Haha, I like it already! Although, I never quite understood Magic: The Gathering at all; it always seemed to go right over my head :\
That’s because her followers often do not understand her philosophy, so they come across as dogmatic simpletons with a penchant for war.
Ryanpatgray, maybe it can be done using 4e, perfectly suited for the dumbed down democratic masses unfit for 3.5e!
-Jon
That’s an awesome idea Nitro. I was a big MtG guy 12 years ago.
I think Alex Jones did something like this for 9/11, or the Bilderbergers or something like that.
You could build tournaments and online communities around it. This is the sort of out of the box thinking that gets me really excited.
Indeed, the idea itself would be able to embrace the vast apolitical notion of ridiculing leaders (apolitical meaning regardless of political affiliation, many would still play due to “x” leader or person being ridiculed).
I’m also thinking that different decks could be constructed based on certain political outlooks: for exmaple, the Liberalism deck could be composed of “x, y, z” leaders, Conservatism, then maybe a Statist expansion pack that allows the previously mentioned Liberalism & Conservatism decks to become more powerful in ways. The counter to the Statist expansion pack could be say The Reformist Armada, composed of 3rd parties, anti-authoritative (but still adovcating limited government )types.
And of course, eventually the Libertarian deck, which I’d imagine would have sort of a jack of all trades effect on the rest of the cards (depending on the card; some liberetarian cards would be vulgar, paleo, radical, etc.).
I’m not sure what the Anarchists would function as, but I’d magine logically, they could be an additional expansion pack to say, the Libertarians (I also would not advocate using the capital or lower L scheme for such a card game, btw; would be too specific in syntax), and possible the Reformist’s.
Like I said, I never managed to play MTG correctly, so my ideas in the above are rather vauge, lol…
Also, if anyone has played FF8 (forgive me for furthering the off-topic tangent…), I was kind of imagining a card game similar to Triple Triad (it is the only one I memorized & have played in an obsessive manner):
Triple Triad was fun!
-Jon
I would order the five colors like this
Red: Socialists / Communists
Blue: Royalty or Elitists
Green: The Green movement
Light: Libertarians / Free market supporters
Black: Military / Police / Prison complex
Edit: Multicolor cards could be anarchists or third party types
I never played with 4e. I take it they dumbed down the rules?
Yep. Think Diablo II or WoW. That is sort of how it plays now. Much more streamlined and efficient, at the cost of 3.5e’s high quality and richness. Not the place to discuss this really, but it’s just worth mentioning…
-Jon
Wouldn’t black be Anarchists?
I think Third Party types should be “Yellow”, since it is a lighter color than Red or Blue, but not as light as “Light”, if that makes any sense. I also think that “black + “x” color” would a fitting scheme for various flavors of anarchism.
For some reason, color wise, I’m thinking the military / police / prison complex should be in a type of black & grey camo, or black & green camo.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who wasted hours getting those rare character cards 
As for the tangent, I’m thinking I should start new thread for this proto-idea we’re engaged in…
*Edit: I’m assuming relevant posts could be moved there, too?
I was just trying to follow the concept of the original Magic game (black being death) but perhaps you are right; this might also make it less likely that we will get sued if we actually go through with this. 
I agree
Not really. Old Branden was a “man whore” in many respects and had quite the history of playing women on of each other (Barbara against Ayn, and so on). Plus, he’s a quack Freudian these days and espouses that homosexuality is ‘bad’ and can be ‘cured’ by his “cheap” [quack] program!
I’m not defending Rand here, but I am clarifying who’s the quack that’s alive and who’s the bitchiest bitch who is dead. Btw, I happen to be a Randroid myself, so I can understand what you mean by her snobby attitude. And I do agree that she did have a superiority complex for sure.
How about Plato and his god awful work “The Republic”. It is an inspiration to all social engineers everywhere.
I was thinking the government, and people who support the government. Through all these tactics, they make the pigs that dominate us seem like heroes of liberty (animal farm refrence).
it is easily ayn rand for me.
I’d refer to the quote from alan moore when describing his watchmen character, Rorschach,
“I have to say I found Ayn Rand’s philosophy laughable. It was a ‘white supremacist dreams of the master race,’ burnt in an early-20th century form. Her ideas didn’t really appeal to me, but they seemed to be the kind of ideas that people would espouse, people who might secretly believe themselves to be part of the elite, and not part of the excluded majority.”
That’s really sad. It seems this guy falls in the category of morons who have not taken the time to appreciate and understand her philosophy.
-Jon
Well, you have to understand the character Rorschach, this is mentally unstable, sometimes sadistic character. Taking his views as being those of Alan Moore I think is mistaken. Rorschach is a “complex” character to put it mildly. I would not assume his views are those of Alan Moore.
Edit: But, yes, it seems he does not understand her philsophy
As long as one does not interpret Ayn Rand as the end all be all, half of the percieved uneasiness of her philosphy dissapears, imo. I thought that Gramstand did an excellent job on the “Premises of Post-Objectivism” (http://folk.uio.no/thomas/po/post-objectivism.html), and I have to credit POP for leaving my mind open to consider what Rand has written.
That surely gets my vote: I’ve always loved and admired Greek civilization but from Plato onwards things didn’t work out as well as they used to. Lucian is still one of my favorite writers though.
Back to the original question. I’ve heard the name “Ronald Reagan” mentioned more than once and I agree with that, though I’d like to include him in a huge group of politicans who avowed to defend the cause of individual liberty, free market and small government but in practice ended up doing exactly the opposite. I think everyone of us could quote a handful of them from his/her personal experience both at national and local level. They usually present themselves as “men of the Right”, though their actions point to another political colour (before you say it, Goebbels & co also used a red flag). These politicians have done more to wreck the cause of liberty than any intellectual (with the possible exception of Rousseau and Marx).
Also let’s not forget those “capitalists” who in reality are little more than corporate welfare recipients, be it in guise of money, import duties or legislation designed to “curb” the competition, often in the name of “public good”. How can I call “free market supporter” or “freedom lover” a man who employs hired muscle (in the form of government officials, often uniformed and armed) to blast away the competition, often because he’s afraid of the innovation these competitors are bringing (and he’s not willing to invest more) or because he’s in a cozy relationship with trade unions and lowering prices to fight back against an aggressive newcomer would mean less slices of pie for everyone. And we know how fat cats are.