Libertarian Purity Test

[PainefulTruth]

This isn't a libertarian purity test. It's a test between authoritarianism and isolationist anarchy, with libertarians falling in the middle....where I am.....with a 70.

I agree that many questions were just (intentionally) bad, like, is it ok in war to bomb civilians, which equates to is it ok to target civilians.

Ahh, so you're a "real" libertarian. Gotcha.

Compared to the definition of "real" libertarian the test is trying to insinuate, yes.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

This isn't a libertarian purity test. It's a test between authoritarianism and isolationist anarchy, with libertarians falling in the middle....where I am.....with a 70.

I agree that many questions were just (intentionally) bad, like, is it ok in war to bomb civilians, which equates to is it ok to target civilians.

Ahh, so you're a "real" libertarian. Gotcha.

Compared to the definition of "real" libertarian the test is trying to insinuate, yes.

So not really then.

 

[PainefulTruth]

Compared to the definition of "real" libertarian the test is trying to insinuate, yes.

So not really then.

Yes, really, since the only apparent alternative is the pacifist model for libertarianism--aka anarchy. Libertarians acknowledge the need for limited government, anarchists do not...by definition. Anarchy is nothing but a power vacuum which will be filled by some form of government, be the entity concerned a nation or a family.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Compared to the definition of "real" libertarian the test is trying to insinuate, yes.

So not really then.

Yes, really, since the only apparent alternative is the pacifist model for libertarianism--aka anarchy. Libertarians acknowledge the need for limited government, anarchists do not...by definition. Anarchy is nothing but a power vacuum which will be filled by some form of government, be the entity concerned a nation or a family.

Libertarians do not necessarily acknowledge any need for coercive violence, actually. Minarchist libertarians do, but anarchist libertarians do not. You don't get to pick and choose who is or is not a libertarian. By your definition Murray Rothbard would not be a libertarian, which is obviously ridiculous.

 

[cereal_killer]

97

You have entered the heady realm of hard-core libertarianism.

 

[PainefulTruth]

Libertarians do not necessarily acknowledge any need for coercive violence, actually. Minarchist libertarians do, but anarchist libertarians do not. You don't get to pick and choose who is or is not a libertarian. By your definition Murray Rothbard would not be a libertarian, which is obviously ridiculous.

You use the same typical anarchistic tactic of playing with the dictionary, and labeling ideas by people's names--as if that gives them more authority. The only serious issue that separates libertarians is self-defense, which goes back to the 60s and the anti-war at all costs radicals that ruled the fundamentalist left at that time. And the world has gotten a lot smaller even since then. I see libertarians as pacifists, severe isolationists or with a military-intelligence capability to keep us aware of world-wide political circumstances, and the ability to carry the war to those who threaten us before/after they bring it to us. If the country had been under the influence of the first two types, we wouldn't have survived WWII.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

This test was based mostly in fiscal conservatism and small government - not inclusive enough of social freedom and personal liberty.

For example, it asked several times if taxes were too high, but low taxes are often a cover for high fees.

It made no mention of gay marriage.
No mention of the US prison system, which is a disgrace.


145

Instead of accepting this score, which is a bit high for a libertarian and more of a anarchist, the test asks me to think about my answers and take the test again!

Libertarian is not a "one size fits all" party.


.

 

[william the wie]

115 I severely disagree about the speed and efficacy of Rothbardian solutions since I am a minarchist.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Compared to the definition of "real" libertarian the test is trying to insinuate, yes.

So not really then.

Yes, really, since the only apparent alternative is the pacifist model for libertarianism--aka anarchy. Libertarians acknowledge the need for limited government, anarchists do not...by definition. Anarchy is nothing but a power vacuum which will be filled by some form of government, be the entity concerned a nation or a family.

Yes, I am no fan of laissez-faire governance. We shouldn't have complete and total anarchy, just a smaller, leaner, meaner and more cooperative government.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Libertarians do not necessarily acknowledge any need for coercive violence, actually. Minarchist libertarians do, but anarchist libertarians do not. You don't get to pick and choose who is or is not a libertarian. By your definition Murray Rothbard would not be a libertarian, which is obviously ridiculous.

You use the same typical anarchistic tactic of playing with the dictionary, and labeling ideas by people's names--as if that gives them more authority. The only serious issue that separates libertarians is self-defense, which goes back to the 60s and the anti-war at all costs radicals that ruled the fundamentalist left at that time. And the world has gotten a lot smaller even since then. I see libertarians as pacifists, severe isolationists or with a military-intelligence capability to keep us aware of world-wide political circumstances, and the ability to carry the war to those who threaten us before/after they bring it to us. If the country had been under the influence of the first two types, we wouldn't have survived WWII.

So you've gone from being a "real" libertarian to thinking libertarians are naive pacifists. That didn't take long. And I'm not the one playing with the dictionary. You're simply trying to redefine libertarian to mean conservative, the same way progressives tried to redefine the word liberal. No thanks.

 

[bripat9643]

So not really then.

Yes, really, since the only apparent alternative is the pacifist model for libertarianism--aka anarchy. Libertarians acknowledge the need for limited government, anarchists do not...by definition. Anarchy is nothing but a power vacuum which will be filled by some form of government, be the entity concerned a nation or a family.

Yes, I am no fan of laissez-faire governance. We shouldn't have complete and total anarchy, just a smaller, leaner, meaner and more cooperative government.

The term "limited government" is an oxymoron. If government exists, it continues to grow until it consumes all of society.

 

[PainefulTruth]

This test was based mostly in fiscal conservatism and small government - not inclusive enough of social freedom and personal liberty.

It clearly had a bias toward anarchism as opposed to libertarianism.

It made no mention of gay marriage.

No mention of the US prison system, which is a disgrace.

It's pretty much a given that government corruption is bad, meaning the prison system would be on a very long list.

Libertarian is not a "one size fits all" party.

If it's ideas are based on reason, it should be.

Yes, I am no fan of laissez-faire governance. We shouldn't have complete and total anarchy, just a smaller, leaner, meaner and more cooperative government.

I assume you mean we shouldn't have complete and total laissez-faire governance. Beyond that, amen!

So you've gone from being a "real" libertarian to thinking libertarians are naive pacifists.

I haven't "gone" anywhere. And I would characterize pacifistic libertarians as thoughtless, with their heads intentionally in the sand rather than naive which implies and unaware innocence.

That didn't take long. And I'm not the one playing with the dictionary. You're simply trying to redefine libertarian to mean conservative, the same way progressives tried to redefine the word liberal. No thanks.

You characterize libertarians as anarchists and I'm the one redefining term. And sorry, libertarianism is fiscal political conservatism. But I don't use the term due to its theocratic associations.

The term "limited government" is an oxymoron. If government exists, it continues to grow until it consumes all of society.

Anarchy is no substitute for government with a responsible electorate to keep it limited. Again, anarchy is a power vacuum which idealists believe won't be subject to any collection of two bit dictators attempting to move in and fight each other to take over. If a responsible electorate isn't available, the would be dictators move in in that case as well.

Write this down: The only options available for governance are a responsible, INFORMED, electorate, or despotism. A power vacuum (anarchy) is not an option that will last for more than 75 microseconds.

 

[bripat9643]

The term "limited government" is an oxymoron. If government exists, it continues to grow until it consumes all of society.

Anarchy is no substitute for government with a responsible electorate to keep it limited. Again, anarchy is a power vacuum which idealists believe won't be subject to any collection of two bit dictators attempting to move in and fight each other to take over. If a responsible electorate isn't available, the would be dictators move in in that case as well.

Write this down: The only options available for governance are a responsible, INFORMED, electorate, or despotism. A power vacuum (anarchy) is not an option that will last for more than 75 microseconds.

"Responsible electorate" is also an oxymoron. Why do you think the Democrats are always trying to widen the franchise? They want as many clueless morons voting as possible. Most people aren't qualified to have a say in running our government. They're just too ignorant and irrational.

As for anarchy, what I favor is called the "private law society." It's not a "power vacuum," but there is no monopoly on protection services. These are provided by insurance companies that have to compete for your business.

If monopoly is bad, then how can anyone believe that giving any group of people the monopoly on force is going to have good consequences? It won't. The history of the United States is sufficient proof of that.

 

[PainefulTruth]

"Responsible electorate" is also an oxymoron. Why do you think the Democrats are always trying to widen the franchise?

You make my point. Instead of the Dems widening the margin in support of their march toward despotism, we should limit the franchise to those responsible enough to keep themselves informed. There's no reason we can't test voters like we do new immigrants. Hell, I'd be willing to limit the vote to naturalized immigrants. It'd be better than this vote buying, you don't need ID crowd we have in charge now.

They want as many clueless morons voting as possible. Most people aren't qualified to have a say in running our government. They're just too ignorant and irrational.

You're preaching to the choir.

As for anarchy, what I favor is called the "private law society." It's not a "power vacuum," but there is no monopoly on protection services. These are provided by insurance companies that have to compete for your business.

You're gonna have to expound on that. My first question is what about national defense? And what's to stop local thugs from putting themselves into power, if not by vote (which does happen all the time, look at Chicago), but by sheer force.

If monopoly is bad, then how can anyone believe that giving any group of people the monopoly on force is going to have good consequences? It won't. The history of the United States is sufficient proof of that.

Yes, but until the abolition of slavery, and the Constitution being enforced on the states via the 14th Amendment enabling civil rights, the monopoly on force should belong to a responsible electorate. No system will stand without continuous vigilance and the will to act on it. In the meantime it's a struggle to keep power unconcentrated while being able to have enough force to maintain order through the rule of law. RE: Jefferson on feeding the Tree of Liberty from time to time with the blood of patriots and of tyrants.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yes, really, since the only apparent alternative is the pacifist model for libertarianism--aka anarchy. Libertarians acknowledge the need for limited government, anarchists do not...by definition. Anarchy is nothing but a power vacuum which will be filled by some form of government, be the entity concerned a nation or a family.

Yes, I am no fan of laissez-faire governance. We shouldn't have complete and total anarchy, just a smaller, leaner, meaner and more cooperative government.

The term "limited government" is an oxymoron. If government exists, it continues to grow until it consumes all of society.

I am the type that wants to stick to the model out founders set forth. A government of the people, for the people, and by the people.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

This test was based mostly in fiscal conservatism and small government - not inclusive enough of social freedom and personal liberty.

It clearly had a bias toward anarchism as opposed to libertarianism.

It made no mention of gay marriage.

It's pretty much a given that government corruption is bad, meaning the prison system would be on a very long list.



If it's ideas are based on reason, it should be.



I assume you mean we shouldn't have complete and total laissez-faire governance. Beyond that, amen!



I haven't "gone" anywhere. And I would characterize pacifistic libertarians as thoughtless, with their heads intentionally in the sand rather than naive which implies and unaware innocence.

That didn't take long. And I'm not the one playing with the dictionary. You're simply trying to redefine libertarian to mean conservative, the same way progressives tried to redefine the word liberal. No thanks.

You characterize libertarians as anarchists and I'm the one redefining term. And sorry, libertarianism is fiscal political conservatism. But I don't use the term due to its theocratic associations.

The term "limited government" is an oxymoron. If government exists, it continues to grow until it consumes all of society.

Anarchy is no substitute for government with a responsible electorate to keep it limited. Again, anarchy is a power vacuum which idealists believe won't be subject to any collection of two bit dictators attempting to move in and fight each other to take over. If a responsible electorate isn't available, the would be dictators move in in that case as well.

Write this down: The only options available for governance are a responsible, INFORMED, electorate, or despotism. A power vacuum (anarchy) is not an option that will last for more than 75 microseconds.

No, I don't just define libertarianism as anarcho-capitalism. I recognize that there are minarchist libertarians as well. That's the difference between us: You think only your views can be libertarian, and I understand that libertarianism is a much broader ideology spanning both Milton Friedman and Murray Rothbard.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes, I am no fan of laissez-faire governance. We shouldn't have complete and total anarchy, just a smaller, leaner, meaner and more cooperative government.

The term "limited government" is an oxymoron. If government exists, it continues to grow until it consumes all of society.

I am the type that wants to stick to the model out founders set forth. A government of the people, for the people, and by the people.

That's a nice thought, but we see where it leads.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, I am no fan of laissez-faire governance. We shouldn't have complete and total anarchy, just a smaller, leaner, meaner and more cooperative government.

The term "limited government" is an oxymoron. If government exists, it continues to grow until it consumes all of society.

I am the type that wants to stick to the model out founders set forth. A government of the people, for the people, and by the people.

That model led to what we have now. It's already proven itself to be a failure.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

111

 

[KingOfCars]

I scored a 65.