My Take: Anarchy vs Tyranny

No middle ground allowed: you can’t build a new government, overthrow anything, or wait it out. You’re picking one system to live under, permanently.

This question brings me right back to Sociocultural Studies at university, where I heard and discussed it first. This question was such a hot topic that it was rumored to have broken a couple up. Years later, it’s fun to look back and ponder if what I was absolutely positive about then still holds true for me today.

Today, these terms are thrown around carelessly and take on different meanings, so before I answer, I want to make sure that we define what each term truly means. According to Dictionary.com, anarchy is defined as “a state of society without government or law,” and tyranny as “arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.” Both of these have their pros and cons, and the permanence in this question removes the option to pedal back after the fact, so let’s break them both down.

Anarchy does mean without law or governance, but it doesn’t mean without morals or relationships. People are people, and we have a desire to connect and protect. This naturally leads to people coming together to help and protect each other. So, just because there is no formal government to police the populace does not mean you necessarily are going to have to fend for yourself. It is definitely a possibility, but not a given. If you can find commonality with people and build relationships, you can still form a community of people that help and protect each other. Each is free to come and go as they please, and none are better than their fellow community members or have higher status. It’s just people helping people.

Now, this obviously is not always the case. People are also selfish, envious, and full of greed. They lie, cheat, and hurt each other, sometimes not even for any reason. This is what makes anarchy such a dangerous choice. Yes, you may be able to find community and safety, but you may also have to fight for your life on a daily basis along with those that you love and care for. Is the freedom to make your own choices and not be controlled by a tyrant worth the danger? Maybe. But then again, maybe not. Let’s look at the other side of the coin.

With tyranny, you get no control over what goes and what doesn’t. You are totally at the whims of somebody else. So what is the upside to this? One possibility is stability and protection. You could potentially get lucky and have a dictator who provides a safe haven for the people under their rule with structure, rules, and regulations. A place where, as long as you are following the rules, you don’t have to worry about danger toward yourself or your family. But what are those rules? Remember, in this scenario, there is no overthrowing. You are stuck with what you have forever. So if your dictator is a horrible person who decides that they want to take your son, daughter, brother, sister, father, mother, or even you for their own pleasure and desires, you’re stuck with that. They could just decide that they don’t like you because you look a certain way and have you killed. There is no rebellion to counteract their choices. What they say goes without any consequences.

I personally don’t think that I could live like that. That’s not to say that under anarchy this wouldn’t happen. But you would have a choice—a chance to defend yourself and those you love. I think to me that is what it really comes down to: choice. And my choice would be anarchy.

What do you think? Am I totally missing something? Is there an error in the way I’m reasoning? Vote in the anonymous poll on this topic’s bell-ringer page! Leave an anonymous comment, or create an account to get extra benefits like the ability to link to things, higher character limits in your response, and more to come. It’s free!