Totalitarianism or Total anarchy?

[Comrade K]

I was wondering, if you were to be given the choice between living in either of the following situations, which would you choose? I'll add my answer later.


1. Complete Anarchy.
No Government. All sense of order has collapsed. You are no longer bound by laws--but neither is anyone else. Large scale infrastructure is no longer being maintained, so that means power, water, fuel and all that now have to be acquired by the individual. There could be hostile gangs out there, violence, riots, panic and other forms of disorder, but you can do whatever you want, and only have other individuals or the ragtag groups they form to worry about.


2. Dictatorship.
Here, the malevolent government controls everything, and ruthlessly eliminates anyone who opposes anything it does. Essentially a sort of Orwellian world. You must live a strict, regimented life according to the Party/Junta/whatever's rules, and run the risk of "disappearing" if you slip up even once, but you still have electricity, food can easily be bought from the supermarket and clean water flows from the tap.

[Burning Sheep Productions]

The second choice would be the most depressing.

[Dr. Dos]

Fallout is more fun than Hitler.

Total anachronism is the best though since it's like living in Back to the Future 2.

[Comrade K]

Fallout is more fun than Hitler.

True, but is Permanent Hurricane Katrina aftermath more fun? Hitler was real, Fallout isn't.

[osprey]

Either way you'd have a high chance of being murdered...

[Bocaj Claw]

Why is there never a third option? If we chose option one, could we band together and through the use of love and peace and a stockpile of guns brutally carve out a system of government in the lawless lands?

[Tom Flapwell]

I suppose I'd choose the first option because it never lasts long. Historically, anarchy keeps giving way to monarchy, which has a slightly better track record than totalitarianism.

[rabid_fox]

Feudal serfing for me. Hang ten, duuuuuuude.

[Mista_B]

Second option means you'd inevitably be killed in a death-camp, forced-labor camp, which is the same thing as a death-camp, war, or dy by famine, torture, or random execution to prove the power of the government.

Which is much the same as the first option, but at least the first would allow you to move somewhere else, should you so chose - and again, as a whole, people would probably just chose to do what they're doing now, so it wouldn't be all that much different that what we've got now, except we'd probably have a couple more gangs, but they generally give respect where they get it.

[CameronCN]

Oh, the first option, definitely.

[Quantheory]

The first option allows me better opportunity to take some friends and move away from civilization until things quiet down (there are a lot of places to get lost in the mountains, and some of them are quite livable). And a better chance of change within a decade.

Not to mention that in my own fantasy world I would help build a system of government from scratch, which would probably end better than an Orwellian nightmare.

[Baconsticks]

First Option.

Anarchy doesn't last. A form of government will quickly form out of the chaos.

[Liz]

Totally the first option. I may get raped and killed but at least I won't be tortured(x23154236435), raped(x324235321241), and killed :D

[Tom Flapwell]

Come to think of it, the first option presents the best opportunity to experiment with a form of government that has never been implemented. Or failing that, at least laws that people have imagined but never dared to try.

[Tarukai]

option 1!

Anarchy, as has been said, tends to regulate down to some form of gov't.

and Quantheory has a very valid point, and good idea.