Aspies For Freedom

People are still confusing anarchism with anarchy.  Anarchism is only functional among people who are ethically advanced or strongly moral (not moralistic--there's a difference).  Each individual has to have the ability to set aside his own immediate desires if that would lead to greater harm.  In a way, it's like Thelema (an anarchistic religion if ever there was one).  Most people interpret "Do what thou Wilt" as "go with whatever silly-*** whim you have", but that's not what it actually means.

Hahaha... I initially misread the topic title. I thought for a second that it said "Antichrist", not "Anarchist".

So... do we have any antichrists on here?

I'm pretty sure that natural selection bred the instinct to work in groups into us over the course of a few hundred thousand years, along with the instinct to believe in the irrational. We're simply programmed to form associations amongst each other by nature, because groups that cooperate together in the wild will live longer than groups that won't. Similarly, having a cohesive system of beliefs enables us to survive better than groups that don't share these systems, especially when those beliefs encourage us to do things that are good for natural selection, even if the core of the belief system adopted is false (God doesn't need to exist so long as he commands you to survive and breed better than your neighbor).

So no, I'm not an anarchist.

I understand the differences. I just don't consider the political movement of "Anarchism" really Anarchism- social collectivism is not Anarchy, at least in my mind.

I suppose I just use a strict definition of the term. /shrug

In that case, you'd probably still accept Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism.

I do, but I'm not fond of the term "anarcho" being applied to it.

I also realize that I have a general obsession with the naming of things, particularly with respect to ideas. It's might be an intellectual shortcoming of my own that I need to work on.

True enough, there are the anarchists who are merely extremely naive.  Even the tiniest knowledge of human nature would inform anyone that utopianist agendas like anarchism are not for the real world.

And what about those who are destroying the world in an attempt to impose out-of-touch, unrealistic, and ultimately harmful dogmas upon us all?  What should we do about them?  What should be done about the dogmatics who would, in the name of "an ideal", end up making things even worse than they were before?

What did "striving for an ideal" get us?

Calvin's Geneva
Pol Pot's Cambodia
Robespierre's Terror

There have been better outcomes, but who is so foolish as to pretend that only good outcomes are possible?  I am one to suspend all reason merely because something might sound good on paper.

Now, what guarantees are there that a devotee's "striving for an ideal" actually IS NOT imposing out-of-touch dogmatics?  It's been my observation that the people least trustworthy to lead are the idealists.  They tend to overlook niggling little details in their perfect little worlds.

"It is possible to live without trying to force others to do what you want."

I think so, too.



Best wishes to basiblandil23

It's been my observation that the people least trustworthy to lead are the idealists.  They tend to overlook niggling little details in their perfect little worlds.
[/quote]

~cocked eyebrow~Hey! I resemble that remark!!



()

Barney's reference to a prostitute as "her", and your not noticing that, is quite telling about society in general.

Given that I have had a few male friends over the years that employed themsleves as "rent boys" (with a largely male homosexual clientielle) I can tell you that male prostitutes are more common than supposed. I have seen heterosexual couples where the man does this to support the woman. (instance I am thinking of, the man was more attractive and could bring in more money than the woman) I have also known heterosexual couples where both parties were employed as prostitutes.

It's a job. Some hate it, some not so much. I doubt any that choose it enjoy it most of the time - although I know from time to time some may enjoy specific customers more than others.

One of my favourite all time funny stories, told to me by one of my bosses (who is gay). He was out cruising, but could not seem to find any providers of the services he was after. He was doing so on foot in an area usually frequented by men in cars looking to pick up male prostitutes. He was quite boyish looking, and thin. A man drives by in a car, and makes an assumption that my boss was a prostitute. My boss chose not to disabuse the man of this notion, and wound up *getting paid* for the act that he was initially willing to pay for himself.

Now, back to barny's post. Curious how he sees voting to ALLOW something to be the createion of a "rule"

Rules restrict. They do not allow, unless created as an exception to an existing rule. Seems barney is OK with a rule as long as it agrees with his notion of right/wrong (in this case, not allowing an office to be filled with toxins) *Removal* of that rule is what he has the problem with.

His friend made a choice. The "rule" did not force anything on him.

I did notice.
[/quote]

Yes. I see now. Your refering to prostitutes as "people" is gender neutral and (for me, in restrospect) indicates that you did notice this.

I'm left wondering why you chose not point this out to Barney?

Actually, one could make an argument that everyone who accepts payment for anything is a type of "***"/"prostitute".  Many cultures simply have drawn an arbitrary line between sex for money and singing for money, for example.

Rules define.  Whether or not one presumes that "rules restrict" depends upon which basic assumption one takes:

That which is not permitted is prohibited. (Guilty until proven innocent)
vs.
That which is not prohibited is permitted. (Innocent until proven guilty)

Being of a libertarian bent, I would prefer to live in the latter kind of society, but I've seen enough nanny-staters and busibodies to know that we run a real threat of being saddled with the former.