Anarchy or Totalitarianism?

If you had to pick between one of the two, which one would you prefer?

none of them

Totalitarianism, anarchy would become totalitarian after a while anyway.

if i had to pick.. it would be anarchy.

my personal preference is minarchy though

If you mean anarchy in the sense many anarchist philosophers describe it as then i choose anarchy.

If you mean anarchy to a free society with no coercive monopoly state, then I vote for anarchy.

cjgeist said:

If you had to pick between one of the two, which one would you prefer?

Click to expand...

I think you're equally ****ed.

cjgeist said:

If you had to pick between one of the two, which one would you prefer?

Click to expand...

I think that question is like asking do you want to be stomped in the nuts by person A or be person B,either way your screwed.

I think it depends on the totalitarian. I don't think I'd mind being ruled by a super powerful computer that is programmed to be beneficent. A lot of people like the idea of a totalitarian system ruled directly by god or Jesus. Anarchy would dissolve into rule by the oppressive and brutal, like the dark ages. Totalitarianism could be nice. It probably wouldn't be, but it at least has a chance to be greater than 0%.

Totalitarianism is better, mostly because at least science progress would still be possible.

I'll choose Anarchy over Totalitarianism. Just make sure you have guns, dogs, a lot of food and water, and a strong community.

As Click and Clack the Tappet brothers so wisely suggested, we need a philosopher king. Seems that a representative federalist republic has failed.

cjgeist said:

If you had to pick between one of the two, which one would you prefer?

Click to expand...

I would pick war

none of the above. both are unworkable.

we dont live in a jungle and we need rules for our safety.even jungle has its own rules

Anarchy soon collapses into some version of local-strongman-rule, also called Warlordism or Robber Barons.



I chose Anarchy. I'd make an awesome Warlord. :mrgreen:








(it would probably be a short life, but an entertaining one...lol)

I'd prefer a healthy mix of order and chaos but if I had to choose it would be order. You can't get anything done in a chaotic society and what little does get done is soon lost.

Anarchy as chaos or anarchy as in Anarchism?

Let's see: Anarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anarchy (from the ancient Greek ἀναρχία, anarchia, meaning "absence of a leader"), has more than one definition.

Click to expand...

If it is the first (chaos), I choose totalitarianism. It it is the second, I choose Anarchy.

Btw, if you have some spare time, you may find this radio show on Anarchism interesting:
Against The State, Part 3 | Ideas with Paul Kennedy | CBC Radio

If we look at the historical record, anarchist communities seem to suck a lot less than totalitarian ones. Places like medieval Iceland, Civil War Catalonia, and Somalia between the UN withdrawal and Ethiopia's 2006 invasion didn't really suck that hard. In all of these places an equilibrium of power took hold, and people found basic ways of resolving disputes without enslaving or killing each other to that great of a degree. Somalia is actually a very interesting example. Once the civil war began to die down in the late 1990's Somalis used either tribal-based polycentric law called Xeer or independent sharia courts to resolve disputes. While the system had numerous imperfections, many living standards actually rose since from pre-1991 levels. Somalis were probably better off with no government than the totalitarian and kleptocratic government of Siad Barre. Medieval Iceland used an interesting system that consisted of buying and selling loyalty to chieftains and even court settlements. I don't know much about the anarcho-socialist communities in Spain, but it was probably better than Stalinist Russia. Anarchy may be the absence of government, but that does not mean that it is the absence of governance and some hierarchical structure. Any complex society inevitably forms some type of authority institutions, but they are just far more decentralized.

This is not to say that I would like to live in these places over the United States or some place with a small, liberal state, or that they are some kind of libertarian wet dream. These decentralized structures can provide a basis for law and order and even lay the foundation for economic growth. However, they are often institutionalize oppression just as badly as a traditional government. Somalia's Xeer law is based upon old tribal customs that institutionalize discrimination against women and ethnic minorities. Also, Xeer, which is based upon rural clan ties, has had problems adapting to urbanization. Sharia Courts have sprung up to fill these gaps in the cities. The courts were not really oppressive like the Taliban. The decentralization of the courts allowed for a broad spectrum of views ranging from moderate to extreme. Much of the radicalization of the courts came after the Ethiopian invasion and many of the judges rallied around al-Shabaab to kick out the invaders. Still, there were few real checks and balances, so some courts were able to make rulings that would go against our notions of individual liberty.

Iceland went through the opposite problem that Somalia went through. The various chieftains were able to collude and created a tax to support the church, but they exempted themselves. This helped a few small families take control over most of the land and power in Iceland, leading to civil war. The problem with anarchy is not that it will devolve into Mad Max or something horrific like that, but that it doesn't totally remove the inherent problem that many people have with the state, coercion. It can find workarounds to many of these problems, but there are very few safeguards to really protect the individual liberty and security of people.

http://www.observatori.org/paises/pais_74/documentos/64_somalia.pdf

I'd pick totalitarianism. At least there you have a chance of a semi-benevolent ruler. Anarchy is inevitably going to suck.

molten_dragon said:

I'd pick totalitarianism. At least there you have a chance of a semi-benevolent ruler. Anarchy is inevitably going to suck.

Click to expand...

I would say it's opposite. Anarchy allows for many different forms of political organization. They are all probably going to suck somewhat, but there is actually a large range of things that could happen and how an anarchist society could function. In contrast, despite different ideologies trying to justify it, most totalitarian states are very, very similar in practice. The leader can claim to be "benevolent" all they want, but every totalitarian state in history is built on repression and loads of bodies.

I still say that war is a better choice than both. And I forgot to mention that I hate war.

That's a ridiculous question. Either would be a disaster.

Silly poll but I picked totalitarianism because well I'm just assuming that i'd be the dictator. Otherwise I'd pick neither

none of the above
why is it that balance between the two cannot be an option ?