Anarchy vs Police state

I fail to see how total anarchy would actually last for ten years. Let alone one. People by nature tend to organize. And in a system like that, they'll gravitate to the people with the strongest personalities. Like police who kept their shit together, or street gangs.

Being fairly smart but not exactly quick to adapt, I'd go with the police state. In an anarchy, the quick break down of all basic services guarantees a lot of deaths even without people hurting whoever they want for whatever reason. At least in a police state I know there's punishments for things like muggings.

When I said no banding together in anarchy I don't mean everyone has to be on their own. People would obviously get into groups and families. I just mean, no forming nations, creating laws and generally putting an end to anarchy in a few weeks. If you had a ton of people and made your own town, then that's fine as long as everywhere else is still anarchy rather than it just all turning into some new nation.

Except that's what would happen. Everything would turn into feudal like towns and shit. Smaller nations. Not in just a few weeks, but eventually people would build some kind of infrastructure in order to get food, water, power (as in to light homes and such) and safety. And I bet a lot of this would happen in less than ten years.

People, as a whole, prefer some order to their lives. A place with laws guarantees that someone can't just come in and take your stuff and your family and your lives and not face consequences.

God decides mankind needs to be taken down a peg and makes it physically impossible for human beings to communicate with one another.

edited 10th Aug '11 7:19:16 AM by joeyjojo

^

That's what interpretive dance is for.

I got an image of your signature dressed as Squidward stripping on stage...

It was horrifying. Please, kill me now. End the pain.

Really, that was hilarious, though.

Someone right a novel about this.

Now.

And so humanity becomes Bee People.

-rubs stingers in anticipation-

In anarchy, if you're ruthless enough, smart enough, have enough friends or are sufficiently strong'n'tough, you've got a good chance of not getting oppressed.

The land of Take What You Want is not The land of Do What You Will yet... But it certainly beats The land of Do As You're Told.

edited 12th Aug '11 4:24:29 AM by SavageHeathen

Leaving aside my opinion that that is not true (go check out some other countries with no strong government, let me know how it's working out for them) - anybody who's not strong, cunning or ruthless can just go get raped and murdered, then? Nice system.

I'd rather take my chances than give up and just get oppressed.

Apparently, the OP refers to the bad kind of anarchy, y'know, the one that's total chaos, without any kind of social organization whatsoever. Even that is preferrable to a police state.

edited 12th Aug '11 4:32:13 AM by SavageHeathen

You can't blame the majority of people for not liking the idea of such a system, though. Considering that only a very small minority of people can be in the 'best and strongest' group, the great majority of people are going to be screwed over.

EDIT: I've been thinking out an issue with anarchy. Where is the food for everybody going to come from? It's all very well for people living in the country, or with a reasonable backyard they can plant with potatoes or something. What about the people who live in the city and can't produce enough food for themselves - or barter for it, because their neighbours aren't growing any either?

Food travels into the city from farmland by truck. All it would take is one gang of brigands with guns to decide "Guess what, we own this stretch of highway now", and then they confiscate all cargo travelling on it to give themselves more power. The people in the city won't have a source of food any more.

And before you say "Everybody would band together to defeat the brigands", they can't because the stretch of highway is hundreds of kilometers away.

edited 12th Aug '11 5:01:56 AM by LoniJay

Assuming the militia can't do it, either the truckers or their customers would porobably pay a bunch of mercenaries to wipe out and exterminate the brigands.

Assuming they could afford it.

Eventually. Maybe. What about in the meantime?

edited 12th Aug '11 8:30:57 AM by Madrugada

Well, since my knowledge encompasses such essential topics as the arcane workings and skills involved in the operation of an aircraft, half-remembered physics, (basic) computer skills, and firing a .22 bolt action rifle (and a little on a modified 5.56mm assault rifle), as well as aerial combat maneuvers, I somehow doubt that I would be in high demand.

In essence, I'd be proper screwed unless a band of benevolent people decide to allow a useless 17 year old to tag along for some reason that eludes me. Hence my original preference for the police state.

edited 12th Aug '11 8:57:19 AM by Flanker66

@Maddie: In the meantime, odds are the truckers would be themselves heavily armed, and they probably would travel in tight convoys. go give each other firepower. They might even up-armor the trucks' cabins.

Coming from the position of "son of two truckers, who own their own trucking business," that would cause incredible damage to the economy. Everything (in America, anyhow) comes in by truck. You're making them pay a shitton to armor and defend themselves. Even removing taxes and whatnot, it'll still make everything hugely expensive, because they have to justify risking life and limb for your bullshit.

I dont think a 3D Animator is going to be much use in an anarchy...

Heathen: All of that still takes time. What about in the meantime? What do the city folk eat while it's being figured out and set up? Most cities start running out of essentials in a couple of days if the trucks can't get through — hours if there's panic buying, and there would be.

Anecdata: One of the big supermarket chains in the town I live in has largely gone to JIT stocking — their storage for backstock is only slightly larger than my house (and I don't have a very big house.) and they count on the trucks coming in every single night to refill the shelves.

edited 12th Aug '11 10:30:41 AM by Madrugada

Im not that smart and im also not that tough, in other words I am not the best of the human race. I also have social problems so I would likely not get into a big safe group that easily. In other words im completely screwed in anarchy, even if I wasn't I'd have to fight for survival every day and worry constantly about getting by. In a police state, im taken care of. I lose my unlimited freedom but i'd say it's a good trade off for protection, food, housing, medical care etc...

Another problem is that they might not even know where the hold-up is to send mercenaries to it. All they know is that the shipment that was supposed to come to suppy them hasn't.

I imagine people would start rationing as soon as the government collapsed, probably before. By the time armed thugs began to take over the highways, gardening would already be widespread. Also, bandits would only need to take over one convoy before truckers would start to wise up and armor their trucks with whatever they could find/travel in convoys.

You missed the part where not everybody has a backyard/windowsill space to grow enough food on. And also the part where truckers can't afford to arm themselves without driving food prices through the roof.

What incentive would truckers have to keep working at all? What incentive do the suppliers have to sell their food and supplies? Money is worthless without a government, and they've got the food and supplies. Most likely, the different suppliers would just barter with each other and say "fuck the rest of ya."