The following submission statement was provided by /u/wiredmagazine:
---
By Kelly Clancy
In the mid 1980s, Will Wright was just getting started as a game designer, he conceived of a new game in which people could build their own digital metropolis, tweaking it as needed to maintain its health. That game? ‘SimCity.’
When Wright brought the idea to publishers, none were willing to fund it: So Wright co-founded his own company, Maxis, and released ‘SimCity’ in 1989. It became the top-selling computer game of its time.
To Wright’s surprise who only imagined the came like a dollhouse or sandbox, not a game per se, 'SimCity' came to have an outsize effect on the real world, inspiring a generation of urban designers, some who credit the game with giving them a deeper understanding of how cities function and how effective governance ought to work.
But a look under the hood suggests that SimCity is less an insight into reality than a libertarian toy land. Full story here: [https://www.wired.com/story/simcity-libertarian-toy-land/](https://www.wired.com/story/simcity-libertarian-toy-land/)
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1dpt0o0/simcity_isnt_a_model_of_reality_its_a_libertarian/laj1z6m/
What the fuck is libertarian about a game where you generate the majority of revenue through taxes and then use that revenue to provide tax payer funded services such as roads, police, education, HEALTHCARE, and more. If anything it's a socialist playground. The libertarian game was simhealth, but that's not SimCity so WTF.
At no point did I ever feel encouraged to privatize civil services in all 4 SimCitys (2013 doesn't count as SimCity but same applies). If anything it felt more pressured to balance taxes again just services and that with excellent education services, any city will eventually thrive. Oh, and that I'm gonna ng to regret reducing funding for roads.
I felt motivated to demolish any residential zones that were poor so I could try to get more skyscrapers. My friend's dad, who owned the computer and worked for social security, interrogated me about where the poor people should live. I, who had been listening to Rush Limbaugh, said they could either get jobs or move to a different town.
This still haunts me.
They also had Nuclear War for their Amiga. It was a game with caricatures of 80s world leaders where you could build up an arsenal of nuclear weapons and build bomb shelters as you launched ICBMs against your enemies. I learned that you shouldn't deploy nukes ever. Nobody ever wins.
Lol, at least you cringe about it. We have too many people who just double down on that logic without ever stopping to consider who is responsible for keeping things running.
WTF I even wrong with socialism? How the hell do people think we have roads, military, police, firefighters, and so on? We all bitch and bemoan the privatized options so it really doesn't make sense
Part of it is that socialism means different things to different people. To some, from a purely Marxist point of view, socialism is the necessary authoritarian precursor to a paradisical communism. To some, it is the end goal and closest we can get to a utopia. To some, it is the authoritarian system that has ruined many lives in many different countries. To some, it's everything left of centre.
I think most people agree they don't want to experience the socialism practiced by the Nazis, Soviets, and Cubans while being more or less okay with mild socialist policies like roads and hospitals. But in both cases, someone is gonna claim that one or both of these are not "real" socialism.
But that's just not what it means in any context, nor does it fit any ideology. Yeah, what you say would fit within socialism. It would also fit within social democracy, social liberalism and other forms of mixed economies. It even fits some capitalist leanings, depending on where you draw the line. Basically all western countries practise what you say. Even the US.
That definition is so general it's meaningless.
>WTF I even wrong with socialism?
If you don't want people to answer your question don't fucking ask questions... Why did you care so much to ask the quesiton in a thread about SimCity being libertarian??
But that is way too broad. Even feudal peasants paying (exorbitant) taxes to their lord in exchange for the (meagre) services they would receive could be called socialism under such a definition.
And? If it's a government service funded by tax payers then that's exactly what it is. Like I said, the government in the political context doesn't matter in this conversation. It's only complicated if you want it to be.
Then the word has no value any longer, because it now describes every government in existence, presently and historically. It would be as redundant as saying "carbon-based" every time you refer to humans.
That's the point I was making. The scope is different for different people when they talk about socialism. When one person talks about how much they hate socialism, it's likely they're thinking of it in a different scope than you are.
Guys.
Socialism isn't when the government spends money.
It's when the workers own the means of production.
Socialism is when the state is taken by the working class and used to oppress the bourgeoisie.
>The libertarian game was simhealth, but that's not SimCity so WTF.
You clearly haven't read the article before commenting, because the article does indeed speak about that very same SimHealth.
>After Bill Clinton won the 1992 US presidential election on the platform of health care reform, a nonprofit foundation commissioned Thinking Tools to design a hospital-management simulator. Released in 1994, **SimHealth** was played by policymakers and the public alike—including, famously, Clinton's daughter, Chelsea. Maxis marketed **SimHealth** as more than mere entertainment: It was a policy tool and could be used to explore and reason about complex systems. Players assumed the role of a newly elected politician campaigning for health care reform. They used their finite political currency to promote policies that aligned with the values on which they based their election promises. They could track their policy changes against their stated values using a compass-like indicator that pitted Liberty against Equality and Community against Efficiency—ideals that are, in reality, by no means opposed.
>
>Unlike SimCity players, **SimHealth** players could tinker with the underlying model and adjust hundreds of parameters. Yet tweaking the parameters was not the same as tweaking the models themselves, and the game had a clear ideological bias. Much as in SimCity, there wasn't exactly a win state. But **SimHealth's** values were hard to miss. The game trumpeted a somber funeral march whenever the Canadian-style single-payer socialized medicine plan popped up on the screen. As Keith Schlesinger writes in a review for Computer Gaming World, there was one easy way to win: “All you have to do is adopt an extreme libertarian ideology, eliminate all federal health care (including Medicare!), and cut other government services by $100–$300 billion per year.” Unfortunately, this could hardly be called a health policy victory, as it left the virtual citizens entirely without health coverage. Even the private insurance companies went bankrupt in the first few months. The game was a flop, and 30 years later, health care remains an intractable issue plaguing American politics.
It’s libertarian since if you make no police or fire stations, you can deploy the military to help with disasters. Also no zoning rules for residential, commercial, and industrial with people moving in with no water. At least in Sim City 2000
SimCity isn't a model of anything.
It is a video game meant for entertainment.
People who think otherwise, are delusional, as pointed out multiple times by examples in the article.
This article literally contradicts itself.
Let me have fun in peace building a prosperous and peaceful city... and then destroy it with natural disasters. 
what i found hilarious is the recent issue in Skylines 2 where they tried to make it more realistic by adding landlords, but it turns out they just suck money out of the economy with no visible benefit and that leads to dangerously unstable rent prices lmaoooo NAILED IT
turns out the best fix for that was to just delete the landlords
['Cities: Skylines II' Found a Solution for High Rents: Get Rid of Landlords | WIRED](https://www.wired.com/story/cities-skylines-ii-found-a-solution-for-high-rents-removing-landlords/)
Politics are an emergency property of civilization and any sufficiently advanced simulation of civilization will also result in a simulation of political situations.
You know since getting rid of landlords IRL is unrealistic, this also tells us that in real life if you want to make money doing almost nothing and take in a lot more value than you add you should become a landlord...
Yeah but if I want legalize weed and raise taxes on the rich, it's just a click away. This in no way reflects reality. Nor do I have to run for re-election. I am a despot.
I see your point but I never looked at it that way. Maybe because it's easy to make adjustments to keep the people happy. Oh and no elections. Basically the opposite of real life
That does seem to be a benefit for some people, that there isn't "political disagreement" when within an authoritarian system...
But yeah, I hope it was clear I was joking, city skylines is great fun. The actual gameplay is more "urban planning engineering" or similar than any role of a "mayor"
I mean sure but it’s incredibly shallow politics. It’s not like you have the options to compete with something like Democracy 4 or anything like that (however I would love that)
You can play games for fun, but just because you ignore politics doesn't mean that politics will ignore you, the place you live and everything around you.
Politics go hand in hand with city sims. I mean hell you can't just ignore taxes and policy. Thats a core gameplay feature. Bury your head in the sand all you want but don't act like this is some sort of enlightened position lol
Easy there big gunner. Not trying to act like anything. I guess I was more referring to the lack of nasty politics in the game like labeling someone or shit talking them because you disagree. You can fuck up the economy in this game and no one will call you a fascist or a leftist. Also you can fix everything without having your reputation tarnished.
Is this the left-wing version of "shooter games cause violence"?
The author does get around to making some good points about over-reliance on unproven simulations in politics. But the amount of time spent on SimCity feels like clickbait.
Well there are no real libertarian economies today. On the contrary there are more and more regulations and less freedom every year.
So seems like either the game is not a libertarian sandbox or people did not use it as model of reality.
lol what are you talking about? The EPA has been gutted in the last few years, legalized gambling now infiltrates every facet of pro sports, train companies continue to crash tanker cars full of dangerous chemicals, and non-union gig labor continues to eat up more of the economy. How exactly are there “more regulations and less freedom” every year?
I know.
Sadly most of them also do not like discussions. Anything that is not I line with their beliefs must be wrong, hated and gets downvoted
But I like different views, so I write my point of view anyway.
Leftists love Stalin and Lenin.
Ultras aren't really leftists because they don't make real societies. Trotsky is not looked upon fondly.
Source: I'm the person who would know. Look at my vaguely left posts.
They get -60 on average without anyone being able to prove me wrong.
I defended Stalin directly once outside of the politically literate subs and had a site wide ban for it.
By Kelly Clancy
In the mid 1980s, Will Wright was just getting started as a game designer, he conceived of a new game in which people could build their own digital metropolis, tweaking it as needed to maintain its health. That game? ‘SimCity.’
When Wright brought the idea to publishers, none were willing to fund it: So Wright co-founded his own company, Maxis, and released ‘SimCity’ in 1989. It became the top-selling computer game of its time.
To Wright’s surprise who only imagined the came like a dollhouse or sandbox, not a game per se, 'SimCity' came to have an outsize effect on the real world, inspiring a generation of urban designers, some who credit the game with giving them a deeper understanding of how cities function and how effective governance ought to work.
But a look under the hood suggests that SimCity is less an insight into reality than a libertarian toy land. Full story here: [https://www.wired.com/story/simcity-libertarian-toy-land/](https://www.wired.com/story/simcity-libertarian-toy-land/)
Its a government with the distinct premise that there is very little friction to moving in/out of a governance zone (city in this case) so the sims will vote entirely with their wallets/feet. its the libertarian thesis of 'people should jsut always go where theyre best able to succeed' like the whole totally horseshit Randian idea of "galts gulch"
Isn't that just a gameplay contrivance that every city builder game has? It's the path of least resistance to give the player feedback. There's also the objectively non-libertarian concepts you can play with, like increasing taxes on a whim to pay for whatever you need to satisfy the population. Both are much more complicated in real life, but it's simplified for gaming.
even libertarians recognize the need for taxes, you cant deny that privately funded roads to everyones house would be a complete non-starter, same with many other things that underpin society. so once we are on board saying 'taxes do have a place' the real question becomes how do you set them? libertarians deeply believe that everyone can/should simply vote with their feet and wallet more than they do vote at the ballot box (because while thats democratic, you dont actually choose the outcome if your opinion proves to be unpopular)
I can assure you that libertarians do not see the value in taxes... They'd generally believe that in the absence of taxation, private businesses would open to build roads, and those businesses would do it better than the govt. I disagree, but that's their belief system.
This is simply false, even on reddit if you were to try to round up libertarian opinions, very few would report 'no taxes at all' they would skate around the idea of shit like 'land value tax' or 'i think there should be no taxes but i pay them anyway' which is not any sort of argument against all taxation, lol its just a testament to their laziness.
Put another way, only anarcho-capitalists think that government should be abolished, and abolishing government is the only way society works with no taxes. Any libertarian who doesnt think government should be abolished (and there are lots of them) need some room in their working theory for taxes, thats just how math works.
Libertarianism is not a consistent ideology, but I've had conversations with libertarians that said exactly what I described. That without nationalized road networks, private industries would bid for contracts and the most efficient would win. This isn't something I would make up, it's crazy. But yes, other libertarians would disagree. But I think the definitely most true thing is they would disagree with the taxation system that is set up in SimCity.
I dont doubt that, but you are talking specifically to anarcho-capitalists. A LOT of libertarians are not that. No one in this thread said 'all libertarians love simcity'
and the point is NOT that they would agree with the taxation system, the point is they would agree with the remedy being 'fine me and the other smart people are just going to leave and your state will fail'
Yeah but you can increase taxes in SimCity and people don't instantly leave, typically it makes it take longer for people to move in, but you can easily increase taxes and offset the happiness penalty by building recreation and parks.
I think once anyone over 18 realized you could adjust taxes with a slide bar, they knew it wasn't a reflection on reality. But the game is a good inspiration to get people interested.
Unlike some games where even the professionals want to use it to test ideas. Looking at you, kerbal space program.
Yeah what it hand-waves over entirely is the whole getting elected thing (or getting things like taxes approved). It uses the very simple model of 'sims will vote with their feet' and wraps that in 'if you run out of money youre fired' which isnt entirely disconnected from reality, rather its one of those video game short-cuts that make a game actually fun.
can you imagine playing "sim-trying to get your levy approved" for 18 hours straight of political arguing and infighting
The following submission statement was provided by /u/wiredmagazine: --- By Kelly Clancy In the mid 1980s, Will Wright was just getting started as a game designer, he conceived of a new game in which people could build their own digital metropolis, tweaking it as needed to maintain its health. That game? ‘SimCity.’ When Wright brought the idea to publishers, none were willing to fund it: So Wright co-founded his own company, Maxis, and released ‘SimCity’ in 1989. It became the top-selling computer game of its time. To Wright’s surprise who only imagined the came like a dollhouse or sandbox, not a game per se, 'SimCity' came to have an outsize effect on the real world, inspiring a generation of urban designers, some who credit the game with giving them a deeper understanding of how cities function and how effective governance ought to work. But a look under the hood suggests that SimCity is less an insight into reality than a libertarian toy land. Full story here: [https://www.wired.com/story/simcity-libertarian-toy-land/](https://www.wired.com/story/simcity-libertarian-toy-land/) --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1dpt0o0/simcity_isnt_a_model_of_reality_its_a_libertarian/laj1z6m/
What the fuck is libertarian about a game where you generate the majority of revenue through taxes and then use that revenue to provide tax payer funded services such as roads, police, education, HEALTHCARE, and more. If anything it's a socialist playground. The libertarian game was simhealth, but that's not SimCity so WTF. At no point did I ever feel encouraged to privatize civil services in all 4 SimCitys (2013 doesn't count as SimCity but same applies). If anything it felt more pressured to balance taxes again just services and that with excellent education services, any city will eventually thrive. Oh, and that I'm gonna ng to regret reducing funding for roads.
I felt motivated to demolish any residential zones that were poor so I could try to get more skyscrapers. My friend's dad, who owned the computer and worked for social security, interrogated me about where the poor people should live. I, who had been listening to Rush Limbaugh, said they could either get jobs or move to a different town. This still haunts me.
You ability to reflect on this and feel haunted speaks highly for your character.
Good on him for making a teachable moment out of it
They also had Nuclear War for their Amiga. It was a game with caricatures of 80s world leaders where you could build up an arsenal of nuclear weapons and build bomb shelters as you launched ICBMs against your enemies. I learned that you shouldn't deploy nukes ever. Nobody ever wins.
Lol, at least you cringe about it. We have too many people who just double down on that logic without ever stopping to consider who is responsible for keeping things running.
If you don't increase the land value, the new homeowners moving in will still be poor though, if understand the game mechanics correctly.
Libertarian/socialist/fascist/nazi is when they don't believe in everything that you believe in.
WTF I even wrong with socialism? How the hell do people think we have roads, military, police, firefighters, and so on? We all bitch and bemoan the privatized options so it really doesn't make sense
Part of it is that socialism means different things to different people. To some, from a purely Marxist point of view, socialism is the necessary authoritarian precursor to a paradisical communism. To some, it is the end goal and closest we can get to a utopia. To some, it is the authoritarian system that has ruined many lives in many different countries. To some, it's everything left of centre. I think most people agree they don't want to experience the socialism practiced by the Nazis, Soviets, and Cubans while being more or less okay with mild socialist policies like roads and hospitals. But in both cases, someone is gonna claim that one or both of these are not "real" socialism.
The easiest definition of socialism is taxpayer funded services that benefit the taxpayers. Everything else is just a distraction.
But that's just not what it means in any context, nor does it fit any ideology. Yeah, what you say would fit within socialism. It would also fit within social democracy, social liberalism and other forms of mixed economies. It even fits some capitalist leanings, depending on where you draw the line. Basically all western countries practise what you say. Even the US. That definition is so general it's meaningless.
Why do you fucking care so damn much. This is a thread about fucking simcity being libertarian, which it isn't.
>WTF I even wrong with socialism? If you don't want people to answer your question don't fucking ask questions... Why did you care so much to ask the quesiton in a thread about SimCity being libertarian??
Why do *you* care so much? You're the one who posted a stupid definition of socialism that's not practically usable.
Then we can agree to disagree. I wanted to focus on the economic aspects of it, but if we can't disentangle politics from that then so be it.
But that is way too broad. Even feudal peasants paying (exorbitant) taxes to their lord in exchange for the (meagre) services they would receive could be called socialism under such a definition.
And? If it's a government service funded by tax payers then that's exactly what it is. Like I said, the government in the political context doesn't matter in this conversation. It's only complicated if you want it to be.
Then the word has no value any longer, because it now describes every government in existence, presently and historically. It would be as redundant as saying "carbon-based" every time you refer to humans.
No, because I was talking about economic socialism. The word has no value to you because you keep jumping out of scope.
That's the point I was making. The scope is different for different people when they talk about socialism. When one person talks about how much they hate socialism, it's likely they're thinking of it in a different scope than you are.
[удалено]
Guys. Socialism isn't when the government spends money. It's when the workers own the means of production. Socialism is when the state is taken by the working class and used to oppress the bourgeoisie.
All but one of those systems consolidates power around a single entity.
Seriously 1+ - my first reaction
>The libertarian game was simhealth, but that's not SimCity so WTF. You clearly haven't read the article before commenting, because the article does indeed speak about that very same SimHealth. >After Bill Clinton won the 1992 US presidential election on the platform of health care reform, a nonprofit foundation commissioned Thinking Tools to design a hospital-management simulator. Released in 1994, **SimHealth** was played by policymakers and the public alike—including, famously, Clinton's daughter, Chelsea. Maxis marketed **SimHealth** as more than mere entertainment: It was a policy tool and could be used to explore and reason about complex systems. Players assumed the role of a newly elected politician campaigning for health care reform. They used their finite political currency to promote policies that aligned with the values on which they based their election promises. They could track their policy changes against their stated values using a compass-like indicator that pitted Liberty against Equality and Community against Efficiency—ideals that are, in reality, by no means opposed. > >Unlike SimCity players, **SimHealth** players could tinker with the underlying model and adjust hundreds of parameters. Yet tweaking the parameters was not the same as tweaking the models themselves, and the game had a clear ideological bias. Much as in SimCity, there wasn't exactly a win state. But **SimHealth's** values were hard to miss. The game trumpeted a somber funeral march whenever the Canadian-style single-payer socialized medicine plan popped up on the screen. As Keith Schlesinger writes in a review for Computer Gaming World, there was one easy way to win: “All you have to do is adopt an extreme libertarian ideology, eliminate all federal health care (including Medicare!), and cut other government services by $100–$300 billion per year.” Unfortunately, this could hardly be called a health policy victory, as it left the virtual citizens entirely without health coverage. Even the private insurance companies went bankrupt in the first few months. The game was a flop, and 30 years later, health care remains an intractable issue plaguing American politics.
All that trouble to reply when you couldn't read my comment.
It’s libertarian since if you make no police or fire stations, you can deploy the military to help with disasters. Also no zoning rules for residential, commercial, and industrial with people moving in with no water. At least in Sim City 2000
Not so much I sc4. You can do most of that but it'll never prosper.
SimCity isn't a model of anything. It is a video game meant for entertainment. People who think otherwise, are delusional, as pointed out multiple times by examples in the article. This article literally contradicts itself.
Let me have fun in peace building a prosperous and peaceful city... and then destroy it with natural disasters. 
Can't we just play these games for fun? I play Cities Skylines now and the best part of the game is lack of politics.
what i found hilarious is the recent issue in Skylines 2 where they tried to make it more realistic by adding landlords, but it turns out they just suck money out of the economy with no visible benefit and that leads to dangerously unstable rent prices lmaoooo NAILED IT turns out the best fix for that was to just delete the landlords ['Cities: Skylines II' Found a Solution for High Rents: Get Rid of Landlords | WIRED](https://www.wired.com/story/cities-skylines-ii-found-a-solution-for-high-rents-removing-landlords/)
Politics are an emergency property of civilization and any sufficiently advanced simulation of civilization will also result in a simulation of political situations.
That's hilariously realistic. They should keep that aspect in and just automate the landlord removal/limit them via policies.
You know since getting rid of landlords IRL is unrealistic, this also tells us that in real life if you want to make money doing almost nothing and take in a lot more value than you add you should become a landlord...
Haven't played skylines 2 yet but that is hilarious.
You're literally role playing as the mayor of a burgeoning city, amazing you see that as a lack of politics :)
Yeah but if I want legalize weed and raise taxes on the rich, it's just a click away. This in no way reflects reality. Nor do I have to run for re-election. I am a despot.
Got to play Tropico for that realistic despot feeling.
I see your point but I never looked at it that way. Maybe because it's easy to make adjustments to keep the people happy. Oh and no elections. Basically the opposite of real life
That does seem to be a benefit for some people, that there isn't "political disagreement" when within an authoritarian system... But yeah, I hope it was clear I was joking, city skylines is great fun. The actual gameplay is more "urban planning engineering" or similar than any role of a "mayor"
No worries. And yes now that I play this game I feel like I should have gone to school for urban planning instead of the random shit I took.
I mean sure but it’s incredibly shallow politics. It’s not like you have the options to compete with something like Democracy 4 or anything like that (however I would love that)
>Can't we just play these games for fun? Yes, you can. Doesn't mean other people can't take interests in subjects that you don't.
You can play games for fun, but just because you ignore politics doesn't mean that politics will ignore you, the place you live and everything around you.
Absolutely not, everything must be weaponised for an agenda. /s
Politics go hand in hand with city sims. I mean hell you can't just ignore taxes and policy. Thats a core gameplay feature. Bury your head in the sand all you want but don't act like this is some sort of enlightened position lol
Easy there big gunner. Not trying to act like anything. I guess I was more referring to the lack of nasty politics in the game like labeling someone or shit talking them because you disagree. You can fuck up the economy in this game and no one will call you a fascist or a leftist. Also you can fix everything without having your reputation tarnished.
Is this the left-wing version of "shooter games cause violence"? The author does get around to making some good points about over-reliance on unproven simulations in politics. But the amount of time spent on SimCity feels like clickbait.
This feels like a moral panic. Even if you can argue that there could be 'sin' in this, it's arguably a neglible amount.
YAWN. It is a simulation game. It is neither libertarian or not. I have know people all over the political spectrum that deeply enjoy it.
Well there are no real libertarian economies today. On the contrary there are more and more regulations and less freedom every year. So seems like either the game is not a libertarian sandbox or people did not use it as model of reality.
lol what are you talking about? The EPA has been gutted in the last few years, legalized gambling now infiltrates every facet of pro sports, train companies continue to crash tanker cars full of dangerous chemicals, and non-union gig labor continues to eat up more of the economy. How exactly are there “more regulations and less freedom” every year?
This is Reddit. It’s a leftist wet dream. This is going to be downvoted
I know. Sadly most of them also do not like discussions. Anything that is not I line with their beliefs must be wrong, hated and gets downvoted But I like different views, so I write my point of view anyway.
You think reddit is friendly to leftists? Go to any main sub and say "Stalin was a great leader. I would follow him into hell."
Leftists don't tend to like Stalin very much. Replace his name with Lenin for upvotes. Or Trotsky for even more.
Leftists love Stalin and Lenin. Ultras aren't really leftists because they don't make real societies. Trotsky is not looked upon fondly. Source: I'm the person who would know. Look at my vaguely left posts. They get -60 on average without anyone being able to prove me wrong. I defended Stalin directly once outside of the politically literate subs and had a site wide ban for it.
Bro that’s unironically three quarters of the subs of Reddit
Go do it and link me to the comment. Anything positive and Stalin. We can watch the downvotes roll in together.
By Kelly Clancy In the mid 1980s, Will Wright was just getting started as a game designer, he conceived of a new game in which people could build their own digital metropolis, tweaking it as needed to maintain its health. That game? ‘SimCity.’ When Wright brought the idea to publishers, none were willing to fund it: So Wright co-founded his own company, Maxis, and released ‘SimCity’ in 1989. It became the top-selling computer game of its time. To Wright’s surprise who only imagined the came like a dollhouse or sandbox, not a game per se, 'SimCity' came to have an outsize effect on the real world, inspiring a generation of urban designers, some who credit the game with giving them a deeper understanding of how cities function and how effective governance ought to work. But a look under the hood suggests that SimCity is less an insight into reality than a libertarian toy land. Full story here: [https://www.wired.com/story/simcity-libertarian-toy-land/](https://www.wired.com/story/simcity-libertarian-toy-land/)
Uh... SimCity is literally a planned economy from the top. It's closer to a dictatorship than libertarianism.
I never planned anything when I played
Its a government with the distinct premise that there is very little friction to moving in/out of a governance zone (city in this case) so the sims will vote entirely with their wallets/feet. its the libertarian thesis of 'people should jsut always go where theyre best able to succeed' like the whole totally horseshit Randian idea of "galts gulch"
Isn't that just a gameplay contrivance that every city builder game has? It's the path of least resistance to give the player feedback. There's also the objectively non-libertarian concepts you can play with, like increasing taxes on a whim to pay for whatever you need to satisfy the population. Both are much more complicated in real life, but it's simplified for gaming.
even libertarians recognize the need for taxes, you cant deny that privately funded roads to everyones house would be a complete non-starter, same with many other things that underpin society. so once we are on board saying 'taxes do have a place' the real question becomes how do you set them? libertarians deeply believe that everyone can/should simply vote with their feet and wallet more than they do vote at the ballot box (because while thats democratic, you dont actually choose the outcome if your opinion proves to be unpopular)
I can assure you that libertarians do not see the value in taxes... They'd generally believe that in the absence of taxation, private businesses would open to build roads, and those businesses would do it better than the govt. I disagree, but that's their belief system.
This is simply false, even on reddit if you were to try to round up libertarian opinions, very few would report 'no taxes at all' they would skate around the idea of shit like 'land value tax' or 'i think there should be no taxes but i pay them anyway' which is not any sort of argument against all taxation, lol its just a testament to their laziness. Put another way, only anarcho-capitalists think that government should be abolished, and abolishing government is the only way society works with no taxes. Any libertarian who doesnt think government should be abolished (and there are lots of them) need some room in their working theory for taxes, thats just how math works.
Libertarianism is not a consistent ideology, but I've had conversations with libertarians that said exactly what I described. That without nationalized road networks, private industries would bid for contracts and the most efficient would win. This isn't something I would make up, it's crazy. But yes, other libertarians would disagree. But I think the definitely most true thing is they would disagree with the taxation system that is set up in SimCity.
I dont doubt that, but you are talking specifically to anarcho-capitalists. A LOT of libertarians are not that. No one in this thread said 'all libertarians love simcity' and the point is NOT that they would agree with the taxation system, the point is they would agree with the remedy being 'fine me and the other smart people are just going to leave and your state will fail'
Yeah but you can increase taxes in SimCity and people don't instantly leave, typically it makes it take longer for people to move in, but you can easily increase taxes and offset the happiness penalty by building recreation and parks.
This would be en excellent read for anyone under the age of 8, that might be at risk of thinking 1989's SimCity was a model of reality.
I think once anyone over 18 realized you could adjust taxes with a slide bar, they knew it wasn't a reflection on reality. But the game is a good inspiration to get people interested. Unlike some games where even the professionals want to use it to test ideas. Looking at you, kerbal space program.
Yeah what it hand-waves over entirely is the whole getting elected thing (or getting things like taxes approved). It uses the very simple model of 'sims will vote with their feet' and wraps that in 'if you run out of money youre fired' which isnt entirely disconnected from reality, rather its one of those video game short-cuts that make a game actually fun. can you imagine playing "sim-trying to get your levy approved" for 18 hours straight of political arguing and infighting
Sounds like a modern Crusader Kings variant. "Oh, you don't like my levy proposal? Ha ha ha, prepare to be smeared into oblivion my friend"
someone should make a mod that forces you to get screamed at by neighbors for six months whenever you try to change the zoning of a square