Page 1 of 3 [ 40 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

jmb
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jul 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 17
Location: Oklahoma City

29 Jul 2013, 2:17 pm

Just curious how many other Aspies identify with anarchist theory and practice?

I have moved in this direction over the last few years, but have previously been a member of the Green Party (for most of the last decade), the Libertarian Party (for a few years before that) and the Republican party (in high school and early college). I think it is my experience with electoral politics that has convinced me that the state itself (and its collusion with corporations) is the greatest problem that society faces.


_________________
Proud Aspie
http://www.jmbranum.com

"If they give you ruled paper, write the other way" - Juan Ramon Jimenez, quoted by Ray Bradbury in Fahrenheit 451


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 52,192
Location: Stendec

29 Jul 2013, 2:23 pm

No, not really ...

Quote:
ANARCHISM: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors try to take the cows and kill you. You shoot your neighbor and steal his bull. The cows decide you have no right to do anything with their milk and leave to form their own society. They take the bull with them.



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

29 Jul 2013, 2:39 pm

Somalia is lovely this time of year...



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,618
Location: Reading, England

29 Jul 2013, 2:45 pm

Government is necessary in order to maintain order, provide education, and so forth.

Those things could probably achieved without government, if communities were very small, everybody knew each other and social pressure kicked in, but once you become an anonymous mass then history would suggest you need more formal organisation.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

29 Jul 2013, 3:27 pm

GGPViper wrote:
Somalia is lovely this time of year...


I think I think I should just copy and paste my reply to this meme every time it is posted, nobody ever seems to reply to it. I guess don't let facts get in the way of a good story.



puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

29 Jul 2013, 6:23 pm

I've become interested in the libertarian end of Marxism (which is very different to the typical Marxist-Leninist or Trotskyite interpretation - more things like Situationism and social anarchy.) It's more of an intellectual interest though, I'm still learning about it. Don't want to make any definitive statement about what I think about it, yet.


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 85
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

29 Jul 2013, 6:34 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Government is necessary in order to maintain order, provide education, and so forth.



Keep order and peace is one of the reasons we have government in the first place.

Government is NOT required for people to be schooled. Abraham Lincoln learned how to read in a school not funded by looting tax payers. Leonardo da Vinci did not learn his art and science in a public school.

ruveyn



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

30 Jul 2013, 12:21 am

I've played around with the idea, but there are reasons to be skeptical:
1) The state is probably somewhat important in terms of handling public goods(goods that are non-rivalrous and non-excludable) and goods with externalities because selfish people will probably not work together to provide these kinds of goods.
2) The state reduces transaction costs in handling certain problems. So a government simply has to pass a law and enforce it in order to make sure that problems are addressed. However, in the case of pollution or something, in order to privately resolve this, you'd need for the group of people impacted by pollution to self-organize and that self-organized group to get together to form a transaction with the set of polluters. This may be more difficult than a politician trying to pander to get votes, as the politician has a direct interest in seeking the vote.
3) Non-state-oriented systems are at this stage purely a hypothetical. We have reasons to be skeptical towards a social system that is only theoretical as valid options.
4) The existence of a national government acts as a bit of a cultural and tribal unifier to get everybody on the same team. Without it, there is some concern that people may drift into a smaller tribe mentality.

Can't rule it out 100%, but given that anarchism is usually also anti-market, a lot of criticisms of anti-market political ideas also apply.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,618
Location: Reading, England

30 Jul 2013, 8:17 am

ruveyn wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Government is necessary in order to maintain order, provide education, and so forth.



Keep order and peace is one of the reasons we have government in the first place.

Government is NOT required for people to be schooled. Abraham Lincoln learned how to read in a school not funded by looting tax payers. Leonardo da Vinci did not learn his art and science in a public school.

ruveyn

And as always, we should not look at exceptions. How educated was the typical 15th century Florentine? What about the modern Italian?

How educated was the typical resident of Kentucky at the start of the 18th century? What about the typical resident of Kentucky today?

Educating the populace provides a higher standard of living for all, which makes maintaining order and peace much easier.



Aspendos
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 394
Location: Switzerland

30 Jul 2013, 12:59 pm

I would consider myself an individualist anarchist (as opposed to collectivist anarchists), who if government is necessary would prefer the rule of one over the rule of everyone. Democracy has always been what excluded me, so no allegiance there.



Bitoku
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 222
Location: Calgary

30 Jul 2013, 5:50 pm

WhatI find most ironic about seeing this here is that in a truly anarchist society, people with AS / Aspergers would probably have the most trouble surviving out of anyone...



nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,667
Location: KC area (born in NYC)

30 Jul 2013, 7:29 pm

Anarchism is a perfect philosophy for anyone with a death wish.


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (full-time, tenured sociology professor)
33 domains/23 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Internet Radio: http://www.markalanfoster.com


Flipinator
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 16
Location: Queensland, Australia

30 Jul 2013, 7:47 pm

Seems a lot of people don't really have a clue what anarchy is really about. Here's a clue, it is not a state of complete lawlessness and chaos. And there is most certainly a place for government, law and order and defence in an anarchy. It is more that the state doesn't have the right to dictate to the citizenry. The government should serve the citizenry not rule them. Public servant is one of the greatest oxymorons that has ever existed. Who has ever been 'served' by a public servant?



nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,667
Location: KC area (born in NYC)

30 Jul 2013, 9:39 pm

Flipinator wrote:
It is more that the state doesn't have the right to dictate to the citizenry. The government should serve the citizenry not rule them.


Some anarchists talk about government. However, they are referring to horizontal, not vertical, power relationships. IMO, a government without compulsion (some form of top-down authority) is a free association of individuals, or perhaps a confederation, not a government.

There are plenty of examples of chaos erupting in modern industrial and postindustrial societies without effective vertical authority. There are no examples of stability. Without a central government, people form their own vertical authority structures (like gangs).


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (full-time, tenured sociology professor)
33 domains/23 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Internet Radio: http://www.markalanfoster.com


Flipinator
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 16
Location: Queensland, Australia

31 Jul 2013, 3:32 am

nominalist wrote:
Flipinator wrote:
It is more that the state doesn't have the right to dictate to the citizenry. The government should serve the citizenry not rule them.


Some anarchists talk about government. However, they are referring to horizontal, not vertical, power relationships. IMO, a government without compulsion (some form of top-down authority) is a free association of individuals, or perhaps a confederation, not a government.


In my opinion you have it back to front. The government should not have the authority to compel, the people should compel the government. The government should only have the power that the people allow. In modern, so called, democracy the only power that the government allows the people is the power to elect they will abdicate their power to that they can rule over them.

nominalistic wrote:

There are plenty of examples of chaos erupting in modern industrial and postindustrial societies without effective vertical authority. There are no examples of stability. Without a central government, people form their own vertical authority structures (like gangs).


There are plenty of examples of despotic regimes that have seized power and embarked on campaigns of genocide that have perpetrated much greater evil and suffering than any rebellion.



nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,667
Location: KC area (born in NYC)

31 Jul 2013, 8:59 am

Flipinator wrote:
In my opinion you have it back to front. The government should not have the authority to compel, the people should compel the government. The government should only have the power that the people allow. In modern, so called, democracy the only power that the government allows the people is the power to elect they will abdicate their power to that they can rule over them.


You just provided the Platonic definition of democracy as anarchy (mob rule). Can you provide an example of a modern society which has successfully functioned without some degree of vertical domination? I am not aware of any.

Flipinator wrote:
There are plenty of examples of despotic regimes that have seized power and embarked on campaigns of genocide that have perpetrated much greater evil and suffering than any rebellion.


And there are plenty of examples of peaceful societies which have functioned under vertical power structures. I am not aware of any peaceful modern anarchist societies.


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (full-time, tenured sociology professor)
33 domains/23 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Internet Radio: http://www.markalanfoster.com