Asklemmy

Possibly.

I think that one of the basic laws that “governs” people is that if you hurt someone, they’ll get mad and be motivated to hurt you back.

But if you kill someone, they can’t retaliate.

Then it’s up to their kin, their friends and family, to avenge them.

I think government somewhat becomes necessary when societies get large enough that one’s kin network can’t find their cousin’s killer. Then we get police, whose job it is to find that killer and punish them.

I know that’s an oversimplified, single-dimensional model of government. But I feel like when people are facing, en masse, the horrific void of death, not just in terms of murder but also in terms of war, that government really becomes a compelling idea.

Death is like a black hole that nothing echoes back from. Government helps us deal with that void by creating a virtual person who can still play their “next move” even after they’ve passed through that doorway.

Of course video games have their own forms of “death”. Spawn camping for instance takes a player out of the game. Surrounding a person’s bed with lava can “permakill” them in Minecraft.

It’s just that video games sort of have “government” built into the game mechanics. Respawning is a solution to the “no retaliation after death” problem. Anti cheat stuff. Inventory that literally cannot be accessed by anyone other than the player solves theft.

Games are designed to be fun, which is kind of what government does to reality. It redesigns reality to be a playable, balanced game.

I would love to see more games with less balancing, where the balancing comes from player experimentation with governing agreements.

But government’s largely a solution to aspects of reality that are truly, horribly, “not fun”.