Minecraft and Government

Alberta, Canada Social Studies 30-1 January 2012 Diploma Examination

Alright, here is what I said in the diploma. Keep in mind the question and the essay are partially paraphrased. This is also the shortened version of what I actually wrote...

Diploma Question: "Self-interest leads to innovation. The more people pursue self-interest the less government involvement is needed"
"Do you agree?"

This is a shortened version and only contains the portion where Minecraft is mentioned.

This is what I said:

A society based upon creativity is a society of innovation, stability, and creativity. If people were to pursue the creativity of their own self-interest a society of accelerating innovation with new advances for a global population that would use those innovations to create more and more products that consumers would love and adore. The creative society wouldn't need a government because the people would maintain the society by adapting and creating a new way to deal with the issue rather than have someone else tell them what to do. Why should we have to vote in someone? Why can't we simply decide what to do?

There is a video game called Minecraft. In this game you have a personal world, and you have access to public worlds. In your own personal world you have basic tools to create your own society. You are given items and blocks to create whatever you please, if you wanted to create a building, you can, or if you prefer building statues, go ahead. Not only can you decide what to build, you can define a gameplay for yourself. What you can do is choose between two basic modes: creative and survival. In creative you have no threats, you simply can just build while in survival your goal is to not be killed by either monsters or by running out of food. You can expand these to whatever you please, for example you can choose survival but use your own creativity to apply your own gameplay style such as if you wanted to create a more realistic game for yourself you would likely create actual houses an buildings while if you were to lean towards creating an industry-based game style you would likely create amazing mines to gather resources. In public worlds you are partially restricted by basic rules the world administrator sets. These rules usually affect gameplay such as you can or cannot kill other players, you can or cannot build houses, you must or must not build a style of building. The rules create a unique environment of people because they all have the same style of gameplay. Some worlds have intense control over what you can and cannot do while others simply say "Just don't swear" meaning you are free to do what you please. The great thing about public worlds is that you can leave one at any point and join another. This is how society should operate. You should be able to join a type of society and leave at any point to either go off on your own or to join another style of society where it would be more/less restricted or be aimed at a different goal. People should be able to roam free and do what they please while creating a society based on what they want.

Of course a global use of rule of law would be required as you should not be able to kill people but in the end there would be so little rule of law you would have competition, private property, accelerated innovation and a world of creativity. There would be the group of people who would want control and see this perspective as lack of control, but you wouldn't need absolute control as the control would be in the people. The people themselves would manage how they react, live, survive, and create.





Edited by Jared version:

A society based upon creativity is a society of innovation, stability, and creativity. If people were to pursue the creativity of their own self-interest a society of accelerating innovation with new advances for a global population that would use those innovations to create more products that consumers would love and adore. The creative society wouldn't need a government because the people would maintain the society by adapting and creating a new way to deal with the issue rather than have someone else tell them what to do. Why should we have to vote for someone? Why can't we simply decide what to do?

There is a videogame called Minecraft. In this game you have a personal world, and you have access to public worlds. In your own personal world you have basic tools to create your own society. You are given items and blocks to create whatever you please, if you want to create a building, you can, or if you prefer building statues, go ahead. Not only can you decide what to build, you can define gameplay for yourself. What you can do is choose between two basic modes: creative and survival. In creative you have no threats, you can simply build. In survival your goal is not to be killed either by monsters or by running out of food. You can expand these to whatever you please, for example you can choose survival but use your own creativity to apply your own gameplay style such as if you wanted to create a more realistic game for yourself you would likely create actual houses and buildings while if you were to lean towards creating an industry-based game style you would likely create amazing mines to gather resources. In public worlds you are partially restricted by basic rules the world administrator sets. These rules usually affect gameplay in ways that may not allow you to kill other players, build houses, or build a certain style of building. The rules create a unique community of people because they all have the same style of gameplay. Some worlds have intense control over what you can and cannot do while others simply say "Just don't swear" meaning you are free to do what you please. The great thing about public worlds is that you can leave one at any time and join another. This is how society should operate. You should be able to join any type of society and leave it at any period to either play by yourself or join another style of society where it would be more/less restricted or be aimed towards a different goal. People should be able to roam free and do what they please while creating a society based on what they want.

Of course a global use of rule of law would be required as you should not be able to kill people but in the end there would be so little law you would have competition, private property, accelerated innovation and a world of creativity. There would be the group of people who would want control and see this perspective as lack of control, but you wouldn't need absolute control as the control would be in the people. The people themselves would manage how they react, live, survive, and create.