4 ms·

Hmmm... access to water is a basic human right... trading with water is... dangerous...

• VMG 6y ago
  What do people mean by this? How much water is a human entitled to? Who has to provide it to that person? If somebody has no water, who is violating their rights?
  • nicbou 6y ago
    You know what? Nobody asked that question before, and I find it a bit difficult to come up with an answer. I suppose it just means "we consider access to this resource too important to deny it to anyone, whatever the reason". It's the ground upon which policy should be decided.
    • VMG 6y ago
      Refusing to deny access to water will guarantee shortages, since water is a scarce resource.
      • ohgodplsno 6y ago
        Who are you referring to when you say "deny access to water"? Because if you are talking individuals, congratulations, you are actively calling for the death of individuals. Water may be scarce, but the amount available still is much more than enough for living beings.
        • VMG 6y ago
          I am talking about individuals. Denying access to water is what ensures that a person who needs it can keep it.
          • RobAley 6y ago
            But everybody needs it, so who is left to deny it too?
          • nicbou 6y ago
            I think we just need to clarify what "deny" means. I meant to deny vital access to water, not unrestricted access to it.
            • VMG 6y ago
              Either you restrict it or you don't. What is "vital" or not is highly dependent on circumstances.
        • eru 6y ago
          We could easily give any individual a 'basic water income' of, say, ten litres a day for drinking and cleaning. Trading water wouldn't impact that kind of scheme. (Eg the government could just buy water at market prices and distribute as this basic income in kind.) The important thing is that we DON'T have enough water for all uses we can dream off, like growing almonds in the desert. So you need some kind of rationing. That means denying water to some uses. Rationing via market prices is one of the most (economically) effective and just ways we have come up with. (If you want to make some argument about how the water in a specific country should be the common good of everyone; you can still do the trading. Just have the government own all water sources, auction off the supply, and distribute the proceeds to everyone individually.)
    • chii 6y ago
      > deny it to anyone denying requires that there's a party to do the denying. So when a developing country doesn't have access to clean drinking water, who is denying it? Someone from another country who _could_ have paid for the infrastructure? Their gov't?
  • ohgodplsno 6y ago
    Glad you asked. It's actually quite easily defined when it comes to what amount of water a human is entitled to: https://www.unwater.org/water-facts/human-rights/ https://www.unwater.org/water-facts/human-rights/ The provider is still a debate, between letting private entities do it (which, as anyone that has seen private entities deal with such important things, know is a terrible idea), or the state. As to who is violating their rights, it depends. Are you in a fully remote place where it is almost physically impossible to get you water ? Undefined. Otherwise, the provider is expected to perform what is expected of them and bring you water, by any means necessary.
    • chii 6y ago
      > as anyone that has seen private entities deal with such important things, know is a terrible idea so the privately owned farm that grew your food is such a terrible idea...who knew?
    • VMG 6y ago
      Sorry, but that link does not explain it. How does one resolve the conflict between a farmer that requires water to grow their food and a village where people want to do their laundry more often? > which, as anyone that has seen private entities deal with such important things, know is a terrible idea Reminder that in Flint, Walmart still provides safer water than the State.
    • eru 6y ago
      > The provider is still a debate, between letting private entities do it (which, as anyone that has seen private entities deal with such important things, know is a terrible idea), or the state. As to who is violating their rights, it depends. Are you in a fully remote place where it is almost physically impossible to get you water ? Undefined. Otherwise, the provider is expected to perform what is expected of them and bring you water, by any means necessary. Huh? Why place such a burden on the provider? Just let multiple providers compete on price and service as normal to determine how much effort is reasonable. (That idea of competition doesn't preclude having municipal water works. As long as you don't ban private suppliers.)
• zodiac 6y ago
  > trading with water is... dangerous... Do you pay a water bill where you live? If so isn't that already "trading with water"?
  • kevingadd 6y ago
    Your water bill (theoretically) funds the infrastructure that treats and delivers your water. It's not as if you can bottle it at home and resell it on the market, in most cases you would need to set up a corporation and make an official deal with the relevant parties This is like claiming that paying your garbage bill or firefighting bill (in places that charge for it) is "trading" your sanitation or protection from having your house burn down. They're services, not products.
    • zodiac 6y ago
      I guess I don't understand the difference between paying for "water-delivery-and-treatment-infrastructure-and-operational-costs", and paying for "water". I can't fufil these water futures by just transferring legal ownership of a piece of land (that I owned) that contains a saltwater lake. Even after defining what the difference is... I'd be interested in understanding what makes trading in "water-delivery-and-treatment-infrastructure-and-operational-costs" OK, but trading in "water" not OK
      • mola 6y ago
        The main difference is the isn't any speculation involved. No one have the financial incentive to create artificial scarcity. This is a major advantage when talking about the most basic of life needs.
        • zodiac 6y ago
          Why is there no incentive to create artificial scarcity in the "water-delivery-and-treatment" market?
      • kevingadd 6y ago