Poll: Anarchy or Totalitarian society

[BOOM headshot65]

Exactly what it says on the title. If you could control which one would happen, would you rather be in a totalitarian government or anarchy (note:In the totalitarian, you would be a lowly peasent, not the man in charge).


I think I would rather be in a totalitarian society, because while I like a little freedom every now and then, I would rather be guarenteed that I have a food, clothing, and shelter. Plus, some dictators/kings can be benevolent (though its rare: "Absolute power corrupts absolutly."-Lord Acton)

 

[Thaluikhain]

An anarchy will quickly turn into various totalitarian groups fighting amongst themselves, mind.

I'd got with totalitarianism, as long as I'm not in a group the leaders happen to particularly hate, for much the same reasons as the OP.

 

[JochemHippie]

I'd like to warn everyone beforehand that the OP is a notorious troll right wing, religious supporter.

Personally I think both "Systems" are extremely flawed, wouldn't want to be in either, I have no experience with neither. Though my mind angles towards anarchism, though a totalitarian society is probably more peaceful even if much more corrupt relatively to the aggressive nature of anarchism and anarchism will probably end up as a civil war between various small groups. Humans aren't individualistic beings by nature, we will form groups and establish a system for them.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

An anarchy will quickly turn into various totalitarian groups fighting amongst themselves, mind.

I'd got with totalitarianism, as long as I'm not in a group the leaders happen to particularly hate, for much the same reasons as the OP.

This fine gentlemen/gentlewoman here is correct.

So, let's skip the bloodshed and become proletarians.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

Since they're both as bad as each other, I shrugged and picked "anarchy", because I liked V's character in "V for Vendetta". Then again, I liked Rorschach and the Comedian in "Watchmen", even though I don't necessarily agree with a lot of their beliefs.

 

[Mafoobula]

Now, someone please check me on this, but true, absolute anarchy is kinda impossible, isn't it?
The very slightest, tiniest bit of enforcement against the rampant crime of any kinda - even one guy protecting his friend from a home invasion - is a form of police. Also, when there's so-called anarchy, gangs tend to form. Gangs have some kind of government/leadership, however rudimentary.
Oh yeah, you also need some kind of governing to feed everyone, unless we're going to go back to Amish-like agriculture. That's one part we never see in post-apocalyptic scenarios: How does everyone get food? Do those hardcore biker gangs really farm crops in, I don't know, the back yards in the suburbs? Do they raise animals specifically for meat, or would they have to eventually resort to catching stray animals?

Absolute totalitarianism is more likely than absolute anarchy, but only slightly.
Absolute totalitarianism implies that everything is being controlled by the one person. Oh, that person might be allowed some advisers, but it all comes down to the one. I find this unlikely for two reasons:
1) There's always going to be a handful of qualities of daily life that can't be fully regulated for any number of reasons.
2) Even if the ruler makes every tiny decision for the society being governed, there are many factors that influence said decisions. Therefore, even though the ruler makes the decisions, they're not entirely from the ruler's reasoning. In other words.

But, hey, I guess I'm over-analyzing this. Absolute anarchy/totalitarianism falls into the same category as zero and infinity: They're concepts that are simple to understand, but impossible as reality.

And, with all that said, I'll say... I'd prefer the pseudo-anarchy, because I know I have the resources to defend what I hold dear, with a little help from my friends. Oh, I think I'd go bat-squeak insane after the first week, trying to keep vigilant against invasion, but I'm hopeful I can have enough back-up to make it through the worst of the chaos. After all, as much as people like to loot and pillage, I would think they can only do that for a week or two before it gets boring.

 

[Nickolai77]

Between the two, i would choose anarchy so long as i have plenty of guns. Neither states are desirable at all though.

Capcha: "It's Over"

That's kind of... foreboding.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Anarchy doesn't necessarily mean bloody chaos, guys. It just means the people self-govern instead of appointing a ruling body.

So, you can self-govern, or you can appoint a totalitarian government to dominate and oppress you.

MAN THAT'S A TOUGH ONE.

 

[Vault101]

so were talking about the V for Vendetta movie?

totalitariansm could work if I werent gay or an ethnic minority...so yeah, might not be so bad

 

[EscapeGoat_v1legacy]

Anarchy doesn't necessarily mean bloody chaos, guys. It just means the people self-govern instead of appointing a ruling body.

So, you can self-govern, or you can appoint a totalitarian government to dominate and oppress you.

MAN THAT'S A TOUGH ONE.

It is a tough one if you truly believe in the innate horribleness of humanity, which would leave us equally badly were we to fall into anarchy or totalitarianism. In that scenario, it could provoke violence, gangs and the standard chaotic image of anarchy that most people have, with the strong preying on the poor and that would be just as bad as a dominating and oppressing state.

On the other hand, if you believe in an innate goodness, then sure anarchy is a way more sensible option. For example, I reckon without governments, we'd form anarcho-communist type communes, where we self-govern but are happy to help and accept help so we flourish. At least, I'd hope we would.

 

[tofulove]

anarchy can not exist, any government that falls is quickly replaced, often by many smaller ones.

 

[Esotera]

The middle ground is far better. But if I had to choose between one or another, I'd go for anarchy, as I have faith that humans are social & intelligent enough to band together & legislate a loose band of laws, making true anarchy impossible.

Anyone who says otherwise is a Templar and will be treated as such

 

[Blind Sight]

Anarchy, because at least there's some kind of environment and opportunity for individualist or small scale communitarian values and social structures. I'd rather not be oppressed, told what to do and what to think every day of my life all with the threat of torture or death, thanks. Dictators and kings that are benevolent are rare. For every Tito there's a couple Maos, Stalins, Hitlers, etc.

Unless of course said Totalitarian society is run by JC Denton. Then we're cool.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

Why does nobody care about considerably less bad, shitty, Liberalism?

 

[SneeringCanuck]

I'd much rather live in Nazi Germany than modern day Somalia.

So, I pick totalitarianism.

 

[Blind Sight]

Why does nobody care about considerably less bad, shitty, Liberalism?

Depends on your definition of liberal, I'm a big fan of classical liberalism, modern liberalism I have a few issues with. But the question presented is a freedom/order dichotomy rather then allowing for any shades of gray.

 

[Realitycrash]

Exactly what it says on the title. If you could control which one would happen, would you rather be in a totalitarian government or anarchy (note:In the totalitarian, you would be a lowly peasent, not the man in charge).


I think I would rather be in a totalitarian society, because while I like a little freedom every now and then, I would rather be guarenteed that I have a food, clothing, and shelter. Plus, some dictators/kings can be benevolent (though its rare: "Absolute power corrupts absolutly."-Lord Acton)

I'm sorry, but you have to define the examples a lot more. What society are we talking about? Current? Western? Asian? Can I have an anarchic-village in the amazon? How benevolent is this "totalitarian" system? How violent is the "anarchic"-system? The questions are endless..
Neither totalitarian nor anarchy is necessary a very bad thing, if everyone are nice towards eachother, etc.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

Funnily enough, these are both my ideal choices. If I were to have my pick then I'd choose anarchy.

Failing anarchy I'd go for a totalitarian communist state. I don't care if it hasn't worked out in the past, how long did it take to get democracy the way it is now? It still isn't even that good after all that and it won't be great when we hit ideal democracy. We've given communism what? 50 years? And we've shit on it at every fucking turn, not fucking it up the arse like we have democracy.

No, it would be far better to have a totalitarian true communist state where every man is equal, does his work, buys his food, contributes to society etc. There's room for art too, that's just right wing scare tactics, art has a very firm place in society and isn't limited to the bourgeoisie.

But anarchy first and foremost! Mainly because it can become a true communist state where we aren't constrained by petty laws any more, where we truly are equal and we truly are happy. If that isn't going to happen then we'll force it on everyone.