Players of Democracy 3 mostly socialist liberals....graph!

Check it out:

Details here: … cialist-d/

Doesn’t the graph describe the political opinion of the population?

The problem is that although that is correct, people find it hard to see a political party or such to fit that and there are also other factors e.g. in Australia the Labor party was primarily voted out in 2013 for the game of thrones style leadership

Very interesting graph! :slight_smile: I’d very much like to believe it reflective of the populus (I am liberal, and I do like Bernie in the US) but… well, honestly I’d be surprised to see anything else. Not just because following a more capitalistic path is harder in the game, but also because it is a game. More specifically, it is a game where your controls are essentially government regulations. To follow a capitalistic conservative path the core idea would be ‘keep government as un-involved as possible while supporting big business’ - which would be a lot of turns of clicking ‘next’ while hoping the game sorts its self out. That’s the hardcore liberterian / capitalistic model (that eventually, at extreme levels, leads to oligarchy). The only rules you could pass in ‘Democracy 3’ would essentially be… consumer protection (which seems to annoy capitalists but is a mainstay of capitalism), lowering corporate taxes, and providing a solid police force to keep the companies / trade-secrets safe.

I’d be curious what would happen with that graph if you added an equal amount of pro-company, pro-capitalism, pro-deregulation buttons in the game - if people would follow those paths more when it would give them an equal amount of gameplay? I don’t know quite know how because, while I live in a capitalistic society, I still can’t completely wrap my brain along all the subtle ways that made it successful… Probably a lot of support to working internationally, legal protections for businesses (copyright enforcement, contract laws, police enforcement of the above), kickbacks from companies (buying elections), policies to encourage businesses to spend locally (+GDB) and not offshore labor (-unemployment)…

But it would be harder to pull the numbers to make that realistic, since sooo much of it happens under the hood and gets disputed. Guess you could look at US cities that have major companies (Google, Apple) move in and what the cities/states did to get them vs how it affected the employment / housing / taxes? Effects of anti-monopoly laws - how the economy was affected by them (while pleasing some companies and displeasing others but overall coming up pretty even). Government investments in companies (China for example does a lot of direct company support, including on international scales)… maybe just grab a few hardcore capitalists and pick their brains, they love talking about this and would likely point you to a ton of numbers.

So yea, love the chart, but conclusions would be more substantial in a more level playing field :slight_smile: (Not saying chart wouldn’t still stay the same of course, or that capitalism would be easier or have more success. But socialism is just easy to plot out and play, very nice, clear, controllable laws of cause-effect)

[EDIT] Here: - government tools and controls over capitalism. Basically what I’d said + effects of infrastructure on businesses. Also capitalism is pro-education (even free education for pre-university and even at university level) since it establishes a solid workforce without expense to the companies utilizing it (yes, a few private universities complain, but the bulk of capitalistic companies demand competitive employees), commerce regulations that help maintain a stable competitive economy.

Top of chart should be anarchy. Bottom should be fascism.

Constitutionalists are very near the top wanting the minimum amount of government.

Liberal is a misnomer. The correct term is progressive, ironic enough. The progressive spectrum spans the girth with BS fans wanting total control of the not-me.

Asymptotic to fascism the population needfully drops because of genocide.