Which is worse: Pure Anarchy or a Controlling Government?

Post Reply New Topic

This is something I thought about because me and my best friend have discussed it a couple of times. He seems to think a controlling government is worst, while I think pure anarchy is the worst.

I think that both an anarchistic world and a world where the government has absolute power can be pretty bad. With anarchy you have a society where everyone is left to fend for themselves and have nobody to look out for them, people can just rob, rape, and murder you anytime they want and suffer no consequences for it. You also have nobody who is obligated to help you when you need help so you're basically left at the mercy of a cruel and selfish world. However with a powerful controlling government you're left at the mercy of the elitists who can decide to do as they please with you. They may execute you for no reason, force you into slavery, or simply torture you just for the fun of it. In a controlling government you are not allowed to speak your mind and have to constantly prove your loyalty even when the government does nothing for you and your family.

So which do you think is worse and why? For me I think Anarchy is because I don't believe I could survive in an anarchistic world, but in a completely controlling government like a Dictatorship I might have a better chance of surviving because I have such a submissive personality and it would be easier for me to submit to the unfair laws even when I don't agree with them. That's just how I feel though.

They are both equally bad.


Though I would probably prefer the anarchy over living under a totalitarian regime.

I would get together with other people and form a group that actually gets some law and order back, which would be easier than dealing with a totalitarian regime.

By your prior postings, your group would be a totalitarian regime or worse than a fascist group.

Tadzio

The problem I see with that is that without something to give these people in return, how would you ensure their loyalty? People are motivated purely by self interest and the way governments gain control over people is by offering something like money or food. In a true Anarchistic world there's really nothing to pay anybody with to obligate them to keep order so people will basically just do whatever they want.

Anarchy can seem scary due to the uncertainty many individuals might feel about surviving on their own, but I would say it is not nearly as bad as a pure authoritarian regime. Though people will make their own law in an anarchistic society, this will lead to most people being armed, and probably therefore much warier of pissing each other off, though you'll naturally have predator types who look for peaceful cooperatives or communes to exploit. Naturally in a totalitarian system citizens will likely be discouraged from being armed if not prevented outright, and the system will be perpetuated simply to maintain the control and luxury of its oligarchs. It will be completely stagnant and probably extremely violent under the surface. Anarchism on the other hand I can see communities of scientists or philosophers appearing here and there actually working towards a noble goal of a more advanced Human species

Oh but there is self-interest involved, you can't stay awake 24 hrs a day 7 days a week, wouldn't it be better to get together in a group so you can have night watches, so people can get some sleep.

There is also the mindset in humans of there being safety in numbers.

Now it Inayasha who makes the socialist arguments?
Based not the Idea that it is human nature to be collectivist.
But of course when one extends that to healthcare -pow- evil dictatorship.

It depends what you by terms like 'controlling government', 'totalitarian government'.

North Korea is a fairly grim place to live but that is more despotic & genocidal than totalitarian.

East Germany was once described as the most totalitarian police state of the Soviet Union thanks to the Stasi, but the UK Police now have far greater powers of surveillance and much more detailed records on the citizens of England, which is apparently the mother of all democracies.

The 'Land of the Free' locks up more of it's own citizens than any other nation on earth.

Are these 'free' nations or 'controlled nations'?

Would you trade living in Britain or America for living in Somalia where no government exists in the vast majority of the country?

Controlling government is definitely worse. Freedom > Security.

In other words, warlordism.

Anarchy never lasts long. Powerful individuals will always spot the main chance and make a bid for power, and weaker individuals will align themselves with more powerful protectors.

At the end of the day, I think it comes down to what's more important. Anarchy will tend to be significantly more violent, while it lasts, but there will be greater opportunities for mobility. Totalitarian regimes will tend to be safer and more stable, but at the cost of individual liberty.

To those who say, "Give me liberty or give me death!" the choice is crystal clear. For the rest, it's rather a Morton's Fork.

Personally any government with complete control is just warlordism with one warlord. One doesn't need to think hard about that with Mao's slaughter or the Pinochet regime. In the end anarchy is just a synonym for chaos. No set ruler, but of course there are rulers.

Which, as you point out, soon leads to the rule of the Few or the One.

Extremes are generally not a good thing. Extreme government (very tight) and no government (social chaos) will settle to a very bad place. Somewhere in the middle is something resembling peace and quiet. Unfortunately it will not stay that way unless carefully maintained.

ruveyn

I agree with those who have said both situations are extremely bad, but if forced, I'd take the anarchy if I could have all the guns and ammo I needed to defend both my home and myself whenever I leave it -- the way people had to live in the early days of our country, before their was any significant law enforcement. Police number is always a tricky thing: too few and too many are both bad for any group of citizens. Interestingly, personal power is the key to doing well both in police states and lawless areas, as little as those two have in common.

Anarchy is not the absence of rules it is the absence of rulers.
there are quite a few systems that do just fine without a central authority.
the Maine Lobster fishery.
the biblical reign of the Judges.
Nearly every hunter-gather culture.
I think we over-estimate the primacy of force in our culture.
I think homo Sapiens are on the Eu-social spectrum although a particularly surly part of it.

Are there any major league anarchic societies in the modern world? In the past some have existed. Note the past tense. Societies with war power, command and control centralized are more likely to succeed at warfare than loosely organized societies.

ruveyn

I think you have hit the nail on the head.
The main threat to anarchy is not internal as common sense would tell you but external.
non-compulsion societies have a hard time competing with other societies.
But this does tell us we need less cops to "keep the peace".