Anarchy vs Police state

Weren't the people who had the most food and supplies during the Neolithic Revolution the ones who became chieftains and kings?

Er...potted plants? I don't know, I have a hard time believing that there are significant amounts of people without access to dirt and sunlight. Water might be a problem. Also re:truckers can't afford armor—I said "whatever they can find"...I was thinking more along the lines of reinforcing the truck with whatever scrap metal you can pillage. Besides that, I already got ninja'd on the whole "money is worthless now" thing.

To the OP, I'd go for anarchy, which is surprising since I'm always more in favor of security versus freedom. I guess anarchy absolves me of someone to blame for the world's problems. Don't get me wrong, anarchy might suck, but that's just life. At least it's not some faceless bureaucracy actively making everything suck and then telling you that all the suckage is for your own good, you know?

Well, yes, even a family living in a high-rise building with no garden can put trays on their window sills and grow lettuce and tomatoes. But can they grow enough food to supply all the needs of a family, possibly with kids? A whole city full of people trying to do that? I don't see it working.

Think of how much food just two people eat in a week, and then picture trying to grow 80% of it in an apartment.

Be not afraid...

It's not so much a lack of dirt and sunlight as a lack of the amount and time necessary to grow enough to live off. Not to mention, as you said, water. And they'd have to deal with every asshole who just says "Well, Bob has tomatoes, let's steal 'em."

They lost me. Forgot me. Made you from parts of me. If you're the One, my father's son, what am I supposed to be?

But yes, I imagine that the best food production sites will simply hoard the food for themselves and their guards. They may trade some of it for certain things but I doubt many people will be getting it.

It's also unlikely that everyone will be able to effectivly grow enough food and enough of a varied diet to keep healthy. Especially since there won't be any hospitals now so diesease will rip through most people.

You can't spell ignorance without IGN.

Time, again, people.

If the impending government collapse was announced today, and I went out and planted a garden this afternoon, I might have eatable produce in a month or so. (Maybe a little less than that for some things, like lettuce or chives) Corn? Potatoes? Onions? Carrots? Squash? I'd be hoping like hell that they'd be ripe enough to harvest before the first frost, because that would be a complete toss-up — we've had killing frosts in this area in early October before, and will again. Maybe not this year...

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

And it wouldn't mean a damn if you couldn't defend it.

As for "armoring trucks with whatever they can find," scrap metal won't do jack shit against guns. Even if the truckers survive, the merchandise will be destroyed. Trailers are designed for economy of scale, not to defend shit.

Also, you guys are right, there would be little incentive for truck transport to continue. The money—which is now worthless—isn't worth the risk. The fact that government keeps the roads safe and clear—there's another thing; road maintenance—is the only reason transport exists properly...

I am now known as Flyboy.

If you live in a spread-out rural town, maybe. Deep city, you're screwed unless you like eating kudzu or something.

^^ Indeed, USAF. My back yard is open to an alley, the neighboring yard, my driveway, and a sidewalk on the other side of the house that leads from the front door to the backdoor. A group that wanted to raid the garden could come in from four directions simultaneously.

And I already have people who cut through just to take a shortcut diagonally across the corner of the block. The only way I could protect a garden would be to set mines along the entire perimeter of my yard. And stand 24-hour watch with firearms, hoping that I had enough ammo to out-last them.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

I imagine your fox doing that. And it is awesome.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Honestly I'd go with the Police State, guaranteed safety, and the only price is a few rights I never really used before? I'd take it over a 10 year anarchy any day. My whole upbringing makes that a natural fit, seeing as I'm always trying to stay out of trouble, and have no problem with rules. Provided of course the government will let me stay up to date with the law. Of course I'd prefer only needing permission to leave the city/state, rather than to leave the home. Knowing my luck I'd probably join the Police Force.

Besides not all Police States are bad, yeah most are, but that doesn't necessarily mean the one the OP mentioned is one. The Police/Military forces might have prospective recruits go through very thorough checks and screenings. Maybe there's an Internal Affairs Division to make sure the power mad officers don't stay around for very long.

I'd say this is a false dichotomy, because there is no such thing as true anarchy. Just as "anarcho-capitalism" is another name for plutocracy, "anarchy" just means the strongest rules and takes whatever he wants from everyone weaker.

Eventually it just becomes a bunch of smaller police states, arranged feudally.

So I'd rather go with the "normal" police state, likely to be (slightly) less violent.

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

"Police state" is a loose term. For all I know, it could be North Korea OR a rich, prosperous, diverse, and overall great place where you just happen to not have free speech, get some foreign works censored/banned, and get the death penalty for minor thefts.

...

I'd take the police state over anarchy any day of the week.

How dare you disrupt the sanctity of my soliloquy?

To that I say, He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither and will lose both. When power consolidates and staginates, corruption is the standard path. It is very, very hard to avoid that, because once that person gets in power, noone can remove him, noone can correct him, and noone can stop him. Voice your opinion, you're removed (if not worse).

It has happened to each civilization that has done it. What makes one think they will be any different? That they are smarter, better then those before, and that "my authoritarian civilization will work because I am right".

---

Now, My opinion?

I said the flaws of the police state. For Anarchy, it becomes a game of power. He who has the greatest power wins. Because I am bigger. Because my horde is strong, noone else is safe. (Granted, as Anarchy Is Chaos 's page shows, Anarchy doesn't have to mean that)

A society with no rules, or a society in which power is the only law, is a terrible one as well. Both revolve around that consolation of power. It's either fixed onto one (a goverment's ruler) or just whoever is the one holding the gun.

Personally, my opinion? I'd rather grab Yes Man, beat down the evil guys,and ride out as I blow up both bad options

Frankly, my choice is neither. Both are bad choices. A world of no freedom, or a world of no stablity.

In my life, I'd say what works is just above anarchy on the scale of Order Verses Chaos (on 1 to 10, a 4. I lean towards Anarchy, I admit).

The way I beleive the united states of america was founded, that level is one I agree with. People were for the most part completely free, allowed to do whatever you want. Only a small set of rules to prevent/disenfranchise people from wronging others. That you can go well in life. Not because they're the ones with the gun or that you have a connection, but because of your merit (I do beleive in Rousseau Was Right, that our good is far greater then our evils)

---

So yea. this is a difficult Sadastic Choice, one I'd rather Take a Third Option on.

So...uh...yea. This trope.

edited 30th Aug '12 9:49:24 AM by Nicktendonick

Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.

This was a truly massive necro, having been dead for a few days just over a year.

That said, from what I can tell anarchy would only eventually lead to dozens if not more police states, as eventually people would rise from the rabble and take control one way or another. It's human nature. And in the end, these are both extremes with far too many problems for me to choose either comfortably. Still I'd go with the police state because I simply don't have the skills to survive in an anarchy.

Agreed. But instead of choosing one, it's what I think is the reason to find a third option instead.

And this was a Necro? *looks up, sees it a year old* That's kinda funny.

Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.

Yeah, that happens sometimes. It's weird though how many times people don't notice.

As a whole, I think people would tend towards the police state simply because of stability concerns. In a police state you're more likely to be able to get food and such. More predictable that way, for the average Joe. And as long as they're not directly in your house it's actually easy to ignore a lot of stuff. Anarchy, however, is something only a few want.

I could have sworn I'd posted in this before, but I can't find my post (though that might be a side effect of being up too damn late). Hobbes said that life in the state of nature is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short". He might not have been completely right, but in anarchy, his words are at least close enough to the case. Long story short, Police State beats Anarchy.

And it gets you +2 Support, allowing you to field more Formers and Military Units. And if fielding more Formers isn't worth it, I don't know what is.

I'm Chinese Australian and have mild cerebral palsy so yeah, I wouldn't be all that safe in Nazi Germany either.

The road goes ever on. -Tolkien

Police state. even in the worse one, you know who's in charge and who to bribe.

I'm baaaaaaack

"Chinese" I wouldn't be too worried about (just learn some Japanese and pretend to be an "honorary Aryan", or if it is not during the WWII Nazi and China (KMT) actually have an alliance and several KMT generals are trained in Nazi Germany.

In fact, Nazi could have allied with the Chinese rather than the Japanese instead during the war.

edited 2nd Sep '12 2:50:31 PM by IraTheSquire

A lot of places are already police states masquerading as democracies (or, if you prefer the mess that is Africa... anarchies dressed as police states claiming they're democracies). I pick "ordered police-state". I grew up in one, lived in another... so I think I know the ropes.

And, seeing the place I grew up change a tonne... looks easier to not get raped in a police state than pseudo-anarchy. In both situations, nobody really cares about the individual (if it's not them), but at least there are ways to work the system to get something resembling justice in the one.

I would prefer the police state, quite unfortunately. It's been done before here in the Philippines. President Ferdinand Edralin Marcos (1965-1986) declared Martial Law on September 21, 1972, and immediately imposed all sorts of restrictions and whatnot all in the name of combating the communist threats from within and without. Unfortunately his human rights record wasn't exactly stellar; historian Teofisto Guingona said in 1985 that

"...they even presented the challenge dramatically and proclaimed: if you ask the Filipino - which do you prefer, bread or freedom? - the Filipino will always answer 'bread'. Therefore we must develop. Never mind human rights. Bread first, freedom later. Never mind low wages; more jobs first, human rights later. Never mind the detention of a few; the safety of the State comes first. Never mind the salvaging of some; public order for the common good comes first."

It worked... for a time. Under Marcos, the Philippines underwent a drastic upgrade in infrastructure (roads and bridges built everywhere), healthcare (many national centers for various diseases as well as dozens of hospitals), social welfare (orphanages and homes for the aged, housing loans and etc.), and economy (exchange rate was ₱2.00=$1.00).

It's worked before, so yeah, a properly run police state would be a near-utopia (except for the requisite climate of fear).

Well, it is true that most people don't really care about nebulous notions of freedom when they're starving on the streets. Kind of hard to glory in that when you're constantly worrying about where your next meal will come from.