to answer mcj's points about government...
i agree with biafra. as far as i can see, people aren't capable of working within absolute systems of anarchic "governance" (that made me laugh - bit of an oxymoron...?). i've seen social and "political" structures (on a small scale), where anarchy (in the true sense) was attempted, but failed misreably, and rules and regulations (structures and boundaries, as i call them) had to be set up, and a body of people convened to facilitate those rules and regs.
i'm a fan of structures and boundaries, myself - certainly makes life easier for someone with AS, i believe, as you know where you are at all times. i'm also quite happy with hierarchies, as long as i know my place within them - i.e., who or what i'm responsible for and to - although i'm loath to be anywhere too near the top - i don't like the responsibility which comes with that sort of power (been there, done that).
many, many people (i hesitate to say "most", although i have the urge to do so) don't want to take that responsibility, whether personal or collective, and so someone has to, hence the common hierarchical systems in use in all forms of governance (shoot me down in flames if there's one which doesn't have any form of hierarchy, as i can't think of any, but might have missed one).
democratic systems are a totally different kettle of fish, of course: the most pertinent issues being responsibility (a hobby horse of mine), justice (ditto) and accountability.