Tyranny over chaos? do you thionk civilisations prefer iron fisted tyranny and order than chaos and?

civil unrest
Tyranny over chaos? do you thionk civilisations prefer iron fisted tyranny and order than chaos and?
Yes...





Look at Iraq - they were better off under a tyrant than bands of roving gangs and thugs...





Besides its not a %26quot;civilization%26quot; if it is in chaos...
Tyranny over chaos? do you thionk civilisations prefer iron fisted tyranny and order than chaos and?
Under either condition, people will still complain. There will be revolts, protests, and violence. People will always whine. With tyranny it%26#039;s too much rule and with chaos it%26#039;s not enough rule. It%26#039;s difficult to determine what people want anymore with how much they complain.
Reply:Neither.





Civil unrest is born out of people NOT willing to govern themselves. People want %26quot;everything%26quot; for nothing down and nothing ever.





Tyranny over shadows many basic freedoms which are cherished by people in general.
Reply:I think through chaos comes the elegance of the universe.





But...


I think civilizations would do almost anything to remain free of tyranny and pain, including iron fist tyranny to protect them of the tyranny of different religion, skin tones, you know, the tyranny that isn%26#039;t as cool.
Reply:Hind sight tells me that different people have different preferences. Seems that civil unrest are cause and effect for iron fisted tyranny -- they exist to cancel each other out as people seek viable way to live.





Besides, I disagree that iron fisted tyranny should be associated with order. Unjust rule is the cause of chaos for the oppressed. Ie, civil unrest is the force to return chaos to order.
Reply:Consider entropy. It%26#039;s completely reasonable to think of chaos as unavoidable. Tyrants fall, and die; empires crumble, democracies succumb. Whatever isn%26#039;t chaos we%26#039;ve managed to scrap together meagerly, and it was never as apparent as when we first started out.





Order is a very fickle artifice, but the history of civilization has been one long attempt at a stable version of it. In this sense, it is probably obvious that it has been preferable throughout history.





This preference is meant to assist in the escape from the chaos. Throughout history, this has led entire societies into corrupt forms of order, like tyrannies and central governments, to a degree that a stable, organized society has yet to be achieved. People of the time are misled by convincing arguments and the social appropriation of these arguments as norm and custom. It is why revolutions have been fought in the name of every idea. It is why today, most westerners defend democracy before ever becoming aware of argument for it, or even a definition. It just becomes, in the here and now, the thing to do.





It seems, however, that this search for order has produced many good ideas, and modern peoples are weary of a societal order with a very centralized power structure. This might make most people today shy away from tyrannies, in favor of an apparent complete lack of order. This is interesting, also, because it might prove a lesson that for order to be achieved at all, it has to happen by means of a horizontal power structure, where individuals are responsible for their own choices, and accountable only to whom they interact with. It would be an attempt at order without force pursued by individuals for their own benefit.





Though some people might be misled today and accept ever increasing concentrations of power, in their search for order, the tide has never been more shifted towards a preference for self-determination. The freedom of the individual might seem like chaos in light of a historical legacy of tyrannical power concentrations, and compared to how much power some men have today, but this so-called chaos is nothing but the fairest attempt at order ever conceived by man.