V for Vendetta

[Joel the Attention Whore]

I'm interested to hear why.

[Colin]

Well given the choice of the two anarchy is an improvement over totalitarianism.

[Wakie]

Anarchy always gives rise to warlords and a period of extreme discomfort for the populous.  So this is like saying do you prefer the Warlord period of China vs the Mao-era of China.  Neither one is good.  But forced to choose I go anarchy and warlords.

[Boris]

Option 1. I probably would have been thrown in a concentration camp under Sutler's regime.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Read the V for Vendetta graphic novel instead of the crappy movie.

[YRABNNRM]

Read the V for Vendetta graphic novel instead of the crappy movie.

I concur.

[Gustaf]

I like the character V so I'd go with his state.

[Joe Republic]

Read the V for Vendetta graphic novel instead of the crappy movie.

I've done both, and I found the movie to be better.

[J. J.]

Well given the choice of the two anarchy is an improvement over totalitarianism.

Until you are shot.

[Colin]

Well given the choice of the two anarchy is an improvement over totalitarianism.

Until you are shot.

Well I have a very high chance of getting shot in both. All the totalitarian government would have to do is look in my bookshelf and I'd be in a concentration camp in about 2 seconds.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Adam Susan is the only man who can stop the radicals of the Scottish Republican Army from sundering Britain in this hour of crisis!

[Joel the Attention Whore]

I agree with fezzy.

[Verily]

In this specific case, it is likely that anarchy would not be long-lasting; in the story, the UK is still a developed country that apparently retains democratic ideals and would probably reinstitute democracy and government shortly after Sutler's overthrow. That isn't necessarily the case (c.f. Iraq), but in the case of developed countries it generally is (c.f. Japan, post-WWII).

[Beet]

V doesn''t create an anarchy. Bush has created an anarchy in Iraq. It's implied in the end that the characters try to reconstitute the democratic government that existed before the Sutler government took over. That said, I didn't like the movie.

There are different kinds of totalitarianisms. If we were talking about a communist totalitarian regime, Joel and fezzy might have different answers. A fascist totalitarian regime is very segmented. If you're in one of the "favored" groups, it might be preferable to anarchy, but if you're not in one of those groups, but are in a targeted group, you might as well be dead, so an anarchy would be favorable.

[Colin]

Not to mention V is a terrorist.

Where the Contra's terrorists? Where the Polish resistance? What do you consider a terrorist? One who kills people for an ideology? Or one who kills people for an ideology you consider vile? Is a terrorist that fights for democracy a terrorist? Is a terrorist that fights to end a horrific regime a terrorist? Some of this doesn't appy to V I just want to know your opinion.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Not to mention V is a terrorist.

Where the Contra's terrorists? Where the Polish resistance? What do you consider a terrorist? One who kills people for an ideology? Or one who kills people for an ideology you consider vile? Is a terrorist that fights for democracy a terrorist? Is a terrorist that fights to end a horrific regime a terrorist? Some of this doesn't appy to V I just want to know your opinion.

Oh, it's quite simple. People who do that sort of stuff and who are on my side are "freedom fighters" (or maybe "insurgents" if I want to appear to be somewhat impartial), while people who do that stuff and who are on the other side, are terrorists (or maybe "rebels" if I want to appear to be somewhat impartial).

[John Dibble]

Well, anarchy would give a chance for a decent government to rise or a warlord ruled totalitarian state to rise, so I guess I might as well roll the dice instead of a sure loss.

[Colin]

Not to mention V is a terrorist.

Where the Contra's terrorists? Where the Polish resistance? What do you consider a terrorist? One who kills people for an ideology? Or one who kills people for an ideology you consider vile? Is a terrorist that fights for democracy a terrorist? Is a terrorist that fights to end a horrific regime a terrorist? Some of this doesn't appy to V I just want to know your opinion.

Oh, it's quite simple. People who do that sort of stuff and who are on my side are "freedom fighters" (or maybe "insurgents" if I want to appear to be somewhat impartial), while people who do that stuff and who are on the other side, are terrorists (or maybe "rebels" if I want to appear to be somewhat impartial).

Al, of course, has the correct answer. Congradulations Al, you have won are fabulous prize. You're own fully functioning terrorist organization. Let's give Mr. Realpolitik a round of applause.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Not to mention V is a terrorist.

Where the Contra's terrorists? Where the Polish resistance? What do you consider a terrorist? One who kills people for an ideology? Or one who kills people for an ideology you consider vile? Is a terrorist that fights for democracy a terrorist? Is a terrorist that fights to end a horrific regime a terrorist? Some of this doesn't appy to V I just want to know your opinion.

Oh, it's quite simple. People who do that sort of stuff and who are on my side are "freedom fighters" (or maybe "insurgents" if I want to appear to be somewhat impartial), while people who do that stuff and who are on the other side, are terrorists (or maybe "rebels" if I want to appear to be somewhat impartial).

Al, of course, has the correct answer. Congradulations Al, you have won are fabulous prize. You're own fully functioning terrorist organization. Let's give Mr. Realpolitik a round of applause.

Does it come with a fully-functioning terrorist?

[Colin]

Not to mention V is a terrorist.

Where the Contra's terrorists? Where the Polish resistance? What do you consider a terrorist? One who kills people for an ideology? Or one who kills people for an ideology you consider vile? Is a terrorist that fights for democracy a terrorist? Is a terrorist that fights to end a horrific regime a terrorist? Some of this doesn't appy to V I just want to know your opinion.

Oh, it's quite simple. People who do that sort of stuff and who are on my side are "freedom fighters" (or maybe "insurgents" if I want to appear to be somewhat impartial), while people who do that stuff and who are on the other side, are terrorists (or maybe "rebels" if I want to appear to be somewhat impartial).

Al, of course, has the correct answer. Congradulations Al, you have won are fabulous prize. You're own fully functioning terrorist organization. Let's give Mr. Realpolitik a round of applause.

Does it come with a fully-functioning terrorist?

Well he's more of a fixer-upper.

[MaC]

Well, anarchy would give a chance for a decent government to rise or a warlord ruled totalitarian state to rise, so I guess I might as well roll the dice instead of a sure loss.

Only an anarchy would allow me to take over and implement a libertarian dictatorship-so anarchy.