The question of government in virtual worlds is a controversial one. The Second Life forums have occasionally burned brightly with the flame wars initiated by discussion of player-run democracy. Why do some people living and working in Second Life feel the need for a government? What would it do? And who should it govern?
I was struck by one potential need for government (in the real world and in virtual worlds) the other day. On my way to an appointment I noticed that the traffic lights at a busy intersection were down. Crossing this road is tricky at the best of times but very scary with no traffic signals to say when pedestrians are safe to cross the road. Luckily I wasn’t in a hurry so I could take my time and observe what was taking place. Pedestrians didn’t get stand much of a chance! Cars, lorries and buses pushed ahead trying to keep the flow of their lane going and preventing the cross stream from cutting in. There wasn’t a great deal of turn-taking or polite behaviour in evidence, just a Hobbesian war of ‘all against all’.
It occurred to me that this form of regulation is one of the legitimate functions of government. Most motorists and pedestrians accept that traffic lights are useful to them. They allow traffic to flow safely, prevent accidents and they balance the power of the strong (lorries, cars) against the rights of more vulnerable parties (cyclists, pedestrians). That, for me, is one of the indispensable functions that government could fulfil in a virtual world too; acting as ringleader between competing interests, providing necessary regulation to allow avatars to fulfil their ambitions and balancing the power of the stronger (wealthy land barons, established residents) against the rights of those with less power in the Second Life economy and society (newbies, basic members, consumers).
In the real world government fulfils a number of other functions as well as regulating the flow of traffic. Core functions, common to all states are defence of the nation and policing to guard public safety. In addition, most wealthy modern democracies have some form of welfare state which provides a safety net for citizens in times of unemployment or ill health. Many democracies, especially in Europe, have systems of socialised healthcare in addition to the private provision of health services. In these democracies the state provides a minimum standard of publicly-funded education and access to higher education. Slightly more controversially, many states see their role as sponsoring certain industries. Even more controversially, and extending into potential ‘nanny state’ territory, many also argue that government also has a role as ‘choice editor’, saving us from our worst instincts in the face of environmental pressures, failure to save for our old age and the pervasive availability of junk food. Government in this view sets the ‘default’ options in favour of positive outcomes for individuals and for public policy.
In Second Life there is a strong bias against player-run government. There are a number of reasons for this, one of the most obvious factors being the type, and nationality, of people who have been attracted to Second Life. The vast majority, 80% or so, of SL citizens are from the United States and the US has a strong intellectual tradition that is mistrustful of government. The establishment of a democratic republic in response to monarchist tyranny and abuse of power is the generally accepted founding story that America likes to relate to itself. The notion that government can be a force for good and play a positive role in society gains much less favour in America compared to Europe for example. In addition Second Life’s demographic to date has been heavily weighted towards internet early adopters and content creators with a liberal (and libertarian) outlook. The dispute over the need for government in a virtual world is but one of many battles that have taken place over, for example, the role of commercial activity in Second Life and whether it is a game, a platform, a country, the metaverse or something else entirely.
Bias apart, many would argue that there really is no need for a government in a virtual world like Second Life. Our avatars do not require food, shelter or water, there is no need for defence against enemy nations (except where people are role-playing war games) and if you transact business without bearing in mind the maxim “Buyer beware” you only have yourself to blame, right? In Second Life there is no intrinsic need for the goods available; one can survive perfectly well without land, prims, currency, employment, new clothes or hoochie hair. If someone is harassing you through IM or stalking you using scanning and spying tools Linden Lab will step in and discipline them, right? Well that’s all true but only up to a point. For starters Linden Lab could be described as ‘the government of Second Life’ but only in the sense that a benign dictatorship exercises some of the responsibilities of government in a fairly capricious fashion. And, unlike a democratically-elected government, you can’t get rid of them except by defecting to another virtual world with the consequent loss of any virtual goods, commercial reputation or other forms of intangible capital that may have been accumulated.
This brings me to Neualtenburg, an experiment in representative democracy and collective decision-making. The Neualtenburg Projekt has been running for almost two years. Neualtenburg has a territory (the Neualtenburg sim), an elected legislature (the Representative Assembly) as well as a judiciary (the Scientific Council) and an artisan’s guild. Neualtenburg has its own Constitution and set of laws. Its citizens have opted to take collective decisions about zoning the sim into residential, commercial, mixed use and public spaces. By doing so they have agreed to abide by certain rules to preserve the unique character and appearance of the City. As the theme is largely modelled on a medieval Bavarian town there is, for example, no scope for building a floating spaceship in the residential quarter inside the city walls!
What is really interesting about Neualtenburg’s recent developments is that the City is beginning to offer goods and services that only a ‘government’ can provide including the registration and incorporation of companies and banking regulation. I think this makes Neualtenburg a potential model for others to follow, if they can get beyond an antipathy to ‘other players having power over me’ and the drama that occasionally flares up on Neualtenburg’s forums. The first barrier will be weakened by the influx of more people with more varied attitudes towards the role of government. The anarcho-libertarian hegemony in Second Life is likely to be diluted as more people, with more varied opinions and experiences, join. The drama of the forums is more of a double-edged sword. It certainly puts off a lot of people who would otherwise be attracted to Neualtenburg. My initial evaluation was that I couldn’t face spending hours in virtual meetings debating dry points of constitutional law or getting dragged into the inevitable flame wars. On the other hand it also draws in new people. I signed up after getting drawn into an interesting constitutional debate that covered the separation of powers, checks and balances between branches of government and how to balance minority rights with the democratic will of the majority. I am reliably informed that each of these forum spats has led to an increase in citizenship as people are drawn to the drama!
But most people, looking at Neualtenburg from outside, could be forgiven for concluding that the project has failed to live up to its promise. Two years on it is restricted to one sim while Anshe’s dominion covers a whole continent and even a recent land baron such as Desmond Shang can claim four sims. (Expansion to a second sim is imminent though and should be completed by the end of 2006). I think it would be a mistake to underestimate Neualtenburg’s potential though. In the real world, democracy is the most stable government formation human societies have developed so far, and is highly correlated with economic growth. If Neualtenburg’s political structures are strong enough, they should be able to outlast not only the current members of the government, but also the original founders of the project. Neualtenburg is going through a testing time at the moment after the departure of one of its founders, Ulrika Zugzwang, in January and her recent return to settle a number of disputes unresolved at the time of her departure. There are lessons to be learned here for other SL communities who want to explore democratic forms of sim management or who are engaged in collaborative work if they can see the issues underlying the drama. I am confident that Neualtenburg can get beyond its current difficulties and will emerge the stronger for it. I’ll be writing more about Neualtenburg, and the socio-political aspects of Second Life in the future.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License.
1 comment:
That was a good summary of the issues but..a rather too-charitable summary of the Neualtenberg dramas.
And what, ultimately, is your point? Your point of view about intrusive government -- government picked by the Lindens and not emerging from below -- should prevail? No thanks.
American or Asian, European or Latin American or Africa, people do not want to live under tyranny. That's why America is what it is; it is made up of people who fled the other parts of the world to freedom and prosperity. So it's not just about some one country of the world with some peculiar national trait and the software company happening to reflect that; it's about that country and the virtual world, too, serving as a magnet for the aspirations of many other people in many other countries with very different cultures wishing to seek more freedom and prosperity.
Therefore to promote the collectivism and government-intrusive solutions as somehow intrinsically European or intrinsically Asian, and therefore needing of special-pleading "tolerance" and "respect" and even to "prevail" is misleading -- because we know there are significant people in your countries who don't feel as you do, you on the left and the geeky fringy of societies. And if things get bad enough...they leave. And they come here.
Thus the constant leftist European way of promoting some monolithic mode ostensibly in the name of "Europe" when in fact it is only a portion of European opinion (and not especially reflective of the newer members of the EU in particular) begins to grate.
BTW, when we had the blackout that lasted 3-4 days a few years back, I marveled that at all the stop corners, where the stoplights went black, people developed a rhythm. They let a beat pass, they let a lane pass for a few minutes, then somehow naturally that lane subsidized and let the cross lane pass. It was quite something to see. There were no traffic accidents or pileups. It's because when people aren't dependent on government, they manage, and do quite well at it.
Post a Comment