Ow. Now this is a tough choice. I'd go with anarchy, for the simple reason that it would be relatively easy for someone to usurp power and establish a sane, orderly state.
The sin of silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.Personally? The police state. The police state offers security and safety, at the very least. It really isn't that hard to live in a police state, if you can swallow your pride and keep quiet. Conversely, there is no order in anarchy. Anyone with a gun is the law. I'd rather have a society with some kind of structure than nothing more than society as an Appeal to Force.
I am now known as Flyboy.Oh yeah, I forgot to mention, whichever hellhole you choose, you must assume that it will stay that way for at least 10 years perhaps more. So someone may eventully establish order in anarchy, meaning the end of anarchy for them or someone may overthrow the crazy goverment, meaning freedom for people again. However it will be a good while before that so you should be prepared to spend a long time in that state, and don't go with the whole "Oh I'd make an orderly group or I would rise up agaisnt the goverment." You must choose what you would live in for years before any hope of change.
edited 9th Aug '11 8:28:12 AM by Dandark
You can't spell ignorance without IGN.I can see the former being exploited to create the latter extremely quickly.
With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.In that case, I'd still go with anarchy. If the police state was a bit less insanely restrictive, I'd probably pick it, instead. For example, I'd rather live in Hitler's Germany than in a complete anarchy, but this police state you desribed is just pushing it too far.
edited 9th Aug '11 8:31:00 AM by MilosStefanovic
The sin of silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.From the purely selfish point of view that I'd have a better chance of surviving 10 years under a police state than under total anarchy, I'd go with the police state.
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.I'd go with anarchy. I feel like I'd have a better chance defending myself from unorganized, riotous mobs than an efficient and deadly government-sponsored police system.
Well don't consider my police state to be the only kind. If you would live in a police state that's less restrictive then just describe it a bit so we know what you mean, however it would still have to be pretty restrictive, Hitlers Germany wasn't all that restrictive to the normal German born citizens, only to those he discriminated against.
You can't spell ignorance without IGN.Literally having to ask an autority figure when you are allowed to piss is something that would truly bug me, since I'm quite an individualist. Imagine the horror that would ensue if the "authority figure" was completely insane. And I would prefer Hitler's Germany under the assumption that I was an Aryan German, of course.
Ninja'd. The police state I'd choose would be the one where you can go around your normal, trivial business without having to ask somebody if it's allowed. I can live with everything else.
edited 9th Aug '11 8:41:39 AM by MilosStefanovic
The sin of silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.Dandark@ I'm a sister and I know that once I step foot in Nazi Germany I would be toast.
Police State or Anarchy which one is less worse of them both.One is an oppressive government that takes away your rights the other is mob ruled chaos that will have no order or law to help.
As much as I hate oppressive governments I will have to go with Police state because I do not want to be afraid of leaving my house.But if I was in a police state I would secretly sneak out of the country in the dead of night.
You wouldn't have to ask them when to piss. You would just go to your house/apartment's toilet. Likewise just heading outside to pick up a paper or something would be fine. It's just that if you were going to walk a good distance or get in a car that you would need permission.
Of course you would need permission to actully go to a shop to get toilet paper or anything you may need. This wouldn't be denied. Let's assume they implemented it with the idea of stopping unlawful gatherings. So if you were saying, I went to the shop to buy some food and a goverment authorized magazine(Censorship is in) then you would be permitted, where as you would likely be denied for "Wanting to randomly walk around and gaze upon our beatiful city and nature". This would also be done online or through a quick phone or some kind of sci fi Plot coonvinent device.
edited 9th Aug '11 8:47:57 AM by Dandark
You can't spell ignorance without IGN.Well, I would probably opt for a police state, then, even though I can imagine the life sucking hard.
The sin of silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.Neither one really gives me a life. On one hand, there's no stability. I can be building my own house at one moment, then be shot in the leg and have it all burned before my eyes, ripped of everything I need to survive, and powerless to do it because everyone's too busy just trying to fend for themselves.
On the other hand, while I'd be living in safety, I have no choice in what I do. Anything I do that's considered detrimental to the government would get me punished. I'll never be able to do what I want because my free-will has been stripped away.
In fact, both ends strip away my free will. At least a police state will give me the luxuries I enjoy now, hopefully, and I can at least predict when I'm about to get a dictator's kick in the ass.
I'm pretty sure the concept of Law having limits was a translation error. -WanderlustwarriorActually black people had it better than Jews in Nazi Germany. Black people were persecuted and sterilised but not systematically exterminated.
...so not much better, mind.
With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.That's my way of think anyway. I would rather lose nearly all of my freedom then live in a state of lawlessness where if someone feels like killing you and taking your stuff, they can with nobody to stop them or even look down on them.
Ninja'd
edited 9th Aug '11 8:54:44 AM by Dandark
You can't spell ignorance without IGN.So you're asking us to choose between Bread and Circuses vs constant violence? Doesn't seem a tough choice, just a poor set of options.
Pagad@Still living in Nazi Germany is the worst example of Police State because it has an evil goal and will do anything to achieve it.Yeah,I might have a little bit better time than a Jew but I heard they exterminated any minority.
All I can say Police State can just be as worse as anarchy.
Maybe I should rephrase it. It's not so much goverment who kills people and has evil goals in mind, I mean more goverment who strips away freedom for whatever reason. They could remove your freedom for your own protection, they could do it for power and control, they could be doing it "for the evulz" but they would qualify if they remove much of the freedom we currently enjoy so that people in the future would look back and say "Those people were heavily oppressed".
You can't spell ignorance without IGN.An incompetent Police State, sure. Otherwise, I guess I'd just get a cushy desk job and be relatively safe from being randomly gunned down for reaching for my wallet. Only to be gunned down by a "heroic" revolutionary who attacks the HQ I work at...
It'd suck for me, but at least the life insurance would be good.
Give me a police state.
At least Law can be changed and moved. Anarchy by definition is chaos.
Order Versus Chaos is fun!
edited 9th Aug '11 9:10:52 AM by Thorn14
This thread is to discuss what would be worse. Total anarchy or a police state.
By total anarchy I mean, from the beginning so one day it's normal and peaceful, then BAM! Riots break out and the goverment is soon overthrown, no kind of order replaces them and it is total unrestricted freedom, AKA Anarchy.
By Police state I mean, normal day then some extremist party is voted in and hug restrictions are placed on freedom and liberty. You now all have ID cards, cannot speak out against the goverment and are only allowed outside with a purpose in mind which you must recive permission for from your local "authority figure or something". T His would include shopping, going to a job, anything. The goverment can imprison anyone they want, you get the idea. The kind of thing anarchists think is happening now. Also you would not be randomly murdered by the goverment for no reason at all. It could be something small and insignificant but they would not randomly pick and choose names of a list to assasinate today or antyhing like that.
Which of these would you prefer to live in if you had to choose, or simply which one would you be most opposed to? Also help me think of a more apt name than police state.
I personally would prefer to live in a horrible freedomless police state than I would in a place of total anarchy since complete anarchy and lack of order would be a very nasty world in my view. Of course the choice is yours, they are very far apart.
You can't spell ignorance without IGN.