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. 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. 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.

Dotoar

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.

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).

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?

__________________

OccultHawk

No government.

Dotoar

The core defenition of anarchy, so far so good. Is everything else arbitrary?

And there's a whole bunch of questions i my last entry I'd like you to consider.

__________________

Guybrush

Very generally speaking; if anarchy really had any competitive advantage, then anarchy would thrive today. Because it's not very competitive, in an anarchic environment, forms of "government" would emerge that are more competitive than anarchy, for example because they better facilitate cooperation between people or protect people from exploiters which would otherwise tax the whole of the population. So basically, anarchy is unstable and, hence, temporary.

__________________
Something Completely Different

Dotoar

Yes. That's one of the main points Nozick makes in "Anarchy, state and utopia". In the long run, the emergence of a single jurisdictional instance (i.e. a minimal state) is inevitable.

__________________

Paedantic Basterd

I think he's just bitter that he doesn't have a car.

Dirty

Maybe don't walk into the middle of a road? It's really pretty simple. It's not like cars are drag racing through your front lawn. The automobile is one of the greatest inventions ever. It's there to help people. To assist people from getting to point A from point B a million times faster than walking. I almost think you are a troll because I can't believe someone actually thinks a car is a form of oppression. People are happily driving around, totally unconcerned with causing any harm to you. Just don't walk on the road. Seriously how difficult is that?

OccultHawk

Considering I also actually own my wife's car, I have two.


Really? back in the day I was hardcore into Critical Mass. I had a little anarchy flag on my huffy beach cruiser.

Dotoar, I may not know the details. I'm a hypocrite for sure. My ideas are ridiculous and impossible. But I do know I want way less people and way fewer laws. I also want to live in a world without money, militaries, compulsory education...

I might be a fascist, communist, libertarian, pacifist, or whatever- as long as it's different from what we're doing now. My idealogies aren't ironed out because to me there's no point in that. It's stupid to confine yourself to a belief system because it's all crap. I can't change anything or convince anyone of anything or even live the way I want to myself. But still, I call myself an anarchist because when I take any issue and boil it down to what I really believe, at my core it's anarchism. My mind is a convoluted mess though.

I appreciate that you even took the time to read the crap I've written so far. I'm not a troll but I am a bit of a crank. But, isn't it too easy to just say, hey, I believe in this and then start backing it up? Well, maybe that's all I've been up to on here. I also really believe in pacifism. Maybe if I started there my ideas would make more sense.

Dotoar

Being sort of a political outcast myself considering my surroundings of social democracy (if that term makes any sense outside Sweden) I certainly can relate to being ridiculed and regarded as a radical with utopian ideas (to which I usually retort: Well, better being utopian than dystopian, isn't it?). I have generally nothing against you being an anarchist, as I think that our underlying premises are quite similar. What makes me continuing this discussion however, is the absurd conclusions you reach in specific cases although I don't really think that they're derived from any general anarchic ideal.

The core issue in this discussion, as I see it, is the role of the government and if that role may be fulfilled in another way, and everything else is secondary. It's about taking a step back from the prevalent notions of left/right (democrats and republicans in the US, I believe. In Sweden it's more like left/not as much left/a loud group of nationalists) and instead consider the governmental power itself. Approaching this issue from an anarchistic point, i.e. the natural state, is quite helpful in casting light upon just how much influence the emerging government needs to have, and even more importantly, is morally justified to have.

Having said that, I'd like to know your stand on the individual rights (the right to not being subject to threat, compulsion and violence)? Furthermore, do you acknowledge the concept of property?

__________________