4 ms·
For other natural resources, sure. But without water humans _die_. That's not subjective.
by gsk22 4y ago
For other natural resources, sure. But without water humans _die_. That's not subjective.
- AnimalMuppet 4y agoPeople die without water to drink. Nobody dies without water to grow artichokes. As a bonus, not using all that water to grow artichokes leaves more water for people to drink. So, yeah. Like samatman said, "Let's try making it efficient first, and then see if we need to add equity."
- Thorrez 4y agoHow about making the price graduated. Each household has a low price up to a certain point (a reasonable amount for indoor use of the household) and after that it's market price.
- nradov 4y agoSome households have more residents than others. I don't particularly want intrusive government monitoring of who lives where just for the sake of water allocations. No thanks.
- Thorrez 4y agoGet an estimate of the maximum people/bedroom in the area, then judge each house based on that. I think the city already knows how many bedrooms each house has.
- bobthepanda 4y agoI don’t know that any such tiered pricing needs to be down to the liter. I think it would be perfectly reasonable to assume that agricultural water from individual farms dwarfs that of individual residences, so you just need to find the cutoff at which residential allowance stops applying.
- nradov 4y agoDon't be ridiculous. No one is seriously proposing completely cutting people off from water. Flow restrictors still allow customers enough water for personal consumption and hygiene.
- gsk22 4y agoWhen were we ever talking about flow restrictors? You were defending a market-based solution to water usage, which I asserted would be inequitable and therefore immoral. Flow restrictors are pretty anti-market, and I think they're a great solution to penalizing those who repeatedly break the rules.
- nradov 4y agoYes ideally free markets should be used to allocate limited resources. What's your point?