cab21: equal say in decisions that effect each person, so does that mean everyone has to vote each time subway wants to sell a sub?
equal say in decisions that effect each person, so does that mean everyone has to vote each time subway wants to sell a sub?
Yes, that's one logical consequence. If each person has 1/7 billionth ownership in everyone else, then all must be consulted before you can take any action, since it would affect the property rights of those other partial owners.
If you instead delegate representatives, you've now created hierarchy, and a de factor oligarchy, for control devolves to that oligarchy and not to the original electors.
Communism based on common ownership is impossible in principle and in fact. If held to perfectly, the human races perishes by inaction. If compromised to representatives, the principle is destroyed by investing all power in an oligarchy that quickly becomes the new ruling class.
cab21: why is it different to follow a vote from a organization or leave, and to follow the vote from a boss or leave?
why is it different to follow a vote from a organization or leave, and to follow the vote from a boss or leave?
Clear it's not. Will he admit this? Clearly not :P
Aristippus: The only thing I don't like about it, Anenome, is that in English the chi in the word is pronounced the same way as a kappa would be, so autarchy becomes homophonous with autarky, a completely unrelated concept, perhaps with a contradictory association. Otherwise it's perfect.
The only thing I don't like about it, Anenome, is that in English the chi in the word is pronounced the same way as a kappa would be, so autarchy becomes homophonous with autarky, a completely unrelated concept, perhaps with a contradictory association. Otherwise it's perfect.
Yeah, but autarky as an economic policy concept, meaning economic isolationism, is largely dead in modern parlance. So I think the usage as a designator for an-cap is much better. Most people outside economics don't even know the historical usage of 'atarky' which dates back to the 70's.
Meanwhile, by using an-cap or straight 'anarchy' we literally confuse ourselves with leftist-bomb-throwing anarchs of the late 1800's and early 19th, we're immediately conflated with anarchy as a social system too, which is not what we mean to say at all.
Thirdly, you say 'autarchy' and people hear a word they've never heard before and thus don't come to it with preconceptions to first overcome, such as if you say 'anarchist' or 'an-cap' which still has anarch in there.
I think it's something that we could start using and embrace generally. Let them be anarchists. We'll be autarchists. Never the twain shall meet.
Beyond that, the word 'autarchy' literally means what we mean when we say an-cap. We don't mean literally no ruler, we mean each person ruling themself. This word undercuts the usual argument that anarchy would be, well, anarchy, meaning chaos. We believe it wouldn't be chaos, but a stable and peaceful society.
With a new word comes the chance to reform associations. I don't think 'anarchy' can ever be resuscitated in the public mind. But 'autarchy' is non-threatening, and may have that chance.