You must log in or register to comment.

Dumai wrote

if we reach "communism" and we're structuring human communities around car use then whatever was the point

21

jabber OP wrote (edited )

Are you saying ancoms won't even let us own cars at all? How will we drive to work? How will we get our groceries?

−3

Dumai wrote (edited )

"work"

anyway can you demonstrate to me how we can mass-produce cars without high rates of throughput, dependency on mass extraction incl. of rare earth minerals, carving up ecosystems/displacing human settlements for road construction, and a socially enforced division of labour

i once saw some tumblr stalinists try to do this and the results were unconvincing

14

Dumai wrote (edited )

which is to say, no i don't want to ban ur car

i want to see a world where it isn't necessary

10

jabber OP wrote

All those things are necessary to run a society, how can you have a problem with division of labour? If no one will agree to work, the society will collapse and everyone will starve.

−2

Majrelende wrote

What is a society?

7

jabber OP wrote

Wikipedia says:

A society is a group of individuals involved in persistent social interaction, or a large social group sharing the same geographical or social territory, typically subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations.

−1

Dumai wrote

ohhh you're an ancap. i get it now

i realise you probably don't believe in climate change and shit like industrial toxicity and habitat destruction is waaaay off your radar but as somebody who a) knows about this stuff and b) is kinda invested in the survival of human and non-human animals i'd like to believe a society without these things is possible

thankfully i'm right!

5

Dumai wrote

but yes, tell me more about how it is totally justified for the poor to be forced into labour and die from toxins so you can drive your shitty car. then idk call communists entitled or something

5

rational_ancap wrote

as an anarcho-capitalist (to the uneducated that means I am a bastion of facts, logic, and reason), it is totally justified for the poors (disgusting) to be forced voluntarily placed into labour and die from toxins pull themselves up by their bootstraps so that I can drive my shitty shiny new car.

P.S. communists are entitled or something

4

transtifa wrote

Its very telling that the "pro-democracy" ancap immediately assumes that every ideology is about allowing and disallowing things.

11

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.

8

jabber OP wrote

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

−2

Majrelende wrote

Gasoline?

3

Chylan 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

[deleted] wrote

6

bloodrose wrote

Can i subscribe to your newsletter? You sound like you're living my dream.

4

Chylan 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).

−2

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

Dumai wrote

remember that reddit egoist who claimed cars were cool and good/important for human autonomy because they allowed you to go faster and therefore augmented your power as a human being

tfw ur conception of time and space has been industrially deformed and you no longer demand freedom but a better product :(

5

ziq wrote

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

tfw egoists have become transhumanists.

4

Dumai wrote

out of interest i actually looked up what william gillis has to say about cars and what do you know, turns out he actually says the anti-civs are right on this one!

so in this case it's more like tfw egoists have become too technophilic for even the dorkiest transhumanist alive

4

ziq wrote

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

3

Dumai wrote

structuring human communities around industrially defined routes pleases my ego

4

ziq wrote

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

5

Cheeks wrote

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

4

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.

2