Quote:
Originally Posted by OccultHawk
It's insane for him to drive where I'm walking or where I might decide to walk. Far too much space is allotted for automobiles. They should also be designed to not go past 5 mph to make it easier for people to avoid. I only have to walk 20 feet from my front door and people are going 40 mph encased in steel and they consider it MY responsibilty to stay out of their way. It's complete lunacy and people only accept it because that's the way it is.
|
Is it lunacy as well that you cannot walk in and out of your neighbour's house as you wish? The moment you put your foot outside your own property you have to adjust to whatever conditions there might be on the area you wish to tread. People may accept that because it's the way it is, but it is the way it is because it's the only reasonable way it can be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OccultHawk
There are villages in India, that I travelled to, where if your bus driver hits a pedestrian the villagers will attack and try to kill everyone on the bus. They've been walking in this space for generations and now people are plowing through in killing machines going 60 mph just because they have a stupid inflated sense of how important they are. Their right to quick convenient transportation is worth risking the lives of other people who might be walking where they think they should be driving.
|
And you think that makes a good example of jurisdiction? That's why we have legal systems (like traffic regulations) that handle situations where someone happens to cause an accident, something that have always occured through the history of mankind. There are a lot of things in life that
may pose a risk to yourself and others and with a strong jurisdictional system based on your very right to life (i.e. where damage to one another will result in high compensational costs) the incentives for avoiding those risks are high, probably much higher than in places like India (which may explain both the bus driver's carelessness in traffic and the people's way of handling it).
Quote:
Originally Posted by OccultHawk
I live in an American city but people are up to the same tricks. They're flying through the cities in private cars limiting the areas where I can play checkers, smoke weed, or do whatever else the hell I please without risking my life. That's why it's a trespass. Our systems of streets are like a billion Great Walls of China winding around the world making any activity besides driving useless on all that space. It's so insane it pains me to have to explain it. We only think it's sane at all because it's all we know.
|
It's definitley not all we know:
Historical Examples of Anarchy without Chaos
Furthermore, are you saying that we should not have streets, much less cars and other forms of transportations? That would mean we would go from a society where
some (most) people are able to get to places relatively easy to a society where noone would be able.
And have you ever considered that
you may be the one trespassing when occupying areas for playing checkers under the influence?
Just for the record: What is your exact take on anarchy? Is it the absence of the state as a strong-arm monopoly and thus the advocation of private jurisdiction?