Control or Chaos?

[Cheesus333]

At some point most of us have heard of 1984 - the novel srt in a dystopian 'future' (actually 24 years in the past by this point) wherein the world is divided into three states, the main one being controlled entirely by the man known as Big brother, a dictator of sorts who controls society with strict rules and regulations, thrusting the nations he controls into poverty, misery and suffering.
Alternatively, there are those films and books about a future where there are no rules or regulations, and everything is controlled entirely by free will. I can't name any, but there probably are some.
If you could choose one of those extremes, would you rather have pure, lethal anarchy or supressive, boring safety?

 

[Gxas]

Thats hard to say. On one hand, anarchy would allow people the freedoms they all dream of. On the other hand, people cannot live with freedoms. as soon as anarchy hit, people would try to bring order to the world again. This would eventually lead to a bloody conflict. I guess I would go with the safety because there would be significantly less bloodshed. Either way, government will occur because of human nature.

 

[Johnn Johnston]

I'd go with control, as with chaos you're pretty much buggered.

On a different note, if ULTRAJOE posts in this thread, I'm certain he will say something along the lines of: "ANARCHY, OR CONTROL IF I AM IN CHARGE."

 

[SecretTacoNinja]

CHAOS CONTROL! Lame Sonic joke for you there.

I'd go for boring safety anyday, unless anarchy means the destroying of modern society and humankind becoming simple chimps once more, that would be fine in my book.

 

[Cheesus333]

I would choose anarchy, because it's more exciting. I don't mean if we had always been anarchic/controlled ever since the beginning, I mean if someone just flipped a switch as the world is now.

 

[klakkat]

If it has to be those two extremes, I would choose Anarchy, because then at least Ideas will advance, if not society. In the complete-control schemes, neither ideas nor society is going anywhere, thus total stagnation. Those civilizations only serve to store population until a real civilization comes along and takes them.

 

[000Ronald]

A moot point. Neither society could properly exist, at least not after a set amount of time.

In an anarchist society, someone would take control, say, "This is what I want you to do; now do it." and make an example out of the first unlucky insubordinate that rolls his way.

While a controling (can't seem to think of the word) society would last much longer, it would inevetably fail, as well, and for three reasons.

1) People aren't made to be completely controled. They would inevetably and eventually rebel.
2) While rebellions could be put down at first, they would gradually grow in size and number, and find some effective way to combat the government, be it distributing leaflets, bombing government buildings, or (what I would have done in a 1984-esque society) destroying military applications (see V for Vendetta). The tyrants would be overthrown, and society would shift back into a form that doesn't oppress it's people as much.
3) In the event that the former two options are defeated, there is a third. The sort of society in 1984 would be desired and controled by a select group of people numbering at a little over a hundred at most. When those people die, the society they created would colappse, and be rebuilt in a much different manner.

If I had a choice, anarchist; it would be much easier to live in, I think.

On another topic, I was thinking of starting a 1984 discussion thread a while back; If I were to, how many people would participate?

Apologies for the long, detailed explanations; I've put a lot of thought into this.

 

[rottenbutter]

Total anarchy, having every thing controlled would be extremely boring, causing me to lose my mind and go on a murderous rampage... on second thought, total control is the way to go!

 

[Amnestic]

Chaos, assuming I have enough time to hoard weapons for myself. Plus people would start making a government from the anarchy eventually. I'm just a step ahead of the "perfect control guys" who would eventually have a rebellion take place, the government collapses and total anarchy ensues. Still, anarchy would be "interesting". I can see small groups of people forming quickly in an attempt to stay alive, so I'd likely not be alone anyway. Human nature to be drawn to one another.

CHAOS CONTROL! Lame Sonic joke for you there.

I wanted to be the one to post that

Edit: 'Eventually' twice in one sentence Amnestic? You must be tired.

 

[JMeganSnow]

It's a false dichotomy in any case, since anarchy and dictatorship are, in practice, the same thing. The real alternative is between a situation where humans are left defenseless, as creatures with no rights, and one where a government is established that respects rights as absolute principles.

I'll take a good, solid government that respects individual rights, thanks.

 

[Taelithus]

Measured Anarchy, with only the slightest hint of control.

In English, Kind of like the Wild west, where one could do almost whatever he wanted, but still have enough common courtesy to know when enough is enough.

 

[Ultrajoe]

I'd go with control, as with chaos you're pretty much buggered.

On a different note, if ULTRAJOE posts in this thread, I'm certain he will say something along the lines of: "ANARCHY, OR CONTROL IF I AM IN CHARGE."

Thats Old Ultrajoe.

New Ultra Joe Only Capitalizes The First Letter.

But Aside From That, You Got It Perfect.

 

[Maet]

Would you believe...

... that I thought this thread was about Get Smart?

 

[OverlordSteve]

Would you believe...

... that I thought this thread was about Get Smart?

Really, I saw it and thought Warhammer.

 

[Maet]

Really, I saw it and thought Warhammer.

I don't know a damn thing about Warhammer. But I suppose Chaos/Control can apply to a lot of things.

 

[Programmed_For_Damage]

As some people have already stated, neither would work for very long. If people feel like they are being controlled, they rebel for good reasons or ill. If people feel that their lives are out of control they will take measures to establish some sort of order to control it, even if it means exerting control over the influence of others.
I think it was in the Matrix that they suggested that if people were given the opportunity to choose, even if that choice was only surface level and made no difference to the way the world worked, they can be lulled into following the status quo and not rebelling.

However if I had to choose one it would be total anarchy as atleast I'd have some sort of freedom to attempt to change things.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

i'd go for a happy medium really, humans need but also hate control, give some freedoms but have some control on different aspects

 

[John Galt]

Pragmatic fascist that I am, I'd go for a controlled society. I'd rather live in 1984 than have a bunch of idealist teens running up and down the street with molotovs. If we were able to get a strong central government running the show, there's no telling what we could do. With proper motivation from a determined authority, it would either be a new golden age of expansion and human achievement or a tyrannical dark age. It really depends on who's in control. Frankly, a Confucian utopia wouldn't be that bad. Honest government that respects the wishes of its people and vice-versa. Hell, I'd be happy for a 1984 dystopia, after all, someone's got to be in the Inner Party.

 

[Monkfish Acc.]

It would become chaos, either way. I'd make sure of it.

Chaos is fun.

 

[UberCharlie]

1) People aren't made to be completely controled. They would inevetably and eventually rebel.

You ought to read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. The gist is that society has become completely controlled, and people are conditioned to love it. Not only do they know no other way, but they are trained and manipulated even before birth to love whatever job is chosen for them.

The masses are kept happy through drugs and sex. People have just enough intelligence to complete their assigned labors. No need to think. No need to worry.

Scary, scary stuff.