Anarchism and Autism

Post Reply New Topic

So, the best label for me would be philosophical anarchist.
I don't preach for a revolution that the public don't want, but I still don't think that anybody is morally obliged to follow his regime.

I've wondered, because autistic people are supposed to have less herd mentality - how would you define yourself?

I'm tolerant to other opinions. I have my opinions myself, but am against dichotomy. For example:

I guess I'm partailly racist - because I can have a negative stigma when seeing a different person. But I'm also anti-racist - because I don't think I have the right to make him suffer because of this, or that he doesn't deserve equal rights. And even if my mind tells me to stay away, because statistically there's a chance that person won't be nice - I give him an oppurtunity, and I believe it's not his peoples' fault that they are more violent, but the government's.

I can understand people who think that money is good, because it gives reinforcement, and motivation. Yet, I don't think we should say "what the hell" when the homeless are freezing to death, I want to help them.

I'm not against business and not against a business getting bigger - but I can't accept the corporation-regime we have right now. I don't think it's wrong for a business to open more branches, but I refuse to let this business to exploit teenagers who work for it, and lie to the public.

I'm not opposed to emotions of national identity, but I hate it when it makes you hate other people. I fully acknowledge the right of people to live in Israel if they feel attached to this land because of their beliefs or national feelings - but I don't think it has anything to do with preventing Palestinians their own right to self-definition.

I think all drugs should be legal - well, I'm an anarchist, I don't believe anything should be illegal - because it's people own right to decide if they want to use drugs. Still, I wouldn't sell drugs myself to 10 year olds, because I don't believe they understand it, and I want schools to teach them about it.

Anyone else here who's an anarchist, in the liberal sense of the word - yet doesn't accept anything done in the name of liberalism?

Anarchy is probably the best philosophy I have ever come across. The problem with it is the constant propaganda directed at it. For instance: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."--James Madison. And we all have to read "Lord of the Flies."
I believe that a lot of human beings can handle anarchy. It's the other 20% who ruin it for the rest of us. If we tried anarchy, natural selection and social pressure would take care of those who would cause trouble, but that goes against my general philosophy and a lot of peoples moral codes.
I think anarchy is great though, and I can't stand the bad reputation it has, nor all those punk rock kids who think it sounds cool to call themselves anarchists without a clue what it actually means.

I agree. Peaceful anarchy is idealism though. I don't like politics too much. It would be nice if people could just be trusted as individuals. It all starts there. Idealism is a tricky thing.

Philosophical anarchism is correct. Most arguments to give most rules legitimacy or governments legitimacy are very questionable, and some seem to beg the question.

All one has to do is to look at the development of the internet to see how anarchy might work. If anarchy were possible as a working system there would be no spam or viruses.

Anarchy is like capitalism. You can knock it down but it just won't die. It will get right back up and repair itself. Your right that it is open to disruptive forces, but most people are good-natured, It just isn't socially acceptable for them to be. If there is no pressure to be destructive than nobody would be destructive.
Let's look at this from an evolutionary perspective. What benefit would be received from destroying those around you? How would this make you more likely to survive in the long run? Does this generalize to all humans?
How about we look at it from a behavioralist perspective. What consequences in an anarchic society reinforce destructive behavior? What destructive behaviors would a vast amount of children be exposed to in order to repeat it.
These are two tried and tested theories, that may not cover everything, cover a lot of our behaviors. I don't believe that destructive tendencies will last long after an anarchy has been established. You are right for the transition, but after that all will be fine, except for a few oddball cases.
I would even go as far as to say destructive behavior is unique to higherarchies. Although I have doubts about it, I don't see much reason for destruction outside of such establishments.

In an anarchy there would no longer be capitalism. They aren't mutually exclusive, but they don't go hand and hand together either. Without money, these problems would be a thing of the past. We would all work to fix the pasts mistakes but apart from that we would pretty much ignore the old systems. Money is too efficient a way to gain power, and therefor doesn't work well with anarchy. Hey wait! No money=no unnecessary industrialization, no scams. Human nature as we understand it gone (see my last post)=very little vandalism (it would make front page news), no viruses. Although I thought that's what linux was for. Oh well, computers aren't my area.