The Opposite of Tyranny is Play

Fair play or a rigged game?

Inroduction

The other day, I caught an episode of Joe Rogan talking with Jordan Peterson. During the 3-hour conversation, Peterson made an observation that hit me like a brick. He had been studying the psychology of tyranny for decades and was trying to figure out what the opposite of tyranny is. He decided it must be play. (see: Rogan and Peterson)

During his lengthy explanation, he told the story of Moses leading the jews across the desert to the promised land. Moses failed in the end, not because he had not been an authentic leader, but because, rather than using persuasion to lead his people as instructed by God, he succumbed, just once, to the temptations of power, the tool of oppression misused by the Pharaoh to enslave the Jews.

I have written and talked about tyranny before, but not at the scale of thinking these two were discussing. My focus has been local, where tyrannical policies are also prevalent but less recognizable.

As virtual bricks thrown through my mental window often do, this one sent me on the quest that follows from an authentic question. (note common root). “How is tyranny and play connected?

I have been writing and talking about tyranny too, but not at the scale of thinking these two were discussing. My focus has been local, where tyrannical policies are still effective but less recognizable than the violent tyrannical acts of a dictator or pharaoh.

Whether a local proposal to eliminate parking in a scheme to punish car use and force people to walk or bike, California’s policy for making liquid-fueled cars illegal by using a waiver under the EPA (see: Diamond v. EPA 24-7 ), or a federal attack on the production of fossil fuels, all share a common cause; to combat the ‘climate crisis’ by restricting your sovereign right to choose. All three are an exercise of the tools of “soft-tyranny” used to control the choices people are entitled to make about how they live.

While ‘hard’ tyranny uses violence to force or control behavior, soft tyranny uses propaganda, censorship, narratives, peer pressure, and laws to control behavior, but this is still tyranny.

While local initiatives using soft tyranny are more limited in scope and harder to detect, every act of government at every level should be rejected if it leads to the growth of tyranny, which by its nature is a reduction of personal liberty, no matter how small the incremental step towards one and away from the other.

This article seeks to answer the question, “What is the opposite of tyranny, and how do we know it when we see it?”

Fair versus Rigged Games

If playing in a fair game is the opposite of tyranny, then tyranny is a rigged game. As Peterson points out, the problem with games is that they can be “gamed” by people with malevolent motives.

After all, the ultimate malevolent traits, (narcissism—commandeering the reputation of others; Machiavellianism—war by words; psychopaths—lack of empathy; and sadists—pleasure from unearned pain of innocents), operate by commandeering the mechanisms of trust, infiltrating social systems, and using that power in the service of their desires.

Because they “wear your clothes, speak your words and carry your flag,” as Jordan put it, how are we supposed to figure out who to trust and who to follow? What is the difference between an authentic leader, who sincerely acts in the service of others, and a pathological leader, who acts to control others to benefit themselves, both materially and psychologically?

Fair Play is to Liberty, as Rigged Games are to Tyranny

If we are to understand liberty and tyranny as games we play, we need to know something about how games work. The first thing about a play is that it is always voluntary. If you have had a child or a dog, you know the game always begins with an invitation. If a puppy tries to force another dog to play when it doesn’t want to, it might get nipped. Playing is a choice and never a mandate.

Play is voluntary, self-directed, meaningful, and cooperative, so it is also fun. If the game violates any of these principles, it is not fun, and the game does not last as long because you are always free to quit. This is the experience of liberty.

If you are forced to play a game with rules that are not fair, hold little personal meaning, and involve coercion by fear, it is a rigged game. Although it is not fun, the game may last longer than you want, because you are not free to quit. This is the experience of tyranny. To understand the difference, we might ask the following questions:

Tyranny: a rigged game you cannot quit

If play is a metaphor for liberty, then the most fitting metaphor for tyranny is a rigged game, a system in which the rules are fixed and modified unfairly by others, participation is coerced, outcomes are predetermined, imagination is restricted, and the “players” are not free to leave, agree to change the rules, or redefine the objective.

A rigged game mimics a system of order and structure of a fair contest, but is dishonest at its core. Play is an act of voluntary and shared meaning. A rigged game is a device of manipulative control. It’s an inversion of play, an act of domination camouflaged in the structure of a game.

If you play such a game, you don’t feel like a player, but a set piece on the board. Rules are applied unevenly, made by someone beyond the field of play, without regard for who may be crushed by them. The game can only be won by those who control it. Dissent is considered a form of “cheating.”

A cinematic representation of a rigged game is the movie Hunger Games, where the game cannot be escaped, and the rules are made by those unaffected by the deadly nature of the game, who retain the power to decide who “wins.”

If liberty is an open field with structured and transparent rules, tyranny is a maze with invisible walls and unforeseeable traps. You can move, but only where permitted. You can speak, but only what’s allowed. You can act, but only within the rules made by others. The more the maze disguises itself as a structure of freedom, the more dangerous it becomes.

Tyranny is a game with rules, but the rules are engineered to ensure one team always wins, and when that advantage is threatened, the rules are quietly changed to preserve or expand that advantage. A rigged game is a game motivated by tyranny.

Core Characteristics of the Tyrant’s Game:

A rigged game presents a facade of fairness because it looks like a game. There are “rules,” “referees,” “scoreboards,” and even “public input.” But the rules permit asymmetrical enforcement where one side gets penalties, the other gets excused.

Rules are flexible, but only for those with the power to control them. If their team falls behind on the scoreboard, the game can be paused while the rules are changed to even the score. Participation is mandatory. Refusing to play or opting out is a punishable offense or rendered irrelevant.

Through narrative control, the tyrant's team writes the commentary, so even losing is redefined as winning. Merit is irrelevant because outcomes are predetermined by structure, not skill. It becomes a pseudo-game: predictable, not competitive, compelled, not voluntary, manipulated, not meaningful.

In contrast to the rigged game of tyranny, the fair play of liberty is voluntary, fair, rule-bound, transparent, adaptable by consent, and open to surprise that invites innovation. The purpose of the rigged game is not to be a source of fun, but a tool of domination.

In a free society, even the most powerful players live under the same rules. We say, “We are a nation of laws, not of men”. In a tyrannical society, power is the rule, and the game is merely a show to maintain the perception of legitimacy. Refusal to play under rigged rules is framed not as legitimate dissent, but as disobedience to the approved orthodoxy.

Refusing the Rigged Game

In a fair game (or just society), opting out is a legitimate moral choice. In a rigged game (unjust society), refusal to play exposes the game as illegitimate. It must be punished because non-compliance challenges the illusion of fairness. It must be silenced because it threatens control, so it must be portrayed as bigotry, extremism, or conduct placing others at risk.

Female athletes who resist competing against biological males in women’s sports (recall the fencer who took a knee) present a clear example of how the rigged game works. If they say, “This is no longer play, it is coercion,” the refusal to play by the imposed rules is, in truth, an act of legitimate protest, but is re-framed as a violation of 'inclusivity', a euphemism for bigotry.

Dissenters are stripped of recognition, reputations are ruined, they are excluded from their teams, and smeared in media, not because they broke fair rules but because they refused to endorse the lie that men competing in women’s sports is fair.

This aligns with the moral concept of “living in truth” under a system of tyranny. The Czechs know something about that:

"You do not have to take up arms to resist tyranny. You simply must refuse to say what you do not believe." –Václav Havel (wikipedia.org_Havel )

Solzhenitsyn came to a similar conclusion after becoming a victim of Soviet tyranny:

But as Solzhenitsyn also knew, courage is not without consequences.

A simple Test: Liberty or Tyranny?

With liberty, the rules are transparent, consistent, and allow for honest dissent without punishment.

With tyranny, the rules shift to favor one side, and refusal to pretend they’re fair becomes a punishable offense.

To return to the example of female athletes, the rigging isn't just about what they are forced to do, but also the demand that they consent to the claim of “fairness”, even when they know the premise is false. This is how the rules are changed to ensure the “right” side wins.

Compelled speech is framed as inclusion. Selective law enforcement is framed as equity. Manipulated elections are presented as democracy. Punishment of dissenters is rationalized as justice for presumed victims. The rigged game takes the form of play, but not the liberty that defines the structured freedoms of authentic play. Many contemporary examples illustrate the point.

Boys in Girls Sports: The participation of biological males in female sports, often justified under the umbrella of gender identity laws, redefines the rules of competition without the consent of all players. Female athletes are compelled to compete in a game where physiological advantages are unbalanced and unfair.

Raising objections or refusing to compete brings sanctions, lost scholarships, and public condemnation. The rules have been altered mid-game (Title IX has been around since 1972, aimed at creating fairness among the two sexes) to favor ambiguous minority rights, undermining basic fairness and biological realities.

Compelled Speech: Laws or policies that force individuals to use preferred pronouns or affirm ideologies against their beliefs are coercive. They demand participation in an approved worldview and penalize noncompliance, not for actions, but for failing to affirm imposed beliefs.

This undermines free expression and freedom of conscience. Certain words are considered appropriate when used by the victim class, but offensive if used by others. There is a long list of words or phrases deemed taboo or offensive, often punished via social, professional, or institutional consequences, if spoken by a person of the wrong social identity.

Words you must use: Latinx" or "Latine" not Latino/Latina; "Pregnant people" not Women; "Justice-involved individual" not Criminal/offender; "Person experiencing substance use disorder" not Addict; "Undocumented worker" not Illegal immigrant; "Gender-affirming care" not Hormonal/surgical sex changes; "Assigned male at birth" not Male; "Climate crisis" or "climate emergency" not gradual global warming or natural climate change. The list is endless.

Words you must not use: "Nigger" may be used by black individuals, and sometimes in in the contexts of music or comedy, but never by a white person, when it is automatically considered racially derogatory. “Queer” may be used proudly by the self-identified LGBTQ+ community, but is offensive if used by outsiders. “Illegal alien” is correct in legal/governmental contexts, but is considered dehumanizing in general speech. "Wuhan virus" or "China virus" used by politicians/media is often censured or framed as racist despite the reality of its geographic origin. “All Lives Matter” is interpreted as opposition to the slogan "Black Lives Matter," bringing accusations of insensitivity or racism. "Groomer" when used by gender ideology critics, is viewed as a smear, even when grooming is a known tactic of pedophiles and cultists.

Selective Law Enforcement: The disparate treatment of protestors, e.g., leniency toward Antifa vandals and even murderers, versus severe punishment for January 6 participants, or the disparate treatment of conduct by politicians within the prevailing power base, illustrates a two-tiered justice system. The rules of protest are not applied equally, and political affiliation is the primary determinant of consequences.

Election Manipulation: Accusations of biased media, suppression of opposing viewpoints on social platforms, and coordinated disinformation campaigns erode the legitimacy of the electoral game. When rules change during an election (mail-in ballots, debate silencing, censorship), it mimics the tyrant’s rigged game by moving the goalposts mid-play and restricting transparency in rulemaking.

Punishment of Dissenters: Whistleblowers, journalists, parents protesting at school boards, or even critical elected officials face career destruction, censorship, or surveillance for opposing dominant narratives. In tyrannical systems, dissent is framed not as disagreement but as a danger to the prevailing power structure.

These examples reveal asymmetries in cultural power. When speech is policed not simply for clarity or civility but as a proxy for ideological allegiance, it changes the rules from etiquette to indoctrination and orthodoxy. The evolving rules serve as social loyalty tests, and breaking them, intentionally or not, can result in exile from professional, academic, or social spheres, or criminal punishments selectively applied.

Judging your leaders by the way they lead:

I started this article by distinguishing “soft tyranny” from its more violent forms, where the compulsive elements are more difficult to see. In the case of well-known tyrants, like Stalin, Mao, Hitler, or Pol Pot, history provides obvious examples of “hard tyranny” where violence is the coercive force. Both forms share common features of pathological leadership.

Compare the infamous list of hard tyrants to people like Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, or Martin Luther King. Compare your favorite Social Justice Warrior to a Constitutional republican. What tests can we apply to our leaders’ words and actions to help us distinguish between authentic and pathological leadership?

Here is a checklist that might be helpful.

When listening to political leaders promote their policy objectives, run their language through this filter to see what games the authentic and pathological leaders are playing.

An authentic leader says, “Here is the truth as I see it. I invite you to consider it. You are free to agree, disagree, or walk away. You can be trusted with the truth and the choice.”

A pathological leader says, “You must do this to avoid certain catastrophe. If you refuse, you are the problem, and we’ll treat you as such. You cannot be trusted with the truth.”