Hot on the heels of the new computer game "Grand Theft Auto IV" there's a new game that has just been released. It's called "Shooting Libz"^. The idea is to interact in a virtual world running into various Libertarian types and restoring community order by preventing them from doing that particular activity. You get credits (virtual cash) for every socially destructive or offensive activity prevented. You then use this money in later stages of the game to fund political activities to either stop or counter the Libz. It's sick.
You have a range of measures that can be taken, one of the most extreme being using lethal force. The game can be tricky, as you can lose money (usually via legal fees) if you are too heavy handed, apply the wrong measure or use your "measures" in the wrong way. Play the ban card too often and you'll end up with the Greens in power and being carted off to the Gulags.
For example, shooting a libertarian for selling a copy of The South Park "Bloody Mary" episode can see you lose $50,000 - via Legal Fees over the ensuing court case. However, there are clues in the game that you collect which prove the Libertarian was selling bootleg (pirate) copies. With this evidence in hand, you can happily blow them away knowing the South Park legal team will get you off scott free.
Generally, the Libz can be recognised by their actions. In the game, they are typically doing something particularly offensive. It seems the right to offend people is their measure of freedom. As you blast them, arrest them, deport them, legally restrict them or ban them, they expire uttering the phrase "no-one has a right to be offended".
Naturally, its unfair to vilify Libz and blame them for society's woes. This is obviously a nice bit of propaganda by the left wing authoritarians. They've hit on the fact that as long as it's violent or funny, (and ideally both) you can get away with anything. People will spend money on it hand over fist, and hey - that's free will meeting the free market.
That aside, the game shines in the way it exposes evil groups posing as Liberal types and using the guise of "free speech" or "equal rights" to gain their own agenda.
For example, if you catch a pedophile having a "consensual relationship" with an 11 year old boy, you can use lethal force and earn up to 100,000 credits. Double if you have actually acquired a gun permit. However, wait too long and instead you could be the one in trouble, and down 100,000 credits. Seems that NAMBLA and ACLU managed to get the legal age of consent lowered to 11 whilst you were out hunting down Class A Drug Dealers.
Speaking of which, the drug theme plays out quite well in the game. You'll find all sorts of drugs freely available when the game commences. As time goes on, more citizens end up as drug crazed individuals, and you can merely suggest that a Libz has plenty of drugs for sale and see the credits mount up as they become victims of robberies, muggings, and in one scenario, run down by a large Kenworth truck after a truckie spaces out after an all night drive on some bad BZP party pills. The graphics are superb, and you can see why the game has an R18 rating.
Drugs are also useful in the game as things to ban. By banning certain drugs and not others, you flush out a whole pile of Libz that demand everything is treated equally. You don't score extra credits for playing the prohibition card, but you get a nice scene where Libz are dragged away screaming about their right to use crack. The judge sends them up for 30 years, and its only later you find clues that point to the judge being on P at the time, and was actually paranoid the Libz were out to get him. Do you hand the evidence over, or do you wait until "market forces" puts in an impartial judge?
I don't want to spoil the scenario, but let me just say it ties in nicely with the level where you (in an interesting plot twist) fund a Liberal Group to end food regulation laws and keep the government out of private business. The ensuing food poisoning scene for the Libz who end up in jail after the drug case is a total riot. Seems that due to the privately run prison failing to observe hygiene regulations, they upped their profits and no-one cared about the occasional death of an inmate.
So how do you win the game? The NZ edition reportedly has a Mr P. as a P dealing Libertarian kingpin that must be hunted down and destroyed.
You do this by luring him into a trap. The trap involves burning Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" in a room. The room is in a building. The building is being demolished by a disgruntled architect known only as "PC" (some kind of play on Political Correctness no doubt) who didn't like the fact that one of the builders put in pine window sashes instead of the extremely rare Indonesian Teak. If you play the game right, Mr P rushes into the doomed building and perishes in the resulting explosion.
At this point, the architect has to face up to the fact that even though he designed the building, others helped build it, still others funded it, and ultimately, drug dealers perished against their will in it. The architect realises that he hadn't truly considered the valuable input from other groups (it turned out the Indonesian Teak had a termite infestation that would have destroyed the building anyway) and decides he was being too self-centred and instead joins the Salvation Army and finds God. The moral issue of you luring a person to his death appears to be skipped over.
The effects are realistic and somewhat disturbing. When it comes down to it, no-one really wants to see even virtual Libertarians and Liberal types demonised. It's just a little sick.
Libertarians in the real world of course defend this game, in all its inaccuracies as a fundamental right of citizens to play it. Libertarians are not worried. They have four massive beliefs that will see them through:
1. With Freedom, comes responsibility. And they know every-one knows this.
2. It is against the law to murder people. Anyone murdering Libertarians, if caught, will be punished severely*. So it doesn't matter if violent video games fuel this.
3. These games are not the real issue. They are the symptom, not the disease. If we banned violent games that promoted the idea that Libertarians were anarchistic loons, we'd also have to ban beer. And probably posts about beer.
4. People do not have the right to be offended.
As games become more realistic the lines will only be blurred further. Eventually, people will be demanding the right to beat and rape androids programmed to respond like a submissive fearful human, arguing that we shouldn't judge such desires or find them offensive.
I don't find these games offensive, just morally destructive. As such, any action I may take is not about being offended, it is about my right to self-defence. I'm defending myself and my family.
If the suggestion is to treat the disease and not the symptoms, we must first recognise that diseased we are.
Liberals challenge conservatives to come out with a "goody goody two shoes" kind of game and see if virtue sells better than sin.
As if that proves sin is therefore good.
Well, as idiotic as that logic is, I have great news for the liberal masses. We do have a totally realistic game that people play where virtue plays out better than sin. It can take some people their entire life to figure out what it is that brings about real and lasting happiness, and admittedly not every-one has time to read and understand the rule book.
It's called "love". It's played in "real life". Feedback is tactile, hits all the senses and experienced players demonstrate a certain grace, generosity of spirit and caritas that simply leaves the newbie players agape**.
My advice - play as if your soul depends upon it.
--ZenTiger
Related: Kiwiblog and Raybon on GTA
Footnotes-----------------------------
^Yes, it's satire.
*Unless they can prove the Libertarian consented, then it's simply a contract killing, which would be legal in Libertarian land.
**Pun intended. Sorry.
You have a range of measures that can be taken, one of the most extreme being using lethal force. The game can be tricky, as you can lose money (usually via legal fees) if you are too heavy handed, apply the wrong measure or use your "measures" in the wrong way. Play the ban card too often and you'll end up with the Greens in power and being carted off to the Gulags.
For example, shooting a libertarian for selling a copy of The South Park "Bloody Mary" episode can see you lose $50,000 - via Legal Fees over the ensuing court case. However, there are clues in the game that you collect which prove the Libertarian was selling bootleg (pirate) copies. With this evidence in hand, you can happily blow them away knowing the South Park legal team will get you off scott free.
Generally, the Libz can be recognised by their actions. In the game, they are typically doing something particularly offensive. It seems the right to offend people is their measure of freedom. As you blast them, arrest them, deport them, legally restrict them or ban them, they expire uttering the phrase "no-one has a right to be offended".
Naturally, its unfair to vilify Libz and blame them for society's woes. This is obviously a nice bit of propaganda by the left wing authoritarians. They've hit on the fact that as long as it's violent or funny, (and ideally both) you can get away with anything. People will spend money on it hand over fist, and hey - that's free will meeting the free market.
That aside, the game shines in the way it exposes evil groups posing as Liberal types and using the guise of "free speech" or "equal rights" to gain their own agenda.
For example, if you catch a pedophile having a "consensual relationship" with an 11 year old boy, you can use lethal force and earn up to 100,000 credits. Double if you have actually acquired a gun permit. However, wait too long and instead you could be the one in trouble, and down 100,000 credits. Seems that NAMBLA and ACLU managed to get the legal age of consent lowered to 11 whilst you were out hunting down Class A Drug Dealers.
Speaking of which, the drug theme plays out quite well in the game. You'll find all sorts of drugs freely available when the game commences. As time goes on, more citizens end up as drug crazed individuals, and you can merely suggest that a Libz has plenty of drugs for sale and see the credits mount up as they become victims of robberies, muggings, and in one scenario, run down by a large Kenworth truck after a truckie spaces out after an all night drive on some bad BZP party pills. The graphics are superb, and you can see why the game has an R18 rating.
Drugs are also useful in the game as things to ban. By banning certain drugs and not others, you flush out a whole pile of Libz that demand everything is treated equally. You don't score extra credits for playing the prohibition card, but you get a nice scene where Libz are dragged away screaming about their right to use crack. The judge sends them up for 30 years, and its only later you find clues that point to the judge being on P at the time, and was actually paranoid the Libz were out to get him. Do you hand the evidence over, or do you wait until "market forces" puts in an impartial judge?
I don't want to spoil the scenario, but let me just say it ties in nicely with the level where you (in an interesting plot twist) fund a Liberal Group to end food regulation laws and keep the government out of private business. The ensuing food poisoning scene for the Libz who end up in jail after the drug case is a total riot. Seems that due to the privately run prison failing to observe hygiene regulations, they upped their profits and no-one cared about the occasional death of an inmate.
So how do you win the game? The NZ edition reportedly has a Mr P. as a P dealing Libertarian kingpin that must be hunted down and destroyed.
You do this by luring him into a trap. The trap involves burning Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" in a room. The room is in a building. The building is being demolished by a disgruntled architect known only as "PC" (some kind of play on Political Correctness no doubt) who didn't like the fact that one of the builders put in pine window sashes instead of the extremely rare Indonesian Teak. If you play the game right, Mr P rushes into the doomed building and perishes in the resulting explosion.
At this point, the architect has to face up to the fact that even though he designed the building, others helped build it, still others funded it, and ultimately, drug dealers perished against their will in it. The architect realises that he hadn't truly considered the valuable input from other groups (it turned out the Indonesian Teak had a termite infestation that would have destroyed the building anyway) and decides he was being too self-centred and instead joins the Salvation Army and finds God. The moral issue of you luring a person to his death appears to be skipped over.
The effects are realistic and somewhat disturbing. When it comes down to it, no-one really wants to see even virtual Libertarians and Liberal types demonised. It's just a little sick.
Libertarians in the real world of course defend this game, in all its inaccuracies as a fundamental right of citizens to play it. Libertarians are not worried. They have four massive beliefs that will see them through:
1. With Freedom, comes responsibility. And they know every-one knows this.
2. It is against the law to murder people. Anyone murdering Libertarians, if caught, will be punished severely*. So it doesn't matter if violent video games fuel this.
3. These games are not the real issue. They are the symptom, not the disease. If we banned violent games that promoted the idea that Libertarians were anarchistic loons, we'd also have to ban beer. And probably posts about beer.
4. People do not have the right to be offended.
As games become more realistic the lines will only be blurred further. Eventually, people will be demanding the right to beat and rape androids programmed to respond like a submissive fearful human, arguing that we shouldn't judge such desires or find them offensive.
I don't find these games offensive, just morally destructive. As such, any action I may take is not about being offended, it is about my right to self-defence. I'm defending myself and my family.
If the suggestion is to treat the disease and not the symptoms, we must first recognise that diseased we are.
Liberals challenge conservatives to come out with a "goody goody two shoes" kind of game and see if virtue sells better than sin.
As if that proves sin is therefore good.
Well, as idiotic as that logic is, I have great news for the liberal masses. We do have a totally realistic game that people play where virtue plays out better than sin. It can take some people their entire life to figure out what it is that brings about real and lasting happiness, and admittedly not every-one has time to read and understand the rule book.
It's called "love". It's played in "real life". Feedback is tactile, hits all the senses and experienced players demonstrate a certain grace, generosity of spirit and caritas that simply leaves the newbie players agape**.
My advice - play as if your soul depends upon it.
--ZenTiger
Related: Kiwiblog and Raybon on GTA
Footnotes-----------------------------
^Yes, it's satire.
*Unless they can prove the Libertarian consented, then it's simply a contract killing, which would be legal in Libertarian land.
**Pun intended. Sorry.
Hey, Zen.
ReplyDeleteImpressive. My only regret is that the piece was satirical. Sounded like a good idea for a game that would make a buck.
But then I realised that in order for such a wonderful idea to be successfully commercialised it would require a market place where there was both a widespread general knowledge about Libz and their ideologies, on the one hand, and a working knowledge of their lacunae, inconsistencies, and fetishes, on the other.
Without these two preconditions, there would be insufficient market demand--so, a bad investment. The first precondition appears necessary before the latter will transpire. However, the Libz seemed to have failed spectacularly in achieving the first condition.
Since, in their world view, the free market place is the highest canon of verity and utility, one wonders how they can be so slow in getting the message from their deity.
JT
Zen
ReplyDeleteI want one! You should make such a game - it would sell like hotcakes!
Very funny Zen! One I'll have to print out.
ReplyDeleteJust as a matter of interest, this is what Ayn Rand said about drug use/users:
Happy, self-confident men do not seek to get "stoned."
Drug addiction is the attempt to obliterate one's consciousness, the quest for a deliberately induced insanity. As such, it is so obscene an evil that any doubt about the moral character of its practitioners is itself an obscenity. from essay "Apollo and Dionysus
Her strong views on drugs are simply never mentioned in the rush for the stoner vote.
The problem is that libertarians ignore secondary impacts of their actions.
Not amused.
ReplyDeleteYes all terribly amusing, except, of course, that the libertarian idea is hardly a complete philosophy - it just outlines the role of the state. It doesn't mean liking or approving of everything people do. Drug taking is, by and large, rather destructive though not necessarily so. Nihilism and getting a thrill from violence is simply vile.
ReplyDeleteThe difference is that some of us want to change culture and society through persuasion, not the use of force. Many conservatives want force.
Ruth is right about Rand's view on drugs, but she never sought their criminalisation. Which in fact proves my point. I find people who don't wash who stand near me in the tube make me feel sick for a while afterwards, but I'm not going to advocate a law passed to criminalise unhygienic people!
It might be more accurate to say that many conservatives want law and order, with laws to guarantee their way of life will be protected.
ReplyDeleteSome groups need to destroy this way of life in order that their values gain dominance. You'll let such people destroy you too, without you realizing it.
I understand your fear that behind every opinion there is an implicit threat of force if the person or group was "king for the day". Look at NotPC. If he got voted in , half of Government would be "gone by lunchtime". Very persuasive!
Which highlights that many groups don't need to use force to change society. They use the legal system and parliamentary system quite effectively anyway. I think this is scarier. It's so much harder to organise any sort of resistance.
In a recent survey, some huge percentage of Maori (and quite probably Pakeha too) didn't even know there will be an election this year. They'll just vote the same, if they have bothered to enroll.
Libertarians also want some laws to be enforced, ones that protect property rights at the very least. Although, having an incomplete philosophy might mean that how one first acquires property could prove to be a dangerous loophole.
Hah! What was I drinking when I wrote this back on the 4th of May, 2008?
ReplyDeleteThinking back, I think I was actually poking fun (in my own way where I don't get around to making that particular point at all to anyone reading this but myself) at Peter Cresswell's frequent one-sided rants about religion.
On a blog, any fool can do a one sided rant. On a good blog, the comments will cover the spectrum of responses that might encourage deeper appreciation of the topic.
So feel free to comment :-)
With a few more months of life under my belt I better see your point. Libertarians in our experience are bluntly formulaic in their world view, and so it comes across. Not much of it could not be covered by a recreational software algorithm.
ReplyDeleteI think I've got something better than that to offer in terms of libertarianism. It's a hard enough slog without having the frequency jammed!