If there was an Autistic state would you migrate there?

Post Reply New Topic

That wasn't difficult to find. It is called The Farm and is located near Summertown, Tennessee.

There web page is at http://www.thefarm.org/.
The Wikipedia page is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Farm_(Tennessee)

That would completely depend on it (political) culture, economic situation, ect.

quote="AspieOtaku"]I would move there and reside in a city of Otakus. Also the county should have a close proximity to the ocean because I love the ocean![/quote]

And having a warm water port would be important in relationship to trade with other states.



And your state would have to maintain some form of diplomatic and trade relations with other countries. So if I understand this correctly the foreign service and economics department of this hypothetical state would be headed/run by NT's



And how high would the levels of immigration from autistic people born abroad need to be to prevent a NT majority from coming in to existence. Also since you state that your autistic state would do better then NT run ones, you would have to consider that there would be NT moving there. ´So would that mean that you are willing to put in place restrictions on immigration?



It is unlikely that he wants to form some kind of Objectivist utopia. Alto considering some of Thomas81's remarks there are some parallels. In the sense that if we, auties, would be freed from the restrictions placed on us by (so called NT run) society we would not only preform better, but outperform the society we have left behind. Only thing needed to complete the picture is that NT society would, according to him, slowly collapse when a significant number of us would leave.



Basically your argument comes down to that depending on the population size the proposed state needs to be highly authoritarian in order to function.



That would probably be the best way for Thoman81 and those who agree with him to move forward. Or else it would just stay in the fase of imigating such a place, without something concrete coming from it.



Most of these very small countries have the sovereignty lying in the hands of a monarch. So in that case it would be gaining influence over him or his heir. Also becoming a majority would not be required, if a question of how much power/influence said group have over the decision making process has that is important.



And there would reasons for why those island are uninhabited.



And then the Italian army moves in to kick you out. And that is presuming the Swiss guard had not already done so.

I don't have a problem with enclaves, retreats, cultural centres, private collaboratives. I'm liberal on this. I would argue that they are interdependent with society.

Would I live in one? Only by coincidence.

Only a some of these community members are permanent residents in some for the famous enclaves.

They aren't guarantee to happen though. They have to be created with a fair amount of consent. San Francisco enclaves just didn't happen over night, they happened organicly, and San Francisco was the centre of many scenes from the 50s on.

Practically speaking there is no way you would on principle get land from any states, to form a new nation. If they allow it for your cause, where do you stop? Where are you going to place it on the South Pole, the Moon, Mars?

With the risk of sounding sardonic, why do you think you are a special case, that you are entitled to such a thing?

You realise at to the extent when could divide up the population into trait based nation state, there would be no land left over, we might as well just float around aimlessly in space.

Without going into too much detail, my acquaintance who pm'ed me has indeed identified terra nullius in Europe and is going there in April to investigate the feasibility of establishing an autistic state there.

You could ask the same question with equal legitimacy to any other given group that has had the temerity to pursue self determination.


Which is a false dilemma because as i have stated before, not every single dimension by which humans can be divided represents the best interests for given groups. It is however my opinion, whether you choose to agree or not, that if autistics collectivised in one nation they could administer for their own interests better. In countries governed by norms, we are systemically neglected, abused, underrepresented, left in poverty and have our grievances ignored.

There is also pro cure groups that are working towards research that would lead to our genocide such as prenatal diagnosis that could lead to autistics being aborted in the womb for no reason than their neurology. Governments will tolerate this as a money saving enterprise. How else will we stand up to that when the time comes?

Just out of curiosity, who all here has actually attended any AS groups or meetings? How well did they function?

We have a support group in the DC area for "aspergerian, and autistic, adults" that meets about once a month at a certain Asian restaurant downtown. Do go to meetings and activities when I can. Though I havent been involved in planning, nor actually running it.

Was dx'd only recently. late in life. Only met one other person in my life who I knew for a fact was a diagnosed aspie ( a guy I used to work with on the job)-before I went to this support group. Now I have meet dozens ASD folks IRL.

It works pretty well. Meetings go well. The one excursion, a boat ride on the Potomac, I participated in went pretty well. No complaints. Quite a varied group-both in background- and in neurology. Theyre not all White males: many are Black, and or female. They range from very non responsive PDD people to very hyper talkative brainy HFA types, to points sideways, and in between. If our support group were "writ large" to the size of country- hard to say how well it would function. It certainly would have its work cut out for it-with the variety of types of people who would have to work together. Lol!

As long as it was in America .

I have been to meets. They went fine, with a few incidents, however that is hardly comparable to setting up a state.

These meets are interest group functioning a society not in spite of it.

Everything from getting there, and the venue, are dependent on other people not necessarily Autistic.

Well yes that is why I'm asking, not for another question.

The difference being is when people talk about self determination to they talk about within a territory containing a pre existing group living as one.

ASD doesn’t really fit into that, because not all of own family members identify as being on the spectrum.

ASD crosses all demographic. It is a neurotype not a race or culture.

I could declare my right to self determination of one, and secede my flat from the UK. It doen't really mean I'm special or more righteous in my cause.

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 04 Feb 2015, 7:16 am, edited 3 times in total.

Yes but ASD people don't get a choice where they are born.

So you aren't really helping are you?

Also you ignore the point about there being no land to form such a nation.

You have a better chance through advocacy, than trying to convince counties to give up land.

Also I think the sugar coat view of Autism is as bad as those that think we can do no good. Again it goes back to the the victim mentality that I refuse to be apart of.

In the 1980s there were some radical female supremacy groups, that split off from mainstream feminism.

They tried to set up all female communes, some even justified splitting from their children family an friends.

The movements collapsed. In reality they resulted in a very enforced identity (including sexuality), what were as oppressive as what they were fighting against. This caused descent within ranks.

The reality is identity is personal. We may identify common experiences, enjoy each others company, but difference is far more beneficial to a society, similarity is vastly overrated.

The continent? You would no longer be a part of the US.

Louis Farrakhan, and various radical group have been trying to do the same thing for years.

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 04 Feb 2015, 7:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

Personally I would be concerned how pragmatic some of the people here are, let alone to be a public administrator.

The premise is it would be better run, but I suspect they it would much the same possibly worse due to lack of diverse input.

There certainly is no evidence it would be better.

I am afraid there is no unclaimed or unwanted territories left in either of the American continents.

Jewish people generally don't get a choice where they are born either, nonetheless Israel was still formed. While I personally detest the policies of the state of Israel it is hard to deny that the stake of Jewish people, especially in the middle east has improved.

I haven't ignored this point. However you did ignore where i said that my acquaintance has identified an unwanted land area in Europe and is travelling there this April to investigate the feasibility of establishing a state there.

This wouldnt be the case as the land area my contact is interested in represents a political conflict of interest to local countries to regard as their own territory. No countries would be giving up land since they aren't regarding it as theirs in the first place.


If you believe that Autistics can't govern their own affairs, then you believe that they are at least worse than NT's which places you closer to the camp that we think we can't do good. The idea of an autistic nation is a strive towards equality.

...and what? I know NTs who are also horribly unpragmatic. Hell, i can think of unpragmatic NTs who already are heads of state.