From: Keith M. Elis (zarathustra_winced@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed May 14 2003 - 10:10:54 MDT
Anders Sandberg:
> Personally I find Virginia Postrel's analysis in terms of dynamists and
> stasists more useful for our discussion. There are of course
> differences within these camps, such as between technocratic and
> reactionary stasists and left- and right- dynamists of different kinds.
I'm half serious when I say that the game Dungeons and Dragons' alignment system provides an even better description of the possibilities: 9 possibilities with each described as the intersection of 3 types of means, and 3 types of ends.
Chaotic Good, Neutral Good, Lawful Good,
Chaotic Neutral, Neutral Neutral, Lawful Neutral
Chaotic Evil, Neutral Evil, Lawful Evil.
To overstate my case, I can't think of a better way to look at the spectrum of strategies and methods. This system has room for every political philosophy and movement of modernity.
Chaotic Good -- Anarcho-capitalism
Neutral Good -- Libertarianism
Lawful Good -- Socialism, Modern Conservativism, Modern Liberalism
Chaotic Neutral -- Separatism, Anarchist egoism
Neutral Neutral -- Objectivism
Lawful Neutral -- Modern Big Business
Chaotic Evil -- Terrorism
Neutral Evil -- Can't think of one offhand
Lawful Evil -- Fascism
This is clearly a breakthrough in political science. I'll be starting an email list to discuss the theoretical implications of these matters. (I'm also starting to have ideas about a social analysis of the world population in terms of the D&D character classes. Stay tuned.).
Keith
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 14 2003 - 10:23:01 MDT