Aspies For Freedom

Could communism be successfull with a rule with AS?

Knowing them, they would want everything to be the same (no offence).

What r ur opinions on it?

I believe that Free Market Economies are the best system for giving individuals free choices and freedom in the market.  It is also the best for creating opportunity and upward mobility for people in the lower classes.

That is true.  Whereas Communism destroys individual iniative.  If you are working a with a partner who is producing 5 pairs shoes a day and you are producing 100 and still getting paid equally.  What incentive do you have to put forth effort.  In Capitalism you have incentives to work hard and to put forth effort.

Which is one reason that it failed.  It misunderstood Human nature.  Which is one of the reasons that I Admire the American founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson ( who was possibly an Aspie), John Adams and James Madison because they understood that religion was essential to a well ordered and moral society.

I want to live under a system that gives to me the greatest freedom to choose how i live I want to live my life, and where I want to work, without the state interfering in my descisions.

I believe that the state is needed.  I believe the Social Contract where the people give up some rights to the state for security.  But I also have a Jeffersonian view that the state should leave the people to preety much govern themselves.

The thing is a global government will never happen, it is unrealistic and utopian.  Nation-states are primarily self interested and will never give up there national identity. The election of Szarkozy in France showed that and I know that as an American that Americans will defintely not go for one.

Change the existing United Nations organisation into a world government. All presidents of the existing countries become members of the world government. The presidents will continue to do their job in their countries. If a nation doesn't want to enter the world government, isolate that country. This country will have to surrender because all weapons of a country will become at the disposal of the world government when a country becomes a member. The members of the world government will elect the world president. The veto right will have to be abolished. This will change the power structure in the world. Details can be worked out from there.

A world leader will have to be chosen based on merits (education, proven performance/results). I'm for a meritocracy.
As a world leader will not be chosen some powerhungry politician but a really wise man.

For all this (a new world, a future) to happen, first what is needed is a new man. I agree with several other posts in this thread which imply that man's behaviour is the limiting factor, not the structure of society.

Agreed Quickduck. See post 42.

Would there be any checks and balances in this system?  To keep the world leader from abusing his power and estaplishing a dictatorship.

First man has to change, then the structure of society. So a structure with 1 world leader after man has changed. Imagine an educational system where for everybody meditation is a required part of the education. Secondly, the educational system will have to stimulate intelligence, not mainly memory as is the case now in my opinion. Memory we can replace by having small portable computers. So the world leader will be prepared for getting power. Also, the people who elect will be intelligent and meditative because they have been educated this way. I think it would be best to have a right to vote starting from a certain achieved educational level, not a right to vote based on age or place of birth.

Yes, someone with emotional intelligence also.

Yes, but the leader shouldn't derive his/her motivation from outer feedback. He/she should have an inner motivation (love). Now DogBrain will again say: "you're funny".

In my opinion, meditation (as part of education) could increase a person's sensitivity.

The word "personal" freedom is somewhat unclear I think. As I see it: first comes physical freedom (not being in prison). Next comes psychological freedom (the freedom to state your opinion etc.). Then comes spiritual freedom. So Logicalparadox, I would say "no" to answer your question.

I agree with this quote. Maybe also the concept of "independance" is ill defined. In my perception, freedom and independance are not the same. As I see it, it's possible to have not much food, and not be independent from food/money/work and yet be free (both physically and psychologically) at the same time. It's a matter of words/definitions.