Join the new world

But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow us, for we were not disorderly among you; nor did we eat anyone’s bread free of charge, but worked with labor and toil night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, not because we do not have authority, but to make ourselves an example of how you should follow us. For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread. But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary in doing good. And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.
- 2 Thessalonians 2:6-15

I was approached recently by a comrade for some advice on economics. Now, I think it obvious to point out that this aged Anglican cleric is hardly an expert on such matters, but I did the best I could. One of the interesting aspects of mission work in the New World is that, like St. Paul, we have to work for our keep, and so any new worldly belongings, other than of course the bakshish we sometimes pay to the admins, - are strictly gained from our daily labors. And as the passage above - later often quoted by the settlers of North America - maintains, there is virtue to be had in an honest days work.

Sooner or later, of course, one gets to the point where one earns more than is necessary to subsist, and herein lies the first and greatest challenge as we play the game. To what purposes are the fruits of our labor applied ? Do we seek the good of others, or only what is good for ourselves ? Do we rejoice in the exercise of free choice, or do we seek to give away our very freedom to choose charity or selfish gain ? These are the fundamental and profoundly moral questions that frame our social, political, and if I might be so bold to say - our spiritual existence in the New World.

Since I have recently been identified as a type of "socialist", indeed, as a "Christian Socialist", a few words are in order to explain what, in fact, that means. One sometimes hears the term "base communities", and I have to confess that I only have a vague idea of what that term means. I hear it comes out of the Jesuit Catholic culture in Latin America. I have to confess that one of my very favorite movies is "The Mission" and so if a "base community" is something like what the Jesuit missionaries were doing with the Native American tribes, I'm all for that. Still, we know how that story ended. Paul's letter to the Thessalonians reminds us of the difficulties in bringing about utopia in a Christian community. More recently, there is a marvelous book by the Christian journalist Julia Duin, "Days of Fire and Glory: The Rise and Fall of a Charismatic Community", which outlines the promise and problems of communal living in an Episcopal parish in Houston, Texas from the mid-60s to our present time. I have to report that this parish, Church of the Redeemer, had a pretty good run - but the temptations of sin overcame what was in its day an outstanding example for the church.

Scoffers who deny the existence of God also often assert that humans can do better without the assistance of divine grace. For some, the very idea of a universe wrought by design is problematic, although one can never quite understand where the forms they use in thinking originate - and these forms, while culturally unique, often betray a universal pattern. Others find the idea that all sentient beings are not equal a politically unacceptable notion and reject God on this account. Faced with the inequalties of human existence, their only response is revolution - to correct in fact what is natural by theory - or a slavish submission to the powers that be. And yet, we read in the Declaration of Independence that all are created equal. If this is so, then equality of condition must at least be possible, in theory if not in fact.

And so we come to the question of what economic organization serves both the cause of liberty and equality in just measure. While I have heard that some "Christian Socialists" regard a centralized and well-controlled economy as the best of all possible worlds, I will hereby argue that such is not the case. For even in the most disciplined and virtuous of communities, the mind of man is not so well-endowed that precise planning and execution is to be achieved. In Calcidius, the omnipotent God "knows necessary things necessarily and contingent things contingently". This in fact, is the only knowledge that is possible about the future. And indeed, this is the point where the likes of Karl Marx and Auguste Comte fell back into the disorder of the world they were attempting to escape and overcome. A false determinism is the core flaw of Calvinists and Communists alike. Where does that leave us ?

Here is what the statistician Nassim Nicholas Talib has to say about the matter. Paraphrasing Hayek, he states:

"For Hayek, a true forecast is done by a system, not by fiat. One single institution, say, the central planner, cannot aggregate knowledge; many pieces of information will be missing. But society as a whole will be able to integrate into its functioning these multiple pieces of information. Society as a whole thinks outside the box...we overestimate our ability to understand the subtle changes that constitute the world, and what weight needs to be imparted to each such change. (Hayek) aptly called this "scientism".

In other words, a socialist society, a Christian society, is simply society itself. It is anarchic by nature. But it is possible to organize it so as best to enable the parts of society to function in the manner that Hayek describes. There is in fact no game mechanic - other than, one supposes, that possession is 100% of the law - for the organization of property ownership. Such things are up to the players, and if that is so, there is no reason not to organize companies in such a way the workers own a fair portion of their capital and in fact share in the rewards of their excess labor. In this sense, governments - all governments, no matter how "democratic" their form, are nothing but a hindrance to the just distribution of goods and services. Even party organizations are suspect since, by the nature of the game system, they are driven by motives other than simply serving the interests of their members. Thus, while there is no harm in creating politically aligned communes, which may conceivably also have a military function, the basic question is not whether these institutions further these other goals, but whether they can in fact keep their workers industrious and prosperous - this necessarily requires them to make adjustments along the way, to survive the larger waves of adjustment as the system corrects itself.

Whenever an individual joins into a collective organization, even as a contract worker, he or she is giving up a little bit of freedom in the hope of greater gain. In game terms, there have been constraints to the levels at which collectivization generates economies of scale. I understand that now there are no economies of scale anymore - or at least the limits have been removed. This actually raises the interesting question as to whether all players would not be better off working for themselves. But I leave that issue to those who have studied the subject more closely than I have.

A last word, pertaining to the admins function. Sadly, the admins are a source of destabilization rather than stabilization in the New World economy. The more they try to "fix" the system, the worse problems they cause. As my digression on Hayek implies, the admins are both powerless to centrally manage the in-game economy and incompetent at so doing. They would do best to realize that the economic adjustments taking place in-game are their friend, and that if they simply structured their own business plan to take advantage of the players' occasional need for liquidity, they would have a valid source of income for themselves without cheating the players.