Aspies For Freedom

I was interested in it purely academically for a while.

I'm a communist though, myself.

I'm an anarcho-syndicalist. Member of the Solidarity Federation (http://www.solfed.org.uk), and post on here (http://www.libcom.org).

Suppose I'm into anarchism because I hate being told what to do, and also because I see everything related to the state and capitalism as being authoritarian.

Anarchy has way too many problems. I'm more of a minimalist. I believe you cannot have society without a legal code allowing for contracts and a court system to enforce them.

I do not know what definitions would apply, but it is my observation that there are no laws against any crime, only arbitrary rules of sportsmanship society demands be practiced in the course of committing any crime no matter how colossal. For instance, if you want to murder people, why do it on so minuscule a scale as a sereal killer when you can go to work for the tobacco industry and participate in a holocaust against non smokers that has already achieved a death toll that would make Hitler and Stalin as envious as eunuchs on a nude beach.
     A society that needs to use those least able to fight back as whipping boys has no right to claim that it has any ethical standards, integrity, or morality. I believe in the rights of victims to break any rules they must in self defense and if the system does not like it, that is the price the system deserves to pay for telling the powerless to fend for themselves. I do not know if that defines me as an anarchist, but perhaps bullies might define those who fight back "dirty" as terrorists only because their need for an easy victim is frustrated

Anarchy is a brilliant idea -- in theory.
It could absolutely never work in practise though.

Still, it is interesting to read about.

I think it's an interesting idea. I like to think that it would work, but I'm not sure it would be so: it seems inevitable that sooner or later someone would seize power, enforce it violently, gain a following (some people, I think, would really flounder if they didn't have an authority figure telling them what to do), and set up some kind of government, probably a nasty totalitarian dictatorship.

Maybe I'm just too skeptical when it comes to human nature. I actually think it requires a lot of optimism to be a commited anarchist. The anarchists I know usually get a bit peeved when I tell them that.

As it is, I don't have any strong opinions on which model of government (or lack thereof) would be best for society. I'm still gathering information and mulling it over, trying to make up my mind...but I'm really wishy-washy when it comes to complicated issues like this.

The tyranny I most fear is the fascism of totalitarian democracy, where the most poorly educated mob starts micromanaging my life and where their real or dishonestly feigned ignorance gives them license to force feed me their cigarette smoke - a substance I deem as unwelcome in my body as any other kind of rapist's semen - or they get to tell me that I have to have their culturally inferior music in my home or that I must, in the name of tolerance, give scientific creationism and tarot cards equal time that I give mathematics and physics. While I am not clear on how to define anarchy, I seek to overthrow the low class masses telling me that I have to conform to a culture that I find without value or integrity. I cannot tolerate their telling me that I have to wear a swim suit on the beach or at every pool and having the special privilege of having a law to back up so they will not be offended while they can expose me to anything they collective feel like and I am required to submit. Like all bullies, those classes of people can dish out offences but cannot take it.

To the BNP member: here's some points about why your party is a total shower:

One of your main sources for recruiting new members is the Conservative Party. You've had a couple of councillors defect to you from the Tories (one in Kirklees, the other in Huddersfield). They're the traditional enemy of the working class.

Your leader is a millionaire landowner, who also started out in politics as a member of the Young Conservatives. I believe that there are at least two more millionaires in the BNP.

You fail to recognise that the majority of immigrants and descendants of immigrants in the UK are also being screwed by capitalism.

During the 1980's, their predecessors in the National Front repeatedly broke strikes, mostly using brute force. Can't see the Nazis' new scab union working out.

The BNP has a policy of mandatory National Military Service, and if anyone refuses to do it, they can't vote. Hardly democratic now, is it?

The BNP are a disablist party. Some of their statements on websites say such things as "putting white, able bodied people first".

The BNP attack anyone opposing racism. Late last year in Morley (south Leeds), some of your members attacked anti-fascist campaigners, who were leafleting at the time.

All your councillors have done nothing since they got elected. Such examples exist in Burnley, Calderdale and Barking & Dagenham.

There's many more negatives about the BNP, but I feel anyone who reads this will get the message.

Might not anarchy be definable as the individual overthrowing the fascism of totalitarian democracy, in short, sabotaging efforts by the masses to bully by micromanaging the private life of the individual. For instance, usurping the power to get full swat team response against someone sunbathing nude but demanding "freedom" to indecently expose non smokers to cigarette smoke is an example of the might makes right morality of the masses.

The Monster Raving Loony party of the UK!

One of their rules is, only asylum seekers that are over 80 years of age, and are accompanied by a parent may enter the UK.

I think the most fascinating thing about that subject is the difficulty telling which is God and which is Satan. Would not the latter disguise himself as the former and that explain all the blood spilled by the largest religions in the world over the thousands of years? Some of the Bible looks Satanic to me, especially the ethnic cleansing in the Old Testament and the premise of a god that requires blood sacrifices.
     While these ideas disturb, I think it is better to be disturbed than loose warning when religions go to hell. I am more afraid of a false sense of security than I am of the possibility that a religion disguising itself as good is evil hidden deep within.

Some people seem to think i am =p

Mozart's opera "La Clemenza di Tito" borrows from beyond reality to show an ideal world for a limited number of things we could borrow from it. There never was an empire as munificent at the one shown in this opera, but it suggests what kind of world we should desire.
     One idea perhaps from anarchy, is the limits of laws to tell us how to live wisely. Anarchy can take one of two directions. It could turn into might makes right and the beating down of laws that protect people from abuse. How many smokers try to light up en masse to defy no smoking sections, and when there is enough police force to stop them they protest "We knew what we were doing was wrong, but everyone else let us get away with it so why should you be so special that all of a sudden we can't get away with doing it to you?"
     But there is another direction anarchy can take, the refusal to accept the law as a final authority on right and wrong. Slavery, when it was legal, had to be overthrown by breaking laws. Pioneers in human dignity broke laws against prople defending themselves against abuses that the law defended as legal.

Part of anarchy is the rejection of at least some rules. But I shall let others develope the definition. The worst rules, those that should be broken, are the rules that come from selective morality; the grammar school goody two shoes rules that conceal under the surface of their shallow rote learned slogans the utmost evil and viciousness. "Majority rules," is perhaps the worst.
     A man I once knew believed in always obeying "the rules" whether they were the law or social custom. Rather than take unemployment insurance, he worked in an office where the majority voted to have smoking everywhere in the building. He believed in being a good sport (actually a good ***, agreeing to be paid to let others use his body as a recepticle for people's cigarette smoke, something dirtier than a sexual prostitute agreeing to be paid to let others use her body as a recpticle for other peoples semen. "The rules" pretend that there is a difference because "the rules" find it inconvenient to see the abstract reality of the same principle applied here.) He believed in faithfully going to work every day without making any more trouble than expressing his opinion against it and hoping that someday the world might change. After a few years of loyalty and allowing "the rules" to force him to be an involuntary smoker, he ended up with lung cancer and died horribly. According to the goody two shoes "rules" this act of murder was perfectly legal, and it shows what respect for "the rules" will get you.
     That is why I will break "the rules" in a heart beat to defend myself against the abuses allowed by "the rules". I do not know where that would place me in whatever everyone agrees is anarchy. Perhaps "the rules" are anarchy because "the rules" allow any crime so long as it is committed under arbitrary rules of sportsmanship.
     Again, what is the definition of anarchy? I look forward to the ideas of others on the definition.

Sexual congress between consenting, which means reasonably adult, that is mentally developed enough to make a choice a chioce free from deception that is easier to inflict upon a teenager, is not meant to be regarded as dirty, at least if it is mutually desired. I can assure you that I have the utmost respect for the impressively salubrious sensations that consenting sexual partners precipitate in each others' constitutions. It begins to become less valuable when someone applies pressure, such as economic pressure to force someone to do it when they find the partner repulsive. When we think of force, the force may or may not overcome the resistance of its victim. If you point a gun at a bank teller you could say that you did not force her to hand over the loot. She was free to choose to be shot. But the idea of freedom of choice when someone is pressured or forced (integral of pressure times d(area))ed either by the threat of severe economic hardship or physical violence does not satisfy me. Threat of loss of a job is a form of force, not that such force is necessairly wrong when it enforces a right of someone paying for some reasonable service.
     My objection to what I call "the rules" is that they seldom amount to anything more that the will of the biggest bully on the block. We hope that the biggest bully on the block might protect us sometimes, but still, smokers are allowed to poison and kill and have killed more non smokers world wide since the early 1970's when it was known that second hand smoke kills. Children are not protected from this filth because the tobacco interests make money that results in the best laws money can buy. Society even has the gall to consider this less filthy a form of pedophilia than sexual pedophilia.
     Certainly cigarette smoke is more harmful and far dirtier than unwelcome semen and it is not my meaning to criticize sexual sharing between consenting adults. I do have misgivings against the kind of prostitution in which someone marries for money and pretends to be better than the call girl or call boy of that is the correct name for it. The marriage for money uses "the rules" to dishonestly usurp credit for being something more noble than it is.