Quantcast

Would you rather live in a socialist state or in total anarchy, if you absolutely had to choose...?

SeaSparkzz 2010/07/26 22:06:01
Related Topics: Obama
Anarchy
Socialist State
You!
Add Photos & Videos
In this hypothetical question it is one or the other. Please explain your answer.
Do NOT bring up Obama or America... This is HYPOTHETICAL, lets keep it that way.
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • soday 2010/07/28 00:25:28
    Socialist State
    soday
    +6
    Talk about anarchy being a blissful state of pure harmony is wonderful, just as Marx's writings made communism sound wonderful. In theory, both extremes provide wonders aplenty. The reality is quite different. Ask people who live in Somalia how they feel about anarchy. The absence of a state does not lead to the flourishing of our better natures. It leads to opportunism and rule of the gun. At least in a socialist state there are laws, and a structure, no matter how flawed, for keeping the most rapacious from taking everything they want from the weak. A socialist state can also, as history has shown, lead to an educated populace that demands a better form of government.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Rusticu... disinter 2010/07/27 06:19:07
    Rusticus 1773
    +2
    Yea, testify brother, testify!
  • Striker 2010/07/27 02:27:24 (edited)
    Anarchy
    Striker
    +5
    Lots of folks don't understand anarchy at all. Peter T. Leeson wrote an excellent paper on that which might help.

    http://no-ruler.net/Stateless...
  • Ben 10- P.H.A.E.T 2010/07/27 02:20:16
    Socialist State
    Ben 10- P.H.A.E.T
    +2
    Easily. At least there would be some security
  • disinter Ben 10-... 2010/07/27 03:24:16
    disinter
    +2
    Why would you not have security under anarchy?
  • Kris Sa... disinter 2010/07/27 03:44:19
    Kris Says Hi
    +2
    "A small country cannot contend with a great; the few cannot contend with the many; the weak cannot contend with the strong."
    -Mencius

    Hosting invasions and letting the dogs dominate is not my version of security.
  • Ben 10-... disinter 2010/07/28 00:12:30
    Ben 10- P.H.A.E.T
    +1
    No government and no army there to keep me safe would really kill me... Especially since I speak out lol!
  • SeaSparkzz Ben 10-... 2010/07/28 00:21:29
    SeaSparkzz
    +1
    Perhaps you could learn to defend yourself?
  • Ben 10-... SeaSparkzz 2010/07/29 03:26:18
    Ben 10- P.H.A.E.T
    LOL!!! Yeah tell that to the militias that will be everywhere with big guns
  • SeaSparkzz Ben 10-... 2010/07/29 04:21:38
    SeaSparkzz
    I will.. My family and friend group would be one of them. We already have the big guns. But that doesn't mean we'd kill people for speaking out.
  • Ben 10-... SeaSparkzz 2010/07/29 04:25:11
    Ben 10- P.H.A.E.T
    +1
    You probably... But I don't think most gun holders are the most friendly to us liberals
  • SeaSparkzz Ben 10-... 2010/07/29 07:27:08
    SeaSparkzz
    +1
    Fair enough.
  • disinter Ben 10-... 2010/07/28 00:47:37
    disinter
    Since when has the army protected you when you "speak out"?
  • Ben 10-... disinter 2010/07/29 03:26:40
    Ben 10- P.H.A.E.T
    LOL!!! i can say what I want without being killed
  • SeaSparkzz Ben 10-... 2010/07/29 04:22:20
    SeaSparkzz
    +1
    Without being publicly killed. People disappear all the time.
  • disinter Ben 10-... 2010/07/29 05:02:02
    disinter
    And the army is following you around making sure that doesn't happen?
  • Rusticu... Ben 10-... 2010/07/27 06:28:22
    Rusticus 1773
    +1
    Dr. Benjamin Franklin, said:
    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty
    to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
    deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

    Why do you think he said that?

    Do you REALLY think that the _illusion_ of government imposed security is more important than your own liberty, which is essential to your being safe?
  • CaptShu 2010/07/27 01:18:48
    Anarchy
    CaptShu
    +5
    I've seen a lot of good arguments for the socialist model- order being preferable to chaos. And if you can't live without TV, XBox, etc, then it's your only choice. I'm tempted to agree.

    Anarchy, though, would tend to have a pretty short half-life. There remains, then, some hope, however dim, that an order that embraces liberty might arise.

    Under socialism there can be no hope of freedom, so I guess my vote goes with the motorists of New Hampshire:

    "Live Free or Die"
  • disinter CaptShu 2010/07/27 01:44:56
    disinter
    +3
    For most people, "anarchy" is a disturbing word, suggesting chaos, violence, antinomianism – things they hope the state can control or prevent. The term "state," despite its bloody history, doesn't disturb them. Yet it's the state that is truly chaotic, because it means the rule of the strong and cunning. They imagine that anarchy would naturally terminate in the rule of thugs. But mere thugs can't assert a plausible right to rule. Only the state, with its propaganda apparatus, can do that. This is what "legitimacy" means.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/or...
  • CaptShu disinter 2010/07/27 02:13:18
    CaptShu
    +4
    Thanks for the link. I've never read any of Rothbard's work. I hereby resolve to remedy that soon. For now, though, I remain a believer in constitutional government. I do mourn with Sobran the demise of the ninth and tenth amendments, and have little faith in the 2nd amendment's ability to make them enforceable.

    I am still skeptical of complete anarchy in terms of the maintenance of infrastrucure, and I am still an American nationalist. But there's an Anarchist living in my hippocampus that sounds an alarm when statism approaches.
  • Rusticu... CaptShu 2010/07/27 06:29:21
    Rusticus 1773
    Testify brother!
  • CaptShu Rusticu... 2010/07/27 06:32:59
    CaptShu
    Can I get an Amen?
  • Rusticu... CaptShu 2010/07/27 07:21:41
    Rusticus 1773
    Amen!
  • CaptShu Rusticu... 2010/07/27 07:34:13
    CaptShu
    Thank you, my brother.
  • Kris Says Hi 2010/07/27 01:09:32
    Socialist State
    Kris Says Hi
    +1
    Between Chaos and Order I am slightly on the side of Order. The Capitalist and Communist ideologies aim to accomplish a similar goal - to help it's citizens whether through empowered individuals or a collective effort. Anarchy, would just leave citizens to the dogs, I know it is hypothetical but in reality anarchic states are short-lived.

    "A small country cannot contend with a great; the few cannot contend with the many; the weak cannot contend with the strong."

    -Mencius
  • Striker Kris Sa... 2010/07/27 02:13:38
    Striker
    +3
    Anarchy by definition means No Ruler, not chaos, not disorder, none of that.
    There is nothing to say there can't be laws or rules about conduct between men.
    Think of it as your circle, those are your responsibility. Your neighbor has his own circle and responsibilities. It's not smart to cross that line, one might learn the hard way.
  • Kris Sa... Striker 2010/07/27 02:21:11 (edited)
    Kris Says Hi
    +1
    But without a leader, there is a power vacuum for ambitions men to fill. True anarchy is an ideal like true communism that is undermined by human nature. Also with no government there is no consequences, ruthless corporations can go unchecked, gangs can evolve into private armies, crimes won't be prosecuted nor criminals successfully perused. I'm sorry but a state can offer more services than an individual. Also for Anarchy to be maintained would be a constant, conscious decision on everyone's part not to get involved in another's business. And to pray to not be conquered by an aggressor state.
  • disinter Kris Sa... 2010/07/27 03:25:14
    disinter
    +1
    For most people, "anarchy" is a disturbing word, suggesting chaos, violence, antinomianism – things they hope the state can control or prevent. The term "state," despite its bloody history, doesn't disturb them. Yet it's the state that is truly chaotic, because it means the rule of the strong and cunning. They imagine that anarchy would naturally terminate in the rule of thugs. But mere thugs can't assert a plausible right to rule. Only the state, with its propaganda apparatus, can do that. This is what "legitimacy" means.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/or...
  • Kris Sa... disinter 2010/07/27 03:38:38
    Kris Says Hi
    +1
    There are good states and there are bad states. Anarchy is short-lived and doesn't provide the stability of a state.
  • Kronan_1 2010/07/27 00:53:25
  • disinter Kronan_1 2010/07/27 01:29:42
    disinter
    +3
    For most people, "anarchy" is a disturbing word, suggesting chaos, violence, antinomianism – things they hope the state can control or prevent. The term "state," despite its bloody history, doesn't disturb them. Yet it's the state that is truly chaotic, because it means the rule of the strong and cunning. They imagine that anarchy would naturally terminate in the rule of thugs. But mere thugs can't assert a plausible right to rule. Only the state, with its propaganda apparatus, can do that. This is what "legitimacy" means.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/or...
  • Kronan_1 disinter 2010/07/27 13:18:29
    Kronan_1
    I really can't believe you Libertarian anarchists are so naive as to believe things would be better in a lawless world. 100 years ago this might hav worked out fine but,not now.With the designer dope available and the nuclear weapons at their disposal Anarchy is the stupidest thing we could have. complete and utter freedom is not freedom for all. The fear that a few crazies would instill in the decent people with their drug addled, gunwielding gangs would run amok.Not to mention them getting their hands on a nuclear weapon and holding the masses for ransom. We have more weapons and technology available to the lunatic fringe than ever. Cyber terrorism would be unchecked. You anarchists are just too naive for your own good. You think everything would be utopian. That is just stupid.Everywhere that anarchy has been the rule , the people have lived in fear or a small portion of loons.Won't work now . Won't work ever. Even hippie commune fail for lack of structure.
  • disinter Kronan_1 2010/07/27 13:50:17
    disinter
    Anarchism is the ideal of such a condition; of a society without force and compulsion, where all men shall be equals, and live in freedom, peace, and harmony.

    The word Anarchy comes from the Greek, meaning without force, without violence or government, because government is the very fountainhead of violence, constraint, and coercion.

    Anarchy[2] therefore does not mean disorder and chaos, as you thought before. On the contrary, it is the very reverse of it; it means no government, which is freedom and liberty. Disorder is the child of authority and compulsion. Liberty is the mother of order.

    http://libcom.org/library/wha...
  • Kronan_1 disinter 2010/07/27 13:53:44 (edited)
    Kronan_1
    You are not scoring an ypoints with your antiquated Ideals. Facts are facts. With allthe crazies and loons in the world today Anarchy is niavete`. Pure and simply won't work.
  • disinter Kronan_1 2010/07/27 13:58:53
    disinter
    I am often asked if anarchy has ever existed in our world, to which I answer: almost all of your daily behavior is an anarchistic expression. How you deal with your neighbors, coworkers, fellow customers in shopping malls or grocery stores, is often determined by subtle processes of negotiation and cooperation. Social pressures, unrelated to statutory enactments, influence our behavior on crowded freeways or grocery checkout lines. If we dealt with our colleagues at work in the same coercive and threatening manner by which the state insists on dealing with us, our employment would be immediately terminated. We would soon be without friends were we to demand that they adhere to specific behavioral standards that we had mandated for their lives.

    Should you come over to our home for a visit, you will not be taxed, searched, required to show a passport or driver’s license, fined, jailed, threatened, handcuffed, or prohibited from leaving. I suspect that your relationships with your friends are conducted on the same basis of mutual respect. In short, virtually all of our dealings with friends and strangers alike are grounded in practices that are peaceful, voluntary, and devoid of coercion.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/sh...
  • I'm due for a name change... 2010/07/27 00:34:53 (edited)
    Socialist State
    I'm due for a name change...
    +3
    For sure. Instead of getting tortured and killed by self-appointed rulers I just get crappy healthcare and a dictator, that probably wouldn't attack me personally.
  • disinter I'm due... 2010/07/27 01:28:20
    disinter
    +4
    There would be no ruler in anarchy.
  • I'm due... disinter 2010/07/28 01:16:47
    I'm due for a name change...
    Bands of thugs and violent gangs would take over towns and murder, rape, and pillage at will.
  • disinter I'm due... 2010/07/28 01:18:23
    disinter
    +1
    Would you attempt that if everyone in town was armed?
  • I'm due... disinter 2010/07/28 01:21:23
    I'm due for a name change...
    I wouldn't but some people would certainly jump at the chance if all laws went out the window.
  • disinter I'm due... 2010/07/28 01:23:19 (edited)
    disinter
    +1
    Very doubtful. People commit crimes with laws in place. They mean nothing.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/04/23 14:52:24

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals