Which is worse: Pure Anarchy or a Controlling Government?

Post Reply New Topic

That's not what I'm saying JakobVirgil.

People getting together out of self-interest, and deciding to work together is not the same thing as socialism or collectivism.

Anarchism is just as evil as Totalitarian regimes, just anarchism is easier to get out of than totalitarian regimes.

Anybody here actually read "The Republic" or "The Lord of the Flies"?

Tadzio

In low populations, an anarchy is preferable. Compared to Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia, anarchy is preferable. Some government is not bad, but when the government of a land starts treating its citizens as mere resources and smothers itself with uncountable laws it is not good.

"The Republic" is a good book havent read "The Lord of the FLies"

I would rather live under a controling government. In a Anarchy society, everyone dies their are no rules, so it would be more dangerous.

Anarchy actually tends not to last very long without outside groups perpetuating it.

I have read them both.
They are both propaganda for the controlling state.
Hunter-gather cultures have been living in acephalus societies since the beginning of man.
They works fine in group sizes up to about 250 (although the models predict breakdown at about 32)
confederations of these basic "villages" work to even bigger sizes.
Human nature is not nearly as dark as a Cop or a Calvinist need it to be to justify their existence.
(it is also not as nice as the hippies would have us believe.)

Hippies its a good thing you don't see them anymore

Thomas Hobbes lived in anarchy and chose order. He actually thought that a 'Leviathan' or powerful government was necessary in order to sustain quality of life for anyone. Most governments that have to spend large amounts of time focusing on the consolidation of state power in order to support their national boundaries have a fixation on order; almost to the exclusion of any middle ground. What we have learned since the days of Thomas Hobbes (and knew far before then also) is that the decision is not one way or another. If I personally had to chose between anarchy and tyranny; it would depend on how many people I had to live with. If I were in a primarily rural environment where I would have little option but to provision basic amenities for myself and possessed them without the need for major interpersonal competition; I would prefer no government. In other circumstances I may prefer the opposite.

Strangely enough, the "Hippies" I was acquainted with in the late 1960's, early 1970's, that I've encountered or directly contacted, are more Tea Partiers than otherwise, but my "Hippies" were more "Wild Angels"/"Easy Rider" wanna-be's, but the "flower children" ones definitely went to corrupt seed too.

I've experienced too many wild groups to take "Lord of the Flies" as propaganda, while I've read judicial rulings that weight "The Republic" more heavily decisive than the Constitution, basically for a stronger oligarchy as a compromise with Capitalism and a "middle-ground".

Tadzio

A flower hippie is okay but the others are just bizarre.