Which Extreme Form of Government is Better?
Anarchism
Side Score: 77
|
 |
Dictatorship
Side Score: 61
|
|
|
|
|
5
points
I agree, this is a very prominent grey area. Since we're looking at two extreme elements of government, there is no real answer as a more centralist approach will generally appease the most number of people [democracy means that 51% of the people get to tell 49% what to do, and only a centralist system makes a stern compromise rather than ignoring the cries of 49% of the populace]. In an anarchy, there is less chance that progress will occur, but in a dictatorship, there is significant progress made, but not always in the direction that the public wants. However, there are some ways in which dictatorships are better -- the term "benevolent dictator" springs to mind. A benevolent dictator is an authoritarian power that serves the people, and this in most situations would be more beneficial to progress than total anarchism, with no central power to push the public towards a specific goal. The idea of a "benevolent dictator" was put forth by the Greek philosopher Plato, and is his ideal form of government. The advantages to this form of government is that it still accomplishes want the public or majority want, but is not so limited in power as to be blocked by large lobbies or filibusters -- it provides direction as the population wants it, not as a minority of individuals with greater influence want it. Side: Dictatorship
5
points
Anarchism is the desire to pull down the government, not an extreme form of government. It's "the view that society can and should be organized without a coercive state." and I fully agree with that. I think that we'll eventually organize along anarchic principles, once we overthrow the inequality of capitalism. Side: Anarchism
capitalism actually displays the idiocy of man. this is because even with the freedom to choose, people still follow like mindless sheep. this i actually like. capitalism is basically more freedom, yet, a way to keep man under control. the fact that you use the internet shows how even you are under capitalist control. Side: Anarchism
Freedom of the mind? Anarchism would keep this from you. You would have so much more to do in the way of surviving, keeping other people from profiting off of your work, and naturally you would be trying to profit from theirs. Chaos doesn't bring freedom of mind. Peace does, and so long as you live alone you will not find peace... unless you were truly alone. Side: Anarchism
exactly. anarchism means that people are looking afrter themselves only, and as such the great masses of humanity get nowhere. anarchism is freedom, but unrestrained, creating a civilisation of chaos and anarchy. a nation cannot grow powerful on chaos. for instance we have laws right? they restrict freedom, but it looks after the masses, not the individual. this is the way to go, not the path of desruction that is anarchy Side: Anarchism
As long as I live alone I wont find peace? That's silly, if I live alone than there will be no one to aggress upon me. I am in complete control, only I can disturb my own peace. "There is nothing to take a man's freedom away from him, save other men. To be free, a man must be free of his brothers." -Ayn Rand Side: Anarchism
Anarchism would be best because in its truest sense it is a society without hierarchy, which means no system of government or any other institution that reigns power over anyone else. It is not a place of chaos as so many proclaim anarchism is. An anarchist society is one in which the workers own the means to production and each worker has a vote equal to any other workers vote in that factory or business. There would be voluntary assemblies where all the workers would be able to voice their goals for the workplace and ideas to improve. To reach a state of anarchism there must be no hiearchy and because of this requirement an anarchistic society seems unlikely at least within the next decade. Side: Anarchism
you are completely wrong. no hierarchy? are you crazy? society cannot function without a hierarchy. who will make the choices of society? the common masses? ones who have no education and have no idea what they are talking about, ones who care only for their own interests? society can be fair, but it can't make us all kings. people should be able to voice thier oppinions in the workplace, but a hierarchy must remain so the people are working towards a common goal. Side: Dictatorship
You're very very wrong. The elimination of a hierarchy will only bring about... a hierarchy!!! You say business, you say equal vote, you say society, you say workers, you say own, you say factory, you say goals, you say work place, you say improve. Business is owned by the people you say? Factories, constructed by the people as well? Who will agree to work in the factory? Who will build it? It would have to be a special group of people wouldn't it? Do you think people that will be making, say, pants, in a pants factory will be building their own facility? Who will barter? Who will trade for these services? Think about what you've said for a minute. These people are going to vote on things. Who will make sure the votes are done correctly, especially in a "society" as big as todays? Who will ensure every vote is counted equal? Who will ensure any of this? Why do you assume the people in the factories will agree to make pants forever? Who will decide what color pants, what kinds of pants, who will decide who works when? If you have different people within the company doing different things, like one sowing, and the other putting the buttons on the pants, what if everyone wants to do the buttons??? Who will sow? THE STRONGEST WILL RULE IN ANARCHISM! The person in the factory that wants to do the buttons will take the job, who will own the business? Everyone you say? What if a pack of people come in and take over the factory!? Then what? Find another job? What if the same people own that place too? As soon as you take government away from a society, a new one will emerge. In order to have a strong standing, safe and fair society, you need a stronger government! Anyhow, the system you speak of is called "Communism". Learn something before having an opinion, it helps. Side: Anarchism
I was stating what anarchism is and that i think it is better than dictatorships, not unnecessarily that it would work. Personally i don't think anarchism could work in this world for several decades at least because too many people like you feel that anarchism will descend into violence. Maybe you are more knowledgeable maybe not, but where did you get your information? did you get it from someone who opposes anarchy? Also like i said anarchy is a system of no hierarchy anywhere in society. Communism was only supposed to have no hierarchy in an economic sense. Communism still has a government and thus i was not talking about communism. Maybe you should read up on anarchy and communism from multiple points of view(for, against, "neutral") and then comment about systems you seem to hate yet not completely understand. Side: Anarchism
4
points
People seem to think Anarchy will descend into chaos because everyone will instantly go out and try to kill at steal. So I ask, in the absence of government would you go out and kill and steal? Would your friends? Is the government the only thing that makes you moral? There are bad people in the world. Those that love power and hurting others. They always find their way into high positions in government. Take away government and you take away their power to harm others. Side: Anarchism
Historically speaking, there have been successful dictatorships. Rome immediately comes to mind. As to the points you made, I would respond the following: +"So I ask, in the absence of government would you go out and kill and steal?" The average person might not initiate it, but in anarchy they would see it as a viable option for justice. The violence of the French Revolution started small and grew popular with the public. The Holocaust of WWII was generally accepted by Germans. Road-rage is a good modern day example. People don't just become violent, but they respond violently to keep someone from getting away with something. + "Take away government and you take away their power to harm others." I disagree, there will always be a way for a power-hungry person to create their own power, in their tribe for example, where the rest of society is chaotic. Side: Dictatorship
actually, mankind is naturally evil. yes, we do the good deeds, but both common sense and extensive psychological research show that man will do bad shit (whether it's out of selfishness or stupidity). the reason why i believe anarchy will be better than a dictatorship is because it's better for all the bad people to run their own lives than for one bad guy to run everyone else's life. Side: Dictatorship
I agree. Some say "If men were angels, no government would be necessary.", but I would say that if men were devils, then you CAN'T have government, otherwise the most vile people would find their way into government and use it to abuse others.
Supporting Evidence:
If Men Were Angels: The Basic Analytics of the State versus Self-government
(www.independent.org)
Side: Anarchism
2
points
Anarchy is characterized by individuals living under no authority, a society free from the relationships of power and dominion. Anarchism as a political ideology was the first ideology. Man before the advent of government was living as a part of nature. Before man was living in Mecca civilizations, or in tribes, the world was a natural anarchist universe, that we lived in without authority. We were free agents acting in accordance with our own needs and wants. Our existence was not characterized by “ can,” or “ cannot,” but rather by the endless possibilities of our own minds. Side: Anarchism
You guys should check out Anarcho-capitalism. No worry that you will be forced to do a job that the communists or government wants you to do. No worry that a government agent will bust your door down in the night and destroy your family over drug possession. Anarcho-capitalism allows you to get rid of all the shit the government puts you through while maintaining order and freedom. A good book to listen to for an introduction is "The Market for Liberty" which you can find at @ http://freekeene.com/free-audiobook/ Side: Anarchism
1
point
2
points
2
points
Traditional anarchists are basically people who believe nothing should be publicly funded; everything from military to police to hospitals should be privatized. If you want service, you just pay your own money (a voluntary tax). It gets tricky with police protection and legislation but I don't advocate anarchism so I won't get into it. What I am saying is that if America suddenly became this kind of Anarchistic state, than out of necessity, one the private organizations or a coalition of people will assume the position, and thus we have a real government again. The new government would at first be small and have little control, or a source of revenue for that matter, so they wouldn't dare try to be totalitarian for fear of revolt. Side: Dictatorship
I'm gonna go with anarchy on this one, and I'll tell you why. Our current society and every other before it was born of conflict "revolution" if you will. Dictatorship involves no mass support it rules by sheer force. If you think about it anarchist movements display more of the values of a revolutionary mindset than that of a dictator. In this case I'm gonna stick with the ends justifying the means. Only a fair form/ammount of control can survive in an anarchists world. Side: Anarchism
Well.... it would work based on the assumption everyone is logical, and wants the best for himself. However, there are some people in this world who just love making trouble to attract attention to themselves. Im pretty sure in an anarchist state, there would be a significant increase in the rates of crime just because people want to make a name for themselves, or because the "ends justify the means". Not saying that right now the U.S. is totally crazy teen gunslinger free, or in essence, free of oppression by individuals or gangs, however, if you think about it, at least under a dictatorship there would be SOME form security. I say again, your point is valid, for the majority of the population who have a mindset of their own and can think for themselves. However, for the unenlightened brute on the streets, when there is no government, he would just resort to oppressing people for the sick pleasure of knowing he is stronger than other people. This is still a grey area though. Extremes seldom work. Side: Dictatorship
2
points
Not sure what you're saying... This: If (anarchy) didn't work... -or- if no specific form of governement worked... -or- If (anarchy) did work... The first is sort of contradicting itself. The second wouldn't really answer the question, but is a working the sentence. The third makes sense since if anarchy worked then we would might have developed any form of government, dictatorship included. However, I believe your argument is supposed to be in support of anarchy so I just don't understand what you are trying to say. Please clarify. Side: Dictatorship
|
Then let them die. Let chaos reign and let it all burn. "Give me liberty or give me death." Some things are worth more than life and one of those things is freedom. I would rather live in an apocolyptic hell, with fire and brimstone and nashing of teeth - than for one day live under the thumb of even a benevolant dictator. I'm an American. Side: liberty
You need to read up on the anarchist society during the spanish revolution. If it were possible, a benevolent dictator would be good however you have to ask a few questions about whether or not it is possible. Firstly, if they ran a society that was desirable to live in, why would they feel a need to ban elections? Secondly, doesn't the fact that they don't trust others to run affairs in the way a prime minister does shows that they are not just closed minded due to wanting things in their way and believe it can't be done differently but the lack of trust suggests that other people wouldn't enjoy their regime. In addition to the possibility of paranoia which would probably lead to a very authoritarian regime like in Stalinist Russia. Thirdly, with when power is being concentrated in such an extreme amount and can't be disputed, wouldn't that mean that not just would things work in the interests of a small minority (whether the intentions of the dictator were good or not) leading to several problems such as if they require hardships on the short terms meaning you may have to use violence, in addition to the temptation of being corrupt when you have undisputed power. Side: Anarchism
Anarchism isn't a government, it's the complete lack of one. So logically Dictatorship would be. I think a better question would have been fascism vs communism. Fascism is more like a dictatorship and communism is an organized anarchism, in theory of course. For that I would have to choose communism, but that's only because there's a hierarchy and means by which to secure domestic peace. Without that, why even have a government? With anarchism, there's no way to control people, so more people would die, and out of that fear (of death, or being cheated) and the tiresome work to survive would come a dictatorship or /some/ form of government... Side: Dictatorship
Give people the freedom to make their own laws as you go and many will die. In order for a large society to survive, some form of government is needed to protect the people. So a dictator may rule in a totalitarian manner, but as long as society stays civil, it would be better than anarchy. Side: Dictatorship
0
points
I am curious about this statement: ...communism is an organized anarchism... You are gonna have to clarify that, because aside from being an oxymoron, I don't see how communism is anything near anarchy. Quite the opposite actually. Furthermore, don't confuse Leninism (the roots of most of the communist nations today) and Communism that Karl Marx wrote about. We have never seen true communism on a large country-wide scale. China, Cuba, and North Korea (as well as the past forms of Stalin-Russia and onward until Russia restructured it government) are not communist nations, but is more Totalitarianist regimes. And you certainly couldn't compare Communism with Facism....now Totalitarianism vs Facism...better. (sorry, not meant to sound hostile) Side: Anarchism
1
point
1
point
Dictatorship ends with the dictator being dethroned. It hinges upon one man and those loyal to him. Anarchism, on the other hand only creates chaos which provides a perfect environment for a dictator(s) to rise up, play upon people's fears, and take control. Dictatorship is simply one step closer to democracy of one form or another. Side: Dictatorship
1
point
1
point
Freedom is nice, but we depend on good roads, monetary regulations, police protection, and all of the laws of government that keep our society together. Under anarchy you are free, but when you are starving to death because someone bigger than you took your house and stole all your crops, well freedom is not going to be much consolation at that point. Side: Dictatorship
1
point
As much as I hate to say it, I think I'd rather live in a dictatorship then a large-scale anarchy. Modern business and government thrives on well-organized, efficient hierarchy, which an anarchy, by definition, would lack. Military and criminal justice systems by their nature infringe on individual rights and betray the principles of anarchy. Unfortunately, these measures are necessary for the preservation of order. Without an effective law enforcement system to punish violence and theft, a nation would go into a brief state of every-man-for himself state of (sorry) anarchy; looting, murder and rape would be rampant. A perfect example is Iraq, in the days after the invasion. Before long, people would start to band together in small militias or tribes, likely lead by violent strongmen. Afghanistan after the Soviet Invasion is a near-perfect example. Before long, someone will try to fill the power-vacuum. The different groups will inevitably want power, and they'll be more than ready to fight for it. You end up with a sort of feudalism; the various groups fight a bloody, all-out war; maybe for months, maybe for years, maybe for decades. Ultimately, one group will become the victor, and they'll claim power and set up a government. This government will inevitably be militaristic and authoritarian. Inevitably it will be attacked by the other groups or their remnants, and inevitably the government will result to torture and murder to stop them. At some point the government may succeed in stopping them, but will continue to use these methods, doing everything in its power to keep its power. So you end up with a dictatorship, except you got the bonus of a few years or decades of fear, poverty and bloody tribal warfare. So what's better, the relative anarchy of war, or the oppression but relative safety of a strong-arm Dictatorship? Ask a random Iraqi citizen what they prefer, life under the oppressive Dictatorship of Saddam, or life under the chaos of sectarian fighting. Three times out of four, they'll tell you the former. Freedom is great, but it doesn't mean very much when you worry about getting shot or kidnapped or bombed every time you leave your home. Side: Dictatorship
2
points
It's more like this: to protect you from men with guns trying to take your money or your life, you band together with a bunch of like-minded men with guns to protect your money and your life. Over time, the band of people becomes larger, and specialized; instead of everyone trying to do everything, there's a production group, whose purpose is obvious, a governing group to resolve disputes, and a military/police group, to protect from outside enemies, as well as those who try to subvert the law and cheat the system. (This is a grossly oversimplified explanation of modern civilization, but it should be basically accurate.) Naturally, the system won't work unless the producers give some of their product/money to the governors and protectors. This, however, (with the exception of kleptocracies and malevolent dictatorships) is far from the exploitation you paint it as, and is generally a mutually beneficial trade. Surplus goods are exchanged for order and security. It's not a perfect system; wars, malevolent dictatorships, government corruption and poor planning attests to this, but by-and-large it works; there's a reason why every single group of people larger than a few hundred has some kind of system resembling this. Side: Dictatorship
Better for whom? Anthropological studies indicate that groups of humans need leadership to protect themselves. Bad leadership is overwhelmingly better for the group as a whole compared to anarchy. In a state of anarchy, the young cannot be protected and people tend to die off very quickly. Side: Dictatorship
0
points
I'd say dictatorship. Anarchism cannot be enforced or controlled (obviously) and therefore could never exist as people WILL work together and eventually form some sort of leadership as necessary for survival. Of course, the question is, better for whom? Dictatorship could be better so long as the dictator keeps the well-being of his subjects in mind, but you could say anarchism is more fair. Side: Dictatorship
3
points
So what if a dictator can develop faster? Hitler made Germany very technologically advanced, and he used it to kill and persecute. You have to be careful, some people are so intent on going somewhere fast they don't realize where they are headed. And as to Anarchy fails, is there any reason you believe so? Side: Anarchism
i believe both forms of government proposed in this arguement are wrong. while there are certain things i would take out of a dictatorship i still beleive they are both wrong. ararchism is chaos and anarchy and a dictatorship is totalitarian and restricting. the best form of governmnet is a form of dictatorship, but one where the people have freedom of speech and whichis fair. Side: Dictatorship
|
