Freedom,or ever lasting peace?

I'd choose freedom hands down and never even consider living in a police state even if it meant death.

To me, living without being free is equivalent to slavery. No matter how safe and protected you are or how well taken care of you are. You're still a slave because you don't have control over the most important thing, yourself.

What does "Suffering" mean here? Physical suffering or all suffering, like poverty, sickness and plain harassment from others? How does a harsh dictator behave in a world where violence or suffering does not exist?

I'll choose the dictator, because in a world without suffering and violence, a dictator will still be a just ruler. Since he would not be allowed to suppress the people, since this would bring in suffering to the world.

Freedom or peace...interesting...persoally I prefer freedom over peace...

Look at all the horrible debacles of governments that resulted as a result of peace over freedom...the Soviet Union, China's overpopulace and sweatshops and blah, a lot of African countries. They erupt into civil war anyhow regardless of how much you try to sppuress it all and keep peace.

It's a little nerve racking though because since I live in the U.S. I feel like slowly, little by little, I'm giving up on my freedoms in order for security...really I feel that should be the question, freedom or safety.

Peace almost always becomes war. It's an inevitability of our species. You'd need to elaborate what makes this dictator harsh for me to sway my decision, because, well... Freedom with wars... if both choices end up in war, I'd rather pick freedom, wouldn't you?

Well, I choose the dictator because of the fact that it says "No more violence and suffering forever"
So basically it wouldn't end up in war? Right? Since a war would bring suffering and violence, breaking the "forever" part.

You are reading it too literally. He's asking us to decide between freedom and all of the problems we'll face or living in a police state.

You are honestly telling me that you would prefer to live in an Orwellian society over being free? Having people tell you what to do, tell you where to work, what your job is, having information held from you, not being allowed to voice your opinion if you disagree with the dictatorship? Not having any privacy (so they can keep everybody "safe"). The list goes on.

How could the dictator be harsh if there was no suffering or violence?

I've come to loath these types of questions, the "either-or" scenario that will never, ever come to be.

I don't mind giving up some freedoms for the sake of safety. Shit, that's the whole basis of government, really. If you want complete freedom, be an anarchist. No rules whatsoever. That said, we must be careful in what freedoms we give up for freedom. Is it worth having your house searched every week, if the result is less chance of buildings being blown up by psychopaths? If it worth having your locker (at school) searched every week, if the result is less chance of psychopaths shooting up the school?

I take freedom any day. A world without war, conflict and individualism would be a stagnating world. Nothing would ever change, and living a life without being allowed to choose for yourself, express yourself, be yourself would be suffocating as well, not even worthy to be called living. War and suffering is a necessary evil part of being human and of the evolution of mankind. You need the bad stuff to be able to appreciate the good stuff.

I think I would go with the dictatorship. A lot of people in the Western world really have a negative connotation of dictatorship. It is just another form of government. We like to think of it ("we" as in United States particularly) as an embodiment of evil, but that doesn't necessarily have to be the case.

Don't get me wrong, I like freedom, but I hate the idea of wars and violence even more. It's easy to say freedom, and what not, but the world isn't black and white like that. Dictatorship, despite what some may believe, has it's uses and can be a very effective and strong form of government. In some respects, I'd go as far to say in many respects, it is stronger than democracy.

You just can't toss aside dictatorship because you are used to the concept of democracy. Both have their strengths and their weaknesses.

No. It doesn't have to be anyway. I'm not saying that most dictatorships aren't like that, but it isn't impossible for their to be benevolent dictators who truly have their hearts set on their people and their culture.

Think of it this way. You may not have many individual freedoms or even a say in how your government works, but things get done at a much faster and complete rate than a democracy. People bicker, argue and fight in democracy and sometimes things, even very important things, don't get taken care of. You don't have that problem with a dictatorship. Granted that only applies if the ruling party agrees with it, but I digress.

Rather more like it chains into war to be exact, but yeah freedom is awesome.

Ofc there are dictatorships that aren't a much worse type of government than some of the western ones (like the US -_-') but when I hear this "choose between freedom but suffering and worldpeace but harsh dictatorship", I think of it as a extremity, not comparing it to dictatorships that exist now. In my mind, he means no Freedom of Speach, no Freedom of the Press...

Well, basicly no Human Rights, constantly being observed, having no privacy so that you don't do anything out of line and harsh punishment if you do... That sort of dictatorship. Doesn't seems very awesome to me, I'd rather go die in a war being GAR.

Besides, a dictatorship is only effective until the people get tired of slaving for the fat guy with cigar and mustach (my view of how an dictator should look like) and decides to revolt and try to kill him. Even if they fail the effectiveness of total control has been lost.

If you can come up with two dictatorships(excluding monarchies) that didn't brutally oppress the citizens of that country then maybe you'd have a valid argument. It's too much power in the hands of one individual and those with power seek to abuse it.

I didn't say that there were any, but just because there aren't any now, or any in the past, doesn't mean it isn't possible.

"Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." I would agree with that statement, at least that is how things seem now, but I don't think for a second that it is a universal law of how government has to be.

I'm not trying to defend dictatorships, but they are not evil like the brainwashed nonsense that many Western countries try to imply that it is.

It all depends on how extreme the cases are. In a society of pure peace, absolutely no violence but no human rights vs a society of pure freedom, but one can't even feel safe from ones own family putting a knife in your back I would choose peace. It's a cowardly approach, but I would prefer to have a long life and not live it to the fullest, then to have a full life and not live it to its longest. This situation, however, is completely unrealistic.

On a more realistic scale, I don't see how a free violent world can exist. To live in a world where violence is dominance leads to 1 of 2 things, I well controlled military ruled by a government system which breaks the rules or a world where civilization is nothing more than clans who live by their own desires. The latter fits the rules of a free, but war-like world, but even then you would have many prisoners of war/slaves. The world itself seems extremely primitive in concept. I would prefer to have a world where my basic privacy or opinion is not mine but to be allowed a life of peace. It is a simple life, but it is not barbaric.

Not enough information on this type of a 'what-if' subject to really make a decision.
How can you live in a world free of violence and suffering if when you break the rules the 'harsh dictator' kills/punishes you severely? Simply does not work.

Sadly I don't have the brainpower at the moment to theorize too heavily... but I do like the topic.

'If' people went with the new rules set in front of them(assuming they are reasonable) and worked together in a civilized manner, and 'if' this new ruler was 'harsh'- but fair- I do not see how the situation could not work. Sure, you cannot voice your opinion in a negative manner but if there is no suffering in the WORLD, what on earth could people complain about?


No solution is perfect. All I can do is make up scenarios that can never be proven, But I feel I'm not too free if I am hiding in my home hoping this never ending war does not migrate near my neighborhood.