Fascist Police State Or Near-anarchy

Nil_IQNil_IQ Join Date: 2003-04-15 Member: 15520Members
<div class="IPBDescription">YOU MUST CHOOSE</div> Something I thought up today that I thought I might share.

Somewhat inspired by you must choose.com. If you want to find it i'm sure you can do so on your own, because said site contains naughty words.

You must choose to either live in a fascist police state in which there is little to no crime and everyone is treated equally, or in an anarchistic world where everyone does what they want all the time. Incidentally i'm pretending the entire <i>world</i> magically unites and conforms to whatever choice you make, so no moving to Canada if it turns out you don't like the choice you made.

Before you answer, i'll go through the pros and cons of each so that you understand what I mean by each.

<b>Fascist Police state</b>

Pros:

-No crime, ever. You can walk down a dark alleyway anywhere in the world in the middle of the night without fear of being mugged.

Cons:

-Security cameras everywhere. And I do mean <i>Everywhere.</i> Even your home is under 24 hour surveilance.

-Mandatory ID cards for everyone, with prison sentances for anyone found without one. Random spot checks made by overzealous police. Think <i>combine</i> overzealous.

-You can't leave your house without logging into the DORS system (muchos bonus points to anyone who knows what the DORS system is from) so that the government knows you are gone. Leaving your home without doing so results in, again, a short prison sentance.

-Aforementioned overzealous police officers everywhere, who can basically do whatever they like. Again, think combine, only slightly less evil.

-As with the security cameras, there are little microphones everywhere. Saying anything negative about the government or police results in "re-education" (although you are allowed to live).

<b>Near-anarchy</b>

Pros:

-You can do what you like all the time. Ride a bike through a shopping mall, go naked in public, use illegal substances, no-one's going to stop you!

Cons:

-Crime is rampant. Going out after dark is pretty much suicide.

-Gangs of extremists preach hate on street corners (KKK, Neo-Nazis e.t.c).

-Unless you defend your own home yourself, you'll be robbed of everything you own within a few days.


So what would you choose? The main reason I thought this up (aside from said visit to youmustchoose.com) is that the way things are going in the world right now, we'll probably end up with one or the other eventually <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->

</emo>
«1

Comments

  • MetalcatMetalcat Join Date: 2004-08-11 Member: 30528Members
    edited September 2006
    <!--coloro:yellow--><span style="color:yellow"><!--/coloro-->Nuked. This is the discussion forum; that implies that your responses hold at least 10mL of water. Please speak as though you've actually considered the argument and are presenting a worthwhile opinion.

    -Rob<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
  • InsaneInsane Anomaly Join Date: 2002-05-13 Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
    In a political context, "anarchy" doesn't so much mean disorder/chaos as it does an absence of governmental authority. In theory, you -could- have have a utopian anarchic society. Although I understand that it's the situation you're describing that's important, not the term you're using.

    That said, I'd go with the second option. I mean, your fascist police state is pretty much as bad as the crimials in the second scenario, except way better funded. That, and I really couldn't live in a society like that. Well, not until the inevitable re-education anyway.
  • BloodySlothBloodySloth Join Date: 2003-08-27 Member: 20284Members
    edited September 2006
    <!--coloro:yellow--><span style="color:yellow"><!--/coloro-->Response(s) to previously removed content removed. -Rob<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
  • lolfighterlolfighter Snark, Dire Join Date: 2003-04-20 Member: 15693Members
    edited September 2006
    Metalcat, we've pretty much gathered that you don't like the U.S. of A. by now. Your comments do not contribute to discussion, and you make them whenever and wherever you have any opportunity to do so. If you have anything to say <i>other than what basically amounts to "lol u suxx0r,"</i> please start a thread and say it.

    <!--coloro:yellow--><span style="color:yellow"><!--/coloro-->I don't feel like restating this, but I'll ask lolfighter not to play mod since I'm obligated to do so, <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> -Rob<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->

    I predict that the "fascist state" will win if people stay honest. But that's because the scenario is unrealistic in the first place, being only about extremes. A similarly extreme case would be, for example, giving us a choice between extreme pro-life (abortion is illegal period) and extreme pro-choice (parents can kill their children at will until legal age). It's not hard to predict what most people would choose given such a limited amount of options.

    In reality, extremes are rare, and chances are that a totalitarian fascist state like that one would not appear in the first place, or would not work well and not last long.
    I guess I can safely say that we all agree some measure of government control and protection of its citizens is desirable to "the law of the jungle" and your "fascist state" example is the one resembling that the most.
  • TommyVercettiTommyVercetti Join Date: 2003-02-10 Member: 13390Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
    edited August 2005
    I'd definitely go with the fascist police state. I have nothing against the government Man, just the corporate Man.

    Plus, I'd sign up to join the police force/army.

    Anarchy is, by nature, impossible to achieve because as soon as some band of armed and alike individuals starts a militia you're going to have a bunch of 3-block wide states popping up. Also, it sucks because anyone can kill you at any time and no one will help you. The cops in State 1 will only kill you if you annoy them.

    [edit] Also, in anarchy I don't see much technological development happening. Humans would be knocked back to the Stone Age when the last of their modern equipment breaks down and the children are no longer taught. [/edit]
  • SnidelySnidely Join Date: 2003-02-04 Member: 13098Members
    I'd probably go for the facist state. It's no better in principle, and I might hate living in such a place, but at least there'd be security; as long as I'm a Good Citizen, I should be safe (apart from the odd power-hungry cop).
  • MetalcatMetalcat Join Date: 2004-08-11 Member: 30528Members
    edited September 2006
    <!--coloro:yellow--><span style="color:yellow"><!--/coloro-->Response(s) to previously removed content removed. -Rob<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
  • RenegadeRenegade Old school Join Date: 2002-03-29 Member: 361Members
    <!--QuoteBegin-Insane+Aug 7 2005, 11:42 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Insane @ Aug 7 2005, 11:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In a political context, "anarchy" doesn't so much mean disorder/chaos as it does an absence of governmental authority. In theory, you -could- have have a utopian anarchic society. Although I understand that it's the situation you're describing that's important, not the term you're using.

    That said, I'd go with the second option. I mean, your fascist police state is pretty much as bad as the crimials in the second scenario, except way better funded. That, and I really couldn't live in a society like that. Well, not until the inevitable re-education anyway. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Remember, remember the 5th of November, eh?

    <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
  • lolfighterlolfighter Snark, Dire Join Date: 2003-04-20 Member: 15693Members
    edited September 2006
    <!--coloro:yellow--><span style="color:yellow"><!--/coloro-->Response(s) to previously removed content removed. -Rob<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
  • MetalcatMetalcat Join Date: 2004-08-11 Member: 30528Members
    edited September 2006
    <!--coloro:yellow--><span style="color:yellow"><!--/coloro-->Response(s) to previously removed content removed. -Rob<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
  • lolfighterlolfighter Snark, Dire Join Date: 2003-04-20 Member: 15693Members
    edited September 2006
    <!--coloro:yellow--><span style="color:yellow"><!--/coloro-->Response(s) to previously removed content removed. -Rob<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
  • MetalcatMetalcat Join Date: 2004-08-11 Member: 30528Members
    edited September 2006
    <!--coloro:yellow--><span style="color:yellow"><!--/coloro-->Response(s) to previously removed content removed. -Rob<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
  • juicejuice Join Date: 2003-01-28 Member: 12886Members, Constellation
    It depends on my mood. Today is a fascist day, because I'm tired. Yesterday I might have chosen anarchy.

    But...the problem with this choice is that anarchy is impossible for any extended period of time. Groups will congeal. Leaders will take charge of the groups. Members of the groups will arrest power from the leaders. Back to government. And you might say the same for an extreme fascist regime, that it would fall apart under the stresses of rebellion.
  • AegeriAegeri Join Date: 2003-02-13 Member: 13486Members
    I'll take the fascist police state, because I find it arousing they would be paranoid enough to watch people while they are in the bathroo. Otherwise they wouldn't be much of a fascist police state now would they?
  • UltimaGeckoUltimaGecko hates endnotes Join Date: 2003-05-14 Member: 16320Members
    edited September 2006
    <!--coloro:yellow--><span style="color:yellow"><!--/coloro-->Response(s) to previously removed content removed. -Rob<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->


    The fascist police state would be acceptable; as I'm not really doing anything illegal or of note anyway; as long as it's not preventing you from going about a routine life (marry who you want, live where you want, etc.), I don't really see it being particularily different for law-abiders...aside from the inability to change anything in the government short of a dramatic, spontaneous uprising. I'd probably know at least 6 people that would be officers in such a society anyway.

    Anarchy wouldn't be too bad either, as it's not that hard to defend one's home. Plus I can make homemade gun-powder (and my grandfather has a mold for making lead bullets and shot); so I could pretty much keep myself indefinately defensible for as long as I'd need. Plus my grandfather's got about 50 acres and more guns than I even know of (and I know of at least 20, not counting the gun-safe <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> ).



    As long as it's not spontaneous (and I'm not sure how something global could be spontaneous), either would probably be fine; I guess I'd actually go with anarchy...which would probably result in a lot of 'family armies' over gangs and such.


    [Also: as mention at least one-hundred times in this forum alone, not to mention off-topic: the freedom of speech has obvious limits while interacting with other people. Most of them are centered around common sense.]
  • RenegadeRenegade Old school Join Date: 2002-03-29 Member: 361Members
    <!--QuoteBegin-Aegeri+Aug 7 2005, 03:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Aegeri @ Aug 7 2005, 03:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'll take the fascist police state, because I find it arousing they would be paranoid enough to watch people while they are in the bathroo. Otherwise they wouldn't be much of a fascist police state now would they? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Aegeri! Quickly, go destroy the fools in the ID thread!
  • BulletHeadBulletHead Join Date: 2004-07-22 Member: 30049Members
    edited September 2006
    <!--coloro:yellow--><span style="color:yellow"><!--/coloro-->Response(s) to previously removed content removed.
    Additionally, remember that this forum is private property with users from multiple countries which each have their own take on rights. These factors make it impossible for people to have "constitution rights" of any definition other that those posted on the board rules.

    This is an issue moderators grapple with ever. damn. day. :/
    -Rob<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->


    I'd go with the "anarchy" cause I'd take my sword, .357, and winchester, grab my friends, arm em up, and set up our own government <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
  • SkySky Join Date: 2004-04-23 Member: 28131Members
    edited September 2006
    <!--coloro:yellow--><span style="color:yellow"><!--/coloro-->Response(s) to previously removed content removed. -Rob<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->

    Now, to stay on-topic....it's a horrible decision, honestly. I have no idea what makes you think the world is inexorably headed to one extreme or the other, but honestly I'd rather deal with known threats and punishments (an overpowering government) than live with the fear of...well...everyone around me.
  • ZiGGYZiGGY Join Date: 2003-01-19 Member: 12479Members
    *cough* dictatorship of the proletariat *cough* also, THREADNOMANCY BAAD! >.<
  • Marik_SteeleMarik_Steele To rule in hell... Join Date: 2002-11-20 Member: 9466Members
    <!--quoteo(post=1566630:date=Sep 17 2006, 05:24 PM:name=Sky)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sky @ Sep 17 2006, 05:24 PM) [snapback]1566630[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
    These are the NS boards, a privately owned discussion area, with certain rules and moderators to enforce said rules. The oft-mentioned "free speech" argument people use to defend their "right" to say whatever they want around here is not applicable. End of discussion.
    [...]
    <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    As much as we/I try to be nice little dictator(s), this is still a valid point. Try to be nice to each other in here, everyone.
  • BlackMageBlackMage [citation needed] Join Date: 2003-06-18 Member: 17474Members, Constellation
    anarchy!

    also, the forums and the servers they reside on are private property. the constitution only protects you from the government. move along, poster, nothing to see here.
  • CabooseCaboose title = name(self, handle) Join Date: 2003-02-15 Member: 13597Members, Constellation
    Tough choice...

    The fascist government would indeed suck, but so long as I played nice with the other boys and girls, I'd be fine.

    Anarchy would just lead to a fascist government anyway. Sooner or later, someone would orgainze an army of people and form a government anyway, gather supporters, kill all who oppose etc.

    I'd have to take the fascist system, so long as I could get an education (even if it invludes being tought propoganda). Hell, who knows, I might even join the fascist police.
  • RobRob Unknown Enemy Join Date: 2002-01-24 Member: 25Members, NS1 Playtester
    <!--quoteo(post=1566641:date=Sep 17 2006, 06:04 PM:name=ZiGGY)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZiGGY @ Sep 17 2006, 06:04 PM) [snapback]1566641[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
    *cough* dictatorship of the proletariat *cough* also, THREADNOMANCY BAAD! >.<
    <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    As this is the discussion forum, I feel it's prudent to allow such diablical practices so long as the rules of discussion continue to be followed.

    To that end, I've nuked everything concerning the incident. It's been awhile, but we're back in the saddle here, so try and remember the rules of the boards. Welcome back to the benign dictatorship!


    On topic, while I don't think I'd like to live in either, given no other choice, I'd have to say the total anarchy. The chance to dispense my own brand of justice and make a civilization of my own is just too interesting to pass up! I mean, you'd have to have some levels of organization, otherwise there's no one to distribute the weapons and drugs that everyone has, or harvest crops and things.

    If those sorts of things exist, then there will be trade between them, and with trade comes the possibility of gaining power. It's really the best of all possible worlds for a no-namer to rise to great wealth and power. At least in my opinion.
  • DreadDread Join Date: 2002-07-24 Member: 993Members
    I didn't quite get how the fascist states police-forces would be. I mean if the state is practically without crime, then the police would abide law too? Are they "Show me your ID. Ok, move along" or "I'm going to beat the living hell out of you, because I feel like it." If it's the former, then the police state is my choice.

    Of course this whole discussion is fully hypothetical. Like pointed out by other posters, anarchy never lasts. People get together. They separate themselves from the other populace and form certain jobs for each one. Guards keep the people safe, the rest works on the fields/hunts etc. It's the same with police state. The described state sounded actually pretty good: no crime, no corruption. Surveillance, but that wouldn't harm since the government wouldn't use the said information against you, as long as you would abide the law. And as long as the law is fair, you really wouldn't want to break it in the first place. In reality however, power corrupts. The police would start abusing their status. The governing organs would begin to oppress the people for their own benefit(taxation etc.)

    So, I don't really think people are ever going to be ruled by such extremes for longer period of times. Though I do think the world-government is eventually going to happen. Well, not in our lifetime.
  • MantridMantrid Lockpick Join Date: 2003-12-07 Member: 24109Members
    I'd rather take the anarchy. Small groups of people and gangs are weak. A totalitarian government is strong. It should be obvious which is easier to take down should the need arise.

    Besides, if its anarchy, I can always just become a postman.
  • MantridMantrid Lockpick Join Date: 2003-12-07 Member: 24109Members
    edited September 2006
    Double post somehow.
  • KittamaruKittamaru Join Date: 2006-09-18 Member: 58017Members
    Heh, I'd move somewhere else <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
  • SwiftspearSwiftspear Custim tital Join Date: 2003-10-29 Member: 22097Members
    I refuse to choose either and will fight mercilessly and unceasingly if I am ever put in the position where one or the other choice is made. I refuse to live in a world defined by fear, and both these choices embody that.
  • StakhanovStakhanov Join Date: 2003-03-12 Member: 14448Members
    Given the choice , anarchy is the best situation to get out of. Let's assume that the fascist state is ruled by a neutral and (in theory) benevolent AI. You would have no way of changing your fate whatsoever - if the AI decides that you must be fixing used shoes for the rest of your life , then you will never have the time to show your artistic talents (which are probably not allowed , for being a waste of time and potentially subversive) or work on video games (those are also innefficient hobbies , unnecessary) so your only alternative is prison (hoping you are not executed for being an ineffective citizen)

    In anarchy , you may be killed for not pleasing the local warlord : this is the inherent risk in rising against any arbitrary rule. However , if you managed to make the people within his territory think like you , he has no choice but to negociate or run away. Soldiers needed to maintain order are never high in the hierarchy , so their loyalty is related to their revenue and the principles they are supposed to enforce. Given the value of these in any dictatorship , they are likely to side with the people when equality and justice are promised.

    Order can rise from chaos ; but no life can grow from the sterile settings of fascist dystopia.
  • NurotNurot Join Date: 2003-12-04 Member: 23932Members, Constellation
    Methinks you have anarchy mixed up with nhilistic society. I'd choose fascism in your scenario, but in a true anarchistic society, not the mess you describe, I'd choose anarchy.
Sign In or Register to comment.