Ask Lit

[TheoK]

It looks good at first but I think it would be worse than the current state after a while. The economic successful would use it in their favour. I prefer no state at all.

[Christopher McCandless]

It looks good at first but I think it would be worse than the current state after a while. The economic successful would use it in their favour. I prefer no state at all.

In what way could they not do that under Anarchy?

[TheoK]

It looks good at first but I think it would be worse than the current state after a while. The economic successful would use it in their favour. I prefer no state at all.

In what way could they not do that under Anarchy?

If we take anarchy to the extremes, there would be no modern economy anymore. The now rich would have to start from scratch like everybody else.

[Christopher McCandless]

It looks good at first but I think it would be worse than the current state after a while. The economic successful would use it in their favour. I prefer no state at all.

In what way could they not do that under Anarchy?

If we take anarchy to the extremes, there would be no modern economy anymore. The now rich would have to start from scratch like everybody else.

They can still buy up resources and do things the old fashioned way. Asides Anarchy is normally only temporary - you have to pull some sort of society together quite quickly, before anyone else does.

[TheoK]

It looks good at first but I think it would be worse than the current state after a while. The economic successful would use it in their favour. I prefer no state at all.

In what way could they not do that under Anarchy?

If we take anarchy to the extremes, there would be no modern economy anymore. The now rich would have to start from scratch like everybody else.

They can still buy up resources and do things the old fashioned way. Asides Anarchy is normally only temporary - you have to pull some sort of society together quite quickly, before anyone else does.

Money is worth anything just because the monetary system works. In an agricultural/hunting society money would be worth nil and gold and jewellery too.

I think most Aspies would function in anarchy. We don't want to socialize, so we like it when there is no pressure from a society.

[Christopher McCandless]

It looks good at first but I think it would be worse than the current state after a while. The economic successful would use it in their favour. I prefer no state at all.

In what way could they not do that under Anarchy?

If we take anarchy to the extremes, there would be no modern economy anymore. The now rich would have to start from scratch like everybody else.

They can still buy up resources and do things the old fashioned way. Asides Anarchy is normally only temporary - you have to pull some sort of society together quite quickly, before anyone else does.

Money is worth anything just because the monetary system works. In an agricultural/hunting society money would be worth nil and gold and jewellery too.

But you would never be able to keep one together - there will always be a black market of some sort. Things have a value because people want them.

I think most Aspies would function in anarchy. We don't want to socialize, so we like it when there is no pressure from a society.

The ones who survived it, perhaps. However getting an anarchical system that is stable is near impossible. Its far better to make a new society totally bent to favour ourselves.

[TheoK]

But you would never be able to keep one together - there will always be a black market of some sort. Things have a value because people want them.

Yes, but they would have to change meat for ammunition and eggs for beer etc.

The ones who survived it, perhaps. However getting an anarchical system that is stable is near impossible. Its far better to make a new society totally bent to favour ourselves.

I dont think there should be a system. People should live on their own as individuals or families. To construct a new society we'd have to get rid of or suppress the majority of NTs.

[Christopher McCandless]

But you would never be able to keep one together - there will always be a black market of some sort. Things have a value because people want them.

Yes, but they would have to change meat for ammunition and eggs for beer etc.

Then the best hunters end up forming the new elite - not a good thing.

The ones who survived it, perhaps. However getting an anarchical system that is stable is near impossible. Its far better to make a new society totally bent to favour ourselves.

I dont think there should be a system. People should live on their own as individuals or families. To construct a new society we'd have to get rid of or suppress the majority of NTs.

There is always going to be a system, there is nothing we can really do about it. Your only really going to bury the system under the table and we all know how well systems of unwritten rules work.

As for suppressing NT's, all we need is another religion or to subvert their existing social structures.

[TheoK]

Then the best hunters end up forming the new elite - not a good thing.

I should have learned how to hunt when I was younger, but my dad never hunted. Hunting usually goes in the family here.

There is always going to be a system, there is nothing we can really do about it. Your only really going to bury the system under the table and we all know how well systems of unwritten rules work.

As for suppressing NT's, all we need is another religion or to subvert their existing social structures.

In a system where reason and honesty really worked, Aspies would be superior by ourselves.

[Christopher McCandless]

I should have learned how to hunt when I was younger, but my dad never hunted. Hunting usually goes in the family here.

Same over here, though its only the aristocracy who get to learn pretty much.

In a system where reason and honesty really worked, Aspies would be superior by ourselves.

Is there such a system? - anarchy does not do it any more than the current society really. Though if you want to build an aspie camp in Somalia, we could find out.

[TheoK]

Same over here, though its only the aristocracy who get to learn pretty much.

Until 1985 you could get a license for a rifle over here if you owned hunting grounds and had two people to sign that you were reliable. Then they skipped the hunting ground requirement but instead made a "hunters exam" compulsory.

Is there such a system? - anarchy does not do it any more than the current society really. Though if you want to build an aspie camp in Somalia, we could find out.

We need money to build a camp there and I don't really trust the Somalians, to put it mildly...

[Christopher McCandless]

Same over here, though its only the aristocracy who get to learn pretty much.

Until 1985 you could get a license for a rifle over here if you owned hunting grounds and had two people to sign that you were reliable. Then they skipped the hunting ground requirement but instead made a "hunters exam" compulsory.

Sounds like an improvement on the old system.

Is there such a system? - anarchy does not do it any more than the current society really. Though if you want to build an aspie camp in Somalia, we could find out.

We need money to build a camp there and I don't really trust the Somalians, to put it mildly...

If you could find 50 or so people who wanted to do it then you would not have to bother trusting the Somailians. All you would need is a boat armed to the teeth. It would only require a million or two, which 50 or so people could raise.

[TheoK]

Sounds like an improvement on the old system.

Only if you are for gun "control". The "hunter's exam" doesn't give you a license; you have to apply for a license for each gun separately after the exam just like you had before. There is also an incredibly stupid regulation with a "gun wardrobe", which means that the average person cannot get more than 6 rifles for hunting, because 6 rifles will cover the needs for all kind of hunting according to the authorities.

If you could find 50 or so people who wanted to do it then you would not have to bother trusting the Somailians. All you would need is a boat armed to the teeth. It would only require a million or two, which 50 or so people could raise.

There are at least about 20 active users on this board, but how many of them are for the idea?

[Christopher McCandless]

Sounds like an improvement on the old system.

Only if you are for gun "control". The "hunter's exam" doesn't give you a license; you have to apply for a license for each gun separately after the exam just like you had before. There is also an incredibly stupid regulation with a "gun wardrobe", which means that the average person cannot get more than 6 rifles for hunting, because 6 rifles will cover the needs for all kind of hunting according to the authorities.

If you could find 50 or so people who wanted to do it then you would not have to bother trusting the Somailians. All you would need is a boat armed to the teeth. It would only require a million or two, which 50 or so people could raise.

There are at least about 20 active users on this board, but how many of them are for the idea?

Well if you are short of people you could always get people from WP and call yourself commandente

Though you probably could do it with 20 people if they were armed and well trained and resourced. Getting the money together would become more of an issue, but if you are determined there are ways around it.

[TheoK]

Well if you are short of people you could always get people from WP and call yourself commandente

Though you probably could do it with 20 people if they were armed and well trained and resourced. Getting the money together would become more of an issue, but if you are determined there are ways around it.

It's hard to find 20 Aspies of which most are elite soldiers. Better to set for 50-100 with guns and enough money.