CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
This is a difficult subject, because I have differing views on this when considering the wealth of the country considering privatisation. Wealthy nations don't need privatisation, and generally already have the required infrastructure. I'm only in favour of privatisation if it benefits the population.
There are many third world countries which can benefit greatly from privatised water. When the infrastructure is lacking and the government is unable or unwilling to provide such services, privatisation of water can lead to a much greater quality of life and significantly lower infant mortality rates.
However, we must remain concious of some problems that can arise, e.g. as happened in Bolivia where even rain was considered to be owned by Aguas del Tunari. Added to that were the facts that the officials for the company were ignorant of Bolivian society and economics, so set prices which were higher than the average monthly cost of food, and that the consortium manager, in his ignorance of the complete picture, mandated that non-compliance of bill payment would result in the cessation of water supplies to the residence of the payee. This, quite naturally, led to massive amounts of protests, forcing the Bolivian Government into a state of emergency. The contract with Aguas del Tunari was revoked.
It's slippery ground, and companies must realise they can stand to lose a lot of money if they seek short term gain rather than working for long term profits. Governments seeking to privatise water supplies should make sure there is appropriate legislation in place to ensure that corporations don't overstep the mark.
I would say privatization is generally a good thing.
The Bolivian water story is interesting, I hadn't heard it before. It seems clear to me that granting control of the water supply to a single monopoly is an extraordinarily stupid thing to do, and socialized service would be better in that case. But as long as there is sufficient competition, markets have been shown over and over to be the most efficient means of distribution.
Ah, I see. I wasn't familiar with the idea of natural monopolies.
I suppose my position is that natural monopolies, at least when it comes to necessities, should remain in government hands. Government reflects the will of the people much more closely than corporations, and you lose most of the free-market benefits when you have little or no competition.
In Colorado people go to court for water rights all the time, a river may run threw your land and you do not have the right to use it, the rights are owned by someone down stream.
People need water, it isn't about high demand because of course the demand for water is high. If people don't have water on a daily basis they die. If the consumption of water became privatized I hope it would spark outrage and protest amongst the masses.
So, if food is subjected to privatization for the general consumption met by the supply and demand, why does water need to be publicly available for free. Both are a necessity for life. Can't have one without the another!
Food is just as a necessary as water. Why is food not publicly available for free?
Because no one has the right to "own" water. No one came up with the ingredients to make water, no one has the right to make people pay for it. Water and food go hand in hand, but food has a different process. No one has to "make" water. Yes, we should pay for it to be purified, and brought to our homes, that is a service we are paying for, but the water should be free.
What's happening is that water itself is being carved up and will be parceled out according to people who have the ability to pay. The companies that want water privatized claim they can deliver water more efficiently, that is often not the case, and the cost is the loss of public control. The water corporations have enormous control over something that is so essential to life itself. The same reason water is profitable is why it shouldn't be a private business. The clients are captive because they can't decide, 'Well, I'm not going to buy water anymore, I'm not going to turn my tap on,' You can't do that. You can switch from Coke to Pepsi but you can't switch from water to... what?"
Around the world, privatizations have led to rising costs, cutoffs for poor people and companies pulling out of contracts when they can't make enough profit. The privatization of water is about greed and I won't stand for it.
"Yes, we should pay for it to be purified, and brought to our homes, that is a service we are paying for, but the water should be free...The clients are captive because they can't decide, 'Well, I'm not going to buy water anymore, I'm not going to turn my tap on,' You can't do that."
You kind of contradicted yourself. First you said that people pay for the service not the water, then you said water shouldn't be privatized because people can't say they aren't going to turn on their tap to get water. If people pay for tap water because of the service then that argument is invalid, tap isn't a privatized industry according to your definition.
Off that note, people can easily turn on their tap and get water. Who says they have to buy bottled water?
You pay for that tap because it is a service, if you don't pay your water bill, you get no running tap. Did I say anything about bottled water? Hmm, I don't think I did, but even in that case you are essentially paying for the package the water came in right? Not the water itself. No contradictions, just misunderstanding, on your part.
Exactly, you are buying the package. Because it cost the company more to make the bottle than it did to put the water in it. The company isn't making water, it's making the bottles. No one makes water but nature, therefore, no one can own it.
Remember, Water can actually be made artificially. Water is actually made any time there is a combustion reaction. An alkaline that is combusted in the presence of oxygen creates carbon dioxide and water. Do some research.
Why would anyone want to make something artificially that renews itself naturally all the time? Water is a renewable resource and does not need to be mass produced like food because it is abundant, does not have an expiration date, etc. Seriously, it makes no sense at all to privatize it. Why? So my money can line the pockets of the blood sucking corporal CEOs who do nothing but sit on their lard asses all day? No thanks.
If that's the case we don't technically pay for any product. As stated on wikipedia.com "Typically 90 percent or more of the cost paid by bottled water consumers goes to things other than the water itself -- bottling, packaging, shipping, marketing, retailing, other expenses, and profit."
No one has the right to own water except the government, right.
Water can actually be made artificially. Water is actually made any time there is a combustion reaction. An alkaline that is combusted in the presence of oxygen creates carbon dioxide and water.
Why should water be free and supplied by the people who have the ability to pay? This is what causes inefficiencies and waste in the market.
Food and water do have the same process, which they are both derived from the earth.
Water is already becoming privatized. It may not be coming out of your tap, but in the form of bottles. That is privatized water. It is doesn't seem that people are worried about the privatization of water when in 2008, $11.2 billion in bottled water sales. [1] Not only that but "The current trend still indicates that consumers have a strong preference for bottled water." [1] Ultimately, Americans view bottled water as a healthy alternative to other beverages.[1]
No, most people are not saying you can switch to Coke to Pepsi, but now they will be saying, I want to switch from Dansani to Aquafina.
Just what I said, NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO OWN WATER, not even the Government. It's impossible anyway. If I were to catch rain in a jar and drink it that would be stealing, right? lmao. Again, I said nothing about bottled water, but I will point out that you are paying for the bottle, not the water...
Ok, if nobody can own water neither government or corporation, then who has the authority to facilitate and distribute it since it is free. It is a free for all. No had bars dash disposing of anyone in your path.
Again, we already pay for those services, e.g. the water being directed to our houses, purified, etc. You can't own water, it's impossible, and no one has the right. Who are these corporations to deny a person LIFE because they can't pay for it. That's what they would be doing. Do some research, it's already shown it's faults in the countries who have opted to have their water "owned" by private corporations.
Who are these corporations to deny a person LIFE because they can't pay for it.
The Market does. The voluntary exchange between two parties.
Those services that you keep referring to and water being directed to our houses, is guess what. Government. It doesn't magically come out of the tap.
You argue that corporations don't have the right to own water and sell water, but reject the fact that government does own water utilities considering it is they that provide you with those services.
Exactly!! They own the utilities, and provide the services, but do not claim to own the water. If they did we wouldn't have public drinking fountains, FREE WATER!
Water is not free unless you pay no taxes. Before you said that if you don't pay the bills, you won't get the tap water. I think you meant that water should be free access, and the government supplies that. Either nobody owns water, or everybody owns water.
Water is deemed as a natural monopoly, due to the economies of scale of a particular industry, the maximum efficiency of production and distribution is realized through a single supplier.
Therefore, in the United States, water is a government operated monopoly whereas if it was privatized, it would be a heavily regulated private monopoly. Therefore, the government would regulate the company to no end. Even if it was privatized, the government would be telling them what to do every step of the way. They don't make any profits.
Therefore, what you describe in third world countries is tragic and unfair, yes, those people are taken advantage of because they have no government to protect them. The natural monopoly element remains, yet it is a unregulated private monopoly which means they can do whatever they want with the water prices as you mentioned.
However, there are already privatized water systems in the US yet heavily regulated. I grew up in a small town and since there are not enough taxpayers to fully support the government water utilities, a private investor supports the town, yet again, it is regulated to the max. He doesn't gain anything really.
This is a ridiculous idea. All necessities should be publicly available for free. That's the point of having a society. If we can't even get water for free, why even have government at all?
We can all just hide in caves all day and throw shit at eachother for fun.
So, if food is subjected to privatization for the general consumption met by the supply and demand, why does water need to be publicly available for free. Both are a necessity for life.
Food is just as a necessary as water. Why is food not publicly available for free?
Well, I could argue that food is not as necessary as water, since you need water almost every day, and at least every three days or you'll die. Meanwhile you can not eat for multiple weeks.
I could also argue anyone can grow a garden, or get some chickens and eat eggs.
But that's nit-picking, and your food argument is a good one.
It would still be ridiculous to privatize water though.
Now it's free.
Privatize it, then you have a few people who get really rich, yet another powerful lobby in DC, and thousands upon thousand of people who can't afford water and so need subsidies.
It ends up costing the tax payer, and the government more money,
All so whoever gets their hands on the rights to this now hard to get water can get obscenely rich.
Nope, sounds like more American corporatization to me. Might as well stitch an LCC into the flag at that point.
And something needs to be clarified. Being a public good doesn't make something free. Right now water is considered a public good; yet people are charged for it. Being a public good means that everybody has the ability to acquire at low cost.
I personally believe that everybody should get a minimal amount of food required to live for free.
Water is essential to life and, life is a fundamental right. Therefore water should remain a public good because that is the only to ensure that everybody will be able to get it.