Water should not be privatized

This debate can be broken down into two key questions: 1) Do private property rights extend to water? My opponent’s main argument throughout this debate was that private property rights extend to water found on land. There was no substantial analysis into why this is the case; rather, my opponent essentially stated that it stands to reason that water found on land which is owned belongs to someone. He also raised an interesting point about right to privacy and security, making reference to Tom driving a tractor through Bob’s fence. However, I have consistently shown why property rights should not extend to water for many reasons. Firstly, inherent in privatization is the complete control over the object (in this case, the private entity would have complete control over the water it owns). I have shown why this is already a harm since corporations are held accountable to shareholders and not the public, meaning that there is no way to ensure accountability and responsible use of water with regards to the public. As a result, there is no way for the public to force a corporation to build wells or provide water to extremely poor or rural locations. This is an argument that has been completely untouched by my opponent, so it stands. In contrast, the government can be held accountable and therefore will provide services to even the poorest and most isolated location, which a private entity will not do because it is too costly. Therefore, the conclusion that can be drawn is that private property rights, if they extend to water, means that irresponsible and harmful use of water can occur, which is something that must be prevented. As a result, if property rights extend to water, Bob can randomly decide one day that he will not give any water to Tom. He has complete control over the water and no way to ensure he acts in a socially responsible way, so his neighbor Tom, who himself has no access to water at all, can do nothing but die. This is a situation that cannot be allowed to ever arise, but is something that can happen if water is privatized. Evidently, the massive practical and principle harm that private ownership of water can bring means that the answer to this question is a resounding no, private property rights do not extend to water. As a side note, my opponent has repeatedly mistaken my argument: no, I do not support people coming and taking food or water whenever they please, HOWEVER, I do support the idea that people are entitled to a bare minimum and if they are ever unable to obtain that, they are 100% justified in driving a tractor straight through Bob’s fence and getting the bare minimum they need for themselves. With respect to food, my opponent shoots himself in the own foot by saying that those who cannot afford food go to public services (because private services will never give food away for free every day because there is no profit in that). What this means then, is that if those public services disappear, there will be people who are prevented from being able to gain access to food. This fact proves two things: firstly, there are likely people who face the same situation with water even though my opponent tries to deny this fact by saying water is cheap and readily available (if you can’t afford to buy groceries, spending an extra $2 a day on water a day on water bottles, or almost $700 on water, is not affordable), and secondly it shows why we cannot allow privatization of such vital resources: people’s lives should not depend on whether these public services can continue to exist, and moreover, as private organizations gain more and more market share as is the current trend, these public services become more overworked, stretched, and become less able to provide for people. People will inevitably be locked out, and at that point, their dignity is being violated. 2) Does privatization of water harm human dignity? I have argued consistently that it does: the very poor will be unable the bare minimum they need based off of an arbitrary concept like money which violates their basic dignity. My opponent has responded by claiming that privatization actually decreases prices, claiming that my source was biased. Ironic since he presents facts from the World Bank (though no working link is provided) and the WB can hardly be deemed “non-biased” since it has actively campaigned for water privatization for years so will obviously provide facts in support of that. (1) Secondly though, this idea that water becomes cheaper is simply flawed. As Bolivia and many other nations like Senegal show, the introduction of privatized water leads to the price of water increasing exponentially. (1) The lesson of Bolivia for water companies is not to massively increase prices overnight, but to gradually and markedly increase them so the public won’t notice immediately, and this is a practice they put into effect. People will be unable to access the bare minimum of water as rampant privatization occurs and prices increase. As a result, their dignity has thus been violated, and the answer to the question is a clear Yes, privatization of water flies in the face of human dignity. In addition to all of this, the very fact that private water companies are unwilling to provide access to clean water to very isolated or poor communities by its own volition (public-private enterprises can hardly be said to be private initiatives, and as public ownership decreases the amount of these enterprises occurring will decrease as well) itself proves that water should not be privatized. My opponent has not shown why companies have a direct incentive to invest millions to provide water to people who can’t afford it. If anybody, let alone a massive group of people, will at some point have their ability to access water compromised, then it should not be privatized. The harms and risks are too high. The resolution has clearly been affirmed. I thank my opponent for an interesting debate. 1) https://www.globalpolicy.org...