• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we pay for water?

Should we pay for water?


  • Total voters
    68
If we don't or do not want to, water purification systems and kit sales would boom, just mosey on down to your favorite river or lake and take what you want or need. There'll also be a spike in sales of water tankers too, think of it, that'll get our economy going!
 
In Michigan, we have great well water. Sometimes you have to go really deep because the potato farms suck all the water out of the table at lesser depths, but the water is fantastic.

Be cautious. Chemicals do seep into the underground water. We stopped using DDT and found evidence of it in ground water:

Abstract

Groundwater samples contaminated by an industrial point source were analysed in order to reveal the structural diversity of halogenated organic contaminants. Particular focus was laid on the metabolites and derivatives related to the pesticides DDT (2,2-bis(chlorophenyl)-1,1,1-trichlorethane) and lindane (γ-hexachlorocyclohexane). Additionally, a wide range of chlorinated and brominated xenobiotics were identified. These results represent a high degree of contamination with organochlorine compounds illustrating a considerable structural diversity in groundwater in the vicinity of the industrial plant. The polar DDT-metabolite DDA (2,2-bis(chlorophenyl)acetic acid), which has been neglected in water studies widely, represents the main DDT metabolite analysed in the water samples. Besides DDA, some unknown substances with structural relation to DDA and DDT were detected and identified, in detail 2,2-bis(4-chlorophenyl)acetic acid N-methyl amide (DDAMA) and 2,2-bis(4-chlorophenyl)acetic acid n-butyl ester (DDABE). As an overall implication of this study it has to be demanded that analysis of industrially affected ground waters have to be based on screening analysis for a comprehensive view on the state of pollution.

Structural diversity of organochlorine compounds... [Chemosphere. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI

I have to agree, though, there is nothing quite as good as really good well water. I hate chlorinated water. My sense of smell is overdeveloped and all chlorinated water smells to me like swimming pool water. I carry little packs of Crystal Light to put in water that I order in restaurants. For some reason, restaurant water is particularly noxious smelling to me. Diverting the taste to something else helps.
 
If we don't or do not want to, water purification systems and kit sales would boom, just mosey on down to your favorite river or lake and take what you want or need. There'll also be a spike in sales of water tankers too, think of it, that'll get our economy going!

True. My daughter has one and I LOVE the water she keeps in the refrigerator.
 
Well, the best tasting water is alpine water filtered naturally over granite.
 
No, water, along with the other basic needs to survive, should be a right. It's not that foreign of a concept.



In addition, to South Africa declaring housing as a constitutional right, as TheDemSocialist mentioned, Utah is essentially eliminating homelessness and guaranteeing housing as a right.

Utah is Ending Homelessness by Giving People Homes | NationofChange

I suggest you watch some British reporting. After seeing the situation reported on in Benefits Britain, you should feel ashamed of yourself for even suggesting such a thing.

For the rest of you, this is where the liberals here want to take the US -

Episode 1 | Benefits Britain: Life On The Dole | Channel 5
 
Last edited:
How would we know? We've never seen a completely free market.
We have come pretty damn close where there was very little regulations and it didnt work out to great for most workers and citizens.
 
No one should be forced to pay for plain water unless they're really thirsty.

In which case I would think that they would like a cold beer a lot more.

But maybe that's just me.
 
No one should be forced to pay for plain water unless they're really thirsty.

In which case I would think that they would like a cold beer a lot more.

But maybe that's just me.

Yeah, but with the beer you don't get to keep the water onboard for long.
 
No. Housing, which includes water, in my opinion is a basic human right and should not have to pay for it. It should be provided.

It's not my job to pay for your house. Houses are not a human right.
 
Anytime America has these discussions, the world rolls their eyes. North America has more fresh water than anywhere. The places that charge for water are places where there are real resource issues. The only reason to privatize it is to export it to other countries for a profit. There's no reason to charge people for it domestically, just like there's little reason to charge people global prices for fuel in a country that produces it. We have enough for everyone here. The cost of diverting it can be paid for with taxes, which I am more than happy to do, and has been the case since basic water infrastructure was implemented. Unless people want to go the idiotic route of "I'm not paying for someone else's water", which the corporations will be happy to capitalize on. Once the government stops paying for it, then the big businesses will own it instead.

Infrastructurally, it makes sense to provide water at an equilibrium cost. Of course, the big corporations are licking their lips over the idea of getting to charge people more for water, under their usual lies and deceitful justifications. My prediction is that the big agro companies and other industries would not have to pay for water, or they would get a substantially reduced cost. If we follow the corporate trend of destroying the middle class, then it will mean that every-day people will have to pay, but big companies won't. So are we going to let these companies own our rivers and lakes now?

I can't wait for this globalized economy to go belly up. The only people it serves are the wealthy industry owners, no one else, least of all the health of the planet. It, and its corporate cronies, are running in direct opposition to every natural human faculty with zero concern for community (local or global) benefit. The fiduciary responsibility has to change, and soon.
 
Is the supplying of water a basic human right?

If you consider all the things the gov't spends our money on (defense, roads, bridges, justice system etc), should one of them be a simple necessity?





Nearly Half Of Detroit Water Customers Can’t Pay Their Bill « CBS Detroit


I say yes we should pay for it.Mostly because it costs money for infrastructure support, to clean the water and we are charged based on how much water we use. I do not know about most cities but in my city we have ice vending machines that sell a gallon of water for 25 cents and a dollar for five gallons,so even the bum standing on the corner can afford clean drinking water.
 
We have to make sure there is plenty of water for everybody in the most effective way possible. When people pay for water, it isn't wasted. If water was free it would be taken for granted and not respected.

It isn't about being nice or about who cares the most. It's about doing what works. Chose the method that works, then repeat.

That's actually a good point that people might waste it. Maybe make it available for no fee up to a point of usage, making a fair amount free, then start charging beyond the set amount for a household. That would have to be based on the amount of people per home.

No, I'm not talking about being nice either but practical. As I've already stated if you let half the population go without an essential element for survival, they will riot and fight for it. It becomes cheaper for municipalities to supply it than have an uprising from the populace.

You could make it public utility. Its still not free, can never be free. But your fund it from taxes.

That's part of my point of how much tax money local, state and Federal gov't already get and waste. And they can't let people start dying of thirst but supply illegals and other countries with all the necessities?
 
Anytime America has these discussions, the world rolls their eyes. North America has more fresh water than anywhere.

No, that would be South America. But really the correct answer is Antarctica, though the water is in frozen form.
 
It's not my job to pay for your house. Houses are not a human right.

Actually it is. Founded both in Universal Deceleration of Human Rights, and in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
 
Actually it is. Founded both in Universal Deceleration of Human Rights, and in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

I would think that a stable cardboard box is about what might be available on human rights. I looked at a European detention center for African boat people. Cardboard box, is what human rights give you.
 
No, that would be South America. But really the correct answer is Antarctica, though the water is in frozen form.

Well we have a ****load of it, is that better? The hair splitting distinctions are getting annoying, clownboy.
 
We have come pretty damn close where there was very little regulations and it didnt work out to great for most workers and citizens.
Oh really? And when was this?
 
which are not part of america's founding documents.

So what? Last time I checked we signed the UNDHR. Many of the ideas that animated the movement for human rights were founded after WW2.
 
If we want clean running water, then yes we absolutely should pay for it. If not, then no, you can go to a creek and get some in a bucket.
 
so what? Last time i checked we signed the undhr. Many of the ideas that animated the movement for human rights were founded after ww2.

the constitution deals in natural rights, and [privledges and immunites]....which are civil rights.

Government creates civl rights....

Natural rights are not from goverment. Nothing can be a right, which lays a cost or burden on one citizen to give to another citizen...
 
Last edited:
the constitution deals in natural rights, and [privledges and immunites]....which are civil rights.

Government creates civl rights....

Natural rights are not from goverment. Nothing can be a right, which lays a cost or burden on one citizen to give to another citizen...

You can still have a "right" and have it be provided by the state. Natural rights are natural in the sense of human nature. Human rights are the construct of men and the state provides these to all citizens equally.
 
Back
Top Bottom