Is There a Right to Water?

by Dr. Gerard Emershaw

The city of Detroit has been shutting off water to residents who have not paid their bills. Water in Detroit is provided by The Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD), a non-profit organization that is forbidden under Michigan law from earning a profit but is also not subsidized by taxes. At least 7,000 Detroit homes had no running water as of the beginning of October 2014, and the DWSD plans to go back to shutting off water to residents who do not pay their bills—shuts offs at an expected rate of 400 per day. Judge Steven W. Rhodes at the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ruled that no basic human right to water exists. Therefore, the DWSD is legally being allowed to shut off water to Detroit residents. Given that the city of Detroit is desperately bankrupt, the city itself cannot afford to provide life-sustaining water to residents whose water is shut off by the DWSD.

Judge Rhodes is correct in stating that there is no right to water. The natural rights which human beings do possess are the rights to life, liberty, and property. Water—like homes, health care, jobs, money, WiFi, etc.—is a commodity and not a right. There is a finite amount of this commodity whereas the rights to life, liberty, and property are not finite. My rights to these cannot conflict with yours or anyone else’s. But my “right” to a finite commodity can conflict with yours. Especially in cases where there is simply not enough to go around for everyone.

It is undeniable that water is necessary for human beings to survive. But this does not mean that failing to provide the commodity of drinking water to a human being in any way violates his or her right to life. The right to life means that neither the government nor any private entities may deprive one of his or her life without due process. This negative right has nothing to do with the nonexistent positive right to water.

Water should be provided by for-profit private entities. There should be no restrictions on these entities as there is on the DWSD. However, as in most cases water utilities are natural monopolies (industries where it is most efficient for a single firm to provide the service), the federal government has a duty to provide some regulation. In the case of water, this would likely mean that water utilities would not be able to charge unconscionably high prices for water. But this would not entail that water utilities would have to provide the service to those who do not pay for it.

My new book The Real Culture War: Individualism vs. Collectivism & How Bill O’Reilly Got It All Wrong presents Emershaw’s Individualist State, a minarchist formulation of government in which the vast majority of property—including utilities—are privately owned. Emershaw’s Individualist State does not allow the government to place high taxes and burdensome regulations on businesses. Therefore, such a society is highly likely to be far more affluent than the semi-socialist society of the contemporary United States. There would be few if any communities like Detroit that have been destroyed by heavy-handed government action and corporatist crony capitalism. Far fewer individuals would be unable to afford to pay for water, and there would be far more private charities and mutual aid societies to help any who had fallen through the cracks and found themselves unable to afford water. While a fiscally responsible federal government along with fiscally responsible state and municipal governments would not allow entire cities to fall into impoverished chaos as is happening in Detroit, widespread poverty could nevertheless still strike especially in emergency situations. In such cases, it is the duty of the government at the municipal, state, and federal government to ensure that a state of unrest does not occur which would threaten the life, liberty, and property of residents. However, this does not entail that any government indefinitely pay the water bills of thousands of individuals. If one cannot pay one’s water bill, then one cannot afford to live in the residence. In a case such as Detroit where 24,000 or more may have their water shut off, the possibility of unrest is great. Government may need to intervene until the crisis passes. Responsible night-watchmen governments at the municipal, state, and federal levels would have prevented this crisis in the first place. Unfortunately, Detroit may prove to be a microcosm of wider problems that will face the United States soon as a result of progressive anti-business government practices and the corporatist crony capitalism that collectivist forms of government inevitably create.

(For a much more detailed discussion of natural rights as well as a detailed presentation of Emershaw’s Individualist State, read my new book The Real Culture War: Individualism vs. Collectivism & How Bill O’Reilly Got It All Wrong. Available now on Amazon in both print and Kindle.)

Not a Drop to Drink

by Gerard Emershaw

According to UNICEF, 768 million people on the planet lack access to safe, clean drinking water. That means that over 10% of all human beings on this planet lack access to the most basic and most necessary resource to sustain life. In seven nations, over half of all people lack access to potable water—Niger, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Somalia, Mozambique, Madagascar, and Papua New Guinea.

Why are so many individuals in these nations suffering? Why do they not have access to potable water? Six of the seven nations are arid nations in Central Africa. However, is this a reason why half of the people should lack proper water to drink? People in the desert regions of the American Southwest live in arid regions but have plenty of water to drink. Potable water is also not a problem in most of the Middle East and the Outback of Australia.

A more plausible answer is that so many people are thirsty in these nations due to economic factors. Each of these nations routinely rank among the poorest nations on the planet. For many, the inquiry ends there. These nations are poor. End of story. But why are these nations poor?

Is it a lack of natural resources? Niger has uranium, phosphates, coal, iron, limestone, and gypsum. The Democratic Republic of  the Congo has the world’s largest supply of cobalt and also has ample supplies of diamonds and copper. Ethiopia produces more coffee than any other African nation. It is the 10^th largest producer of livestock in the world. It also produces khat, gold, leather products, and oilseeds. Somalia exports fish, charcoal and bananas and produces sugar, sorghum and corn. Mozambique has large supplies of aluminum, beryllium, and tantalum. In addition, in 2012, a large reservoir of natural gas was found in the nation. Madagascar has an eye opening amount of resources. It is among the world’s biggest suppliers of vanilla, cloves, and ylang-ylang. It produces coffee, lychees, and shrimp. It has abundant minerals and currently supplies half the world’s sapphires. As if that were not enough, this island nation also has large amounts of ilmenite, chromite, coal, iron, cobalt, copper, and nickel. Papua New Guinea has gold, oil, and copper. It is also produces palm oil, coconut oil, cocoa, tea, and rubber. In addition, each of these nations have wilderness areas which are beautiful. Therefore, tourism remains a strong possibility in each of these nations as an area of future economic growth.

So why are these nations so poor if they have such ample natural resources? With such resources, it seems plausible that these nations should be able to afford irrigation or desalinization projects to hydrate their thirsty people. The answer is freedom. Or in these cases, lack thereof. According to Heritage, none of these nations have free economies. Of 178 ranked nations, Niger ranks #127, the Democratic Republic of the Congo ranks #172, Ethiopia ranks #137, Mozambique ranks #128, Madagascar ranks #79, and Papua New Guinea ranks #132. Needless to say, the nations with the freest economies—Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, Switzerland, New Zealand, Canada, Chile, Mauritius, Ireland, and Denmark—do not lack potable water. At this point there is so much evidence that economic freedom leads to prosperity that those nations which do not have free economies are essentially tyrants who are willingly causing their citizens to suffer.

Unsurprisingly, these seven nations are also not politically free. According to Freedom House, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, and Somalia are considered “not free” and Niger, Mozambique, Madagascar, and Papua New Guinea are considered only “partly free.” Freedom hydrates people and puts food in their bellies. Tyranny leads to dehydration, starvation, and anguish. Despite these obvious facts, so many elitists and dictators around the world continue to insist that statism and strong government intervention is the key to human flourishing. Such individuals are either liars or idiots.