Poll: Anarchy or Totalitarian society
- Thread starter BOOM headshot65
- Start date
Totalitarianism. I know how to be a good boy and not get in trouble and keep my opinions to myself so I'd probably be fine.
Come now, Bomb-anarchy is real-anarchy!Vault101 said:
Seriously though, anarchy is horrifically represented in society. It doesn't even mean "no government" per say. Also, anarchy may have been mentioned in passing in [movie]V for Vendetta, but only in passing and the concepts weren't followed through.
Off Topic: By the by, 'sup Vault!
and of coarse no bomb explosion is complete without that music (I keep forgeting the name)Zen Toombs said:
DA NA NA..NA NA NA NA...NA...NA! get yout backside trackside this weekend at the Speedway !!...wait, I mean ANARCHY! (they always had it in speedway adds)
off topic: ohhh not too bad....been playing ME3
The idea that anarchy inevitably leads to rape, plunder, etc. is because the only places that seem to fall into anarchy are third-world shitholes with no real resources or sense of community to begin with. It assumes that people are utter bastards who will resort to killing each other at the drop of a hat.
On the other hand, totalitarianism, in which the State attempts to control every single aspect of every single person's life, is almost by definition evil and will always include secret police, brutal repression, and a generally miserable, paranoid quality of life.
So give me anarchy any day.
On the other hand, totalitarianism, in which the State attempts to control every single aspect of every single person's life, is almost by definition evil and will always include secret police, brutal repression, and a generally miserable, paranoid quality of life.
So give me anarchy any day.
This.JochemHippie said:
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.
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.
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.BloatedGuppy said:
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.
I'm still not sure what you mean. Communism is a socioeconomic/political ideology. Anarchy entails a lack there-of.Anoni Mus said:
Once society degrades to anarchy, there is no longer any communism. They are on the same side of the political spectrum, sure, but that's like saying that totalitarianism is "perfect monarchy"...
This isn't true. A monarchy is a "perfect monarchy", and communism is "perfect communism".
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...
A man can dream...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.