Personal tools

Argument: Water is not a public right

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

The use of water is not always for "essential" purposes

While it is often claimed that water is "essential" to human life, and, therefore, it should be a right, it's end-use is certainly not always "essential". Pools, hot-tubs, washing machines, dishwashers, sprinklers are all examples of non-essential use. It is not possible to argue that people have a right to these kinds of non-essential discretionary uses of water. The problem, therefore, in calling water a "right" is that it appears to be conditioned on the end-use. It might be a "right" when it is for health and life, but not a "right" when used for the above non-essential purposes. But, such a conditional offering of "rights" to citizens is not really possible, particularly when it is not clear how a determination could be made about the end-use of water. It is not really possible for governments to distinguish accurately between essential and non-essential uses unless they put monitors of some kind on devices in homes, obviously highly invasive and infeasible. This makes it difficult to call water a "right" in any circumstance. At a minimum, water should not always be considered a right, making it possible to conclude that there is certainly some room for private companies to have an appropriate role in the supply of water.

Supporting articles

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits