Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

Would you rather have your country in dictatorship or anarchy?

I know, I know. We all want neither. But let's just think hypothetically for a few short seconds. Which would you want? Serious question.

16 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    If you are educated or take the time out to read what 'Anarchy' actually means, rather than swallowing the popular media image of a bunch of punks going around torching your car, then you would always choose anarchy over a dictatorship.

    To quote from wikipedia:

    Anarchy (Greek: αναρχία) is the anarchist society, the stateless society of free people. Other than being opposed to the state, "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance

    Anarchists are those who believe that all people are imbued with a sort of commonality, common sense, that would allow for people to, in the absence of the government, come together in agreement to form a functional existence. Morality falls in line with functionality, and its forms differ. Anarchy does not reject ethics, or principles, but rather imposed morality.

    Easy choice :)

  • 1 decade ago

    If it has to be a choice between the two, I would have to choose dictatorship.

    At least a dictator has the potential to keep order in the country, create and maintain infrastructure (roads, etc.), and maintain some kind of defense against attacks from outside. The dictator may not be the greatest ruler, may not be the most humane, and may not even be the smartest guy in the country, but at least the nation has a leader.

    With anarchy, however, no one is in charge and therefore nothing gets done. Who would make sure roads were built and maintained? Who would guide the armed forces? A nation without a leader of any kind is very vulnerable.

    Additionally, a dictator can be overthrown, while you can't overthrow a leader who doesn't exist. If the dictator cannot maintain some sense of order in his country he runs the risk of being ousted by someone who can. When the government of a nation fails to care for its people the rest of world tends to place the blame on the leader -- especially if that leader is a dictator. Who gets blamed if no one is in charge?

    So I'll take the dictatorship over anarchy every time.

  • 1 decade ago

    Thanks for your "I know, I know". LOL (just what I was saying to myself!)

    So if I had to choose, a nice benign dictator would be the lesser of the two evils. If you think about it, often a king has that kind of power and there have been some reasonable kings or queens, I suppose. The tone of the dictatorial process would decide it for me. So good dictators.... Franco? surely better than Stalin .Tito? Better ( a bit) than Hitler, Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu was worse than Marcos. But the list of dictators who are evil is long - Mao, Mugabe, Saddam, Kim Jong Il.

    And anarchy is never a good option. True lawlessness and terror for everyone all the time. You really can't trust folks to live peacefully in anarchy. I think it brings out the worst in people.

    Boy, a devil and the deep blue sea question if ever I saw one.

  • 1 decade ago

    Anarchy is not possible. I would have to explain the "social contract theory." Think of it as the Greeks did, without law, man is nothing but a lowly animal. When man comes together, naturally he needs law to govern the relationships that come from this newfound society. I would rather live on my own than to live under a dictatorship that doesn't respect natural laws.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Our country lived essentially under the dictatorship of England prior to the Revolutionary War. Give me anarchy, for within there lies the opportunity of the will of the people to prevail. Within a dictatorship suppression will rule.

  • 1 decade ago

    Anarchy leads to dictatorship. When the mobs in the streets make things unbearable, people demand a dictator to deal with them. Its the oldest trick in the book. Politicians have been behind the mobs as long as there has been government.

  • 1 decade ago

    It depends on how brutal the dictator is. For example the Khmer Rouge were killing people by the millions for no reason at all. In that case anarchy is better.

  • 1 decade ago

    Dictatorship ... look at Iraq , and what will come next will not be democracy, it will be a US-pro dictatorship, which is fine by the US.

    I wouldn't want my country to end up like that , we'll try to fix things as much as we can, but without violence and disorder.

  • 1 decade ago

    Anarchist Utopia

  • 1 decade ago

    Anarchy, because i can protect myself from a few thugs. I'm not sure how i could fend for myself against a dictator's army.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.