Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Cheeks wrote

In my society cars would be completely unnecessary. It should be a rarity for you to have to travel more than a few miles.

9

jabber OP wrote

What about for global trade? How will your society get rubber, gasoline, cashew nuts, saffron, ginger, coconut butter?

0

Majrelende wrote

Gasoline?

2

Bezotcovschina wrote

I'm fine without gasoline, but cashew nuts?! I will justify any authority for my cashew nuts!

3

jabber OP wrote

Let's do an exercise. List all the things you consume. I think you'll find the majority of them are imported and require global trade.

1

rational_ancap wrote

as an anarcho-capitalist (to the uneducated that means I am a bastion of facts, logic and reason), the only thing I consume is tears of the poors.

6

Bezotcovschina wrote (edited )

I live exclusively on a moonshine, so, I don't know.

Edit: And cashew nuts. Can't take it from me.

4

jabber OP wrote

It's the most common fuel for cars, or marine diesel for your boat (it's cheaper).

−1

Majrelende wrote

Someone will need to mine and smelt the stones for the car and assemble it.

If you care enough to help maintain the railroads, fine. I am sure there are hundreds of thousands of others who do as well. Cars, rather personal devices, can often be substituted with public trains in long distance journeys.

I imagine that quite a few people would love to be free of cars, anyways— they are quite boring from the inside. On the other hand, walking is quite a bit calmer and more interesting— who does not like a quick and quiet stroll through the forest to get to where they want to be?

6

ziq wrote

In my society I'd allocate every car to be melted down and made into knives and machetes.

4

[deleted] wrote

3

ziq wrote

No but that sounds like something that needs to be archived for prosperity.

tfw egoists have become transhumanists.

2

[deleted] wrote

2

ziq wrote

My ego won't be pleased until everyone gets their own jumbo jet.

3

[deleted] wrote

2

ziq wrote

If only stirner could see how many smug entitled little memelords he was creating.

2

Cheeks wrote

To be used specifically for ancaps and liberals when they bring up the "who will maintain the roads" argument.

3

StrongerThanEvil wrote

Cars? Absolutely not. I'd say either walk, or use a bicycle.

3

londoncalling wrote (edited )

Eh, cars are pretty inefficient and wasteful. Where I live, the public transport is pretty good (well, as good as you can get under capitalism; I'm not happy drivers are paid shit all and travelers still have to pay so much to the transport company) and you can get close to places on a tram and walk the rest of the distance. I also read that trams were used in close-to-ancom Catalonia, so I believe that if people have to move long distances, we should focus on moving as many people in the general direction they want as efficiently as possible.

But then that's a good question about allocating luxury goods that I don't know the answer to. It's likely that a non-consumerist society won't have people want luxury goods to show off though.

2

sanjo wrote

You will have chocolate however?

1

londoncalling wrote

Maybe. IIRC the ingredients of chocolate are the kind that are more unethically farmed than usual though.

1

celebratedrecluse wrote

trains, streetcars, bikes, and horse-assisted vehicles should be able to cover all transportation needs.

1

ben_lobster wrote

It's such a controversial topic. Thanks for your opinions. I need to analyze them

1