ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • Environment & Green Issues

Privatizing Water: The Free Market Solution to the Crisis in Flint, MI

Updated on January 20, 2016

Doubt Remains

How could these bureaucrats and politicians let this happen? Well, to start, they were overstepping their bounds and not fulfilling the sole responsibility of government officials: the protection of individual rights. Had private property rights been respected and selfish, greedy businessmen stepped into the fray, would their be such a disastrous state of affairs in Flint, Michigan? Doubt remains. The corporations and other companies who would have a stake in the success and maintenance of water treatment plants and facilities would recognize that it would be their land and water to keep. Because self-interest drives a person to take care of his or her own belongings, such an attitude would prompt that individual to trade with neighbors and customers. And the piss poor response to the problem only exacerbates the relationship between government and private citizen.

There's Something in the Water


At least the outrage is pointed at such politicians for their utter ineptitude. The lives of the people in Flint like anywhere else in the United States and even the world for that matter deserve fresh, clean, potable water. But the question is how that water is preserved, produced, and distributed and at whose expense. The freedom of private businessmen and women allows them to further the advancement of the excellent human environment. The move for them would be to increase profits and deliver stellar quarters for their shareholders. What would it be like if they decided to contaminate the water with lead? Would their profits increase or slide? Certainly, the day that any business decides to poison, sicken, injure, or defraud its consumers, the first thing to go would be any signs of money. But when it comes to government, anything goes. Political leaders have been known to be crooked and hostile, but the most ire is reserved for business people. It is clear that Michigan governor Rick Snyder exudes failure and deserves the ridicule for his misdeeds. Though the public scorns him for his mishandling of the situation, most people now seek handouts and for government agencies to do more work in order to eliminate contaminants like lead from the water supply. That supply ought to be owned and operated privately. Governments across the land ought to sell off their rights to the water treatment plants and allow the private sector to assume control. With the implementation of a corporate structure and the motive to make money, such facilities would see considerable returns on their investments all the while offering safe, pristine water.



There ought to be no place for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to get their hands wet with worries over the situation in Flint. These particular agencies exemplify the notion of a government run amok. Where in FEMA does it read that it is safeguarding the lives of the citizens of the United States? In the EPA? Such government groups only steal money through taxes and bungle areas in distress. And Governor Snyder yelping for people to pray their cares away instead of finding solutions presents a wicked state of affairs. His inability to ensure that the water was free of toxins further shows why government should butt out of matters which do not concern it.

The Essence of Life



The very essence of life, water, ought to be of top concern for people the world over. With the semi-free status of America that concern ought to extend itself onto the spreadsheets of the business-minded individual. Rather than look to government to heal the wounds that it created, the decision ought to be struck to afford to entrepreneurs the opportunity to turn a coin. Government ought not step in to regulate or control such industries. Corporations would self-regulate and allow businessmen and women to guide their companies under the ethics of self-interest. Their keen insight into the proper structure and engineering which goes into constructing collecting waters and collecting waters would spur workers to come to Flint and make it more prosperous. The bottom line and people's’ health and safety ought not clash. The allegations that government agents cut corners is not surprising. Contrary to the notion that financial matters are put before the lives of human beings, what the pursuit of profit does is allow the individual to ensure that water, smartphones, drones, or any other product or service is up to par and presents no danger to the user.

For bringing this disgrace upon the city of Flint, politicians ought to be ashamed of themselves. The next thing that each bureaucrat should do is consider what it would be like to allow their family members to drink, bathe, and clean with the current water supply. After that, the idea of privatizing water ought to materialize.

The Question over Water

Should water be privatized?

See results


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Skyler Saunders profile image

      Skyler Saunders 2 years ago from Newark, DE


      Well, firstly, isn't the "confusion, contention, and chaos" that you say would arise in a private scenario happening currently under government control? Now, rivers, streams, and other bodies of water would be owned by the highest bidder. Governments would sell off these bodies and allow them to be on the free market. Just like Apple owns the rights to iPhones and Samsung owns Galaxy devices, so would companies possess the rights to the water and compete just like any other corporation. Such situations would permit consumers to choose the best service for their dollar. And if there is any issue with lead or any other contaminates that present a danger to anyone, that individual may exercise his or her right to sue. The court system would provide a person the opportunity to settle the dispute over clean or dirty water rationally.

      In all, a private water system would present the producer and the consumer with the chance to be free from control and regulation and thrive in a capitalistic setting. With the government out of the way, and performing well its sole responsibility, to protect individual rights, the people may flourish.

    • RonElFran profile image

      Ronald E Franklin 2 years ago from Mechanicsburg, PA

      "Government ought not step in to regulate or control such industries"? How would that work? First, who owns the water in the rivers? How would it be apportioned between companies that want to lay claim to it? Then, how would competition work since it's obviously impractical for a homeowner to call up and switch from one water supplier (and their entire system of piping infrastructure) to another. And what happens when the company that supplies water from the Flint River claims the lead problem is not theirs - their water is just fine? It's the old pipes in the houses that are the problem, they say, thus putting the blame back on the resident. It seems to me that trying to have private enterprise take on a role that every advanced country leaves to government is a recipe for confusion, contention, and chaos.