It would be interesting to see how the game would play out if we break down the barriers of attributing state category membership. So often in our society state category membership has created a discourse inundated with turmoil and excessive labeling. Perhaps if the game begins without state category memberships, then maybe new categories of memberships arise. On this note, how race and gender would be constructed should be scrutinized as well.
I agree with McLovin. The lack of state borders would facilitate the free movement of goods, services and individuals, and would assist in assuring that such borders remain open. It would also be interesting to see the direction cultural attributes take, and how they move across different masses of land in the absence of official geographical divisions.
How do you think our own world started? With states? There's no doubt that when the first people came on earth there was nothing like a state yet. And what do we have today? --> States! Probably organizing a world without states was impossible and therefore people decided to establish certain states. I do agree that states should open more their borders to products/services and people from other states (such as in the European Union), but we should not forget that states also provide us many useful services. I think the primary goal of the state should be not to keep you out of the rest of the world, but to protect you in times of crisis. whether this is against the rest of the world, or an issue in your own country. The world is too big to have just one state.
I think everyone has already touch based on the notion that humanity did not begin with states rather like minded individuals evolved and eventually adopted principles and beliefs they found to be quintessential. However, I would argue that the game should begin with states or else we would surely end up with some chaos and power struggles for preferable areas of land or natural resources. Arguments (or wars) would ensue because let's face it there is only a certain amount of desirable areas of land and people seek belonging. Essentially, similar people will eventually band together and seek out preferable land. If this means taking land away from people that who are less organized or what not, then those people are put at a disadvantage. Thus I would suggest having "parameters" that would equally divide the land to ensure that the game doesn't begin with war. Unless of course we want war which would might be interesting to see play out...
Here's the thing: if the game started without states, it would be very interesting to pretend like the game could be used as a tool to understand how the first states came to be. How and why do people organize themselves? --the problem is that as social beings we have been conditioned to be used to living in states and we have been taught that this is the only way to ensure safety and avoid the "chaos and power struggles." The validity of this argument will remain unmeasured by this game or any other. No matter what, a person will be unable to separate their lived experience as the citizen of a state from their ideas of what the world should look like. It is inevitable that a person playing the game will imagine it with states or force the creation of states because that is a major factor in how that individual has been taught to see the world. Essentially, it is not that it is difficult to imagine a world without states but that it is impossible. A person can not divorce their lived experience to prevent it from influencing their thinking in this game.
Furthermore, the game should be used as a tool to learn how to improve states and the understanding of government efficiency and policies so that the information gathered based on the game could potentially be used in the real world. How can we learn to improve on the current states if the game does not use a format similar to the real world.
The game would be much more interesting if it were to start in the "state of nature." It would be very interesting to observe the interactions among the players in the state of nature that would eventually lead to the establishment of a social order. States would be developed overtime as a result of social mobility. Players should be given various distinct abilities, such as strenght and speed at the beginning of the game. I feel that if the game is to resemble real life, then it must begin before modern civilization and technology. This would certainly put John Locke's theroies to the test!!! Will a commonwealth be established? Will communism revolutionize into socialism? Capitalism?
I think that the game should start without states and see how that would turn out. Our world started out without states so it would be interesting to see if the virtual game would follow the same path that we did or if it would take a totally different path. States are established as an exclusion mechanism and it would be interesting to see what would happen if this source of exclusion was not put in place. I think eventually some types of groups would develope, however groups do not always mean states. Maybe in this virtual world states could be replaced by the ruling power of families or some other means of combining similar interests- I dunno- just a thought......
I believe that the game should start with states, as each member of the world society for the past 4,000 years or so has been born into some form of a state. However, the players would not necessarily be bound to the state. They would originally be bound to their home state via citizenship, but after they accumulated "X" amount of wealth or influence, they could pursue citizenship in another state. The game would offer certain advantages and disadvantages for different states. Players then could pick and choose different states according to what benefits they found most advantageous and what disadvantages they found least harmful. I feel that this would make the "game" more fun, and would allow players who use better strategy to generate the most success.
I also feel that the game should begin with states and that is because our society will benefit from a new glory. What I mean here is that our incentive to CREATE will produce the belief that we can have strong motivations to--and for--a better civilization; one that is built on PROGRESS. Starting a state best describes this theory and our players can have citizenship, civil rights, and be afforded welfare benefits. Our MOTIVATION to BEGIN with states is essential; what good is it when we won't have anything to stat our civilization and people with? Where will immediate advantages go; - to who? So you can see that our state we start with will provide the bulwark of a potentially promising civilization.
It would be interesting to see how the game would play out if we break down the barriers of attributing state category membership. So often in our society state category membership has created a discourse inundated with turmoil and excessive labeling. Perhaps if the game begins without state category memberships, then maybe new categories of memberships arise. On this note, how race and gender would be constructed should be scrutinized as well.
I agree with McLovin. The lack of state borders would facilitate the free movement of goods, services and individuals, and would assist in assuring that such borders remain open. It would also be interesting to see the direction cultural attributes take, and how they move across different masses of land in the absence of official geographical divisions.
How do you think our own world started? With states? There's no doubt that when the first people came on earth there was nothing like a state yet. And what do we have today? --> States! Probably organizing a world without states was impossible and therefore people decided to establish certain states. I do agree that states should open more their borders to products/services and people from other states (such as in the European Union), but we should not forget that states also provide us many useful services. I think the primary goal of the state should be not to keep you out of the rest of the world, but to protect you in times of crisis. whether this is against the rest of the world, or an issue in your own country. The world is too big to have just one state.
I think everyone has already touch based on the notion that humanity did not begin with states rather like minded individuals evolved and eventually adopted principles and beliefs they found to be quintessential. However, I would argue that the game should begin with states or else we would surely end up with some chaos and power struggles for preferable areas of land or natural resources. Arguments (or wars) would ensue because let's face it there is only a certain amount of desirable areas of land and people seek belonging. Essentially, similar people will eventually band together and seek out preferable land. If this means taking land away from people that who are less organized or what not, then those people are put at a disadvantage. Thus I would suggest having "parameters" that would equally divide the land to ensure that the game doesn't begin with war. Unless of course we want war which would might be interesting to see play out...
Here's the thing: if the game started without states, it would be very interesting to pretend like the game could be used as a tool to understand how the first states came to be. How and why do people organize themselves? --the problem is that as social beings we have been conditioned to be used to living in states and we have been taught that this is the only way to ensure safety and avoid the "chaos and power struggles." The validity of this argument will remain unmeasured by this game or any other. No matter what, a person will be unable to separate their lived experience as the citizen of a state from their ideas of what the world should look like. It is inevitable that a person playing the game will imagine it with states or force the creation of states because that is a major factor in how that individual has been taught to see the world. Essentially, it is not that it is difficult to imagine a world without states but that it is impossible. A person can not divorce their lived experience to prevent it from influencing their thinking in this game.
Furthermore, the game should be used as a tool to learn how to improve states and the understanding of government efficiency and policies so that the information gathered based on the game could potentially be used in the real world. How can we learn to improve on the current states if the game does not use a format similar to the real world.
The game would be much more interesting if it were to start in the "state of nature." It would be very interesting to observe the interactions among the players in the state of nature that would eventually lead to the establishment of a social order. States would be developed overtime as a result of social mobility. Players should be given various distinct abilities, such as strenght and speed at the beginning of the game. I feel that if the game is to resemble real life, then it must begin before modern civilization and technology. This would certainly put John Locke's theroies to the test!!! Will a commonwealth be established? Will communism revolutionize into socialism? Capitalism?
I think that the game should start without states and see how that would turn out. Our world started out without states so it would be interesting to see if the virtual game would follow the same path that we did or if it would take a totally different path. States are established as an exclusion mechanism and it would be interesting to see what would happen if this source of exclusion was not put in place. I think eventually some types of groups would develope, however groups do not always mean states. Maybe in this virtual world states could be replaced by the ruling power of families or some other means of combining similar interests- I dunno- just a thought......
I believe that the game should start with states, as each member of the world society for the past 4,000 years or so has been born into some form of a state. However, the players would not necessarily be bound to the state. They would originally be bound to their home state via citizenship, but after they accumulated "X" amount of wealth or influence, they could pursue citizenship in another state. The game would offer certain advantages and disadvantages for different states. Players then could pick and choose different states according to what benefits they found most advantageous and what disadvantages they found least harmful. I feel that this would make the "game" more fun, and would allow players who use better strategy to generate the most success.
I also feel that the game should begin with states and that is because our society will benefit from a new glory. What I mean here is that our incentive to CREATE will produce the belief that we can have strong motivations to--and for--a better civilization; one that is built on PROGRESS. Starting a state best describes this theory and our players can have citizenship, civil rights, and be afforded welfare benefits. Our MOTIVATION to BEGIN with states is essential; what good is it when we won't have anything to stat our civilization and people with? Where will immediate advantages go; - to who? So you can see that our state we start with will provide the bulwark of a potentially promising civilization.