<p>Well, take your pick =D</p>
<p>Depends on the totalitarian dictator. If he’s a pretty cool guy, it could work.</p>
<p>Best case scenario: Anarchy
Worst case scenario: Death</p>
<p>I’d take absolute totalitarianism, because it’s easier to overthrow a tyrant and establish a just government than to organize something good out of complete anarchy. In fact, complete anarchy would likely lead to a totalitarian regime, as the strongest person/group takes power.</p>
<p>Totalitarianism could be okay if the dictator was okay. I don’t see how anarchy could ever be okay, except in really small communities (and I assume we’re talking about something sizable).</p>
<p>I don’t know why, but I’m strongly reminded of a short story called The Lottery. (I think)</p>
<p>Totalitarianism. This can lead to a monarchy of some sort. An anarchy will eventually lead to a monarchy or totalitarian state anyway.</p>
<p>Who ever said Totalitarianism was bad? It results in stability. Every instance in history a tyrant can be bad, but who says there is no such things as a good dictator?</p>
<p>
The good ones give it up. Washington could have been king of America, but said no. He could have run for a third term, but didn’t. The Romans loved Cincinnatus, who did his duty then left the 6 month post of dictator in a few weeks.</p>
<p>I’d definitely take anarchy. I have friends, and my area is fairly defensible…</p>
<p>But there’d be nothing you could do about a totalitarian regime.</p>
<p>
You’d be surprised.</p>
<p>
Viva la Revolucion!</p>
<p>^ Against a modern totalitarian regime? One with [url=<a href=“Water Disruptor - YouTube”>Water Disruptor - YouTube]these[/url</a>]? And [url=<a href=“Bunker Buster - YouTube”>Bunker Buster - YouTube]these[/url</a>]? And [url=<a href=“- YouTube”>- YouTube]these[/url</a>]?</p>
<p>If your revolution has large, stable bases that can be bombed and nuked without even more damage to the regime than to your revolution, you are most certainly not doing it right.</p>
<p>Err…yeah…I think anarchy is in a way like communism in that it seems to work in theory, but isn’t applicable to real life. As mentioned above, anarchy would eventually result in one person/group attaining more power than others and having control.</p>
<p>Totalitarianism. Anarchy would just result in one person/group attaining all the power anyway as others have pointed out.</p>
<p>
It does ?</p>
<p>Loved all of your opinions so far. And let me clarify. By “absolute totalitarianism,” I mean “absolute totalitarianism,” big brother style. There can be no “tolerable dictators.”</p>
<p>As for me, I’d take anarchy. Go out into the mountains and chill for a bit =D</p>
<p>Chris McCandless style.</p>
<p>Anarchy. </p>
<p>In anarchy, you have power over yourself, your body, and your choices. Now, life might be shortened considerably (although I doubt it because most people do what’s best for themselves and what’s best for people is to have groups of people collaborating), but it would at least be “free”. I would hate to live somewhere where my destiny and course of life is chosen for me. I like choices.</p>
<p>Anarchy naturally leads to totalitarianism. However, the process of a dictator seizing power is typically brutal and bloody. I’d much rather skip that step and just take the totalitarian regime to start.</p>
<p>The notion of “freedom” in anarchy is not logical. In the absence of a functional justice system, power is solely in the hands of the strong. That’s why we can expect a dictator to immediately seize power in an anarchist society.</p>
<p>anarchy.</p>
<p>Anarchy would eventually lead to what society is like now. Humans started from anarchy.</p>
<p>It is hard to escape totalitarianism - just look at north korea.</p>