The Downsides of Libertarianism

[Carinthium]

I haven't posted much on this forum since I made a fool of myself a while back, but I needed some help on something for which the people on this site seemed ideally suited.

I'm building up a character for an RPG who is meant to be a pure libertarian- that is, a completely pure libertarian starting from the premises that a person's liberty and property may not be violated and goes from there with complete devotion and consistency. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that there will be massive consequences for this, especially if (as seems at least possible given the game) he gets a posistion of power.

Being sympathetic to libertarianism, I suspect I won't be able to see some of the negative consequences of this character's actions (although some are fairly obvious). Thus, I'm requesting some help- I want him to be a viable character with an absolute 0% hypocrisy rating.

[The Romulan Republic]

Keep in mind that their is room for a variety of opinions in libertarianism. For example, I've heard (from a libertarian I know) that abortion is a divisive issue for libertarians. You can argue, depending one when you believe life begins I guess, that it violates the rights of the unborn baby, or that not allowing it violates the mother's right to control her body. Both could be consistent libertarian positions.

Not sure how relevant this particular issue will be in your game, but keep in mind you're not restricted to exactly one set of beliefs.

If this is a particularly war-torn RPG setting, your character may have trouble as a ruler- a hard core, consistent libertarian would probably be anti-conscription and anti-taxation. As such, he would probably not possess a standing army, instead relying on volunteer citizen militias. Of course, if he was a really hard core, consistent libertarian, he'd never rule at all, as he would probably consider government evil. Or he would run a company or other non-govermental organization.

Lastly, if this is RPG is a fantasy setting, how far does his libertarianism extend regarding taboos like necromancy? Though a libertarian might oppose necromancy not for reasons like its being against God's will/the natural order, but because raising the dead is a violation of property (grave desecration) and of personal freedom (enslaving the spirits of the dead).

Not sure if that helps, but I hope so.

[Carinthium]

I'm not sure whether to make my character intelligent enough to even think of the abortion issue- there are pros and cons to doing so from a plot perspective.

The character starts in the United States (in which I was planning to have him oppose the US government at every turn in the name of his beliefs), then ends up transported to another world for unknown reasons. He's already an anarchist due to his pure libertarianism, which is going to be part of his problem.

I know the genre is fantasy, but little more than that. Thus he will never have thought of the necromancy issue and will have to determine his views in play (as far as I can tell it's most consistent for him to oppose it, but in extremis he might just take a different posistion as he hasn't thought about it before).

[Simon_Jester]

I haven't posted much on this forum since I made a fool of myself a while back, but I needed some help on something for which the people on this site seemed ideally suited.

I'm building up a character for an RPG who is meant to be a pure libertarian- that is, a completely pure libertarian starting from the premises that a person's liberty and property may not be violated and goes from there with complete devotion and consistency. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that there will be massive consequences for this, especially if (as seems at least possible given the game) he gets a posistion of power.

Being sympathetic to libertarianism, I suspect I won't be able to see some of the negative consequences of this character's actions (although some are fairly obvious). Thus, I'm requesting some help- I want him to be a viable character with an absolute 0% hypocrisy rating.

Remember the huge chunks of his personality which have nothing to do with libertarianism. Is he loyal to his friends? How does he take sides in zero-sum conflicts between people where either one will be harmed or the other. And so on.

Also remember that out of character, you don't want to be the asshole whose character refuses to do things that the rest of the party is trying to accomplish, when those things are reasonable. See here, near the bottom, under "decide to react differently," to see how this can be an issue. There's few things more obnoxious than a player who acts obstructionist because his character concept "won't let" him play well with others.

[Carinthium]

1- Of course I'm dealing with those. I was asking for help in the one aspect I suspected people here would be good at.
2- The others know what I'm playing and are fine with it. They're not idiots, so they probably have a good idea of what I'll do.

[SpaceMarine93]

Simply put, your character won't work

[Imperial Overlord]

There is more than one strain of Libertarianism. The default assumption seems to be anarcho-capitalistic "kill the government" style, but that's not necessarily what your character has to subscribe to. Less extreme forms of right liberalism which acknowledge the value of government and the various left wing branches of philosophy might be more suitable to your character. I can certainly see good drama in having a character who believes the state's existence is justified by it's roll to promote the common good and individual rights being conflicted over whether or not to use the coercive tools at his disposal (enforcing martial law, conscription, etcetera) to deal with a crisis or abandon those tools in order to preserve individual liberty. Is the crisis severe enough that those means are justified?

[Panzersharkcat]

Mhm. For that matter, there are Austrian school free market libertarians, like Kevin Carson, who openly identify themselves as socialists as well. But yeah, like what others have said, do what you must to help and let "posterity" judge you. It's the only way I can justify my James Hagen character for Fallout 3, who I try to play as an ultra-libertarian, can side with Ashur and end up picking up a bunch of former Enclave members to crew his captured alien ship (that's from a mod, Mothership Zeta Crew) to form a state.

[PainRack]

What about libertarianism as stand on your own two feet? A person proud of not accepting help from strangers, to earn his own keep, to be valuable in and as of his own self.

That could translate well to a fantasy setting as a ranger and etc.

He would well be willing to help feed the poor by giving direct acts of charity, but he would be unwilling to support large, government stances to help improve their lot by say taking part in a quest to help the estranged king to the throne.

[Carinthium]

Simply put, your character won't work

Could you clarify this please? I think I know what your argument is going to be, but it would be good if you could spell it out.

There is more than one strain of Libertarianism. The default assumption seems to be anarcho-capitalistic "kill the government" style, but that's not necessarily what your character has to subscribe to. Less extreme forms of right liberalism which acknowledge the value of government and the various left wing branches of philosophy might be more suitable to your character. I can certainly see good drama in having a character who believes the state's existence is justified by it's roll to promote the common good and individual rights being conflicted over whether or not to use the coercive tools at his disposal (enforcing martial law, conscription, etcetera) to deal with a crisis or abandon those tools in order to preserve individual liberty. Is the crisis severe enough that those means are justified?

That's true, but my original concept was a pure libertarian- somebody who refused to deviate from the idea of human freedom at any cost.

What about libertarianism as stand on your own two feet? A person proud of not accepting help from strangers, to earn his own keep, to be valuable in and as of his own self.

That could translate well to a fantasy setting as a ranger and etc.

He would well be willing to help feed the poor by giving direct acts of charity, but he would be unwilling to support large, government stances to help improve their lot by say taking part in a quest to help the estranged king to the throne.

Come to think of it, whilst I didn't think of that originally my character probably shouldn't accept help from strangers if he can help it. Still, judging from what I know of real life a pure libertarian would at the absolute minimum not see themselves as obliged to help the poor, and would likely see their plight as their own fault or not something of concern.

[PainRack]

Not really.... If you check out Ron Paul and other libertarian politicians, what they oppose are government charity work.

For the more reasonable stands, its based on the argument that charity should be voluntary, not "forced taxation".

For the less, the argument appears to be based on the if you give a man a fish n if you teach a man to fish. Somehow, government social welfare programs are based on the first. How one teaches a man to fish appears to be divided. It could be give the man a gun or some other sthick.




There ARE the "I got mine and screw you" mentality involved with some libertarians, but they honestly don't form the platform of all activists.

[Carinthium]

The game's been cancelled anyway, but the basic libertarian argument as I understood it was that it was unjust to violate property rights or a person's liberty. This seems to be the most pure pro-liberty argument, so for the idea of a 'pure libertarian' it made a good starting point.

[Setzer]

Most of the Libertarians (actually anarcho-capitalists) seem to care more about property then equal rights. I talked to one who said he'd have no problem with children being the property of their parents until they started earning money on their own. Of course, he also believed it was wrong to make a white supremacist pay taxes that funded schools where black children would be allowed to attend. That might tie into your "Freedom above all" concept, if the guy believes it's wrong to force someone do something they don't want to do.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

Most of the Libertarians (actually anarcho-capitalists) seem to care more about property then equal rights.

All rights stem from Private Property is the belief for Free Market Anarchists that I know. Also, equal rights means what, exactly? Equal access to someone else's property? Shouldn't that be up to the person who owns said property?

I talked to one who said he'd have no problem with children being the property of their parents until they started earning money on their own.

But there are also Free Market Anarchists who believe that children should be allowed to divorce themselves from their parents. There is also the view that childhood ends and adulthood begins with the ending (or later than simple onset) of puberty. As for myself, I think parents are only temporary regents of their children and could easily be held accountable for their actions while acting as such (beat your kid and he may sue your ass for compensation later on).

[Setzer]

Is that because you believe parents have a moral obligation to raise their children well, or is it "Treat them well or you'll get sued?"

[BrooklynRedLeg]

Is that because you believe parents have a moral obligation to raise their children well, or is it "Treat them well or you'll get sued?"

No, it has more to do with Contractual obligation (and I realize that sounds weird to some people). Said child would not exist had his parents not engaged in activity that generates children (ignoring for the moment questions of forced conception/rape etc). Parents are contractually obligated to fulfill their end of the bargain by acting as a regent for their child until such time as he/she reaches majority and can make their own decisions. Traditionally, this was about the time of puberty, though modern 'sensibilities' have pushed it to 18 (which I won't get into at the moment).

Now, having said that, there is the moral obligation not to violate The Non-Aggression Axiom. That applies to everyone.