A to-be classic politcal question

[Cerb]

I have to abstain. Human nature isn't a boolean culture.

By choosing either, you eventually end up with the other. Everything strives to meet an equilibrium, but sometimes the swing of the pendulum is pretty wild before it settles down.

[The Theban Legion]

I think that you seem to put more trust in the government then you do the individual. Anarchy is not necessarily chaos, it is only that if the majority of the individuals make it thus. Just as the dictator could choose to makes it thus.

[New Augustgrad]

Nowhere in my post did I mention the individual because I wasn't referring to the individual. I was referring to the society. If you have anarchy, you will have a society of people free to do as they wish without order. I've seen what mobs are like, so I feel I have a pretty good idea of what anarchy result in, and in my opinion it's for the birds. I'm not necessarily saying I trust the government more than I trust the individual. What I am saying is I will trust the government long before I trust a society of people, free to do as they darn well please, when it comes to my safety and well being.

However, I do commend, and share, your faith in people as individuals.

[Silvermain]

My vote went to anarchy. I think that a government with total control would make a population feel caged, and would force them to rebel and switch to anarchy. The thing is, though, that this would by default be a violent anarchy, seeing as it was meant to overthrow a government.

By starting without a government and letting each individual choose how to live their lives, it would at least start peaceful. If, however, the population leaned towards violence, a rough sort of governmental system would be created to keep people alive.

Though anarchy would be preferable to total governmental control, neither is possible. Both would lean a little towards the other, and the sort of governmental systems in place now would form. How do you think we got to where we are now?

[Guy]

May 22, 2010 18:33:07 GMT -5 Silvermain said:

By starting without a government and letting each individual choose how to live their lives, it would at least start peaceful. If, however, the population leaned towards violence, a rough sort of governmental system would be created to keep people alive.

Too many lives would be lost. My vote remains with the dictatorship.

[skegnezz]

I voted anarchy, because I think that even if left completely to their own devices, people would form unofficial 'pockets' of local organisation and police their own affairs just as well (if not better) than when regulated by the Government.

[bryandixon]

I think dictatorship makes a lot more since. Man formed government for safety and in anarchy you have no safety. While I believe most people share some form of altruism, they are still mostly self-thinking creatures that will do just about anything.

[Inutoland]

I vote dictatorship.

I'm not saying dictatorships are great, mind, but your average bloke on the street isn't about overthrowing the government anyway. As long as they have a relatively safe, relatively predictable world to bring their family up in, most people aren't going to want to shake things up enough to actually join a revolutionary cadre. They'll be glad of any freedom that comes their way (probably), but most people are more interested in predictability and order than they are in freedom that comes in fire, chaos and destruction.

Anarchy is hell.

[CTALNH]

Mar 27, 2010 15:55:13 GMT -5 Anime Daisuki said:

I agree with Enigmatic. While there have been some bad dictatorships, not all are totally bad. Taiwan for example, was ruled by a military dictatorship government (Chiang Kai-Sek and Chiang Jing-Guo) from 1949 until the late 1980s, during which time Taiwan developed from the backwaters of East Asia into one of the four "Little Dragons" of Asia (along with Singapore, Hong Kong, and South Korea).

Singapore is another example. From my experience, dictatorships are only bad when they get entangled with socialist-rhetorics. Capitalist dictatorships governments-- they do work.

Wrong tell that to stalin if that's not a socialist dictatorship that worked perfectly without stalin russia would be doomed in ww2

[CTALNH]

well something more the more you go you get individual freedom the more left you go you get a government like state

[Pompadoodle]

I go with Anarchy, every time.

I have strongly held left-libertarian views. I am not, strictly speaking, an anarchist, since I view some sort of minimal state as necessary. However, I deeply distrust all of the hierarchical structures that regulate our lives- corporations and governments above all.

I feel that we will only be truly free if and when the scope of the state is drastically reduced, power is drastically decentralized, corporations are broken up and the autonomy of individuals and communities becomes paramount.

[Enigmatic]

Has anyone else noticed that the folks voting for anarchy would probably be the better choice to run the dictatorship and those voting for dictatorship would probably fare better in a state of anarchy?

[Pompadoodle]

Jul 29, 2010 13:56:01 GMT -5 Enigmatic said:

Has anyone else noticed that the folks voting for anarchy would probably be the better choice to run the dictatorship and those voting for dictatorship would probably fare better in a state of anarchy?

Should I take that as a compliment?

[Enigmatic]

Yeah, if you like. I just meant that those in favor of anarchy have a much more trusting view of humanity while those supporting dictatorship do not. It seems to me that with that type of mindset it would be much easier for those supporting dictatorship to abuse their authority should they be a dictator. Those in support of anarchy would, it seems to me, be more willing to work with the people under them and build a truer community. Now that's a huge generalization and I certainly don't think that I or any of the others who voted for dictatorship would definitely be iron-fisted tyrants or that those who voted for anarchy are somehow immune to that temptation, but I suppose the danger is there.

[Lakenburgh]

A tough question, since it would mainly depend on who is the dictator and what his motivations are.
Dictator like tyrant have been quite honorary titles for politicians working in the interests of their people.
Only the more modern definition always has the negative connotation to it.

There are dictatorships which certainly would be preferable to pure anarchy and there are some who are barely better, since they are ruled by malicious, self serving, in really bad cases "believers in a cause" types of person, who try to create a kind of hell on earth, just to see what it would be like or to satisfy their personal ideas of fun.

In the end at least dictatorships, if they aren't too oppressive or are very good at brainwashing, can be quite stable. Anarchy would collapse very soon in itself, since total freedom always ends in total freedom for a few and suppression for most, soon to become nothing but dictatorships with a fancier name.
Which historically was kind of the evolution of mankind, from total freedom to dominance of those that can protect their people and conquer others.

[Rondlesia]

I would vote for Dictatorship cause man-kind really if they have free reign over everything would probably end up throwing nuclear bombs at each other. So in that sense it is best to have total control than total freedom.