I would choose peace.
That is the main difference between us Canadians and the "Americans"; while the American system focuses on individual liberties, we focus on peace, order and good government (as put by Pierre Berton). To ensure peace and equality, one would need to install a larger government. On the other hand, to enforce individual liberty, one would have to decentralize the government.
On extreme levels, "peace" would bring totalitarianism and "liberty" would bring anarchy. First of all, an anarchy will inevitably result in a power vacuum; the biggest man would win. This will create some form of government, so I must say that a true anarchy is quite impossible. However, for the sake of discourse, I will continue with my argument. As Thomas Hobbes puts it, the unmotivated individual inherently has selfish desires. We can see this with the "fat cat CEO's" who sit at the top making decisions for themselves and their corporations, not for the general public. With the abstract concept of government, human beings are able to adhere to collective values, principles and beliefs; helping to ensure a more civil society.
Ideally, the government is bound by duty to protect its citizens in matters economic, social, political and military. With less government, we are to rely on the mere goodwill of the fellow citizens. As stated before, on a general sense, human beings are naturally individualistic beings - surely we cannot rely our collective security on that.
Of course, either extreme is undesirable. However, if I had to emphasis one over the other, I would place my opinion upon the welfare of peace.
EDIT: The power vacuum within an anarchy would inevitably oppress the less able inhabitants. With this in mind, and the addition of the fact that there would be no sense of binding duty, the result would lack security, peace and liberty.
