• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anarchy or Totalitarianism?

Anarchy or Totalitarianism?

  • Total voters
    30
I put a premium on law and order, power structures, and more probability for scientific and technological advancement. I voted totalitarianism.
 
Neither. Anarchy is inherently unsustainable anyhow, it will stop being anarchy almost immediately as people group together with those of similar views and form societies.
 
Paschendale said:
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%.
Click to expand...

Well, it depends on the mechanics of the question.

If by "anarchy" we mean that no government apparatus can develop, then I think I would prefer that.

At least that way I would have a chance against others who are more brutal and powerful. Or I could ingratiate myself with those who are more brutal and powerful. Or I could lend my knowledge to them.

Even cold-blooded killers only kill themselves if they are overly abusive of those who provide them with the necessities they need, such as food. So a nice synergy could arise from that. And I'd rather have the choice of choosing my personal dictator than having it forced on me and everyone else.
 
Totalitarianism for mee. I believe the progression and advancement of our human species is more important than my own pursuit of pleasure.
 
WI Crippler said:
Totalitarianism for mee. I believe the progression and advancement of our human species is more important than my own pursuit of pleasure.
Click to expand...

You're assuming that the dictator of the totalitarian government would use the state to progress and advance the human species rather than pursue his own pleasures.
 
So the choice is death by gunshot or death by poisoning. No thanks.
 
This "choice" depends so much on the quality of man...
If he were "perfect", then it would not matter either way..
Right now, I think I would choose totalitarianism as the lesser of the two evils....Either way, its quite horrible.
 
Lokiate said:
Armed resistance to either, since neither will be brought about through peaceful means. I cling tightly to my God, my guns, and my Constitution.
Click to expand...
So your ready to defend your group, therefore ready for anarchy. But if the King has the correct God, allows you to have your guns and uses your constitution you'd be for him.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
So your ready to defend your group, therefore ready for anarchy.
Click to expand...
No, I stand ready to deploy and engage the enemies of the United States, and to uphold the Constitution. I took an oath to do so, and that's not something I take lightly.

But if the King has the correct God, allows you to have your guns and uses your constitution you'd be for him.
Click to expand...
Read Articles I-III of the US Constitution, peep this ****:
implied-facepalm.jpg
Then get back to me.
 
WI Crippler said:
Totalitarianism for mee. I believe the progression and advancement of our human species is more important than my own pursuit of pleasure.
Click to expand...
I think it's best when progression and pleasure are aligned. I know a Nobel Prize winner that participates in the same artistic sport we do. There are very many examples of this. Many were in trouble with the church, the king or both.
 
Lokiate said:
No, I stand ready to deploy and engage the enemies of the United States, and to uphold the Constitution. I took an oath to do so, and that's not something I take lightly.
...
Then get back to me.
Click to expand...
I wasn't clear. When I wrote "So your ready to defend your group, therefore ready for anarchy." I'm saying that your standing "...ready to deploy and engage the enemies of the United States, and to uphold the Constitution." I'm just, in this instance, taking a world POV; not a country POV. (BTW, I spent a year defending the United States from N. Vietnam.)
 
OhIsee.Then said:
I wasn't clear. When I wrote "So your ready to defend your group, therefore ready for anarchy." I'm saying that your standing "...ready to deploy and engage the enemies of the United States, and to uphold the Constitution." I'm just, in this instance, taking a world POV; not a country POV. (BTW, I spent a year defending the United States from N. Vietnam.)
Click to expand...

The world can do whatever it wants. they try to bring unconstitutional leadership to my doorstep, I'm not having it.
 
Anarchy would be a temporary state, since society (and by extension, government) would naturally evolve from it after a while.
Totalitarianism would last as long as whoever's in power has the guns.

So, the former, I guess.
 
Dav said:
Anarchy would be a temporary state, since society (and by extension, government) would naturally evolve from it after a while.
Totalitarianism would last as long as whoever's in power has the guns.

So, the former, I guess.
Click to expand...
I think that during anarchy the group with the most power, e.g. guns, will win. Then you'll have totalitarianism.
 
It just occurred to me that we actually have a state of anarchy right now, in that the roughly 200 states of the world exist as sovereign, independent polities with no system of government over them.
 
In either case you end up with totalitarianism.
 
megaprogman said:
In either case you end up with totalitarianism.
Click to expand...

Very true. If the government were to vanish tomorrow, anarchy taking over, within a short time that void would be filled and we would end up with fascism.
 
haymarket said:
Very true. If the government were to vanish tomorrow, anarchy taking over, within a short time that void would be filled and we would end up with fascism.
Click to expand...

I doubt it would be so sophisticated as fascism, which requires things like propaganda, an ideology, some levels of cultural engineering, some semblance of a modern market, etc. I think it would more resemble feudalism where people with weapons enforce their will without regard to whatever the culture is with lots of raping and pillaging.
 
Last edited:
Centinel said:
It just occurred to me that we actually have a state of anarchy right now, in that the roughly 200 states of the world exist as sovereign, independent polities with no system of government over them.
Click to expand...

That's not good enough. We need communitarian states (communities, where people know each other personally),thousands and thousands of them, in a world federation. The federation obviously is for providing peace (otherwise states may attack each other) and resolving conflicts between those city-states.
 
megaprogman said:
I doubt it would be so sophisticated as fascism, which requires things like propaganda, an ideology, some levels of cultural engineering, some semblance of a modern market, etc. I think it would more resemble feudalism where people with weapons enforce their will without regard to whatever the culture is with lots of raping and pillaging.
Click to expand...

Good point. I agree that stage would be the next one. Eventually, corporations would make sure they had a very friendly authority to deal with and fascism - in one form or another would being to appear across the land.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom