| User | Comment |
|---|
Enheduanna  | | posted 27-Jun-2002 12:56pm |
I really can't decide. Both are pretty awful. |
LindaH    | | posted 27-Jun-2002 1:41pm |
Anarchy. I think in anarchy, groups of good people would eventually get together and decide to change it. People would take it upon themselves to take control of the wicked people. Anarchy wouldn't last. Vigilantes would fight the victimizers.
Under tyranny, there's nothing anyone would be able to do to change things. The people would have no power. |
| Biggles | | posted 27-Jun-2002 1:59pm |
Tough decision. I went for tyranny. Goes against my freedom loving nature, but there you go. I think it would be preferable to anarchy. |
| grmbrand | | posted 27-Jun-2002 2:13pm |
Tyranny. I think there needs to be a structure; at least then, there can be an organized opposition... |
| mandy | | posted 27-Jun-2002 2:40pm |
Anarchy because I am so totally sure I could weasel my way into a crime organization and be protected and happy. |
| Locutus | | posted 27-Jun-2002 3:13pm |
Anarchy wouldn't last too long (plus I get to do whatever I want...  ) |
| ASexyBabe | | posted 27-Jun-2002 3:16pm |
I prefer death |
| romkey | | posted 27-Jun-2002 5:20pm |
I would prefer to live in a true anarchy, where each person is responsible for his or her actions, understands that responsibility and acts according to that understanding. |
| LindaH | | posted 27-Jun-2002 5:28pm |
I like that. In that system, there would be nobody administering arbitrary consequences to teach 'you must take responsibility for your actions.' I always hated that, especially for harmless things. If there were consequences, they should happen as a direct result of actions, not administered by overzealous authority figures. |
| confetti | | posted 27-Jun-2002 5:44pm |
When was the last time you had a good piece of chocolate? |
| Irene007 | | posted 27-Jun-2002 6:14pm |
I can deal with anarchy better than tyranny - I'm a together person and am capable of finding order for myself or ways of benefiting from bad situations, besides; tyrants won't let you do anything!! |
| heyzeus1 | | posted 27-Jun-2002 6:35pm |
i love anarchy!
i love anarchy!
i love anarchy!
i love anarchy!
i love anarchy!
|
| heyzeus1 | | posted 27-Jun-2002 6:35pm |
what do i love? |
| natsim | | posted 27-Jun-2002 6:41pm |
If I live in "total Anarchy" the worst scenario would be that I would be killed at the hands of my fellow civilians.
If I live in "total Tyranny", the worst scenario would be that I would be killed at the hands of my government via my fellow civilians.
The worst scenario of both seems to be equally bad, so I was tempted to choose at random.
But realistically, I think that Tyranny would get worse than anarchy, because in anarchy, individuals have choice and I believe in the goodness of human nature. |
| Biggles | | (reply to heyzeus1) posted 27-Jun-2002 7:04pm |
|
| LuridHope | | posted 27-Jun-2002 7:20pm |
I still think what I thunk before... Tyranarchy. |
| LindaH | | (reply to natsim) posted 27-Jun-2002 7:53pm |
That's pretty much what I think. The good people would outnumber the bad people. If the bad people were running amok, the good folks would pop em in line real quick, wouldn't they? |
| freebird_old | | posted 27-Jun-2002 7:55pm |
The obvious choice....Anarchy! |
| heyzeus1 | | (reply to Biggles) posted 27-Jun-2002 8:18pm |
anytime!  |
| natsim | | (reply to LindaH) posted 27-Jun-2002 9:36pm |
I'd hope so!! |
| Amanda | | posted 27-Jun-2002 10:57pm |
I don't want to choose. Why can't we just have a happy medium? |
| roozle | | posted 28-Jun-2002 12:07am |
anarchy, by a very small margin. |
| gracefulkid | | posted 28-Jun-2002 1:00am |
Neither, but forced to choose i woudl say tyranny. dont ask me why! |
Kristal_Rose  | | posted 28-Jun-2002 2:23am |
Definitely anarchy. That way at least karma and spirit can protect the innocent. In tyranny, everyone is subjugated. Meanwhile just seconds ago we had another of our regular helicopter searchlight parades around our apartment building. ¥"It's like an albatross." |
| Kristal_Rose | | (reply to grmbrand) posted 28-Jun-2002 2:26am |
That's one reason why I 'wouldn't' want tyranny. That's the first job in administering a tryanny, to remove all hope of opposition. |
| skylark | | posted 28-Jun-2002 2:54am |
Tyranny. Tyranny always has some sense and ORDER, if not anything else. It is horrible, but in anarchy there are no rules at all. |
| skylark | | (reply to grmbrand) posted 28-Jun-2002 2:55am |
Exactly! You got the point. |
| skylark |
Freebird baby! |
| dora | | posted 28-Jun-2002 7:09am |
Total anarchy is indeed what I like.I don't think it will be much more curropted...more the other way around.But the human race needs a government,it's natural.But again,as an hypothesis,total anarchy is still better.See,if i kill someone I can understand being killed by the family of the person I killed much more than being sentenced to death by a jury.It's obvious that these two are extremes,and the best and civil thing to do would be having a right trial and be jailed,but of the two barbaric extremes the feud one is LESS barbaric in my eyes.People can be violent and blinded,I accept that but I can't accept an institution to be so and declaring they are doing it in a cool and detached way.It's called hypocrisy.
I suspect that in total tyranny death penalty will be the rule,so used this example. |
| dora | | (reply to LindaH) posted 28-Jun-2002 7:11am |
In a tyranny people,as they always did,would oppose the power.Some of them at least. |
| Dino | | posted 28-Jun-2002 7:54am |
Tyranny. They have sexier clothes. |
| grmbrand |
But historically speaking, tyranny has never extinguished hope... |
| TeddyMiller | | posted 28-Jun-2002 8:50am |
They're both nasty, but if I had to pick one, I'd say tyranny. At least in a tyranny, some people live reasonable lives; I might manage if I obey the evil laws and have useful technical skills (unless I'm specifically targeted, a Nazi tyranny exterminating me just for being Jewish). There's potentially some place for me, and a government that might protect that place if I'm useful and obedient. In total anarchy, all you've got is monsters and victims, kill or be killed; my only place would be a miserable life of squalor until killed by some evil gang that there's no one to protect me from.
|
| LindaH | | (reply to dora) posted 28-Jun-2002 12:00pm |
It seems easier for good people to get together and oppose bad people in an anarchy than for people to oppose the leaders of a tyranny. |
| ASexyBabe |
Have you seen The Rogues Gallery yet? http://www.emichron.com/survey_central/ grmbrand started it for us to share photos with eachother. He has the photo of you and Cleo but needs your permission to put it up. So if you don't mind your photo going on there let him know  |
dab  | | posted 28-Jun-2002 1:35pm |
If there are one or more governments, whether they're called congress, parliament, warlords, king, or the mob, it's not an absence of government so it's not anarchy. |
| kaleb777 | | posted 28-Jun-2002 4:19pm |
Using the survey creators definitions, I would have to go with anarchy, since I believe people are basically going to live in harmony as much as possible. If it was anarchy, all the good people could get their guns back and defend themselves. As it is now, the good people have been disarmed in Australia and are fair game for the criminals who can get hold of any guns they want. Total tyranny might involve certain ethnic groups being sent to gas chambers. I think I'd rather have mobs in control than corrupt government. |
| kaleb777 | | (reply to romkey) posted 28-Jun-2002 4:23pm |
True anarchy rules!!! |
| Sarah1982 | | posted 28-Jun-2002 9:01pm |
I can't even begin to wrap my head around questions like these. I think too much as it is. However I'll force myself to pick, for the good of the survey. |
| Kristal_Rose | | (reply to grmbrand) posted 28-Jun-2002 10:59pm |
Only because they excuse the tyranny as a temporary minor inconvenience and a vital & obvious necessity towards some war effort with the carrot of a better future. Tyrannys exist because the elite are power hungry and don't want internal competition. I wouldn't want to be a jew under Hitlers tyranny. A lot fewer would have died if germany was an anarchy during wwii. |
| Kristal_Rose | | (reply to grmbrand) posted 28-Jun-2002 11:31pm |
I just now sent some photos. |
| SueBee | | posted 29-Jun-2002 2:46am |
I hate to admit it, but total anarchy sounds much more frightening to me, although either one would be horrible. I think I'd rather be oppressed, and at least live in a society that has some semblance of law and order. Unless, of course, I had enough money to build myself a fortress and a lot of firepower. Then I might change my mind. |
| wolfchik9 | | posted 29-Jun-2002 4:27am |
I really prefer that philosophical idea though! I just could not live under a dictatorship. |
| freebird_old | | (reply to skylark) posted 29-Jun-2002 1:57pm |
Hi! Nice to see you. I will be mailing something to you next week......after much procrastination... |
| Avocado | | posted 29-Jun-2002 7:54pm |
Anarchy |
bill  | | posted 30-Jun-2002 7:27am |
They both sounds pretty bad, so it's hard to really pick as both would suck a lot. ...I can imagine anarchy being a good thing, though you're not letting me do that here. I suppose I could also imagine a pleasant form of tyranny (I hear Rome wasn't so bad under Caesar). |
| skylark | | (reply to bill) posted 1-Jul-2002 4:31am |
I guess Caesar's reign was more dictatorship than tyranny. In the Roman republic dictatorship was meant to be only temporary and short-time, but Caesar changed that. Imagine if the presidents were always called Bill! |
| skylark |
|
| bill | | (reply to skylark) posted 1-Jul-2002 6:49am |
Billy Bush? |
| southernyankee | | (reply to bill) posted 1-Jul-2002 2:38pm |
actually, did you see the survey about "Melevent dictatorship vs benevolent democracy" Thats where I got the idea initially. In the links, I tried adding that survey too, but the search couldn't find it  . Yes, they both would suck, but that's the whole point of this survey... I'd chose anarchy by a rather moderatly small margin because my view of total tyranny at its worst would be everyone in prison as a means of preventing crime as opposed to a world were mobsters and ideviduals are running around with semi automatics and people building bombs and mad scientists building god knows what. My reasoning is that if every individual had a highly massive weapon of mass doom, it would deter most "criminals". Some people chose Anachy thinking of a world where people would be responsible for themselves and everyone would live in harmony. That is not only overly optomistic, but also that would sound more like libertarism rather than anarchy, which belive it or not, would scare me even more. That would be a world of massive poverty, with no child labor laws or any such regulations. In Anarchy, poor people could at least form mobs and fend themselves in their criminal mayham. |
| bill |
It's kind of hard to imagine either case. In response to your last comment about poor people: first "poor" might have new meaning as money would be worthless. Instead, stuff, especially survival-related stuff like guns and food would have value. But, there would be stratification anyway. The people with guns would form tribes and adhoc warlords would control them (I suppose). I think it would essentially decay into pockets of tyranny. human nature... |
| unsangsorrow14 | | posted 2-Jul-2002 12:45am |
neverming im all for anarchy |
| skylark | | (reply to bill) posted 2-Jul-2002 7:07am |
Yeah, if the emperors after Caesar were called Caesar, wouldn't it be easy if all the presidents after were called Bill, too? For dummies, Bilyl is also easier to spell than Goergo. |
| PunkRockDK331 |
Total anarchy of course. total freedom is better than none. Besides i live for anarchy it makes life more interesting. Finally all those people high on freedom would start regretting it. All for the enjoyment of myself! |
| PunkRockDK331 |
I think we already live in a tyranny |
| PunkRockDK331 | | (reply to natsim) posted 4-Jul-2002 2:28am |
I can't see how you believe in the goodness of human nature. I believe people are basically bad with a few good tendencies. Basically were animals, plain and simple. people only do good when they are guilty about not doing it, people do bad all the time and if we didn't have boundaries our animal instincts would take over and something, like say killing a person, would come natural. |
| natsim |
If you want to talk about how animalistic we are, you must also know that animals care for their young - there is a natural animal tendency to nurture. I don't believe that people care for children because they feel guilty!
In a way, I believe in the goodness of human nature because I choose to. I would rather see the world as a basically good place, but like you, I know there is bad in the world. I find it easier to fight the bad by being grounded in a belief that there is a natural tendency for good. |
| Kristal_Rose |
I think the majority of people find causing harm displeasurable and helping others satisfying. I don't think doing good is any more guilt driven than cleaning one's house or reading a book. Personally, I even rescue black widow spiders and set them free outside. I know little of these natural instincts you speak of. I believe they are no less environmental conditioning than good instincts. I had some neighbor kids that wouldn't even turn their head when another had been seriously hurt and assaulted each other in various ways. I invited them to my home to learn piano, play monopoly, make lava lamps and waffles, etc. with the warning that they weren't welcome in my home if they weren't friendly to each other, and they almost instantly became angelic creatures, sharing at every opportunity. In an hour I was able to reverse years of conditioning from a family that believed in constant neglect and punishment. I was almost ready to believe that behavior so atrocious must be natural born evil and was delighted to find that the seeds of love and wisdom are always there if you allow it to blossom.
Does DK stand for Dead Kennedy's or your initials? |
| Biggles |
Different ideologies have different views about human nature. You're a conservative with regard to yours. natsim is a liberal with regard to hers. There are more similarities between the ideologies than a lot of people care to admit. |
| oOStephOo | | posted 4-Jul-2002 10:52pm |
I think they are both pretty bad. |
| PunkRockDK331 | | (reply to Biggles) posted 4-Jul-2002 11:46pm |
Holy Crap will you look at those responses. The boards light up.Maybe they are only nice when around you because they know they can get free stuff. I'm going to have to change my screename for that remark aren't I. I never heard of a conservative who didn't believe in human decency, I would think that my point of view is more open-minded and would then be said as liberal. I really don't think people are good. Like i said i think people are bad with good tendencies. I've seen some downright evil crap. Likewise i don't think people really feel bad for people who die in fires unless they knew them. Most people cover simply so they aren't ostracized and shunned for not showing sympathy. Different strokes.... |
| Kristal_Rose |
Oh yeah, now i remember what happened in this survey. The belief/philosophy that people are basically primally good hearted, breeds a society that is such. The belief/philosophy that people are basically primally purely self-serving, breeds as society that is that. Basically you offer the seed of a bad weed which if allowed to propogate, could at least be true in effect. This is why you were jumped on, because your belief is an infectious poison to society if allowed to spread. If it got out of control, people would lock their doors and only speak to their neighbors out of necessity. I look forward to the epoch in which it has been rooted out entirely. Read C.S. Lewis's sci-fi trilogy: {forgotten title}, Voyage to Venus, & That hideous strength. He illustrates some really deep concepts with entertaining reading. I can dig where folks with your outlook are coming from, it is a sort of experienced truth, but it's one that doesn't have to exist.
As far as the fires, it would be different if they were there experiencing it. Television has a way of turning things into non-reality. You can't concern yourself with people if you don't even have a deep felt sense that they even exist. The news tells us that there's some cow disease travelling a continent, then a day later never mentions it for another year. If you know even one person with Aids, it's easier to believe that people around the planet are actually suffering from it. Politics, particle physics, these things have no real significance unless you are engaged in them yourself. |
| Biggles |
The words conservative and liberal in terms of ideology refer to particular belief systems. There are different degrees within each which at some places almost run into one (like the conservative New Right and the Neoliberals who are pretty much the same). But for all that, there are standard beliefs associated with the ideologies. One of those is what people believe with regard to human nature - what you think about history also fits in there (conservatives believe that modern institutions are a product of an accumulation of wisdom over time so shouldn't be rapidly reformed, liberals tend to see reform as progressive). Before I studied Politics, I had no idea that the ideological terms could be used so specifically and I would always have described myself as a liberal. Now I know that liberalism is pretty central to the political spectrum I realise that I'm someway to the left of it (but to the right of socialism) although I do think that I have some conservative tendencies. In a genereal sense, they are terms that can be bandied around, but they can be pretty specific too And hey, if you're getting lots of replies you're a success! Don't change your username, stick by your comments, defend them. If you change your mind about something don't think it's bad to say it. I've had "debates" with some of the people that I love most at this site and I love it when people defend their viewpoint and come back at me with something that I hadn't considered. The community aspect and the discussions at this site are what makes it great. Stick by your name and be yourself! |
| PunkRockDK331 |
damn't now i have to read two lllllllooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggg surveys, this is why i shouldn't peruse such subjects. thats not the real reason mostly its because people get angry when you say things that are off center from what everyone else is thinking. If a thought that wasn't like everyone elses was brought into society everyone woul freak out thinking that somehow it will "poison" our culture and destroy the frame of our society. Thats the thing also everyone wants change to a nice world but no one is willing to stand up and do it. People are content with what they got and we are never going to change unless there is a radical change in America and the world as a whole. cool its tempting to take politics in college, perhaps i will do so. |
| Kristal_Rose |
In the case of this survey, you weren't jumped on by several people because you were off center or unique. You were jumped on by me and natsim who both share a lot of common views in the sweeter evolution of this planet. Our views are not common either, and we are both known for being supportive of diverse views, just not this particular one which breeds fear and paranoia. Your very comment here is an example of that thinking. Take a sweet or non-objective open minded look at this survey again. Perhaps in other surveys I haven't seen, you are indeed jumped on by many for having different views. I wouldn't know. Generally people here are rather accomodating as long as you have a goodhearted respectful interplay with others. Neither me, nor I think Natsim are really the types to get angry at much at all. I wasn't angry, just concerned, and certainly of a different opinion. I'm quite busy changing the world. My original comment to you was a minor example of an attempt at that.
So tell me, what is it that you want to change, and how would you propose going about that? |
| NthenSome |
Oh crap! Damn! I hate "lesser of two evils" stuff. I usually end up tossing back and forth for days about it.
I chose Anarchy though...
At least - even with things all screwed up - in this forum I'd wouldn't be denied the opportunities to try to change things for the better. |
| PunkRockDK331 |
I don't really mind the world as it is, personally a lot of angry people makes it easier to steal things. i would rather work against the good than help because i wouldn't last in a perfect society. Though whatever works for you is fine for me. |
| Kristal_Rose |
I don't get it. You wouldn't survive is a society without stealing? |
| PunkRockDK331 |
what? that sentence came out weird. I would last longer in the worst of society than the best because in the best i can only imagine somwthing terrible happens to the bad to keep the good on top so obviously i would just as well stay away. |
| Kristal_Rose |
What puts you in the bad camp such that you'd prefer that option over changing? |
| pinkfloydlover | | posted 27-Feb-2006 6:18pm |
well i would have to say anarchy because even though i am a peaceful man that things that peace and anarchy want are similar they just in extremely different ways or methods of getting it |
