13 ms·

Government officials intentionally giving someone lead poisoning is depriving them of life. I'm 100% fine with "there's no Constitutional requirement for a jur

Government officials intentionally giving someone lead poisoning is depriving them of life. I'm 100% fine with "there's no Constitutional requirement for a jurisdiction to provide a water supply" - plenty of folks live on well water. If you're going to provide one, though, you're responsible for it. Similarly, my town is not required to provide internet access to its residents. If my town does decide to provide internet access to me (like Chattanoga TN), they can't censor my access and use of it, because of the First Amendment.

db48x 9d ago
No, it really isn’t. Yes, the constitution promises life. But it does not promise a safe life, or a secure life, or even an unpoisoned life. Exposure to low levels of lead in drinking water will not kill anyone so the Constitution just doesn’t apply. It sounds callous, but that’s the way it is. We must look to our own safety and security. One way we do that is by banding together with our neighbors to form cities or other municipalities that tax us and use the proceeds to build safe water systems. If we elect untrustworthy or incompetent people to run those water systems then we have no one to blame but ourselves. If a city doesn’t have a law requiring the administrators of the water system to speak truthfully to the public then that is the people’s fault, not the government’s fault. Honestly though I bet we’ll find that the administrators have technically been telling the truth. We have federal standards for things like water safety that are used to regulate water providers (which are not always public entities, mind you). Those standards do tell us how much lead in the water is acceptable and how much is unsafe, but those are two different numbers. The acceptable level is well below the threshold of safety. When this eventually gets to a trial in front of a jury I bet the administrators will argue that they were perfectly correct; that the water was safe because the levels of contaminates, although elevated, were below harmful levels. The plaintiffs also complain about repeated boil–water notices, but that may not help their case. Any time you dig up a water pipe to repair or replace it then people using that water will need to boil it. Those notices are themselves proof that the utility was doing maintenance and repair work (presumably with the goal of fixing the problem), not proof of incompetence. I’m not sure I’d want to be on that jury.
- ceejayoz 9d ago
  > Yes, the constitution promises life. But it does not promise a safe life, or a secure life, or even an unpoisoned life. It does promise the government can't take it from you without due process.
  - db48x 9d ago
    Sure, but that doesn’t apply. The Plaintiffs are not alleging that the government is executing people without due process, only that the water is less safe than advertised. Nobody has actually died, therefore nobody has been deprived of life.
    - ceejayoz 9d ago
      So the legal theory is the government can shorten your life as long as they don't outright end it? That seems like a novel one.
      - db48x 9d ago
        Oh no, they can end your life too. But only after due process. Thus a death sentence requires a trial and appeals and so on and so forth and takes ages to actually get to the execution. Just keep in mind that chronic lead poisoning does not cause death or even shorten lives. It only reduces IQ and causes behavioral and cognitive disabilities. If you want safe drinking water you have to provide it yourself. Either dig your own well, or band together with your neighbors to have municipal water. Or buy drinking water from a private company; lots of people in the US do that. Europeans are frequently shocked to learn this, but ironically private water companies have a better track record for safety than municipal water systems. We are, after all, talking about a contamination case involving a municipal water system rather than a private one. If you dig your own well then you are responsible for ensuring that it remains safe. Regular testing and maintenance is entirely your responsibility. Of course you are allowed to delegate to a contractor, but ultimately the responsibility rests entirely on your shoulders. If you subscribe to a municipal water system then the responsibility rests on the municipality. You will be electing someone to run the water system. Choose wisely. Your vote has actual physical safety consequences for you and your children. Furthermore you may want to write local ordinances that govern the behavior of this type of elected officials. You might want to be able to rely on them making truthful statements, for example. If so then you should put that in writing in your municipal ordinances. Many states and cities have already done just that! Off hand I don’t know if Mississippi or the city of Jackson have. Similarly we also have laws and ordinances against the government poisoning people. It is usually illegal, in most jurisdictions, in most circumstances. We also have laws against negligence that leads to harms such as poisoning people. Just because something isn’t in the Constitution doesn’t mean it’s legal. In this case people seem to have heard that safe drinking water isn’t guaranteed in the Constitution and jumped to the ridiculous conclusion that the government can poison people whenever it wants with no consequences. The Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights and other amendments, is mostly a list of things that the government is not allowed to take away from the people or other parts of the government. It’s not a list of all desirable things that the people want governments to do.

db48x 9d ago

No, it really isn’t. Yes, the constitution promises life. But it does not promise a safe life, or a secure life, or even an unpoisoned life. Exposure to low levels of lead in drinking water will not kill anyone so the Constitution just doesn’t apply. It sounds callous, but that’s the way it is. We must look to our own safety and security. One way we do that is by banding together with our neighbors to form cities or other municipalities that tax us and use the proceeds to build safe water systems. If we elect untrustworthy or incompetent people to run those water systems then we have no one to blame but ourselves. If a city doesn’t have a law requiring the administrators of the water system to speak truthfully to the public then that is the people’s fault, not the government’s fault. Honestly though I bet we’ll find that the administrators have technically been telling the truth. We have federal standards for things like water safety that are used to regulate water providers (which are not always public entities, mind you). Those standards do tell us how much lead in the water is acceptable and how much is unsafe, but those are two different numbers. The acceptable level is well below the threshold of safety. When this eventually gets to a trial in front of a jury I bet the administrators will argue that they were perfectly correct; that the water was safe because the levels of contaminates, although elevated, were below harmful levels. The plaintiffs also complain about repeated boil–water notices, but that may not help their case. Any time you dig up a water pipe to repair or replace it then people using that water will need to boil it. Those notices are themselves proof that the utility was doing maintenance and repair work (presumably with the goal of fixing the problem), not proof of incompetence. I’m not sure I’d want to be on that jury.

ceejayoz 9d ago
> Yes, the constitution promises life. But it does not promise a safe life, or a secure life, or even an unpoisoned life. It does promise the government can't take it from you without due process.
- db48x 9d ago
  Sure, but that doesn’t apply. The Plaintiffs are not alleging that the government is executing people without due process, only that the water is less safe than advertised. Nobody has actually died, therefore nobody has been deprived of life.
  - ceejayoz 9d ago
    So the legal theory is the government can shorten your life as long as they don't outright end it? That seems like a novel one.
    - db48x 9d ago
      Oh no, they can end your life too. But only after due process. Thus a death sentence requires a trial and appeals and so on and so forth and takes ages to actually get to the execution. Just keep in mind that chronic lead poisoning does not cause death or even shorten lives. It only reduces IQ and causes behavioral and cognitive disabilities. If you want safe drinking water you have to provide it yourself. Either dig your own well, or band together with your neighbors to have municipal water. Or buy drinking water from a private company; lots of people in the US do that. Europeans are frequently shocked to learn this, but ironically private water companies have a better track record for safety than municipal water systems. We are, after all, talking about a contamination case involving a municipal water system rather than a private one. If you dig your own well then you are responsible for ensuring that it remains safe. Regular testing and maintenance is entirely your responsibility. Of course you are allowed to delegate to a contractor, but ultimately the responsibility rests entirely on your shoulders. If you subscribe to a municipal water system then the responsibility rests on the municipality. You will be electing someone to run the water system. Choose wisely. Your vote has actual physical safety consequences for you and your children. Furthermore you may want to write local ordinances that govern the behavior of this type of elected officials. You might want to be able to rely on them making truthful statements, for example. If so then you should put that in writing in your municipal ordinances. Many states and cities have already done just that! Off hand I don’t know if Mississippi or the city of Jackson have. Similarly we also have laws and ordinances against the government poisoning people. It is usually illegal, in most jurisdictions, in most circumstances. We also have laws against negligence that leads to harms such as poisoning people. Just because something isn’t in the Constitution doesn’t mean it’s legal. In this case people seem to have heard that safe drinking water isn’t guaranteed in the Constitution and jumped to the ridiculous conclusion that the government can poison people whenever it wants with no consequences. The Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights and other amendments, is mostly a list of things that the government is not allowed to take away from the people or other parts of the government. It’s not a list of all desirable things that the people want governments to do.