Strategy Games are Methodologically Mercantilistic OR What would a libertarian video game look like?
March 17th, 2011
Alright, you caught me. I like video games and always have. I’m not just talking about Halo or Counterstrike or Angry Birds or something otherwise rather accessible. I like the in-depth historical strategy games, and not even the build and swarm ones like Age of Empires. I love the Total War series, the Sim City series, Sid Meiers’ Civilization and, with more depth than most can handle, Hearts of Iron II. I’m scared to even purchase Hearts of Iron III. I almost did it on Steam recently but refrained out of fear that I might forget what it is like to ride a bike or smell fresh cut grass.
I recall a specific moment when I was playing Civilization IV and probably stroking a neckbeard for want of shaving and natural light when I realized that I was centrally planning a virtual world power’s economy. I was developing its infrastructure, coordinating the building in all of my cities, and managing the happiness of my citizens/subjects from the top-down, AND I WAS LOVING IT. Philosopher King Kenyon had a nice ring to it.
I then began a thorough soul-scouring and thought long and hard not only about what my enjoyment of such behavior could teach me about myself and humanity but also about what sorts of values games like this were teaching its players about government and economics. The inherent message of these games is that it is implicitly good or at least acceptable to rule and manage a mercantilist/mixed economy. That soon led me to wonder, deeply wonder: what would a libertarian strategy look like?
A libertarian strategy game certainly couldn’t be done on a macro level because if I were a libertarian ruler in Civilization I would sit back and uh, not rule, because ruling is axiomatically not a libertarian action. The whole game would have to take place on the micro level with the management of a legitimate firm or find some other way to reflect the values of methodological individualism and democratic emergence/common law. I don’t believe AI and programming languages are there yet, and once they are, you basically have Nozick’s Experience Machine. At that point get out there and live already, nerd!
In addition to the central planning aspect of strategy games, I’d be willing to estimate that a solid majority of video games are centered around war, or at the very least realistic violence. Granted, you’re almost always playing a well-contextualized “good guy” but even still that sort of reliable implicit confidence in acts of violence sends a rather uncritical and misleading message to its consumers; a little light coaxing and cursory information and we’re all geared up for (possibly) righteous mayhem! Perhaps these texts can be viewed like literature where you can’t trust the narrator to tell the truth about the story. These could be framed as internal, corrupting and extremely entertaining propaganda which at the very least desensitizes people to the acts of ruling others, being ruled and committing acts of violence. This is not to say I don’t enjoy all of the cultural items which feed this dark side of the human playground however.
We all enjoy alternate realities because it allows us to experience something different and dangerous without the components of danger and risk. Its why we like scary films and war movies, and killing pixels on our tv and computer screens. No one is watching and no one is playing Call of Duty to make sure the looming peace accords pass and are adhered to.
While some of these games might be framed in a way which could be consistent with libertarian principles, such as a defensive war game (most are framed this way though…), or leading voluntaryist communities, video game culture has implicit metholodogical hurdles to overcoming its central planner fetishism, and giving that up might be way less fun than laissez-faire. Sick, isn’t it?
