Екстремни индивидуализам

[Grizzly Adams]

пре 2 часа, Justin Waters рече

Izraelski kibuci su isto dobar primjer opstanka komunizma

Па нису. Учешће у њима је добровољно. Исто као и онај шпански градић. То није комунизам него добровољна организација - у слободном друштву таквих можеш да направиш колико ти је воља.

[Ronald]

пре 5 минута, Иван ♪♫ рече

можда се ја не разумем у саобраћај, али шта ће им 1.8 милиона фунти да би само искључили семафоре...

 

Ne znam tacno, mozda je to maksimalan iznos predvidjenih troskova u slucaju da bude dosta saobracajnih nesreca u te cetiri sedmice eksperimenta.

Sto se tice sigurnosti i saobracajnih znakova, Hans Mondreman(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Monderman) je ovde nesto govorio o tome:

It was a hot August night and I was dreading my commute home to Amherst, Massachusetts, from the college in Keene, New Hampshire, where I teach. My trip always began with an excruciatingly long line of backed-up cars waiting at a traffic light just outside of Keene. But today something was different. Even though it was rush hour, I sailed down the road and in seconds entered the intersection. All the traffic signals were gone; in their place was a new roundabout.

Now what?

Where was the signal light—that fixture of authority that always told me when to go?

I slowed down a bit, glanced around cautiously, made eye contact with other drivers, and suddenly, like magic, I had traveled through the roundabout. Without the guidance of a traffic signal I had instead trusted myself and the other drivers and now I was headed swiftly home—happy.

My experience was not an anomaly. Across the United States and around the world, traffic engineers have begun to rethink the role that signs play in directing traffic. When signage is altered in a surprising way, or even removed altogether, they are finding that people slow down at intersections and become more conscious of their actions. Without the sense of entitlement that a green light engenders, drivers are cautious, patient, respectful—self-policed with a collective congeniality. And while it seems counterintuitive that fewer safeguards could make the roads safer, these alterations to traffic signage are being implemented with surprisingly positive results that are improving both safety and traffic flow.

Dubbed the “shared space” movement by Dutch civil engineer and traffic planner Hans Monderman, this egalitarian approach to traffic engineering promotes personal initiative and negotiation rather than mere rule-following. His less-is-more concept aims to facilitate eye contact and communication among drivers, walkers, and cyclists, with less distraction from signage clutter. Monderman has discovered that leaving a more naturalistic blank slate, one that does not impose narrow behaviors, actually encourages more cautious behavior. If needed, Monderman replaces traffic lights with a roundabout—to slow speeds and improve flow. 

A project completed in 2003 using Monderman’s shared space principle was implemented on congested Kensington High Street in London. The city removed 850 meters of bollards and other physical barricades that had been erected to separate motorists from pedestrians. Then it took down many of the street’s traffic signs and removed lane markings. In the next three years, pedestrian injuries dropped by almost 60 percent, road accidents were down 40 percent, and car traffic was flowing more smoothly. 

In 2003 in the Dutch town of Drachten, Monderman removed traffic lights at the town’s busy Laweiplein Square intersection, through which 22,000 vehicles pass per day. In 2004 and 2005, after sign removal, there were only two accidents involving injuries, compared with ten in 2002, four in 2001, and nine in 2000. In fact, Monderman proudly points out, there has never been a fatality caused by a car accident on any of his redesigned streets.

Based on many proven successes, Monderman’s shared space vision is now being adopted in seven pilot cities in the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Belgium, and the United Kingdom—and may be coming soon to a town near you.

Historically, the proliferation of U.S. traffic signs dates to the turn of the twentieth century when, in 1899, “horseless carriage” owners met to form what would be the forerunner to the American Automobile Association (AAA). According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHA), it was these early car clubs, not government agencies, that made and installed the first road signs. They were designed to provide directions for the newly motorized who, as they exuberantly expanded their horizons, frequently got lost. Lively competitions developed between car clubs posting multiple signs at the same location. Some were as rudimentary as color-coded ribbons tied around utility poles, but other signage was more creative: In Britain, the skull -and-crossbones warned bicyclists of dangerously steep descents. But by 1915, local municipalities in the United States had stepped in to control traffic. The first stop sign was installed in Detroit in 1915, and in 1920 the first three-color traffic signal premiered there.

At the dawn of this new century, traffic signs are again undergoing changes as Monderman’s radical ideas trickle down into the common vernacular of traffic-calming visionaries here in the United States. “There’s simply not enough space to have all this fixed-use thinking,” says Ian Lockwood, a Monderman kindred spirit and senior transportation engineer at the planning and design firm Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin in Orlando, Florida. This is especially true in urban environments where people who drive, bike, walk, shop, and park are all battling for a piece of the road. And as local politicians begin to tackle the safety problems associated with these disparate groups, some planners are reminding them that cars are only one set of users. Slowing folks down by removing signs, curbs, and lane markings can make a place more pedestrian -friendly (which means shops relying on foot-traffic thrive) and more livable for residents of the area. “It levels the playing field for all road users,” Lockwood says.

Several cities, such as Hartford, Connecticut, and West Palm Beach, Florida, are already embracing some of these traffic -calming ideas, swayed perhaps by FHA safety statistics showing that removing a signal light at a four-way intersection and building a roundabout results in 37 percent fewer total crashes and 51 percent fewer crashes that result in injuries. 

But you can’t just take all the street signs down, Lockwood cautions. Roads must be strategically redesigned for slower but better-flowing travel. This requires a new set of cues. Raised brick crosswalks (like those recently installed on St. Paul Street in Charles Village, for example) are a common shared-space tactic for slowing cars at intersections because they provide a visual and tactile signal for motorists to brake and watch for pedestrians. Paving an entire block with brick or cobblestone also changes motorists’ behavior. “This gives drivers a totally different ride, and when they’re going an inappropriate speed for that context, they can feel it,” Lockwood says, explaining that changes in textures, paving materials, trees, or colors allow streets to dictate the rules of the road better than any sign can. 

To Lockwood’s mind, the shared space philosophy is more than a way to move traffic more safely and efficiently—it’s an effort to undo the mischief wrought on the American city by the rise of the automobile. “We’ve had five thousand years of building cities, and since the 1930s we’ve had this collective amnesia about how to do it right,” he says. “Our biggest mistakes are modern ones, and a lot of our modern auto-oriented values have been damaging.”

The term “auto-oriented values,” for Lockwood and other urban planners, is a euphemism for speed. “One hundred years ago, cities all operated at the same speed, four to six miles per hour, which is just about the speed a horse goes,” Lockwood says. “Now we have sped up our urban streets and no one wants to live alongside those busy roads and highways—so we have these declining city cores.” 

It might be difficult for Americans to wrap their heads around the idea of slowing down, but for a downtown, speed kills. “There is a buzz to cities that is very attractive to people, and part of that comes from wanting to communicate with others,” Lockwood says. “If you try to recast a city, to sanitize it by separating out all these different users as the suburbs try to do, you lose that exchange. A lot of what is going on now in street design is an effort to restore a city’s balance. Those lower speeds allow people to communicate with each other again.” 
https://web.archive.org/web/20080120123015/http://www.urbanitebaltimore.com/sub.cfm?issueID=52&sectionID=4&articleID=748

[Grizzly Adams]

пре 13 минута, Muramasa рече

To je u potpunosti u skladu sa mojom i Hoppe-ovom ancap doktrinom. Lepo osnuješ svoj komunjarski coven i ne ulaziš tamo gde su kapitalisti.

Све док људи могу слободно да улазе и излазе - никог није брига.

Само што то није комунизам. Комунизам није "добровољна организација у којој учесници међусобно деле ресурсе", него нешто сасвим друго.

[Justin Waters]

пре 2 часа, Grizzly Adams рече

Па нису. Учешће у њима је добровољно. Исто као и онај шпански градић. То није комунизам него добровољна организација - у слободном друштву таквих можеш да направиш колико ти је вољa

Znaci deset porodica se odluci udruziti u grupui i svo svoje vlasnistvo staviti na raspolaganje komuni, i zivjece tako sto ce od komune uzimati koliko ce im trebati prema njihovim potrebama, na sta su oni salgasni i to nije komunizam, jer je sve organizovano na dobrovoljnoj osnovi?

[Grizzly Adams]

Управо сада, Justin Waters рече

Znaci deset porodica se odluci udruziti u grupui i svo svoje vlasnistvo staviti na raspolaganje komuni, i zivjece tako sto ce od komune uzimati koliko ce im trebati prema njihovim potrebama, na sta su oni salgasni i to nije komunizam, jer je sve organizovano na dobrovoljnoj osnovi?

Наравно да није. Маркс није предвидео мале комуне у оквиру слободног/капиталистичког друштва, него потпуно укидање приватне својине у целом друштву (шта год то било - у пракси се своди на државу).

[Juanito]

пре 4 часа, Justin Waters рече

Moguce je to nije sporno. Na slican nacin se i spanska Marinaleda cesto spominje kao primjer moguceg ljevicarskog utopijskog raja. Izraelski kibuci su isto dobar primjer opstanka komunizma itd...Jedini problem je kada bi to primjenuo na sirem planu e tek tada bi nastali problemi. 

Па добро. Прво децентрализација, па приватизација онога што се може. И онда на крају нека (централна) држава ради само оно што мора. Да се разумемо, још нисам узео довољно вутре да инсистирам да сви аутопутеви морају да буду приватни и да не сме да се праве бране и насипи од пореских пара.  Али дефинитивно мислим да је држава у самој суштини лоша и да је треба избегавати колико је могуће. А данас далеко више људи (и са утицајем и без) верују у маму државу него у превише малу државу, тако да ми је више него очигледно на коју страну треба вући. Ево како је говорио Фајнмантустра and #IAmWithHim. 

Цитат

The real question of government versus private enterprise is argued on too philosophical and abstract a basis. Theoretically, planning may be good. But nobody has ever figured out the cause of government stupidity—and until they do (and find the cure), all ideal plans will fall into quicksand.

Цитат

There was a special dinner at some point, and the head of the theology place, a very nice, very Jewish man gave a speech. It was a good speech, and he was a very good speaker, so while it sounds crazy now, when I’m telling about it, at that time his main idea sounded completely obvious and true. He talked about the big differences in the welfare of various countries, which cause jealousy, which leads to conflict, and now that we have atomic weapons, any war and we’re doomed, so therefore the right way out is to strive for peace by making sure there are no great differences from place to place....Everybody was listening to this, and we were all full of sacrificial feeling, and all thinking we ought to do this. But I came back to my senses on the way home...

The idea of distributing everything evenly is based on a theory that there’s only X amount of stuff in the world, that somehow we took it away from the poorer countries in the first place, and therefore we should give it back to them. But this theory doesn’t take into account the real reason for the differences between countries—that is, the development of new techniques for growing food, the development of machinery to grow food and do other things, and the fact that all this machinery requires the concentration of capital. It isn’t the stuff, but the power to make the stuff, that is important. But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time. 

 

[Juanito]

When I heard the investigation would be in Washington, my immediate reaction was not to do it: I have a principle of not going anywhere near Washington or having anything to do with government, so my immediate reaction was — how am I gonna get out of this?

When I see a congressman giving his opinion on something, I always wonder if it represents his real opinion or if it represents an opinion that he’s designed in order to be elected. It seems to be a central problem for politicians. So I often wonder: what is the relation of integrity to working in the government?

Richard Feynman

[Grizzly Adams]

пре 1 минут, Juanito рече

what is the relation of integrity to working in the government?

Inversely proportional...

[Justin Waters]

пре 16 минута, Grizzly Adams рече

Наравно да није. Маркс није предвидео мале комуне у оквиру слободног/капиталистичког друштва, него потпуно укидање приватне својине у целом друштву (шта год то било - у пракси се своди на државу).

Naravno da jeste. Marks je palamudio o nacinu sprovodjenja komunizma na citavo drustvo i onda su polako potekle ideje koje su se nametnule po sebi da nema druge nego pendrekom utjerati komunizam ljudima. 

[Grizzly Adams]

пре 2 минута, Justin Waters рече

Naravno da jeste. Marks je palamudio o nacinu sprovodjenja komunizma na citavo drustvo i onda su polako potekle ideje koje su se nametnule po sebi da nema druge nego pendrekom utjerati komunizam ljudima. 

ОК, ти боље знаш шта је комунизам од Маркса који га је измислио...

[Grizzly Adams]

По твојој дефиницији онда је и Америка комунистичка држава, јер људи могу слободно да се организују у комуне. Па то и раде - Амиши, разне верске групе итд.

[Juanito]

Занимљиво је да овај човек никад није чуо за либертаријанизам или слично. Мислим да у животу није прочитао неку друштвењачку књигу. Само је размишљао.

 

I believe in limited government. I believe that government should be limited in many ways, and what I am going to emphasize is only an intellectual thing. I don't want to talk about everything at the same time. Let's take a small piece, an intellectual thing.

No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles, nor to prescribe in any way the character of the questions investigated. Neither may a government determine the aesthetic value of artistic creations, nor limit the forms of literary or artistic expression. Nor should it pronounce on the validity of economic, historic, religious, or philosophical doctrines. Instead it has a duty to its citizens to maintain the freedom, to let those citizens contribute to the further adventure and the development of the human race.

Richard Feynman

[Grizzly Adams]

пре 3 минута, Juanito рече

I believe in limited government. I believe that government should be limited in many ways, and what I am going to emphasize is only an intellectual thing. I don't want to talk about everything at the same time. Let's take a small piece, an intellectual thing.

No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles, nor to prescribe in any way the character of the questions investigated. Neither may a government determine the aesthetic value of artistic creations, nor limit the forms of literary or artistic expression. Nor should it pronounce on the validity of economic, historic, religious, or philosophical doctrines. Instead it has a duty to its citizens to maintain the freedom, to let those citizens contribute to the further adventure and the development of the human race.

Richard Feynman

Боље објашњење је тешко наћи...

[GeniusAtWork]

пре 36 минута, Juanito рече

Да се разумемо, још нисам узео довољно вутре да инсистирам да сви аутопутеви морају да буду приватни и да не сме да се праве бране и насипи од пореских пара.  

На либертаријанским аутопутевима нема леве траке! Сви се крећу споразумним брзинама.

[Grizzly Adams]

пре 5 минута, GeniusAtWork рече

На либертаријанским аутопутевима нема леве траке! Сви се крећу споразумним брзинама.

Не постоје "либертаријански путеви", либертаријанизам није грађевинска дисциплина...

Постоје приватни путеви и државни путеви. Као приватне фабрике аутомобила и државне фабрике аутомобила на пример: