Poll: Chaos or Tyranny?

[Heronblade]

-One can overthrow a tyranny and restore the country to a halfway decent level of government within years. If lacking an opportunity to do that, keeping one's head down and mouth shut has a good chance of allowing you to live a good life. Not one that I would willingly choose, and one devoid of much further choice, but a good life nonetheless.

-While it is possible to climb out of chaos, the first governments to be formed are generally tyrannies of one form or another (three cheers for having such desireable choices!). It takes several lifetimes to establish the infrastructure required for anything more advanced, and that is without significant interruption to progress, aka no civil wars for freedom or border conflicts for resources.

In the meantime, the tyrannical government would pretty much have to nuke its own population centers in order to match the incredible death toll that chaos promises. Hitler and Stalin would both look like saints compared to any person that did such a thing to the world and condemned so many billions to starve to death or die fighting for the last scraps of food and clean water.

 

[M0rp43vs]

Another "zombie scenario case" where people choose chaos because they believe they'd somehow rise up and live off the land and some such.

While both are utterly terrible and it's pretty much up to a (rigged) coin toss as to whether you even live comfortably in either case, My normal answer would be tyranny, keep your head down, support the resistance anonymously while chanting "all hail our [insert governing body] overlords", don't be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Of course, if I get caught into chaos, I would probably become a serial killer because when there aren't any rules, why do I have to play the good guy anymore?

 

[Falconus]

Tyranny of course. That is a circumstance that is at least part predictable and can be worked with, and can even be quite productive. Chaos or anarchy is unpredictable, unsafe, and nothing ever gets done.

Anyone who choose chaos and is not a war veteran with actual combat experience, is a liar. How can you say you prefer something while you've never experienced the most basic condition of that system?

Tyranny is not safety. China's hideous human right violations, Nazi Germany.

While that was all terrible and stuff, note how millions of people could live and in the case of China are living a pretty decent life.

Rule of the thumb for tyranny: Don't mess with the powers that be and don't belong to any persecuted groups there might be, and you'll be alright.

Okay gotta note here that Anarchy is not synonymous with chaos. It doesn't mean no order. There are still rules and laws, just no central governing body.

 

[Aurgelmir]

You know you have played to much Warhammer when you read the topic as "Chaos or Tyranids"...

To be honest I think I would go for tyranny mainly because it can potentially mean you have a stable life. Sure you are not free to do whatever you want but it can still be stable.

Chaos, which I reads as anarchy can never be stable, and your life and posesions are constantly under threat.

 

[The Night Angel]

I went with tyranny. It is a difficult enough choice though. But I feel that at least with tyranny, there is a chance at a normal enough life for most humans. With chaos, a far smaller percentage of the human race would survive. And many that did would probably be far worse off than if they were living under a tyrant.

 

[Vivi22]

I'd take chaos. I far prefer the thought of dying free than living without freedom, even if I'm not directly impacted by a tyrannical government infringing on my rights. Assuming those two choices and only those two choice, a society permanently in chaos is the only moral society.

Also, I don't believe that without things like the rule of law or strong leaders that people would start murdering each other just because they could. Those sorts of things tend to happen on a much larger scale because of strong leaders, not because of their absence.

 

[MBaskerville]

Tyranny for the simple reason that people wouldn't be throwing Molotov's at me. I'd just keep to myself and fly under the radar.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

That's actually a good question. But in the end, Chaos. I'm willing to take freedom and the bad things that come with it over the safety and slavery of tyranny.

 

[Callate]

Both suck. If I had to choose, I'd go with chaos; at least there would be a chance that I might get left alone if I minded my own business, rather than being imprisoned, tortured, and/or executed because I was simply "perceived" as being against the status quo.

But it's very difficult to get anything meaningful done in a state of real chaos, including many of the things we take for granted in our day-to-day survival. Too often chaos just turns into a tyranny of the strongest.

 

[secretSpaceWizard]

I'd definitely prefer tyranny, as any proper ankh-morporkian should know.

While tyranny has its obvious threats, as everybody has pointed out, it also has the benefits of food, water, shelter, electricity, protection from roving bandits, and even most likely the Escapist.

Another issue being that in the long term, chaos turns into a tyranny anyway, except that it's guaranteed to be brutal, since it will be whoever can gain control of the area, i.e. the most brutal group of bandits.

 

[Waaghpowa]

If Stuart Mill is to believed, we are already living in a tyrannical society ruled by the majority.

 

[verdant monkai]

GEORGE ORWELL,s NINETEEN EIGHTY FOUR
If anyone of you have read this book you will know what I mean, and those of you who chose Tyranny I recommend you read this book, you will see how grim a totalitarian state would be.
So definitely Chaos

 

[Freechoice]

Tyranny, because at least the space marines are on my side.

 

[Sean Steele]

Isn't this a false choice? I mean honestly complete anarchy would be worse then pure totalitariansm but isn't this just generally a choice that societies don't have to make and find the much happier medium between these two edges.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Neither of those are particularly appealing, but given a choice I'd probably go with Tyranny. At least with Tyranny there is structure, rules, order, that sort of thing, even if it is bat-shit insane. With Chaos you'd never be able to feel safe anywhere or at any time.

 

[Bassik]

GEORGE ORWELL,s NINETEEN EIGHTY FOUR
If anyone of you have read this book you will know what I mean, and those of you who chose Tyranny I recommend you read this book, you will see how grim a totalitarian state would be.
So definitely Chaos

Even better and a lot more realistic then 1984 is the film Brazil, showing tyranny through bureaucracy and incompetence. It´s still a hellhole of a world, tho.

 

[Don Savik]

The problem with chaos is the lack of consequences. Think of all the looters, rapists, and gangs that would spring up into existence. All the people that can't fight for themselves pretty much get royally screwed. Tyranny at least brings protection to a degree.

I know many people think of themselves and pick chaos, because they don't want restraint, but I'm taking the side of the people on this one.

 

[Unsilenced]

Stupid question. Anarchy leads to tyranny. Nature abhors a vacuum.


That said, chaos. Because then maybe *I* can fill that vacuum.

 

[Soviet Steve]

Tyranny by the masses via chaos or tyranny by an individual. I'll go with the simpler option.

 

[Worgen]

Tyranny is worse, humans naturally want order and society of some kind so chaos could only last so long but tyranny can last a very long time.