Interesting article. Here's a point of critique: I think highways and motorways are still commons –– At least in countries where their maintenance is paid by state money, ie. where they are not private roads. This is the classical argument of having the state in charge of providing the infrastructure (such as streets, but also water, electricity or fast internet). Here in Germany, privatisation of infrastructure is a frequent point of discussion and anger. From my point of view, this is the modern equivalent of the "commons become [...]" discussion, where [...] is now more like "bought by private companies" then "productive ressources".
The roads are still not commons. Their use is regulated by the State and they are owned by the State. It's certainly much closer to the commons than private property for profit, but it's not quite it.
I think you're missing the point (or maybe it's me !). Commons in the article are something that nobody owns, not even the state. It's something that is there, that is used, that is part of the local culture and used in a shared way without any sense of ownership. Saying the state owns the roads is fine, but it still strips from the community the possibility to do whatever with it.
I don't think the article talks about privatisation, but rather talks about ownership, and more importantly, about lack of ownership. In a capitalist world, something owned by noone quickly get a flag planted in it saying "this is mine" by some organisation. And that how you transform public space, plant species, spectrum frequencies, ...
> Before [enclosure], most of the environment had been considered as commons from which most people could draw most of their sustenance without needing to take recourse to the market.
I think this is the point. Not that the resource is completely unregulated, but that the common person can benefit from it without constantly having to compete in the market.
I wouldn't consider simple regulation an enclosing of the commons, but when you add on to the need to invest capital in the form of vehicle registration fees and license fees, it starts to become more enclosed.
England? You need a licence to drive certain motor vehicles but even that doesn't, I think, though I may be wrong here, have anything to do with roads, in that you'd need the same licence to drive the same motor vehicle in any public place. Not that there are many non-road public places where you would be allowed to drive a motor vehicle. A few beaches, perhaps?
> This Highway Code applies to England, Scotland and Wales. The Highway Code is essential reading for everyone.
> The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians, particularly children, older or disabled people, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders. It is important that all road users are aware of the Code and are considerate towards each other. This applies to pedestrians as much as to drivers and riders.
> Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence.
> Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
You're saying that all road users, even pedestrians and cyclists, have to obey the highway code. But the parent comment never stated otherwise. They said that only certain types of vehicles need to be licenced. They seem to be referring to road tax, rather than MOT which is closer to a licence, but either way they're correct (albeit being a bit pedantic with the GP comment).
This is all rather off-topic, but there are several legal requirements in the UK:
* driving licence (for the driver; possible exceptions for agricultural vehicles and armed forces who sometimes employ people under 17)
* vehicle tax (for the vehicle; it's zero for some historic vehicles)
* vehicle must be registered
* MOT (vehicle is inspected annually to check it works properly)
* insurance (third-party)
I suspect the requirement for insurance applies even to driving on private land if there's any possibility of other people being around, such as if there's a right of way across the land. As a random private individual you might find it hard to get insurance for a driver without a licence and a vehicle without an MOT, but there are companies that offer driving a car round a special course as a supervised activity for children's parties ...
