Quote from: myrkul on May 29, 2013, 09:39:10 PM

Quote from: Zarathustra link=topic=155570.msg2311504#msg2311504 date=

Anarchy is the non-patriarchal, non-monogamous, autark, selfsufficient, matrilineal community, which is not taxed and dominated by masters, rulers, strangers.

So, only an agrarian, matrilinear society is truly free?

You have a very limited world-view.

...said the capitalist.

Quote from: blablahblah on May 29, 2013, 09:40:55 PM

Quote from: ktttn on May 29, 2013, 09:29:22 AM

A mother should dote a bit, don't you agree?

OK, it was a bad metaphor (and unfair on mums/moms everywhere). Point is: doting over what was basically a collection of human tragedies and labelling them a successful city is evidence of an overflow of emotions clouding rational judgement. (But of course, according to some people round here I'm a psychopath without empathy, so it's clearly a case of "pot calling the kettle black").

Quote

What caused this to happen, for this bastard mutant community to exist? The state set up the parameters.

If the state was ultimately in charge then how could it have been anarchy?

Quote

Running water, an amenity as it can fairly be called isnt as basic as it might seem. When a state takes control of a resource, people lose.

Fair point that it's not so 'basic' -- the infrastructure has been evolving for 1000s of years.
However, I'm not sure what's worse:
-a 'state' where at least you have voting rights, some transparency in the hierarchy (if it's not true then you've gotta fight for it!) in charge of water, so you know who to blame when you're dying of thirst.
-private industry, a monopoly, Mafia -- anyone but the state -- in charge of water (because the 'state' doesn't exist) and even less recourse if you're dying of thirst.
It seems obvious to me that for such a precious resource as water, someone is going to want to control it. In a power vacuum such as Anarchy, even if many different groups try to control water supply (too many cooks..??), some will be more successful at it than others. If a market-based system is adopted (e.g.: An-Cap because of pro-Capitalist ideology), people who can't pay will be deprived of water. And the problem with 'charity' is that it's basically "inefficient socialism" in disguise. Guilt-tripping is hard to market.

Sucessessful? Who labeled it that? The only point is that they figured out how to survive without state assistance. I might grant that achievement a measure of success, wouldnt you?
No recourse equals no recourse equals no recourse, whether one is surrounded by lunatics that tell you about how they own all the water or not.