Anarchy works.

The point is that self-organisation has effectively and effortlessly replaced those rules that have been removed. Besides, assuming that it's not mandated where you should cross, do you imagine people are going to stop using pedestrian crossings? I'd contend that even without pedestrian crossings people naturally self-organise themselves into rough approximations of them. Have you not noticed how crowds tend to cross roads together?

 

It's a roundabout, Kylsea.

I actually wrote a paper on roundabouts, traffic circles and rotaries in college, and did lots of research (read: road trips) back in the day, lol.

I'm actually a fan of them, in general, but A) most people do not understand the basic principles for using them, which creates a frustrating and unsafe driving environment and B) it's not anarchy, it's an intersection.

I've been to Hanoi, Vietnam and neither the driving nor the country is even close to being anarchist (it is still a communist country, after all). But if this is what you're holding up as an example of why anarchy is good, you've lost me.

Have you ever driven or tried to cross a street in Hanoi? I saw numerous accidents and people getting hit my motorbikes.

 

I do disagree with some things.

With A, I feel that the situation isn't frustrating, it's dynamic. It forces the participants to pay attention to their surroundings.

For example, if you were to place a gigantic spike beneath the neck of every driver on the road while it may feel less safe I would argue that people would drive considerably more safely, and there would be fewer traffic accidents.

This is basically the inverse of what happened when seat belts became mandatory. People who wouldn't normally wear the belt felt more safe and then drove less safely, resulting in less safe roads. This is the nanny state I think people refer to.

B) I agree I wouldn't call this anarchy, but as Kylesa already noted this is more of the principle behind anarchy being tested.


The Hanoi issue is such - is this the best possible solution the people can afford for Hanoi? It may not be up our standard, but we have to look at it from the perspective of the people of Hanoi - how could the government step in and do anything to make it better without making it worse somewhere else?

 

Excellent analogy and example. Well put.

 

Yestarday I was reading about that and thought exactly the same thing!

Great post!

Anarchy definitley works

 

The Praxeology and Ethics of Traffic Lights - Justin T.P. Quinn - Mises Daily

 

^^^^ Now that is anarchy.

The other thing... that's a roundabout.

 

sigh.....what we really need are cities not based around cars and driving.

 

I support bike paths, they are magical.

City planners like Robert Moses are the ones who started the trend of planning around the use of automobiles.

 

great video , proves a valuable point

 

Bump.

 

don't you mean necro'd

 

Can't have order without chaos.

 

Your video went missing.

 

good read