posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 03:01 PM
Not to be all political, but that is the point that the ones making political statements are saying.
The fact that it was indeed his water. The actual value is not the issue but ownership is. Since the water is his, he could give it away (charity),
sell it (capitalism), have it com stocked--which was the case here (communism), ask people for their opinion like here and let the people determine
how his water will be used (pure democracy) or inform the authorities and let them handle it (representative democracy). Of course he could just set
up a chair and a shotgun and shoot water thieves (vigilantism).
Informing the police was the case is the "American Way" so to speak. But com stocking your water is justified as "you are being petty" or "it's a
redistribution of water wealth" or some other socialistic mantra.
Personally my own motto actually is "Never refuse another man a drink of water, for it is something we all need and if you have then share it" which
falls under charity (and what was attracted my attention to this thread) but caught stealing water and being both rude and indignant about it to me
makes them less than a man in my eyes. In fact it makes them a thief and not worthy of charity.
OP, time to take the handle off the spigot it would seem. The amount of work needed to turn on the water just might be beyond their effort. Maybe
suggest to your neighbors to do the same.
For those condemning such thoughts, consider this: All peaceful movements have to be embraced by a larger audience in order to grow. The actions of a
few that sour public opinion only hamper your efforts to bring others on board. Surely the water theft was not the action of agent water-teurs.
edit on 28-10-2011 by Ahabstar because: (no reason given)