Anarchy or Totalitarianism

[Deleted]

I'm using it in the sense that an attempted anarchistic society would likely become Somalia pretty damned quick. A society ruled by the strongest and most brutal.

Sounds like a totalitarian regime to me. And the situation in Somalia seems to me like many regimes (many of which are totalitarian) fighting eachother. A bit like World War II, but in a much smaller scale. I'd suggest that no such thing as an Anarchistic Society even exists.

[Itisamuh]

Anarchy is the absolute last thing I would ever want to see. We would see human nature exposed at its worst. Laws are necessary.

[PizzaSHARK]

Would you rather live in a Totalitarian regime (something like the regime in 1984, A Handmaid's Tale, or Brave New World), or an anarchistic society (something like modern Somalia, complete with local warlords)?

I was a good little henchman for Mr. House. Professional henchman sounds like such an awesome job.

[Deleted]

Well, if I can be part of the totalitarian regime, and be under the radar, I guess I would be fine.

[Deleted]

I don't like either. Anarchy in theory might work, anarchy in Somalia is actually totalitarianism at warlord level rather then state level. So from this point, the Somalian anarchy is worse then totalitarianism since you not only oppose the "leader" but also the other totalitarian regimes.

Couldn't we have the Anarchism of the Spanish Revolution as our option for 'Anarchy' instead? >.<'

I'll take that thing.

[Authary]

Totalitarianism is cool. You just have to prove yourself useful while living quietly.

[Rend Blackhand]

Totalitarianism. I mean both would undoubtedly suck a serious sack but at least you'd be ok in the totalitarian state if you kept your head down and your mouth shut.

[Systam]

well Anarchists are against organization so you could never really have a country run through anarchists because there's organization >.>

sooo totalitarianism

[Decagon]

I would rather see the entire universe explode before anarchy. Anarchy is the worst thing that could ever happen to anyone. Plus, totalitarianism isn't that bad, in fact, it would actually be quite beneficial to the world if the government focused on scientific and technological progress. Anarchy, however, results in lots of needless deaths and no progress socially, scientifically, or any other way possible. Anarchy is bad and anything anarchist should be censored so no one ever gets any ideas about it.

[mistuhbull]

No. You're an average citizen.

So like a Beta?

Then BNW for me it is

[Deleted]

If I'm choosing between a war torn divided country and Airstrip One or Stalinist Russia, I'd probably go with Somalia or Sudan. The latter maybe brutal, but at least not everything is written in stone, I could try to help out even if it's only doctoring the wounded or something. If you mean choosing between totalitarianism and anarchy in general that's a harder dilemma.

[Kalyyn]

I'd take the totalitarian society. Military and government employees usually get special treatment in those. In anarchy, I'd just be shit out of luck.

[Decagon]

I'd take the totalitarian society. Military and government employees usually get special treatment in those. In anarchy, I'd just be shit out of luck.

You'd probably be eaten alive by the degenerates that anarchy would bring.

[Kalyyn]

You'd probably be eaten alive by the degenerates that anarchy would bring.

And that. I have a strong aversion to being eaten.

[Palmatum]

Neither would be good. Anyone telling themselves differently is delusional.

[Deleted]

No, he's using the concept of "anarchy" that actually exists in the real world instead of fantasies that ignore how humans actually behave.

What anarchy that exists in the real world? How are the battles between Somali warlords different than wars between large states? They differ only in size. There are PLENTY of states in Somalia, and thus no anarchy.

[Reeve]

Neither would be good. Anyone telling themselves differently is delusional.

That's not the question. It's a scenario where you decide which would be less bad.

[Kalyyn]

Neither would be good. Anyone telling themselves differently is delusional.

I don't think anyone is saying either are good. But I certainly prefer one over the other.

[Palmatum]

I don't think anyone is saying either are good. But I certainly prefer one over the other.

In which case I'd choose Anarchy, because I'd have more control over my own fate and those around me.

[Deleted]

I don't think anyone is saying either are good. But I certainly prefer one over the other.

A society where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of any individual sounds pretty good to me.

---------- Post added 2012-09-28 at 09:40 PM ----------

How is totalitarianism at all different in practice from anarchy in the way the terms are being defined in this thread? Both seem to involve violence. Under totalitarianism, such violence is simply carried out by a gang of thugs calling themselves "the state". Under anarchy, such violence is carried out by another gang of thugs who choose not to bother with creating an illusion of legitimacy.