Chaos or Tyranny?
Chaos
46.3% (93)
46.3% (93)
Tyranny
52.7% (106)
52.7% (106)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Chaos or Tyranny?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

If Stuart Mill is to believed, we are already living in a tyrannical society ruled by the majority.

GEORGE ORWELL,s NINETEEN EIGHTY FOUR
If anyone of you have read this book you will know what I mean, and those of you who chose Tyranny I recommend you read this book, you will see how grim a totalitarian state would be.
So definitely Chaos

Chaos cannot exist. There is always control, and that control is always some form of tyranny. Even the most lenient government has a monopoly on violence, and will use that monopoly to intimidate and/or kill troublemakers so as to protect the non-problematic majority. Even in a small group, if it is to achieve anything at all, hell, even exist, it requires a leader - and that leader will use the same methods that evolution developed so far. Intimidation, manipulation, coercion, gaining sympathy and respect.
These terms I throw around like a monkey throws his shit are not inherently "evil" or "bad". They are merely an integral part of human existence.

Tyranny, because at least the space marines are on my side.

Isn't this a false choice? I mean honestly complete anarchy would be worse then pure totalitariansm but isn't this just generally a choice that societies don't have to make and find the much happier medium between these two edges.

Neither of those are particularly appealing, but given a choice I'd probably go with Tyranny. At least with Tyranny there is structure, rules, order, that sort of thing, even if it is bat-shit insane. With Chaos you'd never be able to feel safe anywhere or at any time.

verdant monkai:
GEORGE ORWELL,s NINETEEN EIGHTY FOUR
If anyone of you have read this book you will know what I mean, and those of you who chose Tyranny I recommend you read this book, you will see how grim a totalitarian state would be.
So definitely Chaos

Even better and a lot more realistic then 1984 is the film Brazil, showing tyranny through bureaucracy and incompetence. Itīs still a hellhole of a world, tho.

The problem with chaos is the lack of consequences. Think of all the looters, rapists, and gangs that would spring up into existence. All the people that can't fight for themselves pretty much get royally screwed. Tyranny at least brings protection to a degree.

I know many people think of themselves and pick chaos, because they don't want restraint, but I'm taking the side of the people on this one.

Falconus:
Okay gotta note here that Anarchy is not synonymous with chaos. It doesn't mean no order. There are still rules and laws, just no central governing body.

If there's nobody to set or enforce laws, there are no laws, and it's anarchy, a.k.a. the rule of the strongest.

Stupid question. Anarchy leads to tyranny. Nature abhors a vacuum.

That said, chaos. Because then maybe *I* can fill that vacuum.

Tyranny by the masses via chaos or tyranny by an individual. I'll go with the simpler option.

I'll take the giant reset button of civilization over stagnant authoritative suck, since odds are I wouldn't be able to climb the ladder very far anyway.

Tyranny is worse, humans naturally want order and society of some kind so chaos could only last so long but tyranny can last a very long time.

And with my vote for chaos, its 48 all.
Why chaos? Well, blood for the blood god and all that.

But more seriously because I'd prefer for everyone to have a dangerously high dose freedom than for everyone to have no freedom at all.

Well let's take a lookie see here...

To use a 40K model (since the setting IS this):
Legions of Chaos or the Imperium.
I choose Imperium(Tyranny).

To get back to real life, I pick that because I would so be totally screwed in pure Anarchy, so pass.

I'd choose chaos. It would be a ruthless dog-eat-dog world, but there would still be freedom for anybody to do whatever they want and the only people to stop him are the people effected by your actions. You wouldn't be bound by any government, and anyone could potentially become rich and powerful . Which I guess could then become tyranny.

If you pick 'Chaos', it's because you think you'd be one of the strongmen/women who eventually rise to form the new informal power elite. In reality, you might be one of their troops, but since you're on an internet videogames forum, it's far more likely you're a slave/ vassal of some description, or were picked off early on because spending more time playing videogames as opposed to athletic activities or hunting or carpentry or whatever will leave you ill prepared for the decline of our decadent little society.

It's kind of like how many nerds secretly want a zombie apocalypse because they believe they will somehow be spared, or how a lot of university students want communism because they think it will put them in charge (albeit informally). In either case, the odds are so against them that it has to damage their thesis, although doesn't seem to destroy it.

Besides, in Tyranny I can still do things like read books that aren't deemed subversive (here's hoping a few of the classics survive the purges, especially the Aeneid), maintain my hobbies (mainly 40k, which will have serious re-writes but will likely be allowed to stay) and climb the career ladder in whatever form the new regime's military takes, basically I can carry through with the plan I have now.

If you have chaos allot of people will die in the fight to control everything and then who ever is the most brutal will take control and become a tyrant. So I would rather just start with a tyrant and try to improve it from there.

Tyranny. For an Anarchic state to be kind to all citizens, ir requires the good will of every individual. Tyranny only requires the good will of one. Ultimately I'd take the good old fashioned flawed Democracy I so know and love, but it would be easier to get a Benevolent Dictator than an Individualistic Utopia.

Captcha: give or take

EDIT: Saying that, it this is a perfect world and people aren't, wel, human, the Chaotic civilisation would be the nicer, more free place, I guess, but I have a hard on for a relatively rigid yet fair society.

Not so much as ONE Warhammer 40k reference? Well, fine.

CHAAAOS! FOR THE DARK GODS!!!

Sorry, had to go there. Still, rather have chaos, it isn't permanent. "Nature abhors a vacuum" and what is chaos if not a power vacuum?

EDIT: Well, shit... Got ninja'd...

Tyranny is tyranny, but then again, chaos will become tyranny also... sooo... neither is worse, both was bad.
In chaos, those with power will try to get control. Getting control with power is the first step to tyranny.

And on another thought, tyranny is better than chaos. With tyranny you at least know where you stand and how bad it is, with chaos you never know what will happen next. In tyranny it's a selected few above the rest, in chaos its everyone for him self.

verdant monkai:
GEORGE ORWELL,s NINETEEN EIGHTY FOUR
If anyone of you have read this book you will know what I mean, and those of you who chose Tyranny I recommend you read this book, you will see how grim a totalitarian state would be.
So definitely Chaos

Read it, still picked Tyranny. There are a great many case studies from which can be derived the opposite conclusion. 1984 I think demonstrated the greatest possible extreme of Tyranny, and more than likely does not actually reflect daily life in the Nazi and Soviet regimes, although it certainly drew inspiration from them. Those of us who picked Tyranny did so because we realize that most of us, and I suspect most Chaos voters, would be fucked in a world where all structure has broken down, not because it sounds at all appealing (I'm a libertarian and I picked Tyranny). Need some kind of medicine? Better see what's left in the ruined pharmacy, and get there quick, no one's making medicine anymore so once it's gone, it's gone, and you're going to have to horde, and defend from others, what you manage to lift, since surely you aren't the only one with your affliction. Unless you can grow your own food (which, if you're on this site, you probably can't) and defend your carrot patch from looters, of which there will be quite a few, you will have to take to stealing your next meal, from someone who will be more than happy to kill you in their own defense.

Chaos is worse to my mind. (Even though I accidentally voted for Tyranny.)

Then again, the tyrant I visualize living under is Lord Havelock Vetinari (and I just know I misspelled that). Tyranny doesn't have to mean 1984 soylent green production lines.

Best totalitarian government ever.

It's a choice between the tyranny of man or the tyranny of Chaos, some fucking choice. I'd probably choose the tyranny of man since it comes with order and logic as well.

Not going to vote because that is not a choice.

Tyranny is worst because chaos would certainly lead to order later on while tyranny and tyrant takes longer to replace. And in most of cases period between inevitable shift from tyranny to democracy (or something on that line) is a period of chaos anyway (you know! revolution and all)

Blablahb:

Falconus:
Okay gotta note here that Anarchy is not synonymous with chaos. It doesn't mean no order. There are still rules and laws, just no central governing body.

If there's nobody to set or enforce laws, there are no laws, and it's anarchy, a.k.a. the rule of the strongest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy
Anarchy is not even close to the rule of the strongest. In fact that's pretty much the opposite. You're an idiot.

It's all chaos anyway, tyranny forms out of chaos and then in it's silly attempt to control it seeks to subvert the nature of reality to say that it has overtaken chaos, when in truth everything remains in chaos, the tyranny simply part of it.

I prefer Chaos or Tyranids.

I said chaos, because at the very least I keep my freedom.

I would be interested to know if most Americans said chaos, and most Brits said tyranny?

Oops; I voted for the one I wanted, rather than the one I thought was worse.

Obviously both are terrible, but tyranny is better than chaos. In chaos, might makes right, so you just get local tyrannies anyway. And there's a heck of a lot more bloodshed.

naughtynazgul:
Interesting question posed on twitter.

Which do you think is worse?

Personally freedom is more important to me, but then again...chaos means, well, chaos.

Considering I'm a borderline anarcho-libertarian, I can confidently state I would rather have absolute chaos than absolute order. Neither is the ideal state of being, as government is necessary (and inevitable) when more than a handful of people come together and cooperate, but complete anarchy and having to fight for every second of your life is far preferable to guaranteed survival if you do exactly what you're told. There's a difference between living and surviving, and in an absolute tyranny, there's not a whole lot of the former.

secretSpaceWizard:
While tyranny has its obvious threats, as everybody has pointed out, it also has the benefits of food, water, shelter, electricity, protection from roving bandits, and even most likely the Escapist.

One thing you may want to realize is that if taken to the extreme, as this thread seems to suggest, tyranny would not allow access to the Escapist. You would have rigidly enforced access to precisely what entertainment/food/water/shelter/etc the state deems necessary to keep you in line. Thus, you likely wouldn't be on the Escapist ever again.

Tyranny is infinitely worse. Not even comparable in my mind.

verdant monkai:
GEORGE ORWELL,s NINETEEN EIGHTY FOUR
If anyone of you have read this book you will know what I mean, and those of you who chose Tyranny I recommend you read this book, you will see how grim a totalitarian state would be.
So definitely Chaos

I've read it at least five times.

I pick Tyranny.
Tyrants have all the nice things anyway.

I'd prefer chaos unless I get to join some underground resistance in the tyranny. You only live once.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked