Poll: Anarchy or Totalitarian society

[Biosophilogical]

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.

This.

Anarchism thanks. At least if we devolve and form a variety of totalitarian governments, the presence of the others should at least diffuse the internal power of each, thereby allowing for greater freedom and a greater tendency to form a democratic system.

 

[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.

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.

I don't, I just know him from the "Religion and Politics" forums here.

 

[Andropov4]

I choose anarchy, simply because anarchy does not persist. It exists as a filler between two other forms of governance, and I would hope to have something superior to a dictatorship come out of it. Of course, the first government to come out of it will be authoritarian in nature, but history has shown that several rapid changes are likely to occur, and in the end we are most likely to end up with something fairly moderate, which is better than any of the extremes. Also, giving up my rights for safety is not something I'm into, sice that is how we get the Hitlers of the world.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

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.

Yeah lets self govern. But having all 3000 people in a community (the minumum needed to provide for eachother) is hard... maybe we can, hmm kinda choose the smartest of us to help represent our views. Like some sort of council. Maybe elect one leader every so often. Oh wait that isnt anarchy.

Anarchy: "A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority."

If no one has ANY authority no one can govern anyone but themselves. If anyone is governing anyone else its a ruling body and thats not anarchy. Id rather have a totallitarian government any day. At least i wont be brutally murdered and raped because im just smaller than other people or have less angry armed friends. Anarchy is the domination of the weak by the strong. Totalitarianism too to be honest. At least in the latter i get a function police force that prevents me from getting beaten and killed by the first person who wants my stuff. All i gotta do is stay in line. Shitty but better than being shanked for water.

 

[The Bum]

Totalitarianism, corrupt law is better than no law at all.

 

[royohz]

Totalitarian, as long as it was completely non-religious, reasonable/intelligent, non-abusive, uncorrupt, benevolent, liberal and globally socialistic. But since totalitarian systems usually refuse other opinions, I wouldn't really call it very intelligent. So communal anarchy or something would much be preferred: If you do something bad, you will be cast out, if you do well and help others, they will help you. Non-abusive and humanitarian.

A man can dream...

 

[KingHodor]

I'm not really what you'd call a people person. In fact, I'm a bit of a weirdo. Also not exactly a paragon of masculine assertiveness (note: And if you are seriously discussing political issues on an internet forum, chances are you aren't either).

So I'm not sure I'd last long in a society where everybody is trying to govern in favor of his own (most likely douchey, slightly bigoted and selfish, i.e. average human) person, and will eventually form mobs that will take away stuff from those with a smaller clique of friends.

Now, if the good thing happens and people actually band together and appoint the smartest among them with tasks like orchestrating the building of roads and canals and managing resources (all of which involve telling the supposedly free anarchists what to do) then that would be better, but it would, unfortunately, no longer be true anarchy. The more complex the projects you wanna do, the less anarchist you become.

Also, the bigger the scale, the more unworkable and vulnerable the system becomes. Sure, a hundred people can band together to build a city wall or even make their own guns and ammo, but the totalitarian system can just steamroll all the individual anarchist communities because they have the industrial capacities to build a main battle tank or attack helicopter.

tl,dr: With a heavy heart, I choose totalitarian.

 

[Saladfork]

Chaotic neutral vs. Lawful Neutral
Freedom vs. Safety

THere are a few ways to out this question but ultimately I would have to go with totalitarian, myself.

 

[A.A.K]

Choice is easy for me, anarchy. I don't like government or following orders, I don't have anything "personal resentment". I was just born antagonistic to the government and people. So a totalitarian system wouldn't work out for me hahaha

 

[Olas]

This is kinda a flawed question because it never really specifies what KIND of totalitarian government we'd be subject to. They definitely aren't all the same. For example Oceania (1984) is vastly different from The World State (Brave new World), neither of which is really comparable to say Norsefire.

I actually wouldn't mind The World State too much. Sure life would be pretty shallow and materialistic but it pretty much already is now.

 

[ryanxm]

Totalitarianism is what I'd like better. Every keeps saying "Anarchy because I'd have a better chance to become more powerful" but the reality is, most of you would just get murdered, or forced into slavery by larger tribes. No one is safe in that situation. In a Totalitarian society, it'll suck, but you'll be safe.