Libertarian Purity Test

[RKMBrown]

My score 72. You are a medium-core libertarian, probably self-consciously so. Your friends probably encourage you to quit talking about your views so much.

Yeah, well the test was BS and should have been titled Anarcho Capitalist Libertarian Score.

I should put together a test Progressive Purity Test... then have the top score be a follower of Mao.

 

[RKMBrown]

I scored an 84

I am a medium-core libertarian, probably self-consciously so. My friends probably encourage me to quit talking about my views so much.

noooooooooooo, you belong to the party

I find looking up the ignore feature is too much trouble to spend on you. So I, like most posters, just see your picture and choose to skip over your posts.

So it was the flashing sign that got you to read that post?

 

[Toro]

666

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

My score 72. You are a medium-core libertarian, probably self-consciously so. Your friends probably encourage you to quit talking about your views so much.

Yeah, well the test was BS and should have been titled Anarcho Capitalist Libertarian Score.

I should put together a test Progressive Purity Test... then have the top score be a follower of Mao.

Many of the questions were bad, but the test was clearly tiered going from minarchist libertarian to anarchist libertarian. The assumption, obviously, is that anarcho-capitalist is the most "hardcore," so to speak, libertarian, but I don't see that it was biased in that regard. Merely that it was attempting to place people on a libertarian spectrum.

 

[PainefulTruth]

Well you would know all about vague pejoratives wouldn't you? "Isolationist," for example, the favorite of neocons everywhere.

....yeah, and non-isolationist libertarians everywhere. Many of the founders (Paine, Washington, Jefferson & Monroe) were isolationists (or non-interventionists if it'll get you to quit whining). And during their time, I agree with their stances. Today you can't be an isolationist on Enewetak Atoll or Antarctica.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well you would know all about vague pejoratives wouldn't you? "Isolationist," for example, the favorite of neocons everywhere.

....yeah, and non-isolationist libertarians everywhere. Many of the founders (Paine, Washington, Jefferson & Monroe) were isolationists (or non-interventionists if it'll get you to quit whining). And during their time, I agree with their stances. Today you can't be an isolationist on Enewetak Atoll or Antarctica.

You don't get to whine about "pejoratives," and then call somebody else a whiner when they call you on your hypocrisy.

The simple fact is that noninterventionism is the only libertarian foreign policy, and that runs the spectrum from minarchist to anarchist. In other words, there are no libertarians who aren't noninterventionists.

 

[uhkilleez]

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.

Not all libertarians acknowledge the need for limited government, but at the same time no two libertarians will agree with one another on every issue. Even anarchists acknowledge the need for organization within society, but when it comes down to it organization is all that is necessary. There is no need for a consolidation of power to a few, given a monopoly on the initiation of force. I like to think that the real issue behind the ideal of anarchism is between self-governance and representative-governance, where it is the latter which anarchists hate and a limited form of it in which limited government advocates put faith in. At the very core of the heart of an anarchist is a person who simply hates being told what to do. All things are corruptible, even society; At the end of the day, it is a bit harder to corrupt all of society than it is to corrupt its elite representatives. With that being said, though, one of the main problems with our representative government is the people. Garbage in, garbage out; If you have shitty and selfish citizens you get shitty and selfish leaders. The overlaying point that I am trying to make here is that nobody is advocating an unorganized society, it is more an issue of abolishing representative leadership as well as the current form of internal law we practice in which the initiation of force is in the hands of a few. A land with no law is not much different from a land with our current state of law, for law is a process for rectifying and/or punishing wrongful acts which have already been committed; A process in which an organized society with no central leadership would be equally capable of coping with. Laws do not deter wrongful acts, for criminals do not care about laws.

 

[uhkilleez]

Well you would know all about vague pejoratives wouldn't you? "Isolationist," for example, the favorite of neocons everywhere.

....yeah, and non-isolationist libertarians everywhere. Many of the founders (Paine, Washington, Jefferson & Monroe) were isolationists (or non-interventionists if it'll get you to quit whining). And during their time, I agree with their stances. Today you can't be an isolationist on Enewetak Atoll or Antarctica.

You don't get to whine about "pejoratives," and then call somebody else a whiner when they call you on your hypocrisy.

The simple fact is that noninterventionism is the only libertarian foreign policy, and that runs the spectrum from minarchist to anarchist. In other words, there are no libertarians who aren't noninterventionists.

Don't confuse non-interventionism with never doing anything. It's more of a stance in which we take no proactive measures, unlike the way we have been behaving recently with wars such as Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, et al. This country has needlessly been at war for nearly the entirety of time since WWII. The need for our action in both world wars is inarguable, and I highly doubt you will find many libertarians who would argue we shouldn't have intervened; However with that being said we shouldn't intervene with countries for our own personal gain (e.g. Iran, Cuba, Guatemala, et al). There is an undeniable need to stay vigilant, but no need whatsoever to remain aggressive.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

The need for our action in both world wars is inarguable, and I highly doubt you will find many libertarians who would argue we shouldn't have intervened....

Actually, there was no need for America to intervene in WWI and doing so precipitated, to a great degree, America being dragged into WWII.

What you won't find are many libertarians who don't generally agree with that sentiment.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Not all libertarians acknowledge the need for limited government....

OK, you've convinced me. You know next to nothing about libertarians or libertarianism.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

....yeah, and non-isolationist libertarians everywhere. Many of the founders (Paine, Washington, Jefferson & Monroe) were isolationists (or non-interventionists if it'll get you to quit whining). And during their time, I agree with their stances. Today you can't be an isolationist on Enewetak Atoll or Antarctica.

You don't get to whine about "pejoratives," and then call somebody else a whiner when they call you on your hypocrisy.

The simple fact is that noninterventionism is the only libertarian foreign policy, and that runs the spectrum from minarchist to anarchist. In other words, there are no libertarians who aren't noninterventionists.

Don't confuse non-interventionism with never doing anything. It's more of a stance in which we take no proactive measures, unlike the way we have been behaving recently with wars such as Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, et al. This country has needlessly been at war for nearly the entirety of time since WWII. The need for our action in both world wars is inarguable, and I highly doubt you will find many libertarians who would argue we shouldn't have intervened; However with that being said we shouldn't intervene with countries for our own personal gain (e.g. Iran, Cuba, Guatemala, et al). There is an undeniable need to stay vigilant, but no need whatsoever to remain aggressive.

No, nonintervention does not mean doing nothing at all times. However, you have now found a libertarian who very much doubts any need to intervene in either world war, and I'm not the only one.

 

[uhkilleez]

The need for our action in both world wars is inarguable, and I highly doubt you will find many libertarians who would argue we shouldn't have intervened....

Actually, there was no need for America to intervene in WWI and doing so precipitated, to a great degree, America being dragged into WWII.

What you won't find are many libertarians who don't generally agree with that sentiment.

Have you studied either war? Do you know the conditions of Europe during either war and what that would have meant for the United States?

 

[uhkilleez]

Not all libertarians acknowledge the need for limited government....

OK, you've convinced me. You know next to nothing about libertarians or libertarianism.

Oh, because all libertarians do want a limited representative government? You sure about that? And after making such a statement you would like to pass judgement on my understanding of the ideology? You're hilarious.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Libertarian Purity Test

This is the Libertarian Purity Test, which is intended to measure how libertarian you are. It isn't intended to be any sort of McCarthyite purging device -- just a form of entertainment, hopefully thought-provoking. I like it a lot better than the more famous "World's Shortest Political Quiz" because I haven't stated the questions with any intent to give an upward bias to a test-taker's score, and because it gives a clearer breakdown between hard and soft-core libertarians. Enjoy, suggest your friends try it out, and see how you compare to other test-takers...

Libertarian Purity Test

My score 33. My Libertarian leanings are showing. I will become more hard core as I age.

Don't like the test. Not all of those questions are necessarily yes or no answers.

Got 107, just for the record.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Not all libertarians acknowledge the need for limited government....

OK, you've convinced me. You know next to nothing about libertarians or libertarianism.

Oh, because all libertarians do want a limited representative government? You sure about that? And after making such a statement you would like to pass judgement on my understanding of the ideology? You're hilarious.

Yes, I'm sure about that, on both counts.

I haven't encountered the libertarian -and brother do I know a lot of them- that didn't believe that government power should be strictly limited to certain areas. Most notably that it should only be doing collectively that which it would not be immoral or unlawful to do as an individual.

 

[uhkilleez]

No, nonintervention does not mean doing nothing at all times. However, you have now found a libertarian who very much doubts any need to intervene in either world war, and I'm not the only one.

Why exactly do you feel that way? It should be pretty clear what the intentions of Hitler and his ilk of fascist states were, and had they been successful in Europe without our intervention it would be much less likely we could have withstood a war on our home front. In the second world war you could say in hindsight that Hitler would have never made it through his attacks on the soviets during the winter, but you couldn't have known his lacking skills in strategy and tactics at the time. You would also have to deal with the aggression of the Japanese, who consequently were our main enemies throughout the war, we fought the Japanese far more than Germany.

A lot of the complications like these in the second world war come from the outcome of the first, for instance that Japan's involvement in WWII sprang from their discontent with the international powers which emerged from the first, and their aggression toward the U.S. was mainly result of our discontinuation of sales of aviation fuel to their military, as we were their main provider. It was after Japan invaded China and Indochina that we quit selling to them, and it was after we quit selling that they attacked Pearl Harbor and the Philippines.

When it comes to the first world war, there weren't any imminent threats to us at the time, but the fact that the triple entente was having such trouble overcoming the powers of Germany and Austria-Hungary(then the Ottoman Empire) should have been troubling enough to a vigilant citizen, for it doesn't take a master psychologist to see the clear mindset of the German and Austria-Hungarian peoples of the time, world conquest. With the entirety of natural and industrial resources confined to a single dominate an aggressive power, our young and fragile industrial infrastructure wouldn't have stood up to their overwhelming force. We wouldn't have survived had we waited until they had already won.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

The need for our action in both world wars is inarguable, and I highly doubt you will find many libertarians who would argue we shouldn't have intervened....

Actually, there was no need for America to intervene in WWI and doing so precipitated, to a great degree, America being dragged into WWII.

What you won't find are many libertarians who don't generally agree with that sentiment.

Have you studied either war? Do you know the conditions of Europe during either war and what that would have meant for the United States?

Yes, I've studied both wars. American intervention in WWI was completely unnecessary.

But the topic is about libertarians, and you would be hard pressed to find many, if any at all, who believe that Wilson was justified in sticking America's nose into Europe's endless military squabbles.

 

[uhkilleez]

OK, you've convinced me. You know next to nothing about libertarians or libertarianism.

Oh, because all libertarians do want a limited representative government? You sure about that? And after making such a statement you would like to pass judgement on my understanding of the ideology? You're hilarious.

Yes, I'm sure about that, on both counts.

I haven't encountered the libertarian -and brother do I know a lot of them- that didn't believe that government power should be strictly limited to certain areas. Most notably that it should only be doing collectively that which it would not be immoral or unlawful to do as an individual.

You are discounting an entire population of libertarians whom do not believe our government should exist, whereas I was accounting for them. From soup to nuts, you could argue that no government is still limited government, but then you would just be nitpicking at what little ground you could find to stand on. With that being said, many anarchist libertarians would compromise for limited government over our current government, but that doesn't imply it's their preference.

Supposing you'd like an example of the type of libertarians I am referencing, you could do a YouTube search on Adam Kokesh and his following.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

No, nonintervention does not mean doing nothing at all times. However, you have now found a libertarian who very much doubts any need to intervene in either world war, and I'm not the only one.

Why exactly do you feel that way? It should be pretty clear what the intentions of Hitler and his ilk of fascist states were, and had they been successful in Europe without our intervention it would be much less likely we could have withstood a war on our home front. In the second world war you could say in hindsight that Hitler would have never made it through his attacks on the soviets during the winter, but you couldn't have known his lacking skills in strategy and tactics at the time. You would also have to deal with the aggression of the Japanese, who consequently were our main enemies throughout the war, we fought the Japanese far more than Germany.

It's highly unlikely that the conditions which brought Hitler to power would have existed, had Wilson kept his big fat progressive interventionist nose out of it.

As for Japan, American meddling in Asia ultimately led to Mao seizing power in China, precipitating the 50+ million lives (on the low side) snuffed out by his totalitarian communist state.

So much for that making the world safe for democracy.

 

[uhkilleez]

Actually, there was no need for America to intervene in WWI and doing so precipitated, to a great degree, America being dragged into WWII.

What you won't find are many libertarians who don't generally agree with that sentiment.

Have you studied either war? Do you know the conditions of Europe during either war and what that would have meant for the United States?

Yes, I've studied both wars. American intervention in WWI was completely unnecessary.

But the topic is about libertarians, and you would be hard pressed to find many, if any at all, who believe that Wilson was justified in sticking America's nose into Europe's endless military squabbles.

On one hand I can agree with you, on the other I still disagree. Wilson's personal agenda was quite present in his rally to intervene and his disastrous League of Nations is a sentiment of that. On the other hand, we would not have been able to stand up to a one-government Europe had we simply sat back and waited for them to come to us. If you have studied the wars and are familiar with our lacking weapons industry of the time, it shouldn't be hard for you to see how buried we would have been once Europe had been conquered and the rest of the world were meant to follow.