• Kairos@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    I’d assume the excuse is “multiple households using one tap would strain it” or something??

    • vortic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      I’d guess they’re saying that the person using water from the hose is avoiding the consequences of non payment while they still owe money.

      • Kairos@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yes I know but if the police are doing it there’s gotta be a law and that law presumably had some discussion.

      • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        The consequence is the water is shut off. There is no avoiding that.

        The neighbour is PAYING for every drop of water that comes out of the hose. Who uses that water isn’t up to anyone except the neighbour since he owns the water he paid for.

        Any other interpretation of property rights is due to people trying to punish the poor for their poverty.

        • vortic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          I don’t disagree with you at all. I’m just pointing out the logic of the people who made the laws and those enforcing them.

    • Creosm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      If the tap can handle the functionality it was made for it would be a disservice not to use it