Fuck Cars
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
view the rest of the comments
Why the fuck does a judge get to say what the city does. Defi the order hell Trump does.
Anyone can file suit. A judge needs to pass judgement. Hopefully the judge based it on something more legitimate than whining.
Haha, how hilarious that you think that.
Every decision against walkability is always a decision made based on the whinging of idiots
Ha, I was also going to write “whinging” but I didn’t want to do any “cultural appropriation “. I never heard that word until I started working with some Brits but it’s an excellent one we should all adopt
Is that what you really want? More people acting like Donald Trump?
No want to fight against fascism
Yeah, sure, fascism bad, however, I’m not sure that, in this case, a bit of judicial assholery is tantamount to fascism. This decision can be appealed and possibly reversed by a higher court.
The key words I pick out are “in violation of lawful procedure”. I don’t like this choice either, but it looks like the city took a shortcut
Fuck "lawful procedure". Arbitrary and useless bureaucracy is why shit never gets done in the first place.
Ah I didn't see that part, thank you.
Yeah the judge doesn't sound so wrong any more.
I guess it depends on if DOT actually violated the law or the judge is ruling on a stretch. I wish had more details.
No kidding. All too often even clear looking articles seem to have important details missing
I’m pretty sure there’s gonna be an appeal. The judge gave 30 days before the order must be executed. He also denied all of the other claims.
This is not a ruling that should be difficult to get reversed on appeal
Can but won't.
What about this is fascist?
Public funding was used as directed by public officials to build public infrastructure. A judge orders it torn up with no legal basis, attempting to circumvent not only the will of the people, but the law.
It's certainly not democratic
Just because its not democratic does not make it fascist. When you throw words around hap hazardusly they lose meaning.
Trump ignores the wants of the many to benefit the few. When the many stand up to the few, it's not the same as what Trump does, it's the opposite.
I want everyone to stop tripping over themselves to comply with dumb "orders" like this. If that means taking a page out of Trump's playbook and ignoring them, then yeah, fuck it.
Morally you're right of course. Everyone should follow laws and procedures. Even when others don't. No disagreement.
But there is a line from the first Foundation book. I'll paraphrase: Don't let your sense of morality stop you from doing the right thing.
When you're playing against a cheater. You'll follow the rules every time, and loose every time. Which is fine in a game. Especially when you know someone is inforcing the rules and the cheater will be stopped. But when when actual lives are on the line? And the ref is the one cheating? Going against your moral code to do the right thing, becomes the moral thing to do.
That's what RobbinHood was all about.
Laws are not moral. It is absolutely not morally correct to blindly follow laws and adhere to bureaucracy.
It is "unlawful" for the hungry to take bread from a store while that same store throws away tons of perfectly good bread annually because they didn't sell it by some arbitrarily set date. How is that morally correct to allow bread to be thrown away instead of simply letting the hungry have food?
There is NOTHING moral about laws.
Laws are a governments attempt to codify it's peoples aggregate morality into something enforceable. Something more than just an individuals own judgement.
Without laws society would be governed by the whims of the most powerful individuals. The existence of laws themselves, are a moral stance against Might Makes Right. So following the law is a moral rule, of it's own.
Stealing (taking something that doesn't belong to you) is immoral. So is failing to give something you don't need, to someone who will die without it. The times when moral rules come into conflict, are exactly the moments I'm talking about when I say "Don't let your morality get in the way of doing what's right." You can't follow two contradictory rules. So you have to choose what action, in that individual moment, will lead to the best outcome.
As an anarchist I firmly disagree with this entire premise.
We literally live in a society governed by the whims most powerful people as dictated by the hierarchy that "rule of law" and the capitalist system creates. Rule of law got its beginning in the whims of kings deciding that everyone "beneath" them on the social hierarchy should follow their rule or be subject to punishment. The rule of law is literally "might makes right", you either listen to the authority of those at the top of the hierarchy or they will send the state dogs (the police) to force you into obedience.
Stealing food from a corporate entity is 100% a morally correct action. Stealing itself is an action that cannot be morally judged without understanding the socioeconomic circumstances behind why someone would feel they need to steal in the first place.
Following the law has nothing to do with morality.
I'm assuming you're referring to the US when you say "We literally live in a society governed by the whims most powerful people..." That part is true. But the most powerful people get there, largely by breaking the law, trusting it won't be enforced; Even when it is, the punishment won't really matter.
No actually. The "Rule of Law", replaced the "Rule of The King". Meaning instead of The King being the ultimate authority, The Law is ultimate authority. Prior to The Law, The King made rules, but those weren't Laws. You may be making a bit of an equivocation fallacy here.
No That's the Rule of The King again.
The Rule of The King by the way, is the natural consequence of anarchy.
And none of what you wrote directly disagrees with what I wrote.
You think it does, due in part to the misconception or Rule and Law I just tried to explain.
"hierarchy of kings is the consequences of anarchy, a political system devoted to the abolition of hierarchy"
Do you really not understand how stupid you sound?
"Rule of Law replaced Rule of Kings"
Do you not know the phrase "the king's word is law"? You have literally zero clue what you're talking about and just spouting bullshit. Literally, zero clue if you believe that the decrees of kings weren't laws. The only difference is who held authority to dictate laws, going from kings to a body of elected representatives.
You just don't get it and I don't have the time to explain anarchism to you and the evolution of hierarchical governments. You're just heavily misinformed.
Who are you quoting?
Are you replying to the right comment?
I just can't with stupid people. Piss off.
I'm asking because you quoted a statement with the phrase hierarchy of kings. But I never used that phrase, so I'm not sure who you're quoting.
I would say calling anarchy a Political System, is something like calling a blank canvas a painting.
Anarchy is the absence of a system. Once a system is in place, there's no longer anarchy.
The will quickly find someone responsible and put them in jail. Democrats would say there's no way to enforce it. Republicans don't fuck around.