The games we play

Monopoly's origins are contentious, but the popular board game has been in circulation since at least the early 1900s. Some historians trace it back to a British game introduced in 1904, "The Landlord's Game," which was intended to demonstrate the dangers of capitalism to children. The British viewed board games as "an instrument of moral instruction." Ironically, when the game was exported to the United States and patented by Hasbro in 1935, it became the ultimate exemplification of personal success and self-enterprise.

Monopoly is about "gouging and exploiting," a zero-sum game in which winning means that all other players have gone bankrupt. The game requires no skill — just a simple roll of the dice — and results in a wealth distribution that John Rawls would dub "arbitrary from the moral point of view." (1)

Despite any moral judgments that can be made about the game, Monopoly is a household name, holding the record as the best-selling board game in the world and boasting over 500 million players throughout its existence. Countless adaptations have been spawned — a version for children, editions based on popular television shows and boards honoring particular cities. The phrases of the game have become part of the American vernacular. (Just think about how many times you have been told "do not pass go.")

The game follows the liberal principles set out by John Locke and Adam Smith (in theory) — the rules are acceptable to the people who live, or in this case, play, under them. Anyone who participates in a game of monopoly understands that while someone will win and gain prosperity, everyone else will lose along the way. But unlike the founding principles of classic liberalism, the board game denies the role of hard work (there is no "best way" to roll a dice) and it does not permit all who play to succeed. It is a game of winner-takes-all; a state in which all that matters is the sum in your bank account.

John Stuart Mill would be appalled at the game. In applying his theory to political economy, he affirmed that "the best state for human nature is that in which, while no one is poor, no one desires to be richer." (2) Monopoly advocates the opposite: get rich as a direct result of inflicting poverty on the poor soul who happened to land on your property.

Economics Professor Ralph Anspach felt similarly and in the 1970s, created "Anti-Monopoly" — a more "philosophically pleasing alternative." After being challenged by his students to show the dark side of monopolistic practices through an equally fun activity, he designed the board game. The goal in his version: destroy and dismantle economic monopolies.

(Somewhat ironically, he was sued by Hasbro for the use of their trademarked name. He won the suit, an event he framed as a direct illustration of what his game aims to do: the little guy fighting back against "Big Business." He continued marketing the game and views his secondary purpose as ensuring that the origins of Monopoly, as a game intended to warn about the capitalist dangers it now applauds, survives.) (3)

Regardless of which game best illustrates capitalism — The Landlord's Game, Monopoly or its antithesis — all demonstrate routes to prosperity. So which is the most fair? The most adherent to liberal principles? Should those who accumulate wealth, even if by luck, be punished? Or should all the spoils be (no pun intended) fair game?

From Rawls' perspective, and from the viewpoint of those who developed the idea of "luck egalitarianism" from his principles, there must be a mechanism to correct for the chance-based poverty. Rolling a two versus rolling a seven should not — in Monopoly or in life — seal an individual to an impoverished future. He proclaimed justice as fairness, not justice as "draw chance chard." As long as there was something to prevent extreme and unfair poverty, Rawls would probably be willing to play any of the three board games.

If you handed Mill Monopoly, he would probably behave like the toddler who throws the game he does not want to play on the floor. In countries that have already undergone development, he calls for "better distribution," and shows only disdain for wealthy individuals who increase their holdings simply because they can. He speaks of "levelling institutions," and could therefore, probably get behind Anspach's Anti-Monopoly. The Landlord's Game, with its warnings about the dangers of capitalism and amassing wealth, would probably also appeal to Mill.

If Adam Smith is to be taken literally, he would disagree with all three games. Every player performs the same tasks — however will the society inside the board game survive?

Regardless, it is reasonably safe to say that it would not be enjoyable to play Monopoly with any of these three theorizing men. After all, it is just a game.

_____

(1) Tomasi, John. Market Democracy: Property, Equality and the New American Dream, 2009. Chap. 2

(2) Mill, John Stuart. Principles of Political Economy with some of their Applications to Social Philosophy, 1848. IV.6.5

(3) Williams, Juan. "Monopoly." NPR: Morning Edition, Nov. 25, 2002. http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/patc/monopoly/index.html