Poll: Anarchy or Totalitarian society

[EmperorSubcutaneous]

Totalitarianism, if I can pick the person in charge. (It would be King Abdullah II of Jordan, btw.)

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

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

Because then the world would make sense. People hate it when the world makes sense. (I suppose you're talking about classical liberalism).

OT-I would go for anarchy because it can develop into minarchy more easily.

 

[Zen Toombs]

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

Note that the movie was less "Anarchy vs Totalitarianism" as "American Liberalism vs American Conservationism... IN BRITANIA!". The comic actually describes anarchy vs. totalitarianism and it is FAR less clear cut as in the movie.

OT: Life would be difficult-possibly moreso than in a Totalitarian society- but I would have to choose Anarchy hands down.

Because freedom.

and stuff

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Totalitarian.

A Totalitarian society would lead to Anarchy a little ways down the line, but because of what cam before, I believe some form of justice would come out of it.

If we just go straight to anarchy, all manner of bad things would happen.

 

[TheVioletBandit]

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.

I take offense to the fact that you grouped religious supporter with right wing and troll. You should try to be more open-minded and to make less generalizations.

 

[Dfskelleton]

I'm guessing the real question here is "Which would suck the least?"
IMO, Totalitarianism. While Anarchy would be fine starting off, as soon as tensions rose we would be dumped into turmoil. I'd rather be in a consistently opressive society with rules and order than a free society in which there was nothing to prevent someone from robbing me blind, murdering me and my family and burning my house down.
And besides, I don't think Totalatirianism is nessecarily always like Oceania from 1984. It could be, but there's also the possibility of being ruled by a more benevolent group.
I'm not saying that Totalitarianism would be good, but I'd prefer it to Anarchy.

 

[Heronblade]

Look, when society collapses, it all boils down to basic essentials. Without higher industry, electricity and petrolium production included, we are reduced to hand labor for farms, with only natural fertilizers. This in turn reduces our ability to produce food by enough that only a small fraction of the current population will continue to be fed. Furthermore, even if we could produce it all, the distribution network is gone, and most of the world's population is living in areas that make for incredibly poor farmland. Starving people get desperate, and violent, FAST.

Even if someone waved a magic wand and everyone settled peacefully into their little communities, with the BILLIONS OF PEOPLE DOOMED TO STARVE TO DEATH already dead and forgotten, I happen to like having roads, electricity, a lifelong career that doesn't involve grubbing in the dirt for tonight's meal, and (mostly) all of the other little trappings of modern society. I enjoy nature more than most, that does not mean however I want to spend the rest of my life like my ancestors.

Why on EARTH does society collapse because you've adopted Anarchy? Anarchy =/= Chaos, for the love of God. The use of "Anarchy" to mean "lawlessness" and chaos is a lazy colloquialism, and, if Wikipedia is to be believed, ONLY employed inside the US.

This concept that people are INCAPABLE of working collectively, or being cooperative, or behaving altruistically without a governing body keeping them in lockstep is so unbelievably absurd I'm actually staggered to hear people arguing it. It's not even pessimistic, it's biologically nonsensical. Civilization as we know it would never have existed if this were the case, we'd be too busy sprinting through the undergrowth braining each other and stealing food.

Seriously, the number of people in this thread who would happily trade freedom for security is terrifying. Enjoy your hypothetical totalitarianism, you lunatics.

A: The OP specified total anarchy, which rules out whatever governmental (or pseudo government as the case may be) system you may be thinking of, at least to begin with. I can't think of any system proposed under the label of anarchy that wouldn't rapidly devolve into a chaotic situation anyways.

B: People work just fine together without a government, in small, independent groups that have limited contact with each other. It is when we have multiple independent groups competing for the same resources, or an unorganized larger mass of people that we start having problems. Mob mentality is not some passing political fad, it has been observed throughout the centuries as an integral part of humanity. For a community to work without oversight, its members must for the most part be capable and willing to devote their best to the group effort. Biologically, Humans have a mental limit on the number of people they are actually capable of truly giving a damn about. There's no specific number, partly because it varies somewhat from person to person, but 100-150 individuals is roughly the maximum, somewhat larger than the typical troop we evolved to take part in.

C: Even if the new organization works perfectly, unless you have a means to shift from the present organization to the new one within one, maybe two years, there will be no way to prevent the famine and the inevitable chaos that will follow from it. And I mean completely reshifted, IE the critical businesses reorganized into whatever organization works and the proper personnel back at their posts keeping the gears running. Good luck, most of the critical jobs are physically and mentally draining, nasty, and/or quite dangerous, only worth it due to the high pay. Unless given some other kind of incentive, a lot of them will simply quit for something a bit easier, and you won't have time to train more.

 

[Olas]

Totalitarianism is still better than anarchy because at least there's some semblance of a functioning economy, even if it is highly controlled. It's possible to still have technology and modern conveniences.
In an anarchy if you plan to survive more than a few years you're gonna have to learn to farm. And even then there's no guarantee your home and property won't be robbed by traveling bandits.

 

[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

Note that the movie was less "Anarchy vs Totalitarianism" as "American Liberalism vs American Conservationism... IN BRITANIA!". The comic actually describes anarchy vs. totalitarianism and it is FAR less clear cut as in the movie.

OT: Life would be difficult-possibly moreso than in a Totalitarian society- but I would have to choose Anarchy hands down.

Because freedom.

and stuff

hmmm now that i think about it Im not sure you hear the word "anarchy" emntioned in the movie as much...at least not from V

I think Anarchy is a somwhat misunderstood Ideal...not just "Fuck the guv-mint!"

 

[Kotaro]

Anarchy. Anarchy, every time.
Because order would eventually surface, in one form or another; it's an inevitable part of the human psyche to create some kind of order.

 

[Tinygiant]

I go anarchy - because, truth be told, I'm almost an anarchist as is.

The problem is anarchy requires one tiny little thing - people to be decent to each other. And they aren't. It's just part of our evolution - our minds are still programmed to drive to get the most for ourselves with no regard for others.

If that could be solved, then anarchy would work. Even if it can't, I would prefer to live a life of absolute freedom, fearing only that another would try to kill me for what I have than live a life of total fear about being killed for what I am (probably a dissident).

I can certainly understand those who would want totalitarianism - security, safety, these are important things. And if I felt I lacked them right now, my decision might be different (Maslow's hierarchy and whatnot). But I stand for Anarchy.

And the cool thing about anarchy is, I'm cool with any decision - agreeing with me, or violently opposed.

 

[Blade_125]

I understand this is a hypothetical situation, but it is still a foolish question to ask. Neither is acceptable, and to choose one over the other is to suggest you would live in one. I personally would fight against either.

 

[spartan231490]

I would rather be eaten by fire ants than live in a totalitarian society. Does that answer your question?

 

[applesandoranges]

edit

 

[Frost27]

Easy choice. Anarchy. I would rather have to fend for myself than not even be able to think for myelf. At least in an anarchy I could gather a few like minded folks and live off the grid with plenty of broken society around to scavenge what we need.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

I'd rather live in a society where I at least had freedom to do what I pleased without constantly having to think about how it looked to other people. Freedom to walk around naked holding an AK-47 with a pink mohawk. I doubt I'll get hassled much. In a totalitarian society (and I'm assuming worst case scenario, like 1984), the constant fear of it would drive me nuts. In anarchy, the outside world is crazy, but you can hang onto a sense of sanity within it. And there's also a best case scenario of anarchy, where capitalism steps in and order is maintained through the exchange of goods and services. But I don't that scenario has played out like that in human history. I could be wrong.

 

[Tiamattt]

As sucky as having a serious lack of freedom would be, I would imagine that a totalitarian government would still have basic needs like food, clean water, electricity, shelter and anti-crime measures for the people they're oppressing. In a anarchy situation most of the above would be in very limited supply, thus greatly decreasing my own chances of survival. And it would probably take a long time plus a lot of fighting between the different groups that are sure to pop up to get to a point where everyone can get the basic things they need to survive. And that's presuming I don't get killed over a bottle of water.

Freedom is a truly wonderful thing, but I'm going with the option that gives me the higher chance to miss it when it's gone.

 

[TomLikesGuitar]

Totalitarianism would most likely eventually lead mankind to progress that we have never seen before. It'd suck, yeah, but whatevs.

Anarchy, since perfect communism is technically anarchistic

wat?