QUIZ: What kind of libertarian are you?

[mediahasyou]

http://quizfarm.com/quizzes/new/Brainpolice/what-kind-of-libertarian-are-you/

Normally I do not enjoy political quizzes. However, this one was interesting.

[Juan McCain]

Other Constitutionalist Libertarian

[nateerb]

Ancap

[LittleLightShining]

You Scored as Agorist

Agorists are market anarchists or anarcho-capitalists (often former anarcho-capitalists) who have moved in the direction of rejecting participation in the political process in favor of more direct action in the form of economic secession and civil disobedience in general, with particular emphasis on making use of black or grey markets. Agorism could be viewed as a radicalized version of anarcho-capitalism, or a radicalized outcome of taking it in new directions. Agorists tend to be more closely associated with the traditional anarchist left than many anarcho-capitalists.

:eek: Really?

After spending a say at the State House Thursday sitting in on committees and trying to fix a bill that would legislate my husband out of a job (and witnessing all the bs that goes on in that building) I pretty much decided if I don't run in 2010 I'm definitely going to in 2012.


editing to add in my stats


Left-libertarian
92%
Agorist
92%
"Small L" libertarian
83%
Anarcho-capitalist
83%
Minarchist
58%
Paleo-libertarian
50%
Geo-libertarian
17%
Neo-libertarian
0%
Libertarian socialist
0%

[messana]

You Scored as Left-libertarian

Left-libertarians are libertarians that are more associated with the anti-authoritarian left than other libertarians. Left-libertarians can be minarchists, but many are anarchists who are in alliance with the anarchist left. Left-libertarians are more critical of conservatism and corporatism than most libertarians. They view libertarians in a hsitorical context that is interconnected with the history of the left.

[disorderlyvision]

ancap

[Jeremy]

The quiz says I'm an agorist. I'm actually a minarcho-voluntaryist / voluntary minarchist. Just another lame test.... lol... Just because I think individual secession and civil disobediance is good doesn't mean I want to abolish all government. These are important for what I call voluntary minarchism.

I accidentally voted minarchist in the poll before I took the quiz, but that's fine.


Left-libertarian 75%
Agorist 75%
Minarchist 67%
Paleo-libertarian 67%
"Small L" libertarian 58%
Anarcho-capitalist 33%
Geo-libertarian 0%
Neo-libertarian 0%
Libertarian socialist 0%

[malkusm]

Minarchist, biatches

Minarchist
83%
Paleo-libertarian
75%
Left-libertarian
75%
"Small L" libertarian
58%
Agorist
50%
Anarcho-capitalist
42%
Geo-libertarian
17%
Neo-libertarian
8%
Libertarian socialist
0%

[Wineman77]

83% Minarchist

[Bucjason]

Minarchists rule !!!

[malkusm]

83% Minarchist

Awesome, exactly the same as me:cool:

[__27__]

Minarchists rule !!!

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/44/132443565_d3629120c6.jpg




Agorist, though I didn't like the questions at all. They were very poorly worded with sometimes no options, answering yes would be a minarchist position, while answering no would be a big government position.

[Fozz]

Libertarian socialist is an oxymoron.

[Fozz]

Neolibertarians are really neocons.

[Jeremy]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/44/132443565_d3629120c6.jpg




Agorist, though I didn't like the questions at all. They were very poorly worded with sometimes no options, answering yes would be a minarchist position, while answering no would be a big government position.

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_YBv_EOucAx4/SsA5YmG81II/AAAAAAAAAmY/Th0bck0WyZU/Anti%20Capitalist%20Bloc%5B5%5D.jpg

[RedStripe]

Libertarian socialist is an oxymoron.

I guess you're unaware of the early 19th century American anarchists who advocated a libertarian philosophy and yet called themselves socialists.

[malkusm]

Libertarian socialist is an oxymoron.

Noam Chomsky would disagree with you :D Then again, I haven't read anything by him, so while it seems ridiculous, I won't pass judgment. (Since I got 0% for libertarian socialist, though, he'd have to have some amazingly convincing arguments to change my mind.)

[__27__]

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_YBv_EOucAx4/SsA5YmG81II/AAAAAAAAAmY/Th0bck0WyZU/Anti%20Capitalist%20Bloc%5B5%5D.jpg

And your point is? Are you in favor of a bailout? Are you in favor of "capitalism" as it exists in America today? If your answer to either of those is yes, why are you here?

[amy31416]

Neolibertarians are really neocons.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/200/503052659_53bede1f57_o.gif

[__27__]

Noam Chomsky would disagree with you :D Then again, I haven't read anything by him, so while it seems ridiculous, I won't pass judgment. (Since I got 0% for libertarian socialist, though, he'd have to have some amazingly convincing arguments to change my mind.)

Chomsky is as much a libertarian as Beck is. Beck wants to use libertarianism as a path to a new American Fascism, Chomsky wants to use libertarianism as a path to a new American Communism.

[Fozz]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/200/503052659_53bede1f57_o.gif

Eric Dondero is an ignorant asshole.

[Jeremy]

And your point is? Are you in favor of a bailout? Are you in favor of "capitalism" as it exists in America today? If your answer to either of those is yes, why are you here?

Don't twist what it says. It says "No Capitalism" not "No 'capitalism' as it exists in America today."

[Pericles]

Other Constitutionalist Libertarian

This is my view - the wording of the questions dictates certain responses that do not reflect my views.

[Fozz]

Noam Chomsky would disagree with you :D Then again, I haven't read anything by him, so while it seems ridiculous, I won't pass judgment. (Since I got 0% for libertarian socialist, though, he'd have to have some amazingly convincing arguments to change my mind.)

Socialism can only exist with a government big enough to prevent private property, or redistribute wealth, and make sure that there is "fairness" in society.

[RedStripe]

Don't twist what it says. It says "No Capitalism" not "No 'capitalism' as it exists in America today."

Or it may as well say "no capitalism as it has ever existed anywhere"

[Fozz]

Minarchist
75%
Paleo-libertarian
67%
"Small L" libertarian
67%
Left-libertarian
58%
Agorist
58%
Anarcho-capitalist
33%
Geo-libertarian
17%
Neo-libertarian
0%
Libertarian socialist
0%

[__27__]

Don't twist what it says. It says "No Capitalism" not "No 'capitalism' as it exists in America today."

:rolleyes:

Yes, because I'm sure the people carrying the sign have a clear enough understanding of the science of economics to differentiate between American Corporatism and what you in your own little mind call capitalism. They have been told their entire lives that America is run on capitalism, they see very clearly that this does not work, it is exploitative and oppressive, and thus lash out at it.

Do you believe in bailouts?

Do you believe in American Corporatism?

[RedStripe]

Socialism can only exist with a government big enough to prevent private property, or redistribute wealth, and make sure that there is "fairness" in society.

Wait, isn't it government that establishes private property? Does it not record the deeds and enforce the titles to land?

It's funny that you sneer at 'fairness.' Yea, who cares if someone runs over and old lady crossing the street; demanding compensation is just a bunch of whining about 'fairness.'

[__27__]

This is my view - the wording of the questions dictates certain responses that do not reflect my views.

Constitutionalist libertarian is an oxymoron.

[__27__]

Wait, isn't it government that establishes private property? Does it not record the deeds and enforce the titles to land?

It's funny that you sneer at 'fairness.' Yea, who cares if someone runs over and old lady crossing the street; demanding compensation is just a bunch of whining about 'fairness.'

In a corporatist society, yes. In an anarchic society, private property is naturally evident. Mixture of labor with nature creates property, to believe otherwise is to suggest a person does not own their own body or the product they create with it.

[Fozz]

Wait, isn't it government that establishes private property? Does it not record the deeds and enforce the titles to land?
You don't think private ownership is possible in an anarchist society?



It's funny that you sneer at 'fairness.' Yea, who cares if someone runs over and old lady crossing the street; demanding compensation is just a bunch of whining about 'fairness.'
Um, no. You have to understand the context.

In this context, fairness is more like so and so corporation earns $4 billion this year. That is too much money, it needs to be taken away and redistributed so things are more fair.

[malkusm]

:rolleyes:

Yes, because I'm sure the people carrying the sign have a clear enough understanding of the science of economics to differentiate between American Corporatism and what you in your own little mind call capitalism. They have been told their entire lives that America is run on capitalism, they see very clearly that this does not work, it is exploitative and oppressive, and thus lash out at it.

Do you believe in bailouts?

Do you believe in American Corporatism?

So you're saying that the "anarchists" in the photo are intellectually lazy and haven't grasped what true capitalism is, but since you agree with the ends they seek to attain, you will defend them anyway?

What do you refer to when you say "what [we] in our own little minds call capitalism?" Are to insinuating that those who support capitalism, but don't agree with you on the anarchy/minarchy role of government, don't really know what capitalism means? I'd venture to guess that we know quite a bit more than the people in the photo whom you defend.

[Jeremy]

:rolleyes:

Yes, because I'm sure the people carrying the sign have a clear enough understanding of the science of economics to differentiate between American Corporatism and what you in your own little mind call capitalism. They have been told their entire lives that America is run on capitalism, they see very clearly that this does not work, it is exploitative and oppressive, and thus lash out at it.

Do you believe in bailouts?

Do you believe in American Corporatism?
Give it up. You posted a picture relating minarchists to fascists. So I posted a picture relating ancaps to anti-freedom black-wearing property-destroying rioters.

[RedStripe]

In a corporatist society, yes. In an anarchic society, private property is naturally evident.

Um, no it's not. It's not "naturally evident" because the entire concept of ownership is extremely complex and has many different aspects which raise questions which can't be determined by burning turtle bones or whatever.



Mixture of labor with nature creates property, to believe otherwise is to suggest a person does not own their own body or the product they create with it.

No, believing otherwise does not suggest that at all. Sorry.

Property is a social construct that is determined by the rules of a particular social group.

[__27__]

So you're saying that the "anarchists" in the photo are intellectually lazy and haven't grasped what true capitalism is, but since you agree with the ends they seek to attain, you will defend them anyway?

I'm saying the anarchists in the picture understand that the government and it's relationships with corporations are destructive to individual liberty and freedom, and are thus the enemy. They have little understanding of economics (which only puts them in a group with about 98.9999% of the rest of America) and thus have been duped by someone to believe that the American Corporatist market is a representative of a free market. They are certainly closer to defending individual liberty than is a minarchist who still wants to have a government with a monopoly on force to impose the will of the majority on the minority.



What do you refer to when you say "what [we] in our own little minds call capitalism?" Are to insinuating that those who support capitalism, but don't agree with you on the anarchy/minarchy role of government, don't really know what capitalism means? I'd venture to guess that we know quite a bit more than the people in the photo whom you defend.

What I refer to, is simply that what you understand as capitalism in your own personal head, in your own personal thoughts, is NOT the same as what they understand as capitalism in their own little heads and in their own personal thoughts. The two are NOT the same, they are protesting American Corporatism, while you are attempting to declare they are protesting a pure free market. They don't understand what a pure free market is (again, this only places them with about 99.999999% of the worlds population).




Give it up. You posted a picture relating minarchists to fascists. So I posted a picture relating ancaps to anti-freedom black-wearing property-destroying rioters.

:rolleyes:

Do you really want me to start pulling out pictures of the bastions of 'minarchy' like the KKK and the rest of the imbred racists in this country who are 'on your side'?

[__27__]

Um, no it's not. It's not "naturally evident" because the entire concept of ownership is extremely complex and has many different aspects which raise questions which can't be determined by burning turtle bones or whatever.


It is naturally evident, because you choose not to accept it does not make it so. The natural rights of Africans forced into slavery were naturally evident, the fact that people refused to acknowledge them and indeed worked directly against them does not negate the fact that they were naturally evident to begin with.



No, believing otherwise does not suggest that at all. Sorry.

Property is a social construct that is determined by the rules of a particular social group.

Yes, it does. Property is a naturally occurring phenomenon that requires recognition from no one. If I go out into the woods, clear an area and use the wood to build myself a domicile, it is my property.

[malkusm]

:rolleyes:

Do you really want me to start pulling out pictures of the bastions of 'minarchy' like the KKK and the rest of the imbred racists in this country who are 'on your side'?

Sure, because I wouldn't blindly defend a group that claims to be "minarchist" or "on my side" who either don't understand the premises for which they are fighting or blatantly violate them (which is what you did with the anarchist/anti-capitalist picture).

Notice that none of the minarchists here are taking your pic and saying "But, but, the Republicans aren't that bad! Most Republicans are just confused!"

[__27__]

Sure, because I wouldn't blindly defend a group that claims to be "minarchist" or "on my side" who either don't understand the premises for which they are fighting or blatantly violate them (which is what you did with the anarchist/anti-capitalist picture).

You apparently still don't understand. Fighting AGAINST current American Corporatism (what those protesters are doing) IS on my side, and it IS on your side as well. It is how we reach them and teach them about a TRUE free market and TRUE capitalism moving forward that makes the difference.



Notice that none of the minarchists here are taking your pic and saying "But, but, the Republicans aren't that bad! Most Republicans are just confused!"

The picture represents minarchists as well, specifically many on this board. If you believe in a government monopoly on force to impose the will of the majority on the minority, if you believe in government force to keep human beings from entering their labor into our market, if you believe in government force to intervene in the market to gain profit for domestic producers at the expense of the consumer, you believe in fascism. Moreover, if you believe this, it is YOU who does not believe in true capitalism or a true free market.

[silentshout]

Left-libertarian.

(And yes, I am new here :) ).

[__27__]

Left-libertarian.

(And yes, I am new here :) ).

Welcome, it's good to have former Dems in the group as well. We all know both the Dems and GOP are our enemies, but with so many people coming from the GOP, the natural tendency is to be harder on the Dems, we could use the balance.

[RedStripe]

It is naturally evident, because you choose not to accept it does not make it so. The natural rights of Africans forced into slavery were naturally evident, the fact that people refused to acknowledge them and indeed worked directly against them does not negate the fact that they were naturally evident to begin with.



Yes, it does. Property is a naturally occurring phenomenon that requires recognition from no one. If I go out into the woods, clear an area and use the wood to build myself a domicile, it is my property.

Haha this has to be the silliest thing I've read all day.

It's not "naturally evident." Simply repeating that over and over doesn't make it true, sorry.

Clearly you don't even understand what rights actually are. They are social constructs.

For example - how do you know that the African slaves had 'naturally evident' rights?

[__27__]

Haha this has to be the silliest thing I've read all day.

It's not "naturally evident." Simply repeating that over and over doesn't make it true, sorry.

Clearly you don't even understand what rights actually are. They are social constructs.

For example - how do you know that the African slaves had 'naturally evident' rights?

It's apparently silly to you, because YOU do not believe rights are naturally evident. I must question then, why you would believe in freedom in any aspect. If rights are nothing but social constructs, then you have no rights. You have no right to your own life, and whoever could by means of force take your life away from you, would be perfectly justified.

Are you an anarchist or a nihilist?

[paulitics]

This is a biased quiz to make you think you are an ancap more than a libertarian. I am nothing like an ancap, yet a scored high in that area. This tactic is not going to sell me on this idealistic philosophy, but pull me further away from it.

[erowe1]

What's with the last option? Isn't every kind of libertarian on the list a small-l libertarian?

[Bucjason]

The picture represents minarchists as well, specifically many on this board. If you believe in a government monopoly on force to impose the will of the majority on the minority

What are you talking about ?? A minarchist believes that the only necessary role of government is to protect the natural rights of people. Life , Liberty , and property.

That type of government protects the rights of minorites AGAINST the majority. In a Minarchist society you couldn't put Free speech up for a vote and then outlaw it by a 51% majority.

[__27__]

What are you talking about ?? A minarchist believes that the only necessary role of government is to protect the natural rights of people. Life , Liberty , and property.

That type of government protects the rights of minorites AGAINST the majority. In a Minarchist society you couldn't put Free speech up for a vote and then outlaw it by a 51% majority.

Do your citizens have the right to secede? Or are they forced to belong to your 'government' against their consent.

[RedStripe]

It's apparently silly to you, because YOU do not believe rights are naturally evident.

Before we get into a big tangent about my personal beliefs, why don't you explain what "naturally evident" rights are.

I mean, if you have the right to life, then a falling coconut is violating your rights when it cracks your skull and kills you.

If you walk out into the wilderness and clear a parcel of land and claim you have "property rights" is a deer or a gorilla violating your property rights when it trespasses or when it destroys something you have made?

Of course not, because rights are social constructs all social species develop to regulate the behavior of individuals within a social setting. It's not some sort of divine law and it does not exist in any sense beyond the sphere of bone surrounding our brains.



I must question then, why you would believe in freedom in any aspect.

What does it mean to "believe in" something? Believe what about freedom exactly?



If rights are nothing but social constructs, then you have no rights.

What? That doesn't follow at all. You're still thinking of rights in terms of ownership. Like you own your "rights" like invisible bubbles that surround you. No - in reality rights are just a social construct, and they have very real effects. I do, in fact, have rights, such as the right to cross-examine witnesses against me in a criminal trial.



You have no right to your own life, and whoever could by means of force take your life away from you, would be perfectly justified.

Justified by whom? There is no cosmic, eternal standard of justice.

And by the way, wouldn't the fact that someone COULD by means of force, take my life, tend to make it "naturally evident" that magical rights don't actually exist?



Are you an anarchist or a nihilist?

Maybe a little bit of both. Who knows.

[emazur]

Minarchist
83%
Left-libertarian
67%
Anarcho-capitalist
67%
Agorist
58%
Paleo-libertarian
50%
"Small L" libertarian
25%
Geo-libertarian
17%
Neo-libertarian
0%
Libertarian socialist
0%

[Bucjason]

Haha this has to be the silliest thing I've read all day.

It's not "naturally evident." Simply repeating that over and over doesn't make it true, sorry.

Clearly you don't even understand what rights actually are. They are social constructs.

For example - how do you know that the African slaves had 'naturally evident' rights?

Because as rational beings , with the ability to think and use free will ,we are all able to universally understand certain things that are most beneficial to our survival and hapiness as a species.

Generally all people think that murder is wrong. Generally the same thing with stealing , etc.

This free thinking intelligence also gives us a natural wanting to be free and indepenedent from total dominance of one another.

This is what natural rights originate from . They ARE self-evident , and they are not imaginery. WHoever has taught you this "historical rights" perspective that says rights are subjective to culture has mislead you. Some things don't change no matter what culture you come from.

[erowe1]

Just took the quiz.

There are so many mistakes, misspellings, non sequiturs, and poorly worded questions, I had to take the middle option on probably half of them just to avoid saying something that was either ambiguous or meaningless.

What's KAFTA?

Also, Noam Chomsky is not any kind of a libertarian at all.

What does the word "meantime" mean in the sentence, "At least in the meantime, immigration must be restricted."

I could go on. There were dozens of things like those. No offense if the person who made the quiz is here.

[Bucjason]

Do your citizens have the right to secede? Or are they forced to belong to your 'government' against their consent.

Ummm, I think it's physically impossible for a single citizen to secede.

If you are asking can they leave and go somewhere else?? Of course they can.

[hugolp]

Also, Noam Chomsky is not any kind of a libertarian at all.

Noam Chomsky is a self-defined libertarian socialist. To be fair, the world libertarian has a socialist origin, but it was abandoned and has been used here in the states with a completely different meaning.

Btw, Chomsky is a complete moron.

[__27__]

Ummm, I think it's physically impossible for a single citizen to secede.

If you are asking can they leave and go somewhere else?? Of course they can.

And we are back to the standby statist response, not abandoning my property and my livelihood to flee your aggression is as good as 'consent' to you. If you use violent aggression to FORCE people to belong to YOUR government against their will and without consent, you are imposing your will on a minority. It doesn't matter if the minority is .000001% of the population, you are still using aggressive violence to oppress them.

If I stick a gun in your face and tell you to give me your money, then you consent to the robbery by giving me your money, according to your logic.

[Bucjason]

Libertarian socialist is an oxymoron

[RichieLibertarian]

ANARCHO-CAPITALIST lol

[__27__]

Libertarian socialist is an oxymoron

Constitutional libertarian is an oxymoron.

[erowe1]

Noam Chomsky is a self-defined libertarian socialist. To be fair, the world libertarian has a socialist origin, but it was abandoned and has been used here in the states with a completely different meaning.

Btw, Chomsky is a complete moron.

He might use that designation for himself. But there is nothing libertarian about him at all. I don't have a problem with the idea of there being such a thing as libertarian socialism. But Chomsky isn't one no matter what he says. He's a statist-socialist, not a libertarian-socialist.

[Bucjason]

And we are back to the standby statist response, not abandoning my property and my livelihood to flee your aggression is as good as 'consent' to you. If you use violent aggression to FORCE people to belong to YOUR government against their will and without consent, you are imposing your will on a minority. It doesn't matter if the minority is .000001% of the population, you are still using aggressive violence to oppress them.

If I stick a gun in your face and tell you to give me your money, then you consent to the robbery by giving me your money, according to your logic.

What are you talking about ?? No form of agression would be brought to you in a Minarchist society unless you were engaging in the violation od SOMEONE ELSE'S natural rights ...and natural rights are something we already established that you believe in.

However , if you insisted on your need to violate the rights of others , you would be free to go do so in Canada.

[Old Ducker]

Interesting test. It's occured to me over the past year or so that I've moved to the left, the quiz appears to support that.


"You Scored as Left-libertarian"

Left-libertarians are libertarians that are more associated with the anti-authoritarian left than other libertarians. Left-libertarians can be minarchists, but many are anarchists who are in alliance with the anarchist left. Left-libertarians are more critical of conservatism and corporatism than most libertarians. They view libertarians in a hsitorical context that is interconnected with the history of the left.



Left-libertarian
92%
Agorist
83%
Anarcho-capitalist
75%
"Small L" libertarian
67%
Minarchist
58%
Paleo-libertarian
33%
Geo-libertarian
8%
Neo-libertarian
8%
Libertarian socialist
8%

[RedStripe]

Because as rational beings , with the ability to think and use free will ,we all able to universally understand certain things that are most beneficial to our survival and hapiness as a species.

Gee, I guess the evidence of history would thus suggest that one the things we are "all able to universally understand" that is "most beneficial to our survival and happiness as a species" would be government because it is by far the most ubiquitous "rule" or "law" that humans have developed.



Generally all people think that murder is wrong. Generally the same thing with stealing , etc.

Duh, because murder is literally defined as a wrongful killing - ask them if killing in various different situations is justified and you will get a million different responses.

The concept of theft presupposes that the person committing the act has a worse claim to the property than the person from whom the property was taken.

And considering the fact that most people think that taxation, in moderation, is perfectly fine, does that mean that government has a "natural right" to tax?



This free thinking intelligence also gives us a natural wanting to be free and indepenedent from total dominance of one another.

I'd argue that arises from instinct rather than intellect.



This is what natural rights originate from . They ARE self-evident , and they are not imaginery.

No. They are not self-evident. You can't even describe one to me in detail. They are not eternal truths or whatever quasi-religious BS you're spinning them in. They are social constructs - they can and do only exist as social rules.



WHoever has taught you this "historical rights" perspective that says rights are subjective to culture has mislead you.

I didn't have to be taught this - it's SELF EVIDENT. Ahahaha



Some things don't change no matter what culture you come from.

Yea - the fact that we are a social species and have rules and other social constructs.

[__27__]

What are you talking about ?? No form of agression would be brought to you in a Minarchist society unless you were engaging in the violation od SOMEONE ELSE'S natural rights ...and natural rights are something we already established that you believe in.

However , if you insisted on your need to violate the rights of others , you would be free to go do so in Canada.

If I cannot live on my land without the intrusion of your government in my life in any manner, than you are forcing me to accept and belong to your government against my will and without consent.

Aggressive violence is aggressive violence, it is not a percentages game.

[Natalie]

I voted for "Small L libertarian" before I realized there was a quiz. The quiz said:

You Scored as Paleo-libertarian

Paleo-libertarians are influenced by and in alliance with paleoconservatives and are likely to be former paleoconservatives themselves. Paleo-libertarians are strongly associated with the "old right". Some may tend to be social or cultural conservatives. Paleo-libertarians tend to differ with other libertarians particularly in terms of their tendency to support immigration restriction and strong border security. One of their primary targets of criticism, if not the main target of their criticism, is globalism.

Paleo-libertarian
92%
Minarchist
67%
"Small L" libertarian
58%
Agorist
50%
Anarcho-capitalist
42%
Left-libertarian
42%
Neo-libertarian
25%
Geo-libertarian
8%
Libertarian socialist
0%

[hugolp]

He might use that designation for himself. But there is nothing libertarian about him at all. I don't have a problem with the idea of there being such a thing as libertarian socialism. But Chomsky isn't one no matter what he says. He's a statist-socialist, not a libertarian-socialist.

Well, Chomsky defines himself as an anarchist, wich would put him in the socialist libertarian side. But then he goes and says that the USA needs more goverment (he says goverment is the only thing that can protect the people from the corporations... :rolleyes: ). Also he has his money in a fiscal paradise, while asking people to pay taxes as a moral obligation...

He is a moron, thats all. I have heard him saying that the real economic problem is the division of labour that is evil, and that it should not happen. Go figure.

[Jeremy]

i voted for "small l libertarian" before i realized there was a quiz. The quiz said:

You scored as paleo-libertarian

paleo-libertarians are influenced by and in alliance with paleoconservatives and are likely to be former paleoconservatives themselves. Paleo-libertarians are strongly associated with the "old right". Some may tend to be social or cultural conservatives. Paleo-libertarians tend to differ with other libertarians particularly in terms of their tendency to support immigration restriction and strong border security. One of their primary targets of criticism, if not the main target of their criticism, is globalism.

Paleo-libertarian
92%
minarchist
67%
"small l" libertarian
58%
agorist
50%
anarcho-capitalist
42%
left-libertarian
42%
neo-libertarian
25%
geo-libertarian
8%
libertarian socialist
0%

25% neocon!!!1111

[Bucjason]

Red Stripe ...you do realize that claiming "everything is subjective" is a self-refuting statement , right??

You also realize it means you have NO rights , correct?

[Bucjason]

If I cannot live on my land without the intrusion of your government in my life in any manner, than you are forcing me to accept and belong to your government against my will and without consent.

Aggressive violence is aggressive violence, it is not a percentages game.

You CAN live on your land and no one will bother you, thanks to the rule of law....good luck with that same goal in an Anarchist society.. Ha !

[RedStripe]

Red Stripe ...you do realize that claiming "everything is subjective" is a self-refuting statement , right??

Sure but i never said anything about subjectivity.



You also realize it means you have NO rights , correct?

OH MY GOD. I felt them leave me - it was like a cold wind brushing over my skin - my rights!!! THEY'RE GONE!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Seriously though, you're making a dumb argument. First of all, I do have rights - I'm just open-minded enough to realize that they are just a social construct. If I moved to a different society, I might not have rights within the context of their culture/legal system. That's just a fact.

There may be particular 'rights' that you think all people should accept - but instead of making that argument, you're arguing something nonsensical: that the rights already exist even when they don't.

[erowe1]

You CAN live on your land and no one will bother you, thanks to the rule of law....good luck with that same goal in an Anarchist society.. Ha !

Really? So in minarchy anybody who doesn't want to pay taxes doesn't have to?

[MR2Fast2Catch]

Probably a quarter of the questions on that quiz did not make sense to me because of strange wording, words I did not understand, or references to people/things I have not heard about. However, here are my results.

Paleo-libertarian
83%
Minarchist
83%
"Small L" libertarian
75%
Left-libertarian
58%
Agorist
58%
Anarcho-capitalist
50%
Geo-libertarian
33%
Neo-libertarian
25%
Libertarian socialist
17%

[phazespace]

You Scored as Minarchist



Minarchist
83%
Left-libertarian
75%
"Small L" libertarian
67%
Agorist
58%
Paleo-libertarian
33%
Anarcho-capitalist
25%
Geo-libertarian
17%
Neo-libertarian
0%
Libertarian socialist
0%

[inibo]

Haven't read all the posts in this thread yet so I may have already missed the answer, but can someone please tell me the difference between agorism and anarcho-capitalism? Other than a bit of "hippyness" on the part of some agorists (not necessarily a bad thing), I don't really see the difference. Agora means "market." Most ancaps are market capitalists as opposed to state capitalists, so what's the distinction between the two terms?

To me any interaction between people is either market based (voluntary) or coerced. There are no other options. Cf. Franz Oppenheimer and Albert Jay Nock.

Oh, and I didn't take the quiz because I already know what I am.

BTW, I just looked at that quiz. It is so full of loaded, leading questions I can't see how the results can be other than not correlated to anything.

[tonesforjonesbones]

I do not believe it is possible to be a libertarian socialist. I kept reading about anarcho capitalist and I am that. I hate government...I want government to get out of the way and quit hijacking free markets. tones

[RedStripe]

No one trying to defend the idea of natural rights? Comon guys I know you can do better!

[disorderlyvision]

Haven't read all the posts in this thread yet so I may have already missed the answer, but can someone please tell me the difference between agorism and anarcho-capitalism? Other than a bit of "hippyness" on the part of some agorists (not necessarily a bad thing), I don't really see the difference. Agora means "market." Most ancaps are market capitalists as opposed to state capitalists, so what's the distinction between the two terms?

To me any interaction between people is either market based (voluntary) or coerced. There are no other options. Cf. Franz Oppenheimer and Albert Jay Nock.

Oh, and I didn't take the quiz because I already know what I am.

BTW, I just looked at that quiz. It is so full of loaded, leading questions I can't see how the results can be other than not correlated to anything.

The way I understand it is Agorist are more into civil disobedience and the like, and do not support any political activism as some ancaps do, but basically the philosophy is the same

[inibo]

No one trying to defend the idea of natural rights? Comon guys I know you can do better!

The best defense I've run across is the one Butler Shaffer makes in Boundaries of Order. I doubt I can do it justice, but basically it stems from the fact that all living creatures require the exclusive use of resources as a matter of survival. If I consume food or some other resource I do so by depriving the entire world of those resources otherwise I could not survive. Exclusive use or possession of resources is inherent to life. Property is the most fundamental right in that life itself requires it. It is Nature's Law.

[Cap]

Minarchist

Minarchist
92%
Left-libertarian
75%
Paleo-libertarian
75%
Agorist
75%
Anarcho-capitalist
75%
"Small L" libertarian
58%
Geo-libertarian
8%
Neo-libertarian
8%
Libertarian socialist
0%

[tremendoustie]

I do not believe it is possible to be a libertarian socialist. I kept reading about anarcho capitalist and I am that. I hate government...I want government to get out of the way and quit hijacking free markets. tones

I agree. To take a person's property is to not respect their liberty.

[tremendoustie]

The way I understand it is Agorist are more into civil disobedience and the like, and do not support any political activism as some ancaps do, but basically the philosophy is the same

Yeah, a lot of these overlap.

[silentshout]

__27__, thanks for the welcome. No worries about people being harder on the Dems..they deserve it right now to be honest. :)

[low preference guy]

test is crap... i ended up as agorist, while i'm a classic liberal (close to what some of you refer to as "miniarchist"). i think the reason i came up as agorist is because i favor civil disobedience. but i want to use it as a tool to stop government functions i deem illegitimate, not to eliminate the state. i'm also not opposed to participation in the political system.

bad quiz.

[FrankRep]

Minarchist

[tremendoustie]

Oh. I answered before taking the quiz. Here are my results:

Anarcho-capitalist
100%
"Small L" libertarian
83%
Left-libertarian
67%
Agorist
67%
Minarchist
42%
Paleo-libertarian
17%
Geo-libertarian
17%
Libertarian socialist
0%
Neo-libertarian
0%

[johnrocks]

Not one for labels however I'd say I am somewhere in the paleo/small l category.

[tremendoustie]

Not one for labels however I'd say I am somewhere in the paleo/small l category.

The quiz seems to consider these two things very different, for some reason.

[tremendoustie]

test is crap... i ended up as agorist, while i'm a classic liberal (close to what some of you refer to as "miniarchist"). i think the reason i came up as agorist is because i favor civil disobedience. but i want to use it as a tool to stop government functions i deem illegitimate, not to eliminate the state. i'm also not opposed to participation in the political system.

bad quiz.

I know it's not what the wikipedia page says, but minarchists can be agorists IMO. It's more of a technique than anything -- developing free institutions and free trade, rather than fighting the state head on.

[bkreigh]

You Scored as Minarchist
Minarchists are libertarians who advocate a strictly limited government and usually a more decentralized form of it. Minarchists may vary in the degree to which they think that government should be limited, although the bare bones position is essentially nothing more than police, courts and the military. Minarchists tend to think that some minimum level of government is a necessary evil, or at least an inevitability. The contemporary libertarian movement in America is dominantly minarchist, although it has had a long history of dialogue and debate between minarchist and anarchist libertarians.


Paleo-libertarian
75%
Minarchist
75%
Anarcho-capitalist
75%
Agorist
58%
Left-libertarian
50%
"Small L" libertarian
42%
Neo-libertarian
8%
Libertarian socialist
8%
Geo-libertarian
8%

[noxagol]

Many of the questions are ambiguous or too open ended.

[gb13]

Oops.. I effed up. I selected "small l-libertarian" before I took the quiz, which scored me as "minarchist". However it also scored me nearly equally for "left-libertarian" and "agorist"... So, I'm not sure how reliable this is. How are these three compatible? I can see the compatibility between agorism and minarchism....but left-libertarian!?! Wtf? Fuck Noam Chomsky.

[RedStripe]

Oops.. I effed up. I selected "small l-libertarian" before I took the quiz, which scored me as "minarchist". However it also scored me nearly equally for "left-libertarian" and "agorist"... So, I'm not sure how reliable this is. How are these three compatible? I can see the compatibility between agorism and minarchism....but left-libertarian!?! Wtf? Fuck Noam Chomsky.

lol Chomsky has done more to promote peace than you ever have

DURF DURF HE IS LEFTIST DURF DURF I DUN LIK LEFTIST CAUSE DEY BAD DURF DURF

[gb13]

lol Chomsky has done more to promote peace than you ever have

DURF DURF HE IS LEFTIST DURF DURF I DUN LIK LEFTIST CAUSE DEY BAD DURF DURF

Noam Chomsky has described the libertarian society envisioned by the likes of Ron Paul as a "nightmare"... So I disagree profoundly with his overall philosophy . He is anti-war, which is good, but he is not my cup of tea. I did enjoy "Hegemony or Survival" though.

How about this for a suggestion: Think before you use your keyboard to bring down others for merely disagreeing with you. Dick.

[JamesButabi]

Ancap

Anarcho-capitalist
83%
"Small L" libertarian
75%
Minarchist
75%
Agorist
67%
Left-libertarian
58%
Geo-libertarian
42%
Paleo-libertarian
33%
Libertarian socialist
17%
Neo-libertarian
8%

[erowe1]

lol Chomsky has done more to promote peace than you ever have


That may be true. But for him to describe himself as any kind of libertarian or anarchist is still a complete neologism. He's a statist through and through. He just wants to look like an independent thinker so he calls himself by a label that he thinks will distinguish him from all the other Obama lemmings who believe the same things he does.

[RedStripe]

lessons in sensitivity towards others, from the person who says "Fuck Noam Chomsky" just because he disagrees with Ron Paul on certain issues

lol

[tremendoustie]

That may be true. But for him to describe himself as any kind of libertarian or anarchist is still a complete neologism. He's a statist through and through. He just wants to look like an independent thinker so he calls himself by a label that he thinks will distinguish him from all the other Obama lemmings who believe the same things he does.

He wants a world where people don't use the government to steal from each other, they just do it themselves.

[RedStripe]

That may be true. But for him to describe himself as any kind of libertarian or anarchist is still a complete neologism. He's a statist through and through. He just wants to look like an independent thinker so he calls himself by a label that he thinks will distinguish him from all the other Obama lemmings who believe the same things he does.

Haha, he is far from a statist. Seriously read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky's_political_views

[Promontorium]

Agorist - Outside lover?

Anarcho-Capitalist - But then there wouldn't be any laws to be angry about!

Geo-libertarian - Let my rocks go!

Left-libertarian - Everyone is free, as long as they do it in their cages!

Libertarian socialist - "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, usually"?

Minarchist - No government! Well ok maybe a little.

Neo-libertarian - Let's pretend we have a rich history to refer to!

Paleo-libertarian - Ayn Rand is a bitch! I'm just gonna take all her ideas though, don't mind me.

"Small L" libertarian - They Took our Jobs! Dey Took ar Jerbs! Doop ey Doo!

[Anti Federalist]

Take that!

You Scored as Anarcho-capitalist

Anarcho-capitalists are libertarians who oppose the state entirely and propose to have a free market in the provision of security and arbitration. The term anarcho-capitalism derives from Murray Rothbard to describe a stateless society based on the principles of laissez-faire or the philosophy in support of such a proposition. Anarcho-capitalists may tend to still associate more with the political right and make use of the political process, unless they are agorists or left-libertarians at the same time.



Anarcho-capitalist
100%
Agorist
83%
Paleo-libertarian
75%
Minarchist
58%
"Small L" libertarian
58%
Left-libertarian
58%
Neo-libertarian
0%
Geo-libertarian
0%
Libertarian socialist
0%

[Theocrat]

Small l libertarians are libertarians, usually of the minarchist variety, who do not particularly identify with the official Libertarian Party or are not active in it, or may even actively oppose it. Small l libertarians are likely to view the Libertarian Party as moving in too moderate of a direction. Small l libertarian may tend to be more radical than many official Libertarian Party members. Some small l libertarians eventually transition to agorism, a completely apolitical approach to libertarianism.

Interesting...

[rprprs]

For what it's worth. (Not much, I suspect.)

Minarchist
75%
Left-libertarian
67%
Paleo-libertarian
67%
Agorist
50%
"Small L" libertarian
50%
Anarcho-capitalist
33%
Geo-libertarian
17%
Neo-libertarian
8%
Libertarian socialist
0%

[pcosmar]

Pirate. ;)

http://www.mermaidspirates.com/as_image/jolly_roger_lg.jpg

Oh goody, more labels.
Everyone chose a group now.

[gb13]

lessons in sensitivity towards others, from the person who says "Fuck Noam Chomsky" just because he disagrees with Ron Paul on certain issues

lol

I'm sorry, are you Noam Chomsky? Are you Noam Chomsky's ife? Brother? Sister?...Sister-in-law? I was being facetious with my comment. I was basically saying "fuck left-libertarianism", because I think it sucks, and it's disingenuous to equate that philosophy with the word "libertarian". Noam Chomsky is simply the most well known left-libertarian I could think of off-hand. So he was the brunt of my joke. I, unlike you, did not degrade myself by making personal attacks toward anyone on this forum.

However, if you are Noam Chomsky, I apologize; I was joking around, and I don't really care for emoticons. If you are not Noam Chomsky, lighten up.

Here: :p;):D:):(:confused::mad::rolleyes::cool::eek: Hope that helps.

[Fox McCloud]

paleo-libertarian anarcho-capitalist.

Yes, I can be both.

Politically, I'm an anarcho-capitalist, but socially, I'm a conservative (ie: I'll never personally support or accept certain types of drug use, homosexuality, prostitution, etc...but I certainly will not use the state to stop you from engaging in those things).

[RedStripe]

I'm sorry, are you Noam Chomsky? Are you Noam Chomsky's ife? Brother? Sister?...Sister-in-law? I was being facetious with my comment. I was basically saying "fuck left-libertarianism", because I think it sucks, and it's disingenuous to equate that philosophy with the word "libertarian". Noam Chomsky is simply the most well known left-libertarian I could think of off-hand. So he was the brunt of my joke. I, unlike you, did not degrade myself by making personal attacks toward anyone on this forum.

However, if you are Noam Chomsky, I apologize; I was joking around, and I don't really care for emoticons. If you are not Noam Chomsky, lighten up.

Here: :p;):D:):(:confused::mad::rolleyes::cool::eek: Hope that helps.

Your joke was "Fuck Noam Chomsky"? Eh, don't quit your day job.

You made a stupid comment, and I mocked you for it. Get over it - take your own advice and lighten up.

[someperson]

Oh goody, more labels.
Everyone chose a group now.
+1 lol couldn't have said it better.

[GunnyFreedom]

This is my view - the wording of the questions dictates certain responses that do not reflect my views.

same here.

If I were to be exquisitely detailed, I'd call myself a "Strict original Constitutionalist Voluntarist"

As it is, the quiz gave me:

You Scored as MinarchistMinarchists are libertarians who advocate a strictly limited government and usually a more decentralized form of it. Minarchists may vary in the degree to which they think that government should be limited, although the bare bones position is essentially nothing more than police, courts and the military. Minarchists tend to think that some minimum level of government is a necessary evil, or at least an inevitability. The contemporary libertarian movement in America is dominantly minarchist, although it has had a long history of dialogue and debate between minarchist and anarchist libertarians.


Minarchist 75%
Left-libertarian 58%
Agorist 58%
Anarcho-capitalist 50%
"Small L" libertarian 50%
Paleo-libertarian 50%
Geo-libertarian 33%
Neo-libertarian 17%
Libertarian socialist 0%

[Promontorium]

I agree with many of you. The questions could have been better. One problem with political questions is the terminology. But that represents the overall illogical attempt to label yourself.

When I was in high school, I took a political questionaire, it put me as a hard leftist. Later I learned more terminology, and that changed things.

For example. "Are you pro gun control"? (in my mind, gun-control was the opposite of letting guns be treated like toys, so yes)

This one asked me "Do you consider yourself an environmentalist?" Yes I do. But did it weigh me in as more of a socialist for it? Yes. But it didn't ask me if I'm for "environmentalist law", which is entirely different. I'm independently environmentalist. I wouldn't impose it. So yes or no? Who knows the question is too loaded.

It also asked "Can you own land"? This is something I've been considering for awhile. I'm not sure anyone can.

I believe if you create something it's yours. And if you can possess something it's yours. And you can create and or possess a house, or a farm. You can creat dirt, or a lake, or even air.

But "land" is such a complex concept. If you buy land, how deep? If you own land, how about the air? Maybe just air space right, because the air moves, but you retain relative space right? Well land moves too! So perhaps you retain the relative space about you, which is similar to owning land, but not the same. And if you can own land, why is it taxed every year? How could you lose it to eminent domain for any reason, if it's yours?

So I answered no. You can't own land. All technicalities considered.

Of course when they ask "Do you think land use is for everyone?" I say no to that too. I'm big for private ownership. It's the contexts I have issues with.

For example if you claimed to own the sun, I would say no you can't, it's for everyone. Does that make me a commie? Apparently so.

[DamianTV]

Apparently im a Minarchist.


You Scored as Minarchist
Minarchists are libertarians who advocate a strictly limited government and usually a more decentralized form of it. Minarchists may vary in the degree to which they think that government should be limited, although the bare bones position is essentially nothing more than police, courts and the military. Minarchists tend to think that some minimum level of government is a necessary evil, or at least an inevitability. The contemporary libertarian movement in America is dominantly minarchist, although it has had a long history of dialogue and debate between minarchist and anarchist libertarians.



Minarchist 83%
Left-libertarian 75%
Anarcho-capitalist 58%
"Small L" libertarian 58%
Agorist 50%
Paleo-libertarian 50%
Libertarian socialist 42%
Geo-libertarian 25%
Neo-libertarian 17%


Its a LABEL. Nothing more than that really.

[RedStripe]

^ could not agree more

[South Park Fan]

You Scored as Anarcho-capitalist
Anarcho-capitalists are libertarians who oppose the state entirely and propose to have a free market in the provision of security and arbitration. The term anarcho-capitalism derives from Murray Rothbard to describe a stateless society based on the principles of laissez-faire or the philosophy in support of such a proposition. Anarcho-capitalists may tend to still associate more with the political right and make use of the political process, unless they are agorists or left-libertarians at the same time.



Anarcho-capitalist
100%
Left-libertarian
83%
Agorist
83%
"Small L" libertarian
75%
Minarchist
58%
Paleo-libertarian
33%
Geo-libertarian
0%
Neo-libertarian
0%
Libertarian socialist
0%

[1000-points-of-fright]

Minarchist
75%
Left-libertarian
75%
Agorist
75%
Paleo-libertarian
67%
Anarcho-capitalist
50%
"Small L" libertarian
50%
Geo-libertarian
17%
Neo-libertarian
0%
Libertarian socialist
0%

Never thought of myself as a minarchist. Go figure.

[MN Patriot]

It says I'm a left-libertarian, but I dispute that conclusion. Many of the questions were open to interpretation. Gotta wonder about the creator's understanding about libertarianism, too. At least these polls get a person to thinking.

[eok321]

Apparently this is me..

"Small l libertarians are libertarians, usually of the minarchist variety, who do not particularly identify with the official Libertarian Party or are not active in it, or may even actively oppose it. Small l libertarians are likely to view the Libertarian Party as moving in too moderate of a direction. Small l libertarian may tend to be more radical than many official Libertarian Party members. Some small l libertarians eventually transition to agorism, a completely apolitical approach to libertarianism."

I guess the Bob Barr question holds a lot of weight:p

[catdd]

Constitutional Libertarian if there is such a thing.

[Standing Like A Rock]

Anarcho-capitalist
100%
Paleo-libertarian
83%
Agorist
83%
Minarchist
67%
Left-libertarian
67%
"Small L" libertarian
42%
Geo-libertarian
17%
Neo-libertarian
8%
Libertarian socialist
0%

[gb13]

Your joke was "Fuck Noam Chomsky"? Eh, don't quit your day job.

You made a stupid comment, and I mocked you for it. Get over it - take your own advice and lighten up.

Stupid comment? Politically, Noam Chomsky sucks on everything except his anti-war stance, and his opposition to the war on drugs...and he has excellent grammar. Other than that, he's a douche. Go back to Daily Kos and cry about how mean I was to Noam, if you want to tell somebody who gives a shit.

[someperson]

If anything, I hope this thread gets a few more individuals to realize how worthless labels are, how they fail to truly capture what an individual believes, how they lead to incorrect generalizations, and how they tend to divide even like-minded individuals into rival groups.

the labels must die.

[RedStripe]

Stupid comment? Politically, Noam Chomsky sucks on everything except his anti-war stance, and his opposition to the war on drugs...and he has excellent grammar. Other than that, he's a douche.

That's like saying that Ron Paul sucks on everything except his adherence to the U.S. Constitution, his anti-war stance, and the fact that he wants monetary reform. Umm... that doesn't make him "suck" - that makes him awesome.

How about you try something new and educate yourself on the subject that you're posting about. Here I'll even give you a head start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky's_political_views

Once you've actually READ that please let me know what your complaints are, and we can go from there.



Go back to Daily Kos and cry about how mean I was to Noam, if you want to tell somebody who gives a shit.

First of all, I don't post there even though I do visit Kos because I like to keep up with lots of perspectives. Second, I don't need to go there to find someone who gives a shit because apparently you do.

You know, the big complaint from the libertarian community has always been the fact that they have been shunned and kept out of the mainstream debate, yet when the time comes that they are confronted with (seemingly) opposing views, some of them react in the very same manner. They get all dogmatic and viciously attack those who might disagree with some of their conclusions (I'm talking about the vulgar libertarians, of course, not the majority). Case-in-point: Noam Chomsky.

[Kotin]

You Scored as Agorist

Agorists are market anarchists or anarcho-capitalists (often former anarcho-capitalists) who have moved in the direction of rejecting participation in the political process in favor of more direct action in the form of economic secession and civil disobedience in general, with particular emphasis on making use of black or grey markets. Agorism could be viewed as a radicalized version of anarcho-capitalism, or a radicalized outcome of taking it in new directions. Agorists tend to be more closely associated with the traditional anarchist left than many anarcho-capitalists.

Agorist
83%
Paleo-libertarian
75%
"Small L" libertarian
67%
Left-libertarian
67%
Minarchist
58%
Anarcho-capitalist
50%
Geo-libertarian
17%
Neo-libertarian
17%
Libertarian socialist
0%

[Knightskye]

Minarchist.


Minarchist
83%
Agorist
83%
Left-libertarian
75%
Paleo-libertarian
58%
"Small L" libertarian
33%
Anarcho-capitalist
25%
Geo-libertarian
17%
Neo-libertarian
17%
Libertarian socialist
0%

[QueenB4Liberty]

I got Agorist, I think that's a very good label.

I've also been reconsidering whether it's possible to own property.

[t0rnado]

Anarcho-capitalist
100%
"Small L" libertarian
83%
Left-libertarian
83%
Agorist
67%
Paleo-libertarian
50%
Minarchist
50%
Geo-libertarian
0%
Libertarian socialist
0%
Neo-libertarian
0%

[Juan McCain]

Minarchists are libertarians who advocate a strictly limited government and usually a more decentralized form of it.
Minarchists may vary in the degree to which they think that government should be limited, although the bare bones position
is essentially nothing more than police, courts and the military. Minarchists tend to think that some minimum level of government
is a necessary evil, or at least an inevitability. The contemporary libertarian movement in America is dominantly minarchist,
although it has had a long history of dialogue and debate between minarchist and anarchist libertarians.


Well at least I did learn something new here.

[Uriel999]

You Scored as "Small L" libertarian

Small l libertarians are libertarians, usually of the minarchist variety, who do not particularly identify with the official Libertarian Party or are not active in it, or may even actively oppose it. Small l libertarians are likely to view the Libertarian Party as moving in too moderate of a direction. Small l libertarian may tend to be more radical than many official Libertarian Party members. Some small l libertarians eventually transition to agorism, a completely apolitical approach to libertarianism.

"Small L" libertarian
83%
Minarchist
75%
Left-libertarian
75%
Agorist
75%
Anarcho-capitalist
75%
Paleo-libertarian
50%
Geo-libertarian
8%
Neo-libertarian
8%
Libertarian socialist
0%

Honestly,I have no idea what the fuck an agorist is, but I am 75% one. personally I feel I am more a constitutionalist libertarian though in all honesty I dream for a day where we not only went back to following the constitution but took it a step further and brought back the articles of Confederation with the inclusion of the bill of rights. I realize that is unfortunately impossible for many reasons so I will settle with returning to the constitution. If I lived in the early 1800s I would have been an anti-federalist supporting such great men like Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and eventually Jackson, Polk, and Taylor.

[RedStripe]

I got Agorist, I think that's a very good label.

I've also been reconsidering whether it's possible to own property.

It it helps, i'd suggest determining what form of "ownership" you are thinking about.

Is ownership simply the physical capacity/ability to control or dominate a particular piece of matter?

Or, is ownership a social construct which recognizes justified control or domination of a particular piece of matter?

Both definitions are plausible, but the one you are using is very important when it comes to political economy.

[rp08orbust]

Anarcho-capitalist 100%
Left-libertarian 100%
"Small L" libertarian 83%
Agorist 75%
Minarchist 50%
Paleo-libertarian 17%
Geo-libertarian 0%
Libertarian socialist 0%
Neo-libertarian 0%

I would further distinguish myself as a Walter Block anarcho-capitalist (as opposed to a Stefbot) because I believe that supporting Ron Paul and his earmarking policy is perfectly consistent with the non-aggression principle.

[mczerone]

Anarcho-capitalist
100%
Left-libertarian
75%
"Small L" libertarian
67%
Geo-libertarian
42%
Agorist
42%
Minarchist
33%
Paleo-libertarian
33%
Neo-libertarian
8%
Libertarian socialist
0%

[BuddyRey]

I scored Ancap, but I'm curious as to how this differs from Agorism. I was under the impression that the two were more or less the same thing?

[Fox McCloud]

I scored Ancap, but I'm curious as to how this differs from Agorism. I was under the impression that the two were more or less the same thing?

agorists typically argue for funding (voluntarily) private military corporations in an effort to, one day, overpower the state; they also support black and grey markets as well.

[tremendoustie]

agorists typically argue for funding (voluntarily) private military corporations in an effort to, one day, overpower the state;

I don't think so ... at least this doesn't match my experience.



they also support black and grey markets as well.

Yes, this is the main focus of agorism to my understanding. The idea is to grow the free society and let the governmental one shrink. I don't think armed conflict is a goal.

[Free Moral Agent]

"Small L" libertarian
83%
Minarchist
83%
Paleo-libertarian
83%
Left-libertarian
67%
Agorist
67%
Geo-libertarian
25%
Anarcho-capitalist
17%
Neo-libertarian
0%
Libertarian socialist
0%

Damnit, I'm in a three-way tie! Seriously, whats the difference between Minarchist, Paleo-libertarian and "Small L" libertarian?

[TroySmith]

"Left-libertarians are libertarians that are more associated with the anti-authoritarian left than other libertarians. Left-libertarians can be minarchists, but many are anarchists who are in alliance with the anarchist left. Left-libertarians are more critical of conservatism and corporatism than most libertarians. They view libertarians in a hsitorical context that is interconnected with the history of the left. "

[amy31416]

Shouldn't there be an option to choose "argumentative libertarian?" You know the kind, ones who will argue about anything just for the sake of argument?

[mediahasyou]

I do not believe it is possible to be a libertarian socialist. I kept reading about anarcho capitalist and I am that. I hate government...I want government to get out of the way and quit hijacking free markets. tones

for a basic outline of anarcho-capitalism, check out: http://bit.ly/marketforliberty

[erowe1]

Haha, he is far from a statist. Seriously read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky's_political_views

Interesting read. Unfortunately, it leaves out the part about him being a statist and falsely claims he's some kind of anarchist, which he isn't.

[Goldhunter27]

You Scored as "Small L" libertarian
Small l libertarians are libertarians, usually of the minarchist variety, who do not particularly identify with the official Libertarian Party or are not active in it, or may even actively oppose it. Small l libertarians are likely to view the Libertarian Party as moving in too moderate of a direction. Small l libertarian may tend to be more radical than many official Libertarian Party members. Some small l libertarians eventually transition to agorism, a completely apolitical approach to libertarianism.

Anarcho-capitalist
75%
"Small L" libertarian
75%
Paleo-libertarian
67%
Minarchist
67%
Left-libertarian
58%
Agorist
58%
Geo-libertarian
25%
Neo-libertarian
0%
Libertarian socialist
0%

[DaisyFL]

I scored Paleo-libertarian 100%

[catdd]

Shouldn't there be an option to choose "argumentative libertarian?" You know the kind, ones who will argue about anything just for the sake of argument?

:)

[youngbuck]

Apparently I'm ancap, but I wouldn't have necessarily guessed that before hand.

Tied with paleo-libertarian.

[tropicangela]

Paleo-libertarian
75%
Minarchist
67%
Agorist
67%
"Small L" libertarian
58%
Anarcho-capitalist
58%
Left-libertarian
42%
Geo-libertarian
33%
Libertarian socialist
25%
Neo-libertarian
8%

[tropicangela]

"Small L" libertarian
83%
Minarchist
83%
Paleo-libertarian
83%
Left-libertarian
67%
Agorist
67%
Geo-libertarian
25%
Anarcho-capitalist
17%
Neo-libertarian
0%
Libertarian socialist
0%

Damnit, I'm in a three-way tie! Seriously, whats the difference between Minarchist, Paleo-libertarian and "Small L" libertarian?

Interesting results. Three way tie and 0% neo and 0% socialist.

[Agorism]

Anyone have a spectrum from left to right of all these terms? Just curious.

[BuddyRey]

Anyone have a spectrum from left to right of all these terms? Just curious.

I think that most of these categories necessitate, at the very least, a double-axis political spectrum. The old left-right model isn't equipped to map out the subtleties there.

[tremendoustie]

I think that most of these categories necessitate, at the very least, a double-axis political spectrum. The old left-right model isn't equipped to map out the subtleties there.

Exactly right.

[johnrocks]

I finally took the test yesterday; I always thought I was a paleo/small l but it said I was a minarchist.

[Brett]

Minarchist 83%
"Small L" libertarian 75%
Paleo-libertarian 67%
Anarcho-capitalist 67%
Left-libertarian 58%
Agorist 58%
Neo-libertarian 33%
Geo-libertarian 17%
Libertarian socialist 0%

I bet the Israel question raised my Neo-libertarian score. Thinking they're the best in the middle east =/= funding their government and fighting wars for them.

[clb09]

Me:


You Scored as Left-libertarian

Left-libertarians are libertarians that are more associated with the anti-authoritarian left than other libertarians. Left-libertarians can be minarchists, but many are anarchists who are in alliance with the anarchist left. Left-libertarians are more critical of conservatism and corporatism than most libertarians. They view libertarians in a hsitorical context that is interconnected with the history of the left.

Left-libertarian
83%
"Small L" libertarian
75%
Minarchist
75%
Anarcho-capitalist
67%
Agorist
58%
Paleo-libertarian
33%
Geo-libertarian
25%
Neo-libertarian
8%
Libertarian socialist
8%

[Semper Vigilans]

Agorist, although I am going to continue to consider myself a minarchist. :D

[muzzled dogg]

You Scored as Anarcho-capitalist

Anarcho-capitalists are libertarians who oppose the state entirely and propose to have a free market in the provision of security and arbitration. The term anarcho-capitalism derives from Murray Rothbard to describe a stateless society based on the principles of laissez-faire or the philosophy in support of such a proposition. Anarcho-capitalists may tend to still associate more with the political right and make use of the political process, unless they are agorists or left-libertarians at the same time.

Anarcho-capitalist
100%
Agorist
92%
"Small L" libertarian
83%
Left-libertarian
83%
Minarchist
58%
Paleo-libertarian
42%
Geo-libertarian
8%
Neo-libertarian
8%
Libertarian socialist
0%

[FreeTraveler]

You CAN live on your land and no one will bother you, thanks to the rule of law....good luck with that same goal in an Anarchist society.. Ha !
Kelo? Hello?

[tonesforjonesbones]

where is the test? tones

[tonesforjonesbones]

Here is how I scored...I'm not surprised...I love Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan, Goldwater etc...TOnes


You Scored as Paleo-libertarian

Paleo-libertarians are influenced by and in alliance with paleoconservatives and are likely to be former paleoconservatives themselves. Paleo-libertarians are strongly associated with the "old right". Some may tend to be social or cultural conservatives. Paleo-libertarians tend to differ with other libertarians particularly in terms of their tendency to support immigration restriction and strong border security. One of their primary targets of criticism, if not the main target of their criticism, is globalism.



Paleo-libertarian
100%
Anarcho-capitalist
75%
Minarchist
67%
Agorist
58%
"Small L" libertarian
58%
Left-libertarian
50%
Libertarian socialist
17%
Neo-libertarian
8%
Geo-libertarian
8%

You Scored as a : Paleo-libertarian Paleo-libertarian 100% Anarcho-capitalist 75% Minarchist 67% Agorist 58% "Small L" libertarian 58% Left-libertarian 50% Libertarian socialist 17% Neo-libertarian 8% Geo-libertarian 8%
Rate this quiz

[QueenB4Liberty]

You CAN live on your land and no one will bother you, thanks to the rule of law....good luck with that same goal in an Anarchist society.. Ha !


What? So anarchy means that people are just running wild, not having any respect for each other? People don't need other more powerful men to tell them how to live their lives. Besides, just because there are laws that enable people to own private property, doesn't mean they are respected (or should be laws in the first place).

[Bucjason]

Really? So in minarchy anybody who doesn't want to pay taxes doesn't have to?

Yes you wouldn't have to , because government would be so small and stream-lined . All you would need is things like fire department , police , courts , and military.

You could fund it with a simple sales tax and/or charity donations. People would have so much more of thier own money , and most would willingly donate to a police department that provides them protection. If we can raise billions in Haiti relief , we can raise billions for own societal cause.

There would be no need for property taxes. No need for payroll taxes.


If you didn't want to pay the sales tax either ,simply don't buy retail. If you really wanted to be extreme, you'd even be free to live out in the woods , grow your own food , and barter for supplies like a stubborn idiot.


Anarchy , however , is a joke. People feel unsafe , which inevitably always leads to tyranny. Limited Government is a necessary evil to safeguard our rights and protect the minority.

[Bucjason]

What? So anarchy means that people are just running wild, not having any respect for each other?

Not , but a small element would be running wild , which is enough to make the rest of us feel unsafe , and look for means of protection. This usually means making an alliance with whoever your local Warlord is. This leads to majority domination of the minorites who are still trying to live independently without protection , which in turn eventually leads back to the OPPOSITE of what the anarchists strived for - TYRANNY.

A simple understanding of human nature is all it takes to know that absolute anarchy won't work in large societies.

[nandnor]

Not , but a small element would be running wild , which is enough to make the rest of us feel unsafe , and look for means of protection. This usually means making an alliance with whoever your local Warlord is. This leads to majority domination of the minorites who are still trying to live independently without protection , which in turn eventually leads back to the OPPOSITE of what the anarchists strived for - TYRANNY.

A simple understanding of human nature is all it takes to know that absolute anarchy won't work in large societies.And how do Warlords make money? Looting and robbing I assume? Of an armed populus? What would be the price of their mercenaries to do such a dangerous work, versus the possible profits? All is not as simple as you think ;)

[tremendoustie]

Not , but a small element would be running wild , which is enough to make the rest of us feel unsafe , and look for means of protection.


Why would a small element be running wild? Do you not think the protection agencies hired by average people, along with local militias and the armed populace itself, would be capable of stopping them?



This usually means making an alliance with whoever your local Warlord is.


:rolleyes:



This leads to majority domination of the minorites who are still trying to live independently without protection , which in turn eventually leads back to the OPPOSITE of what the anarchists strived for - TYRANNY.


For your minarchy to work, you require a populace, the overwhelming majority of which understand the principles of liberty, and are willing to remain vigilant to keep the government in check. Do you think a population like this would be unable to stop a local gang?

You suppose they can hold a central, national government in check, which has a monopoly on agressive violence, no competiton, etc, yet they can't stop the local gangster. It's beyond absurd.

You're not comparing apples to apples. Your conception of minarchy exists among a nearly angelic populace, and your conception of "anarchy" exists among a bunch of devils.




A simple understanding of human nature is all it takes to know that absolute anarchy won't work in large societies.

If human nature is as you describe, your minarchy won't work either. If the people are not vigilant, the minarchy will grow out of control. If the "majority" is quite willing to tyranize the "minority", as you suppose, then they will use your minarchy to do so -- and it will be even harder for the minority to escape. Perhaps you should think a bit more carefully, and not let your imagination run wild.

A government is just a protection agency which forces its customers to pay, and refuses to allow them to choose any alternative, or competitor. Why do you think this type of protection agency is necessary? Why do you believe it is preferable? Would not the necessity of aquiring subscriptions voluntarily, rather than by force, hold the agency more accountable to the people?

[Elwar]

"Small L" libertarian 83%
Left-libertarian 75%
Anarcho-capitalist 75%
Minarchist 67%
Agorist 42%
Paleo-libertarian 25%
Geo-libertarian 17%
Neo-libertarian 8%
Libertarian socialist 8%

It says small l libertarians do not particularly identify with the Libertarian Party. I was a member of the Libertarian Party until it changed to become an institution that would elect Bob Barr as their candidate.

I didn't leave the Libertarian Party, the Libertarian Party left me.

[Brian Defferding]

Minarchist, which I find is accurate.

[libertygrl]

I don't even understand half those descriptions! If you had listed Constitutional Libertarian I would have chosen that one.

[tremendoustie]

I don't even understand half those descriptions! If you had listed Constitutional Libertarian I would have chosen that one.

Did you take the test? That might help :)

[AuH2O]

I'd say that's pretty close to right on.

Paleo-libertarian 67%
"Small L" libertarian 67%
Minarchist 67%
Anarcho-capitalist 58%
Left-libertarian 50%
Agorist 33%
Neo-libertarian 25%
Geo-libertarian 8%
Libertarian socialist 0%

[The Patriot]

I voted Paleo-Libertarian. I am a Minarchist ideologically but a Paleo-Libertarian politically in that I am willing to work with small "L" Libertarians, paleo-cons, and right wing populists to deconstruct the state.

[anaconda]

I am apparently a "small L" libertarian.

[erowe1]

Yes you wouldn't have to , because government would be so small and stream-lined . All you would need is things like fire department , police , courts , and military.

You could fund it with a simple sales tax and/or charity donations.

...


Anarchy , however , is a joke. People feel unsafe , which inevitably always leads to tyranny. Limited Government is a necessary evil to safeguard our rights and protect the minority.

This is where definitions become crucial. Is anarchy defined as no government? Or is it defined as no state? Many anarchists would favor the latter, and would be all for the items you described above if funded by the second of your suggested funding methods, donations, as well as by other options, such as user fees. Since coercion would not be involved, then those institutions would not be described as a state, though they could still be described as government.

[Bucjason]

Why would a small element be running wild? Do you not think the protection agencies hired by average people, along with local militias and the armed populace itself, would be capable of stopping them?




Protection agencies?? Get serious man.

SO, say me and my neighbor are having a property dispute. I believe he is trespassing , and he thinks I am trespassing. I hire a "protection agency" to deal with him. What do you think he is going to do??

Hire his OWN "protection agency" . Our two sides go to war , and whoever is strongest will win , regardless of who is right . Is that true protection of rights? Hell no.

Or would you rather have private sector courts decide the matter?? I hire one court ( which will of course decide in my favor because I am paying them ) and he hires a different that will be more beneficial to HIM. Result: NOTHING GETS RESOLVED , and chaos insues.

Do you really not see the fatal flaw in not having protection that is provided from an impartial source that we all have an equal investment in as a society ??

[Anti Federalist]

What kind of libertarian are you?

One of a kind.

Ha!

[ChaosControl]

Tie between Paleo and Small L.

Paleo-libertarian 83%
"Small L" libertarian 83%
Minarchist 75%
Agorist 75%
Anarcho-capitalist 67%
Left-libertarian 67%
Geo-libertarian 17%
Neo-libertarian 8%
Libertarian socialist 8%

I read the Paleo and Small L, both seem accurate.
In some ways I'm more Paleo, like cultural conservatism, but other ways I'm more small L in that I support more free flowing immigration.


Paleo-libertarians are influenced by and in alliance with paleoconservatives and are likely to be former paleoconservatives themselves. Paleo-libertarians are strongly associated with the "old right". Some may tend to be social or cultural conservatives. Paleo-libertarians tend to differ with other libertarians particularly in terms of their tendency to support immigration restriction and strong border security. One of their primary targets of criticism, if not the main target of their criticism, is globalism.

I especially agree with being a strong critic of globalism, probably the most destructive thing of modern times.

[tremendoustie]

Protection agencies?? Get serious man.

SO, say me and my neighbor are having a property dispute. I believe he is trespassing , and he thinks I am trespassing. I hire a "protection agency" to deal with him. What do you think he is going to do??


You've got it wrong. You subscribe to protection agencies, much in the same way we currently pay for police. You don't hire them spur of the moment.



Hire his OWN "protection agency" . Our two sides go to war


No, they both go to the court designated to handle disputes between them.




, and whoever is strongest will win , regardless of who is right .


Who do you think wins now? Wake up man! Whoever is strongest always wins, by definition . If we are going to achieve a more just society we're going to need to convince a large number of people to support the ideas of liberty. That's true whether we're going to have a minarchy or voluntaryist society.

All I am saying is that a populace wishing to defend liberty will be able to do so more effectively if protection agencies must compete, and must aquire willing support, rather than if there is one central monopolistic protection agency, which obtains money by force.

I'm also saying that the former approach is not inherently immoral, while the second is. You don't protect liberty by creating a giant organization whose fundamental means of operation violates liberty.



Is that true protection of rights? Hell no.


If the people believe in protecting rights, the protection agencies they subscribe to will as well. If the people don't believe in protecting rights, we're up a creek either way.



Or would you rather have private sector courts decide the matter?? I hire one court ( which will of course decide in my favor because I am paying them ) and he hires a different that will be more beneficial to HIM. Result: NOTHING GETS RESOLVED , and chaos insues.


Again, courts will be designated within contracts, beforehand, and courts will be designated to resolve disputes between protection agencies.



Do you really not see the fatal flaw in not having protection that is provided from an impartial source that we all have an equal investment in as a society ??

Suppose we had the minarchy you desire, and the government were impartial (it's certainly not now, I think you'll agree). What would be the reason for its impartiality? The people must hold it accountable. I am saying that the people could even more easily hold protection agencies accountable, because the market is a more immediate and effective way to send signals than elections are. If I don't like what a company does, I can withdraw my money immediately, boycott them, and spread the word. If I don't like what the government does, I have to wait for the next election, vote for one of two bad options, and hope something changes eventually, years later at best.

I agree that the people need to demand impartial protection. I am saying that the people can achieve this more effectively through the market. If a minarchy is more powerful than average gangs, it'd be because it is supported by average people. If it is (relatively) just, it'd be because the people demand justice, and remain vigilant. These are the same reasons the biggest protection agencies would be more powerful than the gangs, and the reason they would be just.

[tremendoustie]

This is where definitions become crucial. Is anarchy defined as no government? Or is it defined as no state? Many anarchists would favor the latter, and would be all for the items you described above if funded by the second of your suggested funding methods, donations, as well as by other options, such as user fees. Since coercion would not be involved, then those institutions would not be described as a state, though they could still be described as government.

You're absolutely right. I missed that buc mentioned a donation option. I would absolutely support this. I'd also support user fees, or subscriptions. "Government" is not necessarily wrong (depending on your definition) -- aggressive violence is. If you believe you can have the former without the latter, I'm all for it.

[The Patriot]

I got a "small l" libertarian

[Vessol]

Left-libertarian

Left-libertarian
92%
"Small L" libertarian
75%
Minarchist
75%
Agorist
58%
Anarcho-capitalist
58%
Paleo-libertarian
42%
Geo-libertarian
25%
Libertarian socialist
17%
Neo-libertarian
0%

[SamuraisWisdom]

Left-libertarian
67%
"Small L" libertarian
67%
Minarchist
67%
Paleo-libertarian
58%
Agorist
42%
Geo-libertarian
25%
Anarcho-capitalist
17%
Neo-libertarian
17%
Libertarian socialist
0%

Tiebreaker went to Minarchist. Not a bad quiz!

[Bucjason]

You've got it wrong. You subscribe to protection agencies, much in the same way we currently pay for police. You don't hire them spur of the moment.

I agree that the people need to demand impartial protection. I am saying that the people can achieve this more effectively through the market. If a minarchy is more powerful than average gangs, it'd be because it is supported by average people. If it is (relatively) just, it'd be because the people demand justice, and remain vigilant. These are the same reasons the biggest protection agencies would be more powerful than the gangs, and the reason they would be just.

...and what if the two parties subscribe to two different protection agencies , with different determinations of who is right ?? You see how this wouldn't work?? You need Rule of Law.

Also, what criteria would these protection agencies need to use, in order to decide who is right ,with no universal LAW in place ?? I think some smart business person would make thier criteria vague enough so they could always decide in thier clients favor. If a protection agency has a 100% success rate in the cause of it's client, guess which agency I am picking...

There is no government , so how do you have laws ?? How do you force me to accept the principles of this private sector court if I disagree with it's ruling?? I could just say "sorry, I changed my mind and i now I disagree . im unsubsrcribing and joining a new court." Chaos ! ( and don't even say "contract", because under anarchy a contract has no real binding power. I could find someone else in the private sector to nullify it's legitimacy )

But maybe I have it all wrong . Maybe you suggest writing a univeral consistution that consists only of universal laws , but allows for no OFFICIAL way to enforce them ? Problem is, if the law is universal , then there would be need for only ONE protection agency . I think the name of that "agency" might coincidentially start being called GOVERNMENT . At this point , guess what? ... you would have a Minarchy.

Get it ??

[RedStripe]

...and what if the two parties subscribe to two different protection agencies , with different determinations of who is right ?? You see how this wouldn't work?? You need Rule of Law.

Also, what criteria would these protection agencies need to use, in order to decide who is right ,with no universal LAW in place ?? I think some smart business person would make thier criteria vague enough so they could always decide in thier clients favor. If a protection agency has a 100% success rate in the cause of it's client, guess which agency I am picking...

There is no government , so how do you have laws ?? How do you force me to accept the principles of this private sector court if I disagree with it's ruling?? I could just say "sorry, I changed my mind and i now I disagree . im unsubsrcribing and joining a new court." Chaos ! ( and don't even say "contract", because under anarchy a contract has no real binding power. I could find someone else in the private sector to nullify it's legitimacy )

But maybe I have it all wrong . Maybe you suggest writing a univeral consistution that consists only of universal laws , but allows for no OFFICIAL way to enforce them ? Problem is, if the law is universal , then there would be need for only ONE protection agency . I think the name of that "agency" might coincidentially start being called GOVERNMENT . At this point , guess what? ... you would have a Minarchy.

Get it ??

This is the exact same argument that international law/governance advocates make, except with respect to disputes between people of different countries.

[Bucjason]

This is the exact same argument that international law/governance advocates make, except with respect to disputes between people of different countries.

Nice try , but countries have no natural rights simply because they exist , only people do. There is no issue between two countries that is a natural right. The protection of a countries soveriegnty does not require the submission of my own.

Oh but I forgot - you're a Nihilist who doesn't believe in natural rights... so i guess this is where the conversation ends.

[libertyjam]

For what it is worth, ok if I have to have a label, guess this is ok in the context of the quiz.

You Scored as Paleo-libertarian

Paleo-libertarians are influenced by and in alliance with paleoconservatives and are likely to be former paleoconservatives themselves. Paleo-libertarians are strongly associated with the "old right". Some may tend to be social or cultural conservatives. Paleo-libertarians tend to differ with other libertarians particularly in terms of their tendency to support immigration restriction and strong border security. One of their primary targets of criticism, if not the main target of their criticism, is globalism.

Paleo-libertarian
75%
Minarchist
75%
Left-libertarian
67%
Agorist
58%
"Small L" libertarian
58%
Anarcho-capitalist
42%
Geo-libertarian
33%
Neo-libertarian
17%
Libertarian socialist
8%

[RedStripe]

Nice try , but countries have no natural rights simply because they exist , only people do. There is no issue between two countries that is a natural right. The protection of a countries soveriegnty does not require the submission of my own.

Oh but I forgot - you're a Nihilist who doesn't believe in natural rights... so i guess this is where the conversation ends.

Haha, the conversation ends here because you don't have an answer to my earlier questions: what the hell is a "right", in your view; what the hell is a "natural right"; and how do you prove what a "natural right" is?

Oh, and you clearly don't understand the fact that people from different countries (living under different legal systems) can get into disputes - how are those to be solved without this "universal law" you speak of?

It literally is a primary argument of a world-wide, integrated legal system. That's what you are offering.

And the silliest thing you said is that countries have no natural rights - well then you must be an anarchist because no country has a "natural right" to do anything.

[KAYA]

Paleo-libertarian 1st, with Minarchist being a close 2nd.

[someperson]

This is the worst thread ever. It probably set individualism back a decade or 4. Ok, I'm exaggerating... a little... maybe ;)

[RyanRSheets]

The description of me is a little inaccurate, because I support direct and indirect action, and I think it's foolish to neglect voting altogether, particularly when a candidate like Ron Paul comes along. I do not see a necessary role of government, though.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You Scored as Anarcho-capitalist
Anarcho-capitalists are libertarians who oppose the state entirely and propose to have a free market in the provision of security and arbitration. The term anarcho-capitalism derives from Murray Rothbard to describe a stateless society based on the principles of laissez-faire or the philosophy in support of such a proposition. Anarcho-capitalists may tend to still associate more with the political right and make use of the political process, unless they are agorists or left-libertarians at the same time.


Anarcho-capitalist
100%
"Small L" libertarian
83%
Agorist
83%
Paleo-libertarian
67%
Left-libertarian
67%
Minarchist
50%
Geo-libertarian
0%
Libertarian socialist
0%
Neo-libertarian
0%

[Bucjason]

<yawn>

Nihilists are morons...

[MichelleHeart]

Paleolibertarian.

[.Tom]

Ancap.

Anarcho-capitalist
100%
"Small L" libertarian
83%
Agorist
83%
Left-libertarian
50%
Libertarian socialist
17%
Minarchist
0%
Geo-libertarian
0%
Paleo-libertarian
0%
Neo-libertarian
0%

Some of the questions were false paradigms though.

[cnaw]

You Scored as Minarchist



Left-libertarian
75%
Minarchist
75%
Paleo-libertarian
75%
Agorist
75%
"Small L" libertarian
67%
Anarcho-capitalist
50%
Geo-libertarian
17%
Neo-libertarian
0%
Libertarian socialist
0%

[TJefferson1776]

I got Minarchist.

Minarchist
75%
Anarcho-capitalist
67%
Agorist
58%
"Small L" libertarian
50%
Left-libertarian
42%
Paleo-libertarian
33%
Geo-libertarian
8%
Neo-libertarian
0%
Libertarian socialist
0%

[Kilrain]

You Scored as Paleo-libertarian

Paleo-libertarian
83%
Agorist
83%
Minarchist
67%
"Small L" libertarian
67%
Left-libertarian
58%
Anarcho-capitalist
25%
Geo-libertarian
17%
Libertarian socialist
8%
Neo-libertarian
8%

[JeNNiF00F00]

You Scored as Anarcho-capitalist

Anarcho-capitalists are libertarians who oppose the state entirely and propose to have a free market in the provision of security and arbitration. The term anarcho-capitalism derives from Murray Rothbard to describe a stateless society based on the principles of laissez-faire or the philosophy in support of such a proposition. Anarcho-capitalists may tend to still associate more with the political right and make use of the political process, unless they are agorists or left-libertarians at the same time.

Anarcho-capitalist
100%
Left-libertarian
83%
"Small L" libertarian
83%
Paleo-libertarian
75%
Minarchist
58%
Agorist
58%
Libertarian socialist
17%
Neo-libertarian
0%
Geo-libertarian
0%

[Ricky201]

Anarcho-capitalist
100%
Minarchist
75%
Agorist
75%
Paleo-libertarian
58%
Left-libertarian
58%
"Small L" libertarian
50%
Geo-libertarian
25%
Neo-libertarian
0%
Libertarian socialist
0%

----------------------------

Yah, I think that would well describe me. I kind of drift in and out of either being a minarchist or an ancap.

[Inkblots]

This is a really neat quiz. Thanks for pointing it out, mediahasyou.

Here's my result:
You Scored as Paleo-libertarian

Paleo-libertarian
83%
"Small L" libertarian
75%
Minarchist
67%
Left-libertarian
58%
Agorist
33%
Neo-libertarian
17%
Anarcho-capitalist
8%
Libertarian socialist
0%
Geo-libertarian
0%

[tremendoustie]

Yeah, most of these kind of polls are biased, inaccurate, and generally awful. This is actually a good one.

[EN81]

I become a libertarian minarchist after reading the books of Jim Rogers.

[submarinepainter]

Minarchist
92%
Left-libertarian
83%
"Small L" libertarian
83%
Paleo-libertarian
67%
Anarcho-capitalist
58%
Agorist
50%
Neo-libertarian
17%
Geo-libertarian
17%
Libertarian socialist
8%