Anarchy vs. Total Government

Anarchy vs. Total Government

  • Total Government! I choose comfort and safety over freedom.

    Votes: 18 41.9%

  • Anarchy! Give me liberty or give me death!

    Votes: 14 32.6%

  • Go shove it abconners! No one cares about your stupid poll!

    Votes: 11 25.6%
  • Total voters
    43
Locust

Locust

Spy
Joined
Apr 29, 2004
Messages
720
Reaction score
0
Consequences of total government:
-Crime would be abolished due to strict punishment.
-Government has secret police that can arrest you without anyone knowing.
-Business is completly controled. No free enterprise.
-No hunger.
-no poverty.
-No classes.
Consequences of anarchy:
-Crime would go unpunished except for the factor of social ostracism.
-Freedom to do what you feel is right.
-Natural resources would depleat rapidly due to no regulation.
-Life expectancy would be low, thus giving the enviroment time to recover and the population low.
-Pretty much going back to the middle ages.

So what do you guys think? Which would be better?
 
abconners said:
Consequences of total government:
-Crime would be abolished due to strict punishment.
-Government has secret police that can arrest you without anyone knowing.
-Business is completly controled. No free enterprise.
-No hunger.
-no poverty.
-No classes.
Consequences of anarchy:
-Crime would go unpunished except for the factor of social ostracism.
-Freedom to do what you feel is right.
-Natural resources would depleat rapidly due to no regulation.
-Life expectancy would be low, thus giving the enviroment time to recover and the population low.
-Pretty much going back to the middle ages.

So what do you guys think? Which would be better?
Click to expand...

Shove it.


Anarchy would be nice, but it would quickly turn into the warlords set up, and I don't like 80s movies too much so I would never be happy with that. I would prefer somthing more like 1984, having sex in..places...
 
Anarchy would just breed crime and mafia bosses. Total Gvt, if you're a good guy (or what the gvt says is a good guy) then you got nothing to lose.
 
Can they not be both as bad as each other?
 
Anarchy is impossible, in order to survive people bandtogether in groups, which is not anarchy. Total Government only survives because the legal system is biased towards getting everyone who is guilty at the expense of some innocents. I would say that you are far more likely to survive under a Total Government as long as you toe the line, and maybe do a little snitching to show the authorities what good citizen you are. I suppose anarchy has its plus points, back to Darwinism. It would make our species phisically stronger. But then, as long as the Total Government wasn't anti-intelectualist like a lot has been in the past, we would advance further in that sense. Hmm, as someone who chooses logic over aggression, I'll have to go with Total Government.
 
With the way I have observed some anarchists behaving. Total government would be the lesser of two evils.

Many anarchists I have met, or read about from observations from others, is that they can, and many do tend to be very violent, and oftentimes randomly.
 
If I had to choose behind society falling apart like something described in The Stand (a novel by Stephen King) or a total government solution as described in something like 1984, I'd take The Stand scenario. It's not an ideal situation at all, but I'd rather live and die a free man than live in tyranny.
 
qckbeam said:
If I had to choose behind society falling apart like something described in The Stand (a novel by Stephen King) or a total government solution as described in something like 1984, I'd take The Stand scenario. It's not an ideal situation at all, but I'd rather live and die a free man than live in tyranny.
Click to expand...

Very well. But quite likely the possibility is you'd die of unnatural causes. Murder for something such as spilt milk or a misunderstanding.
 
Raziaar said:
Very well. But quite likely the possibility is you'd die of unnatural causes. Murder for something such as spilt milk or a misunderstanding.
Click to expand...

Very true. I could die of that, I could fall down a flight of stairs crack my head open and bleed to death, I could get into a car accident, I could starve, quite a few very bad things could happen. Trust me; I wouldn't want to live in a world like that if I could choose. But if I was actually presented with this choice, it seems like the better one for me personally. Knowing myself, I would probably ending up getting killed in the total government world as well. I can say that I would at least live life with some satisfaction. I'd rather my life be short in either of those worlds anyway. Neither seems like a pleasant place to live.
 
The poorest nations are those with the strictest commerce rules
So the total government would have just as much poverty
Thus no money for a police force, and just as much crime

The two options seem to me to be lead to the exact same thing

Of course, i could be looking at this completely wrong :p
 
A total goverment would stop crime and perhaps boost the economy.

A state of anarchy would have everyone killing each other.

Also, a strong goverment wouldn't be threatened by other nations.

I like the sound of goverment in 1984 and in HL2.
 
15357 said:
A total goverment would stop crime and perhaps boost the economy.

A state of anarchy would have everyone killing each other.

Also, a strong goverment wouldn't be threatened by other nations.

I like the sound of goverment in 1984 and in HL2.
Click to expand...

Except for the bruta oppression stuff. We can do away with that and keep the rest.
 
Raziaar said:
Except for the bruta oppression stuff. We can do away with that and keep the rest.
Click to expand...

yeah..

but you wouldn't have to pick up trash and the streets would get dirty.

pick up the can
Click to expand...
 
I'd rather have anarchy (not what the "only in name" anarchists go for, who are actually marxists most of the time)

I'd end up finding a small community of those who think similar and essentially we'd end up forming our own small group/defending each other.
 
An anarchy wouldn't last for long, because gangs etc. would take power and make laws, and then you would live in a state of corruption and murders.
I would would go for Total Government, because I hardly use my freedoms anyway.
 
Voted for Anarchy.

If the totalitarian governments of the past are anything to go by, I'd die any way. Plus, the very idea of living in one makes me cringe.

Granted, my chances of survival with anarchy aren't that great either, but at least I'd be free to have my own views and my own choices in life. Like Rakurai, I'd find a group of people (most likely friends) who share similar ideas.
 
Consequences of anarchy:
-Crime would go unpunished except for the factor of social ostracism.
-Freedom to do what you feel is right.
-Natural resources would depleat rapidly due to no regulation.
-Life expectancy would be low, thus giving the enviroment time to recover and the population low.
-Pretty much going back to the middle ages.
Click to expand...

There is always some form of govt, shortly. Anarchy on any level lasts just long enough so that the whoever is the best at killing everyone takes over. In places of civil war it can seem like anarchy, but there are still armies that fight one another, and for any sort of army, u need some sort of govt.

The punishment of crime is not ostracism, but being killed in revenge by the friends of your victims.

And the environment would not be better off. People would use primitive means of heating, chop down all the trees - perhaps use dirty bombs or mustard gas on each other.
 
The biggest problem in the totalitarian state is paranoia. Even if you keep your head down and do nothing, one of your neighbours or co-workers who does not like you, can say 'I heard him say that the President's wife looks like a baboon' and then you are off to be shot or sent to a re-education camp. Totalitarian states are not big on the rule of law.

If you did live in a totalitarian state - best to join the police force or the army and again, keep ur head down. Although even so, Stalin killed 82,000 of his line officers, about 20 of his generals, and 3 out of 5 of his Marshals. When the general staff met for a conference, they sat down on the conference table, opend a file which said 'You are a traitor!' and then a mounted machine gun was used to kill them all.

To save ammuntion, the 82,000 line officers were often killed by having their heads smashed with a sledgehammer. The two Marshals that did not die were Beria and Zhukov. Beria said 'Why aren't they coming for us?' and Zhukov said 'Stalin is only killing the smart ones.' Fortunately he did not kill Zhukov, who in large part turned around Soviet fortunes in the war and helped it win. But it demonstrates that even if you are a man of the state, in the right party, whatever - the state can still very easily kill you in a totalitarian regime, not withstanding you have done everything right.
 
Calanen said:
The biggest problem in the totalitarian state is paranoia. Even if you keep your head down and do nothing, one of your neighbours or co-workers who does not like you, can say 'I heard him say that the President's wife looks like a baboon' and then you are off to be shot or sent to a re-education camp. Totalitarian states are not big on the rule of law.

If you did live in a totalitarian state - best to join the police force or the army and again, keep ur head down. Although even so, Stalin killed 82,000 of his line officers, about 20 of his generals, and 3 out of 5 of his Marshals. When the general staff met for a conference, they sat down on the conference table, opend a file which said 'You are a traitor!' and then a mounted machine gun was used to kill them all.

To save ammuntion, the 82,000 line officers were often killed by having their heads smashed with a sledgehammer. The two Marshals that did not die were Beria and Zhukov. Beria said 'Why aren't they coming for us?' and Zhukov said 'Stalin is only killing the smart ones.' Fortunately he did not kill Zhukov, who in large part turned around Soviet fortunes in the war and helped it win. But it demonstrates that even if you are a man of the state, in the right party, whatever - the state can still very easily kill you in a totalitarian regime, not withstanding you have done everything right.
Click to expand...


i suppose you have to be:

be safe, be stupid. your future depends on it.
 
If you had anarchy, it wouldn't last long before someone seized power, probably crown themselves king or something.

Enforced Anarchy then? Or is that a contradiction in terms?
 
kirovman said:
If you had anarchy, it wouldn't last long before someone seized power, probably crown themselves king or something.

Enforced Anarchy then? Or is that a contradiction in terms?
Click to expand...

Yes because u could not enforce anarchy with the forces of anarchy.
 
I voted for choice #1. Neither option's any good, but with the right guy in charge, total government control might actually be ok. I don't think it's very likely that it would be, but at least it has potential. With anarchy, you'd probably be killed from some guy trying to rob you.
 
Totaltarian is much preffered for me. Many ancient totaltarian governments actually worked out quite well. Anarchy wouldn't last forever because eventually whatever warlords had power would begin to whipe each other out and we would end up back in the same position we are in today.
 
The Mullinator said:
Totaltarian is much preffered for me. Many ancient totaltarian governments actually worked out quite well. Anarchy wouldn't last forever because eventually whatever warlords had power would begin to whipe each other out and we would end up back in the same position we are in today.
Click to expand...

Yes, there have been some benevolant dictatorships in history (albeit few).

With anarchy you're fending for yourself and groups who may support you. Natural progression could not support anarchy - people want power, they want to become leaders or get the edge over fellow man.
Anarchy is very close to Communism in this respect, it fails to realise the greed of man.

You could try enforced anarchy - to make sure people don't have power over one another. But then again that's another form of government, it defies anarchy.

Therefore I conclude anarchy can only be a temporary state of life before someone siezes power. It cannot exist indefinately.

Someone is eventually going to take advantage of the lawless situation and crown themselves King, President, Absolute Ruler, etc. Whatever title they choose really, they are taking over from nothing.

Actually anarchy is a situation much like the English-Scottish border used to be, where my ancestors came from. It used to be family fighting family in those days, that was your only allegiance. And you killed other families that robbed from you. Brutally too, I suppose.

People are going to find allegiance, even in Anarchy, you might as well give their primitive minds some kind of government to declare allegiance to.
 
Anarchy would just turn into a Cosa Nostra state. So, if you know the right people, it's good times.
 
Anarchy, i am strong, intelligent, resourceful (basically very good all round)
I would survive well against any other humans.

I would hate a total government, there would be no point in being alive if there was only one track in life.
For life to be worthwhile you must have a fight, you must have a struggle.
Working like a robot would be terrible, no freedom......the only way a total government would be good is if there was a succesful rebelion and everyone would be going nuts as they take over (like rebels in half life 2), thats a struggle, thats something to enjoy.

The weak would complain about anarchy because they would die off, but hell if your strong you deserve the right to survive, thats how you have evolved. (this should be an unregulated auto proccess, humans cannot decide otherwise it ends up like nazi)

But of course anarchy would be a short lived and chaotic time, as other people have said soon enough someone would take power, you know a fortress forms from a gang of people, they gain power, take land e.t.c
With the knowledge of modern tech still in their grasp (even if it was all destroyed the ideas are still in heads of people) people would form armies and it would be a dangerous mix between iron ages and post ww2 warfare.

But hell, it would be more exciting than a 1984 situation, and what the hell, if you die, you die......wouldn't have to worry about anything any more.
(in a totalitarian state you would be stopped from killing yourself anyway)
 
short recoil said:
Anarchy, i am strong, intelligent, resourceful (basically very good all round)
I would survive well against any other humans.

I would hate a total government, there would be no point in being alive if there was only one track in life.
For life to be worthwhile you must have a fight, you must have a struggle.
Working like a robot would be terrible, no freedom......the only way a total government would be good is if there was a succesful rebelion and everyone would be going nuts as they take over (like rebels in half life 2), thats a struggle, thats something to enjoy.

The weak would complain about anarchy because they would die off, but hell if your strong you deserve the right to survive, thats how you have evolved. (this should be an unregulated auto proccess, humans cannot decide otherwise it ends up like nazi)

But of course anarchy would be a short lived and chaotic time, as other people have said soon enough someone would take power, you know a fortress forms from a gang of people, they gain power, take land e.t.c
With the knowledge of modern tech still in their grasp (even if it was all destroyed the ideas are still in heads of people) people would form armies and it would be a dangerous mix between iron ages and post ww2 warfare.

But hell, it would be more exciting than a 1984 situation, and what the hell, if you die, you die......wouldn't have to worry about anything any more.
(in a totalitarian state you would be stopped from killing yourself anyway)
Click to expand...
A totaltarian state need not restrict freedoms by nearly as much as what was in 1984. Sure it could happen but then it all depends on who is leading this government.

One major problem I would have with anarchy though is that it would set back technological development by many many years. There is not much of a chance for science to properly work if the world descended into anarchy. It could take centuries before we would even be capable of sending people into space and killing off diseases again.
 
You have to think what anarchy would mean,
If there were no rules what would you do?
It is quite an interesting topic to think what would happen, it kinda fits with post apocalypse themes, where soceity breaks down.

For some this idea is exciting, like an adventure, others it seems like a worst nightmare, it all depends on your life now.

If there was a break down of soceity i think i would be somewhere half way.
I would be pissed off that people i know die, i would be pissed off the thought that people could come and kill me as easily as i could kill them, i would be pissed off that i would never come on hl2.net again!
But at the same time i would enjoy the fight, you know i would have to survive, it would be a goal in life rather than working everyday for no reason other than to die in a retirement home.
 
Shure anarchy would be a lot more exciting, but it's also much more dangerous. Totalitarianism is more boring, but it's also a lot safer. Both systems blow, it's just about finding the lesser of two evils.
 
bvasgm said:
Shure anarchy would be a lot more exciting, but it's also much more dangerous. Totalitarianism is more boring, but it's also a lot safer. Both systems blow, it's just about finding the lesser of two evils.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt any totilitarianism government would be boring by any stretch of the imigination.
 
Well, I didn't really mean boring, just, less exciting...
 
Locust said:
-No hunger.
-no poverty.
-No classes.
Click to expand...
I beg to differ. How have totalitarian governments rid their respective societies of these? And if they haven't in the past, why should they inherently do so at all?
 
bvasgm said:
Well, I didn't really mean boring, just, less exciting...
Click to expand...

Half-life 2 was a sucky game, huh? :-P
 
Raziaar said:
Half-life 2 was a sucky game, huh? :-P
Click to expand...

I think he meant boring as in being a drone, to 'serve the greater good', forced into a government job to work long hours to do monkey work.
As in not choosing your own destiny, to serve yourself, rather you are serving the government.

Also being brainwashed.

Boring was probably the wrong word.
Try intensely depressing.
 
I voted 3 - not because I hate you or your poll Locust, but because I believe both Total Government and Anarchy to be unrealistic.

Total Government, as has been stated, breeds a culture of paranoia. It actively encourages 'informing' on people and unfair legal systems. If you have a Totalitarian government with a fair and transparent legal system, then you don't have Total Government anymore.

Also, the restriction of Freedoms in a Total Government scenario goes both ways; it curtails 'liberal' beliefs as well as religious ones. What if this theoretical government believed in gay marriage and white racial superiority (unlikely, I grant you).

You would be equally likely to disappear for speaking against gay marriage as for speaking against racism.

Both the right and the left will lose the freedom to live the way you want. All those Conservatives out there who voted 1, think about that a little ;)

And Anarchy is only ever a transitional state. A power void will eventually be replaced with a new power structure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top