merged anarchism and traffic rules [Archive]

Nuvem

20th September 2010, 01:01

Against Anarchism as I may be, I would say that this is one of the less important questions to be answered. I believe that in a theoretically stable Anarchist society (also see: Impossible) they could at least handle the issue of making traffic relatively safe. As long as there is a basic driver's learning course in place and a solid system of traffic signs as we see today, there would be little issue.

The problem comes when you start thinking about the road itself. Road upkeep is just one of the many problems I see with not having a strong central authority. Some of its pals are:

-A modern and stable health care industry

-A modern and functional education system

-A credible, effective and consistent crime deterrent force (and DON'T say workers' militias, Anarchists. That's all well and good for national unity and assisting in defense against foreign attack but having squads of militiamen patrolling the streets is asking for mob law)

-Related to the former, a credible and consistent justice system

-A substantial military to defend against Imperialist aggression (again, don't talk to me about workers' militias. We live in the age of the tank, the battleship, the predator drone, of aerial bombardment. Sending swarms of ill-equipped militia is how Iraq dealt with Imperialist attack; modern Imperialist strategy is to bomb the enemy into submission, then send in ground troops to pacify and occupy. The idea that armed workers alone will defend against Imperialist aggression is like telling the National Guard and Coast Guard to defeat the US Army, USMC, Navy and Air Force combined. A modern, organized, mechanized military is necessary for counter-Imperialist defense.)

In short, I would say that traffic laws are some of the least of Anarchists' concerns. Every function that is currently handled by the state would have to be accounted for in a realistic, functionally pragmatic manner.

JazzRemington

20th September 2010, 01:05

What, so people are going to on their own initiative organize traffic? Give me a break.

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to ask you to take this "argument" back, re-tool it, and then submit it again for consideration, as this really isn't anything other than some ignorant and random personal opinion on a topic you probably know little about.

JazzRemington

20th September 2010, 01:06

Nuvem

20th September 2010, 01:15

Why exactly do you think this is impossible in an anarchist society? All of the above just resolves down to the mistaken belief that there wouldn't be any organizations or any degree of centralization. Just because YOU don't know how something like this would happen, doesn't make it impossible.I think it's impossible because there will never be a successful lasting Anarchist society.

And no, it relies on the idea that there will be no state apparatus and that society will have to be completely reorganized. I'm not saying these things couldn't be done without a state, only that it would require massive restructuring of society and I've never heard viable answers for most of these.

gorillafuck

20th September 2010, 01:17

I think it's impossible because there will never be a successful lasting Anarchist society.
An anarchist society is basically a workers state unless you're talking about "voluntaryists" and "anarcho-capitalists".

Nuvem

20th September 2010, 01:20

I'm saying any form of Anarchism on any large scale. I simply do not believe that Anarchism will succeed in any meaningful proportion in any time or place.

JazzRemington

20th September 2010, 01:32

I think it's impossible because there will never be a successful lasting Anarchist society.

And no, it relies on the idea that there will be no state apparatus and that society will have to be completely reorganized. I'm not saying these things couldn't be done without a state, only that it would require massive restructuring of society and I've never heard viable answers for most of these.

That's not an argument, that's just your personal opinion based on your inability to comprehend the fact that anarchism doesn't mean no organization or any form of centralization. Whether or not you've heard "viable answers" for any question is irrelevant. What kind of vain nonsense are you trying to pull by arguing that it's impossible because you aren't satisfied with answers given? I'm not even sure what you mean by "state," since your argument hinges on such a definition.

Soseloshvili

21st September 2010, 00:05

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to ask you to take this "argument" back, re-tool it, and then submit it again for consideration, as this really isn't anything other than some ignorant and random personal opinion on a topic you probably know little about.

Okay, I ask you to explain how in a truly Anarchist society we would manage traffic. If my point is so ungrounded, you could easily explain it to someone like me could you not?

Consider this: traffic needs to be run by people who, you know, understand how traffic runs. The average schmuck does not know how to work the complicated matrix that is traffic. So tell me, how will it work? Are we going to collectively train ourselves to run traffic?

I do understand, for the most part, the theories behind Anarchism, I've read some Anarchist works. I don't disagree with a lot of it's principles, it works great it in a small environment but is incapable of remaining stable in a large area for reasons like this.

Os Cangaceiros

21st September 2010, 00:12

:rolleyes: to this entire thread.

Just another deviation of the age-old "how will anarchists make the railways run without authority" argument.

this is an invasion

21st September 2010, 00:14

I'm saying any form of Anarchism on any large scale. I simply do not believe that Anarchism will succeed in any meaningful proportion in any time or place.
So then you're not a communist?

this is an invasion

21st September 2010, 00:17

Okay, I ask you to explain how in a truly Anarchist society we would manage traffic. If my point is so ungrounded, you could easily explain it to someone like me could you not?

Consider this: traffic needs to be run by people who, you know, understand how traffic runs. The average schmuck does not know how to work the complicated matrix that is traffic. So tell me, how will it work? Are we going to collectively train ourselves to run traffic?

I do understand, for the most part, the theories behind Anarchism, I've read some Anarchist works. I don't disagree with a lot of it's principles, it works great it in a small environment but is incapable of remaining stable in a large area for reasons like this.
If you do not think that people will be able to take care of things necessary to survival in an anarchist society, then you think that people will not be able to take care of things necessary to survival in a communist society.

communism is a state-less, class-less society, just as anarchism is.

Soseloshvili

21st September 2010, 01:09

If you do not think that people will be able to take care of things necessary to survival in an anarchist society, then you think that people will not be able to take care of things necessary to survival in a communist society.

communism is a state-less, class-less society, just as anarchism is.

You avoided my question, but okay, I'll respond to your question in turn.

Communism doesn't necessarily imply that there is no higher authority though. We believe grassroots democracy and internationalism is essential as an end goal, however we believe that there should exist some higher authority (a state, of sorts I suppose), usually in the form of the Communist Party which would take on the non-political tasks of everyday life (phone lines, electricity, traffic, etc.)

That opinion differs from person to person though, many take the side that it should be collectively managed within a certain framework.

Now will you answer my question?

ContrarianLemming

21st September 2010, 01:09

See above^

if you don't think anarchism will work, then you are not a communist because a funtioning anarchy is indenticle to a funtioning communism.

you do not belong on this site, you are an opposing ideology Sose

OUT

seriously, you're not a communist if you don't believe in communism.

edit: in reply to the OP, the admin assumed it was a troll post since it really does seem pretty stupid, they would be run the same way as they are now, except that the manegers would be elected, if manegers are neccesarry to coordinate, and the roads would be owned communally. I doubt the metric system would change much

all this "How will we run the railways without authority!" nonsense is just an overflow from the idea that anarchists oppose organization or civics. The railways were among the first to be up and running under worker control in Spain 36.

Soseloshvili

21st September 2010, 01:20

ContrarianLemming

21st September 2010, 01:27

Common misconception. State-lessness doesn't necessarily imply that there will be no higher power. Look at the post above yours.

Are you condecending to me or ?

I'm attempting to demonstrate that if you oppose statelessness, which you clearly do - if you oppose anarchy/communism - you don't belong.

Soseloshvili

21st September 2010, 01:38

Are you condecending to me or ?

I'm attempting to demonstrate that if you oppose statelessness, which you clearly do - if you oppose anarchy/communism - you don't belong.

And I'm trying to demonstrate that statelessness doesn't necessarily imply a lack of higher authority.

Prove me wrong if you believe I'm wrong. Don't just say "you're wrong, and shouldn't be on this site".

apawllo

21st September 2010, 01:42

It seems pretty legitimate to me. Traffic control shouldn't be run democratically, it should be run by the people most knowledgeable about it. This contradicts ultra-orthodox anarchism about having no hierarchy and having everything be democratic.

So how do you go about choosing the most knowledgeable people? Do you base this on pre-existing credentials or some sort of state designed traffic exam? A combination of the two? Does this sort of job require a bachelor's degree or associates? Would construction of roads or installation of traffic lights qualify one as an expert in this field? Is there a board to make these decisions or are elections held?

Anytime I've been driving through town during a large power outage it's been quite simple. Everyone knows how to cooperate without being told by the lights, believe it or not. This might come off as radical, but take many of the signs away, and I think most of us would still survive the trip home...

Soseloshvili

21st September 2010, 01:47

So how do you go about choosing the most knowledgeable people? Do you base this on pre-existing credentials or some sort of state designed traffic exam? A combination of the two? Does this sort of job require a bachelor's degree or associates? Would construction of roads or installation of traffic lights qualify one as an expert in this field? Is there a board to make these decisions or are elections held?

Anytime I've been driving through town during a large power outage it's been quite simple. Everyone knows how to cooperate without being told by the lights, believe it or not. This might come off as radical, but take many of the signs away, and I think most of us would still survive the trip home...

In my experience people are actually idiots on the road when the power goes out, no one knows what to do. Which is dumb, people should know what to do it's not that difficult but it's the reality. I have like a total of 2 years driving experience and I know what to do.

I have an idea on how to choose the correct people: how about after someone is hired to manage traffic, he's given a course on how to do his job before he does it. You know, the way they do it right now.

apawllo

21st September 2010, 02:03

In my experience people are actually idiots on the road when the power goes out, no one knows what to do. Which is dumb, people should know what to do it's not that difficult but it's the reality. I have like a total of 2 years driving experience and I know what to do.

I have an idea on how to choose the correct people: how about after someone is hired to manage traffic, he's given a course on how to do his job before he does it. You know, the way they do it right now.

This is done in Canada? If so what is required to get the job in the first place? Surely some type of aptitude needs to be shown prior to being hired.

Most existing towns in the U.S., as far as I know, have hired/hire "urban planners" to plan their traffic schematics and so forth, which typically requires a field specified 4-year degree and "experience" depending on the town obviously.

And your driving experience is certainly different than mine. Any time I've driven in a power outage (the large majority of) drivers have understood that where operable traffic lights were, 4 way stops existed for the time being.

JazzRemington

21st September 2010, 02:16

Okay, I ask you to explain how in a truly Anarchist society we would manage traffic. If my point is so ungrounded, you could easily explain it to someone like me could you not?

Consider this: traffic needs to be run by people who, you know, understand how traffic runs. The average schmuck does not know how to work the complicated matrix that is traffic. So tell me, how will it work? Are we going to collectively train ourselves to run traffic?

I do understand, for the most part, the theories behind Anarchism, I've read some Anarchist works. I don't disagree with a lot of it's principles, it works great it in a small environment but is incapable of remaining stable in a large area for reasons like this.

Why do you think traffic would be organized any different than it is now? You have yet to explain this beyond your narrow personal opinions about people. Plus, whether or not I can explain anything has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it's possible. That's something close to an argument from ignorance, which, you know, is a logical fallacy.

JacobVardy

21st September 2010, 08:24

An anarchist society is basically a workers state unless you're talking about "voluntaryists" and "anarcho-capitalists".

This.

Most anarchists have no problem with a federation of workplace and communal councils. We just happen to think that what we are proposing is so different from the capitalist state that the term 'state' does not really apply.

AnthArmo

21st September 2010, 08:48

I'm honestly suprised that nobody posted this beforehand.

The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin (http://www.anonym.to/?http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/ANARCHIST_ARCHIVES/kropotkin/conquest/ch11.html).

Originally Posted by Kropotkin
We know that Europe has a system of railways, 175,000 miles long, and that on this network you can nowadays travel from north to south, from east to west, from Madrid to Petersburg, and from Calais to Constantinople, without stoppages, without even changing carriages (when you travel by express). More than that: a parcel thrown into a station will find its addressee anywhere, in Turkey or in Central Asia, without more formality needed for sending it than writing its destination on a bit of paper.

This result might have been obtained in two ways. A Napoleon, a Bismarck, or some potentate having conquered Europe, would from Paris, Berlin, or Rome, draw a railway map and regulate the hours of the trains. The Russian Tsar Nicholas I dreamt of taking such action. When he was shown rough drafts of railways between Moscow and Petersburg, he seized a ruler and drew on the map of Russia a straight line between these two capitals, saying, “Here is the plan.” And the road ad was built in a straight line, filling in deep ravines, building bridges of a giddy height, which had to be abandoned a few years later, at a cost of about £120,000 to £150,000 per English mile.

This is one way, but happily things were managed differently. Railways were constructed piece by piece, the pieces were joined together, and the hundred divers companies, to whom these pieces belonged, came to an understanding concerning the arrival and departure of their trains, and the running of carriages on their rails, from all countries, without unloading merchandise as it passes from one network to another.

All this was done by free agreement, by exchange of letters and proposals, by congresses at which relegates met to discuss certain special subjects, but not to make laws; after the congress, the delegates returned to their companies, not with a law, but with the draft of a contract to be accepted or rejected.

There were certainly obstinate men who would not he convinced. But a common interest compelled them to agree without invoking the help of armies against the refractory members.

This immense network of railways connected together, and the enormous traffic it has given rise to, no doubt constitutes the most striking trait of our century; and it is the result of free agreement. If a man had foreseen or predicted it fifty years ago, our grandfathers would have thought him idiotic or mad. They would have said: “Never will you be able to make the shareholders of a hundred companies listen to reason ! It is a Utopia, a fairy tale. A central Government, with an ‘iron’ director, can alone enforce it.”

And the most interesting thing in this organization is, that there is no European Central Government of Railways! Nothing! No minister of railways, no dictator, not even a continental parliament, not even a directing committee! Everything is done by contract.

AnthArmo

21st September 2010, 08:54

To elaborate on what good-all Kropotkin has said here. Imagine a network of Neighbourhood assemblies, apartment blocs, Road-worker syndicates and Public transport workers. If there is a need, (such as, one Neighbourhood finds the main road leading into the city to be unweildy) then they'll discuss, and come up with a list of demands and a couple of proposed plans. They elect a Delegate, who talks to the road-workers syndicate and various neighbourhood assemblies. They come to an agreement (or lack thereof) and the delegates return to their respective assemblies to talk things over. Once people agree on the plan. The respective worker syndicates take up the job, and low and behold, there traffic and roads have been updated!

Now, obviously, this isn't a "clean" process. There is a lot of discussing and arguing. But this has something that a statist or centrilised process does not have, direct human contact. People can actually state WHAT they want, rather than have some sort of city council flounder about trying to figure it out.

JacobVardy

21st September 2010, 09:04

-A modern and stable health care industry

Healthcare should be run as any other industry. With local communities deciding what HC service the community needs and supplying the resources. If this is beyond the means of a single commune it could federate with one or more other communes to supply the necessary resources.

-A modern and functional education system

Again, run it like any other industry, with resources supplied by the community. Much of current primary and secondary schooling involves institutionalisation of kids to turn them into obedient little workers and soldiers. This can be replaced by communal run classes and personal learning. For jobs which do require specific knowledge, that jobs' federation can provide specific training, testing and qualification.

-A credible, effective and consistent crime deterrent force (and DON'T say workers' militias, Anarchists. That's all well and good for national unity and assisting in defense against foreign attack but having squads of militiamen patrolling the streets is asking for mob law)

Agreed, militia squads are very much a recipe for vigilante violence. Again it should be run like any other industry, with the community deciding what resources it will dedicate to this service and organised democratically. While much crime will wither there will be need for trained forensic investigators of hit'n'run crashes, child molestation, et al... In current police forces much of this is already done by civilian organisations. So a CSI soviet backed up by militia or something like that.

-Related to the former, a credible and consistent justice system

There would of course need to be some kind of jury system to judge the evidence of wrong doing presented by the CSI soviet. With appeals to the successively higher federations. A rehabilitation service, perhaps attached to the health-care federation. For a long time there probably is going to need to be armed organisation to deal with the violent and punish those who the community thinks should be punished. This requires very different skills to those of a militia. The guards should be organised like any other industry, in democratic soviets, federating when necessary, and responsible to the local community that supplies the necessary resources.

-A substantial military to defend against Imperialist aggression (again, don't talk to me about workers' militias. We live in the age of the tank, the battleship, the predator drone, of aerial bombardment. Sending swarms of ill-equipped militia is how Iraq dealt with Imperialist attack; modern Imperialist strategy is to bomb the enemy into submission, then send in ground troops to pacify and occupy. The idea that armed workers alone will defend against Imperialist aggression is like telling the National Guard and Coast Guard to defeat the US Army, USMC, Navy and Air Force combined. A modern, organized, mechanized military is necessary for counter-Imperialist defense.)

I don't know and no anarchist i know of has come up with a convincing solution, besides relying on proletarian solidarity with the workers in the empire. This is where anarchist revolutions in Ukraine, China, Korea and Spain all fell down. Anarchists can not raise huge conscript armies. Perhaps an industrial army could by maintained in the short term but that much concentrated power would doom any communist society in the long run.

Soseloshvili

21st September 2010, 21:28

Why do you think traffic would be organized any different than it is now? You have yet to explain this beyond your narrow personal opinions about people. Plus, whether or not I can explain anything has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it's possible. That's something close to an argument from ignorance, which, you know, is a logical fallacy.

Why do you keep not answering my question? Do you know why I believe it isn't possible in an Anarchist society? Because that would imply that there's no one actually organizing traffic, you're under the impression that people will collectively manage the roads, traffic signals, signs, etc. The truth is that this would just not happen, if everyone has to manage everything together (housing, work, etc.) there's going to have better things to do.

But by all means, prove me wrong. Actually explain to me why this is wrong, don't just state that it is. Jeez.

Soseloshvili

21st September 2010, 21:39

This is done in Canada? If so what is required to get the job in the first place? Surely some type of aptitude needs to be shown prior to being hired.

Most existing towns in the U.S., as far as I know, have hired/hire "urban planners" to plan their traffic schematics and so forth, which typically requires a field specified 4-year degree and "experience" depending on the town obviously.

And your driving experience is certainly different than mine. Any time I've driven in a power outage (the large majority of) drivers have understood that where operable traffic lights were, 4 way stops existed for the time being.

You have more driving experience, I can trust you on that issue, but it's not as if you'd like to drive everyday like there was a power outage. You want some organization.

I didn't know that it required a degree. Well that makes it even less plausible. So people are going to go out of their way, earn a 4 year degree or some other training so that they can manage the roads? Like I said in the above post, people aren't going to have the time. They have better things to do than collectively manage roads. So what do you suggest, that individuals manage the roads? Wouldn't that by Anarcho-Capitalism?

JazzRemington

21st September 2010, 22:11

Why do you keep not answering my question?

Maybe if you explain why you think it would be different, I would respond to that instead of just claiming it would be different without any supporting arguments or evidence.

Do you know why I believe it isn't possible in an Anarchist society? Because that would imply that there's no one actually organizing traffic, you're under the impression that people will collectively manage the roads, traffic signals, signs, etc. The truth is that this would just not happen, if everyone has to manage everything together (housing, work, etc.) there's going to have better things to do.

This still isn't an argument. You're just stating your personal opinion as if it were fact. Further, you seem to be taking the whole "collectively managed" concept a little to literal. Either that, or whoever explained it to you did so poorly.

But by all means, prove me wrong. Actually explain to me why this is wrong, don't just state that it is. Jeez.

That's not how arguing work.

MagÃ³n

21st September 2010, 23:37

Why do you keep not answering my question? Do you know why I believe it isn't possible in an Anarchist society? Because that would imply that there's no one actually organizing traffic, you're under the impression that people will collectively manage the roads, traffic signals, signs, etc. The truth is that this would just not happen, if everyone has to manage everything together (housing, work, etc.) there's going to have better things to do.

Okay, you're obviously not well versed in Anarchist Theory post-Revolution. This is made obvious in your posts, so I'm going to, with the best of my abilities, tell you what people apparently to you, aren't telling you, or giving you the answer you want. So...

In an Anarchist Society, to actually have achieved this society, the people within it, would have the understanding that there are many things that need to be kept up and maintained, such as roads in cities. This problem would be answered by a collective group of people (whether by personal will of doing it, out of selflessness, or the realization that not everyone can be a farmer, miner, store worker, etc. and that there are people who need to watch the roads.) This is your answer. There is none of this, everyone looks over everything in the working world, that'd be a serious work overload for the people, and that's what we have nowadays in the US, a lack of organization and pacing. Everyone, as today, would have their set skills in various places of the working world that they'd help advance. Such as Farmers farming, miners mining, store workers giving, etc.

You have more driving experience, I can trust you on that issue, but it's not as if you'd like to drive everyday like there was a power outage. You want some organization.

Don't they teach you this simple, and important fact in Canadian driving school? Just wondering.

I didn't know that it required a degree. Well that makes it even less plausible. So people are going to go out of their way, earn a 4 year degree or some other training so that they can manage the roads? Like I said in the above post, people aren't going to have the time. They have better things to do than collectively manage roads. So what do you suggest, that individuals manage the roads? Wouldn't that by Anarcho-Capitalism?

Okay, first, there is not such thing as Anarcho-Capitalism. It's a fallacy, a joke, not a real thing since both Anarchism and Capitalism are too far apart to ever come together, nor would either come together if they had to in a million years. So get that right first, there's not such thing as Anarcho-Capitalism, it's just a joke of a name.

Second, as history has shown, and I explained up above, you'd have a collective of people to work on the roads. Everyone would be conscious and have the mindset, that what they actually do in/for the community they live in, is actually important. Not like today where that idea is an Illusion. In an Anarchist Society, you'd have various collectives, and a collective that would be focused on keeping the roads kept up and safe. Unlike your logic now, people in this theoretical society (since it's never come to be in real life,) would have this non-selfish attitude towards those around them. Everyone would realize that everyone is a vital part to making this community work; no matter how big or small the job may seem. Those who work on the streets, work in the collectivized stores, keep production flowing, and more will not see each other as higher or lower than one, but equal and as brothers and sisters.

So I suggest you read up on Anarchist Theory, since you've obviously no idea on the mindset people will have to have when the time actually comes for an Anarchist Society to work.

this is an invasion

22nd September 2010, 01:21

Common misconception. State-lessness doesn't necessarily imply that there will be no higher power. Look at the post above yours.
I think that even a decent understanding of what communism is supposed to be, even what Marx wrote about it, would reveal that communism implies a lack of hierarchy, division of labor, etc.

maskerade

22nd September 2010, 12:28

Soseloshvili

22nd September 2010, 22:07

Okay, you're obviously not well versed in Anarchist Theory post-Revolution. This is made obvious in your posts, so I'm going to, with the best of my abilities, tell you what people apparently to you, aren't telling you, or giving you the answer you want. So...

In an Anarchist Society, to actually have achieved this society, the people within it, would have the understanding that there are many things that need to be kept up and maintained, such as roads in cities. This problem would be answered by a collective group of people (whether by personal will of doing it, out of selflessness, or the realization that not everyone can be a farmer, miner, store worker, etc. and that there are people who need to watch the roads.) This is your answer. There is none of this, everyone looks over everything in the working world, that'd be a serious work overload for the people, and that's what we have nowadays in the US, a lack of organization and pacing. Everyone, as today, would have their set skills in various places of the working world that they'd help advance. Such as Farmers farming, miners mining, store workers giving, etc.

Second, as history has shown, and I explained up above, you'd have a collective of people to work on the roads. Everyone would be conscious and have the mindset, that what they actually do in/for the community they live in, is actually important. Not like today where that idea is an Illusion. In an Anarchist Society, you'd have various collectives, and a collective that would be focused on keeping the roads kept up and safe. Unlike your logic now, people in this theoretical society (since it's never come to be in real life,) would have this non-selfish attitude towards those around them. Everyone would realize that everyone is a vital part to making this community work; no matter how big or small the job may seem. Those who work on the streets, work in the collectivized stores, keep production flowing, and more will not see each other as higher or lower than one, but equal and as brothers and sisters.

So I suggest you read up on Anarchist Theory, since you've obviously no idea on the mindset people will have to have when the time actually comes for an Anarchist Society to work.

Well. I stand corrected, I suppose. I'll admit, my knowledge on Anarchism isn't perfect though I've had it explained to me a few times. Though I do have a question, how are things like education, health care and law enforcement organized in an Anarchist society? I mean road maintenance may be pretty simple to organize, but what about things that require some training to do, how is that going to work?

And thank you for not just telling me I'm wrong, I'm willing to admit I'm wrong if it's proven to me. It annoys me when people won't back up what their saying with an explanation.

MagÃ³n

22nd September 2010, 23:19

Well. I stand corrected, I suppose. I'll admit, my knowledge on Anarchism isn't perfect though I've had it explained to me a few times. Though I do have a question, how are things like education, health care and law enforcement organized in an Anarchist society? I mean road maintenance may be pretty simple to organize, but what about things that require some training to do, how is that going to work?

And thank you for not just telling me I'm wrong, I'm willing to admit I'm wrong if it's proven to me. It annoys me when people won't back up what their saying with an explanation.

You're welcome, there's always some need for civility in political learning. ;)

As for education, health care, and law enforcement, I'll start with the latter: Law Enforcement.

Most Anarchists (if not all) agree that in replacing Law Enforcement/Cops, which are more or less just a select group of people put in a position of power by the rich to keep them rich, and those who aren't down, the solution is that since there is no hierarchy, everyone would be properly armed and trained on how to use a firearm. This isn't to say, that everyone needs to own or have a gun on them at all times, or have one in their homes, but when you have a large population that's armed, well trained, and observant, the likely hood of someone acting in a criminal fashion drops considerably.

I mean, unless they're completely crazy, what kind of person would go to rob a store of things, and think they're going to get away with it when everyone inside the store and outside the store are armed with a gun or knife?

As for Education, unlike today where the mindset of teachers I've come to realize is Get'em In, Get'em Out, the teachers and the educational system would actually be an educating matter. In todays class rooms, from what I've heard from my younger family members, is that teachers don't really care about teaching in detail and really showing their students something. (Not that all teachers are like this, but having heard this from students in several different US States, I'm inclined to think it's nation wide, and not just some small little phenomenon.) In an Anarchist Educational System, if you're learning history or science, you're actually learning history or science. The teacher(s) aren't going to be this glazed over, give you a Spark-Note education on the matter, they're really going to show you how this and that happened. Like I said, they'll actually educate people, rather this glazed over shit we have in todays schools.

Healthcare in an Anarchist Society, I'd think would be centered around a reasonable, and free healthcare system. No insurance company crap like today, since none of that exists anyway in this theoretical society. If someone came in sick, and needed an operation to fix or cure the sickness, doctors would set up a proper time and do it, curing or treating the sickness the best they could depending on what it was. The whole money, and if this is will be covered by this, crap will cease to exist.

I'm sure that plenty of doctors would find this way much better, and reasonable. Since I think, I'm not sure if anyone else does, that the reason doctors at times are so iffy, is not because they can't or don't want to have anything to do with the person, but because of the money and whether this or that will be covered by them or the insurance company. Take that whole part out of the equation, and you've got a healthcare system that is based on actually curing and helping people, rather than trying to better your rate or something.

Soseloshvili

23rd September 2010, 00:39

You're welcome, there's always some need for civility in political learning. ;)

As for education, health care, and law enforcement, I'll start with the latter: Law Enforcement.

Most Anarchists (if not all) agree that in replacing Law Enforcement/Cops, which are more or less just a select group of people put in a position of power by the rich to keep them rich, and those who aren't down, the solution is that since there is no hierarchy, everyone would be properly armed and trained on how to use a firearm. This isn't to say, that everyone needs to own or have a gun on them at all times, or have one in their homes, but when you have a large population that's armed, well trained, and observant, the likely hood of someone acting in a criminal fashion drops considerably.

I mean, unless they're completely crazy, what kind of person would go to rob a store of things, and think they're going to get away with it when everyone inside the store and outside the store are armed with a gun or knife?

As for Education, unlike today where the mindset of teachers I've come to realize is Get'em In, Get'em Out, the teachers and the educational system would actually be an educating matter. In todays class rooms, from what I've heard from my younger family members, is that teachers don't really care about teaching in detail and really showing their students something. (Not that all teachers are like this, but having heard this from students in several different US States, I'm inclined to think it's nation wide, and not just some small little phenomenon.) In an Anarchist Educational System, if you're learning history or science, you're actually learning history or science. The teacher(s) aren't going to be this glazed over, give you a Spark-Note education on the matter, they're really going to show you how this and that happened. Like I said, they'll actually educate people, rather this glazed over shit we have in todays schools.

Healthcare in an Anarchist Society, I'd think would be centered around a reasonable, and free healthcare system. No insurance company crap like today, since none of that exists anyway in this theoretical society. If someone came in sick, and needed an operation to fix or cure the sickness, doctors would set up a proper time and do it, curing or treating the sickness the best they could depending on what it was. The whole money, and if this is will be covered by this, crap will cease to exist.

I'm sure that plenty of doctors would find this way much better, and reasonable. Since I think, I'm not sure if anyone else does, that the reason doctors at times are so iffy, is not because they can't or don't want to have anything to do with the person, but because of the money and whether this or that will be covered by them or the insurance company. Take that whole part out of the equation, and you've got a healthcare system that is based on actually curing and helping people, rather than trying to better your rate or something.

Ohhh.... the health care example I can compare to what we have in Canada. Here health care is managed by local health care Organizations, the one here is Quinte Health Care (QHC). These groups aren't companies, and they build the hospitals and clinics in conjunction with municipal governments.

I don't necessarily agree with giving everyone guns... here in Canada it's hard to get guns that could kill people and we're better off because of it. We need courts of some variety, I believe. That must be compatible with Anarchism in some way, don't you think? And some form of law enforcement would be good... I'm not sure how though... maybe the police unions?

Basically what you've taught me is that Anarchism is just like Communism, except a lot more Grassroots and a lot more Participatory. Am I right?

MagÃ³n

23rd September 2010, 01:12

Ohhh.... the health care example I can compare to what we have in Canada. Here health care is managed by local health care Organizations, the one here is Quinte Health Care (QHC). These groups aren't companies, and they build the hospitals and clinics in conjunction with municipal governments.

I don't necessarily agree with giving everyone guns... here in Canada it's hard to get guns that could kill people and we're better off because of it. We need courts of some variety, I believe. That must be compatible with Anarchism in some way, don't you think? And some form of law enforcement would be good... I'm not sure how though... maybe the police unions?

Basically what you've taught me is that Anarchism is just like Communism, except a lot more Grassroots and a lot more Participatory. Am I right?

Like I said, Cops of today are against Anarchist Theory as Cops of today, are there to keep the peace/protection of the Rich Class from the Poor/Middle Class, than they are to protect and keep the peace of the Poor/Middle Class. I'm not sure how Cops are up in Canada, but here in the US, that's how it is. That's why Anarchist Theory/Theorists say there should be an armed populous, because not only would they act as the "police" of the communes, but also the "army" as well, with the armed populous being called upon at times to protect the Anarchist Society against Capitalist and other Right-Wing aggressors. Having a Police Union wouldn't work, since people are in charge of their own protection, and that's why you'd have a well trained and smart armed populous. If for example, I tried giving just some random guy on the street a loaded gun, and told him to use it wisely, it's likely he's not going to do so, and probably either hurt himself or someone nearby with it, whether on purpose or on accident.

Gun Safety/Knowledge is key to having an armed populous, and training would be needed for those not familiar with handling or understanding guns. And like I said, not everyone would probably want to be armed in the communes, but they could still have the training necessary if need be, just so they are knowledgable on the matter, and don't hurt anyone.

As for Anarchism and Communism being similar, yes, they're both pretty much the same in a post-revolutionary society idea, with no monetary system, equality for all living, etc. The only difference, is that Anarchism is more Grassroots from the start, than Communism is. Since those who want a Communist Society, have all sorts of ideas on how to achieve Communism. Such ideologies, like Maoism, Trotskyism, Marxism, Luxemburgism, etc. Anarchism by the majority, is starting from Grassroots or more appropriately, the working class itself as a whole rising up and leading itself.

gorillafuck

23rd September 2010, 01:26

I think that even a decent understanding of what communism is supposed to be, even what Marx wrote about it, would reveal that communism implies a lack of hierarchy, division of labor, etc.
Marx didn't write about actual communism too much (though he did a bit). He more criticized capitalism.

MarxSchmarx

23rd September 2010, 05:47

The argument about traffic controls is really lame. It is first of all based on willful ignorance that promotes an asinine straw man. It is just a way to rehash criticisms about "public safety" that are over a century old.

It gets worse. Let's grant this absurd assumption for the sake of argument. Even if the accusation were true, this actually isn't as problematic as imagined - in fact, even CAPITALIST OLIGARCHIES are adopting this idea, not because they are sinister and indifferent to the lives of their peons (though they are indeed those things), but because it turns out getting rid of traffic signs does, in fact, seem to make streets safer:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,448747,00.html

Martin Blank

23rd September 2010, 06:08

Basically what you've taught me is that Anarchism is just like Communism, except a lot more Grassroots and a lot more Participatory. Am I right?

Actually, at this point (achievement of the classless, stateless, moneyless society), anarchism and communism essentially merge under the banner of the free association of producers and society of generalized freedom.

Martin Blank

23rd September 2010, 06:11

I should also say that, for Learning, this question is very legitimate. The fact is that this thread has helped to clarify some questions I had. If it can teach an old dog admin like me something new, then it's worthwhile.

Vampire Lobster

23rd September 2010, 07:41

each commune will elect people to maintain the roads, and they will coordinate with other communes through a federal system?

just use your imagination, there are many ways in which this could be done.

In other words, the anarchist theory in practice:

"Just close your eyes and imagine; we can fly to the mooooooon!"

Pretty Flaco

28th September 2010, 00:07

Amphictyonis

28th September 2010, 00:18

JazzRemington

28th September 2010, 00:22

This has been addressed before. Do a search in this section of the board.

DaComm

28th September 2010, 00:26

Amphictyonis

28th September 2010, 00:32

DaComm

28th September 2010, 00:46

Hey, I resent your use of the term anomie ;) (look at my about me section)

And I resent your resenting of my resenting of anomie :P

But yeah, Anarchy, not even by definition, which strawmen love to use, means lawlessness, they have an entire different word for that! Pragmatically, successful Anarchist societies like Catalonia did not suffer from an automobile catastrophie, nor did they lack any set of laws.

Weezer

28th September 2010, 01:07

A stateless society is simply what it is says it is-stateless, a state being a tool of class dominance. A post-revolutionary society simply takes away the state, not the organization of society.

Widerstand

28th September 2010, 01:09

And who will wash the dishes???

DaComm

28th September 2010, 01:24

And who will wash the dishes???

*sigh"

I suppose clean dishes and hygene are simply those non-important things we must give up for freedom ;)

DaComm

28th September 2010, 02:07

And who will wash the dishes???

But in all honesty, if NO ONE washed the dishes (which, is not a far-fetched straw man), despite the people who work at the restaurant/hotel realizing that without clean dishes that people will not frequent the place, and no one will be able to enjoy what they have worked so long and hard for (and also for the fact of the matter that people realize that shit needs to get done!); if NOBODY does it, then I personally will volunteer to clean the dishes of every hotel/food place in the vicinity, simply for the fact of the matter that certain jobs maintain certain interests, and I realize that things simply gotta gte done. I for one enjoy and take pleasure from keeping things neat and tidy and I know that I am not the only one.

Seriously, the people who say "Dishes will erode from lack of cleaning in anarchy" seem to believe that love of authority is the only thing that keeps people scrubbing a plate with a sponge at work. People accept a job with the expectation of doing work...and let's not forget remuneration. Point being, life at work will not be drastically destroyed in Anarchy. If you want to be cliché, you could even say that Catalonia did not suffer a dish epidemic, which automatically proves them wrong.

Klaatu

28th September 2010, 02:27

You're confusing terms. You speak of what would happen under anarchy, but are referring to anomie (lawlessness). Anarchists do not adovate "no government" and lawlessness, we advocate no hierarchy, and road and travel laws can be democratically made without heirarchical institutions.

Traffic laws are local in nature, and are usually set up by town governments, which are far closer to the citizens than state or federal gov. Furthermore, many town governments are committees, where all board members have equal say, and will listen to the town's majority opinion. :)

mykittyhasaboner

28th September 2010, 02:43

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN?
Traffic sucks enough with rules people have to obey and honestly I'd be a little fearful for my life driving on streets that have no traffic laws.

What do the anarchists say about traffic? This has always puzzled me when I contemplate anarchism.

Driving automobiles is not very logical as a primary mode of transportation to be used by the majority of society, especially in urban areas. Any stateless society in the future will probably eschew "traffic laws" in the sense that we know them today altogether, since new modes of transportation will likely render cars obsolete. "Public" transportation is much more efficient, can be maintained easier, has more potential for improvement and most importantly is safer than automobile madness that we see in capitalist society.

However, cars simply can't be gotten rid off immediately, it would take some time. Therefore, some kind of rules would be introduced for traffic regulation. I don't know how 'anarchists' would do this, I'm sure they would want to gather all drivers in the world together to directly vote on rules--but that's preposterous. Some kind of authority would have to deal with coming up with effective traffic laws and it would have to be some kind of standardized system.

Traffic laws are local in nature,

No, traffic laws are for the most part nationally oriented.

and are usually set up by town governments, which are far closer to the citizens than state or federal gov.
They may be "closer" to citizens but what does that have to do with setting up traffic laws on a large scale? Individual towns all setting up their own traffic laws would make traffic regulation incredibly more complicated than it already is.

Furthermore, many town governments are committees, where all board members have equal say, and will listen to the town's majority opinion. :)What if the majority opinion doesn't work out?

Would non-drivers have "equal say" in these committees? If so, why should they?

Do you honestly think this system of direct voting for traffic laws will actually work in practice?

DaComm

28th September 2010, 03:05

Driving automobiles is not very logical as a primary mode of transportation to be used by the majority of society, especially in urban areas. Any stateless society in the future will probably eschew "traffic laws" in the sense that we know them today altogether, since new modes of transportation will likely render cars obsolete. "Public" transportation is much more efficient, can be maintained easier, has more potential for improvement and most importantly is safer than automobile madness that we see in capitalist society.

However, cars simply can't be gotten rid off immediately, it would take some time. Therefore, some kind of rules would be introduced for traffic regulation. I don't know how 'anarchists' would do this, I'm sure they would want to gather all drivers in the world together to directly vote on rules--but that's preposterous. Some kind of authority would have to deal with coming up with effective traffic laws and it would have to be some kind of standardized system.

No, traffic laws are for the most part nationally oriented.

They may be "closer" to citizens but what does that have to do with setting up traffic laws on a large scale? Individual towns all setting up their own traffic laws would make traffic regulation incredibly more complicated than it already is.

What if the majority opinion doesn't work out?

Would non-drivers have "equal say" in these committees? If so, why should they?

Do you honestly think this system of direct voting for traffic laws will actually work in practice?

Traffic laws differ from state to state. Here in Maryland you can drive while using a cell phone (currently) but this is not the case in neighboring Delaware. Generally however, major ones do tend to be nation-wide, but these are common-sensial ones. Of course the good comrade does not mean every-single person taking a vote, that would be difficult for, say, Tokyo, with 20 mil. + drivers. Granted however, the Council Communism model of elected delegates carrying the voice of the people from the place of work to make a decision is very much so plausible.

syndicat

28th September 2010, 03:45

state and governance are not the same. a society will still have to develop and approve basic rules, such as that it is illegal to hire others as your servants and employees. social self-management would be carried out through such bodies as neighborhood assemblies, elected community councils, congresses of delegates throughout a city or region and so on. there are many things that would need to be decided collectively, especially as we want more in the way of social provision not less. as long as people are driving vehicles, there will need to be rules so that people know what to expect and what is expected of them. but a state exists when you have a separate bureaucratic, armed apparatus that rules over the people, and defends the interests of some dominating, exploiting class.

Klaatu

28th September 2010, 05:29

No, traffic laws are for the most part nationally oriented.

They may be "closer" to citizens but what does that have to do with setting up traffic laws on a large scale? Individual towns all setting up their own traffic laws would make traffic regulation incredibly more complicated than it already is.

Some may be, but I've been to many different US cities, and traffic laws do differ.

What if the majority opinion doesn't work out?

Would non-drivers have "equal say" in these committees? If so, why should they?

Do you honestly think this system of direct voting for traffic laws will actually work in practice?

Bona-fide democracy is the best way to do these things, comrade. :)

Non-drivers might have good points, such as "Why don't we have more biking trails along roadways?"

Â¿Que?

28th September 2010, 06:59

...Any stateless society in the future will probably eschew "traffic laws" in the sense that we know them today altogether, since new modes of transportation will likely render cars obsolete. ...
I agree with this. It is important not to lose sight of the ultimate goal. Laws will have changed so dramatically in a stateless society, it would not be accurate to call them laws, based on any modern legal definition. Instead, they would more than likely be laws in the scientific sense, as in laws of organization or laws of nature (although I don't like the connotations of this last example).

bcbm

28th September 2010, 07:32

Seriously, the people who say "Dishes will erode from lack of cleaning in anarchy" seem to believe that love of authority is the only thing that keeps people scrubbing a plate with a sponge at work.

i don't know if you've ever been a dishwasher but...

Point being, life at work will not be drastically destroyed in Anarchy.

if you don't think anarchy would destroy work as we know it (or work, full stop) i'm not sure i see much of a point in your type of "anarchy"

MarxSchmarx

28th September 2010, 08:31

This has been addressed before. Do a search in this section of the board.

Yup. Threads merged

meow

28th September 2010, 10:13

anarchists when driving dont disregard signs and traffic lights because they hate the state. if they disregard such signs and lights they do so because they think that there is not going to be a consquence. (such as as driving at midnight with no one for miles around.)

however if there are other people around anarchists obey traffic lights! shock horror yes? it shouldnt be if oyu know about anarchist theory. anarchists recognize that red lights are useful for safety reasons. they make sense! anarchists are happy to wait at a red light while those on a green go through the intersection.

and so it goes with other traffic "laws". where they are useful and make sense they will be "obeyed" (at present also because of fear of state).

DaComm

28th September 2010, 11:29

i don't know if you've ever been a dishwasher but...

if you don't think anarchy would destroy work as we know it (or work, full stop) i'm not sure i see much of a point in your type of "anarchy"

Yes actually I have been a dishwasher before...totally voluntary as well.

:D

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

28th September 2010, 11:47

Why can't people do their own damn dishes?

Ravachol

28th September 2010, 16:10

I'm honestly suprised that nobody posted this beforehand.

The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin (http://www.anonym.to/?http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/ANARCHIST_ARCHIVES/kropotkin/conquest/ch11.html).

Whilst not optimal, the decision processes involved in deciding upon open source software standards are a great example of (more or less) democratic coordination without central authority.

Also, anyone who thinks that Anarchists have to provide a specific blueprint for how traffic is managed is out of their fucking minds. The specific implementation of various models of collective management will be the result of the underlying structure of society: that of free association and collective decision making. Any ideology seeking to provide a ready-made 'blueprint' for some hypothetic post-revolutionary society is not only highly idealist, it is at risk of producing a blue-print rooted in the dominant discours of contemporary capitalist society. Post-capitalist structures will evolve as the result of affirmation of the needs of the working class in direct opposition to Capital and the state.

Old Man Diogenes

28th September 2010, 18:28

http://www.revleft.com/vb/traffic-and-anarchism-t141607/index.html

Why? It's a very good issue to raise. Gtfo tat

I assume in a stateless society there will have to be certain regulatory bodies, much like language academies today.

Discuss.

I don't think there's any problem with current traffic laws, they seem to keep people safe, and I don't think they're oppressing anyone, as Kropotkin realised, the object of some of the law is for people's benefit, and other aspects of it "are of advantage to a ruling minority". Traffic regulations are obviously important in any society with auto-mobiles, if anyone has an issue with them, they could be reviewed, copies could be posted/handed out and printed in local/national newspapers to be read by whoever wants to and if there are any issues with them people can recommend alterations and these could be democratically decided on. This of course is only a suggestion, as my comrade before me said, exact blueprints are impossible, but brainstorms don't hurt.

Pretty Flaco

28th September 2010, 23:20

Wait... did somebody reword my initial post? Because I'm pretty sure I worded my objection to traffic laws and regulation with anarchism differently.

What would Anarchists say about drinking and driving? How would they stop that?

EDIT
AHA
someone did reword my post. It originally said:

"WHAT WOULD HAPPEN?
Traffic sucks enough with rules people have to obey and honestly I'd be a little fearful for my life driving on streets that have no traffic laws.

How do Anarchists propose that traffic work without some level of regulation? I mean, it's hectic enough already... I can't imagine it working safely."

And I think that the rewording makes my question seem less legitimate.

DaComm

28th September 2010, 23:25

Wait... did somebody reword my initial post? Because I'm pretty sure I worded my objection to traffic laws and regulation with anarchism differently.

What would Anarchists say about drinking and driving? How would they stop that?

I don't think our posts did a lot to help. Anarchy does not imply freedom to the extent that you kill whoever you want, smoke whatever you want, or drink whatever you want while driving. It does imply the freedom of voice, that is, to engage freely in decision-making. Many leftists are against drinking and driving, and theoretically speaking the community would decide whether or not this or that should be legal when driving. Some Anarchist Communes may have marijuana legalized, some may not, the point of this is that you can decide where it is you'd like to live given the laws that the people there have ratified, instead of abiding to the laws clumped together under a unitary system.

Pretty Flaco

28th September 2010, 23:28

I don't think our posts did a lot to help. Anarchy does not imply freedom to the extent that you kill whoever you want, smoke whatever you want, or drink whatever you want while driving. It does imply the freedom of voice, that is, to engage freely in decision-making. Many leftists are against drinking and driving, and theoretically speaking the community would decide whether or not this or that should be legal when driving. Some Anarchist Communes may have marijuana legalized, some may not, the point of this is that you can decide where it is you'd like to live given the laws that the people there have ratified, instead of abiding to the laws clumped together under a unitary system.

I'm mostly talking about enforcement though. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

DaComm

28th September 2010, 23:33

I'm mostly talking about enforcement though. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Anarchist societies would have penalities for law-breakers, and there would exist specialist units (Forensics teams) to help find the culprit. Laws and groups to ensure the safety and well-being of the community-goers is not an Alien to an anarchist society.

meow

29th September 2010, 09:10

Anarchist societies would have penalities for law-breakers, and there would exist specialist units (Forensics teams) to help find the culprit. Laws and groups to ensure the safety and well-being of the community-goers is not an Alien to an anarchist society.
in my utopia there is no law. these forensic team would only be needed to find people who infringe on others freedoms.

what penaltities would you suggest for "law breakers" anyway? prison? a fine? forced labor (community work)?

Tomhet

29th September 2010, 19:03

DaComm

29th September 2010, 19:54

in my utopia there is no law. these forensic team would only be needed to find people who infringe on others freedoms.

what penaltities would you suggest for "law breakers" anyway? prison? a fine? forced labor (community work)?

What the fu-?

And what criteria are these forensics working off of to determine a crime? how do we determine what a crime is without a set of laws? You seem to be suggesting that crime-doers deserve no act to be done to help them, stop them, and prevent it again.

Pretty Flaco

29th September 2010, 20:54

revolution inaction

29th September 2010, 22:35

MagÃ³n

29th September 2010, 23:21

Wasn't there a place in like Denmark or some sort of European Nation up there, that tested a couple of intersections and such by taking out the street signs and everything, with the result actually being that the tested places were safer than those with signs? I recall hearing and reading something on that, but don't remember where. I think that's the sort of policy Anarchism should take on traffic laws.

meow

30th September 2010, 06:58

What the fu-?

And what criteria are these forensics working off of to determine a crime? how do we determine what a crime is without a set of laws? You seem to be suggesting that crime-doers deserve no act to be done to help them, stop them, and prevent it again.
nah. you see if there are no laws there is no crime. the only thing would be interfering with other peoples freedom.

It sounded to me as though he suggested that breaking traffic laws does not equate to infringing on people's freedoms.
I don't know about you, but I'm under the impression that the highest and most basic freedom is the freedom to live, or AKA not getting killed by some asshole who wants to drive like an idiot.
no i didnt say that. if some idiot drives like an idiot they will do it with or without laws to say otherwise. so why do we need laws to say dont drive like an idiot?

killing someone obviously does infringe on that persons freedom. yet when have laws ever stopped someone from killing someone else? i will wait while you have a think about that...

loss of driving privileges fuckwit
thanks for calling me "fuckwit" it is appreciated. oh it wasnt meant as a complament? eeh. well fuck you to.

oh smart guy. think on this. you take away a persons "driving privileges" and they go and drive anyway. now what? oh you have to imprison them or something because otherwise theyll jsut do it again?

your on the road back to statism you know with that attitude.

you people are not thinking grand enough. why not have a grand idea of a perfect future? we aim for the stars and even if we miss we will still be better off then if we had just aimed for the moon.
all you "anarchists" who want laws and government and police! you are not anarchists at all! you want to aim for the moon and go no further. you are afraid of utopia! we have to be realistic when it comes to planning revolution. but we also have to be optimistic when it comes to aiming for a better future.

EvilRedGuy

30th September 2010, 09:35

Peoples will be policing themself, and traffic laws should be there to protect peoples/have an order.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

30th September 2010, 12:56

oh smart guy. think on this. you take away a persons "driving privileges" and they go and drive anyway. now what? oh you have to imprison them or something because otherwise theyll jsut do it again?

Someone who insists on driving dangerously, despite being repeatedly told not to and perhaps even hurting and killing people along the way, obviously has some kind of mental issue that needs addressing. Sociopathy, perhaps.

In any case, they should be receiving treatment, not be roaming around being a danger to themselves and to others.

you people are not thinking grand enough. why not have a grand idea of a perfect future? we aim for the stars and even if we miss we will still be better off then if we had just aimed for the moon.
all you "anarchists" who want laws and government and police! you are not anarchists at all! you want to aim for the moon and go no further. you are afraid of utopia! we have to be realistic when it comes to planning revolution. but we also have to be optimistic when it comes to aiming for a better future.

Your "plan" seems to consist of nothing more than blind optimism and unicorn farts. No need to think about what actually motivates people and modulates their behaviour, just give everyone a few rounds of happy-clappy Kumbayah sessions around the campfire and they'll fall in with the rest of the starry-eyed, utterly anodyne crowd who thinks social changes happens because of good intentions rather than struggle.

Excuse me while I retch and attempt to bleach my brain of the happy-dappy ippy-dippyness.

DWI

30th September 2010, 13:27

It is simply a property rights issue. Even in the syndicalist scheme, there is still ownership of roads, albeit common ownership.

theblackmask

30th September 2010, 13:32

DWI

30th September 2010, 13:33

Why not just take away their car?
Come now, that's hardly anarchist. Even the present state doesn't do that.

Ravachol

30th September 2010, 13:34

It is simply a property rights issue. Even in the syndicalist scheme, there is still ownership of roads, albeit common ownership.

Thus, it is no longer a 'property rights' issue...
Since the given space is communal, there is no exteriority to the 'ownership' and thus no 'property' parties negotaiting.

In technical terms, it's more of an optimalisation problem. Infrastructure serves a set of goals (under Capital, it's goals are directed to the accumulation and reproduction of Capital, under (anarchist) Communism it would be communal benefit). Given this set of goals, it's a matter of communaly working towards an optimal result.

DWI

30th September 2010, 13:39

Thus, it is no longer a 'property rights' issue...
Since the given space is communal, there is no exteriority to the 'ownership' and thus no 'property' parties negotaiting.
Communal property doesn't work that way. Rather, there is a democratic council (or whatever) that controls the use of the land. The sort of non-ownership you're talking about is also a non-answer, as there is no way of resolving conflicts.

In technical terms, it's more of an optimalisation problem. Infrastructure serves a set of goals (under Capital, it's goals are directed to the accumulation and reproduction of Capital, under (anarchist) Communism it would be communal benefit). Given this set of goals, it's a matter of communaly working towards an optimal result.
As determined by whom? I find drink-driving fun. I believe that drink-driving is intrinsic to my way of life. (Not really, but just pretend). You want to decrease road deaths by x%. There is a conflict between our goals that is not reconcilable without one of us giving way. Political philosophy is about how it is decided who should do so.

Ravachol

30th September 2010, 14:09

Communal property doesn't work that way. Rather, there is a democratic council (or whatever) that controls the use of the land. The sort of non-ownership you're talking about is also a non-answer, as there is no way of resolving conflicts.

Ownership, in any meaningfull sense, refers to the exclusive access to a given resource by the individual or group defined as the 'owner'. If we consider a given item or space to be owned communaly, the group of 'owners' is all-inclusive and thus there is no exterior to the 'ownership' of this item or space.

What you're talking about is the matter of administrating the use of communal items which is a different matter from ownership alltogether and not related to property rights at all.

As determined by whom?

As determined by everybody who is part of the 'commune' that collectively owns a given space. As I said, the 'optimal' result is determined by the goals of the problem. When collective matters are concerned the optimal result is obviously the result that is collectively decided to be the best.

I find drink-driving fun. I believe that drink-driving is intrinsic to my way of life. (Not really, but just pretend). You want to decrease road deaths by x%. There is a conflict between our goals that is not reconcilable without one of us giving way. Political philosophy is about how it is decided who should do so.

Since I'm not an individualist I don't see the problem here....
Considering that your (pretend :p) drink-driving behavior conflicts with the optimal result for the entire group it's most likely that a collective decision will prohibit it considering it's not a personal matter but rather objectively endangers a third party.

DWI

30th September 2010, 14:18

Ownership, in any meaningfull sense, refers to the exclusive access to a given resource by the individual or group defined as the 'owner'. If we consider a given item or space to be owned communaly, the group of 'owners' is all-inclusive and thus there is no exterior to the 'ownership' of this item or space.

What you're talking about is the matter of administrating the use of communal items which is a different matter from ownership alltogether and not related to property rights at all.
No, it's the opposite. That's what property rights are all about. A corporation is owned by a group of people, for instance, but I can't buy 1 share in BP and then move over to one of their oil rigs and start disassembling things. Instead a council is appointed (the directors) to manage the property in trust.

With democratic workers' councils the arrangements would be different and the origins would be very different, but the council would still exercise ordinary powers of ownership, with rights to exclude people thought to be unbearably or dangerously disruptive.

As determined by everybody who is part of the 'commune' that collectively owns a given space. As I said, the 'optimal' result is determined by the goals of the problem. When collective matters are concerned the optimal result is obviously the result that is collectively decided to be the best.

Since I'm not an individualist I don't see the problem here....
Considering that your (pretend :p) drink-driving behavior conflicts with the optimal result for the entire group it's most likely that a collective decision will prohibit it considering it's not a personal matter but rather objectively endangers a third party.
Not sure what individualism has to do with anything here. You assume that drink-driving conflicts with some "optimum result", but there is no such thing. There is literally no way of saying that my loss of preference is "objectively" worth more than your gain. For sure, the present prejudice (I don't use that word as a pejorative here) is against drink-driving, but even that wasn't always so. So some subjective system is needed for resolving disputes, such as the workers' council in the syndicalist anarchist scheme.

Old Man Diogenes

30th September 2010, 17:44

I Idenfity as an Anarchist as well, however I DO have criticisms of anarchism, this is one of them! I don't see why some anarchists have a problem with SOME authoritarian policies! Revolution is not easy, it is that simple..
Makhno did some pretty authoritarian stuff eh, I wouldn't doubt the CNT did to!
Traffic laws HAVE to be inforced, a succesful society cannot function without traffic laws, and they have to be enforced by someone..

I don't think traffic regulations are necessarily authoritarian and as you said a society could not function without them In my opinion any traffic regulations are, or should be, a code of conduct for those using roads in order to keep all users safe. This is not contrary to the principles of Anarchism, providing the people have the ability to, through democratic decision-making, alter traffic regulations. As I have said in another post, it is unlikely that a post-revolutionary society will make it's own traffic regulations from scratch and I doubt many people will seriously object to using current traffic relations. I don't think that current traffic regulations were created by someone who sat down one day an wrote all regulations, for all roads, for all types of motor vehicle. They have formed through a cumulative process, over time and as different vehicles and types of road were created and used they have changed to accommodate them and will continue to change with the progress of technology.

Old Man Diogenes

30th September 2010, 17:48

What if the majority opinion doesn't work out?

Would non-drivers have "equal say" in these committees? If so, why should they?

Do you honestly think this system of direct voting for traffic laws will actually work in practice?

Equal say of non-drivers depends, decisions on some roads that don't involve pedestrians and cyclists, such as on motorways would only require drivers to vote. However, on roads where there are pedestrians and cyclists they to would have equal say because both drivers and non-drivers use them.

theblackmask

30th September 2010, 19:50

Come now, that's hardly anarchist. Even the present state doesn't do that.

Well, perhaps I should elaborate, as I don't think the present system of "one person, one car" is very economically or ecologically viable. I see nothing wrong with the community saying "Hey buddy, you fucked up, maybe you should chill on using 'our' cars for a little while," in response to behavior which endangers other people.

revolution inaction

30th September 2010, 21:30

no i didnt say that. if some idiot drives like an idiot they will do it with or without laws to say otherwise. so why do we need laws to say dont drive like an idiot?

killing someone obviously does infringe on that persons freedom. yet when have laws ever stopped someone from killing someone else? i will wait while you have a think about that...

thanks for calling me "fuckwit" it is appreciated. oh it wasnt meant as a complament? eeh. well fuck you to.

people who promote the idea that anarchism means no rules and everyone just does what they want regardless of the consequences are really fucking annoying.

also are you saying we should not prohibit murder?

oh smart guy. think on this. you take away a persons "driving privileges" and they go and drive anyway. now what? oh you have to imprison them or something because otherwise theyll jsut do it again?

your on the road back to statism you know with that attitude.

we could just refuse to give them access to any vehicles until they learn how to behave in a way that is not a danger to others, although if they still manage to get hold of one and carry on with what they where doing then i see no problem with locking them up.

how exactly is this "back on the road to statism"? letting a minority of fucked up inderviduals do any thing they like seems to be a much better way to get a state back.

you people are not thinking grand enough. why not have a grand idea of a perfect future? we aim for the stars and even if we miss we will still be better off then if we had just aimed for the moon.
all you "anarchists" who want laws and government and police! you are not anarchists at all! you want to aim for the moon and go no further. you are afraid of utopia! we have to be realistic when it comes to planning revolution. but we also have to be optimistic when it comes to aiming for a better future.

we can aim for the best possible future, but humans are not perfect, that is why we do not yet have anarchism, so anything that ignores this fact is fucking stupid. (this also applies to people who support police, "anarchist" or otherewise)

MagÃ³n

1st October 2010, 00:58

Peoples will be policing themself, and traffic laws should be there to protect peoples/have an order.

If people are policing themselves, I'm sure they don't need some overly said laws to police them as they drive. That kind of counter acts itself sort of. I mean, if people are able to police themselves in an Anarchist Society, then they'll also be able to police themselves when they drive. Just because you take away the traffic signs and lights, doesn't mean the roads will become all chaotic and people won't know what to do. In a matter when the lights are out at say an intersection, people driving don't just go shooting through, they all understand that it becomes a four way stop.

I think if people are just taught the basic rules of the road, and have a good understanding, the need for signs are just useless.

If I can find that article/story on that traffic test where there were no street signs or lights, I'll be sure to post it.

Old Man Diogenes

1st October 2010, 07:32

If people are policing themselves, I'm sure they don't need some overly said laws to police them as they drive. That kind of counter acts itself sort of. I mean, if people are able to police themselves in an Anarchist Society, then they'll also be able to police themselves when they drive. Just because you take away the traffic signs and lights, doesn't mean the roads will become all chaotic and people won't know what to do. In a matter when the lights are out at say an intersection, people driving don't just go shooting through, they all understand that it becomes a four way stop.

I think if people are just taught the basic rules of the road, and have a good understanding, the need for signs are just useless.

If I can find that article/story on that traffic test where there were no street signs or lights, I'll be sure to post it.

Reminds me of an article someone posted on here once about the town of Christianfield, in Denmark which stripped the traffic signs and signals from its major intersection and cut the number of serious or fatal accidents a year from three to zero. I can't find the exact article, unfortunately :(