Anarchy vs Police state

Wait, choose a police state? I'm already in one!

• Justifying my movements/location at all times? Check.
• Lack of / heavily monitored communication? Check.
• Highly limited control over my own career prospects? Check.
• No say in leadership, and no legal option to affect a change? Check.
• Inability to leave? Check.*
  ^{I suppose not fully, given the sudden push to kick out as many people as possible, but then again, you still have no choice in the matter.}
• Lack of 1st and 4th Amendment rights? Definitely check.

Ninja@Where do you live exactly?

I potholed it in the first line, sheesh.

I've been a dependent citizen of a horrid police state for a good portion of my childhood.

ID cards for everyone!

I probably wouldn't do well in a police state with the beliefs I hold... but I'd still take it over total anarchy. At least in a police state there would be rules, and even if I didn't feel I could obey them, I'd stand a fighting chance of staying alive/away from horrible punishments if I was smart. With total anarchy, you'd always be in danger no matter what you did.

Ironically, since I'm in Law Enforcement, I'd rather be in an Anarchy. Then I can just take what I want and enforce my own order in my sphere of influence.

Warlord Barkey: Growing opium with an iron fist.

Hard to say which one I would prefer, maybe if I can alternate between them every month or so till I settle down.

Anarchy. Buy a shotgun.

I pick police state, though I'd probably be arrested sooner or later . Still, I'd rather work from the inside against a Police State than try to survive in a free for all. Dying randomly is hardly preferable to dying for slipping up. Also, living in a stable society means you can buy toilet paper in the first place.

Though if the anarchy was due to zombies...

Police states tend not to be stable.

Police state, every time. As others have pointed out, at least your security is assured, even if it is in a draconian manner. You can't enjoy your freedom if you're dead, after all, which is a very real possibility in the total anarchy described by the OP.

I feel that my chances of survival would be higher in a police state, too. I'm a natural stickler for rules, so I guess that unless they had me jailed or shot for a trumped up charge or something I'd probably end up dying of old age or (hopefully) I would outlive the regime so that someone more moderate could take over. If it was an anarchy, then I'd probably be one of the first people put against the wall. I'm essentially worthless for any physical work (which also means that I wouldn't be able to defend myself against attackers), and I somehow doubt that intelligence and an education would dissuade anyone from blowing my head off. I'm also reasonably affluent, which probably means that looters would swarm my home like flies on a carcass.

All in all, my prospects in a police state are far better than that in an anarchy. Better too much law then not enough.

^

Depends, are your intellectual skills good for anything practical after a societal collapse? You can be useless for labor or fighting, but know how to build/fix stuff and be valuable as your weight in gold.

Besides, Anarchy is a transitional state, some semblence of society and order always exists, you could always just join a commune of other people who you're teamed up with. So long as you were able to contribute you could all defend eachother.

edited 9th Aug '11 3:53:28 PM by Barkey

The OP said "Total anarchy, no kind of order" and in post #4 he added this: "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 against the government." You must choose what you would live in for years before any hope of change." Given those limitations on rewriting the scenario, I still say Police State gives me far and a way a better chance of survival.

Ignoring the fact that the changed the conditions for the scenario, what's stopping me and 50 or so of my friends with guns from banding together and carving out our own town? It's not like the total state of anarchy automatically makes one unable to plan snd communicate.

edited 9th Aug '11 4:09:19 PM by Kino

Hmm. Possibility of being mercilessly executed if I break the rules.... vs possibility of being beaten, raped and/or murdered for absolutely no reason at all, completely at random.

Yeah, I'm going to go with police state. At least there my fate will be dependent on my actions and not whether or not the mob happens to come through town that day.

Well first of all, that would require EVERYWHERE being an anarchy.

If the wet dream of anarchists occurred, all of America turning into a bunch of anarchy states or whatever, whats to stop Russia from going "oh look at all the resources om nom nom nom"

A police state is going to always be more effective. Stability and Law, while can be tyrannical, is also the most effective.

Note stability doesn't have to mean stagnation. Thats what I dont like about anarchy/anarchists. I like living a stable environment. You don't have to tear down the walls because you dont like the wall paper. I'd rather my worries be "How can I get a job?" and "What should I put in my 3D art portolio" not "Will that guy shoot me and take whatever resources I have?" or "How do I protect my family?" Not all of us are badass soldiers.

edited 9th Aug '11 4:39:16 PM by Thorn14

I'd go with the police state.

And join the secret police to get a cool, evil uniform.

Also going with police state. I'd rather there be a system to game (because a government that big would be a completely choked bureaucratic mess, and it'd be easier to go unnoticed) than to have to worry about getting randomly assaulted/robbed/raped/killed by some douchebag with a chip on his shoulder.

I'll go with the police state too, because as everyone else has pointed out, as long as you don't slip up you can rest assured that you won't die. With anarchy, well just walking down the streets there's nothing to stop someone from running down you and everyone else on the sidewalk as they laugh madly. In fact you may as well just live in a post apocalyptic world. Your safety is guaranteed only by being able to outgun everyone else and finding a nice safe hole to hide/sleep in.

Only way I'd be down with anarchy is if I could speed around in a Mad Max-style outfit with a bunch of guns and have my own road warrior queen that looked not unlike Viper from Doomsday.

I don't see how I could survive ten weeks of anarchy, much less ten years. And I don't see much value in being alive if the companies responsible for maintaining the water, electricity, internet, gasoline distribution, or supermarkets collapse.

On the other hand, chances are that in this country, any extremist party capable of getting that many votes would be a branch of the Republican party, most likely the Christian right, since I'm not sure if a police state is compatible with the free market fundamentalists. So it might not be worth living there either. But in general, I can at least imagine how a police state could be tolerable.

How can anyone faithfully answer then? An Anarchy scenario where not even families band together as a small orderly unit of 2.5 kids and a dog can make a team effort to fuck everyone else over.

As ninja pointed out. The military fits rather well in the police state mentality. It is tolerable to a point. While I am highly restricted the state is responsible for making sure I am healthy enough to work, protected, and fed.

Anarchy also has the advantage of having absolute freedom to pursue order, chaos, survival as I see fit. There is more flexibility for me to advance myself in various manners or join with whoever I want to. Permanent and absolute anarchy is purely impossibly that is why I include order.

The downside. Other people may be solely interested in taking from others ie bandits and warlords. Not to mention roaming unknowns creates a lot of insecurity and makes life hard.

It would depend on how I enter the scenario.

Anarchy. I see little difference between the roving thugs of lawlessness and the sanctioned thugs of an unjust and overzealous state. At least with anarchy you aren't making a direct effort to stifle the good people too, and might be able to carve out something quiet out of the way.

edited 9th Aug '11 10:40:58 PM by Pykrete