Anarcho Apies?

Post Reply New Topic

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.

No, not really ...

Somalia is lovely this time of year...

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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

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?

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).

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.



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.

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.



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.