a basic discussion

i would like, for my own amusement, to provide a topic for general debate and discussion among the forum members. It's a fairly basic topic that my friend and president of the Fraklin Society (which specializes in oratory debate) will be debating against a member of our schools faculty. the topic is "that a strictly totalitarian government is preferable to no government at all" ie, given the choice, which would you choose and why.

my purpose in doing this is, as stated, for my own amusement, as well as to help provide him with material to use in his losing battle (i dont care which side he takes, he's going to get trounced). I'd like to see what you guys have to say.

i would like, for my own amusement, to provide a topic for general debate and discussion among the forum members. It's a fairly basic topic that my friend and president of the Fraklin Society (which specializes in oratory debate) will be debating against a member of our schools faculty. the topic is "that a strictly totalitarian government is preferable to no government at all" ie, given the choice, which would you choose and why.

my purpose in doing this is, as stated, for my own amusement, as well as to help provide him with material to use in his losing battle (i dont care which side he takes, he's going to get trounced). I'd like to see what you guys have to say.
Their is no such thing as no government. If you look back in the dark ages when their was no government people fought over land and when they got land they made up their own laws. Then only thing you will accomplish with no government is thousands of dictators instead of a democracy. The past doesn't lie!

so, your saying that an authoritive, totalitarian government is preferable to no government?

instead of arguing against the possibility of one or the other, argue one AGAINST the other.

Yes I would perfer a government rather than no laws, and complete chaos!

so, you would prefer a government who can tell you exactly where to live, what to do for a living, how many kids you can have, what kind of house you live in, what you can and cannot put in your body, who you can and cannot talk to, what car you can drive, where you can go on vacation, if your allowed to vacation, what kind of food you can buy, and where you can buy it (i could go on for days)

you would prefer this to absolute and total freedom?

there's no such thing as "absolute and total freedom" It would take no time at all for chaos to ensure. Guerilla warfare would start, and there would be a fight for power, which would lead to dictatorship but one individual. So in the end.....is there a difference?

look, this is a hypothetical people. a strictly authoritative totalitarian regime wouldnt be possible either.

what i want to know, given the hypothetical choice, which would you choose, and why? not, is it possible for them to exist.

I got that, but im asking, in the end would there be a difference? (id rather just skip the whole warfare thing, and just start out with the totalitarian government)

yes, their is a difference.

assume that the world is divided (by hemishperes we'll say) into a totalitarian government and an anarchy. you got to choose which half you wanted to stay in. now understand, those that chose to live in the anarchy, would all want anarchy, so they wouldnt try to take power. so it would last. and those that wanted to live under the totalitarian government would want to, so they wouldnt over throw it and it would last.

which half would you live on?

in other words, what do you see as the benefits of each system (assume for a second that people are inherently good, not inherently evil)

in other words, what do you see as the benefits of each system (assume for a second that people are inherently good, not inherently evil)


i dunno, thats wuite a stretch :lol:


in that case i would rather live in freedom; assuming that all people had basic morals and respect for one another.....i dunno. im kinda talking myelf into an 'unwritten law' of sorts i guess....hm

unwritten law=human decency maybe?

so any reason why you choose the uncertanty of an anarchistic lifestyle to the certainty that you will have a roof and a food?

yes, their is a difference.

assume that the world is divided (by hemishperes we'll say) into a totalitarian government and an anarchy. you got to choose which half you wanted to stay in. now understand, those that chose to live in the anarchy, would all want anarchy, so they wouldnt try to take power.

Except the people that choose to go over to anarchy with the intention of taking it over. Do you somehow think that this wouldn't happen?

your missing the point. i mean really. its simple.

YOU pick one or the other, and explain why.

But it's totally insane!!

in other words, what do you see as the benefits of each system (assume for a second that people are inherently good, not inherently evil)
On that assumption (inherently good), anarchy hemisphere - for freedom of choice, movement and association.

People on both hemispheres are still free to choose - it's only the way that consequences from a choice are determined that separates the two.

On the totalitarian hemisphere the consequences of choice are enforced by people far removed from the effects of that choice. On the anarchy hemisphere, the consequences of a choice are enforced only by those people closely affected by that choice.

I would choose the anarchistic nation in a heartbeat. So you have my answer. Now, as far as whether it would be a viable possibility to actually HAVE a situation like this in the first place, that's far more complicated. The problem is simply this -- there is ALWAYS some piece of scum (usually with political/financial backing) that has a great deal of ignorance, and a great deal of ambition in their character. These types are the kinds that are so hungry for power, wealth, and status, that they'll go to any length to achieve it, even if it involves throwing a big friggin' wrench in the works. This is the inherent reason why no communist nation to date has truly excelled, and the Achilles heal of Marxist theory: when you base all decisions and statutes around a central governing body, the whole system is then highly subject to corruption, simply because those who represent the power in government, namely politicians and blue-bloods, are often themselves the epitomy of greed and ambition. Hence, the system begins to crumble because there is no leverage with which to at least TRY and balance the scales. This is where (theoretically) a democracy succeeds, by putting equal power in the hands of the people. These are the reasons why I would choose the anarchy, because at least (if this is the scenario) the anarchistic hemisphere is still "pure" and unfettered by the trappings of government. I think the anarchy could work, providing people were to band together in there own communal "tribes" and keep to there own lands. History has shown this to be a difficult prospect however -- one only has to look to the feudal system of pre-Tokugawa Japan to see the results of too much freedom on the part of local groups. This brings me back to the inherent enemy of the anarchistic hemisphere: ambition. If the people could be taught to reign in their ambition, and exercise it accordingly, as free of ignorance as possible, and with respect to the autonomy of the neighboring tribes, then the anarchy would work -- and I'll have chosen well :iceslolan