cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/5710578

> Warning: Don't enlarge if you don't want to see homophobia and transphobia. > > Anyway, I'm not surprised, but Midwestern Marx has been going down this path since the beginning.

Whether you allow a State to «hold a gun to your head» is your personal choice.

Payment of taxes for state services is entirely voluntary in the USA and most other states: all you have to do is TAKE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and live in another State.

If you don’t like the price that the USA State asks you to pay for its services, get out of the USA and buy services from a State that offers you a better bargain you are willing to take. Shop around! There is a market in State membership.

it is like with condo management: you don’t like yearly fees for the condo? Shop around and buy an apartment in another condo. If you choose to stay in that condo but you refuse to pay the yearly fees, you are STEALING THEIR PROPERTY.

Living in a first-world state and paying whichever level of taxes are agreed for its services is purely a VOLUNTARY BARGAIN OF MUTUAL ADVANTAGE, with NO COERCION whatsoever, because you can leave that State anytime you want, respecting any contractual exit clauses, just like in any voluntary bargain of mutual advantage, just like you can leave that condo.

A State only can only «force you to pay for its services» by «hold[ing] a gun to your head» when you try to leave. If they are not holding a gun to your head to prevent you from leaving, then staying is a voluntary bargain of mutual advantage. It may be not one you like, but it is still voluntary you may feel paid too little by working at McDonalds as a server, but it is still a voluntary choice.

If you can leave a State and thus refuse to buy the services it offers, there is simply no coercion.

Just like nobody forces you to shop at Wal*Mart or work for McDonalds: if you don’t like the voluntary bargain of mutual advantage that you are offered by them just TAKE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and leave their premises without buying or selling anything.

Froma libertarian perspective only moochers and looters eefuse to TAKE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and instead of walking away from bargains that don’t suit them and instead blamethe party who offered them a bargain that they can quite easily reject by leaving the vendor’s premises and going to make a voluntary bargain in another one.

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/5607117

> What I said last time: > > ---- > > >Calling all Autistic comrades! > > > >And calling all neurodivergent comrades! > > > >We will be going through Empire of Normality: Neurodiversity and Capitalism by Robert Chapman. You can purchase the book through this hyperlink here or here or even here (but preferably through the first two links as I want to support the publisher). > > > >The first two chapters are: > > > >Chapter 1. Rise of the machines > > > >and > > > >Chapter 2. The invention of normality > > > >There's also the Preface and Introduction. > > > >Every week, we'll go through two chapters, at least, every week, but if you want, we can go through it bi-weekly (as in, every two weeks, to be precise). I don't think it deserves to be monthly as it's a rather short book. It's about 165 pages of actual text and the rest of the book is supplementary pages, such as References and Works Cited. Otherwise, give your general thoughts down below. > > > >My thoughts: > > > >I'm near the end of the book. I like that Robert Chapman takes issue with Judy Singer and some of her comments later on. But also, regarding the first two chapters, I felt that they were really compelling and helped set up the general interest in the matter at hand. I felt that it does well in terms of getting the reader to understand why normativity is a negative feature of capitalism, even if it may have been preferable to the pseudo-science of the feudal era. The feudal era's views on mind and body are interesting, though, and more in line with reality, where there is no obsession with a "normative slate" (my words) and instead, everyone is literally different, more or less, from each other. Not sure how to explain it in my own words, but I think as children, we all kinda thought this before we had concepts of what was "right and normal" and what was "wrong and harmful." The relation to Das Kapital and Marx in the second chapter are also pretty interesting as well. > > ---- > > What I say this time: > > The next two chapters are: > > Chapter 3. Galton's paradigm > > and > > Chapter 4. The eugenics movement > > The info about Francis Galton was interesting and it's no surprise that he helped found psychiatry, looking back on it all. Emil Kraepelin (a name that I didn't exactly recognize) was also fond of Francis Galton and probably carried the eugenicist approach with him. In sum, Kraepelin wanted to "winnow" people out so they wouldn't "mix" with the other races and wanted to expand on Galton's "scientific" study of intelligence and encompass every aspect of the human mind in his research. Also, the leading power of psychiatry was Germany which, well, certainly became more important later. And according to the first page of chapter 4, Winston Churchill was a big proponent of eugenicist psychiatry. The word normalcy also started to appear with Warren G. Harding's Presidential run in 1920. > > My overall thoughts are that this book excels in bringing people up to speed on the history of psychology, psychiatry, and neurodiversity and capitalism from a Marxist point-of-view. Definitely well-worth the read. I highly recommend it. > > Here are some questions to help guide you when giving your thoughts down below: > > What, and how much, did you learn from the last two chapters? > > and > > What did you find most interesting from them and what would you like to be elaborated on more? > > So same questions as last time, but they work here, in this case. > > Join me in this book club that I've set up and I'll tag you all as needed. > > Anywho, fire away! > > (Make sure to invite others!)