Would you prefer Nazism, Stalinism or anarchy?

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm with Mech on this. In Anarchy, you at least have a chance to form your own state, while in Nazism or Communism you first have to destroy the existing government, then create your own.

Also, the idea of roving around with various types of weaponry and relying on your instincts and smarts is appealing. Too bad I don't own a gun.

You personify the problem with this entire thread.

[Free Palestine]

What kind of anarchy? The popular definition/Mad Max/Somalia style? Or the "anarchy" in Catalonia in the late 1930s? The former is obviously terrible, while the latter is probably my ideal form of government.

Then why do you love state coercion so much?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

What kind of anarchy? The popular definition/Mad Max/Somalia style? Or the "anarchy" in Catalonia in the late 1930s? The former is obviously terrible, while the latter is probably my ideal form of government.

Really the Second Spanish Republic was the truest workers' state that has ever been.

They had the best propaganda too.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Both would be horrible, maybe I should just pick the last option. But from a strictly egoistic standpoint (I think I'm among those who could afford buying their security) as well as from a more philosophic one (I still somewhat believe in the individual), I'd still pick anarchy.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I picked anarchy, but really it's not a fair comparison since Nazism and Stalinism are so specifically horrible, whereas 'anarchy' is so vague you don't know - it could be not so bad.

[Person Man]

I think a lot of people are confusing anarchy with anomie. Anarchy in its classical sense is a desired thing. All it means is that there is not an ultimate power. In fact, you could say that the Founding Fathers were about finding a way to perserve anarchy and end anomie in the 1780s. 

On the other hand, a laser chaingun does sound kinda cool....but super mutants and death claws don't.

[Insula Dei]

Anarchy because in the other two situations I would be liquidated quickly.

What makes you say that? I guess most of us would survive just allright under Stalinism and Nazism. It were the minorities and dissidents who were eliminated. I don't think most people on here would have sufficiently bad luck to be among this people. (At the very least we've had enough good luck to not be on the receiving end of the current system, something most Somalians can't say)

[Insula Dei]

Oh and I'd pick a Stalinist state any day. When you're starving on some collective farm, at least you get die for the greater cause of the oppressed worker and luagh at those naive fools living under liberalism, thinking they're free.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I think a lot of people are confusing anarchy with anomie. Anarchy in its classical sense is a desired thing. All it means is that there is not an ultimate power. In fact, you could say that the Founding Fathers were about finding a way to perserve anarchy and end anomie in the 1780s. 

On the other hand, a laser chaingun does sound kinda cool....but super mutants and death claws don't.

You're right, except that anarchy without anomy is an utopy even more unrealizable than communism.

[big bad fab]

Yeah, that's why it's better to be shooted at.

At least, I'd be in Purgatory (and not in a terrestrial Hell ) and so with a prospect of reaching Paradise some day .

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, that's why it's better to be shooted at.

At least, I'd be in Purgatory (and not in a terrestrial Hell ) and so with a prospect of reaching Paradise some day .

Isn't wanting to die a sin in Christianism ?

[big bad fab]

Yeah, that's why it's better to be shooted at.

At least, I'd be in Purgatory (and not in a terrestrial Hell ) and so with a prospect of reaching Paradise some day .

Isn't wanting to die a sin in Christianism ?

Yep. But in this case, I'd simply pick none of this solution.
Martyr, sort of .

[Roemerista]

I picked anarchy, but really it's not a fair comparison since Nazism and Stalinism are so specifically horrible, whereas 'anarchy' is so vague you don't know - it could be not so bad.

How could anarchy be good? I am just curious, I have heard this a few times and it simply baffles me.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Left-wingers have the highest share of people who prefer nazism.

*facepalm*

[feeblepizza]

Shoot me.

[Lief 🗽]

What kind of anarchy? The popular definition/Mad Max/Somalia style? Or the "anarchy" in Catalonia in the late 1930s? The former is obviously terrible, while the latter is probably my ideal form of government.

Then why do you love state coercion so much?

Because I'm not an ideologue that views every intervention by the state into the economic or social spheres as "state coercion," nor am I a "libertarian" who thinks the only source of forceful coercion in society is the state.

[Associate Justice PiT]

What kind of anarchy? The popular definition/Mad Max/Somalia style? Or the "anarchy" in Catalonia in the late 1930s? The former is obviously terrible, while the latter is probably my ideal form of government.

Then why do you love state coercion so much?

Because I'm not an ideologue that views every intervention by the state into the economic or social spheres as "state coercion," nor am I a "libertarian" who thinks the only source of forceful coercion in society is the state.

     Given how frequently leftists say that, I'd love to see a quote for that. Any quote from any self-identified libertarian will do, no matter how fringe that individual might be. I just want to see if there's a single libertarian in the world who actually thinks that, because I'm sure not aware of any.

[Lief 🗽]

It's not something libertarians necessarily say out loud, but it's clear from their actions and the policies they support that they hold that view (or at least find government coercion to be leaps and bounds more dangerous than the rest).

[SvenssonRS]

I love your generalizations, Lief. They make you look like such the voice of reason.

[John Dibble]

Anarchy - it would be the one with the least potential to last for a long time, and there's potential for things to end up going well without significant foreign intervention. It's still a gamble, but what ends up happening probably couldn't be worse than Stalinism or Nazism.

Nazism probably would be my second choice, only because it still allows for a workable economic system. While there would be suffering and mass killing, the numbers who suffer and die would likely be smaller.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Nazism probably would be my second choice, only because it still allows for a workable economic system. While there would be suffering and mass killing, the numbers who suffer and die would likely be smaller.

It's only ever been tried once and on that occasion neither of those things happens to be true...

[afleitch]

In two systems I will either be repressed or interred in a camp. In the third, which has never been tried, I have no idea.

[Franzl]

Left-wingers have the highest share of people who prefer nazism.

*facepalm*

You're reading the numbers wrong.

[Associate Justice PiT]

It's not something libertarians necessarily say out loud, but it's clear from their actions and the policies they support that they hold that view (or at least find government coercion to be leaps and bounds more dangerous than the rest).

     But if nobody is actually willing to say as much, it's rather clear that they don't actually believe that to be the case. Given the ability of fringe libertarian elements to spout all sorts of strange ideas, I do not think they would restrain themselves in this regard. You could say that they are supporting policies which would make sense if they were to think that, which would be more accurate.

     Of course, any anarcho-capitalist would likely say that government is the primary means of oppression by non-governmental entities & that people would manage to protect themselves from these entities without a coercive government to force those interests upon them. It's a rather naive view, but to its credit does not deny the existence of non-governmental malefactors.