<p>Anarchy doesn’t work because we’re animals. It would be chaos. So, I’ll go with totalitarianism.</p>
<p>As a communal anarchist, I’d have to take the latter, of course.</p>
<p>The disestablishment of the state and current monetary system without a revolution would be an immense blessing that would permit all of society to take over the means of production rather than placing it into the hands of a greedy few.</p>
<p>^^ Personally I’d prefer chaos over totalitarianism…</p>
<p>^ I second MM.</p>
<p>^ You guys always agree on everything -_-</p>
<p>Trust me, you don’t want chaos. Think clearly. You never know, you may find yourself being the dictator of a totalitarian state, it is up to you to be a leader with an iron fist or a kind and just leader.</p>
<p>^Mhmm. Read Lord of the Flies or watch the documentary “After Armageddon” to get a taste of what happens to people when we only look out for ourselves. Like I said, we’re animals. It’s scary.</p>
<p>^I know, and government is kinda of the only thing that separates us from pure savagery. </p>
<p>If we have an anarchy, goods like food will be produced in low to none quantities. If people starve, they will find a way to survive. This can lead to cannibalism, and roaming barbaric tribes. Humans are truly savages, religion and law keep us in order. </p>
<p>Totalitarianism can help prevent that by bringing order, and having a certain amount of goods produced so that the people don’t starve. People are seen as property, and property shouldn’t go to waste, especially if its a militaristic state healthy men will be needed for war. </p>
<p>I rather have a totalitarianism regime.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lol! </p>
<p>@toxic- I would rather have chaos and freedom than sameness. I can’t stand that weed is illegal or that gay marriage is not tolerated, and I don’t smoke nor do I plan on marrying a woman. </p>
<p>Meh. I’m done with this topic now.</p>
<p>^True, but with an anarchy whats the point of freedom if it can’t be protected. Does anyone remember the French revolution, there’s a bit of an example of what can happen in complete anarchy. </p>
<p>Plus, even in an anarchy a person or a group is in charge, someone is always in charge.</p>
<p>^ The French Revolution was cool until a dictatorship took over and until xenophobia came into effect when every other country in Europe invaded France.</p>
<p>An anarchy would just result in the formations of tribes, clans, and then nations (evolution theory of origin of gov)
totalitarianism could be executed in a variety of different ways but would not necessarily result in a revolution. </p>
<p>I would choose anarchy with the criterion of Hobbes’ social contract of the eventual removing chaos with the replacement of freedom. Ehh, prolly Locke’s would be better but who cares.</p>
<p>
Reign of Terror wasn’t too great, either, though I can understand their motives.</p>
<p>Anarchy would be too much freedom. Totalitarianism would be too little. The ideal is ultimate liberty where it does not infringe upon the rights of others. That is not furthered by either. I chose totalitarianism because social upheaval and revolution would be easier than forging a new world out of anarchy. The first, second, third revolution may not succeed, but it would inevitably occur, if humanity survived long enough.</p>
<p>^ Maybe, but if you are in the first revolution, you end up dead, and it does you no good if later ones succeed.</p>
<p>I would prefer anarchy due to the fact that I’d rather risk the decency of my neighbors than the wisdom of Big Brother.</p>
<p>I live in an area with a fairly sparse population, large amounts of reasonably fertile land, and plenty of nearby wilderness to hide in/live off of if worst came to worst. Most people here are armed, and most people here are reasonable, so even under anarchy it would be hard for violent gangs to take power.</p>
<p>If I lived in Chicago I might think differently.</p>
<p>
It does humanity good, though, and that’s the bigger picture. I’m going to die eventually, why not do it in a manner that may further the good of all? The point is, humanity would be better off, eventually, when a revolution did succeed.</p>
<p>
Riiiight. Personally, I’d like to avoid the heavily armed country people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I tend to think that it would take less time, and involve less suffering, for government to reform from anarchy. Because under anarchy, there is little motivation for people to risk their lives and their meager resources suppressing attempts to organize, but a totalitarian government would have huge resources and huge motivation to do so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I disagree. I’d rather be in the midst of a lot of heavily armed country people, many of whom were my friends, and more of whom were friends of friends, and most of whom were religious, than in a city where the people I know were separated from me by thousands of people I don’t know, and in which there were multiple organized gangs, and a large number of homeless/drug addict/generally messed up people.</p>
<p>Especially since in the second case the heavily armed ones will mostly be the bad types, and much less be my friends.</p>
<p>
Oh, a government (or, rather, governments) would rise from anarchy fairly quickly. Just not very good governments, usually. And the less oppressive ones would likely be overwhelmed by the stronger oppressive ones.</p>
<p>
Anarchy would be bad anywhere. But if a national government broke down, it is possible that a city, with all its infrastructure and bureaucracy, would be able to sustain itself as a city-state, similar to an ancient Greek polis. It’s also possible that it would be torn apart by warring factions, but that’s why I didn’t choose anarchy.</p>
<p>To get as functional a system out of anarchy would take so very long (civilization doesn’t spring up fully formed in a day), but a totalitarian regime overthrown by the people would lead to something better. Nuclear weapons were brought up earlier, but while a totalitarian regime would not be able to use them effectively against a revolution, anarchy would lead to such weapons falling into anyone’s hands. And with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons out there, in addition to all sorts of other things, bad things would certainly happen. Also, with anarchy, we would be ill-suited to respond to disaster, which could lead to an end of the human race.</p>
<p>@MosbyMarion In an anarchy every man is for himself. If they want something and you have it, no matter how close you may be they will use force and brutality to get it — even if it means death. And those weapons are your enemies. I wouldn’t trust them if I were you.</p>
<p>^ Are people, then, naturally unwilling to cooperate? I tend to think that the establishment of a system of property is what leads to competitiveness and hostility between people. If the concept of property is eliminated, this is not an issue. That said, I suppose capitalist society might still remain ingrained people’s minds despite anarchy</p>
<p>^^So the only reason people don’t kill and steal is that the government says they shouldn’t?</p>