Water: Free for everyone?

[Khull]

You cannot go into any grocery store/mini-mart and not see bottles of water within the other drinks. Usually costing anywhere from $0.99-$1.75 give or take a few cents. And we all know (I hope) that water is the human bodies second most important need (oxygen being first), and cannot survive more than 4 days without it.

That got me thinking: Of all the absurd thing scociety charges us for, water probably caps it. This life-giving liquid costs money to drink no matter where you are. At the store, like mentioned above, schools, and even home (water bills?). Yes schools have water fountains, but you pay a school tax, which in-turn pays for the supply of water. Today most lake/river water isn't too safe to drink, often times it makes one very sick, and on rare occasions even fatal, I sure wouldn't risk drinking out of anything short of a remote spring source.

Shouldn't water be free for everyone? It seems the only thing scociety doesn't charge us for is breathing air. Yet I'm sure if they could, they would. The second most important thing for living, and they charge us for it. It's true we use it other ways than survival (Cooling factories/treatment plants/pools/ect.) but actual drinking water, at least to me, should be something everyone can use for free, without risk.

Your comments?

[OMGLOLWTFPWN]

Purified water costs money, if you want to go drink out of a lake for free go ahead. They would probably sell air if it got to the point it was so polluted that they could sell "fresh" air after cleaning it. Or at least sell devices for houses that would purify the air coming in so we get fresh air. The money isn't so much for the water but the cleaning they do to it.

[Undead Cheese]

Filtering the water costs money. Packaging the water costs money. Shipping the water costs money. Paying all of their employees costs money. And you want them to just give it away?

[Emperor Pan I]

The world is begining to run short on freash water. Bottled water isn't just water, it is usualy enriched with minerals and that crap.
Water bill is not the bill for the actual water, but the bill for having the water pumped to your house.

[Brandon]

water is free, but drinkable cost money to make it that way, so they need money back for doing so..

[TrongaMonga]

If you want free water, you can go to a natural fountain, and there's your free water.

Now, if you are demanding someone to bring you the water to your home, either by pipes or by bottles, you have to give some money. It isn't free, all the water tests, the water pumps, the travels it make, etc.

[Khull]

I see were you guys are comming from.

I suppose this was a rather stupid idea...

[Snagg]

Not very arguable thread...

Water isn't free for everyone because... you need to move the water, and actually make it drinkable.

Bad thread to argue.

[Iliaran]

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.

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?

[Arodion]

Well the main ideas are covered here, but one thing you said about lakes and rivers making one sick...

The only make us sick now becasue we dont drink from them. In the past when everyone drank from them, your body was use to the bacteria in it and had no problems with the water.

Personal reference: We moved into a well fed house, whole household got sick. But within a wek we were fine and got to laugh when friends would stay with us and get sick. Just not use to the bacteria in it. Same thing happened to the Conquistidors when the conquered the Aztecs, and what happens to americans visiting Mexico.

So basicaly, we're paying so our body doesn't have to build up immunities and further our physical breakdown as human beings. Oh, and to move it of course...

[thebastardsword]

Originally Posted by Arodion

The only make us sick now becasue we dont drink from them. In the past when everyone drank from them, your body was use to the bacteria in it and had no problems with the water.

you do forget that wateholes were commonly used as lavatories as well.