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 .
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.
Takers gonna take.
It’s part of why we have government. And laws. And courts. Some people aren’t interested in playing fair.
Do they not sell bootstraps in these shitholes?
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.
You know, if libertarians could comprehend what they read and think logically about things, they’d be very upset.
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.
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
Really? No one could anticipate water being scarce in the desert?
Yeah, it’s really surprising
Well, there wasn’t anything about it in the brochure, so no.
Damn… if they could read, this thread would be an absolute dumpster fire in the comments
Do they even go here?
Libertarians all run their own instances and don’t federate with anyone else because they demand to be paid for their contributions.
Which is why they’re all on Xitter.
Real libertarians, yes.
This kind, no. They’re busy retweeting fascists on Twitter.
I’ve seen a few fake libertarians here. But yeah thankfully they haven’t felt welcome.
This is really satisfying to read
Is it as satisfying as the one town that got overrun with bears?
I only came here to bring up the bears
Love seeing Right-Libertarians try to “well actually” this one.
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.
OMG, how have I missed this fascinating story? Thank you for sharing!!
What a cool title.
Yes, in that it includes the town with bears story and more!
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.
The “I hate you, mom!!!” of political ideologies.
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.
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
i dont understand why one would pick a desert in the middle of nowhere vs a forest in the middle of nowhere (which likely has some flowing river nearby). all the extra heat just sounds like unessessary upkeep costs
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. 🤷
Only sky media hasn’t been independently fact checked yet, as far as I know, so readers should know that it’s credibility is unknown.
Seems ok. But I’ll be taking everything they say with a grain of salt.
This is mostly an opinion piece – the facts cited have mostly been reported by others already, and the author provides links to those sources.
No org can be “fact checked” as a whole.
Also this an opinion piece you dunce.
Media bias fact check. Independent third parties are valid.
Your argument is invalid since you resorted to name calling. You lost.
Lemme try; you sure get downvoted a lot for being a cunt.
