256

Why libertarian cities fail (onlysky.media)

submitted 9 months ago by rimu@piefed.social to c/politics@lemmy.world

34 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Rio Verde Foothills is an unincorporated rural community in the wilds of Maricopa County, Arizona. As you may know, Arizona is largely desert, and deserts are well-known for lacking abundant water.

Arizona law requires homebuilders in active management areas to secure a reliable source of water expected to last at least a hundred years. However, there’s a loophole: the law only applies to subdivisions of six homes or more. You can guess what some clever developers do: they simply build lots of “subdivisions” each consisting of only five homes.

These so-called “wildcat” communities are all over the state. They’re miniature havens of freedom, perfect for stubbornly independent libertarians who want to get out from under the thumb of government bureaucrats telling them where they can and can’t live. Rio Verde Foothills is one such.

But then they made an awful discovery. It turns out, even when you find a way to skirt regulations about water… humans still need water .

all 37 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] PugJesus@kbin.social 132 points 9 months ago

Is it because society is an invention of human cooperation and a ruthless backstabbing market approach only works insofar as the rest of society is willing to subsidize it for convenience's sake?

Where have Rio Verde Foothills’ inhabitants been getting water to drink, wash and brush their teeth? They’ve been doing what libertarians usually do: they rely on other people who planned better than they did.

Yep.

[-] APassenger@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

Takers gonna take.

It's part of why we have government. And laws. And courts. Some people aren't interested in playing fair.

[-] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 56 points 9 months ago

Do they not sell bootstraps in these shitholes?

[-] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

That sounds like some commie talk if you’re expecting the gooberment to just sell bootstraps to anyone who wants them. A real libertarian would demand that the gooberment isn’t allowed to sell bootstraps, start their own bootstrap company, and only sell to their friends (because it turns out they can’t actually secure enough local resources to produce enough bootstraps for the whole community,) at 100x the cost of what the gooberment does.

[-] Seleni@lemmy.world 53 points 9 months ago

You know, if libertarians could comprehend what they read and think logically about things, they’d be very upset.

[-] Eldritch@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Most actual libertarians would never claim to be one. The easiest way to find out if someone is actually libertarian or not. Is to listen if they talk about personal freedom. Personal freedom doesn't exist. It's called privilege. No freedoms but social freedoms. Also listen to their positions on business and government. If they don't hold similar disdain for large corporations as they do large government. They aren't libertarian.

Bonus round. If they plan to vote that should cast doubt on if they're libertarian. But if they say they plan to vote for a libertarian. It means that they and the person they plan to vote for 100% aren't.

[-] BeautifulMind@lemmy.world 38 points 9 months ago

Yeah it's kind of amazing that the domination and expense of regulations and taxes is unbearable, but the domination of water being scarce and expensive just could not have been anticipated

[-] Decoy321@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago

Really? No one could anticipate water being scarce in the desert?

[-] Jumi@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago

Yeah, it's really surprising

[-] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

Well, there wasn't anything about it in the brochure, so no.

[-] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 30 points 9 months ago

This is really satisfying to read

[-] Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world 36 points 9 months ago

Is it as satisfying as the one town that got overrun with bears?

[-] probablynaked@lemmy.world 29 points 9 months ago

I only came here to bring up the bears

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 23 points 9 months ago

In case anyone is interested

[-] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 10 points 9 months ago

Love seeing Right-Libertarians try to "well actually" this one.

[-] sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

OMG, how have I missed this fascinating story? Thank you for sharing!!

[-] cabbage@piefed.social 7 points 9 months ago

After a rash of lawsuits from Free Towners, an influx of sex offenders, an increase of crime, problems with bold local bears, and the first murders in the town's history, the Libertarian project ended in 2016.

Huh. Who would have thought.

[-] Yerbouti@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago

What a cool title.

[-] rimu@piefed.social 13 points 9 months ago

Yes, in that it includes the town with bears story and more!

[-] owenfromcanada@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago

How does that quote go again?

Libertarians are like housecats: fiercely convinced of their independence while completely relying on a system they neither understand nor appreciate.

Something like that, at least.

[-] taanegl@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

The "I hate you, mom!!!" of political ideologies.

[+] RedAggroBest@lemmy.world -10 points 9 months ago

The conclusion is good but the first example they use shows they don't actually understand how unincorporated communities in AZ work.

They don't have a water district because it's literally too expensive to build and not because some taxes Boogeyman. Tons of people in AZ live in unincorporated areas and haul water. It's a pretty normal thing in the rural west.

They should've just opened and stuck with Grafton. It's a perfect example.

[-] blurg@lemmy.world 68 points 9 months ago

They don’t have a water district because it’s literally too expensive to build and not because some taxes Boogeyman.

This is nonsense. It's precisely because of a belief in a "taxes Boogeyman."

Necessities "too expensive to build" for individuals are what taxes are for: water, sewer, roads, fire departments, etc. Individuals buying into 5-house developments without water are finding out the consequences of their philosophy -- and don't like it. And rather than recognize the predictable outcome of their belief, they demand necessities from nearby people more responsible than themselves.

[-] RedAggroBest@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Its not though. This isn't a community of dumbfuck libertarians. They expect to haul water. They're poor people buying cheap housing in the desert, they're single houses not 5 house developments, and then suddenly having the price of water double on them, it wasn't poor planning, it was Scottsdale, a haven of rich fucks you REALLY shouldn't sympathize with, bumping costs to buy water. Fuck I'll find the NPR story on this exact community later.

[-] LesserAbe@lemmy.world 30 points 9 months ago

It doesn't matter how rich some other town is, doesn't make sense to build somewhere in the desert and not have a secure water source. Whether that's libertarianism or not I don't know, but not smart.

[-] L3mmyW1nks@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

https://www.npr.org/2023/11/09/1211949655/building-in-arizona-with-no-water

[-] Breve@pawb.social 6 points 9 months ago

Sounds like the free market at work! Surely if the price is unreasonable then a private company should have a clear profit motive to swoop in and provide the service at a lower cost. Otherwise that's simply the cost the market has determined for this product. 🤷

this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2024

256 points (95.4% liked)

politics

19159 readers

4432 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News