How much water is a human entitled to?
Who has to provide it to that person?
If somebody has no water, who is violating their rights?
I suppose it just means "we consider access to this resource too important to deny it to anyone, whatever the reason". It's the ground upon which policy should be decided.
Water may be scarce, but the amount available still is much more than enough for living beings.
Denying access to water is what ensures that a person who needs it can keep it.
What is "vital" or not is highly dependent on circumstances.
Trading water wouldn't impact that kind of scheme. (Eg the government could just buy water at market prices and distribute as this basic income in kind.)
The important thing is that we DON'T have enough water for all uses we can dream off, like growing almonds in the desert.
So you need some kind of rationing. That means denying water to some uses.
Rationing via market prices is one of the most (economically) effective and just ways we have come up with.
(If you want to make some argument about how the water in a specific country should be the common good of everyone; you can still do the trading. Just have the government own all water sources, auction off the supply, and distribute the proceeds to everyone individually.)
denying requires that there's a party to do the denying.
So when a developing country doesn't have access to clean drinking water, who is denying it? Someone from another country who _could_ have paid for the infrastructure? Their gov't?
https://www.unwater.org/water-facts/human-rights/
The provider is still a debate, between letting private entities do it (which, as anyone that has seen private entities deal with such important things, know is a terrible idea), or the state. As to who is violating their rights, it depends. Are you in a fully remote place where it is almost physically impossible to get you water ? Undefined. Otherwise, the provider is expected to perform what is expected of them and bring you water, by any means necessary.
so the privately owned farm that grew your food is such a terrible idea...who knew?
> which, as anyone that has seen private entities deal with such important things, know is a terrible idea
Reminder that in Flint, Walmart still provides safer water than the State.
Huh? Why place such a burden on the provider? Just let multiple providers compete on price and service as normal to determine how much effort is reasonable.
(That idea of competition doesn't preclude having municipal water works. As long as you don't ban private suppliers.)
Do you pay a water bill where you live? If so isn't that already "trading with water"?
This is like claiming that paying your garbage bill or firefighting bill (in places that charge for it) is "trading" your sanitation or protection from having your house burn down. They're services, not products.
Even after defining what the difference is... I'd be interested in understanding what makes trading in "water-delivery-and-treatment-infrastructure-and-operational-costs" OK, but trading in "water" not OK
This is almost the same as the distinction between paying your electricity bill and buying a pre-charged battery.
For water I could certainly buy a bunch of bottled water and keep it in the kitchen, but how am I going to run that through my faucets to wash my hands or run it through my showerhead? You can certainly do all that - and people in areas with limited access to tap water have to - but it's not something the average person is going to do.
Where your tap water comes from is also a factor here. When I lived in a rural area growing up, our water was well water - there was literally no way for us to stock up a month worth of that in advance, because we relied on the natural return of water into the soil to ensure we had a supply to draw from in the well. Things like desalination also have limited throughput, so if you max that out the only way to get more water is to take it from someone else.