The magic circle (Games need rules to create magic circles) can have undesirable effects as well. As discussed in the zetel about the magic circle, the idea is that all participants wrap a boundary around themselves that defines the rules of the game. But when the rules aren't actually defined beforehand, but are just decided on the fly, everything is great until someone goes against those implicit rules.

In society, this is how social contracts come to be. A group of people collectively start to operate a certain way, implicitly following unspoken - or at least legally undefined - rules. To all those participating within the magic circle of the social contract, the rules are explicit. So it's extremely distressing when someone "cheats" and breaks the rules.

To the people that were never following the rules in the first place though, the social contract is not something they ever agreed to. So they're not playing the game, and feel like they've been manipulated against their will (Plants Need Sunlight to Grow Well). This is the basis of the Libertarian movement.

I wonder if it's easier to not define the rules of the social contract so that the people playing the game have easier reason to be incensed with the folks that are not - but "should" be - playing the social contract game. Anger (ESRT Elements and Emotions) is a motivating feeling, and it would help bring their cause into a sense of justice if they could be angry with everyone that doesn't agree with their views.

Citations

#toolong