NationStates Jolt Archive

Which would you rather live under, a totalitarian regime or a state of absolute anarchy. I think to succesfully answer this question you need a basic definition of both words:

Totalitarianism-
1:Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly
2:A political doctrine advocating the principle of absolute rule



Anarchy-
1:Absence of any form of political authority
2:Political disorder and confusion
3:Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose

Now, which would you rather live under?

Totalitarianism.

Depends on if I'm dictator or not.

Totalitarianism.

Why? What is your reason for choosing this?

I chose Totalitarianism because even an oppressive government is better than no government at all.

even if it was anarchy as in chaos rather than a properly thought out anarchist society i would choose anarchy. i am a much better thief than i am a sheep.

Depends on if I'm dictator or not.

Your not in this scenario.

It would depend on whether or not I'm the one in charge....


Seriously what ever happened to shades of grey? Compromise? Middle of the road?

Anarchy. I'd be miserable and downtrodden in a totalitarian state, and there's merely a high chance of the same in an anarchistic one. Lesser of two evils, especially as I wouldn't like being told what I'm thinking like totalitarianism thoughtfully provides.

Unless I was in charge.

It would depend on whether or not I'm the one in charge....


Seriously what ever happened to shades of grey? Compromise? Middle of the road?

dichotomies are more fun :p

even if it was anarchy as in chaos rather than a properly thought out anarchist society i would choose anarchy. i am a much better thief than i am a sheep.

Interesting. What do you mean by properly thought out anarchist society? Anarchy is, by definition, really a lack of all cohesion, or order. How would you make that work?

I think to succesfully answer this question you need a basic definition of both words

i think it would be helpful to use the actual political theories rather than dictionary definitions

Anarchy. I'd be miserable and downtrodden in a totalitarian state, and there's merely a high chance of the same in an anarchistic one. Lesser of two evils, especially as I wouldn't like being told what I'm thinking like totalitarianism thoughtfully provides.

Unless I was in charge.

Your not, you are citizen of one of the two. My personal belief is A government, no matter how oppressive or evil, is better than no government at all. And living in chaos.

Anarchy. I would rather live in a chaotic society then being psychologically oppressed by the government.

The anarchy would coalesce into something eventually anyways. Even if it remains Anarchy in name.


Unless I get to be the dictator.

Anarchy please, I'm capable of making my own decisions...I think ;)

Depends on if I'm dictator or not.

your willing to do that much work? :p

Totalitarianism, as defined for example by Arendt, is clearly worse.

Of course, no such government has ever existed - not even in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia - because they simply did not have the technological capacity to stamp out the private sphere completely, 1984-style.

Interesting. What do you mean by properly thought out anarchist society? Anarchy is, by definition, really a lack of all cohesion, or order. How would you make that work?

you have a misguided idea of the anarchism. anarchism is not about chaos and lack of order. do some research rather than using dictionary definitions, you might start here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism).

i think it would be helpful to use the actual political theories rather than dictionary definitions

Can do, here you go:

Totalitarianism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism

Anarchy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

Anarchy is, by definition, really a lack of all cohesion, or order.

not really, no.

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html

Anarchy. The OP is not referring to political anarchism to my knowledge, but even so I'll take anarchy.

Your not, you are citizen of one of the two. My personal belief is A government, no matter how oppressive or evil, is better than no government at all. And living in chaos.

I see your point, though I counter it with: if I'm going to be persecuted, tortured, and possibly killed for my beliefs, does it matter if it's an anarchist or a dictator that shoots me? And unless I was in a VERY permissive totalitarian state, I would be, I've no doubt. In an anarchy, there would at least be a chance for freedoms to flourish whilst maintaining a standard of living.

In short, I don't see what a government is there for if it makes you miserable and oppresses you. What benefits do you feel it would confer?

you have a misguided idea of the anarchism. anarchism is not about chaos and lack of order. do some research, you might start here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism).

My view on anarchism is the same, a lack of order because it rejects compulsory government. Without a government or some sort of leadership; it is, in fact, Chaos.

Interesting. What do you mean by properly thought out anarchist society? Anarchy is, by definition, really a lack of all cohesion, or order. How would you make that work?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism - you might be interested to read this.

Personally, I'm not an anarchist, but I'm not so cynical as to think that totalitarianism would be better.

Anarchy. The OP is not referring to political anarchism to my knowledge, but even so I'll take anarchy.

same. i have this slight problem with keeping my head down and following orders, so it's not like totalitarianism can even claim to be better by offering me 'security'

I see your point, though I counter it with: if I'm going to be persecuted, tortured, and possibly killed for my beliefs, does it matter if it's an anarchist or a dictator that shoots me? And unless I was in a VERY permissive totalitarian state, I would be, I've no doubt. In an anarchy, there would at least be a chance for freedoms to flourish whilst maintaining a standard of living.

In short, I don't see what a government is there for if it makes you miserable and oppresses you. What benefits do you feel it would confer?


A sense of order, protection really. In anarchy without a centralized government, without someone to lead us, it would fall apart. Maybe a long time ago anarchy would have worked, but now, nearly everyone on earth has lived under one government or another, the lack of that central power would really mess with everyone. Anarchy, I believe, could not work in the 21st Century.

I have replied to all of you, but I am being moderated. So please be patient.

Really what are the benefits of no government. That is my argument. Totalitarinism, while not perfect, is far better than anarchy.

Neither is necessarily good or bad.
Anarchism would, I think, have more trouble to react adequately to disasters, since there wouldn't be a main political structure to organize a large scale response. Of course, with most totalitarian rulers it is questionable whether they'd care to respond adequately.

Barring disasters, in declining preference, something along the lines of:
--Anarchy provided the populace is overall intelligent and compasionate (Everyone's so nice)
--Benevolent totalitarianism (Don't get uppity, but the state has your best interest at heart)
--'Regular' totalitarianism (You'll probably get killed if you stick out your neck, but you'll likely be fine if you don't)
--Anarchy with a 'normal' populace (half the people rob and exploit you if they get the chance; and who would stop them?)
--Exploitive totalitarianism (basicly you get worked to death for the greater glory of whoever is ruling over you).

Totalitarianism provide you support the ruling party is much better. Government is one of those things you only notice when it is not there. Too much order is better than none at all.

Anarchy cannot really exist. You can have a huge devolution to tribes or clans or extended families, but there is always some sort of government.

Neither is necessarily good or bad.
Anarchism would, I think, have more trouble to react adequately to disasters, since there wouldn't be a main political structure to organize a large scale response. Of course, with most totalitarian rulers it is questionable whether they'd care to respond adequately.

Barring disasters, in declining preference, something along the lines of:
--Anarchy provided the populace is overall intelligent and compasionate (Everyone's so nice)
--Benevolent totalitarianism (Don't get uppity, but the state has your best interest at heart)
--'Regular' totalitarianism (You'll probably get killed if you stick out your neck, but you'll likely be fine if you don't)
--Anarchy with a 'normal' populace (half the people rob and exploit you if they get the chance; and who would stop them?)
--Exploitive totalitarianism (basicly you get worked to death for the greater glory of whoever is ruling over you).


So you have generalized the two based on what has happened in the past. Not all Totalitarian regimes are evil and oppressive. But with the part on Anarchy, I agree with you.

Totalatarianism provide you support the ruling party is much better. Government is one of those things you only notice when it is not there. Too much order is better than none at all.

I completely agree.

See my sig.

Really what are the benefits of no government. That is my argument. Totalitarinism, while not perfect, is far better than anarchy.

Well, with no (totalitarian) gov't, you are free to express and live as you feel, which is quite important, nobody has an officially sanctioned reason to simply turn up at your door, and take you to a cell where you can languish until you die or they let you go, and generally it's far harder for someone to impose their will upon you. If someone wants me dead in an anarchy, no doubt, they can do it. But it's not as easy as signing the document and at a stroke, turning potentially millions of people against me. In an anarchy, I would be able to do exactly as I wished, and there's no guarantee someone would seek to destroy me for it. In a totalitarian state, it could be done as simply as a whim, or because I lived in the same neighbourhood as a troublemaker.

Well, with no (totalitarian) gov't, you are free to express and live as you feel, which is quite important, nobody has an officially sanctioned reason to simply turn up at your door, and take you to a cell where you can languish until you die or they let you go, and generally it's far harder for someone to impose their will upon you. If someone wants me dead in an anarchy, no doubt, they can do it. But it's not as easy as signing the document and at a stroke, turning potentially millions of people against me. In an anarchy, I would be able to do exactly as I wished, and there's no guarantee someone would seek to destroy me for it. In a totalitarian state, it could be done as simply as a whim, or because I lived in the same neighbourhood as a troublemaker.

I see your point, so basicly you have chosen anarchy out of a wish for self-preservation. That would also get you shot in a totalitarian state, but that defeats the point.

I a rather resourceful and independent person to begin with, so I would likely last longer within a chaotic society than under a totalitarian society.

Well, with no (totalitarian) gov't, you are free to express and live as you feel, which is quite important, nobody has an officially sanctioned reason to simply turn up at your door, and take you to a cell where you can languish until you die or they let you go, and generally it's far harder for someone to impose their will upon you. If someone wants me dead in an anarchy, no doubt, they can do it. But it's not as easy as signing the document and at a stroke, turning potentially millions of people against me. In an anarchy, I would be able to do exactly as I wished, and there's no guarantee someone would seek to destroy me for it. In a totalitarian state, it could be done as simply as a whim, or because I lived in the same neighbourhood as a troublemaker.

My reply is coming, it is being checked by the mods

(is thast just something Jolt does or something?)

I a rather resourceful and independent person to begin with, so I would likely last longer within a chaotic society than under a totalitarian society.

But most of us in the general population would not.

Really what are the benefits of no government. That is my argument. Totalitarinism, while not perfect, is far better than anarchy.

well the government really doesn't do much communities will look after themselves much as they do and always have done after all doctors aren't in it for the money

Neither is necessarily good or bad.
Anarchism would, I think, have more trouble to react adequately to disasters, since there wouldn't be a main political structure to organize a large scale response.

leadership arises naturally so thats organization covered and people will still find out about disasters so they will still give/help out

Anarchy with a 'normal' populace (half the people rob and exploit you if they get the chance; and who would stop them?)

the community will a lack of government doesn't mean a lack of a policing force

the community will a lack of government doesn't mean a lack of a policing force

Who would run it, that still requires some sort of central leadership,and that is not anarchy.

Neither is necessarily good or bad.

Totalitarianism can fall into two categories, bad or unnecessary.

If it oppresses the will of its citizens it is bad. It it congruous with the will of the citizens, it is unnecessary.

But most of us in the general population would not.

Then let them be slaves.

If they need a ruler, contact me. Otherwise, I will take my "chaos".

Totalitarianism can fall into two categories, bad or unnecessary.

If it oppresses the will of its citizens it is bad. It it congruous with the will of the citizens, it is unnecessary.

Do you mean a dictatorship, vr an endless bureaucracy that is supposed to cater to the will of the people like in the Soviet Union.

So you have generalized the two based on what has happened in the past. Not all Totalitarian regimes are evil and oppressive. Hmm, I think they have to be oppressive by definition, and in that sense evil. Although there are definately degrees of evil. But all political systems are evil, some just moreso than others. And you could construct a particular type of totalitarianism at nearly every point along the scale, probably.

Who would run it, that still requires some sort of central leadership,and that is not anarchy.

the community a leader will arise as always happens and generally handle things, the community itself will look after each other as what happened up until 1829

well the government really doesn't do much communities will look after themselves much as they do and always have done after all doctors aren't in it for the money

So communities would be self-governing?

leadership arises naturally so thats organization covered and people will still find out about disasters so they will still give/help out

And there's leadership...

the community will a lack of government doesn't mean a lack of a policing force

Police?

Hmm, I think they have to be oppressive by definition, and in that sense evil. Although there are definately degrees of evil. But all political systems are evil, some just moreso than others. And you could construct a particular type of totalitarianism at nearly every point along the scale, probably.

I could agree with that. This is really a pitiful example, but take Nazi Germany. By all accounts and evil, oppressive, murderous regime, true? But, it did bring Germany out of the depths of deppression and chaos. (even though it ended in the destruction of Germany, that isnot the point)

the community a leader will arise as always happens and generally handle things, the community itself will look after each other as what happened up until 1829

You scratch my back, I'll scratch your back, is that basiclly what you mean. Well then that would be more like vigilanties than an actual police force.

But, it did bring Germany out of the depths of deppression and chaos.

no it didn't

Let's take a real world example.

Somalia or Soviet Union

No roads in Somalia

No new police

No waterworks

No military (worse ... roving gangs, warlords, and tribes)

No utilities (electricity, garbage removal)

No schools or public education

No new firefighters or firehalls

Some health care with zero regulation.

No real industry

VS.

Roads, military protection, police, firefighters, some industry, and health care.

Some regulation of what you read or say in public

Unless you are openly defying the government you are normally okay.

Tough choice.

Totalitarianism can fall into two categories, bad or unnecessary.

If it oppresses the will of its citizens it is bad. It it congruous with the will of the citizens, it is unnecessary.

In the first place, the second category is logically impossible - unless there is only one person in the society in question, there will be different points of view.

In the second place, you're confusing totalitarianism with dictatorship. Totalitarianism derives its name from the idea that the government exerts total control over, indeed eliminates, the private sphere. Mussolini, for example, created football teams that people were told to root for.

no it didn't

Yes it did. Germany was an economic power in Europe during the Nazi Regime, there was barely any unemployment. In the Weihmar Republic, unemployment skyrocketed and the economy stagnated.

If it oppresses the will of its citizens it is bad. It it congruous with the will of the citizens, it is unnecessary.Then I wonder why the greeks sometimes elected dictators to deal with certain situations. It seems to me sometimes it is advantageous to invest all power into one person when resolute action is needed.

Then I wonder why the greeks sometimes elected dictators to deal with certain situations. It seems to me sometimes it is advantageous to invest all power into one person when resolute action is needed.

Good point.

Yes it did. Germany was an economic power in Europe during the Nazi Regime, there was barely any unemployment. In the Weihmar Republic, unemployment skyrocketed and the economy stagnated.

Wasn't that trouble during the Great Depression...?

Yes it did. Germany was an economic power in Europe during the Nazi Regime, there was barely any unemployment. In the Weihmar Republic, unemployment skyrocketed and the economy stagnated.
Which means nothing if it had no prospects of long-term success, and even less if it resulted in a massive bust. Schacht (once Hitler's economist) even warned him that his plans would end in ruin.

Wasn't that trouble during the Great Depression...?

That and the retarded Treaty of Versaille, which put further strain on the German economy. When Hitler rejected the treaty and ended the War Guilt Clause, the German economy began to recover.

Which means nothing if it had no prospects of long-term success, and even less if it resulted in a massive bust.

My point was that it helped at the time. I also said that I knew it ended in the complete destruction of German Industry after WWII, but during its reign the Nazi Regime helped.

the community will a lack of government doesn't mean a lack of a policing forceI don't have enough faith in regular people to think this would happen. I rather expect a high degree of not-my-problem reasoning.
I could be wrong, of course. But I'm ever the pessimist in these situations. If I were to end up in an anarchistic society, I'd hope to have better guns than everyone else, just in case.

My point was that it helped at the time. I also said that I knew it ended in the complete destruction of German Industry after WWII, but during its reign the Nazi Regime helped.
Let me put it this way - it is sort of like getting drunk. Whilst under the influence one is gregarious and frivolous, generally amusing oneself - the morning after they wake up with a terrible hangover, and in the long-term they damage their liver. Likewise, in economic terms this sort of short-term outlook is disastrous.

Let me put it this way - it is sort of like getting drunk. Whilst under the influence one is gregarious and frivolous, generally amusing oneself - the morning after they wake up with a terrible hangover, and in the long-term they damage their liver. In economic terms this sort of short-term outlook is disastrous.

I know, but given the time period, better for at least a little while, was better than horrible all the time.

Yes it did. Germany was an economic power in Europe during the Nazi Regime, there was barely any unemployment. In the Weihmar Republic, unemployment skyrocketed and the economy stagnated.

Forced labor, extermination and force expulsion of a great portion of the labor force, and appropriation and myopic spending of vast personal fortunes might just make an economic powerhouse.

It did, of course, have its downfall.

I know, but given the time period, better for at least a little while, was better than horrible all the time.
Indeed - all I am showing is that it offered temporary relief for disastrous after-effects.

Then I wonder why the greeks sometimes elected dictators to deal with certain situations. It seems to me sometimes it is advantageous to invest all power into one person when resolute action is needed.

Elected officials aren't totalitarian.

So communities would be self-governing?
And there's leadership...
Police?

1) there are still self governing communities in the world so yes
2) voluntary leadership of course meaning you can go and do your own thing but humans are sheep so that won't really happen
3) more vigilantes

You scratch my back, I'll scratch your back, is that basiclly what you mean.

no people look after each other without the need for material gain

Yes it did. Germany was an economic power in Europe during the Nazi Regime, there was barely any unemployment. In the Weihmar Republic, unemployment skyrocketed and the economy stagnated.

1) there was no unemployment because the unemployed where forced to work for little pay in government projects

2) the Nazi economy wasn't strong at all though it was made to seem so e.g employees received little pay but there was nothing for the German citizens to buy so the money built up and eventually they had enough for luxury cruises

Then I wonder why the greeks sometimes elected dictators to deal with certain situations. It seems to me sometimes it is advantageous to invest all power into one person when resolute action is needed.

yeah rich landowners choosing a figurehead to support there own interests

Forced labor, extermination and force expulsion of a great portion of the labor force, and appropriation and myopic spending of vast personal fortunes might just make an economic powerhouse.

It did, of course, have its downfall.

That it did.

In the second place, you're confusing totalitarianism with dictatorship. Totalitarianism derives its name from the idea that the government exerts total control over, indeed eliminates, the private sphere. Mussolini, for example, created football teams that people were told to root for.

No, I"m not.

Depends on if I'm dictator or not.

The Empire of Fass: Ruling with an iron, albeit heavily lubed, fist.






Yeah, I know I stole that from somewhere in the past.

Yes it did. Germany was an economic power in Europe during the Nazi Regime, there was barely any unemployment.

no, it wasn't. what it had was drops in real wages, shortages, greatly reduced trade, and slave labor. economically, it was a joke.

I don't have enough faith in regular people to think this would happen. I rather expect a high degree of not-my-problem reasoning.
I could be wrong, of course. But I'm ever the pessimist in these situations. If I were to end up in an anarchistic society, I'd hope to have better guns than everyone else, just in case.

well you are wrong because thats what happened until the 1800's and still does in some parts of the world

Let's put this question into perspective, into a situation that we'e all familiar with.

Would you rather live in Iraq under Saddam or in Iraq as it is now?

I know it's not total anarchy there as there are "rulers" but let's not be picky about definitions here.

That it did.

Which was a result of the totalitarian government.

A question: Would you not consider the violent extermination, expulsion, and enslaving of a huge portion of the population to be chaotic?

well you are wrong because thats what happened until the 1800's and still does in some parts of the world

And that's what people call Anarchy?

no, it wasn't. what it had was drops in real wages, shortages, greatly reduced trade, and slave labor. economically, it was a joke.

Okay then, it had the strongest military economy seconded only be the U.S. cause as far as I can remember, the Nazis were kicking ass and taking names. If Japan hadn't attacked the U.S. dragging it into the war, and if Hitler had invaded the Soviet Union sooner, Nazi Germany would still be around.

I know it's not total anarchy there as there are "rulers" but let's not be picky about definitions here.

haha

Elected officials aren't totalitarian.That rather depends on their policy. To be precise whether they have (or take) total power.

Which was a result of the totalitarian government.

A question: Would you not consider the violent extermination, expulsion, and enslaving of a huge portion of the population to be chaotic?

No, it was organized extermination, that is wrong to say, but true. He rounded them up, sent them to various camps and they were exterminated. Hitler didn't just shoot them on sight.

Okay then, it had the strongest military economy seconded only be the U.S. cause as far as I can remember, the Nazis were kicking ass and taking names. If Japan hadn't attacked the U.S. dragging it into the war, and if Hitler had invaded the Soviet Union sooner, Nazi Germany would still be around.

And hundred millions more would be dead or enslaved.

What's your point?

That rather depends on their policy. To be precise whether they have (or take) total power.

It depends on whether they are elected.

And hundred millions more would be dead or enslaved.

What's your point?

The same point you have been kicking around for half and hour. Totalitarianism is better for the economy in some cases. There may have been little trade during the nazi regime, but under anarchy all you have is bartering, that is not a viable subsitute for sustained trade in this era.

No, it was organized extermination, that is wrong to say, but true. He rounded them up, sent them to various camps and they were exterminated. Hitler didn't just shoot them on sight.

Then I don't see why your idea of anarchy as chaotic is in anyway derogatory.

And that's what people call Anarchy?

anarchy to a point sadly thugs tend to use force to get control over the population then they tend to be killed before some more thugs come along, and round and round we go :)

The same point you have been kicking around for half and hour. Totalitarianism is better for the economy in some cases. There may have been little trade during the nazi regime, but under anarchy all you have is bartering, that is not a viable subsitute for sustained trade in this era.

Nuts.

yeah rich landowners choosing a figurehead to support there own interestsNeither the first nor the last part characterizes the situation in ancient greece.

Then I don't see why your idea of anarchy as chaotic is in anyway derogatory.

Anarchy is chaotic! That is just simple fact, as I have said over and over again. I would rather live under a strict system of laws and have a sense of security than to live in a state of anarchy and stay up at night wondering if I would be killed that night, and no one would have to face the consequences.

well you are wrong because thats what happened until the 1800's and still does in some parts of the worldEuh.. There hasn't been anarchy in most parts of the world for thousands of years. People were always ruled by authority figures, typically aristocratic.

Nuts.

How?

It depends on whether they are elected.Ok, so Hitler wasn't a dictator. And any dictator that gets himself elected repeatedly with 100% of the votes also isn't a dictator. Good to know..

anarchy to a point sadly thugs tend to use force to get control over the population then they tend to be killed before some more thugs come along, and round and round we go :)

Peh. So, this 'anarchy' is the intermediary stage between things willing to call themselves governments?

Ok, so Hitler wasn't a dictator. And any dictator that gets himself elected repeatedly with 100% of the votes also isn't a dictator. Good to know..

Same applies to Joseph Stalin, who might I add, killed about 15 million more people than did Adolf Hitler.

Anarchy is chaotic! That is just simple fact, as I have said over and over again. I would rather live under a strict system of laws and have a sense of security than to live in a state of anarchy and stay up at night wondering if I would be killed that night, and no one would have to face the consequences.
Yet what makes you think a totalitarian system would provide such security? Indeed, the leadership may well decide that you or your specific class no longer deserves to live.

Okay then, it had the strongest military economy seconded only be the U.S. cause as far as I can remember, the Nazis were kicking ass and taking names. If Japan hadn't attacked the U.S. dragging it into the war, and if Hitler had invaded the Soviet Union sooner, Nazi Germany would still be around.

...um well

1) it was a lack of allied tactics that allowed mainland Europe to fall, a quick war was what the German army had been built for sadly as soon as it hit Russia it fell to pieces in a war of attrition

2) no Nazi Germany would of collapsed economically and just fell to pieces even if it had not gone to war at all

but under anarchy all you have is bartering, that is not a viable subsitute for sustained trade in this era.

no private banks could easily take over read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

now for Gods sake read the links you've been given its clear you haven't

Yet what makes you think a totalitarian system would provide such security? Indeed, the leadership may well choose that you or your specific class no longer deserves to live.

Than I am fucked, no simpler way to put it. But not every totalitarian government simply decides that they will exterminate part of their population. In all likelyhood I would be put to work rather than shot. Working is better than dieing I have to say.

...um well

1) it was a lack of allied tactics that allowed mainland Europe to fall, a quick war was what the German army had been built for sadly as soon as it hit Russia it fell to pieces in a war of attrition

2) no Nazi Germany would of collapsed economically and just fell to pieces even if it had not gone to war at all




It wasn't lack of allied tactics, it was the fact that for a time the German army was simply better. The German army was built for a quick war, yes, but if not for the Russian winter, it would have been a quick war.

The nazi economy would have worked fine, so long as the forced labor didn't run out.

Anarchy is chaotic! That is just simple fact, as I have said over and over again.

Anarchy is order.

Hierarchy is chaos.

The choice is not freedom and chaos or submission and order. The choice is freedom and order or submission and chaos.

The correct option is obvious.

I would rather live under a strict system of laws and have a sense of security

Security from whom?

You are at the mercy of the state, which tomorrow may decide to outlaw you... or to change the power relations you have with your "private" (state-privileged) masters such that your basic economic security is threatened, or your freedom impeded.

than to live in a state of anarchy and stay up at night wondering if I would be killed that night,

When the community is self-organized to protect against those who would impose their power on others?

If you had such little faith in your fellows, why would you entrust a small minority of them with armies? If you can trust the state's rulers to protect you, why can you not trust yourself and your neighbors?

Soheran? Before I even answer the rest of your questions; how is hierarchy chaos and Anarchy order? That makes no sense at all.

Than I am fucked, no simpler way to put it.

Thus, chaos. Your very life is at the mercy of the arbitrary will of the powerful.

This is "order"?

But not every totalitarian government simply decides that they will exterminate part of their population.

Why take the risk?

In all likelyhood I would be put to work rather than shot.

In which case every aspect of your life is still subordinated to the arbitrary will of the powerful.

Again, chaos - you have no control. You are utterly powerless, and your circumstances may change as others choose.

Neither the first nor the last part characterizes the situation in ancient greece.

...what ancient Greece have you been looking at which is devoid of rich landowners? (case in point ancient Greece never had one government model but I assume your referring to Athens)

Euh.. There hasn't been anarchy in most parts of the world for thousands of years. People were always ruled by authority figures, typically aristocratic.

the government figures however rarely did anything to impose order they simply collected taxes and took everything from those who refused

Ok, so Hitler wasn't a dictator. And any dictator that gets himself elected repeatedly with 100% of the votes also isn't a dictator. Good to know..

yeah Hitler was elected fairly :rolleyes:

Peh. So, this 'anarchy' is the intermediary stage between things willing to call themselves governments?

that is generally what happens in revolution

Thus, chaos. Your very life is at the mercy of the arbitrary will of the powerful.

This is "order"?



Why take the risk?



In which case every aspect of your life is still subordinated to the arbitrary will of the powerful.

Again, chaos - you have no control. You are utterly powerless, and your circumstances may change as others choose.

Over controlling, to maintain order really; not chaos.

Anarchy is order.

Hierarchy is chaos.

The choice is not freedom and chaos or submission and order. The choice is freedom and order or submission and chaos.

The correct option is obvious.

That's. Hmm.

That's a fancy bit of rhetoric you's got there. It's almost Orwellian. "War is Peace", "Ignorance is Strength" and "Hierarchy is Chaos". Fits perfectly with the whole parrallel struture thing going on there.

Anarchy is chaotic! That is just simple fact, as I have said over and over again. I would rather live under a strict system of laws and have a sense of security than to live in a state of anarchy and stay up at night wondering if I would be killed that night, and no one would have to face the consequences.

You've boxed yourself in. You have already stated that indescriminate violence is not the defining feature of chaos, rather the lack of order in the violence.

This means an unordered but peaceful society is chaotic, but a violent but very ordered society is nonchaotic.

So your "security" is irrelevant, just as no one had security in Nazi Germany or under Stalinist USSR.

Since you have established chaos as a lack of order, I don't understand why that is bad in of itself.

How?

That was an exclamation of frustration.

You've boxed yourself in. You have already stated that indescriminate violence is not the defining feature of chaos, rather the lack of order in the violence.

This means an unordered but peaceful society is chaotic, but a violent but very ordered society is nonchaotic.

So your "security" is irrelevant, just as no one had security in Nazi Germany or under Stalinist USSR.

Since you have established chaos as a lack of order, I don't understand why that is bad in of itself.


What I am saying is this: I would rather bend to the will of the State, then to be bullied into doing something by a stronger opponent in anarchy. A totalitarian state may not be fair, but it is ordered; and by that mere fact, a lack of chaos. Anarchy, which is a lack of order, is total chaos. I don't see what is so hard to understand. Order is better, it doesn't matter how it is maintained.

Ok, so Hitler wasn't a dictator. And any dictator that gets himself elected repeatedly with 100% of the votes also isn't a dictator. Good to know..

You have a very loose definition of "elected".

Soheran? Before I even answer the rest of your questions; how is hierarchy chaos and Anarchy order?

Because to the powerless, there is no order to the whims of the powerful, only chaos.

It may all be "orderly" in the paradigms of the powerful - it may all be subordinated to one greater plan - but what of it? What difference does it make in terms of my perception of "order" if whether or not I am free, whether or not I am well-off, whether or not I am even alive, is dependent on dice rolls or on the will of others? My life is only meaningfully "orderly" if it is ME who is in control of these things. Otherwise, I can have no security in them.

Either way (random fluctuations or subordination in hierarchy), I have no control; either way, I am merely a subject.

In abolishing power relations, anarchy gives each person control of his or her life - the only genuine kind of "order", the only kind that does not leave us in the chaos of subordination, where whether or not our basic goods will be available to us is a matter left to the whims of others.

Anarchy is order.

Hierarchy is chaos.

The choice is not freedom and chaos or submission and order. The choice is freedom and order or submission and chaos.

The correct option is obvious.


Well put, but this will take a very long time to explain. I'm trying.

It wasn't lack of allied tactics, it was the fact that for a time the German army was simply better. The German army was built for a quick war, yes, but if not for the Russian winter, it would have been a quick war.

1) no the German army wasn't better at all whilst the German army was busy raping Poland the allies could of just walked into Berlin with little resistance they didn't however

2) the idea that Germany could of beaten Russia comes from the idea of capturing Moscow an idea (as Nepolian learn't when he captured Moscow) which is best left to chess

The nazi economy would have worked fine, so long as the forced labor didn't run out.

wrong Germany had to go to war to acquire money after all just building bombs a peaceful economy does not make

Because to the powerless, there is no order to the whims of the powerful, only chaos.

It may all be "orderly" in the paradigms of the powerful - it may all be subordinated to one greater plan - but what of it? What difference does it make in terms of my perception of "order" if whether or not I am free, whether or not I am well-off, whether or not I am even alive, is dependent on dice rolls or on the will of others? My life is only meaningfully "orderly" if it is ME who is in control of these things. Otherwise, I can have no security in them.

Either way, I have no control; either way, I am merely a subject.

In abolishing power relations, anarchy gives each person control of his or her life - the only genuine kind of "order", the only kind that does not leave us in the chaos of subordination, where whether or not our basic goods will be available to us is a matter left to the whims of others.

Right, so you would rather retain your freedoms, that are a privilage not a right, and live in an unordered society (from a broader point of view) than to subject yourself to the will of those who run the government and live in an ordered society?

What I am saying is this: I would rather bend to the will of the State, then to be bullied into doing something by a stronger opponent in anarchy. A totalitarian state may not be fair, but it is ordered; and by that mere fact, a lack of chaos. Anarchy, which is a lack of order, is total chaos. I don't see what is so hard to understand. Order is better, it doesn't matter how it is maintained.

You don't have to repeat yourself, I understand what you are saying.

Your misunderstanding of anarchy aside, what is the difference between order and chaos? Why would you want to be killed by law rather than be killed by an outlaw?

What I am saying is this: I would rather bend to the will of the State, then to be bullied into doing something by a stronger opponent in anarchy

thats exactly what a totalitarian government would do though only it gets a snazzy uniform to do it paid for by you

1) no the German army wasn't better at all whilst the German army was busy raping Poland the allies could of just walked into Berlin with little resistance they didn't however

2) the idea that Germany could of beaten Russia comes from the idea of capturing Moscow an idea (as Nepolian learn't when he captured Moscow) which is best left to chess



wrong Germany had to go to war to acquire money after all just building bombs a peaceful economy does not make

That was in Czarist times, when the capital wasn't all that important because Moscow wasn't a major area of industry. St.Petersburg was however, anyway, during the USSR's time, Moscow was very important, it was the nerve center of Russia and a major site of industry. Taking Moscow would have crippled the Soviet Union, for a while at least.

thats exactly what a totalitarian government would do though only it gets a snazzy uniform to do it paid for by you

So, if we just ditch the uniforms, we can call it Anarchy and pretend it isn't government?

but it is ordered

Ordered for WHOM?

For you? But you may be shot at the whim of some bureaucrat. What "order" is that? There is no control, there is no security. You live in the constant insecurity of the powerless; you are always vulnerable to the depradations of the powerful, who may decide for their own reasons, reasons that are meaningless to you and irrelevant to your interests, to kill you, or imprison you, or fire you, or deny you necessary goods of all kinds.

For the powerful? Yes. But so what? It is THEIR order. To everyone else, it is chaos.

thats exactly what a totalitarian government would do though only it gets a snazzy uniform to do it paid for by you

Better the government rather than my neighbors. Because then I feel like there may have been a reason.

Soheran? Before I even answer the rest of your questions; how is hierarchy chaos and Anarchy order? That makes no sense at all.

Consider an Austrian Jew before and after the Anschluss.

Before the Anschluss he was at constant threat out of his own control, after the Anschluss he was at constant threat out of his own control. To him, there was chaos in both situations, even though one was mob initiated and one was state initiated.

The question now is, why would one be preferable?

Ordered for WHOM?

For you? But you may be shot at the whim of some bureaucrat. What "order" is that? There is no control, there is no security. You live in the constant insecurity of the powerless; you are always vulnerable to the depradations of the powerful, who may decide for their own reasons, reasons that are meaningless to you and irrelevant to your interests, to kill you, or imprison you, or fire you, or deny you necessary goods of all kinds.

For the powerful? Yes. But so what? It is THEIR order. To everyone else, it is chaos.

Everyone here's obviously working with a very different definition of 'order'. Not suprising. To me, order is a clear chain of cause and effect. A big wig wants me dead, I get shot, there's extreme blood loss, and I die. Seems orderly to me.

Ordered for WHOM?

For you? But you may be shot at the whim of some bureaucrat. What "order" is that? There is no control, there is no security. You live in the constant insecurity of the powerless; you are always vulnerable to the depradations of the powerful, who may decide for their own reasons, reasons that are meaningless to you and irrelevant to your interests, to kill you, or imprison you, or fire you, or deny you necessary goods of all kinds.

For the powerful? Yes. But so what? It is THEIR order. To everyone else, it is chaos.

You are under the impression that everyone is capable of leading productive lives without leadership. Would you take this away, and allow the unestablishment men and women to thrive, while those who depended on the State for guidance die away.

thats exactly what a totalitarian government would do though only it gets a snazzy uniform to do it paid for by you

i think this is the key difference being grabbed on to. the regularity of the uniforms of the violent. fancy medals and silly hats good, chaps and s&m gear bad

Everyone here's obviously working with a very different definition of 'order'. Not suprising. To me, order is a clear chain of cause and effect. A big wig wants me dead, I get shot, there's extreme blood loss, and I die. Seems orderly to me.

explain the lack of 'order' in the non-totalitarian situation then

Everyone here's obviously working with a very different definition of 'order'. Not suprising. To me, order is a clear chain of cause and effect. A big wig wants me dead, I get shot, there's extreme blood loss, and I die. Seems orderly to me.

RIGHT! That is order, that is what I am getting at. You die by the order of the state, the state controls you so therefore it is an orderly society.

The two are the two most heinous of political systems, but by the evidence, anarchy is worse.

Anarchy is so terrible that people have chosen totalitarianism over it time and time again.

Absolutly right!

The two are the two most heinous political systems, but by the evidence, anarchy is worse.

Anarchy is so terrible that people have chosen totalitarianism over it time and time again.

i think this is the key difference being grabbed on to. the regularity of the uniforms of the violent. fancy medals and silly hats good, chaps and s&m gear bad

When I become a statistic, I hope my executioner has a really vibrant armband. Something that says, "this is a very ordered killing, but not too ordered".

When I become a statistic, I hope my executioner has a really vibrant armband. Something that says, this is a very ordered killing, but not too ordered.

Does this work for you?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Die_Uniformen_der_SS-Verf%C3%BCgungstruppe.jpg

Everyone here's obviously working with a very different definition of 'order'. Not suprising. To me, order is a clear chain of cause and effect. A big wig wants me dead, I get shot, there's extreme blood loss, and I die. Seems orderly to me.

Exactly, when Nazi Germany came up and FS frankly stated "No it didn't", when V said it provided order, I was going to say that we needed to define what exactly was chaos.

I have since been trying to explain what is meaningful chaos and order, and what is arbitrary chaos and order.

Right, so you would rather retain your freedoms, that are a privilage not a right,

Freedom is the most important thing there is, and is the right of every person.

and live in an unordered society (from a broader point of view)

There is NO "broader" point of view.

"Order" and "chaos" are matters of reasons. We call a dice roll "random" because the reasons for its results (there ARE reasons, the laws of physical phenomena) are irrelevant and unknown to us; they are unpredictable and, to us, arbitrary.

Similarly, the whim of the powerful is irrelevant to us; it is THEIR preferences, not ours, that determines our position. This makes the position of the powerless necessarily chaotic, from the perspective of the powerless; no relevant reason, no reason that matters to us, explains the position.

Admittedly, powerful people are somewhat more predictable in their depradations than dice rolls, but fundamentally we are still dealing with humans, and humans with subjective minds whose full content we can never know. There is a level of unpredictability that cannot be removed when it comes to dependence on the wills of others; we cannot know with certainty what others think, we cannot know with certainty how they feel, we cannot know with certainty how they will react.

The beings of which we have the most knowledge are ourselves; if our lives are under our own control, it follows, they will be the most "orderly", orderly in the true sense - the order of our reasons, our desires, the ones that are meaningful and relevant to us, not the arbitrary (to us) preferences of others.

Again: anarchy is order. Self-rule is the most orderly kind of political organization possible.

than to subject yourself to the will of those who run the government and live in an ordered society?

If I am the subject of others, my life will never be "orderly."

It will be determined by preferences that are both unpredictable by and irrelevant to me.

The two are the two most heinous political systems, but by the evidence, anarchy is worse.

And what a wealth of evidence!

Anarchy is so terrible that people have chosen totalitarianism over it time and time again.

You have a very loose definition of "chosen".

explain the lack of 'order' in the non-totalitarian situation then

Did I claim that?

Everyone here's obviously working with a very different definition of 'order'. Not suprising. To me, order is a clear chain of cause and effect. A big wig wants me dead, I get shot, there's extreme blood loss, and I die. Seems orderly to me.

And if you live in a society rampaged by biker gangs, the same sense of "order" is present.

Indeed, the same sense of "order" is present in every society and every phenomenon except at the quantum level.

Not very useful for deciding between social orders.

When I become a statistic, I hope my executioner has a really vibrant armband. Something that says, "this is a very ordered killing, but not too ordered".

well i intend to make sure that i am that one death which is a tragedy

Did I claim that?

not as such. i'm just trying to figure out what situation wouldn't have order in that sense, and since order had previously been used to distinguish between the two options on offer here, i thought we'd test it out.

Freedom is the most important thing there is, and is the right of every person.



There is NO "broader" point of view.

"Order" and "chaos" are matters of reasons. We call a dice roll "random" because the reasons for its results (there ARE reasons, the laws of physical phenomena) are irrelevant and unknown to us; they are unpredictable and, to us, arbitrary.

Similarly, the whim of the powerful is irrelevant to us; it is THEIR preferences, not ours, that determines our position. This makes the position of the powerless necessarily chaotic, from the perspective of the powerless; no relevant reason, no reason that matters to us, explains the position.

Admittedly, powerful people are somewhat more predictable in their depradations than dice rolls, but fundamentally we are still dealing with humans, and humans with subjective minds whose full content we can never know. There is a level of unpredictability that cannot be removed when it comes to dependence on the wills of others; we cannot know with certainty what others think, we cannot know with certainty how they feel, we cannot know with certainty how they will react.

The beings of which we have the most knowledge are ourselves; if our lives are under our own control, it follows, they will be the most "orderly", orderly in the true sense - the order of our reasons, our desires, the ones that are meaningful and relevant to us, not the arbitrary (to us) preferences of others.

Again: anarchy is order. Self-rule is the most orderly kind of political organization possible.



If I am the subject of others, my life will never be "orderly."

It will be determined by preferences that are both unpredictable by and irrelevant to me.


When will you understand that taking the lives of one person over the good of the community is in and of itself anarchy and chaos. No one person matters. It is the ordered society sanctioned by the state for the good of the people that matter.

Almost everything happens for "a reason" or has "a cause."

In order to have a purposeful life, an orderly life, this reason or cause must matter to us - it must in some meaningful sense make our life something more than happenings patched together by causes that are arbitrary to us.

In order for that, we need freedom.

Not very useful for deciding between social orders.

Good thing I never said it was then, huh?

That was in Czarist times, when the capital wasn't all that important because Moscow wasn't a major area of industry. St.Petersburg was however, anyway, during the USSR's time, Moscow was very important, it was the nerve center of Russia and a major site of industry. Taking Moscow would have crippled the Soviet Union, for a while at least.

1) industry had been moved East by the time the Germans reached the capital (hence why Stalin had ordered his troops to hold ground so much despite the insanity of it) Hitler got as far as he did because Stalin had piled up forces behind Moscow for a massive attack

2) Russian commanders had already move out of Moscow Stalin however remind in the capital, but the Germans had no chance of capturing Stalin

So, if we just ditch the uniforms, we can call it Anarchy and pretend it isn't government?

well you can pretend it isn't government right now if you want afterall it does take from you by threat of force

Better the government rather than my neighbors. Because then I feel like there may have been a reason.

unless you have psychopaths living all around your neighborhood your allot safer with them than a totalitarian police force out to kill you as soon as you think

not as such. i'm just trying to figure out what situation wouldn't have order in that sense, and since order had previously been used to distinguish between the two options on offer here, i thought we'd test it out.

Well, yeah, I don't think 'order' is an issue.

Almost everything happens for "a reason" or has "a cause."

In order to have a purposeful life, an orderly life, this reason or cause must matter to us - it must in some meaningful sense make our life something more than happenings patched together by causes that are arbitrary to us.

In order for that, we need freedom.

In some instances the free people, as you put it, choose a totalitarian state over anarchy. Again I will use Germany as an examply. The Wiehmar Republic was sprirralling towards collapse and eventual anarchy, so the people chose the Nazis. Of their own free will! They were not forced at gun point to do so.

unless you have psychopaths living all around your neighborhood your allot safer with them than a totalitarian police force out to kill you as soon as you think

Didn't you just say we'd should distrust them both?

When will you understand that taking the lives of one person over the good of the community is in and of itself anarchy and chaos.

What does the "good of the community" have to do with hierarchical power?

Hierarchical power leads to the pursuit of the good of the powerful.

The "good of the community" requires that the participants in the community be empowered, not subject to the whims of the powerful - that is, it requires anarchy.

No one person matters.

Then no one matters at all.

A society is just a bunch of individuals. Deny the value of individual human life and welfare, and you deny the value of society and community as well.

(Of course, the selfish pursuit of individualism at the expense of society in the community is also a denial of individual value, in its way... but that is another discussion.)

It is the ordered society sanctioned by the state for the good of the people that matter.

That which is "sanctioned by the state" is for the good of the state, not the good of the people.

The people themselves, not their alleged "representatives", must sanction their own society for it to have real order, the order of freedom.

Good thing I never said it was then, huh?

Didn't say you did. Just pointing it out.

Good thing I did, too, because Virarnia replied in agreement to your post, and his or her sense of "order" is indeed defining his or her choice of political orders.

I thought my Anschluss example was a winner, but apparently this thread has gotten a little too chaotic.

I choose between them on a rule-by-rule basis. :cool:

Okay then, it had the strongest military economy seconded only be the U.S. cause as far as I can remember, the Nazis were kicking ass and taking names. If Japan hadn't attacked the U.S. dragging it into the war, and if Hitler had invaded the Soviet Union sooner, Nazi Germany would still be around.
Are you claiming that the Nazis were outproducing the Soviets? Only an idiot would believe that.
No way. Even if the Nazis had taken Moscow and won World War II, they would have collapsed by 1975, at least. They were far more unstable than the Communists- once they killed off the Jews, Poles, and so on and so on, they would have no one left to blame their troubles on.
Moreover, the Nazis wouldn't have been as capable as the Russians in dealing with the 1960s counterculture that arose in America. So no, the Nazis sucked economically- they were even worse than the Russians, and they would have fallen apart faster.
As for the OP, I'd take anarchy.

What does the "good of the community" have to do with hierarchical power?

Hierarchical power leads to the pursuit of the good of the powerful.

The "good of the community" requires that the participants in the community be empowered, not subject to the whims of the powerful - that is, it requires anarchy.



Then no one matters at all.

A society is just a bunch of individuals. Deny the value of individual human life and welfare, and you deny the value of society and community as well.

(Of course, the selfish pursuit of individualism at the expense of society in the community is also a denial of individual value, in its way... but that is another discussion.)

That which is "sanctioned by the state" is for the good of the state, not the good of the people.

The people themselves, not their alleged "representatives", must sanction their own society for it to have real order, the order of freedom.




A society sanctioned by the state, is as you said, good for the state, and since the people are subject to the whim of the state then it is also, in an abstract sense, good for the people. The people must obey the state without compromise; they cannot be influenced by their neighbors in a state of anarchy, because those neighbors only see a portion of the picture, where as the state sees the broader view of the world. Anarchy simply cannot work.

The Wiehmar Republic was sprirralling towards collapse and eventual anarchy

No, it wasn't.

I will agree that many of the German people viewed the Wiemar Republic and the economic and social order that accompanied it as largely non-responsive to their preferences, their needs and interests, a disempowerment that was indeed exploited by the Nazis... but this is precisely the chaos of statism that I have been pointing out.

Totalitarian. I'd have a very successful future as a soldier in the country's military, which is the least I can say for Anarchy, which truly has no sort of occupation inherently favored by it unless you're a fan of looting, pillaging, and generally acting like a neo-viking.

Besides, mix in some propaganda and give the secret police some silencers and its much more tolerable. /nod

When will you understand that taking the lives of one person over the good of the community is in and of itself anarchy and chaos. No one person matters. It is the ordered society sanctioned by the state for the good of the people that matter.

um...thats very Authoritarian of you to say of course its all bunk everyone matters in a society they are there because we humans see that its better to work together for our own good not some high ideal that doesn't exist

thus there is no greater good for the community than individual thought and individual right as is what most governments represent

so the people chose the Nazis. Of their own free will! They were not forced at gun point to do so.

um yeah they voted for the Nazi's with an SA soldier watching over them with the threat to kill them if they voted otherwise

I think you need to read up on the rise of the Nazi's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party

No, it wasn't.

I will agree that many of the German people viewed the Wiemar Republic and the economic and social order that accompanied it as largely non-responsive to their preferences, their needs and interests, a disempowerment that was indeed exploited by the Nazis... but this is precisely the chaos of statism that I have been pointing out.

The Wiehmar Republic was disliked because it had no sense of power or control. People, contrary to what you believe, need to be controlled, left to their own devices, they will destroy themselves and take others with them. Thus the state rules, and the people have no say in this perfect order.

And what a wealth of evidence!



You have a very loose definition of "chosen".

Totalitarian governments have been voted into power before, people have sat idly by as they have taken power, &c.

When have people chosen or acquiesced in anarchy?

In some instances the free people, as you put it, choose a totalitarian state over anarchy. Again I will use Germany as an examply. The Wiehmar Republic was sprirralling towards collapse and eventual anarchy, so the people chose the Nazis. Of their own free will! They were not forced at gun point to do so.
ROFL. Yeah, because there was never this group called the SA that ever ran around breaking up rival party's meetings, throwing eggs, brawling, and killing others and so on.

What does the "good of the community" have to do with hierarchical power?

Hierarchical power leads to the pursuit of the good of the powerful.

The "good of the community" requires that the participants in the community be empowered, not subject to the whims of the powerful - that is, it requires anarchy.

How exactly do we stop two people from working together to gain power over another? I missed that part.

A society sanctioned by the state, is as you said, good for the state, and since the people are subject to the whim of the state then it is also, in an abstract sense, good for the people.

"Slavery sanctioned by the slave-owners is good for the slave-owners, and since the slaves are subject to the whim of the slave-owners, it is also, in an abstract sense, good for the slaves."

That does not make any sense at all. What is good for the master and what is good for the slave are different questions entirely.

The people must obey the state without compromise;

Precisely!

And there is no "order" in this. Because they must obey without compromise - there is no limiting rule that entitles them to a degree of meaningful control.

they cannot be influenced by their neighbors in a state of anarchy, because those neighbors only see a portion of the picture, where as the state sees the broader view of the world.

Rule by the powerful means decisions made from the perspective of the powerful. This is a narrow view.

Self-rule (anarchy) means decisions made from the perspective of those actually affected by them. This is a broad view... at least as broad as it needs to be.

um yeah they voted for the Nazi's with an SA soldier watching over them with the threat to kill them if they voted otherwise

I think you need to read up on the rise of the Nazi's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party


I know what the Nazi Party was, maybe they forced a few votes after Hitler was elected Chancellor, but Nazi officials were elected to the Riechstag by the people, without the use of force. Again the people choose the perfect order of Totalitarianism over the chaos of looming anarchy and destruction.

The Wiehmar Republic was disliked because it had no sense of power or control. People, contrary to what you believe, need to be controlled, left to their own devices, they will destroy themselves and take others with them. Thus the state rules, and the people have no say in this perfect order.
Where do you get that spelling from? Ought it not be Weimar?

Where do you get that spelling from? Ought it not be Weimar?

Excuse, Weimar, I have seen it spelled both ways.

Didn't you just say we'd should distrust them both?

no but oddly I do agree with that :confused: (have I lost my marbles?)

where as the state sees the broader view of the world

yeahs thats precisely what happens in government, no at all like that silly idea that "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

yeahs thats precisely what happens in government, no at all like that silly idea that "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

Great men are not always bad men. That is just false, many a man in absolute power have done good for their country. Lenin was in absolute power of Russia and he helped make Russia a marginaly better place to live. Stalin on the other hand was a murderous Tyrant.

I know what the Nazi Party was, maybe they forced a few votes after Hitler was elected Chancellor, but Nazi officials were elected to the Riechstag by the people, without the use of force. Again the people choose the perfect order of Totalitarianism over the chaos of looming anarchy and destruction.

no the Nazi's SA used violence wherever possible promptly doing away with any opposition and threatening voters

they did not force a few votes maybe they outright forced people to vote for them and its becoming more and more clear that whatever sources we throw at you, you won't bother to read which to be frank just makes you seem a tad silly no? (and out of interest where are your sources on this?)

How exactly do we stop two people from working together to gain power over another?

How does any democracy stop people from working together to establish a dictatorship?

People, contrary to what you believe, need to be controlled,

Which people?

You propose that some people be the controllers, and others be controlled... but who controls the controllers?

If people are so dangerous uncontrolled, how can you trust some people with the power to control others?

left to their own devices, they will destroy themselves

People have the greatest incentive of anyone to not destroy themselves.

Furthermore, they have the greatest capability to avoid it. They know themselves better than anyone else does.

The genocides of history have not been self-perpentrated.

and take others with them.

This is the domain of the powerful.

Without power over others, the only person a person can "take with him/her" is himself or herself.

Thus the state rules, and the people have no say in this perfect order.

Thus, there is chaos.

Great men are not always bad men. That is just false, many a man in absolute power have done good for their country. Lenin was in absolute power of Russia and he helped make Russia a marginaly better place to live. Stalin on the other hand was a murderous Tyrant.

no Lenin was a monster who destroyed any hope of soviet communism whilst silencing anyone who dared to question him

who on Earth told you he was a great man?!:eek:

no the Nazi's SA used violence wherever possible promptly doing away with any opposition and threatening voters

they did not force a few votes maybe they outright forced people to vote for them and its becoming more and more clear that whatever sources we throw at you, you won't bother to read which to be frank just makes you seem a tad silly no? (and out of interest where are your sources on this?)

Your link dealt with what the Nazi party was. I already know what it was, so I read the first section and moved on. I already know what the link says, I have read it before.

no Lenin was a monster who destroyed any hope of soviet communism whilst silencing anyone who dared to question him

who on Earth told you he was a great man?!:eek:

That is going just a little overboard. Lenin was not a monster, he established Soviet Communism, Stalin destroyed it!

How does any democracy stop people from working together to establish a dictatorship?

We could go into that, but I don't see how Anarchy is any better. What's the point, make the 'subjugation' less systemic?

Which people?

You propose that some people be the controllers, and others be controlled... but who controls the controllers?

If people are so dangerous uncontrolled, how can you trust some people with the power to control others?



People have the greatest incentive of anyone to not destroy themselves.

Furthermore, they have the greatest capability to avoid it. They know themselves better than anyone else does.

The genocides of history have not been self-perpentrated.



This is the domain of the powerful.

Without power over others, the only person a person can "take with him/her" is himself or herself.



Thus, there is chaos.


The established state controlles the people; the common man needs to be controlled. And it is true that left to their own devises people will destroy themselves and others; out of pure greed and a fight for self-preservation, they put their needs before those of others, and the state. It is evil in its greatest extent; abandoning your duty to your fellow man and the state they serve to go about satisfying your own selfish needs.

Interesting. What do you mean by properly thought out anarchist society? Anarchy is, by definition, really a lack of all cohesion, or order. How would you make that work?

It is theoretically possible for humans to have a higher level of understanding than what is presently the norm. In such a future, it is possible that some form of anarchic hybrid would emerge. Libertarian socialism is one theory which implies an anarchist society under a general, individually-based framework. Of course, this is not true anarchism but, if you think about it, true anarchy is impossible; people will always form cohesive political groups, even if loose and unofficial.

People, contrary to what you believe, need to be controlledWhich people?

You propose that some people be the controllers, and others be controlled... but who controls the controllers?

If people are so dangerous uncontrolled, how can you trust some people with the power to control others?The established state controlles the people; the common man needs to be controlled.

you seem to have hit a conceptual roadblock here.

That is going just a little overboard. Lenin was not a monster, he established Soviet Communism, Stalin destroyed it!

yeah setting up a secret police forcing all power and wealth to flow to the inner party such a nice man :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leninism

And it is true that left to their own devises people will destroy themselves and others;

and yet man existed for thousands of years without any form of government you only need to look at isolated tribes to prove you wrong

abandoning your duty to your fellow man and the state they serve to go about satisfying your own selfish needs.

what is so great about the state what is it some divine entity? no its a group of people who hold a monopoly on the use of force

you seem to have hit a conceptual roadblock here.

No, you don't understand.

See you have the common man who wears a "C" on his shirt, and must be controlled in order to subvert his desire to kill all those who disagree with him, and the uncommon man who wears a "U" on his shirt (or perhaps on a bright orange armband!) who must control the common man by killing off all those who disagree with the uncommon men.

Hence: Order

anarchy!!:D

We could go into that, but I don't see how Anarchy is any better. What's the point, make the 'subjugation' less systemic?

No, to eliminate subjugation entirely.

The unsubjugated retain, of course, their right to resist future subjugation.

The established state controlles the people;

The established state is controlled by people.

the common man needs to be controlled.

Why?

And why are the people you make rulers any different?

out of pure greed and a fight for self-preservation, they put their needs before those of others,

Yes, everyone does this.

If people are generally self-interested, what makes more sense: making some people powerful and others powerless, so that the powerful can pursue their interests through the exploitation of the powerless, or abolishing power relations so that no one is subjected to the selfish interests of another?

and the state.

Good!

It is evil in its greatest extent; abandoning your duty to your fellow man

That is hierarchy, not anarchy.

Hierarchy is the negation of freedom, and freedom is an inseparable part of our obligations to our fellows.

and the state they serve

We have no duty to the state.

to go about satisfying your own selfish needs.

The state oppresses my fellows as well as myself.

By standing in solidarity with them in opposition to the state, I am acting both in my own interests and in theirs... and not incidentally so, but deliberately so.

Mutual aid and solidarity are old anarchist principles.

what is so great about the state what is it some divine entity? no its a group of people who hold a monopoly on the use of force

No it is not a divine entity, it is, as you said, a group of people who run the country. But they do not do it to better their own lives, they use their power for the betterment of the people without the state and an ordered society we cannot exsist. Not as we once did, we have been under the rule of some sort of government of another for far too long, we can no longer revert to our primitive way of thinking and survive.

anarchy!!:D

in Bedrock! *twitch, twitch*

No it is not a divine entity, it is, as you said, a group of people who run the country. But they do not do it to better their own lives, they use their power for the betterment of the people without the state and an ordered society we cannot exsist. Not as we once did, we have been under the rule of some sort of government of another for far too long, we can no longer revert to our primitive way of thinking and survive.

Dude, have they got you fooled!

No, to eliminate subjugation entirely.

ORLY? And who's gonna make that happen?

ORLY? And who's gonna make that happen?

The subjugated and those non-subjugated on their side, of course.

Obviously, it is an aim that will never be fully reached... but it can be approximated far more closely than it is today.

The subjugated and those non-subjugated on their side, of course.

Well, yeah, but what're they gonna do?

Obviously, it is an aim that will never be fully reached... but it can be approximated far more closely than it is today.

Hmm...

No it is not a divine entity, it is, as you said, a group of people who run the country. But they do not do it to better their own lives,

and yet you just said that people are only interest in themselves and yet you expect people who go after power to think differently?

we have been under the rule of some sort of government of another for far too long,

no humans have not evolved we can live quite happily without a government tit in our mouths if that where not the case we'd all be eaten alive by bears during camping trips

we can no longer revert to our primitive way of thinking and survive.

1) its not primitive its natural and human, I don't give blood because the government wants me to I do it because I want to, humans work together on there own there is no superhuman mommies and daddies looking after us

2) see my remark on camping trips or an episode of Ray Mears

Well, yeah, but what're they gonna do?

The same thing they/we have done throughout history.

Organize, and protest... sit-ins, boycotts, strikes, rallies, civil disobedience, expropriations, squatting, property destruction, riots, and, if necessary, armed resistance.

Everything that interferes with the normal function of hierarchical society, within the limits of morality and reason... with the ultimate objective being its overthrow and replacement by anarchy.

The same thing they/we have done throughout history.

Organize, and protest... sit-ins, boycotts, strikes, rallies, civil disobedience, expropriations, squatting, property destruction, riots, and, if necessary, armed resistance.

Everything that interferes with the normal function of hierarchical society, within the limits of morality and reason... with the ultimate objective being its overthrow and replacement by anarchy.

Plooh. What I'm saying is, Anarchy, where no one is 'subjuagted' at all, lasts maybe a few minutes, a day...A week at most. Then Person A gets subjugated by Persons B and C. And what's gonna happen, A, D, E, and F come together to stop B and C? And do that without 'subjugating' them, which, to be honest, has gotten a very broad definition?

So...

What this boils down to is 1984 vs. Escape from LA?

Eh, I wouldn't want to live under fear and eat crappy Victory bread and smoke crappy Victory cigarettes.

At least in Anarchy, I could run around naked and simply take whatever I wanted.

Honestly though, I'd need to know how much control the Totalitarianistic state would have. If it's anything similar to 1984, I'd take Anarchy.

No, you don't understand.

See you have the common man who wears a "C" on his shirt, and must be controlled in order to subvert his desire to kill all those who disagree with him, and the uncommon man who wears a "U" on his shirt (or perhaps on a bright orange armband!) who must control the common man by killing off all those who disagree with the uncommon men.

Hence: Order

it's all so clear to me now!

In most cases, I'd take totalitarian. Why? Anarchic societies tend to form into totalitarian regimes unless something stops them form changing.

it's all so clear to me now!

Good, now here is your C. You have a week to stitch it on.

and yet man existed for thousands of years without any form of government you only need to look at isolated tribes to prove you wrong

"isolated tribes"

...


There's a difference between anarchy and despotism/tribalism, etc.

"Tribes" have a sense of organization to them. It's not anarchy.

Then Person A gets subjugated by Persons B and C.

How?

And what's gonna happen, A, D, E, and F come together to stop B and C?

Um, yes?

No free person wants people walking around with the capability to deny them their freedom.

And do that without 'subjugating' them, which, to be honest, has gotten a very broad definition?

Self-defense is not "subjugation."

"Tribes" have a sense of organization to them. It's not anarchy.

Anarchists advocate organization.

We just advocate anarchist organization.

No it is not a divine entity, it is, as you said, a group of people who run the country. But they do not do it to better their own lives, they use their power for the betterment of the people without the state and an ordered society we cannot exsist. Not as we once did, we have been under the rule of some sort of government of another for far too long, we can no longer revert to our primitive way of thinking and survive.

So, Mr. Taggart, you believe that man is incapable of running stuff because of his self-interest. Therefore, he must be run by men who will obviously look after other's interest, though you have said that man only looks after his own interest.
Makes perfect sense.

Anarchy. I'd be executed for sure in totalitarianism.

Anarchy. Even if we're talking chaos here, I'd still be able to make my own decisions. In a totalitarian state, this wouldn't occur. Better dead than led.

In most cases, I'd take totalitarian. Why? Anarchic societies tend to form into totalitarian regimes unless something stops them form changing.

wait, what? ignoring the content, how do these two ideas relate?

How?

*shrug* Dunno, how do you want them to do it?

Self-defense is not "subjugation."

Hmm? What of B and C's freedom? Their well-being depends on the collective whim of the orginazation henceforth refered to as FADE. Your definitions of 'self-defence' and 'subjugation' overlap. Me thinks you need to be more...defind about what subjugation is. Or self-defence. How far does 'self-defence' go before it becomes 'subjugation'? Can FADE Kill B and C? Can they beat them up? Threaten them? A freindly suggestion?

Their well-being depends on the collective whim of the orginazation henceforth refered to as FADE.

Yes.

This is a fundamental truth of all societies. You are one; there are more others. You cannot escape them.

Practical proposals for approximations of anarchy involve the minimization of subordination through, first, meaningful participation in that "collective whim" (self-management and direct democracy), second, extensive toleration of minority rights and dissent (a possibility made even more promising by the abolition of class society that must accompany anarchism), and third, free association.

Your definitions of 'self-defence' and 'subjugation' overlap. Me thinks you need to be more...defind about what subjugation is.

Unequal power relations.

Or self-defence.

Response to an attack on yourself or innocent others, with the objective of neutralizing the threat.

How far does 'self-defence' go before it becomes 'subjugation'?

Until the threat is restrained.

Until the threat is restrained.

Who decides when that is? And if FADE gos too far, whose going to do something about it? A group of eight? 16? 32?

Anarchy seems to be a temporary state of equilibrium that quickly coalesces into something else. Nice idea. Probably have some interesting attempts at, as you say, approximation. I give said appoximation two weeks. Then it becomes something else, and the dilemma of this poll is over.

I'd rather be in a Totalitarian state than an anarchy. Totalitarian states get things done, build things - sometimes good, sometimes bad, usually a little of both. They also usually create a stable, livable set of conditions for the common citizen.

Anarchies do nothing but break down what has gone before and eliminate stability. They're also fundamentally transitory - sooner or later something else is instituted, and it's usually sooner. A totalitarian state can morph into a more responsive, democratic state over time - anarchies generally end with blood.

Depends on how large of a community I live in. I suppose given those choices, I'd turn into one of those crazy survivalists and hide out in the hills with my rifle and a pack of dogs.

*DICHOTOMY OP*
Now, which would you rather live under?

Ah, yes, the old Totalitarian vs Anarchy thread. To live in 1984-esque lands or a world that is, in essence, Road Warrior on crack.

I pick anarchy - freedom - over totalitarianism (of the absolutist sort) - slavery.
*Insert the Ben Franklin quote (you all know which one) here*

anarchy. in this state only those who are able to adapt and are inherently strong will be able to survive. where as a totalitarian government may or may not kill or persecute these kinds of people.
ps. I'm not saying that i am inherently strong or able to adapt, I'm just saying that if the choice was to destroy a smart and strong person or a meek and stupid one, I'm getting rid of the 2ed

So, given how willing I am to blindly conform to society- or government-enforced norms without question, you're asking me to choose between probable death at the hands of a lynch mob or street gang and all-but-certain death at the hands of a totalitarian government that cannot tolerate dissent.

Rather shitty options. I think I'll take the option with the higher probability of survival, namely anarchy, especially as it shouldn't be that hard to build some kind of hermitage to keep out of the way under anarchic conditions.

Anarchy sometimes works. Totalarianism never works.
Anaracy, then.

Anarchy----people you don't know are doing whatever they want

Totalitarian regime---people you don't know are making YOU do whatever they want



on a side note, anarchy and chaos are two completely different things. you can easily have one without the other

Totalitary (eg. pre-war Iraq)

Anarchy with big population is a cue for chaos (eg. post-war Iraq)

Totalitarianism, because I've devoted too much energy to arguing that the Iraq War was a mistake because even a repressive dictatorship is preferable to anarchy.

Who decides when that is?

People do, collectively.

Unlike in class/statist/hierarchical society, where what a privileged member of society does to an unprivileged member cannot be done to him or her, in anarchist society any such decision must be made with the recognition that "it could happen to me."

That ensures an element of moderation that is not present otherwise.

Good, now here is your C. You have a week to stitch it on.

do we get to subdivide the Cs? cause i'd dearly like to be a beta