At 6/27/09 02:59 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:
the effects that road rules and road design have on the human psyche
All it says is IT'S SAFER.
Not more viable, efficient, livable etc.
My argument isn't that it would make New York less safe to drive in. My argument is that it would make New York almost IMPOSSIBLE to drive in.
No parking rules? Entire streets would be blocked by assholes for days with no one there to tow the car. That's just ONE problem out of DOZENS AND DOZENS. NYC would become the world's largest traffic jam exactly one day after your brilliant idea.
They're accessible for free if you're interested (which I doubt).
I don't want to read their books, I want to hear their arguments.
Oh my goodness how did the soviet union privatize it's industries since nobody owned them before?
Ok so your anarchy starts with THE GOVERNMENT deciding who owns what? Well done, well done.
For instance, why don't supermarkets charge people one hundred dollars per every hour they spend in the supermarket. Or why They don't raise their prices to 1000 dollars for a loaf of bread?
No this doesn't compare. A toll booth SLOWS TRAFFIC DOWN. Again, welcome to jam city, the city of anarchy.
The owner of a highway would face a net loss of revenue if he/she tried to inconvenience customers.
As we can plainly see from the numerous annoying-ass toll booths spanning the size of the entire country of the USA.
If road owners screw consumers, they screw themselves in the long run.
You do realize that in ADDITION to building extra toll booths, each road owner would need to hire private security to put just about anywhere in case you decide not to pay their little toll? If everything works well, you'll have build about a billion new toll booth and hired thousands of road guards with guns. And shit, roads are a monopoly. Roads owners could just ban and raise road prices to crazy heights, what the FUCK are you going to do if you need to drive to work? Fly? You think they'll just let you walk there on their road? They could raise it to some crazy price that is barely affordable and that would work, they have a trapped workforce. Same goes for the subway. Right now, the government can step in when that sort of thing happens ( and it does ) but now, they couldn't.
All you ideas are always "well ok assuming everything else stays the same, here's how this little piece would work".
the same thing goes to people who are selling homes.
You can get screwed buying a house RIGHT NOW. With all the protection agencies looking out for you! Imagine if you just had to take it on faith that the house is built to "code" ( there would be no code ). If your house falls apart within 3 years, you're fucked. That's it. The price that people pay for insurance would be ridiculous.
And just buying insurance would be one fun adventure too! Those companies are already notoriously crooked even with courts to watch them, imagine if there were none?
So you'd either have to pay usury rates for insurance or just randomly trust that you didn't buy a shit house, a shit car or a shit anything.
If a landowner in a residential area had a reputation for randomly charging super-high tolls on homeowners who HAD to pass through the streets to get onto the highways, people would know about it and no one would do business with him
Ownership of roads could change at any time.
Hell, someone could just GIVE UP taking care of a road. What are you gonna do about it? Move every time?
But why don't you sit me down and explain to me how the government keeps roads in order
?? What do you want to know??
When answering how something will be done, the statist throws his hands up and says 'The government will do it'.
With a government, we KNOW IT WORKS, albeit shittily at times. If you claim to have an alternative, yeah, guess what? You have to explain it. Every last point.
Regardless, it helps to compare the Tuath to the 'civilized' social hierarchy of Feudal Europe.
snore GET TO THE POINT dear lord
Warfare between feudal lords was also a constant affair in Europe.
Yeah that's why A BIG UNIFYING GOVERNMENT IS GOOD. Instead of a ton of shitty lords and chiefs.
This is even more profound in Iceland where clan wars were simply 'Feuds' where only a handful of men would be involved
If by "handful" you mean "all able-bodied men".
You're saying that a ton of small fights are somehow better than a few big fights.
So compare the numbers and let's find out. I don't have em.
Irish kings didn't have the authority to wage war either
Sounds like a great form of GOVERNMENT.
Stop comparing past societies to modern societies and start comparing them to existing societies of the time.
No, because that leads to shit like : "ok well polytheism is awesome because the greeks and the egyptians were and they had awesome empires, but the dark ages were ushered in by monotheism, so clearly we need polytheism".
Convinced yet?
No one in Ireland had the power to manipulate currency or force a particular currency on other people, so the currency used by the Irish was whatever the overwhelming majority of people within the society viewed as legitimate.
Yes, try to live like that today, without money. Have fun.
At 6/27/09 03:12 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:
Irish Law was by modern standards, more civilized than European Law.
But CURRENT law is more civilized than Irish law! Hurray!
Now you typed that whole giant thing for no reason :,(
(In the modern day we have more sophisticated methods of finding out the value of a service
It's called printed money.
liar liar pants on fire
The kind of warfare you think of, where armies in the thousands rather than the hundreds meet face to face and clash,
No. I'm talking about clan warfare. That's just as shitty to live in.
You tried to pass it off like it was peaceful, but that's bullshit. Every kid was a trained warrior because they were constantly fighting each other for resource with no one to answer to but the winner of the fight.
And the sad thing is that it's not a system like the Kings. When the kings ruled, the bad laws and the wars was their own fault. They could have avoided it if they hadn't been a bunch of assholes. But the way the irish were organized would always end up with clans fighting each other, like it has with the native americans, the africans, the incas etc. etc. Every time humans split into a lot of small groups, they fight each other.
The bigger the groups, the less frequent the fights.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DLvp9OSa R4
And here's my example: EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD WHERE THE GOVERNMENT MANAGES FOOD PROPERLY.
All you can do is show examples of a state grossly abusing power and mismanaging ressource. Show me an example of an anarchist population of millions managing food and then I'll be convinced.
You describe a society where a handful of people appoint themselves the sole authority protect you by pain of death, where in some places they make it a crime to protect your life rather than wait for THEM to take pictures of you and throw you into a body bag, after the fact.
Good job, this doesn't answers any of my claims, it just betrays your clear anti-government stance.
The reason they have failed to take control of the country is because of a handful of insurgents that have resisted them.
What's going on in Iraq is not a war for ressource in a strict sense. If the US wanted, they could get in, raze the place and take control of all the things they want.
And that's what would happen eventually under world anarchy. One bunch of people would run out of resource due to mismanagement or a distaster and then band together to steal other people's shit until it spirals into a giant army of people who will raze the country like locust.