Interesting question, Khull...
The term 'free' is rather misleading, especially in the realm of economics. Nothing is free (save for perhaps say...sunlight and air). However, whereas a good may not be 'free' per se, governments can effectively reduce the price of a good through the use of subsidies.
Quote:
|
Water isn't free for everyone because... you need to move the water, and actually make it drinkable.
|
^^^Thanks for repeating what everyone else said, Snagg! (that is, everyone save for Khull)
The preceding quote neatly summarizes just about all of the arguments against free water in this thread. I pose the following question: So what if it costs money to purify water. It costs money to manufacture drugs and hire doctors, but the Swedes still get free healthcare don't they?
I for one, believe that drinking water (not tap water...despite the fact that people tend to substitute tap water for drinking water), should be a a relatively inexpensive good, not a prohibitively expensive luxury (I spend an average of $30 a week on water... there're lots of people out there who can't afford to spend such money on water).
Indeed, there are lots of countries that 'do' subsidize water (the one example that comes to mind right now is the UAE, where the price of drinking water is fixed at about 36 cents per liter of ordinary drinking water (ie. anything but Evian)).
The rationale behind subsidizing drinking water? Governments tend to subsidize goods that are deemed beneficial. Water is more than just beneficial. Water, as Khull points out, is a necessity.
Third world countries:
Water should be free. Tax money should be used to provide water to those who ordinarily don't have access to clean drinking water (such as in remote African regions).
First world countries:
The price of drinking water should be reduced to the point where the average consumer switches from tap water to actual drinking water.
(I'd model the market for drinking water, but I quite simply don't have the data to do so)
Free food anyone?