Anarchy vs. Total Government

[Absinthe]

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.

I fail to see how a totalitarian government is that much more safe.

No offense, but I'm beginning to wonder how "tough" a lot of you people are that follow this kind of reasoning. The fact you wouldn't risk jeapordizing your safety and instead live in an enforced state of paranoia is disconcerting, IMO.

 

[Pogrom]

I fail to see how a totalitarian government is that much more safe.

I agree.

Anarchy means random violence. Total Government means methodical violence.

When the violence is inherent in the system it is time to be very afraid.

 

[el Chi]

Anarchy means random violence. Total Government means methodical violence.

No, contrary to popularised usage, Anarchy is a doctrine of political ideology.

 

[Pogrom]

No, contrary to popularised usage, Anarchy is a doctrine of political ideology.

I was just going by Wikipedia:

Anarchy (New Latin anarchia) is a term that has a number of different but related usages. Specific meanings include

1. Absence of any form of political authority and/or social hierarchy
2. Political disorder and confusion
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

How would anarchy not involve random violence?

 

[15357]

No, contrary to popularised usage, Anarchy is a doctrine of political ideology.

you mean that anarchy is perfect?

 

[el Chi]

I was just going by Wikipedia:
Anarchy (New Latin anarchia) is a term that has a number of different but related usages. Specific meanings include

1. Absence of any form of political authority and/or social hierarchy
2. Political disorder and confusion
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

How would anarchy not involve random violence?

Well, the idea at the heart of Anarchism is very colloquial and, to be quite honest, regressive. That does not mean it's inherently violent.
The idea is that you have little communities that needn't be bound up into larger, more complex and more easily corruptable governments. Each community is independent and makes democratic decisions on what is best for that community at that time. Because it's smaller, votes are far more important and they directly affect everyone in the community.
If you've ever played Deus Ex, it's very similar to what Tracer Tong was advocating at the end.
The reason it's become synonymous with chaos and, by association to that, violence is because it lacks the sophistication of central government and is extremely exclusionist. Plus, it's rather backwards inasmuch that it is only slightly more sophisticated than the set-up of old tribes.

you mean that anarchy is perfect?

Far from it. I don't really think I implied that, but anyway... I think it's rather backwards and I'm for the unification of nations rather than crude simplification.
I just find it a shame when people instantly deride it without entirely understanding what it's all about.

If that sounds condescending, I apologise; I did not mean it to.

 

[15357]

Far from it. I don't really think I implied that, but anyway... I think it's rather backwards and I'm for the unification of nations rather than crude simplification.
I just find it a shame when people instantly deride it without entirely understanding what it's all about.

If that sounds condescending, I apologise; I did not mean it to.

whats condescending? i have a rather small vocabulary.

and, wouldn't you deride somthing instantly if you were exposed to TV all your life?

 

[el Chi]

whats condescending? i have a rather small vocabulary.

and, wouldn't you deride somthing instantly if you were exposed to TV all your life?

con·de·scend ( P ) Pronunciation Key (knd-snd)
intr.v. con·de·scend·ed, con·de·scend·ing, con·de·scends
1. To descend to the level of one considered inferior; lower oneself. See Synonyms at stoop1.
2. To deal with people in a patronizingly superior manner.

...and I'm not sure what you mean by the second part, unless you're talking about short attention spans and quick solutions

 

[Pogrom]

Well, the idea at the heart of Anarchism is very colloquial and, to be quite honest, regressive. That does not mean it's inherently violent.
The idea is that you have little communities that needn't be bound up into larger, more complex and more easily corruptable governments. Each community is independent and makes democratic decisions on what is best for that community at that time. Because it's smaller, votes are far more important and they directly affect everyone in the community.
If you've ever played Deus Ex, it's very similar to what Tracer Tong was advocating at the end.
The reason it's become synonymous with chaos and, by association to that, violence is because it lacks the sophistication of central government and is extremely exclusionist. Plus, it's rather backwards inasmuch that it is only slightly more sophisticated than the set-up of old tribes.

Ah, clarified - thankyou

It is a nice vision, but like many political dreams it is unworkable. For the same reasons that we have stated; eventually somebody is going to try to seize power through the use of violence.

Then we'll have the stereotypical view of anarchy.