hmmm.

[skylines]

absolute totalitarianism vs. total anarchy.

GO!

[ddi]

Absolute totalitarianism. I like rules, haha.

[skylines]

I'd probably say total anarchy...I'm disappointed more people didn't post, though.

[Spooky]

mhh anarchy :)

[hopelessly_spinning]

without a doubt totalitarianism.
I think if I lived in a world of complete chaos and no rules whatsoever, I'd hide under a rock and cry until I died.

[Jacklinger]

Anarchy, because out of the chaos could be organized a union of free peoples. But with Totalitarianism, there's no chance for freedom.

[hopelessly_spinning]

Anarchy, because out of the chaos could be organized a union of free peoples. But with Totalitarianism, there's no chance for freedom.

That's true. I didn't even consider that.
I just love rules. Also, I just finished reading Lord of the Flies, so I have that lovely picture of anarchy in my head. haha

[silver_elf]

erm... I dunno... totalitarianism only if the ruler dude is nice.

[Jacklinger]

erm... I dunno... totalitarianism only if the ruler dude is nice.

Nice dictators are worse than cruel ones. Because a cruel dictator has periods where he doesn't care about what you're doing, but the caring dictator never relents his intense scrutiny of every aspect of your life to be sure you don't harm yourself.

[Vision Thing]

Both options are really unpredictable, but anarchy would allow people to survive and grow for longer.

[skylines]

Both options are really unpredictable, but anarchy would allow people to survive and grow for longer.

thats what I thought. most people already have a pre-set of right and wrong in their heads, but if they're stuck in a totalitarianism regime they'd be more willing to break those pre-sets for their freedoms.

[Vision Thing]

Well, that and whilst both are unpredictable in that they could have equally negative/positive aspects, anarchy would allow people with similar mind sets to gravitate together, whilst the absolute control aspect of totalarinism wouldn't allow future development.

[TransparentOpaque_x]

i'd have to say total anarchy...its like 1984 vs. Lord of the flies =D
but in that case..1984 is the better book ^_^
xx

TO_x

[perfectdoll]

Anarchy is self-government - as opposed to chaos - so I guess a union would be contradictory to that. Unless it were a union as in a community rejecting government...

What defines a good or bad dictator?
How can we be sure that control is by definition a "bad" thing?
Or that "freedom," indeed, to use the Liberal assumption, is a "good" one? - is that just something we've taken for granted, a sort of social fallacy?
Furthermore, what distinguishes anarchy from totalitarianism? Self-governance vs. total governance - does anarchism suggest the rejection of the State as a whole including the rejection of community, or does it advocate self-governing socialist communities - and if so, how are they governed?

In what kind of society would we want to live, and why - and then are our notions of anarchy/totalitarianism compatible with that, or to what extent? Is "better" just subjective- unless the utopian nature of both (total freedom FROM vs. total subjection TO) suggests that they really are "good." And if so, which one? Ironically, both lie at the extreme end of an ideological spectrum so envisage a sort of Utopia... are they then both not perfect? And if platonically "Perfect," thus not "Good"? And if "Good," then synonymous? Their unattainability is the flaw, but I like to think of it as come full circle...

idk.. it's all so confusing!

I wouldn't want to live in either, I don't think. They don't exist.

O.o

[skylines]

I'd have to agree with you...I don't think I'd be happy in either one of them. but it's one of those questions, that it's always interesting to see which people would prefer if they HAD to chose.

[perfectdoll]

If I had had to choose... then I would have been forced, not chosen, which means I'd be living under totalitarianism.

Whether or not I'd enjoy it or not, however, is another matter..... ;)

X