Second Life as an experiment in Anarchy

[DissertationAnarchy]

I am currently doing my undergraduate dissertation in Human Geography. My dissertation is looking at SL as a space that does not have a state. I am aiming to challenge existing state theory through my dissertation. I am specifically investigating whether SL is better than RL in that residents have greater liberty and individual freedom in SL. I want to see whether this is a positive thing, whether in RL the state is overbearing in writing citizen's desires, or whether SL needs a greater state influence, and without a state in Second Life there is more crime. Another aspect I am researching is the SL border being relatively open and whether harsher border controls are needed as criminals can create new avatars and regain entry back into SL relatively unproblematically. I have created this thread as a discussion, I am also conducting my research in SL using a participatory research method as I am interested primarily what the residents of SL have to say. 

 

[DissertationAnarchy]

A few questions to discuss:

1) In the absence of a state in SL, do you feel more free compared to RL to act out your own desires, liberties?

2) Do you feel more watched, your desires are steered in RL as compared to SL?

3) If people are left by the state do you think they are naturally peaceful or brutish?

4) Do you think there should be more punishment for breaking the TofS in SL or do you feel the TofS are too strict?

[Alazarin Mondrian]

1] Yes and no. There are still financial constraints in place within SL. Sims cost money. Nice clothes, gadgets and geegaws cost as well. That said, it's perfectly possibly to have a complete SL life without having to spend any money.

 

2] About the same. Where I live in RL is a surveillance state. Within SL Linden Lab can monitor everything anyone does. Also surveillance tools are available to residents. So I feel it's perfectly reasonable to assume that 'someone is watching you' at any given time and to develop the art and skills of sousveillance.

 

3] This argument will run and run forever. I refer you to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_study My own view is that both nature and nurture play a part. Thus whether a person turns out 'naturally peaceful or brutish' depends as much [if not more] on the socio-cultural environment of their upbringing as much as their genetic qualities.

 

4] I really don't know. I'd be happy if LL actually invested in the manpower to enforce its ToS. That would be a start.

 

 

[Orca Flotta]

Interesting. Here are some spontanious thoughts:

1) you can't compare SL with RL. Our actions don't have any consequences here. If someone doesn't like me they can just mute me and I'm gone from their SL experience. In RL they would've to kill me.

2) SL is kinda state, even a very ugly fascist dictatorship, as we are all ruled by the (in many parts stupid) TOS and living on the mercy of LL employees. And they are flawed corporate people and would make miserable anarchists.

3) of course you can see SL as a model for an anarchist society. But as I already explainified it's easy to play anarchy whe there are no consequences to your actions. Worst thing that can happen to us is an IP ban. We can live happily without SL, so it's no biggie.

4) it's easy to live in the SL anarchy. In RL there are only a small handful ppl I would wanna share an anarchist lifestyle with: Mohandas Gandhi, Che Guevara, Karl Marx, Leo Trotzki, Benjamin Tucker, Mother Teresa, Nestor Makhno, the Dalai Lama, maybe John Lydon ... the list isn't very long since anarchy builds on trust, goodwill and a high sense of personal responsibility and hard work. Most of us would fail to make good anarchists.

 

Your questions:

1) yes

2) no

3) EU: 50/50 US: 20/80 Asia/Africa/the rest: n.a.

4) I'm a syndicate socialist-anarchist so I don't care

 

Wikipedia:

Anarchy has more than one definition. Some use the term "anarchy" to refer to a society without a publicly enforced government or violently enforced political authority.[1][2] When used in this sense, anarchy may[3] or may not[4] be intended to imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society.

Others, including most individuals who self-identify as anarchists, use the term to imply a system of governance, mostly theoretical at a nation state level. There are also other forms of anarchy that attempt to avoid the use of coercion, violence, force and authority, while still producing a productive and desirable society.[5][6] Anarchy is also a technical issue of economic science.

[Sidnella Riler]

1) I would say you cannot compare How a comunity without a state would behave in a virtual world compare to a normal everyday RL comunity, I don't think there is an argument because a virtual world would always be what you wanted to be, at least most of the time

2) I don't mind being watched

3) I would say I have seen brutish in here and outside here even with a state in place haha

4) No more punishment, there is a TOS to be followed so we can all enjoy SL, I believe I can see what you mean when you say, without a state, because even though we are in a virtual comunity, without the TOS, we wouldnt feel safe

[161488303349]

i don't think SL itself is anarchic in the common usage sense

from the residents pov SL is a police state. by the police for the benefit of the police. the police being linden the company. police state in this context being very similar to the company towns in the 19th century

sometimes we think SL is anarchy bc of the behaviours of some of the residents. but is only a small number who behave this way. most of us are conformists. same like people were in company towns. for the same reason. we totally dependent on the company

 

 

[Theresa Tennyson]

A few questions to discuss:

1) In the absence of a state in SL, do you feel more free compared to RL to act out your own desires, liberties?

I have no idea how you could have arrived at the conclusion that SL is a stateless society. It's basically a feudal system but with a large nomadic population.

2) Do you feel more watched, your desires are steered in RL as compared to SL?

In SL the stakes are trivial compared to RL; freedom is easy when you have very little to lose.

3) If people are left by the state do you think they are naturally peaceful or brutish?

In a society without state intervention, some would be peaceful and some would be brutish. The peaceful would create a state system or demand state intervention to control the brutish.

4) Do you think there should be more punishment for breaking the TofS in SL or do you feel the TofS are too strict?

During the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln told one of his military governors occupying pacified Southern territory that "If both sides complain about you, or neither do, you're doing about right." Currently both sides complain about LL's governance; I recon they're doing about right.

[Thrayce Lanley]

Just so I'm clear, let me see if I understand:

You're doing a dissertation, and can't even format a proper paragraph?

 

ETA:  Please understand, I'm not trying to be rude or anything like that.  Your Q just strikes me as a little...off-the-wall- for someone doing thier dissertation.

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

DissertationAnarchy wrote:

I am currently doing my undergraduate dissertation in Human Geography. My dissertation is looking at SL as a space that does not have a state.

---

Your title and premise is incorrect.  If you're going to use an analogy of real life governing systems to compare to a virtual world like Second Life, and basing SL on "anarchy", then you clearly don't understand how Second Life works.  

The "State" in SL is Linden Lab.   We even have a Governor Linden.  Our laws are the TOS. (Terms of Service).  Within this state (nation) are multiple smaller states which are run by land barons,and land owners.  There's even the Independent State of Caledon, which isn't really independent, but is one of the smaller states within the larger whole.

http://secondlife.wikia.com/wiki/Independent_State_of_Caledon

Someone else in this thread mentioned feudalism, and that's a pretty good description, of how SL works.   There is no "space" or land in SL, that does not have the basic rule of law (TOS) applied.  Law (TOS and rules) within SL range from the most basic ones put forth by Linden Lab, to extremely tightly controlled laws within some private estates.

Anarchy would be more akin to the various Open Sim spaces on the Internet, but even they must adhere to basic server provider rules, and rules of law pertaining to the countries they reside in, or where they do business.

[WolfBaginski Bearsfoot]

I consider myself an Anarchist. I've studied the philosophy, and Anarchism bvaries a lot. Common successful Anarchistic structures are typified by a bottom-up power structure and by a strong sense of community, both features that can go sadly wrong.

In that light, I have to say that SL is not Anarchy. It is, maybe, Libertarianism under the sufferance of an essentially Capiitalist power structure, domninated by a few who manage to have the ear of the real power holders. In SL, all you have to do is pay your money and you have absolute power in a specified part of the Grid. And, whatever you choose to do, it seems that Linden labs will not interfere.

Kropotkin, over a century ago, pretty much demolished that approach as a sort of Anarchism. With the apparent sustained lack of governance we might have a small-a anarchy in the ancient sense of chaos and rule by those string and ruthless enough to enforce their will. And that seems to be the anarchy on which so much of modern Libertarian thinking seems to be build.

And one particular reason why SL cannot be Anarchy is that were are imprisoned by a set of constraints imposed by Linden Labs. Anarchism gives all a duty to participate in the governing community. It is built on collective social duties: you do not stand by and let a neighbour's house be consumed by fire. You do not wait for your neighbour to give you permission to fight the flames. Inded, it would be a strange society which did not permit such intervention.

Substitute "griefer" for fire; see those great tumbling piles of scripted prims, screaming abuse and textured to offend many, which drag a region down into unusability; and you will find that there is nothing you can do without explicit permission from your afflicted neighbour. And, I regret, the Linden Response is inadequate: you can do the equivalent of calling the fire-brigade, but the engine is pulled by spavined nags fit only for the glue factory, and nobody has the matches to light the fire that raises steam for the pumps. All they can say is "Keep the fire going until we get there."

No, SL can never be Anarchy. It is something far worse.

 

[Unoionu Hilltop]

Your dissertation is not.

SL is loosely ruled by :robotmad: Governor Linden and the governance team, an apparently benign dictatorship.

[Melita Magic]

---

DissertationAnarchy wrote:

A few questions to discuss:

1) In the absence of a state in SL, do you feel more free compared to RL to act out your own desires, liberties?

2) Do you feel more watched, your desires are steered in RL as compared to SL?

3) If people are left by the state do you think they are naturally peaceful or brutish?

 

4) Do you think there should be more punishment for breaking the TofS in SL or do you feel the TofS are too strict?

 

 

---

1. It is your opinion there is an 'absence of state.' I do not agree.

2. Do not understand your question as phrased.

3. Left where?

4. Terms of Service? Again I do not agree with the spirit of the question. I think it is more a question of how far reaching or well applied.

[Madelaine McMasters]

I'll add my voice to the growing chorus that thinks you are driving through the weeds.

1) In the absence of a state in SL, do you feel more free compared to RL to act out your own desires, liberties?

As others have said, there is no absense of state in RL. SL is a elective participation dictatorship, within which small feudal realms exist. The relative anonymity of participation does allow for greater freedom of expression (including anarchic behavior), but so does the lack of gravity, physical pain, death, decay, etc. Whatever forms of social control you think do or do not exist in SL, I think the other aspects of virtual life trump them. I have, as far as I know, never incinerated a friend in RL. None of my SL friends has escaped that fate. Am I an anarchist?

2) Do you feel more watched, your desires are steered in RL as compared to SL?

Every word you type in SL is archived by the Linden overlords. They know what's in your closet, what you are wearing, how much money you have, where you spend it, and on what, who you get it from, who you give it to, where you've been and who you know. I don't think it's possible to be this watched in RL, unless you're institutionalized.

3) If people are left by the state do you think they are naturally peaceful or brutish?

The history of mankind has been that, absent some kind of social structure, we generally create it. Anarchy just isn't very efficient. It's already been established that SL has state control, so your question cannot be answered here. But that's okay, Steven Pinker and the Unibomber can give you widely disparate views on the subject of anarchy and state control.

4) Do you think there should be more punishment for breaking the TofS in SL or do you feel the TofS are too strict?

You are asking two different questions here, akin to the old "Do you walk to school or take your lunch?". The question of whether there should be more or less punishment for breaking the TOS is independent of what the TOS actually covers.

[Dillon Levenque]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

I have, as far as I know, never incinerated a friend in RL.

---

I am not surprised at the ambiguity expressed in that sentence.

 

As to the OP's #3: 'Brutish' has several meanings, but none of them have anything particularly to do with agression. There are a great many peaceful brutes.

[Christin73]

1) In the absence of a state in SL, do you feel more free compared to RL to act out your own desires, liberties? Yes SL gives me the freedome to be who I want to be but cant in RL.

2) Do you feel more watched, your desires are steered in RL as compared to SL? I feel more preasure to comply to the normal in RL.

3) If people are left by the state do you think they are naturally peaceful or brutish? In SL you get all kinds mostly you get decent people there to enjoy themselves.

4) Do you think there should be more punishment for breaking the TofS in SL or do you feel the TofS are too strict? I feel there sould be priority in banning spammers and griefers. People who come to distroy and cause trouble souldnt be on SL.

[Suspiria Finucane]

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

---

DissertationAnarchy wrote:

I am currently doing my undergraduate dissertation in Human Geography. My dissertation is looking at SL as a space that does not have a state.

---

Someone else in this thread mentioned feudalism, and that's a pretty good description, of how SL works.

---

Feudalism; the dominant social system in medieval Europe, in which the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, and vassals were in turn tenants of the nobles, while the peasants (villeins or serfs) were obliged to live on their lord’s land and give him homage, labor, and a share of the produce, notionally in exchange for military protection.

SL is nothing like that.

 

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

Suspiria Finucane wrote:

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

---

DissertationAnarchy wrote:

I am currently doing my undergraduate dissertation in Human Geography. My dissertation is looking at SL as a space that does not have a state.

---

Someone else in this thread mentioned feudalism, and that's a pretty good description, of how SL works.

---

Feudalism;

the dominant social system in medieval Europe, in which the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, and vassals were in turn tenants of the nobles, while the peasants (villeins or serfs) were obliged to live on their lord’s land and give him homage, labor, and a share of the produce, notionally in exchange for military protection.  

SL is nothing like that.

---

That's because you're taking the word to mean one thing.  But "feudal" has a broader definition as a systemic structure.

The word "feudalism", in the since that I , and several other people, used it here in this thread, is an analogy to the systemic structure of SL. 

 

 

[161488303349]

---

Suspiria Finucane wrote:

Feudalism;

the dominant social system in medieval Europe, in which the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, and vassals were in turn tenants of the nobles, while the peasants (villeins or serfs) were obliged to live on their lord’s land and give him homage, labor, and a share of the produce, notionally in exchange for military protection.

SL is nothing like that.

 

---

is not quite correct that interpretation of peasant. in the early stage of feudalism there weren't any peasants

 

the peasant came about when the villeins and serfs demanded the right to rent their land from the vassals. rent in lieu of service to their vassal lord. the vassals succumb to the demand bc of the money they get from it

like the vassal lords end up get more money more easy from the rent than from the profits of the work forced out of their serfs. they were then able more easy to pay their taxes to the monarch. and hire mercenary soldiers to meet that fealty obligation to the monarch. and have money over for themselves. (until their monarch got greedy sometimes. and they the vassals deal to their monarch. same way their now peasants deal to them whenever they got greedy)

+

worked out better for everyone in the end. bc peasants got their own land. vassals got rich. monarch got taxes. and got  professional soldiers rather than amateur fighters who want to run off home to get in the harvest. bc if they don't then their families going to starve to death. and the realm as well

+

peasant rentals was the trigger that lead to the eventual breakdown of the feudalism system and lay the foundation for modern western democracy

the vassal lords and monarchs didn't give their peasants the ability to rent land (and not be a serf) out of any sense of freedom or justice for their fellow beings. they did it for the money. but freedom came as a consequence

+

if drawing a feudalist comparison then peasant society is the one closest I think

we are peasants. like we rent. on private estates we subject to our vassal lord. on mainland we subject directly to the monarch. the monarch (linden) have absolute rule at its pleasure. and give their vassal lords (estate barons) dominion over their estates. same to their direct rule mainlaind peasants. your parcel is your castle

and bc we do pay rent then our monarch and vassal lords can hire professional soldiers (g-team/support - estate/sim/parcel helpy people) to protect the realm and dominions from the invaders and bad guys

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

---

Suspiria Finucane wrote:

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

---

DissertationAnarchy wrote:

I am currently doing my undergraduate dissertation in Human Geography. My dissertation is looking at SL as a space that does not have a state.

---

Someone else in this thread mentioned feudalism, and that's a pretty good description, of how SL works.

---

Feudalism;

the dominant social system in medieval Europe, in which the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, and vassals were in turn tenants of the nobles, while the peasants (villeins or serfs) were obliged to live on their lord’s land and give him homage, labor, and a share of the produce, notionally in exchange for military protection.  

SL is nothing like that.

---

That's because you're taking the word to mean one thing.  But "feudal" has a broader definition as a systemic structure.

The word "feudalism", in the since that I , and several other people, used it here in this thread, is an analogy to the systemic structure of SL. 

 

 

---

Noble sim "owners" (who are actually renters) pay tier to the LL Crown, which gives them military service (full estate rights and a theoretically higher level of customer support). In turn, the Sim Nobles rent to the peasants (the rest of us) in exchange for the space we've rented, plus in some cases a subset of the Nobel's military protection (ban rights on the estate, perhaps more). There's room in that hierarchy for additional layers (fewer if you are on mainland and report directly to the Crown), but at virtually every layer, the control over what's below is very high. That's close enough to Feudalism for me.

 

[Dillon Levenque]

---

16 wrote:

+

peasant rentals was the trigger that lead to the eventual breakdown of the feudalism system and lay the foundation for modern western democracy

---

 

I agree with that explanation entirely. The ability to move from serf to peasant was a huge thing.

In fact, it's the very reason I refuse to allow a friend who maintains a teensy (and rarely used, sadly: she is almost never inworld) skybox above my property to pay rent. I told her it was straight up feudal rules all the way. Getting 50% of her produce hasn't worked out too well, given that she's produced approximately 0.00 so far, but one of these days her first born son will be old enough to join SL. I look forward to finally having an army.

[Susannah Avonside]

I consider that SL is about as far from being an anarchist environment as it is possible to be.  It does have some superficial similarities, but those who have described it as feudal are probably nearer the mark.

If you were seriously looking for an experiment in anarchy, you would have been much better off considering the OpenSim Metaverse.  Whilst there are some grids that use the software, most grids, as far as I am aware, are usually autocratically controlled. I have yet to discover a grid that is run along mutualist or anarcho-syndicalist lines, but I also think that there could be a time coming when that may happen.  Of course, those who have their OpenSim regions hosted in data centres will have to abide by whatever ToS the hosting company requires, but the beauty of OpenSim is that it is quite feasible to home host one's own regions, if one has sufficient bandwidth.  Many do host their own regions, connecting to the wider Metaverse through Hypergird , (inter virtual world teleport). No-one knows how many such grids exist, but it is here that you would probably find those most leaning towards an anarchistic mindset, whether that is acknowledged or not. 

 

As as far as the grids that nearest approximate anarchism are concerned, I would suggest that OS Grid is the nearest, but even here there is an element of the 'benign dictator'.  There will always be those people who will want the illusion of security that is the 'walled garden' grid, such as SL, Avination etc, but this type of grid will never come even near to approximating anarchy. They will remain autocracies, as people in fear... of griefers,of copybotters, or whatever other bogey is used to scare residents into staying within the walled garden to spend their Lindens... welcome chains. OpenSim is developing fast, and is becoming more and more stable as time goes on at a time when more and more of us are gaining access to fibre-optic broadband which will revolutionise the OpenSim Metaverse.  Whilst the widely distributed Metaverse isn't yet quite a reality, it is fast arriving, though any research into a truly anarchist Metaverse would be extremely difficult as individual regions come and go spontaneously, unlike 'walled gardens' owned by cororations.  SL is neither anarchist, nor truly a part of the Metaverse, and in my opinion, if you are gpoing to find anarchism in virtual worlds, it is to the OpenSim Metaverse you need to look.

 

I'm not answering your questions are they are irrelevant, and couched in terms that actually have little relationship to anarchism. However, on the issue of controling anti-social elements, SL is notoriously poor, go to any sandbox in SL and you will find them infested with griefers... something that is rarely the case in the OpenSim Metaverse, despite it being apparently wide-open to such a problem (there are some griefing incidents, but it is a rare occurence, and is more likely to be experienced on individual sims in grids rather than in sandboxes). Due to the greater control that can be excercised in OpenSim, individual users can set greater, or lesser security, set whitelists for entire sims and even block access entirely.  For individual, Hypergrid enabled standalones security is even greater because you need to advertise your presence in order  to attract visitors, or you can choose to remain anonymous.  Many such connected regions are only known about by their owners and by maybe a select group of friends.  

 

Maybe you should have cast your net a little wider and examined virtual worlds as experiments in anarchy, perhaps comparing and contrasting OpenSim Metaverse grids, (i.e. those 'open' Hypergrid enabled grids/regions) with the closed, or 'walled garden' grids such as SL, Avination and InWorldz?

[161488303349]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

---

16 wrote:

+

peasant rentals was the trigger that lead to the eventual breakdown of the feudalism system and lay the foundation for modern western democracy

---

 

I agree with that explanation entirely. The ability to move from serf to peasant was a huge thing.

In fact, it's the very reason I refuse to allow a friend who maintains a teensy (and rarely used, sadly: she is almost never inworld) skybox above my property to pay rent. I told her it was straight up feudal rules all the way. Getting 50% of her produce hasn't worked out too well, given that she's produced approximately 0.00 so far, but one of these days her first born son will be old enough to join SL. I look forward to finally having an army.

---

quite right to. you have watch them serfs. they start get ideas above their station they do. is terribl when that happens. like they even end up thinking they got equal rights or even worse. they start to think they the boss of you even

I actual grew up with 2 serfs like that. a cooking and washing and make my bed and clean up after me serf. and a chauffeur handyman fix my stuff now serf. like they just did what ever I tell them

then after a time just bc I was nice to them then they get all familiar with me. and they start to tell me I can do myself and that they not doing what I am commanding them to do anymore. was evil what they done. change the natural order of things

I realize now that was my own fault bc I was way to nice to them and they take advantage of my good nature. next time am not going to let that happen again. this not having any serfs and have to do myself. is terrible. horrible! even

jejejeje (:

+

+

I think I better invade your lands before you serf start breeding. bc my massive army of one is not much outnumbered at this time

altho it probably not be a successful invasion. bc anytime I set my whole one person army to invasion mode then I hardly ever make it to the border of the lands I am hoping to invade. bc as am marching along then my army gets distracted quite easy. ooo! look flowers! and ooo! more shiny thing. and ooo! no idea what this is so stop and have a look and a click 

so end up wandering off the marching path. then next thing is starting to get late so have to run home bc can get eaten by monstas when you stay out to late. so is safer to run home before that happens

is really evil when they do that. those invadee people. like put all them things on the marching path. one day when if I ever do complete the invading part them am going to have plenty to say to the invadee about that (:

  

[Dillon Levenque]

 

---

16 wrote:

+

I think I better invade your lands before you serf start breeding. bc my massive army of one is not much outnumbered at this time

---

 

Egad. I shall alert the Border guards. Just as soon as I have some.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

 

---

16 wrote:

+

I think I better invade your lands before you serf start breeding. bc my massive army of one is not much outnumbered at this time

---

 

Egad. I shall alert the Border guards. Just as soon as I have some.

---

And you have more than one border.

[Dillon Levenque]

 

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

 

---

16 wrote:

+

I think I better invade your lands before you serf start breeding. bc my massive army of one is not much outnumbered at this time

---

 

Egad. I shall alert the Border guards. Just as soon as I have some.

---

And you have more than one border.

---

 

It's that damn road: they can come at me from either direction! I tried putting up barricades but the Lab keeps sending them back to me.