but there are extra processes that they go through to purify that water and remove some of the things that municipalities put into it, like chlorine and fluoride.

The reason I quoted definitions in my argument is not to argue the point at hand, but in response to your claim of being a capitalist. If you are going to claim to be a capitalist you should at least know what one is before you state that.

The reason I listed all of the services that we “get for free” is to illustrate that your argument about why we should pay for something that we can get for free is flawed. Even if we got it for free in the first place, there are benefits to bottled water. Bottled water makes clean water portable and accessible. When natural disasters occur and municipal sources are knocked out, bottled water saves lives. Every emergency supply kit will have bottled water listed as an important part of it.

I could even argue that by taking bottled water out of vending machines, you aren’t making the plastic bottle problem any better. People don’t go to vending machines because they want water; they go because they are thirsty. If they don’t have bottled water as a choice, they will probably choose something that is decidedly less healthy, but still in a plastic bottle. The positive effect on health by drinking a bottle of water will far outweigh the negatives of its creation.

If I were to be frank, I think that the idea of banning bottled water is simply a stupid idea. If you really want to make a change in the environment rather then just spinning your wheels then you’d make an argument for something that makes a lot more sense that more people will get behind. Maybe educate people on the need to recycle, or the problems behind bottled water. People buy bottled water every day, and even if you do have a majority of people that want to ban it, then you still have people whose freedom you are squandering when you do. Banning substances through policy will always restrict freedoms. That is where the idea is tyrannical. Just because the majority thinks it is wrong doesn’t mean we should ban it. In this case, your idea of banning bottled water is not only in the minority, but tyrannical in it’s restrictive nature. But instead of arguing over something that might actually make a difference, you’re propagating this idea that is simply wrong. I think your intentions are good, but in the end this will either turn out to be ineffectual, or tyrannical. We should be putting human rights first.

To be frank, I can’t find much of substance in your reply. Quoting the dictionary doesn’t really lend itself to dialogue, mainly because dictionary definitions rarely have much to do with the debate at hand. I think that, for the most part, you did the same thing you did in your first post: nitpick at trivialities instead of addressing the most fundamental aspects of my argument.

You failed to address my point that the essential difference between us is that you hold the right to profits and money over the right to a healthy environment for human beings.

Furthermore, I think you showed quite clearly your lack of scientific knowledge on the environmental damage caused by bottled water. You focus on the end of the consumer cycle (in this case, recycling bottled water) as opposed to the entire system. It’s not just an issue of millions of bottles ending up in landfills, as all who are educated on the subject know.

In your latest post, however, there was a paragraph in which you chose to respond to my argument that since bottled water is not a necessity (since we already pay for municipal sources of water), and since bottled water is something that drastically affects the environment for the worse (something you yourself admitted), it is not justifiable in most cases that we purchase it.

You respond by listing numerous public services we get for free, but whose purpose people often fulfill through private organizations. For instance, you ask (not a direct quote), “Why pay for private schools when public schools are already free?”

The simple answer is that none of the examples that you outlined drastically harm the environment, at least directly. Bottled water does.

When I ask, “Why do we buy bottled water?,” your answer is, “Because we want to!”

But that does not answer the question that has been present throughout the debate, but that you’ve chosen to ignore. And that is simply this: How are we able to justify the purchasing of this luxury product when we both know full well that it is unnecessary and detrimental to the planet?

That’s answer you have yet to give.

In your response, you also accuse me of forming an imperfect argument by stating, “We do things every day that in some way harm the environment. But I don’t see you arguing about the exessive power consuption when people use fans instead of just opening the window, much less when you sit in cool air conditioning.”

That’s superfluous. My argument concerns itself specifically with bottled water; your comment is directed at something which is outside the scope of this debate. We are talking about bottled water, period. The panel on which I sat was speaking about bottled water, period. Trying to suggest that my argument does not work because it cannot address other environmental problems is utterly sophistical.

Finally, your last comment (aside from your dictionary quote) is particularly fallacious.

Me: “It’s based on a theory that works like this: if people see how much damage X is doing to the environment, people will naturally seek to mitigate the effects of X, or eliminate X altogether.”

You: “So why are we banning bottled water again? Rather then let your education ideas let free people make their own choices, you would rather force them.”

I favor banning bottled water on my campus and in my community, because I believe it well benefit my peers. I am not a dictator who is able to change school policy instantly; I’m an average student who believes firmly in a campaign to ban bottled water. What this campaign is doing is necessarily democratic and educational; in order to ban the bottle at SU, the majority of students, by signing petitions, will have to agree that bottled water should not be present in our food service centers or vending machines.

Are you suggesting that this is wrong? I might remind you that we’re the ones fighting the up hill battle. Pepsi didn’t have to come and get students to sign a petition in order that they be allowed to sell their products. You’re telling me that we’re tyrants? Hardly.

There is much more I could explicate, but I will stop. This is the last response I will post.

http://thethirdwave.wordpress.com/2008/02/21/ban-the-bottle/

cap·i·tal·ism - an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

so·cial·ism - 3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

“This is not true with bottled water. No one forces us to pay for it; we make a choice to purchase it. ”

What’s wrong with that choice? That is the basis of capitalism. If you don’t like the idea behind bottled water then feel free to choose not to buy it. And yes, we do pay for convinience. We pay for the convinience of having bottled water around. We pay for (even only a percieved) difference in taste. Why shouldn’t I be able to buy a bottle of water if even for those reasons alone?

“But where we differ is the fact that you hold the “right” of a company to make money over the right of every person on this planet to live in a clean, safe, non-polluted environment. I don’t.”

Insofar as a plastic bottle damages the environment, I agree. But where is the damage? Sure, if the bottle doesn’t get recycled (oh, they can be recycled) then it ends up in some landfil, covered up with dirt and then… what? The grass that grows over the landfill dies? The kids who play on the park over the landfill die? The animals that live in the park on the landfill die? No. Nothing Dies. Plastic is harmless once it goes under the ground. Sure, it’s not going anywhere for a very long time, but who cares? And we’re not talking about banning bottled sodas, plastic shopping bags, garbage bags, plastic cups, styrofoam, plastic chip bags, seran wrap, packing peanuts…

“And you are right: we’re lucky to be in a nation where this debate can take place. But to imply that we shouldn’t have this debate because others can’t is illogical.”

I’m not trying to imply that this debate shouldn’t take place, I’m implying that the freedoms that allow us to have the debate are based on the same premise as my freedom to drink bottled water. Why does your belief in the harmfulness of bottled water trump my freedom to buy it?

“As a Christian, I have to radically disagree. My principles of prudence and justice are derived from a five-hundred year tradition of Jesuit spirituality.”

I’m not arguing that your principals of prudence and justice are from a bad source, or even that they are wrong. I merely said “consumerism is what allowed you to be able to declare your principals”. The means of transmission you use to carry your message, as you agree in the next paragraph, comes from consumerism.

“Absolutely nothing. But how does it make sense to pay a great deal extra for a service we already have to pay for?”

Because we want to! We do things every day that in some way harm the environment. But I don’t see you arguing about the exessive power consuption when people use fans instead of just opening the window, much less when you sit in cool air conditioning. Public pools should be banned because they charge people for swimming in them when they could swim in a lake already paid for by property taxes. Private schools should be banned because they charge extra when we’re already paying for public(1) school through taxes. Bookstores should be banned because they sell books you can borrow for free from the local library, supported by taxes. Toll roads should be banned because we’re already paying for regular roads through taxes. Organic foods should be banned because we’re already subsidizing farmers of non-organic foods with tax money. Charitable organizations should be banned because we already help the poor through welfare paid for by taxes. Tax firms should be banned because you already paid for all the forms you use to do your taxes with taxes. The list goes on and on. If there was no benefit to us then there would be no reason to buy it.

“It’s based on a theory that works like this: if people see how much damage X is doing to the environment, people will naturally seek to mitigate the effects of X, or eliminate X altogether.”

So why are we banning bottled water again? Rather then let your education ideas let free people make their own choices, you would rather force them.

tyr·an·ny - 1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.

Definitions come from http://dictionary.reference.com/.

- Edit -
(1) - Edited from private to public

First of all, it’s always a pleasure hearing from someone with a differing opinion; different perspectives are always welcome!

I suppose that I’ll begin with my statement you first suggested was untruthful. “But with bottled water, we’ve been so readily swayed by consumerism, that we’re willing to think it is perfectly acceptable to pay for something we get for free.”

You then ask, “Where do you get the idea that water is free?” A fair question. However, I believe your argument only addresses my point on a superficial level.

When I suggest that tap water from municipal sources is free, I mean to say that it is not an expenditure that is freely chosen. Everyone, in some capacity, must pay for utilities, as you pointed out. However, there is no volitional factor: we are obliged to pay for it as citizens of a municipality, county, etc.

This is not true with bottled water. No one forces us to pay for it; we make a choice to purchase it.

An important thing to understand is that because of the nature of water, it is cheaper and more efficient for everyone to have their source of water from one place. It’s a similar situation with electricity: it benefits the individual more to agree to collectively share the costs of electricity than to pay for, say, a nuclear reactor in their own backyard.

Water is a common resource; everyone has a right to it. When a corporation decides to bottle it or sell it, and when consumers agree to pay for it, in actuality we are not paying for the water itself. We’re paying for the convenience of having water in a container. When we pay our water bill every month, or when we pay taxes, we’re not paying for the water, but the processes that are necessary to make it potable.

Interestingly enough, Pepsi and Coke both use municipal sources in their bottled water. People who buy such products are literally paying extra for something they can get from the tap!

You don’t find that ridiculous?

That’s the reasoning behind my statement, “But with bottled water, we’ve been so readily swayed by consumerism, that we’re willing to think it is perfectly acceptable to pay for something we get for free. Not only that, we think it is perfectly acceptable to unnecessarily damage the environment simply for convenience.”

Why not buy a Nalgene? Or a Thermos of some kind? The waste produced by bottled water is utterly and purely unnecessary for the average user (there are, of course, exceptions).

You ask, “In America, we are privalaged [sic] to take advantage of the water that has been purified for us. The truth is that we pay for it. What’s wrong with that?”

Absolutely nothing. But how does it make sense to pay a great deal extra for a service we already have to pay for? Even better, how does it make sense to pay a great deal extra for a service that negatively affects the environment when it is absolutely unnecessary to use that service in the first place?

The next part of your post concerns itself with my stance on consumerism. You begin your argument by stating, “Clearly, consumerism is just horrible. Sarcasm aside, consumerism is what allowed you to be able to declare your principals [sic] of prudence and justice.”

As a Christian, I have to radically disagree. My principles of prudence and justice are derived from a five-hundred year tradition of Jesuit spirituality. But that’s another discussion for another day. Suffice it to say, you are utterly incorrect in this regard.

You continue to say, “Consumerism brought us newspapers, radio, television, the internet, websites and blogs. Consumerism doesn’t prohibit the spread of prudence and justice, it enables the spread of these ideas.”

I wholeheartedly agree. My problem has never been with consumerism in and of itself; my problem has been the unreasonable extent to which consumerism has taken over society.

Am I socialist? No. A communist? No. I am, you may be surprised to know, a capitalist. But I am the sort of capitalist who believes firmly that happiness and the well-being of our planet comes before the ability to make money. I am the sort of capitalist who thinks that justice, peace, and understanding should always come before profits.

Unfortunately, the majority of companies and corporations (the majority, not all) do not think similarly. Bottled water, for me, represents the kind of thinking that is occurring in corporate America: care for the well-being of the customer comes after profits.

You yourself rightly agree that bottled water damages the environment; there is no question in any reasonable person’s mind that it is so. But where we differ is the fact that you hold the “right” of a company to make money over the right of every person on this planet to live in a clean, safe, non-polluted environment. I don’t. I believe that capitalism is here to serve us, not the other way around.

Do I believe it is the right of a company to make profits? Of course! To an extent, they even have an obligation to make profits so that they may provide jobs, etc. But that right is conditioned on the duty of corporations to act justly towards people and the environment.

That’s why I believe in banning bottled water. Pepsi’s right to sell Dasani is negated, because it is utterly unnecessary and detrimental to society as a whole, period.

Next you state, “If consumers start to see things as problems then the problems will be fixed; but they’ll vote with their dollars, like they are already. You already buy “organic” foods and green energy, and you pay for it.”

That’s true. But again, my problem is not with capitalism or consumption: it is with radical capitalism and egregious consumption.

I guess what I’m trying to point out, Brian, is that this debate is not black and white. It’s not liberal against conservative, capitalist against socialist, etc. It’s about finding the best way to live, a way that is most efficient and most just. And you are right: we’re lucky to be in a nation where this debate can take place. But to imply that we shouldn’t have this debate because others can’t is illogical.

The first part of that statement, “If consumers start to see things as problems then the problems will be fixed; but they’ll vote with their dollars, like they are already,” is interesting. It’s an argument commonly used. But I don’t think it’s fair.

If we were to give the same advertising budget to environmentalists trying to ban bottled water that corporations like Pepsi and Coke have to advertise the consumption of bottled water, then maybe your argument would apply. But this is not the case, as I’m sure you’ll agree.

Your statement is conditioned on the premise that everyone in this nation, or rather, everyone in this nation that purchases or thinks about purchasing bottled water, is equally educated about the benefits of bottled water as they are about its social and environmental costs. But they aren’t, are they?

That’s why the one of the main purposes of environmentalism is to educated the public. It’s based on a theory that works like this: if people see how much damage X is doing to the environment, people will naturally seek to mitigate the effects of X, or eliminate X altogether.

In this manner, your statement comes close to making sense; it just doesn’t take into account the empirical realities that surround us.

This response is getting long, and I want to give you time to chew on everything I said. Again, thanks for posting.