<GY> Water should be Privatized

Before going on to anything else, I will clarify some of the terms stated in the topic. The setting should be limited to democratic countries where the capitalistic distribution is possible, and 'privatized' as letting the distribution and sales of water be responsible to entrepreneurs and companies. In this debate we have to interpret whether water privatization's advantages out weigh the disadvantages, and I say no. This issue has been brought up because some think that a product managed by the private companies and the market increases quality and efficiency. This can be true in some cases of the products, but let me prove throughout this debate why 'water' is exclusive and should be provided by the government. First, let's think about the nature of water. Water is the resource that directly affects human life. Access to potable water is included in the UN human rights charter as well. Because water is related to the rights to life, it should not be regarded as a product, but rather a basic, fundamental human rights service that should be provided to everybody. And sources with qualities like these should be provided by the government. Other sources related to rights of citizens such as basic education, access to electricity and protection of the citizens are all provided by the government, not in the company's hands. The government should be responsible in providing the citizens the basic rights. Second, I will compare the nature of the private companies and government, and state why the government does a better job in providing water citizens. We should keep in mind that the aims of the companies are maximizing profits, not providing water to citizens. In these cases, citizens are not seen as citizens that deserve rights, but rather seen as customers providing profit to the company. And when they don't, their water supplies will be cut. It is true that market economy encourages competition and targets lower price and best quality. However, the company will need to suffer a loss in order to acheive this. And when this happens, the company will turn to making a profit at an expense of either increasing the price or lowering the quality. It is very likely that companis are likely to increase the price of water aiming for profit, because they know it is a life source and people would have to purchase it anyway. In contrast, government targets providing the waters to everyone. Their main goal is to provide their citizens what they need. By this goal, at least the distribution is made. Even if it is underpriced, the citizens get to encounter a source of water. Let's take a look at some of the examples of the countries where the water was privatized and suffered of negative results. In a case of England, where there are sixteen different water companies, even though the price went down from the initial cost, their prices are still five to ten times higher that that of countries where water is provided by the government. Plus, their tariffs increased by 46%. In Tanzania, where it is a developing country, the bills went up for the users. And people turned into unsafe water resources rather than paying the increased bills. These were examples of some of the harms that came with the privatization of water. Finally, let me talk about the environmental harms that can come with the privatization of water. The exploitation and depletion of resources can come. The companies are too much interested in making profits to care about how much resource is actually 'left' to use. Even if there were lack of resources, it wouldn't really matter because little supply can be a good reason for higher demands and increased prices. This might cause the water to be gone, and also affect the plans on various projects in water, such as hydroelectric power or projects in canals. Because water is so exclusive and necessary for life and all citizens, it should be provided by the government and not be privatized.