Anarchism and Autism

Post Reply New Topic

Many moons ago, I defined myself as an idealist anarchist, with a program very like Omerik's and a realization that with people as they mostly are it would be unlikely to get implemented.

Today my son Arbogast defines himself as a Libertarian, with a very similar program. We are not made for the collective. The Collective knows that, and it is not comfortable.

Read "The Host" by Stephenie Meyer. Even if twilight wasn't that good of a book, this one wasn't that bad. In it, the world is taken over by "peaceful" parasites that attach to peoples brain stems and take them over. One of the more interesting parts is when she describes why money isn't needed in an anarchy. No, there is no bartering or communism. The best way I can describe it is people take only what they need, and there jobs simply because they have to in order for society to function.
If this doesn't sound like it will work, conformity, and a fear of social alienation take care of the people who don't want to contribute.

Right now it seems impossible. Right now it seems impossible. We have all been raised in a society where money is a fact of life. It is a fantasy to assume we could just scrap money. It wouldn't make sense to just force everyone to give up their fortunes, or force others to just adapt when they're not capable of it. That's not what I was suggesting. It would only in a slow transition over three or for decades. On that third or fourth decade, money would seem as uncivilized of an idea as dictatorships seems to us.

Basic necessities:
1) food
2) water
3) Shelter (arguable by location)
4) Oxygen (that is abundant, but god only nows for how long)
5) Internet (50 years from now this won't be arguable)
6) Liberty (not true for physical life, but true for mental life)
7) Transportation (You can run cars on food byproducts, and four generations will come up with some better option)
8 ) Something else that I am forgetting about, but I know you will have thought of, whether or not you chose to include it)

All but 4 and 8 are abundant, and there are actually more cars than there are people. And once nuclear transmutation becomes a useable science, I don't see how any this will ever be running short.

If you isolate one person, they could easily be made into a generally nice person. Then, when they enter their original environment, something happens. They regress to their destructive behaviors. This is because they return to a destructive environment. If they return to an environment where every one else are also generally nice, there would be no real trigger to cause the regression. And that's stating it like people are monsters.

As close as impossible as gets without being impossible. It would be very unethical but we could do it. It won't get better on it's own, but segregation by personality would create a world of savages AND a world of saints. Evolution would constantly be cleaning the savage world while the other side will excel at an incredible rate. As I said: unethical. The most ethical option: leave it alone.
A side note: I don't include every possible problem I think of because I don't feel like writing a small book, and even if I do, I would leave something out.

But, do you at least agree that people are not monsters by nature, but mostly by nurture? If you don't believe that much, then this thread will just turn into pointless circle of refining our argument on whether not humans can actually handle anarchy, never actually making any progress. And seeing as neither of us can prove our argument, we will go at it for a month. Unless I'm wrong by thinking you are one of those people who just keep on going until everyone else quits or loses.