Dictatorship if I can dictate and anarchy if I have to be dictated to.
Anarchy is a false type of ideology. First of all, even anarchists have leaders. Isn't it that anarchy means no leaders and no rules? anyway, i think I'd rather have dictatorship if I'm the one to do it.
Anarchism is the decision that all relationships can and should be characterized by consent rather than coercion.
http://anarclysm.blogspot.com/2008/05/d … chism.html
The question suggests that their is no other choice which indicates it's aimed at people who live in anarchy or a dictatorship.Or,those who don't realize they do.Another possibility is the person posing the question would like one or the other.Consent or coersion? What about mutual respect?
Thanks for asking the question. You made me think and learn about something I was not aware I did not know.
Wikipedia defined anarchy as much more than just the social disorder I thought it was:
Anarchy (from Greek: ??????? anarchí?, "without ruler") may refer to any of several political states, and has been variously defined by sources. Most often, the term "anarchy" describes the simple absence of publicly recognized government or enforced political authority. When used in this sense, anarchy may or may not imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society. In another sense, anarchy may not refer to a complete lack of authority or political organization, but instead refer to a social state characterized by absolute direct democracy or libertarianism.
Absolute direct democracy sounds like quite a concept. I cannot imagine it actually working beyond a small group.
To answer the question-- I do not want to say anarchy but that is my answer. No matter who the dictator is I'm deciding, having someone else have control over my life in that fashion would never make me happy even if well-meaning.
I do believe that between the two, I would choose anarchy. I simply have an aversion to be dictated to.............
Anarchy sounds too ideal for me. Dictatorship is ugly. But i say modern day democracy as we see these days has turned out more or less like a dictatorship in disguise. The only thing is that we get to choose who gets to dictate us. Tough choice, Anarchy sounds worth trying for a change. Anarchy, it is.
A pure democracy is a form of anarchy, so I am for that. Select leaders randomly through a lottery every year. It would be a good catalyst to improve public education, that's for sure.
That would have to depend on the Dictator!
God is a Dictator and Satan in the case of our story is an Anarchist hence the word anti-Christ looks very similar to this word.
Now IF Hitler was in charge an I was Not a Jew, But a Blue eyed Blond headed Physical fit Male or woman maybe!
But this it is a loaded Question that needs more elaborations to answer with any true results to Its worth of answering.
Donnie/ Sinbad the Sailor Man
And that is only my opinion and we all have them and yes they all stink!
I'd pick anarchy over dictatorship any day, but I think as others have stated I'd want a direct democracy brand rather than the absolute chaos most think of. Unless the dictator is just and kind to his or her people (which never happens), anarchy in any form should be better.
Anarchy sounds good on the surface until one considers the selfish, stupid, greedy nature of humans. Communism shares a similar conundrum. That saying about too many chiefs and not enough Indians would apply to my rationale in answering this question. I would rather deal with only one egoist at a time, so I believe a dictatorship would be more advantageous to my sanity and safety.
I prefer non as both are not tolerable. Besides, why do I have to choose if these are not the only possible alternatives?
Anarchy, because at least with anarchy you'd have the option of working with others for mutual benefit. No such guarantee with a dictatorship.
Yea, I would choose Anarchy. But without the unfair tax system. It would also be nice to see more transparent voting system.
Dictatorships are warped. History and current events have proven this fact beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I would not prefer both, anarchy and dictatorship both are the worst things that a society could tolerate. However if compare between two, the dictatorship is the worst.
Neither; as both do not, in any way, contribute to the advancement of any society. Dictatorships, the longer they persist, eventually lead to some form of anarchy. While anarchy, if allowed to exist untempered, will create a dictatorship. So, as I mentioned, neither form will persist without issue for the long-term. After all, there is a reason why revolutions occur: the people are searching for either order or control. The best form of government, IMO, is the original American blueprint of a representative democracy. Like all things, however, deviations from the original ultimately lead to corruption. This is a great question with even more difficult answers. Subjectivity seems to be the norm in today's post-modern age.
Of course Anarchy. I am an Indian, I am living in a democratic country and think it is the best option.
Anarchy gets a bad rap. The way I look at it, it's just a lack of authoritative or dictatorial government. Maybe I'm wrong on that, but humans tend to naturally organize themselves and figure things out (without government.)
We're about to find this question out in the US and world as the NWO comes about here. I'm hoping more people will choose anarchy, but the thing is.. well.. people keep voting within this corrupted system and thinking they can change it by being part of it. I say buck the system and f-ck the oligarchy.
Anarchy would only be anarchy for a short period of time before some order and heirachy came in.
Democracy is technically good however is practically floored.
I prefer a benevolent dictatorship (if ever it exists) to a mob rule.
wait till you get a dict up your anarchy yea who's laughing now... um wait is that right
by Comrade Joe 6 years ago
Why did Khrushchev come to power after Stalin's death?It makes no sense that on the one hand Josef Stalin was an overarching dictator who controlled every aspect of life in the Soviet Union, he supposedly "purged" his political enemies, yet on the other hand, after Stalin's death he was...
by vector7 6 years ago
You now have your own personal dictator named none other than:Barack Hussein Obama (aka - Adolf Hitler Jr.)Presidential DictatorshipAnd here is his lovely new bright and shiny toy to play with people's lives without just cause:Prolonged DetentionHope you're educated on the holocaust.Have a joyful...
by Shwetha Shetty 6 years ago
What does democracy mean to you?
by Rangiiria 7 years ago
What is the best political system to live under?
by Dilip Chandra 20 months ago
Discipline means success, anarchy means ruin
by ahorseback 20 months ago
The obvious point in this question is -Will he ? Not that he'd become a dictator ! But I wonder where liberals would really stand if the draining the swamp truly became a political reality ? Or is the hypocrisy of the leftist rhetoric about a ...
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|