NationStates Jolt Archive

Say you had a choice to live in two societies, or take a toxin that causes the greatest pain in the entire universe, and it is very slow.


Orwellian totalitarian dystopia
Absolute lawlessness and chaos (anarchy)
I'm taking the toxin pill


Personally, I'm taking the pill. Why? Because every path leads to the same likely fate: death.

Say you had a choice to live in two societies, or take a toxin that causes the greatest pain in the entire universe, and it is very slow.


Orwellian totalitarian dystopia
Absolute lawlessness and chaos (anarchy)
I'm taking the toxin pill


Personally, I'm taking the pill. Why? Because every path leads to the same likely fate: death.

Ill have some one else administer the pill. Choice two is the worst followed by one and three being the nicest.

I choose absolute power only if it's me holding it :D

You guys are insane. You can kill yourselves in either 1 or 2, and die in a lot less pain then 3.

*expects the anarchists of the forum to complain about being painted as "chaos"*


*resists the urge to do it himself ;) *




out of the options i suppose the totalitarian option as you're less likely to die. i mean stay on the good side of the govt and you can live; while in chaos you have more chance of being shot, stabbed or otherwise killed for your stuff

I chose 2 so that I can conquer all. gyahahahahahaha!

Btw absolute lawlessness isn't anarchy. Anarchy is only with out a ruler not laws.

You guys are insane. You can kill yourselves in either 1 or 2, and die in a lot less pain then 3.

Maybe the sights we shalt see in the others are a fate worse then death.
..
<
U
Random Verticle Smilie by Jibea :) (because I was originally going to put . or ... but didnt feel like it was important so I put .. and decided it looked like eyes then it didnt print out right so I did a fairly simple thing.)

I'll take scenario two and hole myself up in a bomb shelter and horde nuclear weapons.

Through the chaos of total freedom, one holds total power.

The orwellian dystopia. I mean I will not die and take the sissy's way out. As well chaos and disorder would probably drive me insane because I thrive on order. Finally in order to live in the last all I have to do is to be loyal. If I do that I will probably have an alright life(not good but better than disorder).

Definately two, it has the most potential for reform to a mildly anarchic state.

Freedom is more important to me than security, thus option 2.

:rolleyes: I would have to argue that option one would be the best of the three. At least then we all would know what to expect. That way life would be kinda like a game. You know the rules and that there is a guaranteed result from any action. You play by the rules, and try to win by the rules. When we truly think of it, this whole game is that exact scenerio, we all just don't recognize it.

P.S. I'd keep the pill in my pocket though.

Two, because civil order can be carved from chaos by strong willed men.

Say you had a choice to live in two societies, or take a toxin that causes the greatest pain in the entire universe, and it is very slow.


Orwellian totalitarian dystopia
Absolute lawlessness and chaos (anarchy)
I'm taking the toxin pill


Personally, I'm taking the pill. Why? Because every path leads to the same likely fate: death.

All paths, not just those three, lead to death. Apparently, it's part of this whole "being born" thing.

I'd pick total freedom because at least my safety and my family's would be dependent on my actions rather than on the whims of a two-bit dictator.

I pick freedom but probably only because I've read books about autocratic states (like 1984 and Brave New World) but I haven't really read any about anarchy. Ah, blissful ignorance.

Well, I doubt that the freedom would be that pleasant. I mean it is more likely that you would be killed in some violent rampage and some dictators very short lived attempt for power. Freedom would exist but you would not be very free to use it due to the freedom of others to kill as they wish.

Yes anarchy has consequences, but it beats oppression and death any day.

Yes anarchy has consequences, but it beats oppression and death any day.
Death is death, and oppression by tyrant at least is easier to deal with than oppression by insane mob. After all the measures needed to protect yourself might end up being more oppressive than the dictator himself.

I'll take anarchy and total freedom... and then, I'll build my own Orwellian nightmare, crushing the poor bastards.

out of the options i suppose the totalitarian option as you're less likely to die. i mean stay on the good side of the govt and you can live; while in chaos you have more chance of being shot, stabbed or otherwise killed for your stuff
Yes, but you cannot hide your true intent forever. The Ministry of Love is very good in finding out the thought and breaking people's wills to the point of loving Big Brother, then they shall blow your brains out with a shotgun while you still love him. And Big Brother is merely, according to hints in Orwell's novel, a model's face superimposed onto a picture. After all, it's easier to focus hatred onto one individual instead of an entire organization.

-snip-
Indeed, you create Martyrs if you kill your enemies. You only end their lives, you do not defeat them.
1984 was indeed scary - because I could not for the death of me think of a way ttheir society would ever end. I thought about it, long and hard, I read the book many, many times.
But it is perfect. Flawless.
I love Big Brother........bang!

Noone gets out of life alive.

I choose absolute freedom. Man is an animal; animals are born in absolute freedom. The "law" is a mental barrier only (note: I am not an anarchist, I believe in the spirit of law).

I have spent my life becoming more and more self sufficient. Its why I gather most of my own food, among other things. Absolute freedom would be glorious in its own strange way.

absolute freedom is not always anarchy, in that if you don't have laws that doesn't turn you into a gun-carrying psycho :sniper: :mp5:

Freedom first and always.

If you give up freedom for security, eventually you will have to fear those that "secure" you. They will become corrupt--all power leads to it.

I would choose option #2, unless you're claiming that somehow in this scenario that the chaos is perpetual. I can't imagine that happening in real life, but for philosophical discussions it's fine.

The options illustrate the dilemma in Iraq, of course in magnified proportions.
Saddam was not quite as Orwellian as he'd like to be, and the chaos today could be much worse.

I see the options as:

1. Living dead (under Big Brother).

2. Hard life (equivalent to animals in wild nature).

3. Suicide (even more boring than big Brother).

I choose chaos.

The orwellian dystopia. I mean I will not die and take the sissy's way out. As well chaos and disorder would probably drive me insane because I thrive on order. Finally in order to live in the last all I have to do is to be loyal. If I do that I will probably have an alright life(not good but better than disorder).
Seeing as how it was almost impossible to be loyal in 1984 (remember syme, killed because he was too intelligent, or parsons, killed because of what he said in his sleep?), I'd take the freedom. It doesn't have to be lawless, just a very strong system of people knowing what the result is of their crimes :D.

I'd pick the "orwellian Dystopia" because some totalitarian states did a lot of good.

Say you had a choice to live in two societies, or take a toxin that causes the greatest pain in the entire universe, and it is very slow.


Orwellian totalitarian dystopia
Absolute lawlessness and chaos (anarchy)
I'm taking the toxin pill


Personally, I'm taking the pill. Why? Because every path leads to the same likely fate: death.

i'd live at #1 and be happy about it. very few things could be better about that society i'd think.(not the orwellian part, he was odd)