Restaurants Refuse to Serve Tap Water

A large majority of goods that exist meet the test of private goods for which an owner is entitled to charge and exchange without compulsion. In the case of bottled water on the one side and diamonds used for jewelery,I accept this principle but state that I eschew purchase of the first and are lucky that whereas I have seen some sparkling examples, cannot afford the latter.

A number of posts on this blog such as this have stated that bottled water in particular is oftentimes sold under false pretense. The first of those is that tap water is inherently unsafe and the second is that all bottled water meets is necessarily filtered and meets the highest safety standards. Behind this is just the need to create the public to believe that consumption of tap water is very risky. Granted that some brands are very classy and tastefully marketed, the cost of bottled water compared to tap water is also reason to ask whether there's any justification for it.

A story in the Guardian reports here that restaurants are also exploiting the fears and the possibility for high profits by refusing to serve tap water to their clients at n cost. I am sure that the antagonism of one's clients to this extent is not necessary for any restaurant that intends to keep its good name. Customers are correct to refuse to pay for bottled water though in this instance, the need for a glass to take a pill should have alerted the manager to use his discretion to the benefit of his customers. A middle ground could be for restaurants to charge a modest amount for tap water because of the real costs that go into serving it and take away the unsightly coercion.