Anarchy vs. Dictatorship
The old fashioned debate to show what type of person you really are.
There is no right or wrong answer, just opinion.
Anarchy: Total freedom from an authoritative force, but no protection either. Everything depends on your will to live. No law, no order, but total freedom.
Dictatorship: Total control from the government. You are protected from other citizens, but you are at complete mercy of your government. Break their rules and you're fucked. Those rules can be anything. God forbid they have the "you must be white" rule. But for hell's sake, let's say you are considered the right race by your government (but not everyone else).
Side Score: 26
Side Score: 24
The thing about Anarchy is that most people think of it as "chaos" and colloquially use the term to mean as much. But Anarchy in its "application" means that there isn't a government institution present in a given society. All tribal societies are anarchic in their structure and function perfectly well.
Anarchy doesn't necessarily mean no protection. Before government's came into existence, people weren't without order and completely helpless.
I'm just trying to introduce an alternative viewpoint here. Being an anarchist doesn't mean you want chaos. Maybe freedom and order aren't as far apart from each other as we think...
Exactly. I strongly believe in the Second Amendment as I believe that we should be i control of our own lives and protection. We must stop being so lazy and ignorant, and for once think about our surroundings! Why must we have all the things we need spoon fed into our mouths?
By saying I prefer anarchy over dictatorship I mean that I would have a dictatorship overthrown resulting in anarchy which would result in a new order. Life under dictatorship is just not worth the safety.
Also, dictatorship can be effective and beneficial, but most often it is not. Since it is not specified, I will assume the average.
Dictatorships, when viewed from a marxist standpoint, are a stepping stone to an anarchist society.
Communism is, in the truest sense of the word, an anti-statist society much like anarchy.
whereas most people have assumed that the dictatorship is oppressive, I hold that Anarchy is the best result in either situation.
If the dictator is power-hungry and greedy, inevitably oppressive, then the people will revolt and result in anarchy.
and if the dictator is not power hungry nor greedy, and is not oppressive, then following marxist theory the dictator will dissolve his power into an anarcho-communist society.
Therefore, anarchy is the greater of the two options, no matte what kind of dictatorship is being discussed.
An anarchy would not necessarily turn out like what it does in Fallout. However, in the past dictatorships such as Cuba, the Soviet Union, and North Korea, the countries have turned completely corrupt and are viewed upon as radical. Really, there are hardly any people in this world who would pick up a weapon and kill their neighbor, but that small percent is all we hear about. Everyone knew who Osama Bin Laden was, and all because he was an awful person. I'm sure no one knows who St. Amantius of Como is, and he was a saint! Anarchy is better.
While in dictatorships everyone is being told to do, in anarchy all people have absolute freedom to excel in their lives. Institutions such as school, law and charities can effectively be kept in anarchy; as long as no authoritarian government exists (in anarchy a government could exist but in name only, very similar to the role of a constitutional monarch). The belief that there is no sense of responsibility or stability in anarchy is completely biased and bigoted as people, who do not have to be heavily taxed by the government, will have more money to donate to charities and so on.
We can see how horrible countries with powerful dictatorships have been. For example Stalinist Russia... although it is generally assumed that the the police force is primarily created to protect their citizens and keep order, there are many cases when they are simply used as the government's agents to suppress the masses. Joseph Stalin used his secret police force, the NKVD, to murder millions upon millions of Russians for the sake of communism and ''keeping order''. It is quite interesting to note that when people started questioning the legitimacy of the NKVD, Stalin simply executed his chief of police and got a new one to replace him! Perhaps it would have been better to let a few ''criminals'' live, and not execute millions of innocent people!
Even after Stalin's death, the later leaders of the USSR still used a secret police force, the KGB, to control the masses as well as to crush any sign of rebellion in Eastern Europe (as it was under Soviet occupation at the time of the Cold War). The Nazis used their own secret police force, the Gestapo, to catch Jews and send them to their deaths in the concentration camps (they also arrested and killed resistance fighters all over Europe). The verdict is that law and politics do not mix in my opinion, thus the police force should remain independent from the government. However in dictatorship the police force is always the ''blood hound'' of the dictator.
Anarchy is superior to dictatorship because it unconditionally allows freedom of expression and pure liberty. Law and order can of course be enforced through non-government organisations (such as corporate law services) but the government will never be there to oppress the people
This is a difficult scenario.
Anarchy is completely short-term and doesn't last very long.
Under anarchy over time groups will be established and power will again form. People will fight with one another over power until there is one group that is more dominant than the rest. This group is the government.
Dictatorships would be long-term but when overcome will be difficult to re-establish.
Under an unfair and unjust dictatorship the people will eventually rebel and they will try and create an order or system as far from and as impossible to return to their previous dictatorship.
However dictatorship can be good.
Did Hitler give the German people stability? Not at all...in the end the people whom Hitler loved the most found themselves completely ruined, having their nation split in two by the victorious Allies. Dictators can never equate to stability because they will always naturally have enough power to mobilise massive armies for total war. In anarchy, such armies do not exist...
Dictators are not stupid...they take precautions every single day in order to stay in power. Everyday they arrest people...everyday they create conspiracies...all in order to continue on oppressing their people. In truth, we can only ever overthrow the dictator if we had guns...but is it not coincidental that all the dictatorships in history have been against civilian ownership of usage of firearms?
Dictatorship is never good but I don't think anarchy is good either.Having no freedom to say what you want is the biggest downside to dictatorship,but protection is far more important.I want to feel safe when I walk the streets.To me,that's the most important a government should provide their nation.
Not all dictatorships are discrimanting and prejudiced.In some,the only people that severely punished are the ones who openly oppose the government.Also,most dictators keep and economical agenda that is strongly protective of the nation's resources and its market.I think we've all seen where free trade and no governamental intervention in the economy has brought us..
Today, many people think of dictatorship as a negative type of government where people are under total control of a cruel and malevolent tyrant. However, having a dictator on the throne is better than the alternative: no one at all. As shown through the examples of Giuseppe Garibaldi and Hosni Mubarak, even the enemy of democracy is preferable to complete anarchy.
During the 1800s, Italy was and had been nothing more than a group of independent city-states who were weak compared to the larger countries in Europe. However, this all changed when Giuseppe Garibaldi, an influential military leader rose to power with hundreds of supporters and fans. Joining the revolutionary Carbonari, Garibaldi conquered and unified much of southern Italy. Later on, his efforts allowed Italy to be completely unified into a single country. Even though he had declared himself the “Dictator of Sicily” at Salemi, Italy in 1860, he was loved by the Italian people for his national pride and patriotism. Even today, he is considered an Italian national hero, with monuments erected for him around the world, including New York City. Though he was a dictator, Giuseppe Garibaldi helped unify Italy and created a new, brighter country.
For almost thirty years, Hosni Mubarak had held office as the “modern pharaoh” of Egypt. Under his rule, Egypt has stayed in peaceful relations with Israel and the United States, making it one of the most stable countries in the Middle East today. Even as protestors demanded his resignation as the economy fell, Mubarak did not use military force to crush them. Instead, he complied with their desires and stepped down. However, the next government for Egypt is still undecided, and with the military in control, a chaotic leader may rise. If the new leader does not feel the same way towards relations with Israel and the United States, the years of stability gained through Mubarak’s reign may go to waste. Even if he was a dictator, Hosni Mubarak maintained a stable country, much better than anarchy or militaristic rule.
Although they were both dictators, Giuseppe Garibaldi and Hosni Mubarak both helped their countries reach new heights, a situation preferred over chaos. As of today, many people still believe that dictatorship is an evil type of government, but in some cases, dictators can create a better state than anarchy would provide.
And what if that single leader is a blood thirsty warmonger (i.e. Adolf Hitler)...or what if he would be willing to set his country in a disastrous plan that would starve over 40 million people (i.e. Mao Zedong)...or what if he was a ''man of steel'' who would use his police force to execute millions upon millions of people (i.e. Joseph Stalin).
Change is good because it allows a flow of ideas. If a leader is bad, he is swiftly replaced before he causes more tragedies. However in a dictatorship, the leader reigns supreme and any who doubt him are swiftly executed.
I think in many ways a dictatorship is the most efficient.
Look at our system now. Regardless of where you stand politically, you have to see that nothing can actually get done, because the other folks are always blocking you. So,
you try to get them out. And that works for a while. Then, they get you. Some people call that checks and balances. I call that a stalemate. So, we pass health care. Then, we toss it out. We pass new healthcare. We won't like that either. So, we'll toss that out. Until
absolutely nothing gets done.
I'm reminded of the quote by Mel Gibson in the movie Patriot: "Why should I trade one dictator 3,000 miles away for 3,000 dictators a mile away?" Well, you get a voice, but that's all you get. It doesn't mean anything.
And anarchy just means that everyone becomes their own dictator, trying to resist the will of 5,000,0000. Isn't it easier to just have one?
And I know everyone thinks "well, that's absolute control". But you have to think that even a dictatorship has checks and balances. I have to think that if I'm dictator I always have one I looking over the wall. And I have to strike a balance. They need to fear me enough to respect my control, but not so much as to overthrow me.
Sometimes, it seems like the world just needs one person that really knows what they're doing ---and they sure as hell isn't me--- to say 'fuck you! I don't care if you like it, this is the way it's going to be! This isn't open for discussion anymore."