NationStates Jolt Archive

now, hypothetical

if an anarchist state became industrialized enough to produce cars, how would they deal with road law?

Probably wrong... But isn't the theory that everyone would see that for everything to work well they would all choose to drive slowly/sober/on the right side of the road?

Can't have any law in an anarchist state. :headbang:

Probably wrong... But isn't the theory that everyone would see that for everything to work well they would all choose to drive slowly/sober/on the right side of the road?

aye, but i dont think that would do too well....

every one acts using common sense and courtesy

i dont buy it though

There are lots of issues, like lanes, speed limits, ect that really arent a courtesy or respect, but more of a safety thing

i believe it would have a lot of people who feel safe doing things that really arent

I think people would be motivated to drive well if they understood just how important it is. Some anarchists believe cars should be abolished and that other means of transport would replace them.

I think people would be motivated to drive well if they understood just how important it is. Some anarchists believe cars should be abolished and that other means of transport would replace them.

oh, absolutly, i think people would be compelled to drive well, but there is a huge discrepency in what you and i may consider "well".

which makes me think of another thing, how would licences be delt with?

but I agree with the last part. If I were an anaarchist I'd say it is much more plausable.

if an anarchist state became industrialized enough to produce cars, how would they deal with road law?

Why should traffic law be any more problematic in an anarchist society than in this one?

Anarchism is democratic. So you make a democratic decision.

Can't have any law in an anarchist state. :headbang:

What are you smoking?

Anarchist society is more lawful than today's states, because it applies precisely the same law to everyone. In a society without political class, wealth and power never help a person "bend" or break the law.

now, hypothetical

if an anarchist state became industrialized enough to produce cars, how would they deal with road law?

we already would be industrialized enough to produce cars.

and the short and glib answer is 'collectively'. an anarchist society would have collectively agreed to rules that would be enforced, at least on collectively held things like roads and collective firms and such. the main difference is in how those rules are decided on - and the fact that we would probably strive to have fewer rules rather than the ever increasing pile of them we have today.

I thought the whole point of anarchy was that there were no laws except social ones, because there's no-one in power to make or enforce laws. Only thing stopping destruction is the basic goodwill (or selfishness) of the people within the anarchy. "good" people will work together because that's what right, and "evil" people will work together because otherwise it'll end up coming out badly for them.

I thought the whole point of anarchy was that there were no laws except social ones, because there's no-one in power to make or enforce laws.

Well, then you missed the point. The point is not to do away with law, nor to do away with law enforcement. The point is to make a society in which no individual, or class of individuals, makes laws for everyone else or enforces laws on the population. The population obeys and enforces precisely those rules they decide upon for themselves.

we already would be industrialized enough to produce cars.

and the short and glib answer is 'collectively'. an anarchist society would have collectively agreed to rules that would be enforced, at least on collectively held things like roads and collective firms and such. the main difference is in how those rules are decided on - and the fact that we would probably strive to have fewer rules rather than the ever increasing pile of them we have today.

thats not bad, i like that answer

what about enforcement?

is there a police force in an anarchy?

Drivers licences?

Probably the closest example we have to a functional anarchy is the city-state of Athens.

Athens did fairly well on domestic issues, and I am confident that if they had possessed motor vehicles they would have used them appropriately.

The better argument against Anarchy is that it is too fragile to maintain. As you doubtless remember from you history class, the Athenian state had several individuals who (as good as some of them were) were more or less dictators. That and they would sometimes make very bad decisions because they got all frenzied and mob-like.

we already would be industrialized enough to produce cars.

and the short and glib answer is 'collectively'. an anarchist society would have collectively agreed to rules that would be enforced, at least on collectively held things like roads and collective firms and such. the main difference is in how those rules are decided on - and the fact that we would probably strive to have fewer rules rather than the ever increasing pile of them we have today.

Similarly, the right-anarchist answer would be that the road owners would make and enforce the rules.

Some toll roads already have the authority to make at least some of their own rules.

Several toll road authorities have greater power to raise speed limits than the state DOT, but none of them have used this power. Except where the legislature has ordered the speed limit to be 65, the Massachusetts Turnpike can post any speed limit or none at all. The Ohio Turnpike explicitly has the power to disregard state speed limits, ORC 5537.16. The Pennsylvania Turnpike arguably has the power to abolish speed limits, but may not post any speed limit above 65. Penn. C. S. Title 75 § 6110.

source (http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/laws.html)


Here's an interesting article on turnpikes. (http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/?article=Klein.Majewski.Turnpikes)