What if your real passion in life is art, but your totalitarian rulers prevent your from creating any art that doesn't promote the regime? What if you want to be an outspoken journalist, but the regime imprisons any who write anti-regime articles? Perhaps your passion is cooking, but you're forced under law to remain as a factory worker. Also, you're assuming the basic needs are met. That doesn't always happen. Totalitarian states have a track record of not listening to the problems of the people, and this can lead to a lack of attention to basic necessities (look back to Stalin's Russia).
My dinosaur Then why did you vote for a totalitarian state and explain how it would be safer, which it would be if you at looking at that perspective? And now you are Mr. Creativity stifled. Get real, do you think you can sit around and languish in thought about your writing r sit in a meadow calmly painting if there was anarchy and a bunch of half wits with guns are scared, tired and hungry are running around taking care of business? I know what a totalitarian regime is moron. But you obviously don't know what anarchy entails. Or not talking out of both sides of your mouth. Pick a side and invest, don't attack someone that was kind enough to give you props and agree. What a jerk. And an uneducated one at that.
I voted for a totalitarian state because I believe it would be safer. It appears I have a more moderate stance than you however. I am on the same side as you, for different reasons. The purpose in my initial comment being to explain my differing line of thought. Also, you never gave me props, nor agreed with me, at least not with my rationale. Additionally, your use of the word 'attack' is overly-dramatic. I, without insulting words, spelled out why I believe you're wrong. This website is debate.Org, my disagreement isn't rude, it's normal.
Both are equally abhorent. I can prefer only a nation that provides me with constitutional human rights and that acknowledges my right to freedom and happiness. In an environment of anarchy, I would go out of my way to establish a government with an accompanying constitution, that acknowledges both the power of the law but also individual rights. In a totalitarian environment, I would go out of my way to topple the government as best I could to liberate the country from that kind of wicked, arrogant evil!
It depends the Government. It doesn't make it evil if it restrict certain rights. Safety, the ability to live safe is something we all want. Good luck trying to start a government in an Anarchy, you would be caught in war thanks to the massive power vacuum. Its hard to have effective productivity in an Anarchy.
I am one of the Anarchy people and I will explain my position.
There is an extent to how far anarchy can go. And there will always be a local militia or something so that there is at least slight laws.
HOWEVER, there is no limit to how far Totalitarianism can go. With enough technology, it could reach the point where you're unable to move around, or even think, within the Government's consent.
Local Militias are likely to fight each other, people have always done that. Look at Africa for example. I don't think we would ever form a Hive mind, but if we did that would be more of a good thing then anything.
If you are talking about systems of government, Anarchy is more choice. Despite what we see in all our precious post-apocalypse flicks, time and time again people prove that thy are more likely to work together in awful situations than to fight one another. The news media only likes to show the looting during Katrina, but there were far more incidents of people helping each other out, and risking their lives to save one another. In Anarchy, without a system of government in place to tell us what to do, the evidence still shows we will choose to do good by one another. And no government doesn't mean no consequences for bad behavior, a fascist government does mean consequences for nonsense.
Conrade you get my explanation don't you? Hey Dino, read "Man's Search for Meaning" by Viktor Frankl. It isn't very long and you might "get' my perspective. And your disagreement was anything but normal, you flip flopped when I agreed with you and then made a case against me. That is not debating, and I am really trying to take into consideration you are not experienced in life.
Anarchy is simply just a lack of government. Anarchy does not imply chaos or rampant crime all around. Even if their was no government, people would still follow rules based on their morals. You would not live in fear, but actually freedom.