Would a decentralized Anarcho syndicalist Confederacy controlled by local worker councils with direct democracy...

Would a decentralized Anarcho syndicalist Confederacy controlled by local worker councils with direct democracy principles that utilizes no legal tender punish people who refuse to wear their seatbelts when driving a car?

If yes, how?
If no, what about the massive burden they'd place on the decentralized directly democratic hospital system that could be easily avoided by forcing them to wear seatbelts in the first place?

What the hell is your point?

Yes, by using death squads and slave labor.

What, you think people don't get away with not wearing seat belts now?

A decentralized Anarcho syndicalist Confederacy controlled by local worker councils with direct democracy principles that utilizes no legal tender probably wouldn't have cars. Public transportation is more efficient and less expensive.

what the fuck are you saying?
Yeah, there wouldn't be police to enforce seatbelts, they would, however, enforce prohibition of car ownership?
You're avoiding the question he posed anyway.

You're falling into the "anarchism means no governemnt right?" pitfall.
In a syndicalist confederacy, they could agree to set up an enforcement strategy for seatbelts (or something like it, since seatbelts might be a thing of the past soon enough), so local councils could work together in regional or larger scale cooperations in which they could agree on enforcement method, agency &c.

Most people wouldn't want a car because public transportation would be preferable. The issue of seatbelts would be negligible compared to now, even assuming it's a serious issue to begin with.
Are you a total retard or what?
Ask a stupid question…



Mandatory seatbelt laws increase fatal car accidents www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/341.pdf

do you actually read the things you post?

boi because we won't have capitalism the development of automatic cars will be sped up by 1000 and since there will be no car crashes there will be no need for seatbelts

Automatic seat belts that force you to wear them when you sit down? Otherwise, forget it, it's barely enforceable as is.

isn't wearing seatbelts common sense?
who the fuck drives without wearing one

Sometimes I do because it's exciting and I'm boring.

do you drive drunk from time to time because it's exciting too?

What the fuck does that mean?

Well no that's too dangerous.

It means anarchism.

Under a system such as that people would be better educated as to the benefits of seatbelts, so more people would wear them.

Also anarchism =/= no government.

I will never understand this mentality among the left where the only thing people need to stop stupid or self destructive behaviors is proper education.

Must be great having such a high opinion of humanity.


Of course, I mean why else would you support such an ideology as Nazism if you're properly educated ?

I've got an MS in accounting maybe if I get a PhD I'll magically stop being a white nationalist huh

How about picking up "The Ego and his own" and stopped being a spooked faggot?

Short answer is no if I had to guess, there really wouldn't be much enforcement. Knowledge of seatbelt safety would obviously be made widely available/known and production of new cars would continue to include seatbelts along with all other safety features standard with cars today. If someone wants to be stupid though, ram their car into a solid waste-high barrier, and paint 20 feet of road in front of the wreck with their brains, that's their fucking choice.

What about the costs required to increase enforcement of the laws in question? What about the costs that are incurred by people who fail to comply with the law but never suffer crash-related injuries regardless? Most existing seatbelt laws only increase usage of seatbelts by ~5%, and the absolutely draconian versions of those laws still only increase usage by ~16%. That's not insignificant mind you, but also consider that the deaths avoided by seatbelt usage even before laws are taken into account is only ~13,000 people in the US. Slap the draconian laws on that, and you'll only save ~2,000 extra people while simultaneously extorting 10 times that many people out of their earnings or accruing whatever other penalties come along with failing to comply. Outside of children who may not be considered knowledgeable enough of the consequences of failing to wear a seatbelt, no enforcement is advisable.

People can be idiots at times, but simple precautionary measures like seatbelt usage are not that big of an issue if constant reminders are present. Hell, the fact that most newer cars will continue repeat an audible alert so long as you fail to use the seatbelt is more incentive for most people I know than any law that threatens comparatively severe punishment.

YES IT FUCKING DOES. STOP TRYING TO SPREAD THE "le you're still coerced into doing certain things but since there's no group of rulers besides the local council then that means it's anarchism" MEME YOU STATIST FUCKS. GOVERNMENT BY IT'S NATURE IS COERCIVE AND HIERARCHAL, THEREFOR IT'S NOT COMPATIBLE WITH ANARCHISM.

I mean, obviously there would be rules of conduct in any kind of human grouping? And if you fail to follow those rules you are excluded in some way
you'd still have courts and cops under anarchism it would just be local, not corrupt, officials would be subject to recall by vote, police service would be a regular service duty undertaken by everyone for a period of time, and the legal system wouldn't be designed to protect capitalists and combat the enormous pressure of class divide on society

Ignorant anarkiddie or false flagging Holla Forumsack?
Anarchist government is a very real, very essential thing.


would militia service-police service be mandatory you think? That's the only way I can see to make it egalitarian at it's base, you know what I mean

Nice ego nerd

You forgot the third option: tankie falseflags

Either way, it doesn't matter; he's an idiot. An even cursory understanding of anarchist theory outside of the most abstract discussions on the topic continually espouse the necessity for governing organizations. The key is that these organizations are structured in such a way that there is not inherent structural hierarchy that dominates their function and that their goals are in-line with those of the communities of working people they represent in as direct of a manner as possible.

I'd guess some sort of volunteer organization set up and partially overseen by whatever the lowest-level governing body is. Additionally, you could have it where positions among the police force must be decided via election like any other delegated role within the system. That way police who go into the role with less than sincere intentions can be removed as soon as they act up, and all actions they take are accountable to the community they protect.

Government by definition implies coercion and a monopoly on force, which is not compatible with anarchism. Just because it's democratic, whatever that means, doesn't give legitimacy to coercion and violence. Voluntary, non-hierarchal organization will likely be essential, but once laws are made and enforced with violence, then it stops being voluntary and becomes government. Socrates being murdered didn't have legitimacy just because the people, instead of an aristocracy, voted for his death.

Dumb nazbol