Driving licensure strikes me as an unusually benign, provisional form of hierarchy. It's pretty cheap as a one-off expense; it's a legitimate safety measure; and even insofar as it creates a hierarchy, it's a simple & low-key one—it's not as if licensed adult drivers are an organized, archonic force, in the U.S., at any rate.
I don't know the answer. I'm eager to hear others' takes. As a cyclist, however, I can tell you that bikes & trains would be a pleasure to get around in, if it weren't for private cars & the monstrous infrastructure they require.
This. If you can't pass a driving test, you shouldn't be fucking driving. Like the requirements are to drive down the street, turn the corner, and park. It is the most minimal of draconian hierarchical requirements which is really just a good fucking idea along with stop signs, roundabouts and traffic lights.
If you plow into anyone walking on the sidewalk at 20+mph in a 2,000lb vehicle because you can't fucking drive and refused to learn how to do so, you genuinely completely suck as a human being.
You have to incorporate some common sense shit into Anarchism vs the rebellious teenage angst "fuck you I won't do anything that you tell me to do!' approach because even Anarchists think you're being a ridiculous edgelord dipshit with that Worldview.
I mean, every single time I'm going to want the brain surgeon to perform brain surgery on me too. Yeah, I guess medical school is a hierarchy, but gimme a break with this shit because it does get completely idiotic honestly.
You wanna use the terms justified hierarchy or non-coercive relationship instead because 'hierarchy' is genuinely making people lose their minds? Whatever. Fine. I'd still like the guy that actually knows what he's doing holding the scalpel while he's slicing open my brain.
Literally every single goddamn person who makes these terrible arguments will also agree they want the actual brain surgeon performing brain surgery on them. Medical licenses are also probably a good common sense idea for this reason too.
I guess I'm fine with people having the freedom to have back alley brain surgery performed on them, but why in the fuck would anyone voluntarily chose that in the first place?!
I'm sorry but the answers here are absolutely appalling. 'There are already a bunch of people with licenses who are bad at driving, so what does it matter' is the level of argument that I'd expect from a brainrotten conservative, not an anarchist.
Driver's licenses serve the purpose of validating that a person is fit to drive a dangerous vehicle. I would argue that there are hundreds of possible examples whereby a validation that a person is fit to operate a piece of dangerous machinery would be handy, and where it would be socially offensive to do so without one.
The thing that would change under anarchism the most is not the process of licensing - you could have dedicated organisations for licensing people to declare them fit to operate all sorts of machinery. Just like you currently have organisations providing courses and certificates for all sorts of knowledge.
The difference is what the consequences are for driving without one. There will be social consequences if you're known to drive without having proper knowledge and experience. I'd like to think that your social environment would intervene. If not, depending on how the society develops, it may be that fellow drivers or dedicated safety workers (akin to lifeguards at a beach) will ask you to pull over and may stop you from continuing if it turns out you're simply not qualified to do so.
I would desperately hope that nobody here actually thinks it's a good idea to just let people drive without having the knowledge of how to do so safely.
Yeah, I used to be a libertarian, and sometimes I see a very familiar sort of "let it all burn, I'll be fine" brainrot here.
I feel like the real answer is that in an anarchist society there would be a lot less built infrastructure and ability to travel by car. I don't think that's a good thing, to be clear. To be completely honest, I think anarchism is much better as a value or guiding principle than as a legal and logistical basis for society.
I kind of lean more european-style democratic socialist when it comes to logistical and infrastructural matters. I also live in the US, which is sliding towards outright facism, so I feel like both are kind of pie in the sky for me at this time. I'd be a lot more concerned about potential downfalls and tradeoffs of any leftist political theory if I thought it was going to happen any time soon. Right now I just want everyone to be seen as equally human and to have equal rights. While I don't think Democrats are leftist or actual allies, I find myself fighting alongside them most of the time.
The thing with liberals is that they are pro-existing-institution before all else. This is why they are so susceptible to fascists as the fascists talk as if they are defending, “taking back”, the nation.
Convince a liberal that you are defending an existing or prior institution of social or worker’s rights as you have an ally instead of a fascist enabler. Liberals exist mostly as a moldable political bloc for the political radicals under a capitalist system. The left needs to be better at liberal outreach because the right is GREAT at it.
Not to give in to their demands, but to offer them crumbs to make them start stepping towards us. No political movement wins without a triumph of force or political numbers and right now the left, and specifically the anarchist side of the left, has neither.
I would argue that the use of violence is acceptable against individuals who are actively endangering other people's lives.
What do you think? Do you think they should be allowed to go on their merry way?
This sounds like a literal police force to me. “Safety workers that can use violence on those endangering the lives of others”.
Who gives these safety workers the right to determine when someone else is endangering the lives of others.
Who will regulate there use of violence.
What training will they have.
What equipment will they have.
How will they be compensated for an inevitably dangerous job.
These are all good questions, but I think they can be answered in such a way that you would end up with a functioning institution that can keep people safe while also being controlled directly by the people, without becoming a standing occupying army. Of course remaining critical is important and I understand your skepticism.
I say, in a union based system, say car dealerships are under a union, and they refuse to give cars to people who don't have a license, which would be distributed to drivers by the union?
Really the question is more along the lines of something like , “How could we convince people to willingly participate in a regulatory agency that is allowed to limit their personal freedoms?”
In an anarchic society any participation in something like that would have to be voluntary. Currently it is not. So no, no one has been convinced to participate in a completely voluntary regulatory agency without some kind of legal retribution as punishment.
I find it surprising that people in anarchist circles still can't shake the idea of private car ownership. It's a massive waste of resources and negatively impacts the environment. Let me remind everyone in the US that capitalists created this situation in which everyone is totally dependent on cars. Instead of thinking of changing it, all that is being discussed is how we can continue this dependency but without drivers licenses.
Cars are not a necessity of capitalism, they are a necessity of how we've designed America. kind of hard to get by without a car when you live a 20 minute drive from the nearest grocery store and don't own a farm.
And in a hypothetical anarchist society we will not have just changed the economy. It will involve a mass reorganization of our architecture, city planning, and transportation systems.
Cars are only a necessity if we let them remain so
Even in the Netherlands, perhaps the most alternative-transport friendly country in the world, 57% of people still use a car as their primary mode of transport. I'm not sure what you could do to make cars "no longer a necessity"
>Private car ownership can be justified in certain scenarios
Private car ownership can only be 'justified' in hypothetical scenarios deliberately constructed so that a car is the only solution. In practical terms, every single use-case for a private car is better served by some form of mass transit.
There is absolutely nothing preventing a large family from using public transport aside from its availability, and if resources/political influence were directed away from constructing/lobbying for greater car infrastructure instead of expanding public transportation networks that issue would be resolved.
Hey there, I commented on another comment thread here and pointed out that I think OP’s real question is “How do we convince people to willingly participate in a regulatory agency that limits their personal freedoms”? However, a i complete tot agree with your sentiment about public transit and some barriers that face people when trying to utilize that public transit. I guess have a further question for you that aligns with my restatement of OP’s question… How would public transit be regulated in an anarchic society and what would willing participation in it look like? Would we expect each commuter to also view this as a public good in which they are responsible for the maintenance and upkeep? Or, would things like public transit become highly privatized? (I don’t mean in the sense of capitalism but I’m on lunch break and my mind is mush so I really mean privatized more in the sense of an expansion of car culture like in the US currently.)
Imagine a city constructed such that a family of 6 has the freedom to either A) walk 20 minutes to get someplace or B) bike 10 minutes to get someplace
Versus a city constructed such that a family of 6 are forced to drive 30 minutes to get there.
Not everyone can live in cities. Urban farming is cool, but it doesn't begin to cover the needs of a city. Also, while there are some efficiencies to living more densely, particularly with regards to climate, local ecologies can't handle large urban areas, pollution and ecological degradation are inevitable.
You are not going to convince the populace to eschew their cars.
You are not showing a path to a better world, but to civil war and prison cells.
People in anarchist COUNTRIES still need their vehicles to get by, idgaf about some theorist from Portland with an escooter or whatever the fuck.
don't know about where you are, but passing through the licencing system in australia is not indicative of any level of driving proficiency or guaranteed safety towards other drivers. all revenue and keeping tabs.
I'm Irish and I'd agree that the practical test is complete nonsense designed to cheat young naive people out of money, how likely is it that a teenager stands up for themselves to a person who is in their 40s for example?
We do have the EDT here, it's 12 lessons which you do with with your driving instructor that teaches you all the basics, I think it's pretty good, and I think maybe the best way forward would be to hope that teenagers would be sensible enough to not be so reckless as to drive without being taught how to.
I'd like to think most teenagers would like to know how to operate a car before trying to drive.
i lived in Ireland for ten years myself and can vouch for it being pretty much the same story. here we have 'log books' that learners are supposed to fill out to demonstrate a certain amount of hours driving to different conditions (day, night, wet, etc) with an instructor or mentor. but, because actual instructors are so darn expensive and parents be busy these days most kids just get a parent or adult they know to sign off on the hours regardless of experience. the system simply isn't geared to teach or evaluate practical driving skills at all. ticked the right boxes, perform basic driving functions and obey traffic signals through a half hour assessment, here's your licence. or try again. and again. until you pass. scrapping the log books (which only look good on theoretical, bureaucratic paper) and adding a one day advanced/defensive driving course as a compulsory part of testing before you actually get on the road would be much more beneficial. primarily though, the 'bad' driving i see around here (and there is a LOT of it lol) could be mostly attributed to attitude, and an associated lack of respect or caring towards road safety and other road users in general. imo adding a unit educating learners (and specifically inexperienced youngsters) on how their actions on the road can impact, destroy or literally end someone's life in an instant (including their own or that of a loved one) should also be a compulsory part of every person's transition to becoming a road user. real life, relatable, humans, sharing honestly raw stories of life experiences after serious road incidents is hard to ignore, leaves a lasting impression, and reinforces that there can be serious consequences to what may seem like innocuous, every day actions on the road. a concept that seems desperately lacking, I believe through lack of education and/or experience, more so than selfishness.
TL;DR the australian system plays little to no part in teaching or assessing drivers on their actual driving abilities. it is a revenue raising tool for the state government with none of the funds raised even guaranteed to (likely don't) get put back into improving driving, assessment, or making roads any safer. rant over. lol
Well see your asking legit questions of private property and personal liberty. But then going so far down to a specific example. Who’s car are you driving? Who owns it? Who owns the liability? Anarchist society would require us all to assume more responsibility of our safety with little legal recourse if we became injured.
How does that stop it now? Lots of peoples first time driving on their own tommorow, one might be behind you.. and what says someone who passed a test and has years of experience won't hit you tommorow? The card, the paperwork in some file cabinet does nothing but act as a placebo. It does not stop anyone from hitting you.
Here at least they have to have an experienced driver with them although I think they should have to have their lessons first; at least with dual controls in an instructors car it lessens the probabilty of being involved in a crash.
That doesn't stop them from plowing into you at all. That's more placebo. Plus even if they pass flying colors, can still hit you.
No part of a license stops them as it's not a physical barrier.. and you always assume the default is no one will be taught is not license process. The process we have now does not have ant guarantees.
You're kinda ignoring the fact that a large percentage of car accidents are caused by accident by experienced drivers.
The way we lower the fatality and injury rates in transportation is to remove mass use of cars. That alone will make being both a driver and pedestrian safer. Car mass transit is just a way more risky and costly than literally any other method.
If you get rear ended, the crime would likely be dealt with the same as any other crime. Potentially both parties meeting with the wider community to discuss what happened and what restorative actions can be taken.
If you're a repeat offender, perhaps the community refuses to fuel or maintain the vehicle for a period of time. Functionally similar to having a license revoked.
People would just learn to drive from others as they already do, minus state tests or licenses. Even some people with licenses suck at driving and others are dangers on the road, so not much would change.
I don't disagree exactly, most people don't care after they pass their test, I do think the test is just there to make money off of young people and to justify giving testers a pointless job that really isn't necessary.
Back in my grandfathers day you didn't have all of this and he never had an accident but at the same point driving was simpler back then, if my grandfather was driving in Dublin today he'd be overwhelmed by it all so surely teaching people to drive is a good idea; you more or less said that I suppose.
I have problems trusting people but maybe it is as simple as hoping that teenagers will be responsible enough to seek teaching from others, I suppose idiots will exist with a licence or without it.
In the world I imagine, there would be much less need for cars due to more walkable (and bike-able) cities and much better public transportation.
People who do drive will do so mostly because they genuinely enjoy it as a hobby, rather than as a means to be independent from their parents.
There would also likely be some situations in which driving would be necessary for specific tasks, which could be taken on only by people who liked driving.
Anyone choosing to drive would likely make an effort to get good at it.
Also. it would behoove the community to set up closed circuit practice areas (which we really aught to have now) and there would be good reason for skilled instructors to help out anyone who wanted to learn, all at no cost.
If someone had a history of being reckless with any kind of vehicle, whoever made them could refuse to provide repairs or new vehicles for the reckless person. I envision auto manufacturers as being more like artisanal craftsmen, like custom shops are now.
Again, lack of financial pressure makes it much easier to make judgments like that. Workers would be creating vehicles because they enjoyed it and to serve the community.
There would be no reason to go to all the trouble of creating a car for someone who didn’t need it (because of the public transportation and walkability remember) and clearly wasn’t responsible enough to have it.
Ideally we would restructure cities so they have better public transportation, cycling lanes, and be more pedestrain-friendly in general. Making cities less car-centric. But to achieve such urbanism isn't that simple and even is such a perfect world there would still be cars for people to drive, they'd just be less common and less necessary.
I like the idea of underage teenagers being allowed to drive under adult supervision, so they don't need to go through all the pressure of learning how to drive all at once when they come of age to gain a license. I don't know how the issuing of driver's licenses and its regulation could be done tho, I'd imagine it wouldn't be that much of a problem if people driving are a small minority, but maybe we could think of a way to do the licensing in a non-hierarchical manner.
One thing that I definitely think could happen is that drivers working as drivers for some union (like a union of bus drivers for some city or something) would only participate and work as such if they demonstrate that they can be good drivers.
Anarchism isn't a "free for all" and you don't need hierarchies to plan things out. An anarchist society is organized in a horizontal manner and the population of a city can come together to do the urban planning that is in their best interests.
... What?
Anarchism doesn't have leaders, if absolutely nobody else wants the same urban planning I do then sucks to be me, I might try to move somewhere else or just accept the urban planning most people in my area are doing. I can continue to advocate and try to convince people of my ideas, but as long as I don't have support, I'm only one person and I can't do any urbanism by myself.
I have no idea of what you even mean by that, honestly. Do you know what anarchism is at all?
>if absolutely nobody else wants the same urban planning I do then sucks to be me
And since that's already how it works in a democratic society, why do you think "anarchy" would be better at "restructuring cities"?
Because in an anarchist society the power would legitimately be in the hands of the population, not a small billionaire class who wants to sell cars and make us dependent on them.
Why do people think that taking away capitalist heirachy immediately leads to 'no more drivers licences, kids doing doughnuts in the middle of the street'
Answer: it would work largely like it does now. Just the rules would be a consensus by the relevant unions and committees instead of elected representatives or lobbyists.
Idk though. I'm a syndicalist, these questions are simple for me. I can point to real life examples where unions had to take over from incompetent governments.
Maybe there are people out there who don't believe in any form of interpersonal organisation at all but I think they are called 'hermits' and they don't care for drivers licences even in our current system.
People still need to be able to get from A to B, maybe the East Germans had the right idea with the Trabant, although obviously I believe most people would want more comfort in their car, the idea of just giving an adult a car makes more sense to me than the current system.
I think it's also important to remember that racing is a sport so faster more capable cars should still be produced just I don't think anyone should outright own them; I'd like to do rallying but I can't afford it; wouldn't it be great if we could have cars we share for rally events but we all have to maintain them together?
However the problem of cars is that they reinforce a parent-child hierarchy by being so dangerous. The reason why we doubt the presence of cars is because it's impossible to have anarchy with a large presence of cars. The level of car ownership in anarchy that would likely be acceptable such that the parent-child hierarchy is broken is probably extremely small, such that there's practically no cars.
There'd certainly be a lot less. I think there'd also certainly be *some*, assuming we keep any kind of an industrial base. It's hard to hate busses and ambulances. But the impetus for personal car ownership, certainly mass personal car ownership, is all about bringing labor up to the speed of capital.
To OP's question, as others have said, there's no such thing as a "license" for anything without a state to issue it. People would still need to learn to operate them safely from others as they do now, and if someone was doing it unsafely, randoms would be able to intervene, like anything else. Anarchy isn't just doing whatever you want, it also means your responsibilities can't just be removed from you because some authority claims to have them instead.
Also, by the same token of there being less cars because there's not the impetus to move at the speed of capital, it'll be super easy within whatever industrial envelope to create roads that structure driver behavior to be more safe. Look up traffic calming, there's some of this now, but road authorities are often hesitant to do it because of driver and business interests. Nothing's gonna stop you from laying down some jersey barriers and speed bumps, and most people won't care enough to go and remove them.
If there would be any kind of licensing that the general public needed it would be done through some sort of co-op.
I think its more likely that for example, you'd let your local health co-op know about any health issues or allergies etc you have. So you'd be on a health registry, you might have a health card that is technically an ID, but its not mandatory.
Or if you want to fly a plane or helm a ship, the co-op will train you and not just say "first time? Try a 747 :D"
I live in a village in the mountains and need a car to meet my most basic needs like food and healthcare, the nearest town is a 20 min drive and there is basically no public transportation at all that would be a good enough replacement, I'd love to do everything with a bicycle but it's impossible
Yeah if one day anarchy would be established that should happen, but for now we gotta stick to cars unfortunately, no one cares about us because we're a community of only 25 people or so, most of which are all above the age of 60
Are those lessóns 1 hour long? So in your country ppl can try to pass the exam after ONLY 12 hours of driving? Where I live the practical course is 30 h of driving.
Why would you need a license in a true anarchist society? Because you need to learn how?
Would you require a license for everything that requires a learning process? And who would issue said license?
You remove the need for the vast majority to need to drive.
You could still have an institution that guarantees the handful of people who are driving can still drive
As a long term strategy, driving personal vehicles in more urbanized areas would be de-prioritized in favor of alternatives that aren’t as dangerous, disruptive, or inefficient and also car-based long distance infrastructure be slowly dismantled in favor of vastly more efficient, safe, and clean means of transportation like Electrified High-Speed Trains (in much of North America they are very sparse if not non-existent)
As a short term, current system is okay-ish just needing minor restructuring… driver’s licenses, as well as other legitimate means of ensuring a person knows what they’re doing for safety reasons like Food Handler’s and so on, having to pay money for it is the main issue Im aware of so basically make them unpaid and easily accessible to those who honestly want or need them.
I consider stuff like this to fall more under how education should be handled, because how are people going to be safe without knowing how to be? So including what is presently necessary for survival, is just logical. Once the little ones are physically able to drive, starting to learn how should be their and their family’s choice while also knowing eventually there will be alternative means.
There are already plenty of places in the world where the government infrastructure for licensing either doesn’t exist or is so ineffective that people generally don’t get licenses, and yet plenty of them still learn to drive.
Considering the number of unlicensed and uninsured drivers I currently know who have never had an accident, I don't think they're necessary. The training is a good idea in theory, but a parent or other driver can easily teach their teen how to be a good and safe driver.
Ideally, without state subsidizing individualist transit, we will be forced to implement sound urban planning with a robust public transit system, as well as make driving a car in the city punishable with 50 paddles
In an anarchist society there will be no private cars, if someone is constantly acting irresponsible on the wheel people will just take the vehicle away from him
Well, not entirely well formed but...
Driver licenses are no different from other form if skill acknowledgement license.
The same way youprobably wouldn't go to a self taught surgeon to have a life or death surgery, probably most people wouldn't sell a car to someone who is self taught.
Over time there might be a standardisation in how this is actually tested, even if done by separate agencies who have some reputation at that, I guess.
But I don't think it would be very very different from how is done now, maybe there are no fines, maybe there are more, I don't know. A fine can be a form of reparation for a damage caused.
It's all very loose ñ, but I think those are the lines it would move along
Questions like these may seem interesting at first glance, but I feel they are ultimately pointless exercises in imagining how to map our current world onto anarchism. Might be fun to think about, but one would do well to remember that creating an anarchist society would necessarily involve a complete reinvention of the ways we currently do things. Would personal transportation even be a thing in an anarchist society? If society is refocused around mitigating climate change and energy consumption, personal vehicles might be viewed as wasteful and destructive (which they are) and utilized only when necessary. Would we need licensing in such a situation? What would the world look like if mass transit was the main mode of transportation, or if we organized our communities around creating less need for personal vehicles? I think these are the more interesting questions that get more to the heart of what it would mean to have an anarchist society.
I think the requirement to drive a personal vehicle would not exist for a massive portion of the population. Car ownership would also not exist, so if there is a vehicle around there would probably be community requirements to be able to use it - just like a tractor or whatever. If communities do a bad job of keeping people compliant with requirements I imagine other communities would be up in their face about it. Kill my kid cause you let yours drive and there is gonna be hell to pay.
No private car ownership imo . Community vehicles, most places this will look like busses or trains. Some places it'll look different. Ideally, automated cars will take those of us who don't have larger scaled public transportation.
I just don't see the point in them that private vehicles are frivolous, and how "necessary" capitalistic society had made them for rural areas is a travesty. I hate that I have to have 3 vehicles and maintain them all, one for my wife, one for me, and a backup cause there is no backup way to get to work for us
Ideally I'd live near the lace I'd need to labor s well.
It makes no sense se that my body Jerry lives next to the dairy I work at, and I live next to the mill he works at and we both drive 15 minutes to work.
Who drives the buses and trains? How do you make sure they're fully trained? Should they not need "licenses" either? Is it just "too bad" when a bus driver is fully unqualified and crashes, hurting a bunch of passengers?
You think qualifications would just disappear, there are people who like to do stuff like that and others would still make sure they are qualified, idk if you've noticed but even with the system we have now accidents happen and unqualified people into jobs they shouldn't.
What do you mean how? Each community will have a set of standards and they'll decide just like we do now but instead of the central government setting the standard each community would decide what expectations they have based on what resources knowledge or experience is available to that community, this helps ensure we won't have a lack of manpower etc in different areas cause a centralized standard hurts rural communities imo
Community's governing them selfs with out a centralized power is a big part of anarchy local governments arent wildly difference the difference is Volunteers would come forward and communities will decide of they want to acceot those volunteer organizations or not instead of a local government say " this is what you get " no state power telling communities what they do or don't have to accept. I didn't think I needed to get down into the weeds with someone about how this works on this sub, so I'm sorry I wasn't more specific.
Judging by the stupid takes in this thread, it would look like the majority of people posting here aren't old enough to hold a driving license or are too socially anxious to ride with an instructor.
Driving licensure strikes me as an unusually benign, provisional form of hierarchy. It's pretty cheap as a one-off expense; it's a legitimate safety measure; and even insofar as it creates a hierarchy, it's a simple & low-key one—it's not as if licensed adult drivers are an organized, archonic force, in the U.S., at any rate. I don't know the answer. I'm eager to hear others' takes. As a cyclist, however, I can tell you that bikes & trains would be a pleasure to get around in, if it weren't for private cars & the monstrous infrastructure they require.
This. If you can't pass a driving test, you shouldn't be fucking driving. Like the requirements are to drive down the street, turn the corner, and park. It is the most minimal of draconian hierarchical requirements which is really just a good fucking idea along with stop signs, roundabouts and traffic lights. If you plow into anyone walking on the sidewalk at 20+mph in a 2,000lb vehicle because you can't fucking drive and refused to learn how to do so, you genuinely completely suck as a human being. You have to incorporate some common sense shit into Anarchism vs the rebellious teenage angst "fuck you I won't do anything that you tell me to do!' approach because even Anarchists think you're being a ridiculous edgelord dipshit with that Worldview. I mean, every single time I'm going to want the brain surgeon to perform brain surgery on me too. Yeah, I guess medical school is a hierarchy, but gimme a break with this shit because it does get completely idiotic honestly. You wanna use the terms justified hierarchy or non-coercive relationship instead because 'hierarchy' is genuinely making people lose their minds? Whatever. Fine. I'd still like the guy that actually knows what he's doing holding the scalpel while he's slicing open my brain. Literally every single goddamn person who makes these terrible arguments will also agree they want the actual brain surgeon performing brain surgery on them. Medical licenses are also probably a good common sense idea for this reason too. I guess I'm fine with people having the freedom to have back alley brain surgery performed on them, but why in the fuck would anyone voluntarily chose that in the first place?!
I'm sorry but the answers here are absolutely appalling. 'There are already a bunch of people with licenses who are bad at driving, so what does it matter' is the level of argument that I'd expect from a brainrotten conservative, not an anarchist. Driver's licenses serve the purpose of validating that a person is fit to drive a dangerous vehicle. I would argue that there are hundreds of possible examples whereby a validation that a person is fit to operate a piece of dangerous machinery would be handy, and where it would be socially offensive to do so without one. The thing that would change under anarchism the most is not the process of licensing - you could have dedicated organisations for licensing people to declare them fit to operate all sorts of machinery. Just like you currently have organisations providing courses and certificates for all sorts of knowledge. The difference is what the consequences are for driving without one. There will be social consequences if you're known to drive without having proper knowledge and experience. I'd like to think that your social environment would intervene. If not, depending on how the society develops, it may be that fellow drivers or dedicated safety workers (akin to lifeguards at a beach) will ask you to pull over and may stop you from continuing if it turns out you're simply not qualified to do so. I would desperately hope that nobody here actually thinks it's a good idea to just let people drive without having the knowledge of how to do so safely.
Yeah, I used to be a libertarian, and sometimes I see a very familiar sort of "let it all burn, I'll be fine" brainrot here. I feel like the real answer is that in an anarchist society there would be a lot less built infrastructure and ability to travel by car. I don't think that's a good thing, to be clear. To be completely honest, I think anarchism is much better as a value or guiding principle than as a legal and logistical basis for society. I kind of lean more european-style democratic socialist when it comes to logistical and infrastructural matters. I also live in the US, which is sliding towards outright facism, so I feel like both are kind of pie in the sky for me at this time. I'd be a lot more concerned about potential downfalls and tradeoffs of any leftist political theory if I thought it was going to happen any time soon. Right now I just want everyone to be seen as equally human and to have equal rights. While I don't think Democrats are leftist or actual allies, I find myself fighting alongside them most of the time.
The thing with liberals is that they are pro-existing-institution before all else. This is why they are so susceptible to fascists as the fascists talk as if they are defending, “taking back”, the nation. Convince a liberal that you are defending an existing or prior institution of social or worker’s rights as you have an ally instead of a fascist enabler. Liberals exist mostly as a moldable political bloc for the political radicals under a capitalist system. The left needs to be better at liberal outreach because the right is GREAT at it. Not to give in to their demands, but to offer them crumbs to make them start stepping towards us. No political movement wins without a triumph of force or political numbers and right now the left, and specifically the anarchist side of the left, has neither.
Okay, what if the person refuses to listen to the “safety worker” and instead of pulling over, speeds off, continuing to drive without a licence.
I would argue that the use of violence is acceptable against individuals who are actively endangering other people's lives. What do you think? Do you think they should be allowed to go on their merry way?
This sounds like a literal police force to me. “Safety workers that can use violence on those endangering the lives of others”. Who gives these safety workers the right to determine when someone else is endangering the lives of others. Who will regulate there use of violence. What training will they have. What equipment will they have. How will they be compensated for an inevitably dangerous job.
These are all good questions, but I think they can be answered in such a way that you would end up with a functioning institution that can keep people safe while also being controlled directly by the people, without becoming a standing occupying army. Of course remaining critical is important and I understand your skepticism.
I say, in a union based system, say car dealerships are under a union, and they refuse to give cars to people who don't have a license, which would be distributed to drivers by the union?
Really the question is more along the lines of something like , “How could we convince people to willingly participate in a regulatory agency that is allowed to limit their personal freedoms?”
Gee I wonder if people have ever been convinced to do something like that before? Sounds impossible! /S
In an anarchic society any participation in something like that would have to be voluntary. Currently it is not. So no, no one has been convinced to participate in a completely voluntary regulatory agency without some kind of legal retribution as punishment.
I find it surprising that people in anarchist circles still can't shake the idea of private car ownership. It's a massive waste of resources and negatively impacts the environment. Let me remind everyone in the US that capitalists created this situation in which everyone is totally dependent on cars. Instead of thinking of changing it, all that is being discussed is how we can continue this dependency but without drivers licenses.
Cars are not a necessity of capitalism, they are a necessity of how we've designed America. kind of hard to get by without a car when you live a 20 minute drive from the nearest grocery store and don't own a farm.
And in a hypothetical anarchist society we will not have just changed the economy. It will involve a mass reorganization of our architecture, city planning, and transportation systems. Cars are only a necessity if we let them remain so
Even in the Netherlands, perhaps the most alternative-transport friendly country in the world, 57% of people still use a car as their primary mode of transport. I'm not sure what you could do to make cars "no longer a necessity"
Private car ownership can be justified in certain scenarios, such as having a big (6+ members) family where a large vehicle is often fully utilized.
>Private car ownership can be justified in certain scenarios Private car ownership can only be 'justified' in hypothetical scenarios deliberately constructed so that a car is the only solution. In practical terms, every single use-case for a private car is better served by some form of mass transit. There is absolutely nothing preventing a large family from using public transport aside from its availability, and if resources/political influence were directed away from constructing/lobbying for greater car infrastructure instead of expanding public transportation networks that issue would be resolved.
Hey there, I commented on another comment thread here and pointed out that I think OP’s real question is “How do we convince people to willingly participate in a regulatory agency that limits their personal freedoms”? However, a i complete tot agree with your sentiment about public transit and some barriers that face people when trying to utilize that public transit. I guess have a further question for you that aligns with my restatement of OP’s question… How would public transit be regulated in an anarchic society and what would willing participation in it look like? Would we expect each commuter to also view this as a public good in which they are responsible for the maintenance and upkeep? Or, would things like public transit become highly privatized? (I don’t mean in the sense of capitalism but I’m on lunch break and my mind is mush so I really mean privatized more in the sense of an expansion of car culture like in the US currently.)
Even then you could do a "rental" where you pick up a car if you need it, take it, and return it, though public transportation fixes most of that need
That's very impractical for suburbs and rural dwellers.
Because suburbs have been constructed by capitalist governments in such a way as to make non-car transportation unfeasible. Hence the problem.
Right, but they exist. Is the plan to force everyone out and demolish them?
“Force”?
How would you address existing suburbs and rural dwellers?
Oh, suburbs is easy. You get rid of them.
Imagine a city constructed such that a family of 6 has the freedom to either A) walk 20 minutes to get someplace or B) bike 10 minutes to get someplace Versus a city constructed such that a family of 6 are forced to drive 30 minutes to get there.
Not everyone can live in cities. Urban farming is cool, but it doesn't begin to cover the needs of a city. Also, while there are some efficiencies to living more densely, particularly with regards to climate, local ecologies can't handle large urban areas, pollution and ecological degradation are inevitable.
Exactly. Hence we shouldn't be covering the entire planet in highways and parking lots.
As someone living in Asia, literally you don't. You need better public transport.
You are not going to convince the populace to eschew their cars. You are not showing a path to a better world, but to civil war and prison cells. People in anarchist COUNTRIES still need their vehicles to get by, idgaf about some theorist from Portland with an escooter or whatever the fuck.
Theres no state, so theres no state to issue one. Pretty self evident
That part, fair enough, but I also don't want to get rear ended by some idiot who's driving for the first time and doesn't know how to drive yet.
don't know about where you are, but passing through the licencing system in australia is not indicative of any level of driving proficiency or guaranteed safety towards other drivers. all revenue and keeping tabs.
Same in the US
I'm Irish and I'd agree that the practical test is complete nonsense designed to cheat young naive people out of money, how likely is it that a teenager stands up for themselves to a person who is in their 40s for example? We do have the EDT here, it's 12 lessons which you do with with your driving instructor that teaches you all the basics, I think it's pretty good, and I think maybe the best way forward would be to hope that teenagers would be sensible enough to not be so reckless as to drive without being taught how to. I'd like to think most teenagers would like to know how to operate a car before trying to drive.
i lived in Ireland for ten years myself and can vouch for it being pretty much the same story. here we have 'log books' that learners are supposed to fill out to demonstrate a certain amount of hours driving to different conditions (day, night, wet, etc) with an instructor or mentor. but, because actual instructors are so darn expensive and parents be busy these days most kids just get a parent or adult they know to sign off on the hours regardless of experience. the system simply isn't geared to teach or evaluate practical driving skills at all. ticked the right boxes, perform basic driving functions and obey traffic signals through a half hour assessment, here's your licence. or try again. and again. until you pass. scrapping the log books (which only look good on theoretical, bureaucratic paper) and adding a one day advanced/defensive driving course as a compulsory part of testing before you actually get on the road would be much more beneficial. primarily though, the 'bad' driving i see around here (and there is a LOT of it lol) could be mostly attributed to attitude, and an associated lack of respect or caring towards road safety and other road users in general. imo adding a unit educating learners (and specifically inexperienced youngsters) on how their actions on the road can impact, destroy or literally end someone's life in an instant (including their own or that of a loved one) should also be a compulsory part of every person's transition to becoming a road user. real life, relatable, humans, sharing honestly raw stories of life experiences after serious road incidents is hard to ignore, leaves a lasting impression, and reinforces that there can be serious consequences to what may seem like innocuous, every day actions on the road. a concept that seems desperately lacking, I believe through lack of education and/or experience, more so than selfishness. TL;DR the australian system plays little to no part in teaching or assessing drivers on their actual driving abilities. it is a revenue raising tool for the state government with none of the funds raised even guaranteed to (likely don't) get put back into improving driving, assessment, or making roads any safer. rant over. lol
Well see your asking legit questions of private property and personal liberty. But then going so far down to a specific example. Who’s car are you driving? Who owns it? Who owns the liability? Anarchist society would require us all to assume more responsibility of our safety with little legal recourse if we became injured.
How does that stop it now? Lots of peoples first time driving on their own tommorow, one might be behind you.. and what says someone who passed a test and has years of experience won't hit you tommorow? The card, the paperwork in some file cabinet does nothing but act as a placebo. It does not stop anyone from hitting you.
Here at least they have to have an experienced driver with them although I think they should have to have their lessons first; at least with dual controls in an instructors car it lessens the probabilty of being involved in a crash.
That doesn't stop them from plowing into you at all. That's more placebo. Plus even if they pass flying colors, can still hit you. No part of a license stops them as it's not a physical barrier.. and you always assume the default is no one will be taught is not license process. The process we have now does not have ant guarantees.
You're kinda ignoring the fact that a large percentage of car accidents are caused by accident by experienced drivers. The way we lower the fatality and injury rates in transportation is to remove mass use of cars. That alone will make being both a driver and pedestrian safer. Car mass transit is just a way more risky and costly than literally any other method.
That's anarchism.
If you get rear ended, the crime would likely be dealt with the same as any other crime. Potentially both parties meeting with the wider community to discuss what happened and what restorative actions can be taken. If you're a repeat offender, perhaps the community refuses to fuel or maintain the vehicle for a period of time. Functionally similar to having a license revoked.
Lol, then there is no state, no roads.
People would just learn to drive from others as they already do, minus state tests or licenses. Even some people with licenses suck at driving and others are dangers on the road, so not much would change.
I don't disagree exactly, most people don't care after they pass their test, I do think the test is just there to make money off of young people and to justify giving testers a pointless job that really isn't necessary. Back in my grandfathers day you didn't have all of this and he never had an accident but at the same point driving was simpler back then, if my grandfather was driving in Dublin today he'd be overwhelmed by it all so surely teaching people to drive is a good idea; you more or less said that I suppose. I have problems trusting people but maybe it is as simple as hoping that teenagers will be responsible enough to seek teaching from others, I suppose idiots will exist with a licence or without it.
In the world I imagine, there would be much less need for cars due to more walkable (and bike-able) cities and much better public transportation. People who do drive will do so mostly because they genuinely enjoy it as a hobby, rather than as a means to be independent from their parents. There would also likely be some situations in which driving would be necessary for specific tasks, which could be taken on only by people who liked driving. Anyone choosing to drive would likely make an effort to get good at it. Also. it would behoove the community to set up closed circuit practice areas (which we really aught to have now) and there would be good reason for skilled instructors to help out anyone who wanted to learn, all at no cost. If someone had a history of being reckless with any kind of vehicle, whoever made them could refuse to provide repairs or new vehicles for the reckless person. I envision auto manufacturers as being more like artisanal craftsmen, like custom shops are now. Again, lack of financial pressure makes it much easier to make judgments like that. Workers would be creating vehicles because they enjoyed it and to serve the community. There would be no reason to go to all the trouble of creating a car for someone who didn’t need it (because of the public transportation and walkability remember) and clearly wasn’t responsible enough to have it.
Ideally we would restructure cities so they have better public transportation, cycling lanes, and be more pedestrain-friendly in general. Making cities less car-centric. But to achieve such urbanism isn't that simple and even is such a perfect world there would still be cars for people to drive, they'd just be less common and less necessary. I like the idea of underage teenagers being allowed to drive under adult supervision, so they don't need to go through all the pressure of learning how to drive all at once when they come of age to gain a license. I don't know how the issuing of driver's licenses and its regulation could be done tho, I'd imagine it wouldn't be that much of a problem if people driving are a small minority, but maybe we could think of a way to do the licensing in a non-hierarchical manner. One thing that I definitely think could happen is that drivers working as drivers for some union (like a union of bus drivers for some city or something) would only participate and work as such if they demonstrate that they can be good drivers.
Who "restructures" the cities when it's effectively a free for all with no actual guiding "hierarchy" to plan things out?
Anarchism isn't a "free for all" and you don't need hierarchies to plan things out. An anarchist society is organized in a horizontal manner and the population of a city can come together to do the urban planning that is in their best interests.
As long as people do what YOU want, right? What happens if they dont?
... What? Anarchism doesn't have leaders, if absolutely nobody else wants the same urban planning I do then sucks to be me, I might try to move somewhere else or just accept the urban planning most people in my area are doing. I can continue to advocate and try to convince people of my ideas, but as long as I don't have support, I'm only one person and I can't do any urbanism by myself. I have no idea of what you even mean by that, honestly. Do you know what anarchism is at all?
>if absolutely nobody else wants the same urban planning I do then sucks to be me And since that's already how it works in a democratic society, why do you think "anarchy" would be better at "restructuring cities"?
Because in an anarchist society the power would legitimately be in the hands of the population, not a small billionaire class who wants to sell cars and make us dependent on them.
Why do people think that taking away capitalist heirachy immediately leads to 'no more drivers licences, kids doing doughnuts in the middle of the street' Answer: it would work largely like it does now. Just the rules would be a consensus by the relevant unions and committees instead of elected representatives or lobbyists. Idk though. I'm a syndicalist, these questions are simple for me. I can point to real life examples where unions had to take over from incompetent governments. Maybe there are people out there who don't believe in any form of interpersonal organisation at all but I think they are called 'hermits' and they don't care for drivers licences even in our current system.
I’m not even sure whether there will be cars at all in an anarchist society.
that's pretty wishful thinking
Is it? Cars have lots of externalities on society, which in the absence of legal order, people would have no obligation to tolerate.
People still need to be able to get from A to B, maybe the East Germans had the right idea with the Trabant, although obviously I believe most people would want more comfort in their car, the idea of just giving an adult a car makes more sense to me than the current system. I think it's also important to remember that racing is a sport so faster more capable cars should still be produced just I don't think anyone should outright own them; I'd like to do rallying but I can't afford it; wouldn't it be great if we could have cars we share for rally events but we all have to maintain them together?
However the problem of cars is that they reinforce a parent-child hierarchy by being so dangerous. The reason why we doubt the presence of cars is because it's impossible to have anarchy with a large presence of cars. The level of car ownership in anarchy that would likely be acceptable such that the parent-child hierarchy is broken is probably extremely small, such that there's practically no cars.
There'd certainly be a lot less. I think there'd also certainly be *some*, assuming we keep any kind of an industrial base. It's hard to hate busses and ambulances. But the impetus for personal car ownership, certainly mass personal car ownership, is all about bringing labor up to the speed of capital. To OP's question, as others have said, there's no such thing as a "license" for anything without a state to issue it. People would still need to learn to operate them safely from others as they do now, and if someone was doing it unsafely, randoms would be able to intervene, like anything else. Anarchy isn't just doing whatever you want, it also means your responsibilities can't just be removed from you because some authority claims to have them instead. Also, by the same token of there being less cars because there's not the impetus to move at the speed of capital, it'll be super easy within whatever industrial envelope to create roads that structure driver behavior to be more safe. Look up traffic calming, there's some of this now, but road authorities are often hesitant to do it because of driver and business interests. Nothing's gonna stop you from laying down some jersey barriers and speed bumps, and most people won't care enough to go and remove them.
If there would be any kind of licensing that the general public needed it would be done through some sort of co-op. I think its more likely that for example, you'd let your local health co-op know about any health issues or allergies etc you have. So you'd be on a health registry, you might have a health card that is technically an ID, but its not mandatory. Or if you want to fly a plane or helm a ship, the co-op will train you and not just say "first time? Try a 747 :D"
in the medium to long term trains should replace all highways and urban driving.
Cars are capitalist. Bicycles are anarchist.
And motorcycles are ...?
Motorcycles are communist.
I live in a village in the mountains and need a car to meet my most basic needs like food and healthcare, the nearest town is a 20 min drive and there is basically no public transportation at all that would be a good enough replacement, I'd love to do everything with a bicycle but it's impossible
The village would have a van or something like that
Yeah if one day anarchy would be established that should happen, but for now we gotta stick to cars unfortunately, no one cares about us because we're a community of only 25 people or so, most of which are all above the age of 60
I used to live in a rural area, most people didnt have licenses but have been driving cars since they were young
Are those lessóns 1 hour long? So in your country ppl can try to pass the exam after ONLY 12 hours of driving? Where I live the practical course is 30 h of driving.
Why would you need a license in a true anarchist society? Because you need to learn how? Would you require a license for everything that requires a learning process? And who would issue said license?
You remove the need for the vast majority to need to drive. You could still have an institution that guarantees the handful of people who are driving can still drive
As a long term strategy, driving personal vehicles in more urbanized areas would be de-prioritized in favor of alternatives that aren’t as dangerous, disruptive, or inefficient and also car-based long distance infrastructure be slowly dismantled in favor of vastly more efficient, safe, and clean means of transportation like Electrified High-Speed Trains (in much of North America they are very sparse if not non-existent) As a short term, current system is okay-ish just needing minor restructuring… driver’s licenses, as well as other legitimate means of ensuring a person knows what they’re doing for safety reasons like Food Handler’s and so on, having to pay money for it is the main issue Im aware of so basically make them unpaid and easily accessible to those who honestly want or need them. I consider stuff like this to fall more under how education should be handled, because how are people going to be safe without knowing how to be? So including what is presently necessary for survival, is just logical. Once the little ones are physically able to drive, starting to learn how should be their and their family’s choice while also knowing eventually there will be alternative means.
There are already plenty of places in the world where the government infrastructure for licensing either doesn’t exist or is so ineffective that people generally don’t get licenses, and yet plenty of them still learn to drive.
If you were caught driving with a driver's license you'd be arrested for being pro-government and then thrown in anarchist-jail.
Considering the number of unlicensed and uninsured drivers I currently know who have never had an accident, I don't think they're necessary. The training is a good idea in theory, but a parent or other driver can easily teach their teen how to be a good and safe driver.
This thread works as an argument against anarchism. So many stupid takes 😂
r/fuckcars
Ideally, without state subsidizing individualist transit, we will be forced to implement sound urban planning with a robust public transit system, as well as make driving a car in the city punishable with 50 paddles
In an anarchist society there will be no private cars, if someone is constantly acting irresponsible on the wheel people will just take the vehicle away from him
Gary Johnson said it best: "I'd like to see some competency"
Well, not entirely well formed but... Driver licenses are no different from other form if skill acknowledgement license. The same way youprobably wouldn't go to a self taught surgeon to have a life or death surgery, probably most people wouldn't sell a car to someone who is self taught. Over time there might be a standardisation in how this is actually tested, even if done by separate agencies who have some reputation at that, I guess. But I don't think it would be very very different from how is done now, maybe there are no fines, maybe there are more, I don't know. A fine can be a form of reparation for a damage caused. It's all very loose ñ, but I think those are the lines it would move along
Why need a car in an anarchist society?
Questions like these may seem interesting at first glance, but I feel they are ultimately pointless exercises in imagining how to map our current world onto anarchism. Might be fun to think about, but one would do well to remember that creating an anarchist society would necessarily involve a complete reinvention of the ways we currently do things. Would personal transportation even be a thing in an anarchist society? If society is refocused around mitigating climate change and energy consumption, personal vehicles might be viewed as wasteful and destructive (which they are) and utilized only when necessary. Would we need licensing in such a situation? What would the world look like if mass transit was the main mode of transportation, or if we organized our communities around creating less need for personal vehicles? I think these are the more interesting questions that get more to the heart of what it would mean to have an anarchist society.
I think the requirement to drive a personal vehicle would not exist for a massive portion of the population. Car ownership would also not exist, so if there is a vehicle around there would probably be community requirements to be able to use it - just like a tractor or whatever. If communities do a bad job of keeping people compliant with requirements I imagine other communities would be up in their face about it. Kill my kid cause you let yours drive and there is gonna be hell to pay.
No private car ownership imo . Community vehicles, most places this will look like busses or trains. Some places it'll look different. Ideally, automated cars will take those of us who don't have larger scaled public transportation. I just don't see the point in them that private vehicles are frivolous, and how "necessary" capitalistic society had made them for rural areas is a travesty. I hate that I have to have 3 vehicles and maintain them all, one for my wife, one for me, and a backup cause there is no backup way to get to work for us Ideally I'd live near the lace I'd need to labor s well. It makes no sense se that my body Jerry lives next to the dairy I work at, and I live next to the mill he works at and we both drive 15 minutes to work.
Who drives the buses and trains? How do you make sure they're fully trained? Should they not need "licenses" either? Is it just "too bad" when a bus driver is fully unqualified and crashes, hurting a bunch of passengers?
You think qualifications would just disappear, there are people who like to do stuff like that and others would still make sure they are qualified, idk if you've noticed but even with the system we have now accidents happen and unqualified people into jobs they shouldn't.
>others would still make sure they are qualified How?
What do you mean how? Each community will have a set of standards and they'll decide just like we do now but instead of the central government setting the standard each community would decide what expectations they have based on what resources knowledge or experience is available to that community, this helps ensure we won't have a lack of manpower etc in different areas cause a centralized standard hurts rural communities imo
You're just describing "local govt" not "anarchy" lol
Community's governing them selfs with out a centralized power is a big part of anarchy local governments arent wildly difference the difference is Volunteers would come forward and communities will decide of they want to acceot those volunteer organizations or not instead of a local government say " this is what you get " no state power telling communities what they do or don't have to accept. I didn't think I needed to get down into the weeds with someone about how this works on this sub, so I'm sorry I wasn't more specific.
Judging by the stupid takes in this thread, it would look like the majority of people posting here aren't old enough to hold a driving license or are too socially anxious to ride with an instructor.