CreateDebate


Debate Info

18
22
YES NO
Debate Score:40
Arguments:31
Total Votes:45
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 YES (15)
 
 NO (16)

Debate Creator

PrayerFails(11165) pic



Should the consumption of water be privatized?

Should water be treated a public good with easy access or a private good met by the supply and demand?

 


YES

Side Score: 18
VS.

NO

Side Score: 22
2 points

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 The contract with Aguas del Tunari was revoked.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.

Side: yes but selectively
1 point

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.

Side: yes

I support the idea of privatized water, but the government deemed water service as a natural monopoly, which is subject to the economies of scale.

Side: yes
1 point

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.

http://www.waterinfo.org/colorado-water/ colorado-water-rights

Side: yes but selectively
2 points

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.

Side: No
1 point

People need food everyday as well.

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?

Side: yes
Liddy(36) Disputed
2 points

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.

Side: No
1 point

Agreed. This would just be another thing to capitalise on.

-

Next up: Should air be privatized?

Side: No
1 point

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.

Side: No
usps(365) Disputed
1 point

You think hiding in caves and throwing shit at each other is fun?

Side: yes
Akulakhan(2985) Disputed
2 points

Have you tried ?

Side: No
1 point

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?

Side: yes
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
2 points

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.

Side: No
zproach(252) Disputed
1 point

Well there are food stamps which help with this.

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.

Side: No
1 point

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.

Side: No
1 point

No, i am not in favor of privatized of water because it will add extra economy burden on middle class people..

Supporting Evidence: Water Leak Repair (www.allkarepropertydryingout.co.uk)
Side: NO