In other words, "suffering is bad and we should prevent it, but we don't know how"? What a brave and profound statement to make! /s
That's not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is that there probably isn't one solution that would work on every part of the planet and further more that in practical terms there isn't a single "we" on the hook to solve.
There are probably many different strategies, from restricting private companies from extracting water at low cost and making huge profits, to building water infrastructure in places where there are none, to desalination, to eradicating cholera, etc. etc.
But what I do believe is that ability to pay for water should not be a limiting factor to having access to clean water because it is a basic ingredient of life and so nobody should profit off of access.
Do you, as a "über capitalist" also believe the same to be true for food?
I didn't interpret GP to say "total state ownership over food production".
Their keywords were "basic" and "minimally required".
That should have told you that they were supporting food programs where basic foods are guaranteed.
None of that means they support "total", as you say, nationalization of food production.
History has shown us that nationalization of food production leads to the starvation and death of millions.
Free market production has led countries to excess foods, such as grain, which can be and is shipped across the world to combat global starvation.
Reasonable amount of water and food should be in reach of every citizen. Does not mean production of those have to be privatized, but maybe margins can be limited when it is bought from open market.