Tyranny or anarchy

Post Reply New Topic

Under Saddam Hussein, there was tyranny. There was despotism. There were organized killings, and nobody could flee.

Torture was certain for some people.

But Iraq was stable. There was peace.

But is stability, harmony and peace to prefer over anarchy?

Let us look at the man who is going to be tortured tomorrow:

During organized tyranny in a stable country, he is CERTAIN that he will be tortured to death tomorrow.

During anarchy, nothing is certain. Those guarding him could be killed at any time. So at least he has a chance to escape.

If you do not like the despotic country you live in, you cannot leave. The doors are locked. You are imprisoned in your own country.

If you do not like the country in anarchy you live in, you can leave whenever you wish. There is so much turmoil, that you can cross the border to another country, with only few or nobody watching.

So anarchy is preferable to anarchy. That is the reason I find the situation in Iraq to be better than Iraq under Saddam Hussein. It is always better to have anarchy than tyranny.

I disagree. With tyranny, someone is in charge. With anarchy, power is split up into fractions. Hardly an orderly system.

Anarchy for me. Tyranny, I might as well be dead - whats the point of living if you have no say? You're a slave. I'd rather be in chaos then a slave

anarchy isnt a synonym for chaos, chaos means chaos, anarchy means libertarian socialism.

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

I'd rather live free in a dangerously flawed society than be oppressed and ruled by the whim of one individual.

hmm, I dont know what I put "chaos" but maybe I was thinking "chaos before order" - I'm a libertarian, myself

What you have there is not anarchy. It is tyranny on a neighbourhood level.

There is never an absence of order, and there is never an absence of chaos.

Undoubtably many iraqi republican guards killed civilians without any direct orders. That the citizen was of no importance to the powers that (were), means that the guard wouldnt necessarily be punished. Another example would Saddams son raping and killing women. It was chaos and madness, and had nothing to do with the government of the time, other than the fact that they turned a blind eye to it. Chaos within Order.

I have an Iraqi friend, who left a decade before the first gulf war. The way he explained it was this:

You live in one neighbourhood your whole life, and when your kids get married, they marry someone from the neighbourhood. You trust your family, like your neighbours, are civil with the people you do business with(outside the neighbourhood), dont trust the strangers in your town, dispise the other towns, and anyone from another country is the enemy. The further away they are, the more you suspect them.

Now in post Saddam Iraq, to flee you must leave your neighbourhood, where you might have to sneak out if there is a local warlord. Then you must go to or through another neighbourhood, where nobody knows you, and nobody trusts you. They do not know what trouble you bring if they help, so they will not. The further you get from home, the less likely they are to recognise your name, or wish to help you.. and if anyone with guns catches you...

So it is not really easier to leave.

They are no more free, nor less oppressed.

But what was your reply, Flagg? Is that Thoth as your new avatar? I like him, god of wisdom, writing, magic, the scribe of the Egyptian gods... And me a Christian! Sorry about the diversion. Anarchy in the sense of no rulers is not really the current situation in Iraq; sectarian and ethnic conflict amounting to civil war is. Of course there are leaders; just not united or very constructive ones. Tyranny as a system is worse than anarchy, but the fact is the ratio of violent deaths to time elapsed does seem to be worse post-invasion. There is no denying (or more accurately no plausible denying) that Sadaam Hussein was a brutal dictator responsible for the deaths of many; however, many individuals and groups are worse off as a direct or indirect consequence of the invasion. Specifically women (with the exception of the victims of Uday, Sadaam's son back under his father's regime, but such atrocities against women continue and indeed no society seems immune to the monstrosity that is rape) Iraqi Christians e.g. Assyrian orthodox, Chaldaean Catholic (leaving at an alarming rate) Sunnis, many of the Shi'a (yes they are now dominating politically proportionately with their percentage of the population, but many are being killed just as are the Sunnis) people generally whose infrastructure has been destroyed...

A torture victim is a torture victim whatever the society calls itself. Kim Jong Il can call North Korea the People's Democratic Republic of Korea, but it ain't necessarily so. (Is there some sort of competition amongst communist states for the most democratic-sounding title?) I realise there is a tenuous basis with people's committees, people's councils, soviets, etc. but in practice they seem either oligarchical (like the People's Republic of China at the present day, post Stalinist USSR) or dictatorial (Stalin's Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Mao's China, the People's Democratic Republic of Korea under either of the Kims.

Democracies worthy of the name should strive to uphold a higher standard.

And it is NOT necessarily that easy to flee a country riven with conflict. Leaving one under the iron rod of a dictator might be more difficult admittedly.

That said the opression of the late Sadaam Hussein should never be condoned or minimised. The Kurds, amongst others, may be glad of his demise.

Would you rather be ruled by the despotic (though not tyrannical) Cyrus the Great of Persia or by Maxmillien Robespierre in Jacobin France? Irrelevant I know. Still...

It's called a POLYCRACY ... just like the rest of the world.

Don't think that you live in a Democracy... it's not the people(demo) that make decisions, it's many entities(POLY) like companies, Media, and lobbyests.

....Just like in IRAQ now. ...sadly they have a South North thing going at the moment,,, just like the US did.(or do they still do?)

I never claimed that the system I lived under was a perfect democracy. It is a work in progress. The development of the parliamentary system is at least a series of unsteady moves (looking at British history, for instance) towards democracy. Athenian democracy was not perfectly democratic and the Roman Republic certainly was not - the latter was a timocratic system. Australia had votes for women before the United Kingdom of Great Britain and before the United States of America (we are slower than the British at getting a female Prime Minister, though I do not much care for Margaret Thatcher).

What was the French situation post Revolution and pre-Restoration (French, as distinct from English Restoration)? I am talking about the First Republic.

LOL, the latter is an oxymoron.

Erlyrisa, How do companies, media, and lobbyists(?) run the United States? Can you specify further?

In regards to lobbyists, don't they represent valid positions that people, or groups have and then question officeholders on? Groups like the (the left-wing) ACLU, the (right-wing) NRA, ect... I have never understood what is wrong with lobbying. I mean the right to petition is guaranteed in the Constitution for a reason. Isn't that right a good thing? They have restricted how much money you can individually donate to someone running for office (McCain-Feingold) in the US. This was touted as fighting against lobbyists, who are "bad." But that just means only rich people, who can fund their own campaigns can run for office. It also means that incumbents are given extra protection from challengers.

Maybe you can give an example of a country in the world that is a democracy as opposed to the United States.

Oh I got this one.

I believe the correct answer is that there "aren't any"

Bush can veto anything that passes in Senate which is equal to dictatorship. The only true democracy is the one that doesn't make everyone conform into 1 type which is equal to libertarianism. The day people leave other people alone is the day I stop complaining.

Vetoes can be overridden though.

Switzerland - and they started early too! Violent early history though - though that applies at least equally to the United States of America given the American Revolution/War of Independence. Actually, violence applies to the histories of most nations, democratic or despotic. Ah well. Jimservo has some good points though, as does Erlyrisa no doubt.