From our June 2008 issue, Wagner James Au explores why the virtual world Second Life is abandoning laissez faire in favor of left-leaning regulations.
New at Reason
Comments to "New at Reason":
Some guy | May 9, 2008, 12:02pm | #
Broken LinkGuy Montag | May 9, 2008, 12:32pm | #
Link fixed, but now I don't have time to read it :(ChrisO | May 9, 2008, 12:57pm | #
Did the Lindens reject laissez faire as a failed experiment? Maybe. From the summer of 2007 to early 2008, the number of active users gradually plateaued at a population of about 550,000—large, but nowhere near as large as tightly regulated virtual worlds such as World of Warcraft or Habbo Hotel, which boast millions of users. Complaining about the ugly casinos or sexual perverts they had to share Second Life with, many residents voted with their feet and left.It's difficult to compare Second Life to Warcraft, for the simple reason that WoW is a game. That has a point to it. Habbo Hotel is marketed expressly as a chat room for teens, which explains the censorship.
I admittedly haven't tried Second Life, but it just seems pointless. Perhaps down the road such an online interface will be more universal, but an online experience based around creating avatars and imaginary spaces seems dull--and an economy based around them illusory.
Episiarch | May 9, 2008, 1:03pm | #
I admittedly haven't tried Second Life, but it just seems pointless.Agreed. In WoW or any other game like that you have the incentive of building your character. Though you gain nothing real other than entertainment, that feeling of accomplishment as you gain more powers and in-game items is very satisfying, and also adds to your entertainment as you kick more and more ass.
In Second Life, there seems to be little if any of that kind of "reward".
Any virtual world that wants to be successful needs to be a place where teenage boys are willing to spend hours upon hours. Which basically means WoW or the porn version of the holodeck. Sex or violence or both for the win.
Bingo | May 9, 2008, 1:05pm | #
Maybe you guys would feel differently if you were a hermaphroditic dragon trying to impregnate an anthropomorphic unicorn.Bingo has touched upon the true Second Life demographic: furries.
Gimme Back My Dog | May 9, 2008, 1:10pm | #
Then again, gated communities may be libertarian on paper, but considering all the conformist regulations required to get and stay in one, few would say they are libertarian in spirit.What is more libertarian than gated communities? In the absence of government regulation, the natural progression is for people to voluntarily band together with mutually agreed upon restrictions on land use.
Brandybuck | May 9, 2008, 1:12pm | #
Why? Because the people behind it are leftists. As with all leftists, they like to talk about the wonderfulness of freedom, but once any real world [sic] problem crops up, no matter how minor, they start clammoring for government solutions.This is why I get so annoyed with pseudotarians. They cheapen the movement by advocating government intervention in the name of libertarianism. Recent examples "libertarian" promotions of net neutrality and carbon taxes.
Bingo | May 9, 2008, 1:16pm | #
Everyone knows that EVE Online is where the real anarcho-capitalists hang out anyways. When they aren't gaming the market in WoW that is.stephen the goldberger | May 9, 2008, 1:30pm | #
Hmm so externalities do exist.zoltan | May 9, 2008, 1:32pm | #
What's net neutrality?and carbon taxes
Most economists worth their own weight in carbon support a Pigovian tax on carbon output. One of the better characteristics of most libertarians, in my opinion, is that they tend to pay more attention to what economists say. Why should they make an exception in this one case?
Most economists worth their own weight in carbon support a Pigovian tax on carbon output. One of the better characteristics of most libertarians, in my opinion, is that they tend to pay more attention to what economists say. Why should they make an exception in this one case?
jimmy | May 9, 2008, 2:10pm | #
these people need to get a first lifeprolefeed | May 9, 2008, 2:12pm | #
Most economists worth their own weight in carbon support a Pigovian tax on carbon output.So somewhere over 50% of economists support a new tax? And, in a totally unrelated coincidence, most academics are left-leaning? Wow, then we all better support it, because when over half of people who purport to be experts endorse something, it MUST be a good idea. No need to discuss the actual merits or lack thereof of the the proposal. Hell, why not settle all scientific debates via a vote!
Educated people lean left? Particularly on issues related to their areas of expertise?
Hm.
Hm.
No need to discuss the actual merits or lack thereof of the the proposal.
Hell, no! That sounds like something a bunch of economists and scientists would do.
Hell, no! That sounds like something a bunch of economists and scientists would do.
O'Sullivan's First Law: All organizations that are not explicitly conservative become left-wing over time.
Toxic | May 9, 2008, 2:37pm | #
Apples to oranges.And WoW isn't tightly regulated in any way shape and form. You can't DO a lot of the stuff you can in 2nd life, but its not like there is a game masters riding around stopping you from ganking the crap out of lowbies in Stranglethorn Vale either.
Jordan | May 9, 2008, 3:18pm | #
Wait a minute, Brandybuck, the GOVERNMENT is regulating Second Life?As far as Second Life goes, Linden is the government. So yes.
Ken Hagler | May 9, 2008, 3:31pm | #
"Wait a minute, Brandybuck, the GOVERNMENT is regulating Second Life?"The casino and banking bans did come about as a result of government intrusion. It wasn't so much the government passing new regulations as a case of "do what we tell you or the men with guns will be paying you a visit."
Taktix® | May 9, 2008, 3:37pm | #
O'Sullivan's First Law: All organizations that are not explicitly conservative become left-wing over time.That should be "Bill O'Reilly's Law"
R C Dean | May 9, 2008, 4:05pm | #
Most economists worth their own weight in carbon support a Pigovian tax on carbon output.CO2 production is only an "externality" woth taxing if you believe that anthropomorphic global warming is occurring and will be catastrophic.
How many economists are on record saying they don't believe in catastrophic AGW, but still think CO2 should be taxed?
robc | May 9, 2008, 4:09pm | #
Most economists worth their own weight in carbon support a Pigovian tax on carbon output.Im betting Ronald Coase doesnt.
Keep in mind that it is possible to support different theories regarding how to approach pollution.
I might support a property-rights solution ala Coase and a Pigovian tax as well since neither approach is currently being pursued with much enthusiasm. Both approaches have their merits.
I might support a property-rights solution ala Coase and a Pigovian tax as well since neither approach is currently being pursued with much enthusiasm. Both approaches have their merits.
robc | May 9, 2008, 4:21pm | #
mk,How is a Coasean solution not being pursued?
To quote David Friedman:
That analysis was accepted by virtually the entire economics profession prior to Coase's work in the field. It is wrong--not in one way but in three. The existence of externalities does not necessarily lead to an inefficient result. Pigouvian taxes, even if they can be correctly calculated, do not in general lead to the efficient result. Third, and most important, the problem is not really externalities at all--it is transaction costs.
The transaction costs may be too high, but that doesnt mean a solution isnt being pursued. Im also not sure that the Pigovian tax approach even has any merit. Its based on a flawed principal.
Paul | May 9, 2008, 6:12pm | #
“Linden Department of Public Works”You had to know it was over then.
"We do the work, you do the pleasure..."
Bet you need a twenty seven b-stroke-six to complete any duct repairs.
Oh, joe wins the thread with his 12:58 post.
John Tabin | May 9, 2008, 7:17pm | #
Complaining about the ugly casinos or sexual perverts they had to share Second Life with, many residents voted with their feet and left.I'm pretty sure that said foot-voting has a whole lot more to do with SL crashing all the time, and Linden Labs wasting resources on stuff like the Windlight viewer and the Department of Public Works when they should have been working to stabilize the grid.
Paul | May 9, 2008, 7:36pm | #
crashing all the time, and Linden Labs wasting resources on stuff like the Windlight viewer and the Department of Public Works when they should have been working to stabilize the grid.Your Linden dollars at work!!!
Julian Fondren | May 9, 2008, 10:08pm | #
libertarian in spiritYou misspelled 'libertine'. C.f. Walter Block's comments on totalitarian--but voluntary--organizations.
Chad | May 9, 2008, 10:47pm | #
robc | May 9, 2008, 4:21pm | #The transaction costs may be too high, but that doesnt mean a solution isnt being pursued. Im also not sure that the Pigovian tax approach even has any merit. Its based on a flawed principal.
robc, I don't think you get the point of the quotation you cited. There are cases where Pigovian tax will not lead to the optimal solutions, cases where it will not. But assuming the tax is reasonably correct, even in the sub-optimal cases, it will still lead to BETTER situations than doing nothing. Go back and look at the examples from the article you cited. Pigovian taxes beat sticking your head in the sand every time.
There are several fundamental flaws with Coase's solutions, and one of them is particularly egregious in the case of non-local polution.
First, Coase's method may ensure that the most efficient solution is reached, but it fails entirely to ensure that the right party(s) pay for it. Is an efficient but unfair solution a good one?
Second, Coase's method only works when the number of people involved is very small. As soon as a large number of parties appear, not only does the number of agreements required go up by a square factor, but the chances of free-riders and stubborn fools who refuse to compromise goes through the roof.
Jesrad | May 10, 2008, 6:02pm | #
"rom the summer of 2007 to early 2008, the number of active users gradually plateaued at a population of about 550,000—large, but nowhere near as large as tightly regulated virtual worlds such as World of Warcraft or Habbo Hotel, which boast millions of users. Complaining about the ugly casinos or sexual perverts they had to share Second Life with, many residents voted with their feet and left."Please, James, all the long time residents, especially estate holders like me, know the true reason of the plateau: the irritating streak of database failures, the banning of all hasard games and investment joints, the VAT debacle that increased all prices by 20% (or 42% in some cases) for european residents (it forced me to resell all my land save for one island), combined with the blunt price increase of private islands by 50% flat and lastly the series of viewers riddled with crashing bugs.
These are the real reasons people voted with their feet.
ron | May 12, 2008, 3:06pm | #
oh god no, wagner james au, the most pretentious douche in gaming journalism, has invaded reason :(Marc Woebegone | May 13, 2008, 7:27am | #
Ah yes, the end of an era.... "era"? you must be joking....http://secondlife.typepad.com
MW
unhyphenatedconservative | May 13, 2008, 1:04pm | #
Huh. When libertarian paradise exists, the crap that bubbles to the surface makes people not want to play any more. That's why conservatives don't want to impose it on the real world.