Libertarian Purity Test

[Bold As Love]

Have you done this?

http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi

I got 152.

Try it out and post your result.

My apologies if it is posted in the wrong place, I thought might be more appropriate here than in general politics as it is not a discussion of a particular political issue but might be a tool to share with others.

[kirkblitz]

91

91-130 points: You have entered the heady realm of hard-core libertarianism. Now doesn't that make you feel worse that you didn't get a perfect score?

[Unspun]

When I did this a long time ago I got a 112.

[forsmant]

153

[yongrel]

72

[Hayek's Heroes]

116

[limequat]

160

[FreeTraveler]

160 points: Perfect! The world needs more like you.

[Ogren]

Test is flawed. It is not a Libertarian purity test. Its an Anarchist purity test.

[forsmant]

You stole our word!!!!?

[limequat]

Test is flawed. It is not a Libertarian purity test. Its an Anarchist purity test.

Exactly.

[nullvalu]

95

[skiingff]

Test is flawed. It is not a Libertarian purity test. Its an Anarchist purity test.

QFT

Just for fun, I got a 34

"31-50 points: Your libertarian credentials are obvious. Doubtlessly you will become more extreme as time goes on."

I won't come more extreme, and I don't believe in anarchy.

[nullvalu]

Test is flawed. It is not a Libertarian purity test. Its an Anarchist purity test.

Agreed.

[Bold As Love]

Test is flawed. It is not a Libertarian purity test. Its an Anarchist purity test.

Fair enough. I read somewhere that an anarchist is anyone who believes in less government than you do.

[Cap'n Crunk]

Test is flawed. It is not a Libertarian purity test. Its an Anarchist purity test.

ding, ding, ding. I got an 81 by the way.

[NeoRayden]

Test is flawed. It is not a Libertarian purity test. Its an Anarchist purity test.

Exactly however the perfect situation for libertaians would be anarchism. Thankfully most of use are not that retarded to believe the world would be better off without government at all.

I scored a 91 but would have scored a little better if the questions were broken up some. Like sanitation should be privatized but in the same question it asks about fire too and they should not and would not have to be if the government spent wisely.

[Bold As Love]

I do admit that there is no such thing as a Star Trek utopia. I was kind of amused at my high score; took at a time when I was feeling particularly anti-establishment.

I do, however see 3 legitimate purposes of government:

1. Enforce contracts.
2. Insure economic competition.
3. Protect property rights (provide a way/justice system in which they can be protected).

States would be limited to this on the personal level, while the national gov't would have only these things in mind in foreign policy.

Police, fire, etc. would be justified under these conditions.

[RPinSEAZ]

90.

If 160 is the perfect libertarian, I'm glad I'm not perfect. The design of the US Republic was almost perfect.

Jesse (says almost because there obviously weren't enough safeguards to stop the US from devolving into what it is today)

[LEK]

105

91-130 points: You have entered the heady realm of hard-core libertarianism. Now doesn't that make you feel worse that you didn't get a perfect score?

[ZzzImAsleep]

Woot, I got a 62!

[LibertyEagle]

94

[MadTheologian]

What? No "Have you ever kissed/fondled/shagged a Libertarian" questions?

[corsairtro]

70

[TurtleBurger]

154

I don't think vouchers are an improvement in housing and education, and I do believe in some immigration control, otherwise I would have got 160.

[anewvoice]

Yeah, this tests fails in that it offers the same damned either/or format the mainstream pushes down our damn throats.

For the record, 59, but many questions I wopuld agree on if they weren't written to be so hardline.

[IDefendThePlatform]

160 and proud of it.

[Unspun]

Yeah, this tests fails in that it offers the same damned either/or format the mainstream pushes down our damn throats.

For the record, 59, but many questions I wopuld agree on if they weren't written to be so hardline.

That's why there's 3 sets of basically the same question just at different levels for different points.

[ArrestPoliticians]

73

My libertarianism ends at the Constitution

[MikeStanart]

93, and I feel like an anarchist with that score.

Sheesh, that was an anarchist test.

[MikeStanart]

94

Hah! you're 1 point more Anarchist than I am.

[Mental Dribble]

51

[Bold As Love]

man, some negativity, (low rating)

I just thought it was kind of fun.

[nbhadja]

159 points: You are nearly a perfect libertarian, with a tiny number of blind spots. Think about them, then take the test over again. On the other hand, if you scored this high, you probably have a good libertarian objection to my suggested libertarian answer. :-)


The only thing I disagreed on was the immigration laws. I think they should be tougher, not more relaxed.

[Knut Schreiber]

Idealistically 160. But I'm pragmatic I would not be opposed to a very decentralized and very limited government.

[Russellk30]

Anybody that scores perfect on that test is not a libertarian. I dont know why more points are received for being an anarchist. That just doesnt make sense.

72

[forsmant]

The libertarians stole that word.

[Bold As Love]

I think that a lot of this comes from Murray Rothbard in "For a New Liberty: A Libertarian Manifesto". I may be mistaken, but I believe that there were a lot of similar positions in his book.

He was more of an anarcho-capitalist.

Just a thought, we might not want all 435 members of the House of Representatives to see things this way, but if this represented the far-right fringe, we might be a little happier with government.

[Bigvick]

Your score is...

153


131-159 points: You are nearly a perfect libertarian, with a tiny number of blind spots. Think about them, then take the test over again. On the other hand, if you scored this high, you probably have a good libertarian objection to my suggested libertarian answer. :-)

[NinjaPirate]

77 here

[freedominnumbers]

Just a thought, we might not want all 435 members of the House of Representatives to see things this way, but if this represented the far-right fringe, we might be a little happier with government.

QFT

I dream of a day when I'm upset with my legislators because they are too libertarian.

[Michael Landon]

118

91-130 points: You have entered the heady realm of hard-core libertarianism. Now doesn't that make you feel worse that you didn't get a perfect score?

[BamaCheerGuy]

92, Not bad for a college kid.

[ChickenHawk]

I scored 75. I probably would have scored over 100 if it had been about just the federal government. Probably would have scored in the 60's if were just about local government. I think anyone that scored over 120 is going to have to find a deserted island somewhere if they want to be satisfied with their government

[trout007]

To me this is a 2 Dimensional Test. Some of these questiongs should rearanged to ask at what level should the laws be established. Global, Federal, State, Local, None. I would much more libertarian at a Global and Federal Level but I'd like to see local government handle some things.

[NEPA_Revolution]

I scored an 85, about right for me

[pinkmandy]

110

[AFM]

89

[nate895]

73, I think anyone who gets over 120 on this test is insane, sorry if that means you.

Privatize the Police and Fire, that's just crazy talk. That is one of few government agencies I'd keep alive.

Anyone below 15 is a Communist or Nazi though.

[Bergie Bergeron]

91

[IDefendThePlatform]

73, I think anyone who gets over 120 on this test is insane, sorry if that means you.

Privatize the Police and Fire, that's just crazy talk. That is one of few government agencies I'd keep alive.

Anyone below 15 is a Communist or Nazi though.

As someone who got a 160, I feel the need to defend myself. For me, taxation is a moral issue. Anytime someone says, "Give me X% of your money or go to jail" I have a problem with that. I own myself and my money. And yes, society would still function quite nicely without government. To use your example of privatizing Fire, its basically already done in many places. Volunteer fire departments are common in rural areas. I would be glad to discuss this more. One book that sums up my views fairly nicely is "The Machinery of Freedom" by David Friedman. I recommend it very highly.

[lucynuts]

126

[forsmant]

Any one who scores 73 has their head in the sand.

[Fox McCloud]

IDefendThePlatform, are there more anarcho-capitalist books you recommend? I'm a hardcore Libertarian (I scored around 120-130ish), but I definitely do not condemn anarcho-capitalism...there's just a few things I don't fully understand about it yet, that I want clarified before I "take the plunge".

That said, I think we need to "buckle down" on a few things first....like, I don't think we should have 100% open borders..._right now_ as we lack the industry and facilities for them (if there were NO entitlements and industry, I'd say go for it).

[forsmant]

Closed borders is a myth. Even when we try to enforce an arbitrary boundary we fail.

Murray Rothbard has written many books about anarcho capitalism. His picture was the last one on the quiz.

[acroso]

...75

[Malakai0]

Test is flawed. It is not a Libertarian purity test. Its an Anarchist purity test.

Yeah I agree. I got a 103. The 90-whatever range is pretty much constitutional libertarianism if your answering the way I did.

This is a beef of mine with the LP too. Why should immigration law be abolished for a libertarian society? Or local services like water paid for by local sales taxes? The idea of a republic is that each state can do things their own way, and people have the choice to go to a state they like more, or work to change the system in their own state. It also maximizes the different ways people can cultivate ideas in a positive but competitive fashion. This is freedom =) If one state comes up with a really good way to do things, others will emulate it.

It's even how RP feels about our position in the world. We do right, rest of the world emulates.
There is absolutely no need for a world government or powerful federal government to force the individual states to do things.

[nate895]

As someone who got a 160, I feel the need to defend myself. For me, taxation is a moral issue. Anytime someone says, "Give me X% of your money or go to jail" I have a problem with that. I own myself and my money. And yes, society would still function quite nicely without government. To use your example of privatizing Fire, its basically already done in many places. Volunteer fire departments are common in rural areas. I would be glad to discuss this more. One book that sums up my views fairly nicely is "The Machinery of Freedom" by David Friedman. I recommend it very highly.

I agree 100% on the tax issue.

What I disagree on is immigration, privatizing of the law, and the local government structure being totally dismantled. Do you really think a private police force (and justice system) would be anything more than a) some rich bastard trying to soak every last penny out of you or b) a system that allows vigilantes to have a badge instead of a prison uniform. Volunteer fire departments are fine, but it is also fine to have a regular fire department in cities where you need people that are trained to put out fires before the entire city has gone up in flames.

[piotr1]

139

[smartguy911]

got 69

51-90 points: You are a medium-core libertarian, probably self-consciously so. Your friends probably encourage you to quit talking about your views so much.

[Nailhead]

that was more anarchist than libertarian...as i see it n e ways

[IDefendThePlatform]

IDefendThePlatform, are there more anarcho-capitalist books you recommend? I'm a hardcore Libertarian (I scored around 120-130ish), but I definitely do not condemn anarcho-capitalism...there's just a few things I don't fully understand about it yet, that I want clarified before I "take the plunge".

That said, I think we need to "buckle down" on a few things first....like, I don't think we should have 100% open borders..._right now_ as we lack the industry and facilities for them (if there were NO entitlements and industry, I'd say go for it).

Agreed on the borders. I'm for totally dropping all immigration restrictions, but of course we should simultaneously end income redistribution and government services, or else we are in trouble.

I've read a number of good libertarian books, but "The Machinery of Freedom" is really the only true anarcho-capitalist book I've read. Just reading it, plus taking the next logical (to me logical) step with libertarianism is what made me into an anarcho-capitalist. I think Mary J. Ruwart is also a good writer in this regard, she has a number of shorter essays on a range of subjects ("Short Answers to Tough Questions" and "Healing our World in an Age of Aggression", neither of which I've actually read cover to cover).

I was in a very similar place as you just a couple of years ago. I think the bottom line for me was that taxation is immoral, and that in the long run, the only successful, effective actions are moral actions. That's kind of philosophical, but if you read "The Machinery of Freedom" you can get some concrete examples of how society would work in the absence of government. Happy Reading!

[berrybunches]

Do you really think a private police force (and justice system) would be anything more than a) some rich bastard trying to soak every last penny out of you or b) a system that allows vigilantes to have a badge instead of a prison uniform

This is what I think also. Just a few elites would end up owning everything and we would go straight back into the tyrannical system that we are trying to get away from except it will be much much worse because we will have no vote.

[braeden0613]

89

51-90 points: You are a medium-core libertarian, probably self-consciously so. Your friends probably encourage you to quit talking about your views so much.

[IDefendThePlatform]

I agree 100% on the tax issue.

What I disagree on is immigration, privatizing of the law, and the local government structure being totally dismantled. Do you really think a private police force (and justice system) would be anything more than a) some rich bastard trying to soak every last penny out of you or b) a system that allows vigilantes to have a badge instead of a prison uniform. Volunteer fire departments are fine, but it is also fine to have a regular fire department in cities where you need people that are trained to put out fires before the entire city has gone up in flames.

Hi Nate. I'm glad we agree on taxes. But if you are truly agreeing with me on that, then that would mean there wouldn't be any tax money for governement fire departments. At least that's my position and the way I meant it when I made the original statement.

I think its tough to picture what society would look like without government, mostly because our government is so large and pervasive. To get an idea of how anarcho-capitalism might work, I can't recommend "The Machinery of Freedom" highly enough. Seriously, PM with your address and I'll mail you my copy. I think someone who has put thought into this issue like you have would enjoy it.

[nate895]

I get around personal taxes through two ways
1) Low tariffs and excise taxes
2) Small sales tax

I think you could run a government off of a small 5-10% sales tax, it just needs be done right, we need not spend needless funds fighting foreign wars and and on "welfare," as well as other ridiculous public works projects (the state recently spent 12.5M on a walking trail across a freeway).

The Feds would get their cash off of a small tariff which they could use to do two things:
1) Secure the border
2) Provide for an Army and Navy.

[expatriot]

90.
... The design of the US Republic was almost perfect.

Jesse (says almost because there obviously weren't enough safeguards to stop the US from devolving into what it is today)

Just curious - I believe this very strongly to be true.
You are the only person I have ever observed making this observation.

What would you do?
(This is an important point - we lost the nation - but how do we prevent that again?)

[GregVernon]

72

[expatriot]

There is a minor problem with such tests and that is in order to achieve
something like a '160' existence you would need to be in a place
where everyone agreed that this was the way to live.

In the U.S. the problem is there are too many people who lack
the fundamental self-discipline to live that way.

We are probably lucky if we get an '80' culture.

[IDefendThePlatform]

Just curious - I believe this very strongly to be true.
You are the only person I have ever observed making this observation.

What would you do?
(This is an important point - we lost the nation - but how do we prevent that again?)

One solution to prevent this again would be to eliminate government entirely. Otherwise, we'll wind up right back where we are now. Dr. P gets elected, makes every single governmental change he has proposed, and then 20 years later politicians have slowly and insidiously usurped all that power back and more. Thomas Jefferson was right, "The natural progression of things is for government to grow and liberty to shrink" or something like that. Constitutional limits have failed. Its a pretty radical idea, and totally unlikely in my lifetime, but I think it will happen eventually where we have a totally free society centered around property rights. I'll plug it again, "The Machinery of Freedom" is a great book on this issue.

[snpage]

74

51-90 points: You are a medium-core libertarian, probably self-consciously so. Your friends probably encourage you to quit talking about your views so much.

[TheEngineer]

Test is flawed. It is not a Libertarian purity test. Its an Anarchist purity test.

True, especially the end.

My score: 70

51-90 points: You are a medium-core libertarian, probably self-consciously so. Your friends probably encourage you to quit talking about your views so much.

[SteveB-NY]

77

And I agree with the comments that this is a badly flawed survey - both in the wording of the questions and the lack of differentiation between Liberterian and anarchist.

[Broadlighter]

I'm a soft-core 90. The test doesn't make distinctions between local, state and national level government. There are some things I believe local and state governments should do like schools and public roads that the national government shouldn't do.

[apc3161]

104

[apc3161]

I'm a soft-core 90. The test doesn't make distinctions between local, state and national level government. There are some things I believe local and state governments should do like schools and public roads that the national government shouldn't do.

Agreed. I thought that was annoying as well. There is definitely a role for government, just at the local level, instead of the federal level.

[hillertexas]

112
91-130 points: You have entered the heady realm of hard-core libertarianism. Now doesn't that make you feel worse that you didn't get a perfect score?

[mport1]

160

[warispeace]

80

51-90 points: You are a medium-core libertarian, probably self-consciously so. Your friends probably encourage you to quit talking about your views so much.

[malkusm]

67

51-90 points: You are a medium-core libertarian, probably self-consciously so. Your friends probably encourage you to quit talking about your views so much.

Yeah my friends get really upset that I talk about Ron Paul so much....I guess that qualifies? :D

[Sematary]

69
Unfortunately, as much as I hate to admit it - government does have a role in society. Ours is simply out of control

[Knut Schreiber]

Why are so many people mentioning that it's not a libertarian but an anarchist test? Libertarians oppose government force. The purest form (and it's called "purity test") is, of course, anarchism. Many important libertarians were/are anarchists. "Mr. Libertarian" Murray Rothbard was an anarchist. David F. Friedman is an anarchist. Hans-Hermann Hoppe is an anarchist. Walter Block is an anarchist. In my opinion you can be a Libertarian without being an Anarchist, but the purest form of Libertariansm is indeed a form of anarchy.

We should not get divided about this topic. We can discuss things like this when we have achieved limited government. Ron Paul is no anarchist, but I guess some people with 70 points overhere might be a bit shocked when they look a bit deeper at his background and read Rothbard, for example.

[Peregrin]

97 here

[Number19]

Test is flawed. It is not a Libertarian purity test. Its an Anarchist purity test.
I agree. Look at question #61 : Should the State be abolished. The test wants a "yes" answer and this is anarchic, not libertarian. Libertarians support minimum government, but not total abolition. Part 3 of the test mostly slants toward anarchism.

[forsmant]

Libertarians stole that word

[forsmant]

Agreed. I thought that was annoying as well. There is definitely a role for government, just at the local level, instead of the federal level.

How local? Governments preform the same function at all levels.

[nate895]

How local? Governments preform the same function at all levels.

No, the Federal government has enumerated powers. The State Government has all powers it didn't delegate to the Feds, this is called "police" power. The laws it makes still cannot violate the natural law. The local government is given mostly the power to protect the public from criminals and provide emergency services for the most part. Also, public necessities in the case of the local government.

[Number19]

One solution to prevent this again would be to eliminate government entirely. Otherwise, we'll wind up right back where we are now. Dr. P gets elected, makes every single governmental change he has proposed, and then 20 years later politicians have slowly and insidiously usurped all that power back and more. Thomas Jefferson was right, "The natural progression of things is for government to grow and liberty to shrink" or something like that. Constitutional limits have failed. Its a pretty radical idea, and totally unlikely in my lifetime, but I think it will happen eventually where we have a totally free society centered around property rights. I'll plug it again, "The Machinery of Freedom" is a great book on this issue.
Anarchy is inherently impossible. You will always have "gangs" preying upon the weak. Gangs are "ruled" by a leader, who will have his seconds, and this represents a rudimentary form of government. Any social organization which arises to protect individuals against these gangs will also be "government". The earliest form of social organization, above the family level, was semi-nomadic tribalism. "Government" existed within this framework.

[FindLiberty]

120 - but I thought that I would score higher (closer to a big "L" Libertarian).

[MJfromCT]

90 some of those questions left no option but to take the statist side. I refused to answer "correctly" on a number of questions as I perceived the particular answers as too absolute. I am proud to consider myself a constitutionalist, where is the test for that?

[Kludge]

Hate some of these questions...

*"Should the U.S. refuse to pay for the defense of allies that are rich enough to defend themselves?"

For better or for worse, we should honor our alliances so long as we're achieving a common goal. I'd defend Mexico if the uhhh.... countries below it in North America declared war on us, not the US.

*"Should all of the public lands be privatized?"

Why would we sell off our military bases?

*"Should the FDA and medical licensing be abolished?"

Maybe I think medical licensing should be maintained (but less restricted) while the FDA should be abolished.

*"Should the Supreme Court strike down economic regulation as unconstitutional?"

No, because it's not. That doesn't mean it's right...

*" Is bombing civilians in an enemy country morally equivalent to murder?"

Of course not, ultimately the civilians allowed their leaders to maintain power, which is why I'm close to shitting myself with McCain as the front runner.

*"Should all taxes be abolished?"

Only if you seek the decay of our infastructure...

*" Should highways and roads be privatized?"

I'm done taking this "test". >.>

[IDefendThePlatform]

Anarchy is inherently impossible... Any social organization which arises to protect individuals against these gangs will also be "government".

I agree that people will join together for mutual protection in the absence of government. But I think the difference would be that these social organizations would not initiate force. That is, they wouldn't tax members or force each other to do anything (i.e, register hand guns.) Group membership and society at large would be based on voluntary action. Then, if someone violates your person or property, others (your group, tribe, whatever) would voluntarily defend you and seek restitution. That's what I think of when I say "anarchy." And I think it is consistent with the basic libertarian message. I'm not sure if they still do this, but it used to be that to sign up to be a Libertarian you had to click "Yes" on a pledge that said "I do not support the initiation of force against other human beings" or something like that. Which, to me, means zero taxes, including no excise or sales tax.

[forsmant]

Anarchy is inherently impossible. You will always have "gangs" preying upon the weak. Gangs are "ruled" by a leader, who will have his seconds, and this represents a rudimentary form of government. Any social organization which arises to protect individuals against these gangs will also be "government". The earliest form of social organization, above the family level, was semi-nomadic tribalism. "Government" existed within this framework.

The prevailing mindset to think of people as groups is what allows governments to be formed.

What your describing is what many people actually associate with anarchy, mob rule. Once you realize that you are a sovereign individual with different thoughts than anybody else, you can truly be free. No one can ever rule you. They can present you with negative choices, but there will be a choice.

Disbanding the military would actually make America less susceptible to foreign invasion. Instead of conquering the government an invader would have to conquer everyone individually and create their own coercive institutions.

[ChickenHawk]

The prevailing mindset to think of people as groups is what allows governments to be formed.

What your describing is what many people actually associate with anarchy, mob rule. Once you realize that you are a sovereign individual with different thoughts than anybody else, you can truly be free. No one can ever rule you. They can present you with negative choices, but there will be a choice.

Disbanding the military would actually make America less susceptible to foreign invasion. Instead of conquering the government an invader would have to conquer everyone individually and create their own coercive institutions.

If we could just fundamentally alter human nature anarchy would work great. Come to think of it the same could be said of socialism.

[LibertiORDeth]

What is "national service?"

[LibertiORDeth]

106. Not bad, for the original poster to get over 150 he must be a complete anarchist.

[Joseph Hart]

124

[forsmant]

If we could just fundamentally alter human nature anarchy would work great. Come to think of it the same could be said of socialism.

It is human nature to think. You can continue to think of people as being a group and I will see them as individuals. Groups do not think, people do. Peoples can agree and often do. That does not unite them.

[Number19]

I agree that people will join together for mutual protection in the absence of government. But I think the difference would be that these social organizations would not initiate force. That is, they wouldn't tax members or force each other to do anything (i.e, register hand guns.) Group membership and society at large would be based on voluntary action. Then, if someone violates your person or property, others (your group, tribe, whatever) would voluntarily defend you and seek restitution. That's what I think of when I say "anarchy." And I think it is consistent with the basic libertarian message. I'm not sure if they still do this, but it used to be that to sign up to be a Libertarian you had to click "Yes" on a pledge that said "I do not support the initiation of force against other human beings" or something like that. Which, to me, means zero taxes, including no excise or sales tax.I can't disagree with this. But the classic description of anarchy is the absence of government. You qualify and change this by saying anarchy is the absence of coercive government. I call this a libertarian government. It's just a case of defining the terminology.

[Number19]

What is "national service?"Serving your government/society in ways other than military. ie peace corps or working in a free clinic, etc

[jlaker]

I scored a 94.

[ChickenHawk]

It is human nature to think. You can continue to think of people as being a group and I will see them as individuals. Groups do not think, people do. Peoples can agree and often do. That does not unite them.

So how are you going to get everyone to think the way you want them to? I just don't see everyone deciding that we are all individuals therefore a government is not necessary. I'd probably be okay with no government but I don't think most people would go for it. In fact many people would probably take advantage of it in a negative way. I'd like to know about a successful prosperous society that exists or existed in the past that did not have any sort of government. I've never heard of one so I have no example to look at to judge the feasibility of it.

[RonRules]

70: Will I get banned form this forum ?

[TurtleBurger]

Serving your government/society in ways other than military. ie peace corps or working in a free clinic, etc

I read this question as implying a kind of draft but not necessarily for military service, like Israel has. All citizens would be required to be government slaves for 2 years.

[nf7mate]

99

[Paulitician]

Your score is... 0

0 points: You are not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination. You are probably not even a liberal or a conservative. Just some Nazi nut, I guess.

Just answered no on all of them :D

[forsmant]

So how are you going to get everyone to think the way you want them to? I just don't see everyone deciding that we are all individuals therefore a government is not necessary. I'd probably be okay with no government but I don't think most people would go for it. In fact many people would probably take advantage of it in a negative way. I'd like to know about a successful prosperous society that exists or existed in the past that did not have any sort of government. I've never heard of one so I have no example to look at to judge the feasibility of it.

Government is a legal fiction. Only people are real. Some people are mean.

[Laughingcow]

55

[Kludge]

I managed to finish it...

78

[The Tao Of Bill]

I got a 40. Which makes sense. I'm a libertarian but I don't buy into like the super crazy libertarian stuff that everything should be privatized and stuff like that.

[mjp1025]

I'm in at 80.

[Fozz]

Bump

I got an 87

[__27__]

160

[youngbuck]

145 :cool:

[Fozz]

By the way, for part 1, I answered yes to every question except immigration.

However, for part 3, I only answered yes to abolishing the Federal Reserve and privatizing roads.

[jmlfod87]

160. Rothbard FTW.

[Alawn]

This test is total bullshit. It is an anarchist purity test. Anarchism is not the same thing as libertarianism,

[__27__]

This test is total bullshit. It is an anarchist purity test. Anarchism is not the same thing as libertarianism,

Actually, anarchism is libertarianism taken to it's logical conclusion.

[almantimes2]

116

[Fozz]

Actually, anarchism is libertarianism taken to it's logical conclusion.
It depends on what kind of anarchism it is. Many socialists are anarchists (more specifically, anarcho-syndicalists), but libertarian anarchists like Murray Rothbard and David Friedman are anarcho-capitalists.

I greatly admire Murray Rothbard, but I am definitely not as extreme as he was.

[__27__]

It depends on what kind of anarchism it is. Many socialists are anarchists (more specifically, anarcho-syndicalists), but libertarian anarchists like Murray Rothbard and David Friedman are anarcho-capitalists.

I greatly admire Murray Rothbard, but I am definitely not as extreme as he was.

anarcho-syndicalism is an oxymoron. It requires the individual cedes his rights to the collective, meaning the collective has a higher claim on his life, liberty and property than does he, thus the collective is his "archy".

Even if you believe it were possible to be an anarchist while giving all individual rights to the collective, it would be fairly obvious which branch of anarchy I was referring to since I was talking about the logical conclusion of libertarianism, not to mention my avatar is the ancap flag.

[john_anderson_ii]

I stopped taking the test in part II, it's too ambiguous. For instance:



Should all of the public lands be privatized?


State, federal or county? Actually this clarification needs to be made on nearly every question. I for one would like to see public Federal lands turned over to the State in which the land resides and let that state do with it's territory what it will. But abolish all public lands? No, I don't think so. I happen to like camping, hunting and hiking in state parks. All sorts of questions on that test are flawed in this manner.


And then there is this:



Should the FDA and medical licensing be abolished?


To which I respond with a Mitch Hedburg quote, "Have you every tried sugar or PCP?". There's no yes/no answer. What if I would like to see States regulate their building codes, medical license requirements, etc, and do away with the FDA and Federal involvement?

Weird test, the questions need to be better thought out and more specific.

[Unspun]

Test is flawed. It is not a Libertarian purity test. Its an Anarchist purity test.

An anarchist is nothing more than a consistent libertarian.

[jmlfod87]

I stopped taking the test in part II, it's too ambiguous. For instance:



State, federal or county? Actually this clarification needs to be made on nearly every question. I for one would like to see public Federal lands turned over to the State in which the land resides and let that state do with it's territory what it will. But abolish all public lands? No, I don't think so. I happen to like camping, hunting and hiking in state parks. All sorts of questions on that test are flawed in this manner.


This is the libertarian purity test, not the anti-federalist purity test.


And then there is this:



To which I respond with a Mitch Hedburg quote, "Have you every tried sugar or PCP?". There's no yes/no answer. What if I would like to see States regulate their building codes, medical license requirements, etc, and do away with the FDA and Federal involvement?

Weird test, the questions need to be better thought out and more specific.


Then your answer is no. The question wasn't FDA OR licensing, it was FDA AND licensing.

The questions are fine, they are supposed to be absolutist, its testing your libertarianism.

[paulitics]

Anarchism purity test B.S. once again disguised as libertarianism. Completely dishonest to call it a libertarian test, as if you are not libertarian if you do not subscribe to their utopian idealism that can't ever work in the real world.

It's the same as if a progressive would post a communism test and start off with reasonable questions giving one point each, and than end with radical stuff like abolishing all private property.


True anarchism is a pipe dream, and can't exist for any length of time on its own, before a a centralized power structure takes shape. What you are left with is localized feudalism at best. All the anarchists can do is come back with examples of caste systems, feudalism, slavery, etc, and try and pass it off as succesful anarchy. It becomes a lame semantics pissing match with little to no original thought.

[__27__]

Anarchism purity test B.S. once again disguised as libertarianism. Completely dishonest to call it a libertarian test, as if you are not libertarian if you do not subscribe to their utopian idealism that can't ever work in the real world.

It's the same as if a progressive would post a communism test and start off with reasonable questions giving one point each, and than end with radical stuff luck abolishing all private property.


True anarchism is a pipe dream, and can't exist for any length of time on its own, before a a centralized power structure takes shape. What you are left with is localized feudalism at best. All the anarchists can do is come back with examples of caste systems, feudalism, slavery, etc, and try and pass it off as succesful anarchy. It becomes a lame semantics pissing match with little to no original thought.

If you enjoy the boot on your throat, have at it friend. But kindly leave me the option to not participate in your masochistic state worshiping.

[heavenlyboy34]

154 :)

[mrMISDEMEANOR]

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

That's so true, jesus

[heavenlyboy34]

Anarchism purity test B.S. once again disguised as libertarianism. Completely dishonest to call it a libertarian test, as if you are not libertarian if you do not subscribe to their utopian idealism that can't ever work in the real world.

It's the same as if a progressive would post a communism test and start off with reasonable questions giving one point each, and than end with radical stuff like abolishing all private property.


True anarchism is a pipe dream, and can't exist for any length of time on its own, before a a centralized power structure takes shape. What you are left with is localized feudalism at best. All the anarchists can do is come back with examples of caste systems, feudalism, slavery, etc, and try and pass it off as succesful anarchy. It becomes a lame semantics pissing match with little to no original thought.

I see you confuse libertarian with Libertarian. This is the source of your confusion. You have a lot of reading to do fefore you get it, I can tell.

[LBennett76]

95
Sounds good to me as I am a constitutional libertarian. I quite like the Constitution and how it organized government. If only we could actually have the government run the way it was designed and laid out.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Have you done this?

http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi

I got 152.

Try it out and post your result.

My apologies if it is posted in the wrong place, I thought might be more appropriate here than in general politics as it is not a discussion of a particular political issue but might be a tool to share with others.

I scored 131

-t

[Young Paleocon]

Got a 160, yet I balked a little on the vouchers as they would require government dolling out of funds but the question was worded so that it would be a step up from public so I acquiesced. Also balked a little on the two immigration questions, but realized that if all property was private and if security was provided via private service or community/personal measures then immigration would really only effect labor and prices. But this would only be momentarily as markets adjusted. Yet I am still unsure if a voluntarist/anarcho-capitalist society could occur or by the process it would best occur. I am still on the fence on the whole government is a natural kick back for the typical human mind and is thus impossible to be implemented due to lack of human comprehension. Unlike utopian socialism this isn't a real economic flaw such as pricing mechanism or work incentive, it is more a biological, moral, and/or educational flaw.

[powerofreason]

160. Pure libertarian here.

[jlaker]

61

[heavenlyboy34]

160. Pure libertarian here.

Awesome! I was pretty close to you. Probably just a fluke on my part. :o

[South Park Fan]

158. Put yes on all questions except the ones about school and housing vouchers.

[jmdrake]

As someone who got a 160, I feel the need to defend myself. For me, taxation is a moral issue. Anytime someone says, "Give me X% of your money or go to jail" I have a problem with that. I own myself and my money. And yes, society would still function quite nicely without government. To use your example of privatizing Fire, its basically already done in many places. Volunteer fire departments are common in rural areas. I would be glad to discuss this more. One book that sums up my views fairly nicely is "The Machinery of Freedom" by David Friedman. I recommend it very highly.

I'm familair with volunteer fire departments (I live in a rural area), but how would "private police" work? Who holds these private police accountable? Private prisons have been a disaster. (Admittedly that may be because they just basically subcontract with the state).

Oh, and I got a 78.

[Draco33]

Got an 80 and I feel good about it.
Way too many extreamisms.

[Epic]

I'm familair with volunteer fire departments (I live in a rural area), but how would "private police" work? Who holds these private police accountable? Private prisons have been a disaster. (Admittedly that may be because they just basically subcontract with the state).

Oh, and I got a 78.

I think you understand, but they aren't "private" in any meaningful sense.

The prisons are paid by the state, so they can't be considered privatized.

As for law, courts, and police, read this:

http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp#p215
http://freekeene.com/2009/07/18/fsp-president-varrin-swearingen-guests-on-wkbks-talkback/#comment-80980

[Epic]

160. That was easy.

[powerofreason]

Awesome! I was pretty close to you. Probably just a fluke on my part. :o

I'm sure it was. A couple of the questions are a bit ambiguous.

[heavenlyboy34]

thanx for the interesting thread, all. I'm off to dreamland now. ~snores~

[Theocrat]

I got a 77, which, according to the grading scale, means:

51-90 points: You are a medium-core libertarian, probably self-consciously so. Your friends probably encourage you to quit talking about your views so much.

By the way, that test was not really about libertarianism. It was a test to see how close to an anarcho-capitalist one is. Libertarianism does not equal anarcho-capitalism.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

scored a 51

If you scored higher or lower than me, something is wrong with you.

[Kludge]

Sorry, but if you got 160, you're probably a moron, as you'd have to answer "yes" to "Should the Supreme Court strike down economic regulation as unconstitutional?" while a level of economic regulation is explicitly granted to the federal government. The question doesn't even touch on local/state governments, either.

An ambiguous and frustrating poll I stupidly decided to bother myself with, again, and again, regret.

Old score from a year and a half ago:

I managed to finish it...

78

New score:
100

91-130 points: You have entered the heady realm of hard-core libertarianism. Now doesn't that make you feel worse that you didn't get a perfect score? NO

[literatim]

Is it morally permissible to exercise "vigilante justice," even against government leaders?

http://xs141.xs.to/xs141/09303/p968.jpg

[amy31416]

I don't recall what I scored on this test, but I'm a solid libertarian according to the results.

My biggest problem with many other libertarians is that I like "free" public libraries and museums. I think that they are just as beneficial to society as a strong defense.

Of course I'd prefer that they were supported by private donations, but I'd prefer that our defense were supported that way as well. It's just not gonna happen, it seems.

[powerofreason]

Libertarianism does not equal anarcho-capitalism.

Only if you're principled. :)

[Bman]

I made a firm effort to be as honest with myself as possible.

Got an 88.

[SimpleName]

79. Definitely hardcore anarchist quiz, especially by the final third of questions. Many of the questions are too definite. If there was some squeeze room, the score would've been higher. If Ron Paul took the test, he would've scored probably around the mid-60s. Are we to say Ron isn't a real libertarian?

[Fozz]

79. Definitely hardcore anarchist quiz, especially by the final third of questions. Many of the questions are too definite. If there was some squeeze room, the score would've been higher. If Ron Paul took the test, he would've scored probably around the mid-60s. Are we to say Ron isn't a real libertarian?

Ron Paul is quite hard core----I think he'd get 90-100.
Hint: He believes that even 100 years ago, our government was too big.

[jmlfod87]

79. Definitely hardcore anarchist quiz, especially by the final third of questions. Many of the questions are too definite. If there was some squeeze room, the score would've been higher. If Ron Paul took the test, he would've scored probably around the mid-60s. Are we to say Ron isn't a real libertarian?

Ron Paul is a student of Murray Rothbard. Whether or not he admits it publicly, he would probably score closer to 160 than most of the people in this thread.

[Fozz]

Ron Paul is a student of Murray Rothbard. Whether or not he admits it publicly, he would probably score closer to 160 than most of the people in this thread.
I am puzzled at why Ron Paul has pictures of Reagan and Milton Friedman in his office. Murray Rothbard hated Ronald Reagan, and considered Friedman to be a statist.

Back to the subject, I agree with you. I think that deep down, Ron Paul would prefer the Articles of Confederation, even though publicly he always says we should follow the Constitution.

[TortoiseDream]

96 for me

[Andrew-Austin]

It said I am over 9000.

[free.alive]

160.

I thought the first set of questions were trick questions, but I chose to answer them as if I could only ever choose between to the two.

For those of you in the bottom two thirds, I urge you to believe a little more in freedom. The question you should ask yourselves, is "How much socialism is ok?" I say none.

[Kludge]

160.

I thought the first set of questions were trick questions, but I chose to answer them as if I could only ever choose between to the two.

For those of you in the bottom two thirds, I urge you to believe a little more in freedom. The question you should ask yourselves, is "How much socialism is ok?" I say none.

So you do not believe the commerce clause exists in the Constitution?

[Gaius1981]

56.

[blocks]

80...I like how this test pushed the boundaries.

[AggieforPaul]

Everyone who scored 160, go move to Somalia. I'll stay here with my non privatized law, and my public fire department.

[Bobster]

(110) 91-130 points: You have entered the heady realm of hard-core libertarianism. Now doesn't that make you feel worse that you didn't get a perfect score?

I agree, anarchist purity test. With anarchy some government will form somewhere and impose upon people whom have no government.

[canadian4ronpaul]

ya this test was retarded, it even state in one question "anarcho-capitalist"

privatize the law? give me a break...

i also dont want to have to pay up thousands of dollars for a fire truck if my house catches on fire. it IS possible for the government to do some good.

[canadian4ronpaul]

i got 92.

[Young Paleocon]

Anarcho-capitalism is the logical conclusion of libertarianism, you can't just hit the breaks where you think less government needs be. It will go to no government and all privatization. So think before you complain about the quiz and quich ya bitchin'.

[Natalie]

I got a 68.

51-90 points: You are a medium-core libertarian, probably self-consciously so. Your friends probably encourage you to quit talking about your views so much.