PDA

View Full Version : So... how libertarian are you... really? Libertarian Purity Test! ***




Pages : [1] 2

Sentient Void
12-19-2010, 11:42 AM
So guys, how libertarian are you, really? This is a *great* solid test, and it even explores the demographics of the results at the end - and it is maintained and administered by the George Mason University.

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

It'd be great to see exactly *how* libertarian a lot of the people here at RPF really are. I know the forum isn't all libertarians - as a past poll showed, there are some statists, liberals, liberaltarians, ancaps, mutualists, social anarchists, minarchists, etc.

Please, be honest about your answers so we all get an accurate representation - try not to skew your, the test's, and this polls results if you can.

Take the poll, post your results in this thread, thoughts, questions, etc - and DISCUSS!

MRoCkEd
12-19-2010, 11:50 AM
91.

Almost all "No" on the last section, because I'm not an anarchist.

Sentient Void
12-19-2010, 12:01 PM
91.

Almost all "No" on the last section, because I'm not an anarchist.

It's all good - that's still fairly libertarian.

I definitely not not noticed that the first set of questions were slow-balls, but the next section then especially the last one got increasingly hardcore.

Have you read any Rothbard, Ruwart, et al MRoCkEd?

amy31416
12-19-2010, 12:02 PM
124.

ETA: Maybe it should be lower, because I voted to end Medicare/Social Security and welfare--but I wouldn't just cut those things immediately--there was no option for phase outs of social programs.

sailingaway
12-19-2010, 12:04 PM
I don't consider 'libertarian' to be a goal. To the extent it describes me, fine. However, many who go for purity tests of whatever type seem to use the word to try to control the attitudes of others, which seems ironically un-libertarian in itself to me.

cswake
12-19-2010, 12:13 PM
I suppose it is worth asking what Bryan Caplan's definition of libertarian is - a 160 score is pure anarchy. ("Private" laws, no State, including no uniform rule to prohibit murder, for instance)

Sentient Void
12-19-2010, 12:17 PM
I don't consider 'libertarian' to be a goal. To the extent it describes me, fine. However, many who go for purity tests of whatever type seem to use the word to try to control the attitudes of others, which seems ironically un-libertarian in itself to me.

I don't possibly see how merely suggesting an understanding of libertarianism, and wondering how logically, morally, and economically consistent one is of libertarianism, as an achievement, is 'unlibertarian' - or in conflict with principles of libertarianism in any way, shape or form, and am curious as to how you can justify that statement.

And you may not consider it to be a goal - but for many, achieving a stateless and voluntary society is a very noble and lofty goal. Even if the initial goal is merely to educate as many people as possible as to the merits of such a society.

Either way - it's just the name of the test. I think you're bring a bit sensitive about it.

Cowlesy
12-19-2010, 12:17 PM
70 :p

hazek
12-19-2010, 12:23 PM
111

ibaghdadi
12-19-2010, 12:30 PM
114

farrar
12-19-2010, 12:33 PM
160. I don't think anarco-capitalist makes me a pure libertarian though. There are many other underling ideas that can lead one to libertarianism and even anarco-capitalism without being "pure". Not to mention a anarco-primitive would show up as being "tainted" when they just have a different theory for what liberty is. It assumes that there is only a capitalist side to libertarianism. While I reject the socialist libertarian philosophy, I know if they made their version of this test I would have a problem with it, and they would consider me less libertarian for it.

Still interesting.

Travlyr
12-19-2010, 12:34 PM
102

Arion45
12-19-2010, 12:35 PM
Your Libertarian Purity Score

Your score is...

160

Son of Detroit
12-19-2010, 12:35 PM
Rolled in with a 60.

INB4STATIST.

jmhudak17
12-19-2010, 12:36 PM
94

Zatch
12-19-2010, 12:36 PM
92

Sentient Void
12-19-2010, 12:41 PM
160. I don't think anarco-capitalist makes me a pure libertarian though. There are many other underling ideas that can lead one to libertarianism and even anarco-capitalism without being "pure". Not to mention a anarco-primitive would show up as being "tainted" when they just have a different theory for what liberty is. It assumes that there is only a capitalist side to libertarianism. While I reject the socialist libertarian philosophy, I know if they made their version of this test I would have a problem with it, and they would consider me less libertarian for it.

Still interesting.

Agreed. I think ultimately, probably for the sake of simplicity of scoring, demographics, etc, this is just one-dimensional in regards to how much Statism one believes in.

I think you're right that other anarchist philosophies would have gotten a 160 or so, because the test definitely doesn't touch on the question of private property, hierarchy, etc.

I can't wait to see how everyone scores though, and how the spread is for the forum.

KevinR
12-19-2010, 12:41 PM
150

osan
12-19-2010, 01:13 PM
So guys, how libertarian are you, really? This was a *great* test, and it even explores the demographics of the results at the end - and it is maintained and administered by the George Mason University.
!

I'd call it OK, but definitely not great. Some of the questions were well constructed and some were shyte. Some were just ambiguous, e.g. "Are you for free trade?" does not make clear whether they refer to "free trade" or "Free Trade", the two being nearly diametric opposites.

I think a lot of good stuff issues from GMU, but this needs some serious work.

I would also challenge the tacit presumption that there is but one legitimate meaning of "libertarian".

1000-points-of-fright
12-19-2010, 01:20 PM
107. I had problems with some of those questions as I always do in tests like this. For example, should public education be abolished? Wouldn't answering "yes" mean that libertarians want to impose a one size fits all (everything private) solution on the whole country? Isn't that what we're fighting against? What if a state or even a city wants to provide public education?

These quizzes need to get much more specific.

Orgoonian
12-19-2010, 01:31 PM
Your score is...

150

RonPaulCult
12-19-2010, 01:32 PM
Those of you who are 160 - I am not yet ready for your hardcoreness. I was 91.

amy31416
12-19-2010, 01:33 PM
lol @ Josh.

tangent4ronpaul
12-19-2010, 01:39 PM
94

-t

pcosmar
12-19-2010, 01:39 PM
lol @ Josh.

That got me a lol too.

no I haven't taken it yet,:o

silentshout
12-19-2010, 01:42 PM
92

tangent4ronpaul
12-19-2010, 01:45 PM
107. I had problems with some of those questions as I always do in tests like this. For example, should public education be abolished? Wouldn't answering "yes" mean that libertarians want to impose a one size fits all (everything private) solution on the whole country? Isn't that what we're fighting against? What if a state or even a city wants to provide public education?

These quizzes need to get much more specific.

+rep

Great point! - adjust my score from 94 to 91, but I also stumbled on free trade vs FREE TRADE, so I'm probably back to 94.

Still in the same category eithor way.

-t

mczerone
12-19-2010, 01:47 PM
I started to take the test, and had to stop to read the responses and start to formulate my own. After taking a deep breath and finishing the test though:

145:
131-159 points: You are nearly a perfect libertarian, with a tiny number of blind spots. Think about them, then take the test over again. On the other hand, if you scored this high, you probably have a good libertarian objection to my suggested libertarian answer. :-)


Indeed I do.

I agree with osan, some of the questions are complete crap. Here's a list of all those I have a problem with:


Part I (1 point each)
3. Are we over-regulated?
4. Are you for free trade?
7. Are zoning laws too strict?
8. Do we spend too much on Medicare?
9. Do we spend too much on Social Security?
10. Should we privatize the Post Office?
11. Would school vouchers be an improvement over government schools?
12. Should we relax immigration laws?
13. Would housing vouchers be an improvement over government housing?
14. Should the government sell off more of the public lands?
15. Are worker safety regulations too strict?
16. Does drug-approval take too long?
17. Do you think we spend too much on anti-poverty programs?
18. Is occupational licensing (for doctors, plumbers, and other professions) too strict?
25. Are you against national service?
28. Should the military budget be cut?
29. Should the U.S. refuse to pay for the defense of allies that are rich enough to defend themselves?
30. If it has to fight a war, should the U.S. try harder to avoid civilian targets?
Part II (3 points each)
34. Should we abolish anti-trust laws?
35. Should we abolish public schools and universities?
36. Should we abolish welfare?
39. Should all of the public lands be privatized?
43. Should all of the Federal Reserve's discretionary powers be eliminated and the monetary base frozen?
44. Should we abolish worker safety regulation?
45. Should the Supreme Court strike down economic regulation as unconstitutional?
47. Should anti-discrimination laws be abolished?
Part III (5 points each)
55. Is all government inherently evil?
56. Is government an unnecessary evil?
64. Would you call yourself an "anarcho-capitalist?"


So 29 questions of 64 have flaws in my eyes. These are basically summed up as (1) who is "we"?, (2) state regulations are sometimes not strict enough, (3) there simply isn't a well defined meaning to the terms of the question, and (4) there isn't a test of libertarianism in the question.

I certainly consider myself a violence-free anarchist, but "Is all government inherently evil" is a question I must answer No to. Government is only "evil" subjectively, i.e. it acts in a way contrary to the desires of someone coerced into supporting it. So I can see most voluntary government as being a "good", and even some of the programs of a coercive government as being "good".

And giving points for answering "would you call yourself an an-cap" is like asking "do you call yourself a slut" on the original infamous purity test - it just adds in points if you want to add in points.

Philhelm
12-19-2010, 01:47 PM
I scored a 113, and have some of the same criticisms as the others. For instance, the last set of questions seemed to be anarchist in nature, so it seemed to not really be an indication of ideological purity. However, I would agree that it can be a single-axis indicator of statism v. individualism.

Legend1104
12-19-2010, 01:50 PM
86. I did not answer some of them.

forsmant
12-19-2010, 02:00 PM
There should be an option for maybe. This quiz sucked and was extremely biased. I still wasted my time by taking it though.

Fozz
12-19-2010, 02:07 PM
71

Fozz
12-19-2010, 02:08 PM
I think anyone with 100 or more is pretty much an ancap.

Those who believe that all taxation is theft cannot logically believe in the existence of the state.

As for the question of taxation being theft, I'm ambiguous.

Pauls' Revere
12-19-2010, 02:15 PM
123

didnt think it would be that high. But the test is flawed in that it states what it is testing. Would have been nice to take it without knowing what it was measuring.

MRoCkEd
12-19-2010, 02:20 PM
Those who believe that all taxation is theft cannot logically believe in the existence of the state.

Sure they can. They might not oppose all theft. :p

tangent4ronpaul
12-19-2010, 02:22 PM
I think anyone with 100 or more is pretty much an ancap.

Those who believe that all taxation is theft cannot logically believe in the existence of the state.

As for the question of taxation being theft, I'm ambiguous.

I think most of us don't mind minimal taxes, however, the government already sells some things to the public, go to gpo.gov, ntis.gov or usgs.gov for example. There are also tariffs, which might be considered a "tax" to foreign countries, but not to a countries citizens. "taxes" are not the only way to fund government.

-t

RonPaulCult
12-19-2010, 02:26 PM
I think anyone with 100 or more is pretty much an ancap.

Those who believe that all taxation is theft cannot logically believe in the existence of the state.

As for the question of taxation being theft, I'm ambiguous.

The state could make everything it does by donation only.

Inkblots
12-19-2010, 02:49 PM
90 for me.

Liberty_Mike
12-19-2010, 03:00 PM
147 for me :D

Uriel999
12-19-2010, 03:03 PM
134...

WilliamShrugged
12-19-2010, 03:10 PM
120.

AtomiC
12-19-2010, 03:14 PM
99

pacelli
12-19-2010, 03:21 PM
101

Southron
12-19-2010, 03:43 PM
88 with a disclaimer that i assumed most questions referred to the federal government.

Heimdallr
12-19-2010, 03:49 PM
85, though I dunno if that's accurate. A lot of the questions were sort of ambiguous, or just repetitions of earlier questions.

JacobG18
12-19-2010, 04:01 PM
93

CaseyJones
12-19-2010, 04:08 PM
oh we are supposed to post the score? 148 http://www.realflowforum.com/img/smilies/smiley-tongue.png

Sentient Void
12-19-2010, 04:22 PM
I thought of the questions based on intent as opposed to picking apart the wording. I think if you know what the person who made the test was thinking about when he made it, then they are generally pretty straightforward. Can't disagree that one can definitely tear apart some of the wording otherwise, though. The results overall definitely imply that while (obviously) not everyone here on the RPF are full-on ancaps, many are pretty damned close, and it's safe to say that so far - the vast majority is definitely pretty damned libertarian.

And I lol'd at Josh for being a douche and purposefully skewing the results. Bastard. ;P

Travlyr
12-19-2010, 04:26 PM
Josh is cointel-pro! :eek:

One Last Battle!
12-19-2010, 04:27 PM
135

I would have scored higher, but the poll didn't seem to distinguish between infinite secession (something Mises supported) and anarchism.

I would say infinite secession is the way to anarcho-capitalism, but simply abolishing the government and law system would be a very bad way to transition.

Sentient Void
12-19-2010, 04:35 PM
135

I would have scored higher, but the poll didn't seem to distinguish between infinite secession (something Mises supported) and anarchism.

I would say infinite secession is the way to anarcho-capitalism, but simply abolishing the government and law system would be a very bad way to transition.

I definitely agree with you on that - but I guess I read it more as a general abolition of government, which could have meant immediate or gradual - such as a controlled demolition via legalizing competition, starving leviathan (giving incentive for private enterprise to creep into it's place) and marketization of government services, etc. Whereas I saw saying 'no' as never abolishing govt in any way - and wanting to have it in some form at all times.

libertybrewcity
12-19-2010, 04:40 PM
111

eugenekop
12-19-2010, 04:49 PM
90

Liberty_Mike
12-19-2010, 05:06 PM
Someone on this board scored between 1 and 5?? Isn't that almost statist?

farrar
12-19-2010, 05:08 PM
135

I would have scored higher, but the poll didn't seem to distinguish between infinite secession (something Mises supported) and anarchism.

I would say infinite secession is the way to anarcho-capitalism, but simply abolishing the government and law system would be a very bad way to transition.

Yeah, I answered questions like "abolish A" as mean the inevitable disappearance of it. I believe in transitions. I would like to see completion legalized and government programs optional. That is the road that needs to be taken, IMO. Inevitably government will dissolve, or it will stay for those who wish to cling to, which really isn't a problem if its only those who truly want it. I imagine it would act more like a business though, than a government monopoly.

Sentient Void
12-19-2010, 05:09 PM
Someone on this board scored between 1 and 5?? Isn't that almost statist?

That's JoshLowry being a douche - he prob wants us to become all 'toidal about it and think he works for the CIA or some shit ;)

charrob
12-19-2010, 05:35 PM
55.

It would be interesting to see how many people were surprised at their results. From the left, I still carry a number of liberal ideals, so expected my score to be much lower than 55.

Some of the questions were difficult, personally, for me to answer:

Do we spend too much on medicare? Yes, but because we don't truly have a free market for doctors: the AMA controls the number of doctors who are allowed to apply for medical school- even if their grades meet or exceed the standard. Under a true free market for doctors, their fees would be much much less because more doctors would get into medical school and graduate so there would be more competition between them and their fees would be decreased.

On the other hand, as a liberal, in a civil society I believe the original intent of medicare and social security for the elderly was positive; my problem isn't the programs but rather the implementation of parts of those programs (like doctors not having to truly compete) that have astronomically increased their costs. If these other factors were mitigated, I'd say whatever the costs at that point are is fine.

Social Security costs are high because SS is being used for the non-elderly, illegal immigrants, and whatever. It's egregious to give SS to young people who have not even spent their working lives paying into the system. Are the costs too high? Yes, but because young people and those who did not pay into the system should be barred from receiving benefits by it. Additionally, government has been borrowing from the SS trust which, imho, is pure evil. That should never have happened.

On the other hand the test did not include the social issues like gay marriage, mosques at Ground Zero, etc., that would have increased my score. All in all, however, I was very surprised my score of 55 was that high.

Maximus
12-19-2010, 05:37 PM
95

I really wish there were a middle option on some of these though

RonPaulFanInGA
12-19-2010, 05:54 PM
91.

Almost all "No" on the last section, because I'm not an anarchist.

Same here.

Score: 69.

JohnEngland
12-19-2010, 06:17 PM
91.

Almost all "No" on the last section, because I'm not an anarchist.

88.

Ditto about the last section. I'm all for the rule of law and having a just government that protects the natural rights of the citizenry.

FiannaPaul
12-19-2010, 06:21 PM
If you scored 160 it means you answered yes to "should the state be abolished" therefore you are not a libertarian, you are an anarchist. This test is incorrectly titled

johnrocks
12-19-2010, 06:25 PM
I scored like a 79 but I didn't like a lot of the questions such as putting the abolishment of the FDA together with Physicians being licensed or whatever. I never claimed to be a libertarian or anything;I am what I am and I really don't care to be pigeon holed by a label but if I must be, I'm cool with libertarian, "old right" conservative or "Paul bot", lol.

Sentient Void
12-19-2010, 06:30 PM
If you scored 160 it means you answered yes to "should the state be abolished" therefore you are not a libertarian, you are an anarchist. This test is incorrectly titled

Incorrect.

From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

"Also identified is a large faction advocating minarchism, though libertarianism has also long been associated with anarchism (and sometimes is used as a synonym for such), especially outside of the United States.[6] Anarchism remains one of the significant branches of libertarianism.[7]"

noxagol
12-19-2010, 06:34 PM
Anarchism is the most extreme libertarianism and also it's logical conclusion.

Promontorium
12-19-2010, 06:52 PM
"If it has to fight a war, should the U.S. try harder to avoid civilian targets?" - What?

"Is all government inherently evil?"
"Is government an unnecessary evil?"

This reminds me of "Do you enjoy it when you beat your wife?"


Voluntary social structure can be "government" and voluntary participation in a system that respects the desires and rights of the individuals involved isn't evil.

So apparently that leaves me out of the "perfect" club. I'm calling b.s. I'm an Objectivist. I'm far more "libertarian" than "Libertarians". The only people who want less government than me, want no government at all. Signature.

Promontorium
12-19-2010, 06:58 PM
Anarchism is the most extreme libertarianism and also it's logical conclusion.

Instituted Anarchy is as oppressive as instituted slavery. Who are you to tell a couple communists they can't communize? You are no one, and thus "Libertarianism" without respect for establishment of government is not logical at all.

noxagol
12-19-2010, 07:06 PM
Um, by definition in an anarchistic society people are free to institute whatever voluntary communes they want. They just can't force me to join it if I choose not to. Your post is dumb. I never said I would keep communists from being communists outside of my realm.

Kregisen
12-19-2010, 07:08 PM
83.
You are a medium-core libertarian, probably self-consciously so. Your friends probably encourage you to quit talking about your views so much.

lol very true

Sentient Void
12-19-2010, 07:09 PM
"If it has to fight a war, should the U.S. try harder to avoid civilian targets?" - What?

"Is all government inherently evil?"
"Is government an unnecessary evil?"

This reminds me of "Do you enjoy it when you beat your wife?"


Voluntary social structure can be "government" and voluntary participation in a system that respects the desires and rights of the individuals involved isn't evil.

So apparently that leaves me out of the "perfect" club. I'm calling b.s. I'm an Objectivist. I'm far more "libertarian" than "Libertarians". The only people who want less government than me, want no government at all. Signature.

You're arguing semantics. It's pretty safe to assume that by 'government', the one who designed the test means 'the State'. I took the test looking at the *intent* behind the questions, and not to nitpick on the wording of the questions. I think doing as such is a little self-defeating and detracts from the point.

And Ron Paul Forums *is* a big tent. We don't discriminate and ban people based on their political ideology - whether they're a statist, liberal, conservative, minarchist, objectivist, ancap, mutualist, etc. People are free to speak their minds on anything, including controversial issues. But everyone must always be prepared to have a logically consistent or factually correct defense for their position - otherwise you'll be exposed as inconsistent and hypocritical. As it should be, IMO. The forum is self-regulating in that regard.

Though the moderators do ban trolls (as they should). They generally do a good job of that - though sometimes even that doesn't happen. lol jk ;)

But anyways, while I agree with you guys that the wording could have been better, I feel some are being much too anal.

JacksonianBME
12-19-2010, 07:17 PM
103

american.swan
12-19-2010, 07:18 PM
I had a few issues with the questions too.

My score was 141.

american.swan
12-19-2010, 07:19 PM
oh we are supposed to post the score? 148 http://www.realflowforum.com/img/smilies/smiley-tongue.png

Almost the same as me. 141!!

rprprs
12-19-2010, 07:22 PM
89. But, admittedly, when I needed to stop and think about a question, I, instead, just answered with what I assumed would be the more 'libertarian' answer. ;)

Sentient Void
12-19-2010, 07:28 PM
89. But, admittedly, when I needed to stop and think about a question, I, instead, just answered with what I assumed would be the more 'libertarian' answer. ;)

libertarian collectivist groupthink irony FTW!

bwaahahahha

At the same time, admittedly, when one is confused on an issue - the correct answer, IMO, is always to take the position that advocates liberty and not government.

QueenB4Liberty
12-19-2010, 08:20 PM
89. But, admittedly, when I needed to stop and think about a question, I, instead, just answered with what I assumed would be the more 'libertarian' answer. ;)

That's what I did as well, haha. But yeah, just silly little things like Free trade and free trade.

I got 144.

Monarchist
12-19-2010, 08:28 PM
82

farrar
12-19-2010, 08:42 PM
Um, by definition in an anarchistic society people are free to institute whatever voluntary communes they want. They just can't force me to join it if I choose not to. Your post is dumb. I never said I would keep communists from being communists outside of my realm.

Thank you, I was about to defend you when I realized you had it covered.

DFF
12-19-2010, 08:46 PM
110

specialkornflake
12-19-2010, 08:57 PM
I said yes to all of them except - Is it morally permissible to exercise "vigilante justice," even against government leaders?

Zack
12-19-2010, 09:01 PM
I think anyone with 100 or more is pretty much an ancap.

Those who believe that all taxation is theft cannot logically believe in the existence of the state.

As for the question of taxation being theft, I'm ambiguous.

Well, I got a 109 and I answered "no" to if taxes should be abolished. They didn't ask if taxes were theft. To that, I would have given what seems like the only intellectually honest answer, which is "yes". The question is whether you happen to support that particular type of theft or not. I do.

This relates to two of the other questions on the test:
#55. Is all government inherently evil? I answered yes.
#56. Is government an unnecessary evil? I answered no.

RedStripe
12-19-2010, 09:01 PM
Didn't see anything on there about racism or cultural authoritarianism. I guess you can be a strict cultural authoritarian, but as long as you are simply arguing for a system of "privatized" tyranny based on white supremacy, patriarchy or religious extremism you can be a "pure" libertarian!

If you think freedom is something wholly derived from your relationship with institutions arbitrarily labeled as "the state" - you don't really understand libertarianism, sorry.

Andrew-Austin
12-19-2010, 09:19 PM
Didn't see anything on there about racism or cultural authoritarianism. I guess you can be a strict cultural authoritarian, but as long as you are simply arguing for a system of "privatized" tyranny based on white supremacy, patriarchy or religious extremism you can be a "pure" libertarian!

If you think freedom is something wholly derived from your relationship with institutions arbitrarily labeled as "the state" - you don't really understand libertarianism, sorry.

GTFO of here with this dumb trollish garbage.

"Cultural authoritarianism" is a term you just made up, that amounts to nothing. Just another imagined form of oppression from the left. You are not a libertarian (I struggle to see why you would even pretend to be), so you are not an authority on what libertarianism is.

Brett85
12-19-2010, 09:20 PM
I scored a 73. I said "yes" for the legalizing all drugs part, even though I'm really more in favor of decriminalizing the possession and private use of them. I didn't see that option, however.

Zack
12-19-2010, 09:23 PM
One thing I was a bit suprised to see missing that I would have liked to see is a question or two about intellectual "property". The morals of abridging peoples free expression aside, it's hard to see how the copyright part of the intellectual property concept will even hold up without super-hardcore China-esqe monitoring and control, in a post internet world.

Adolfo Mena Gonzalez
12-19-2010, 09:35 PM
I got 93

heavenlyboy34
12-19-2010, 09:40 PM
GTFO of here with this dumb trollish garbage.

"Cultural authoritarianism" is a term you just made up, that amounts to nothing. Just another imagined form of oppression from the left. You are not a libertarian (I struggle to see why you would even pretend to be), so you are not an authority on what libertarianism is.

Actually, he's got valid points. Libertarians (as well as some classical liberals) have long held that State authority is arbitrary and unnecessary. I follow his threads pretty regularly, and he is a libertarian, only of the "left" variety. It rubs right-wingers the wrong way, but he still makes plenty of good points. :cool:

This-"If you think freedom is something wholly derived from your relationship with institutions arbitrarily labeled as "the state" - you don't really understand libertarianism, sorry." is an especially good point, well in line with libertarian thought.

Knightskye
12-19-2010, 09:48 PM
95.

muzzled dogg
12-19-2010, 10:00 PM
im too pure for this test

heavenlyboy34
12-19-2010, 10:11 PM
126. An okay test, but a number of the questions left out answer choices that I would have given if it were a subjective test.

TomtheTinker
12-19-2010, 10:27 PM
89

nobody's_hero
12-19-2010, 10:44 PM
103.

Some questions I didn't exactly understand or they involved something hypothetical that I wasn't sure how it would work.

EX: "Would housing "vouchers" better than government housing?"

ME: Well, that would depend on who pays for the vouchers, I suppose. Allegedly, vouchers are supposed to be "tax rebates" that people can use to spend how they see fit on a particular need. —I'm not sure how much I believe that, anymore, because it's more likely that everything is being funded by loans from the Chinese.

farrar
12-20-2010, 12:05 AM
I follow his threads pretty regularly, and he is a libertarian, only of the "left" variety.

I figured, lol...

Hey Redstripe, is your avatar representative of some kind of anarco-syndicalism? just curious, looks like a neat play of red and the anarchy symbol.

Sentient Void
12-20-2010, 12:16 AM
Didn't see anything on there about racism or cultural authoritarianism. I guess you can be a strict cultural authoritarian, but as long as you are simply arguing for a system of "privatized" tyranny based on white supremacy, patriarchy or religious extremism you can be a "pure" libertarian!

If you think freedom is something wholly derived from your relationship with institutions arbitrarily labeled as "the state" - you don't really understand libertarianism, sorry.

Ugh, God. This is getting tiring, RedStripe. Maybe *you* don't seem to understand (or care) about the concept of *voluntary* vs *involuntary*. 'Arbitrarily labeled as the state' my ass.

Libertarian Thickism FTL.

PS: I also find it interesting that you like to refer to yourself as an anarchist yet you only got somewhere between 91 and 130 points here. Your brand of 'libertarianism' simply *requires* central planning and authoritative figures to keep people from acting voluntarily with eachother and utilizing scarce resources - so your entire ideology is complete hypocrasy, logically inconsistent and unworkable. Maybe this test helped point that out - and I can see that you're bitter about it so maybe it has.

Vessol
12-20-2010, 12:20 AM
160

The test was pretty badly worded though.

wormyguy
12-20-2010, 12:20 AM
142

BamaAla
12-20-2010, 12:38 AM
93. Although, I don't describe myself as a libertarian.

farrar
12-20-2010, 01:24 AM
Ugh, God. This is getting tiring, RedStripe. Maybe *you* don't seem to understand (or care) about the concept of *voluntary* vs *involuntary*. 'Arbitrarily labeled as the state' my ass.

Libertarian Thickism FTL.

PS: I also find it interesting that you like to refer to yourself as an anarchist yet you only got somewhere between 91 and 130 points here. Your brand of 'libertarianism' simply *requires* central planning and authoritative figures to keep people from acting voluntarily with eachother and utilizing scarce resources - so your entire ideology is complete hypocrisy, logically inconsistent and unworkable. Maybe this test helped point that out - and I can see that you're bitter about it so maybe it has.

I'm not sure where Redstripe stands, but I took a que from heavenlyboy to take a look at some former threads of his. I don't necessarily agree but they are very well put together and argued. The man knows his stuff, Its sort of strange having never had a conversation with him, but I bet if I did I would like the guy.

I've argued myself on this forum that left libertarianism, though I didn't agree with it entirely, is probably possible through social mechanisms. I feel that because of these social mechanisms that it is improbable, but not impossible. I feel that the default for man is in voluntary trade and anarchy, and as such I find left libertarianism in requirement of some sort of (social) mechanism that combats man's nature in order to get him to willingly cooperate in a socialist economy. I'm not entirely understanding of left libertarian ideologies, and I am mistrusting of them, but if a society can be achieved as such without any coercion, I would accept it. My problem isn't so much with socialism as it is with forcing people to get with the program, whatever happens in a society without a monopoly on force and maximum power to voluntary action and mutual agreement is what I want. I don't trust that a left-libertarian society would last long though. I think it would revert into government or anarco-capitalism once the social mechanism began to wear out. Unless it becomes as deeply embedded as a religion or cultural matter.

None the less, as i addressed earlier in this thread, due to the nature of the test, left libertarians would probably score lower. RedStripe, I suppose is my supporting evidence. Doesn't mean in the slightest that he has any problem with liberty at all or an affection for government (though he may, still reading some of his posts).

This test isn't "How pure a Libertarian are you?"
Its "How pure a right-libertarian are you?"
note the lowercase "L" and direction modifier.

I think this is an important distinction to make, because there really isn't any reason to intentionally remove left-libertarians from the whole ideology. We ought to either make the distinction or accommodate for the whole of libertarianism in the test. I can see why Redstripe appeared to get a bit worked up in that regard.

Nice thread btw SentientVoid. 100 posts about? I've had fun reading it, and some of your posts.

fisharmor
12-20-2010, 06:55 AM
160

Dammit, should have known you'd beat my 156. I almost won!

From the test:

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

Darned right I do - the bit about bombing civilians is what got me.
The test designer obviously doesn't see that modern warfare was designed by fascist assholes to be as sustainable as possible.
One can't keep military contracts going for years and years if your war is over in 10 days.
As a man who tries to stay as free from state influence as possible, I choose to see war in the Ares sense, not the traditional statist Athena sense - or, as one of the horsemen of the apocalypse. An evil which we who aren't involved can't begin to comprehend, and for which those who are involved require conditioning to participate.
It is only because war is so sanitized that we allow it to happen so frequently.
If war included crimes against humanity as a part of the sandwich, with no deletions or substitutions, then people wouldn't order that sandwich so often.

osan
12-20-2010, 07:57 AM
107. I had problems with some of those questions as I always do in tests like this. For example, should public education be abolished? Wouldn't answering "yes" mean that libertarians want to impose a one size fits all (everything private) solution on the whole country? Isn't that what we're fighting against? What if a state or even a city wants to provide public education?

These quizzes need to get much more specific.

One might also see that the public/private dichotomy is in many cases not only false, but diversionary in effect. In the example you give, it is not a question of private v. public per sé, but of freedom v. force. I see no reason a community cannot maintain a "public" school while allowing those not wishing to send their children to it to go elsewhere with not just their offspring, but their money. All their money - not just some pathetic voucher representing a mere fraction or one for more than they pay in taxes. Perhaps more significantly, those with no children in the system would be spared footing the bill for someone else's schooling.

The problems I hold with public schooling in principle are these:



forced to pay through taxation regardless whether you have kids attending
compulsory attendance

These are the sorts of questions such queries should be presenting:



should people be taxed to fund a public school system?
should people with no children in public schools be forced to pay school taxes?
should formal schooling be compulsory?
are government officials authorized to seize the children of those parents failing to pay their school taxes?
are govenment officials authorized to seize children not in a formal school?
are govenment officials authorized to seize property of those who fail to pay their school taxes?
are govenment officials ultimately authorized to kill those who continue to resist paying taxes and acquiescing to seizure of their property?

denison
12-20-2010, 08:02 AM
151

denison
12-20-2010, 08:06 AM
I suppose it is worth asking what Bryan Caplan's definition of libertarian is - a 160 score is pure anarchy. ("Private" laws, no State, including no uniform rule to prohibit murder, for instance)

i have to agree. which is why i'm not for pure anarchy. murder is murder and should be a crime, no contract can take away someone's life or enslave or exploit them. Then we're pack to communism/socialism.

osan
12-20-2010, 08:10 AM
Didn't see anything on there about racism or cultural authoritarianism.

What about them? Be clear. You complaint tells us nothing except you seem to have some untold issue.


I guess you can be a strict cultural authoritarianPlease define the term "cultural authoritarian". I have no idea what that is.


but as long as you are simply arguing for a system of "privatized" tyranny based on white supremacy, patriarchy or religious extremism you can be a "pure" libertarian!Likewise, this statement defies clear semantic analysis. Clarify, after calming yourself.


If you think freedom is something wholly derived from your relationship with institutions arbitrarily labeled as "the state" - you don't really understand libertarianism, sorry.The good news here is that you recognize the arbitrary nature of "the state".

denison
12-20-2010, 08:12 AM
I started to take the test, and had to stop to read the responses and start to formulate my own. After taking a deep breath and finishing the test though:

145:

Indeed I do.

I agree with osan, some of the questions are complete crap. Here's a list of all those I have a problem with:


So 29 questions of 64 have flaws in my eyes. These are basically summed up as (1) who is "we"?, (2) state regulations are sometimes not strict enough, (3) there simply isn't a well defined meaning to the terms of the question, and (4) there isn't a test of libertarianism in the question.

I certainly consider myself a violence-free anarchist, but "Is all government inherently evil" is a question I must answer No to. Government is only "evil" subjectively, i.e. it acts in a way contrary to the desires of someone coerced into supporting it. So I can see most voluntary government as being a "good", and even some of the programs of a coercive government as being "good".

And giving points for answering "would you call yourself an an-cap" is like asking "do you call yourself a slut" on the original infamous purity test - it just adds in points if you want to add in points.

from and ancap perspective ALL government is inherently evil for the simple fact that it has an exclusive right to use theft, coercion, and violence to justify its means. you can't reject or say no to the gumbermint.

Imperial
12-20-2010, 08:30 AM
I think when he wrote that "government is inherently evil" it reveals his own bias. A more accurate term would be "government is inherently coercive".

Oh yeah, 54

denison
12-20-2010, 08:42 AM
is coercion evil? yes.

osan
12-20-2010, 08:49 AM
I certainly consider myself a violence-free anarchist, but "Is all government inherently evil" is a question I must answer No to.

Agreed. At one level or another people have to be held accountable for behavior. This is more or less indisputable, considering the alternative. The only questions include along what standard, by whom, and to whom will the judges be held accountable? These are the questions many "libertarians" and "anarchists" either cannot answer sufficiently, or avoid altogether. Governance is governance, whether sourcing from the "public" or privately makes no difference so long as the results are the same. What virtue is there in "private" governance if the result is still tyranny? "Public" and "private" are, in this context, meaningless terms. PEOPLE govern. Not "states". Not "corporations". Not "private entities". People. Therefore the principles and standards for governing should be rationally derived, complete, crystal clear, and the same across the board no matter what fanciful labels one may glue on top of the group of people discharging the functions.



Government is only "evil" subjectivelyIn more metaphysically absolute terms I may agree, but in the universe of human life I would have to diverge. Given our lives as humans as the baseline I would say there is certainly an objective standard. That aside, all governance is not evil. Imagine someone kidnaps a child, rapes, murders, dismembers, cooks, and eats them. Would anyone here assert that governance of that person in the form of trying him on the charges and holding him accountable upon conviction would not be in order?

To that end I will assert that public governance is superior to what I understand as private, though to be very honest I am still not clear on the distinction, especially the actual meaning pf "private" in this case. If someone would clarify this I would be grateful.


, [government is evil only when] it acts in a way contrary to the desires of someone coerced into supporting it.Not q uite completely so. No doubt the murderer will often find it as "evil" when they are caught. That does not mean that the objective goodness does not exist, based on the standards of common human desires, such as not being murdered.


So I can see most voluntary government as being a "good", and even some of the programs of a coercive government as being "good". Please give an example of coercive being good. Not necessarily disagreeing with you - just would like to see whether your thoughts align with mine.

osan
12-20-2010, 08:53 AM
I think anyone with 100 or more is pretty much an ancap.

Those who believe that all taxation is theft cannot logically believe in the existence of the state.

Please state your reasoning behind this assertion. The connection escapes me.


As for the question of taxation being theft, I'm ambiguous.

Perhaps you meant "ambivalent"?

osan
12-20-2010, 08:55 AM
"taxes" are not the only way to fund government.

-t

Please elaborate.

osan
12-20-2010, 09:02 AM
I thought of the questions based on intent as opposed to picking apart the wording.

Moving forward on such a basis is dangerous at best. This is called "poor communications", or potentially insufficient at any rate. Clarity is not only pleasurable, it is essential on such topics. It is the absence of clarity that so often gets us into very real trouble.


I think if you know what the person who made the test was thinking about when he made it, then they are generally pretty straightforward.

But I do not know the person and bet most taking the test would say the same.


Can't disagree that one can definitely tear apart some of the wording otherwise, though. The results overall definitely imply that while (obviously) not everyone here on the RPF are full-on ancaps, many are pretty damned close, and it's safe to say that so far - the vast majority is definitely pretty damned libertarian.

Yet on the scoring analysis page, anyone with less than 160 is "imperfect". WTF?


And I lol'd at Josh for being a douche and purposefully skewing the results. Bastard. ;P

That is why we love him.


No, not that way. Eeediot.

reduen
12-20-2010, 09:26 AM
Your score is...

113

Oh boy, please do not tell my republican buddies....! lol

Wesker1982
12-20-2010, 10:14 AM
murder is murder and should be a crime.

I don't know of any anarcho-capitalists who would disagree. I think you have a misunderstanding.

Here is a good book if you are interested: Anarchy and the Law
http://mises.org/store/Anarchy-and-the-Law-P335.aspx

brenden.b
12-20-2010, 10:19 AM
97... The last section was a whole bunch of "No"

aravoth
12-20-2010, 10:59 AM
Your score is...

147

Cool

Madly_Sane
12-20-2010, 11:00 AM
Your Libertarian Purity Score



Your score is...


107

ChaosControl
12-20-2010, 11:10 AM
72.

osan
12-20-2010, 11:17 AM
Instituted Anarchy is as oppressive as instituted slavery. Who are you to tell a couple communists they can't communize? You are no one, and thus "Libertarianism" without respect for establishment of government free choice is not logical at all.

Fixed it for you. ;)

eqcitizen
12-20-2010, 11:21 AM
158....I do not think that vouchers would be better (it would given the Government 100% control over schools as opposed to just 90%)

JenH88
12-20-2010, 11:22 AM
:cool: 111

Madly_Sane
12-20-2010, 11:23 AM
Does being an 'anarcho-capitalist' make you more or less libertarian?

osan
12-20-2010, 11:23 AM
You're arguing semantics.


You write this as if it were a trivial factor. Semantics is EVERYTHING. Without it, there would be no communication of any form whatsoever. Not even grunting to your buddy that T. Rex is about to eat him. People need to get out of this terrible habit of making this sort of statement because they have nothing better to offer. It causes far more trouble than it solves. This goes for everyone.

AuH2O
12-20-2010, 11:27 AM
Those who believe that all taxation is theft cannot logically believe in the existence of the state.

What if the state's just trying to feed its family?

Madly_Sane
12-20-2010, 11:29 AM
What if the state is just trying to steal your money? :p

pcosmar
12-20-2010, 11:29 AM
Purity? Test
Ok, I took it.
Score 108

I agree with many that the questions are vague and misleading, and I skipped a few.


Should police be privatized.
Yes
No
No, they should not be privatized.
They should be abolished, and the very concept wiped from memory.

Purity??? my pink pimply butt.

Live in a cage for awhile and see if you love liberty.;)

Pericles
12-20-2010, 11:36 AM
94 fwiw

osan
12-20-2010, 11:38 AM
from and ancap perspective ALL government is inherently evil for the simple fact that it has an exclusive right to use theft, coercion, and violence to justify its means. you can't reject or say no to the gumbermint.

This is only the defacto case and not the one by definition. Properly defined and implemented, governance can be benign and just. The justifiable application of force comes only IN RESPONSE TO some person or group initiating force illegitimately. That sort of governance I have no problem with, all else equal.

A great problem I see in so many of the otherwise sound and sometimes brilliant minds here is that they focus on QUANTITY rather than CHARACTER. The amount of government is irrelevant in a sense because if it is well defined and righteously acted upon, it will necessarily remain small under normal circumstances. If, however, a great murder jag were to break out, governance would increase until such time as the problems abated.

As I have written many times and shall repeat once again, the core problem with governance is not governance per sé, but within the hearts and minds of men. Corrupt men ruin it, as do those whose intentions are well meaning, but whose faculties of intellect are either insufficient to their offices or simply working on an invalid set of assumptions.

Any form of governance, including self-governance, is only as good as those practicing it. This truth cannot be escaped.

ChaosControl
12-20-2010, 11:40 AM
Does being an 'anarcho-capitalist' make you more or less libertarian?

Neither more or less in my opinion.


Anyway I don't think ALL government in theory is inherently evil. However I do think all government that exists today is evil. I'm sort of an anarchist in modern thought, but not in an absolute sense. I am one in that I'd love to see the abolition of the current state, however small local governments could rise up and I'd be fine with that. I like the idea of a small communitarian society that could be maybe administered with some sort of council that is replaced every couple years, maybe with just random people in society or something.

I think the problem isn't necessarily government existing, but government residing over too much or in other words too centralized of a government. That is why I support the US as a being a confederacy, not a federation.

Michael Landon
12-20-2010, 11:44 AM
91-130 points: You have entered the heady realm of hard-core libertarianism. Now doesn't that make you feel worse that you didn't get a perfect score?

- ML

TortoiseDream
12-20-2010, 11:46 AM
The only question I responded "no" to was":

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

I don't think so. Some anarchists like to say that using violence again the state is morally permissible because the state is aggressing upon them daily. However, my objection to that is that the "state" cannot aggress upon anyone, no more than the number 3. The state is an abstraction, it's a collective. Only individuals can aggress upon other individuals. A person would be morally justified in defending themselves from a specific individual who is aggressing upon them and incidently from the state, but to make it a general moral dictum that any representative of the state is subject to violence I think is wrong.

And even if it were, I think non-violent means should be the first line of resistance (and possibly the only means).

TortoiseDream
12-20-2010, 11:49 AM
Purity? Test
Ok, I took it.
Score 108

I agree with many that the questions are vague and misleading, and I skipped a few.


No, they should not be privatized.
They should be abolished, and the very concept wiped from memory.

Purity??? my pink pimply butt.

Live in a cage for awhile and see if you love liberty.;)

I think they should be privatized. To me, privatization only implies letting people freely choose if they want it, in what quantity, at what quality, and at what price. I think most free thinkers would not voluntarily fund the gestapo... but they may exchange services in return for domestic defense.

pcosmar
12-20-2010, 12:09 PM
I think they should be privatized. To me, privatization only implies letting people freely choose if they want it, in what quantity, at what quality, and at what price. I think most free thinkers would not voluntarily fund the gestapo... but they may exchange services in return for domestic defense.

This is how police were created. Abandoning your own personal responsibility to others.
This Fails.

This is hiring a mercenary to do your killing for you.

mczerone
12-20-2010, 12:48 PM
Agreed. At one level or another people have to be held accountable for behavior. This is more or less indisputable, considering the alternative. The only questions include along what standard, by whom, and to whom will the judges be held accountable? These are the questions many "libertarians" and "anarchists" either cannot answer sufficiently, or avoid altogether. Governance is governance, whether sourcing from the "public" or privately makes no difference so long as the results are the same. What virtue is there in "private" governance if the result is still tyranny? "Public" and "private" are, in this context, meaningless terms. PEOPLE govern. Not "states". Not "corporations". Not "private entities". People. Therefore the principles and standards for governing should be rationally derived, complete, crystal clear, and the same across the board no matter what fanciful labels one may glue on top of the group of people discharging the functions.


In more metaphysically absolute terms I may agree, but in the universe of human life I would have to diverge. Given our lives as humans as the baseline I would say there is certainly an objective standard. That aside, all governance is not evil. Imagine someone kidnaps a child, rapes, murders, dismembers, cooks, and eats them. Would anyone here assert that governance of that person in the form of trying him on the charges and holding him accountable upon conviction would not be in order?

To that end I will assert that public governance is superior to what I understand as private, though to be very honest I am still not clear on the distinction, especially the actual meaning pf "private" in this case. If someone would clarify this I would be grateful.

Not q uite completely so. No doubt the murderer will often find it as "evil" when they are caught. That does not mean that the objective goodness does not exist, based on the standards of common human desires, such as not being murdered.

Please give an example of coercive being good. Not necessarily disagreeing with you - just would like to see whether your thoughts align with mine.

Thanks for the reply, +rep for your thoughtfulness.

Note that I didn't say that coercion itself could be good, I said that a coercive government could do good things. This doesn't at all preclude that same good thing coming about through market forces, but only that sometimes the mandatory association of the state does some things that are beneficial. As the prime example, the state adopting common law property and tort rules to resolve disputes was a "good" thing - the rules were developed in a market manner, and work to defend individuals from aggression. Even though everyone has been coerced into giving allegiance and tax money to the system, which is bad, the enforcement of these rules amongst the ruled gives incentives and results that approximate the complete protection of the individual from aggression (thus preserving as amongst each other the expression of each individual's values).

Basically anything that the state does that would have occurred in its absence I can see as a "good" thing. But of course these instances are very few, and doesn't excuse the forced obedience the state demands.


The only question I responded "no" to was":

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

I don't think so. Some anarchists like to say that using violence again the state is morally permissible because the state is aggressing upon them daily. However, my objection to that is that the "state" cannot aggress upon anyone, no more than the number 3. The state is an abstraction, it's a collective. Only individuals can aggress upon other individuals. A person would be morally justified in defending themselves from a specific individual who is aggressing upon them and incidently from the state, but to make it a general moral dictum that any representative of the state is subject to violence I think is wrong.

And even if it were, I think non-violent means should be the first line of resistance (and possibly the only means).

I agree that violence isn't the solution, but I don't think of vigilante justice being limited to hiring hitmen to take out enemies. What about "self-help" evictions? What if your tenant in a strip mall was a local branch of the Secretary of State and they hadn't paid rent for two years, but the local courts wouldn't issue an eviction notice either because of some "immunity" clause or by personal favor to the local magistrate that wasn't receiving the funds from the state to pay his bills?

Further, why is the socialized decider trusted to make the right decisions about when justice is proper? Especially since the only recourse available to someone who believes the court's decision was wrong was to appeal to a court that is part of the very same institution?

The "anarchic" solution doesn't give free reign to any vigilante group to seek justice however they wish - it simply says that all groups seeking justice must be accountable to all other groups offering the service of justice. If the plaintiff challenging an eminent domain case must go to a court that must give deference to the very people instigating the taking of the property, how can true justice ever be expected? However if a large and powerful group wishes to take your property for what they deem "the public good" in an anarchic vigilante system, they would have to be prepared to defend their claim of justness to a truly independent third party, and the court making their decision would have to make sure that the principles that they used were unassailable by any other court that may hear the case and wouldn't give the trial court any deference as being a part of the same institutional structure.

One of my biggest fears about an anarchic system of laws is this precarious balance of ensuring due process so that violence isn't resorted to unnecessarily. But it always helps to ask what the government alternative is, and how open to abuse is that system. In the end I would much rather rely on private justice agencies that must respond to voluntary financing than an entrenched political system that at most faces the possibility that the appellate court will overturn their holding - with no threat of lost revenue or reputation.

Edited to add: here's a hypothetical: Assume tax collection is made physically by agents and that the booty is transported by truck to D.C.. Further assume that a truck has a flat tire in front of your house, and the driver and assistant have left the hatch unlocked to get the spare tire out. During the changing of the tire both agents take their union mandated lunch and leave the money unattended. Do you take the money and redistribute it to the taxpayers if you know that the government won't come back to take the money again? However far-fetched, I think this was the point of the purity-test question.

MelissaCato
12-20-2010, 12:52 PM
121

SilentBull
12-20-2010, 12:53 PM
116

RedStripe
12-20-2010, 02:31 PM
GTFO of here with this dumb trollish garbage.

"Cultural authoritarianism" is a term you just made up, that amounts to nothing. Just another imagined form of oppression from the left. You are not a libertarian (I struggle to see why you would even pretend to be), so you are not an authority on what libertarianism is.

You mad?

Do you always react this way when you are confronted with a concept that you do not understand?

RedStripe
12-20-2010, 02:33 PM
I figured, lol...

Hey Redstripe, is your avatar representative of some kind of anarco-syndicalism? just curious, looks like a neat play of red and the anarchy symbol.

It's the symbol of the alliance of the libertarian left: http://all-left.net/

Fredom101
12-20-2010, 03:01 PM
I hated the survey so I didn't finish it. What's with all the collectivist "We" speak? I want 0 taxes 0 medicare 0 everything from government. "We" is bullshit.

RedStripe
12-20-2010, 03:12 PM
Ugh, God. This is getting tiring, RedStripe. Maybe *you* don't seem to understand (or care) about the concept of *voluntary* vs *involuntary*. 'Arbitrarily labeled as the state' my ass.

Yea, I bet it gets tiring to have someone around who sees right through the simplistic veneer of your ideology. What really irks you is not that I don't appreciate the concepts of voluntary and involuntary social relationships - it's that I have nuanced understanding of them which doesn't fit into your ridiculous, cookie-cutter right-wing libertarian universe of absolutes. Instead, my understanding of what is "voluntary" and what is "involuntary" is based on how the world actually works rather than the way right-wing libertarians think that the world probably works. In the real world the difference between voluntary and coercive or consent and duress is much more complicated than you would ever admit. Life is ambiguous and complex; right-wing libertarianism is absolutist and simplistic. Just look at how right-wing libertarians squirm when trying to fit a round peg in their square hole, such as the case of children in a "libertarian" society. It's quite amusing.

But hey, get this: just because something is voluntary, that doesn't mean it's libertarian! It's just a perfect example of what right-wing libertarians do all the time - you take rules of thumb and try to turn them into iron-clad absolutes (and extend them to an extreme where you just end up looking like fools). Let's look at a few examples:

The state is "bad". You take this to the extreme that it is literally the only thing you think about. A sane, reasonable person will certainly agree that the state, as a general rule of thumb, is bad institution for a variety of reasons and should not be trusted. In the hands of the right-wing libertarian, this general commonsense idea becomes an all-consuming religious crusade. This single-minded obsession with "the state" makes the right-wing libertarian unconcerned and unaware of many other important issues, and demands the establishment of an unrealistic new paradigm: either something involves the state (bad) or does not (good). What an absurd way to understand the world.

Property rights are "good." Again, you take this general rule and twist it into absurd, extreme conclusions for no good reason other than to take rules to their extreme. Right-wing libertarians completely ignore the fact that property rights are a good thing insofar as they promote justice - to the extent that any property rights system or rule promotes injustice, it's not worth supporting. No, you guys just don't understand the fact that rules are just a means to an end - you honestly believe that rules exist for the sake of the rules themselves, which is why you take good general rules and turn them into a right-wing libertarian religious dogma.

Even the non-aggression axiom has been perverted by the right-wing libertarian rules-for-the-sake-of-rules insanity. Rather than just recognize that the non-aggression axiom is a good general rule of thumb for how people ought to interact, you turn it into some absolute rule of morality (even when obeying the rule frustrates the purpose of the rule - to make human life more enjoyable). Sorry, but sometimes the non-aggression axiom doesn't apply. Life just isn't as simple as you guys think it is.

Just because someone isn't being violent, that doesn't mean that libertarianism has nothing to say on the issue. You want to dilute libertarianism into a meaningless joke of a philosophy, and you're certainly doing a damn good job (just look at this purity test you've posted). If someone is being a racist asshole, I should, as a libertarian, be opposed to that behavior (this is where you attempt to fit me into your silly little cookie-cutter world by insinuating that I would "oppose" him via violence, the state, centralized planning, etc., - but none of those apply) because to be a racist is to be anti-liberty.

Freedom is about more than the number of "state" laws you live under, or size of government. You simply cannot comprehend that fact, which is why you get so upset when I call out right-wing libertarianism for the joke philosophy that it is.



Libertarian Thickism FTL.

PS: I also find it interesting that you like to refer to yourself as an anarchist yet you only got somewhere between 91 and 130 points here. Your brand of 'libertarianism' simply *requires* central planning and authoritative figures to keep people from acting voluntarily with eachother and utilizing scarce resources - so your entire ideology is complete hypocrasy, logically inconsistent and unworkable. Maybe this test helped point that out - and I can see that you're bitter about it so maybe it has.

The fact that you've heard of thick libertarianism is good, but you clearly don't have the slightest understanding of it since you are trying to tell me that my "brand" of libertarianism requires central planning and authoritative figures. Hahaha! But wait, you watered-down right-wing libertarian types have no problem with authoritarianism or authority figures - that's simply outside the preview of the hyper-focus on "TEH STATE."

You're living in a bubble world. Keep consulting the priests of your dogmatic faith and I'm sure you'll be able to keep it. But it certainly wouldn't hurt you to actually understand left-libertarianism just a little bit in order to attack it on specific grounds.

ChaosControl
12-20-2010, 03:29 PM
What if someone is neither "left" libertarian or "right" libertarian? I don't really understand the differences though. Is left someone who is more socially liberal or someone who supports more collective economics?

What if someone thinks that left is fine for some people and right is fine for others?

What about a libertarian communitarian? That seems contradictory right? I like it because it fits my view and sounds contradictory.
Balancing the rights of the individual with the rights of the community. How I see it is, in your own home you're free to do what you wish as long as no one i harmed in the process. Out in the public area, the community, though, you are subject to the rules the community wishes to put in place. That is why no smoking laws in public areas are acceptable to me, but banning smoking in general isn't. The community can desire to pool its resources if it wishes and make sure everyone in the community is taken care of, that there is no poverty. Or the community can be run more like a everyone for themselves capitalistic society too, where everyone is focused on themselves. It is all about maximizing liberty both of the individual and the community. One liberty can conflict with another though, so it does take a balancing act. But that is why I say separate liberty in the home from liberty in the public area.

My medium score was in part because I didn't always think of "the public" as the state, and I didn't always think of government in general as an authoritarian body, but also possibly just a council that may administer a community.

RedStripe
12-20-2010, 03:33 PM
Ugh, God. This is getting tiring, RedStripe. Maybe *you* don't seem to understand (or care) about the concept of *voluntary* vs *involuntary*. 'Arbitrarily labeled as the state' my ass.

Yea, I bet it gets tiring to have someone around who sees right through the simplistic veneer of your ideology. What really irks you is not that I don't appreciate the concepts of voluntary and involuntary social relationships - it's that I have nuanced understanding of them which doesn't fit into your ridiculous, cookie-cutter right-wing libertarian universe of absolutes. Instead, my understanding of what is "voluntary" and what is "involuntary" is based on how the world actually works rather than the way right-wing libertarians think that the world probably works. In the real world the difference between voluntary and coercive or consent and duress is much more complicated than you would ever admit. Life is ambiguous and complex; right-wing libertarianism is absolutist and simplistic. Just look at how right-wing libertarians squirm when trying to fit a round peg in their square hole, such as the case of children in a "libertarian" society. It's quite amusing.

But hey, get this: just because something is voluntary, that doesn't mean it's libertarian! It's just a perfect example of what right-wing libertarians do all the time - you take rules of thumb and try to turn them into iron-clad absolutes (and extend them to an extreme where you just end up looking like fools). Let's look at a few examples:

The state is "bad". You take this to the extreme that it is literally the only thing you think about. A sane, reasonable person will certainly agree that the state, as a general rule of thumb, is bad institution for a variety of reasons and should not be trusted. In the hands of the right-wing libertarian, this general commonsense idea becomes an all-consuming religious crusade. This single-minded obsession with "the state" makes the right-wing libertarian unconcerned and unaware of many other important issues, and demands the establishment of an unrealistic new paradigm: either something involves the state (bad) or does not (good). What an absurd way to understand the world.

Property rights are "good." Again, you take this general rule and twist it into absurd, extreme conclusions for no good reason other than to take rules to their extreme. Right-wing libertarians completely ignore the fact that property rights are a good thing insofar as they promote justice - to the extent that any property rights system or rule promotes injustice, it's not worth supporting. No, you guys just don't understand the fact that rules are just a means to an end - you honestly believe that rules exist for the sake of the rules themselves, which is why you take good general rules and turn them into a right-wing libertarian religious dogma.

Even the non-aggression axiom has been perverted by the right-wing libertarian rules-for-the-sake-of-rules insanity. Rather than just recognize that the non-aggression axiom is a good general rule of thumb for how people ought to interact, you turn it into some absolute rule of morality (even when obeying the rule frustrates the purpose of the rule - to make human life more enjoyable). Sorry, but sometimes the non-aggression axiom doesn't apply. Life just isn't as simple as you guys think it is.

Just because someone isn't being violent, that doesn't mean that libertarianism has nothing to say on the issue. You want to dilute libertarianism into a meaningless joke of a philosophy, and you're certainly doing a damn good job (just look at this purity test you've posted). If someone is being a racist asshole, I should, as a libertarian, be opposed to that behavior (this is where you attempt to fit me into your silly little cookie-cutter world by insinuating that I would "oppose" him via violence, the state, centralized planning, etc., - but none of those apply) because to be a racist is to be anti-liberty.

Freedom is about more than the number of "state" laws you live under, or size of government. You simply cannot comprehend that fact, which is why you get so upset when I call out right-wing libertarianism for the joke philosophy that it is.



Libertarian Thickism FTL.

PS: I also find it interesting that you like to refer to yourself as an anarchist yet you only got somewhere between 91 and 130 points here. Your brand of 'libertarianism' simply *requires* central planning and authoritative figures to keep people from acting voluntarily with eachother and utilizing scarce resources - so your entire ideology is complete hypocrasy, logically inconsistent and unworkable. Maybe this test helped point that out - and I can see that you're bitter about it so maybe it has.

The fact that you've heard of thick libertarianism is good, but you clearly don't have the slightest understanding of it since you are trying to tell me that my "brand" of libertarianism requires central planning and authoritative figures. Hahaha! But wait, you watered-down right-wing libertarian types have no problem with authoritarianism or authority figures - that's simply outside the preview of the hyper-focus on "TEH STATE."

You're living in a bubble world. Keep consulting the priests of your dogmatic faith and I'm sure you'll be able to keep it. But it certainly wouldn't hurt you to actually understand left-libertarianism just a little bit in order to attack it on specific grounds.

Cap
12-20-2010, 03:47 PM
120

fisharmor
12-20-2010, 04:03 PM
I think they should be privatized. To me, privatization only implies letting people freely choose if they want it, in what quantity, at what quality, and at what price. I think most free thinkers would not voluntarily fund the gestapo... but they may exchange services in return for domestic defense.

I'm with Pete.
In addition, you are not describing police. Well, you were with the gestappo.
The role of the police would not exist in a free society.
Police are not guards. They aren't even sheriffs.
What they are is predators. They're hyenas.
They circle around society, looking for an easy kill. 'Cause they sure as fuck ain't going for the hard ones.
They fight with the other predators over who gets the kill.
After they've filled their bellies, they leave, without an ounce of give-a-shit for how they've affected the herd.
They've done what they do, and that's all that matters.

If someone can explain how a free society would create mobile enforcers who have carte blanche to harrass, beat, and kill individuals while ignoring real problems, then I'm listening.

Agorism
12-20-2010, 04:09 PM
150.

I voted against all the vouchers stuff as I think vouchers are a big government scam. I also voted no against the question about the vigilante justice because it wasn't clear what they were talking about and wasn't specific esp since I prefer non-violent protest as a first step.

BuddyRey
12-20-2010, 05:48 PM
Another 160-pointer here.

Pete Kay
12-20-2010, 06:31 PM
58

Ha, that seems much lower than many on here posted. I'm only moderately libertarian. I'm more of a constitutionalist and many of those questions were vague and poorly worded(like abolishing all medicare with no option for phasing it out). I suspect many on here have inflated scores, because you answered the questions with the intent to prove your libertarian bona fides, instead of looking at the questions in a practical manner.

I think that anyone with a score of 150-160 is lying to yourself, because if you truly held those beliefs you would have already gone off the grid by now.

VivaLaRevolucion92
12-20-2010, 06:39 PM
Rothbard is amazing.... He just says what needs to be said, with passion.

BuddyRey
12-20-2010, 06:47 PM
RedStripe, I'm trying to understand your philosophy better, but I'm having kind of a tough time. Could you explain to me what the phrase "right-wing libertarian" means, because to me, it sounds contradictory, almost like "promiscuous virginity" or "atheistic Catholicism."

bruce leeroy
12-20-2010, 07:49 PM
83

Mike4Freedom
12-20-2010, 08:04 PM
I scored 123

farrar
12-20-2010, 08:06 PM
This is only the defacto case and not the one by definition. Properly defined and implemented, governance can be benign and just. The justifiable application of force comes only IN RESPONSE TO some person or group initiating force illegitimately. That sort of governance I have no problem with, all else equal.

A great problem I see in so many of the otherwise sound and sometimes brilliant minds here is that they focus on QUANTITY rather than CHARACTER. The amount of government is irrelevant in a sense because if it is well defined and righteously acted upon, it will necessarily remain small under normal circumstances. If, however, a great murder jag were to break out, governance would increase until such time as the problems abated.

As I have written many times and shall repeat once again, the core problem with governance is not governance per sé, but within the hearts and minds of men. Corrupt men ruin it, as do those whose intentions are well meaning, but whose faculties of intellect are either insufficient to their offices or simply working on an invalid set of assumptions.

Any form of governance, including self-governance, is only as good as those practicing it. This truth cannot be escaped.

I suppose the more CAPS in a post the more LOGICAL and INTELLIGENT it becomes? lol jk.

But in all seriousness I understand what you are saying, but I would also argue that whether or not government is just with its monopoly on force isn't much of an issue either. Its the fact that government is a monopoly you cannot advert. You must pay taxes or go to jail, you must contribute to the system or face consequences. Even if Government is just, maybe I like dictatorships? Perhaps I want a Democracy, or a republic, or a communist like entity to obey and contribute too. Government doesn't allow this, you must subscribe to it as is. In an ancap society, I can voluntarily form, subscribe to, or reject any of these systems and a variety of others including self-government. The key is that one does not force any individual to contribute to anything, you can associate yourself with whatever group or laws you wish.

I agree that quantity probably isn't as important as character but I understand why it is used. The more government the less decisions the individual gets to make, and the more force that is used. Its an rough and indirect measure of coercion but a measure none the less.

ian_co
12-20-2010, 08:14 PM
I got 109 but i dont think getting a perfect score is something to be proud of.

I love capitalism but privatizing law itself? This doesn't seem to be relevant to libertarianism even though many things need to be privatized. I view this as merging economical aspects and social aspects of a society that have no connection with each other. I don't see how we can put a price tag on fairness, equality and justice, let alone profit off of it.

Also same goes for national defense, I don't see how we can trust corporations for our safety, especially Blackwater. This only reduces the government's accountability and steps toward corporatism which leads to dictatorship of the corporation.

oyarde
12-20-2010, 08:26 PM
Your score is...

113

Oh boy, please do not tell my republican buddies....! lol

I cracked up when reading those descriptions , one said something about your friends wishing you would quit talking about your views .

Brett85
12-20-2010, 08:36 PM
Purity? Test
Ok, I took it.
Score 108

I agree with many that the questions are vague and misleading, and I skipped a few.


No, they should not be privatized.
They should be abolished, and the very concept wiped from memory.

Purity??? my pink pimply butt.

Live in a cage for awhile and see if you love liberty.;)

Wow. So no laws against murder, rape, stealing? Murderers and rapists out on the street? That isn't libertarianism. That's anarchy.

farrar
12-20-2010, 09:07 PM
Wow. So no laws against murder, rape, stealing? Murderers and rapists out on the street? That isn't libertarianism. That's anarchy.

That's not anarchy thats chaos. There are so many deterents against murder and rape in an anarchist society. For instance the family, friends, and neighbors of the victim. Groups who have formed to protect the individuals who have joined. Security companies that have entered contracts with individuals. Judicial systems that have been created such as in a kritarchy which I rather like. All of these will put murders and rapists and thieves up for open season.

Interesting enough, did you know in somalia which is in a virtual state of anarchy, theft has declined in comparison to the neighboring regions like Ethiopia? We know this because the economy there, which is mostly based on livestock, has created a market for insurance agencies which insure that livestock has not been stolen before it is sold, all for a fee of course. If they are wrong and the livestock has been stolen then they must pay out to who ever purchased the stock who now has to return the stock he just bought. The rates that these agencies charge are much lower in somalia and decling while neighbhoring areas are experiencing rising rates. This indicates that theft is rising in the government run societies as the insurers must charge higher rates to maintain a profit due to the increasing payouts. The kritarchy of Somalia is not experiencing this problem. Strange isn't it?

Sentient Void
12-20-2010, 09:40 PM
... blah, blah, blah...

I would take your diatribe(s) more seriously if we didn't already go over the vast majority of every point you just made and why you're patently wrong. You claim to have previously been an anarcho-capitalist, but it's clear you either weren't one *period* - or you were just a horrible one with only a superficial understanding at best.

Look, I'm sick of repeating myself with you, RedStripe. Not to mention that the majority of your post was full of personal attacks and vast *arbitrary* claims of truth - as if it becomes reality by your very word. ::rolleyes::

Yeah, yeah - we get it. You hate the concept of sticky property and advocate property theft as just. You deem even *voluntary* interactions and exchanges as unjust, and advocate coercion and theft accordingly. To you, the labor-employee relationship is unjust and illegitimate, the landlord-renter is unjust and illegitimate, and the property owner is unjust and illegitimate. Good luck with the 'coordination problem' and 'information problem', as well as the simple contradictions regarding forcing people through violence to not interact voluntarily with eachother. Good luck accumulating, distributing and effectively using limited scarce resources. You'll need it.

Thickism is the real joke. All you left-anarchists' heads are exploding in anger because the ancap philosophy is growing at rates that absolutely blow yours out of the water - and you don't know wtf to do about it.

Libertarian Thickism FAIL.

PS - And now for my shameless Appeal to Authority:

'The Death Wish of the Anarcho-Communists' by Murray Rothbard
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard122.html

pcosmar
12-20-2010, 10:28 PM
Wow. So no laws against murder, rape, stealing? Murderers and rapists out on the street? That isn't libertarianism. That's anarchy.

Who said No Law. I didn't.
The police ARE NOT the law. The police are enforcers. They are a Standing Army.

We could certainly do away with 99% of the laws, But Murder, Assault, Fraud and Theft could be handled quite well without Police.
An Elected Sheriff backed up by an armed population would almost eliminate crime. Legalizing what is now prohibited would eliminate the Black Market and Organized crime.

All I said was that the Police (mercenaries) are unnecessary.

Brett85
12-20-2010, 10:52 PM
Who said No Law. I didn't.
The police ARE NOT the law. The police are enforcers. They are a Standing Army.

We could certainly do away with 99% of the laws, But Murder, Assault, Fraud and Theft could be handled quite well without Police.
An Elected Sheriff backed up by an armed population would almost eliminate crime. Legalizing what is now prohibited would eliminate the Black Market and Organized crime.

All I said was that the Police (mercenaries) are unnecessary.

I thought that Sheriffs were considered part of the police. I assumed that since you are opposed to the police that you're also opposed to prisons. Without prisons we would not be able to hold people for murder, assault, etc.

pcosmar
12-20-2010, 11:07 PM
I thought that Sheriffs were considered part of the police. I assumed that since you are opposed to the police that you're also opposed to prisons. Without prisons we would not be able to hold people for murder, assault, etc.

You are just full of false assumptions and flaunting your ignorance at the same time.
When did I ever say this?

No the Sheriff is not the police. It is an Elected Local Office.
Police came about from irresponsible people that looked for someone else to defend them and to enforce laws they were unwilling to enforce themselves. They are hired mercenaries.

mport1
12-20-2010, 11:08 PM
160, perfect score :) Wish more tests were that easy.

mport1
12-20-2010, 11:09 PM
Wow. So no laws against murder, rape, stealing? Murderers and rapists out on the street? That isn't libertarianism. That's anarchy.

Anarchy is libertarianism. It is the consistent application of the non aggression principle.

ClayTrainor
12-21-2010, 12:08 AM
RedStripe, I'm trying to understand your philosophy better, but I'm having kind of a tough time. Could you explain to me what the phrase "right-wing libertarian" means, because to me, it sounds contradictory, almost like "promiscuous virginity" or "atheistic Catholicism."

My guess would be, he's using that term to refer to those of us who aren't socialists.

Sentient Void
12-21-2010, 12:19 AM
160, perfect score :) Wish more tests were that easy.

Huzzah! And I was beginning to think I was the only one!

ivflight
12-21-2010, 02:15 AM
105

Whoever made this doesn't seem to understand the definition of libertarian. Anarchism is not libertarianism.

BuddyRey
12-21-2010, 03:13 AM
105

Whoever made this doesn't seem to understand the definition of libertarian. Anarchism is not libertarianism.

Libertarianism can be anarchic and anarchism can be libertarian; it's just that the two are not mutually inclusive.

mport1
12-21-2010, 03:47 AM
Huzzah! And I was beginning to think I was the only one!

Nope, you are not alone. Give it time and I'm sure many on these boards will start scoring higher over the years. Took me many years to shed my remaining statist ideas to embrace the consistent and moral voluntaryist philosophy. I have already seen many start shifting our way.

Wesker1982
12-21-2010, 04:10 AM
105

Whoever made this doesn't seem to understand the definition of libertarian. Anarchism is not libertarianism.

lol

treyfu
12-21-2010, 10:25 AM
If you scored 160 it means you answered yes to "should the state be abolished" therefore you are not a libertarian, you are an anarchist. This test is incorrectly titled

The logical end to the consistent application of libertarian philosophy is anarchism.

pcosmar
12-21-2010, 10:29 AM
The logical end to the consistent application of libertarian philosophy is anarchism.

Well then the test proves what I have said several times (in response to accusation)
I am not an anarchist.
:cool:

That won't stop authoritarian stateists from accusing me though.
:(

terp
12-21-2010, 11:15 AM
104

RyanRSheets
12-21-2010, 11:20 AM
160

Wesley123
12-21-2010, 11:59 AM
94
Not an anarchist, which knocked me down a bunch of points.

Brett85
12-21-2010, 12:00 PM
The logical end to the consistent application of libertarian philosophy is anarchism.

Libertarians like Ron Paul believe in the rule of law. He has never supported anarchy. They've always been two separate ideologies.

Travlyr
12-21-2010, 12:02 PM
Who said No Law. I didn't.
The police ARE NOT the law. The police are enforcers. They are a Standing Army.

We could certainly do away with 99% of the laws, But Murder, Assault, Fraud and Theft could be handled quite well without Police.
An Elected Sheriff backed up by an armed population would almost eliminate crime. Legalizing what is now prohibited would eliminate the Black Market and Organized crime.

All I said was that the Police (mercenaries) are unnecessary.
+ rep

Police came into the scene in the United States quickly after the Bankers (http://www.associatepublisher.com/e/n/na/national_banking_act.htm) destroyed the States (http://www.thedailybell.com/amazon-blood-money.asp).

The Massachusetts State Police was founded in September 1865, making it the oldest state-wide police agency in the United States.

Wesley123
12-21-2010, 12:06 PM
It's called the social contract, where government is set up to protect our rights. Look up John Locke.

I realize government sucks, but I'm going to wager that anarchy would be worse in a lot of ways. At least we can try to set up a government that isn't that bad, like America was for years.

denison
12-21-2010, 12:11 PM
At least we can try to set up a government that isn't that bad, like America was for years.
what year was that?

denison
12-21-2010, 12:19 PM
Libertarians like Ron Paul believe in the rule of law. He has never supported anarchy. They've always been two separate ideologies.

Since when does not have a state monopoly mean we wouldn't have the rule of law? The free market can provide for all of your security and arbitration needs.Prisons are unnecessay because only serious offenses would be prosecuted and if found guilty they'd be executed.

Basic laws against murder, assault, rape and theft would hold in any society that expected to survive more than one generation. Do you really think we would be lawless without government? What happened to people before government? What's happening in Somolia? Do you think all human decency and morality is tied up in goverment bureaucracy?

ChaosControl
12-21-2010, 12:21 PM
It's called the social contract, where government is set up to protect our rights. Look up John Locke.

I realize government sucks, but I'm going to wager that anarchy would be worse in a lot of ways. At least we can try to set up a government that isn't that bad, like America was for years.

American government has always been bad. Most all government in human history has been bad.
Is it possible for government to be good? Sure it is possible.
Has it happened in history for any significant period of time or in a country of any significant size? No.
I think good government is just as idealistic, if not moreso, than a well functioning anarchistic society.
The trick to either though is the same thing, decentralization and strong communities. The end of federalism.

Wesley123
12-21-2010, 12:22 PM
what year was that?

Probably any year since before the Civil War. More specifically, the years Washington was President. Jackson's presidency. Jefferson. Even the Colonial Era before the oppressive British taxation.

Heck, the most free places in America were those on the frontier, so let's include the entirety of the era of Westward expansion in there as well. America has had eras of freedom, but those years have never heralded fully realized libertarianism.

Madly_Sane
12-21-2010, 12:27 PM
Since when does not have a state monopoly mean we wouldn't have the rule of law? The free market can provide for all of your security and arbitration needs.Prisons are unnecessay because only serious offenses would be prosecuted and if found guilty they'd be executed.

Basic laws against murder, assault, rape and theft would hold in any society that expected to survive more than one generation. Do you really think we would be lawless without government? What happened to people before government? What's happening in Somolia? Do you think all human decency and morality is tied up in goverment bureaucracy?
Not saying you're wrong but, I wan't you to explain to me how I would have security (other than my weapons)? Just because there are basic laws, doesn't mean everyone will abide by them. There will always be the one person who will some sort of mental issue that just makes him/her crave killing people, how will I be protected?

denison
12-21-2010, 12:32 PM
Is it possible for government to be good? Sure it is possible.

Actually I don't think that's possible. The concept of a "government" as an institution, is an entity that has the only "legalized" right to use theft, corercion and violence to meet it's end goals.

Government can never be good in a moral or ethical sense.

denison
12-21-2010, 12:45 PM
Not saying you're wrong but, I wan't you to explain to me how I would have security (other than my weapons)? Protection agencies, security firms, neighborhood watch/patrol etc... what type of protection are your looking for?

What "protection" do you think the state is providing you that the free market can't?



Just because there are basic laws, doesn't mean everyone will abide by them.

Isn't that true now? There are crazy people now and there will be in a stateless society. Anarcho-capitalism isn't utopian, it's just alot better than what we have.




There will always be the one person who will some sort of mental issue that just makes him/her crave killing people, how will I be protected?

Yeah? Do you think the government is protecting you from those crazy people? If you're asking if there will be hospitals and mental health facilities in a ancap society the answer is yes.

edit:
Does the government protect you from serial killers? Do they walk you to work every morning and tuck you in at night? No entity, even the government, can protect you from every evil lurking around the corner. That's just how life is, you have to protect yourself.

But a private security firm or protection agency can provide you with a eqivalent "police protection".

pcosmar
12-21-2010, 12:51 PM
There will always be the one person who will some sort of mental issue that just makes him/her crave killing people, how will I be protected?

How are you protected now? You are not, other than by your own actions.

The police are no protection. In fact they are often a threat. Your own personal security is your own responsibility. As it is for your home and your community.

denison
12-21-2010, 12:56 PM
madly sane, you really should elaborate on what type of "protection" you think the government is giving you from serial killers.

Captain Shays
12-21-2010, 01:22 PM
Mine was 106. It said that I just entered the realm of hard core libertarians. I guess I'm an elite libertarian. woo hoo

I don't think we should reduce spending on national defense though I do believe we should stop policing the world. I want a strong defense. with lots of nuclear missiles, lots of tanks, bombs, guns and artillery. I think we should have a extensive civil defense system and a workable missile defense system. I think we should secure our borders, our international airports (which are technically borders with other countries) and inspect the 36,000 shipping containers that come into our country every day that don't get inspected. I also think we should work to arm EVERY able bodied person in the country and train them in the arts of war but I don't want the government to get involved in the militia. We the citizen should be able to have any kind of weapon that the military can have except for maybe nuclear weapons.

Sentient Void
12-21-2010, 06:03 PM
Libertarians like Ron Paul believe in the rule of law. He has never supported anarchy. They've always been two separate ideologies.

Incorrect. Ron Paul is a closet anarchist - he has agreed in interviews with anarcho-capitalists and voluntaryists that the ultimate goal is a truly voluntary society and that's what he's working towards.

He has also cited Murray Rothbard (*the* anarcho-capitalist) numerous times in the 2007-2008 debates, in speeches, interviews, etc.

I, like he, believe that minarchism and the rule of law of limited government (the US Constitution) is merely preferable to other forms of government and much moreso than what we have now, and is a potential stepping stone to a truly free society.

Though of course there are libertarians who simply support a limited government rule of law, minarchism, etc... a very minimalist government - after all, libertarianism is a very wide spectrum.

But as someone pointed out, when you take the concept and even practicality of liberty to it's logical conclusion - you end up with anarchocapitalism. Which is really nothing other than a truly 100% capitalist society, with private enterprise filling in for the role of government in every aspect and service the government provides. All elements of risk would be handled by insurance agencies, defense / police by private defense agencies, law through private arbitration, and punishment would be focused on making the victim whole (and doling out appropriate eye-for-an-eye retribution, as well as potentially indentured servitude to criminals in some cases, depending on proportionality) as opposed to making the victim endure the crime, then make the victim pay for the courts through lawyers and taxation, then make the victim pay for the potentially lifelong incarceration of the criminal through taxation, and on and on. But I digress...

Read some Rothbard, Hoppe, Block, Ruwart, et al

and +rep for denison for well-thought out and accurate responses to recent 'objections'.

oyarde
12-21-2010, 06:18 PM
what year was that?

1790 ??

ClayTrainor
12-21-2010, 06:24 PM
Incorrect. Ron Paul is a closet anarchist - he has agreed in interviews with anarcho-capitalists and voluntaryists that the ultimate goal is a truly voluntary society and that's what he's working towards.

He has also cited Murray Rothbard (*the* anarcho-capitalist) numerous times in the 2007-2008 debates, in speeches, interviews, etc.

I, like he, believe that minarchism and the rule of law of limited government (the US Constitution) is merely preferable to other forms of government and much moreso than what we have now, and is a potential stepping stone to a truly free society.

MHD: I know you stand for the Constitution, but what do you say to people that advocate for self government rather than a return to the Constitution?

Ron Paul: Great, fine, I think that's really what my goal is...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFYRHZpavX4

nayjevin
12-21-2010, 06:57 PM
Any system of rules to which all members agree is 100% fair. Less agreement is less fair. More people you have, the less agreement. So it comes down to how much disagreement with the law of the land will be tolerated before the rule structure is changed, by hook or by crook. If the rulemakers have a monopoly on forcing behavior, it can get ugly. If those who are to abide by the rules can defend themselves from being treated unfairly (courts, 2nd amendment), justice can last for a time.

Brett85
12-21-2010, 07:29 PM
Incorrect. Ron Paul is a closet anarchist - he has agreed in interviews with anarcho-capitalists and voluntaryists that the ultimate goal is a truly voluntary society and that's what he's working towards.

Ron Paul has a very conservative voting record when it comes to illegal immigration, supported the FEDERAL ban on partial birth abortion, supports a missile defense system, etc. Ron Paul seems like more of a conservative leaning libertarian to me rather than any kind of anarchist.

http://www.ontheissues.org/ron_paul.htm

denison
12-22-2010, 12:55 PM
where's madly.........

Brett85
12-22-2010, 01:01 PM
Since I scored a 73 on this, which is a medium core libertarian, is that proof enough that I'm not a statist?

faithfulfriend
12-22-2010, 01:13 PM
I scored a 134.

One issue I've noticed that divides the "pure" libertarian from the perhaps "unpure" libertarians is the issue of immigration. I personally don't believe we should encourage illegal immigration like our government does now, and all illegals should be sent home in my view. We need to protect our borders, perhaps by bringing all of our troops home overseas and placing some at the Canadian/Mexican borders.

Jefferson, Hamilton, and Franklin didn't like the idea of mass immigration according to 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed To Ask.

ChaosControl
12-22-2010, 01:15 PM
Actually I don't think that's possible. The concept of a "government" as an institution, is an entity that has the only "legalized" right to use theft, corercion and violence to meet it's end goals.

Government can never be good in a moral or ethical sense.

I've kind of grown tired of the hyperbole like this. It isn't theft and coercion if it is what the society desires. And there are many things to factor in.
I strongly oppose the kind of corrupt governments we have now and that have existed, but as an ideal it is possible for there to be one that is good and actually is beneficial to society.

QueenB4Liberty
12-22-2010, 01:24 PM
The only question I responded "no" to was":

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

I don't think so. Some anarchists like to say that using violence again the state is morally permissible because the state is aggressing upon them daily. However, my objection to that is that the "state" cannot aggress upon anyone, no more than the number 3. The state is an abstraction, it's a collective. Only individuals can aggress upon other individuals. A person would be morally justified in defending themselves from a specific individual who is aggressing upon them and incidently from the state, but to make it a general moral dictum that any representative of the state is subject to violence I think is wrong.

And even if it were, I think non-violent means should be the first line of resistance (and possibly the only means).

I don't think the question was meant to imply that if a Congress critter screws you over, killing a postal worker would be okay. I think it'd be more like, a Congress person wrote a bill to confiscate 100% of your income, to name a wild hypothetical. I'd say that'd pretty hardcore aggression worthy of some sort of retaliation, not necessarily violence.

Wesker1982
12-22-2010, 01:36 PM
:)

The idea of a strictly limited constitutional State was a noble expiriment that failed, even under the most favorable and propitious circumstances. It failed then, why should a similar expiriment far any better now? No, it is the conservative laissez-fairist, the man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, "Limit yoruself"; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian. -Murray Rothbard

heavenlyboy34
12-22-2010, 01:47 PM
I've kind of grown tired of the hyperbole like this. It isn't theft and coercion if it is what the society desires. And there are many things to factor in.
I strongly oppose the kind of corrupt governments we have now and that have existed, but as an ideal it is possible for there to be one that is good and actually is beneficial to society.

This (bolded) is patently absurd. You are making an argument for pure democracy-one of the most corrupt and violent systems ever tried. When we say "society can override ANYTHING an individual does for what (the fictional collective called) society wants", that's a very quick road to tyranny of the majority.

TheBlackPeterSchiff
12-22-2010, 02:02 PM
154...............

TruckinMike
12-22-2010, 02:05 PM
Your Libertarian Purity Score

Your score is...

95

I answered in context to the world I live in today. I am a Constitutionalist first, then a voluntaryist.

MaxPower
12-22-2010, 02:20 PM
I scored a 110. There were some issues I was more or less on the fence about, mind you, and a lot of them on which I had more nuanced positions than could be expressed through a simple "Yes/No" bubble selection. It's really more of an anarchist than libertarian purity test; one must espouse total anarchism in order to achieve a perfect score. It is an interesting survey nonetheless.

Travlyr
12-22-2010, 02:31 PM
So according to these polling numbers:

~ 2/3 of the people here lean toward limited government.
~ 1/3 of the people here lean toward an anarchist society.


Is either society achievable with fiat paper money?

Sentient Void
12-22-2010, 06:43 PM
I scored a 134.

One issue I've noticed that divides the "pure" libertarian from the perhaps "unpure" libertarians is the issue of immigration. I personally don't believe we should encourage illegal immigration like our government does now, and all illegals should be sent home in my view. We need to protect our borders, perhaps by bringing all of our troops home overseas and placing some at the Canadian/Mexican borders.

Jefferson, Hamilton, and Franklin didn't like the idea of mass immigration according to 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed To Ask.

So what are your reasons for opposing mass immigration? More labor = more productivity = more wealth creation for all. The only quasi-legitimate argument I see in opposition to maximizing the allowance of immigration is the issue of the welfare state which I obviously support winding down first, then opening up the borders. But even then - literally only 4% or so of welfare money goes to illegal immigrants, so it's not as serious a problem as people make out (though I consider that still a problem, but then again welfare is a problem period). The rest goes to american citizens.

Ultimately - prohibition doesn't work. In regards to voluntary exchange between consenting adults, tt doesn't matter whether we're talking about drug prohibition, alcohol prohibition, gambling prohibition, prostitution prohibition, or even immigration prohibition. As we've seen, if there is a demand for something - it will be met, one way or another. If it's completely banned or regulated / taxed enough, it will simply be driven underground into a black market, which surrounds the activity with crime, and reduces quality. The same is the case with illegal immigration as it was with alcohol prohibition, and is with drug prohibition.

ivflight
12-22-2010, 07:17 PM
Those of you saying that anarchism is the next step past libertarianism, or that anarchism is the most pure philosophy, that's fine, whatever. The test professes to measure how LIBERTARIAN one is, and it doesn't do that very well. A pure libertarian would not score 160 on this test. This test ignores the definition of the word "libertarian", and makes useless the word "anarchist". Don't confuse a semantics problem with a philosophical one.

Sentient Void
12-22-2010, 07:49 PM
/null

farrar
12-22-2010, 08:17 PM
It's called the social contract, where government is set up to protect our rights. Look up John Locke.

I realize government sucks, but I'm going to wager that anarchy would be worse in a lot of ways. At least we can try to set up a government that isn't that bad, like America was for years.

Look into somalia before anarchy. You may not agree that anarchy is better than all government, but it has certainly been an improvement there. 28% who had access to hostpitals before anarchy, are now over 50%. GDPpc was $1 a day, now it is $2 and rising. A country that once had a plane now has 16 airports. They now have a university. they have the best telecommunications industry in africa and in much of the world.

Remember that anarchy doesn't mean no law, it means no government. Locke's theory still has some grounds for an anarchist, if you choose to believe that individuals can come together with a common intrest of security from offenders agreeing on what laws to follow. Some anarco-capitalists would argue that this will happen in the market place. It is not exactly Locke's theory but it does have a similar ring to it.


what year was that?

LMAO... :(

farrar
12-22-2010, 08:28 PM
Those of you saying that anarchism is the next step past libertarianism, or that anarchism is the most pure philosophy, that's fine, whatever. The test professes to measure how LIBERTARIAN one is, and it doesn't do that very well. A pure libertarian would not score 160 on this test. This test ignores the definition of the word "libertarian", and makes useless the word "anarchist". Don't confuse a semantics problem with a philosophical one.

You bring up an interesting point, how do you define a libertarian. And who has the "right" to determine which of the hundereds of diffrent answers we might get is right? As I mentioned earlier I am a bit weary of this test because it asserts that a pure libertarian is an anarco-capitalist. While I consider myself an anarco-capitalist, I also understand that it is an issue of semantics and there are valid issues to be taken with it. I would argue that there are two answers to what a pure libertarian is: 1)anarco-capitalist and 2) anarco-socialist. However, the test only accomidated the anarco-capitalist, and it assumed that with a definition not all would agree too (whether it be my definition or yours). I think the test needs a Disclaimer or a Notice.

Athena
12-22-2010, 08:33 PM
I scored a 54. I'm one of those depressed civil libertarian leftists who opposes the international banking cartel and the permanent war economy and sees Ron Paul and the libertarian thing as the most realistic end to this current tyranny. I don't think the traditional left/right paradigm applies any more. This is new territory, IMO, that was not predicted by any of the futurists, and all thinking Americans need to wake up and fight our new banking aristocrats.
I'm willing to put aside my beliefs about the moral good of progressive taxation if doing so will kill the bankers' hold over the economy and the military industrial complex.

Sentient Void
12-22-2010, 08:47 PM
I scored a 54. I'm one of those depressed civil libertarian leftists who opposes the international banking cartel and the permanent war economy and sees Ron Paul and the libertarian thing as the most realistic end to this current tyranny. I don't think the traditional left/right paradigm applies any more. This is new territory, IMO, that was not predicted by any of the futurists, and all thinking Americans need to wake up and fight our new banking aristocrats.
I'm willing to put aside my beliefs about the moral good of progressive taxation if doing so will kill the bankers' hold over the economy and the military industrial complex.

I love it. +rep

May I recommend a wonderful book to help give you a great start on understanding the economics side of things? I started with it myself - 'Economics in One Lesson' by Henry Hazlitt

ivflight
12-22-2010, 08:52 PM
You bring up an interesting point, how do you define a libertarian. And who has the "right" to determine which of the hundereds of diffrent answers we might get is right? As I mentioned earlier I am a bit weary of this test because it asserts that a pure libertarian is an anarco-capitalist. While I consider myself an anarco-capitalist, I also understand that it is an issue of semantics and there are valid issues to be taken with it. I would argue that there are two answers to what a pure libertarian is: 1)anarco-capitalist and 2) anarco-socialist. However, the test only accomidated the anarco-capitalist, and it assumed that with a definition not all would agree too (whether it be my definition or yours). I think the test needs a Disclaimer or a Notice.

I don't even think we're within the realm of realistic disagreement on these words. I'm not aware of any person or group that uses the word "libertarian" to mean absolutely zero govt. If someone does use it that way, I'm sure they'll also readily admit that most other libertarians do not (check the test results).

Sentient Void
12-22-2010, 09:28 PM
I don't even think we're within the realm of realistic disagreement on these words. I'm not aware of any person or group that uses the word "libertarian" to mean absolutely zero govt. If someone does use it that way, I'm sure they'll also readily admit that most other libertarians do not (check the test results).

From wikipedia:

Also identified is a large faction advocating minarchism, though libertarianism has also long been associated with anarchism (and sometimes is used as a synonym for such), especially outside of the United States.[6] Anarchism remains one of the significant branches of libertarianism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

farrar
12-23-2010, 12:22 AM
I don't even think we're within the realm of realistic disagreement on these words.
Oh, is that why there has been mutiple descusions about it on these forums? There is realistic disagreement on these words. Politics has to many demensions for us to assume that a word that defines a segment of it is the same for everyone. Not to mention that the nature of language is to communicate ideas and feelings not absolutes. This isn't a computer program, People use words the way they think or feel they need to be used. An example of this is how many libertarians call themselves concervatives. To most mainstream "conservatives" that is a farce.

Also there is a huge diffrence between libertarian and Libertarian. The big L signifies more Ron Paul esque thinking. the little "l" siginifes really anything that is compatible with believing in liberty.


I'm not aware of any person or group that uses the word "libertarian" to mean absolutely zero govt. If someone does use it that way, I'm sure they'll also readily admit that most other libertarians do not (check the test results).

That is what I am recognising, and certainly didn't need the test results for that.

Some may say a libertarian is someone who simply believes in liberty. In such a definition it doesn't matter why or to what extent, but only that liberty is a concern. This would qualify most everyone who isn't in government.

Some may say a libertarian is someone who wants less government. In such a definition it doesn't matter much of what kind of government as it does that it is out of the way of their lives.

Some may say a libertarian is someone who believes in the rule of law. Like a republic with a constitution.

Some may say a libertarian is someone who believes every individual is free to make decisions for themselves without the interference of others.

some may say.............

------

Even though, as I stated earlier, I am weary of defining pure libertariansim I do know why many believe anarco-capitalism is. The idea is that many libertarians when comfronted with "well, if taxes are so bad why have any at all? *snears* Anarchist...?" many shy off and say things like "Well its a necessary evil". They often say the same with government. Anarco-capitalists say that there is no necessary evil. There should be No taxes and no government. Now, if you want to play semantics, there is a pretty good argument here. Pure can also mean no evil. If libertarians are willing to accept some evil, and anarco-capitalists who also dislike government and taxes are not willing to accept any at all then they are arguably "pure". In this sense the less government and taxes and tryanny you accept the more refined a libertarian you are. That is in part, why I am an anarco-capitalist. I am not willing to accept anything I don't have to, especially evil or immorality. I think such a society would function very well, but even if it didn't I would still believe in it because of my refusal to accept efficientcy over morality. I am an Anarco-capitalist because Morality is my major concern, and I can also see how many anarchists who agree with me, may want to use that as an example as to why they are pure. Many libertarians who do not like anarchy are libertarians because they think it is more efficient to have some government over alot or none, and would change there minds to whatever tune seemed most efficient at the time.

economics102
12-23-2010, 12:53 AM
105.

Definitely not on-board with the whole privatizing police/courts/law, etc. If that's what a "pure libertarian" is then I'm not ready to be one :)

NYgs23
12-23-2010, 08:30 AM
I got 158. I disagreed that government-funded vouchers are better than government-managed services.

The state is inherently coercive and coercion is always wrong. That's all anyone should have to know before concluding that the state should be abolished.

osan
12-23-2010, 11:47 AM
This is how police were created. Abandoning your own personal responsibility to others.
This Fails.

This is hiring a mercenary to do your killing for you.

+ fukkin' 1 + d00d. This is SO on the money.

Bryan
12-23-2010, 12:57 PM
I took the test and would say that some of the questions are not inline with what I would consider libertarianism, but I guess it depends upon ones arbitrary definition.

For example, the questions about "Should the state be abolished?" - I would consider the most libertarian response to be "No", because saying "Yes" would mean that you are imposing your will for there not to be a "state" onto others, exactly how is that libertarian? It's much more libertarian to let other people self-organize as they wish.

That applies equally for some of the other questions as well, such as others can create a military if they wish. How is it libertarian to tell others they can't self-organize a military? There are a number of other similar problems with the test as well.

BTW, I got a 94, all due to flawed questions. IMO, this definition of libertarianism, where one imposes their will to prevent others from self-organizing, is very destructive to our goals. I wouldn't recommend this test for anyone.

Bryan
12-23-2010, 01:00 PM
The state is inherently coercive and coercion is always wrong. That's all anyone should have to know before concluding that the state should be abolished.
So if someone killed your loved ones, than any form of coercion against the killer is wrong? What difference does it make if the coercion comes from you, your neighbors, your home owners association or some other arbitrary "state"?

pcosmar
12-23-2010, 01:01 PM
I took the test and would say that some of the questions are not inline with what I would consider libertarianism,
^^
That was my view.
It is more an Anarchist Purity Test.

I repeat, I am not an anarchist.
This test proved only that.
;)

osan
12-23-2010, 01:18 PM
Note that I didn't say that coercion itself could be good, I said that a coercive government could do good things.

Ah, I did not read it that way. I'm sure it is my failure. Sorry.

Let me ask you this in response: what of it? All the good one does can be undone with but a single act. I guess I am unsure of your point in mentioning it.


This doesn't at all preclude that same good thing coming about through market forces, but only that sometimes the mandatory association of the state does some things that are beneficial.

I view proper governance as a strictly reactive event. Proper officials remain quiescent until something "wrong" happens and then they begin with investigation. If their queries reveal cause for action, then they move substantively to the purpose.

Proactive governance is, IMO and by definition, evil. What I do believe would serve a proper governing purpose is for officials, through precedent, to develop and publish lists of actions that are likely to expose individuals and groups thereof to governance (prosecution mainly or perhaps exclusively(?)). In such ways people engaging in activities that, if they go wrong, are likely to lead to governing actions such as prosecution. IMO this applies to individual and group behavior vis-a-vis formal corporate activity, which would be more closely circumscribed in some respects.

This difference in levels of governance seems reasonable to me. People can do more and be less observed than corporations. If they cause harm, they are immediately and personally accountable. In the corporate world there would be some advantage in that certain personal actions by employees would be protected in terms of personal accountability, which would be transferred to the corporation. The downside would be stricter monitoring and control. This is the trade-off people would have to make when making a decision to act as an individual or as the instrument of a corporate entity.


As the prime example, the state adopting common law property and tort rules to resolve disputes was a "good" thing - the rules were developed in a market manner, and work to defend individuals from aggression.

I can accept this, all else equal.


Even though everyone has been coerced into giving allegiance and tax money to the system, which is bad, the enforcement of these rules amongst the ruled gives incentives and results that approximate the complete protection of the individual from aggression (thus preserving as amongst each other the expression of each individual's values).

Coercion in this case be badness, IMO, particularly at the prevailing extortionate rates.


Basically anything that the state does that would have occurred in its absence I can see as a "good" thing. But of course these instances are very few, and doesn't excuse the forced obedience the state demands.

MAy I once again admonish against such references to "the state"? It is but an abstraction in our minds. "The state" demands nothing because there is no state to begin with. Some group of individual human beings is doing the demanding and has men with guns who will enforce their arbitrary and criminal demands.




I agree that violence isn't the solution

Violence has its place, do not fool yourself. It is, however, the last resort of all last resorts, to be taken up only when one's back is against a wall. I have no problem with people taking up arms to free themselves from tyranny. None whatsoever. I have no problem with them killing those who violate them. The problem I have, however, is the propensity (almost universal) of people so acting to sail across the boundaries of propriety well into the territory of their own tyranny and injustice. Once loosed, the monster is difficult to stuff back into his cage.

Consider the ultimate of Ceauscescu in Romania. People found him and killed him fair-gruesome. I have ZERO problem with what they did. I even applaud it to be frank. Had they continued on to do the same with people who had committed no such crimes, that is where the trouble begins. Just look at how the French Revolution devolved into the Terror. THAT is the problem with vigilantism - the other side of the coin. I believe this is inherent to the nature of the human being and all we can do is our best.



What about "self-help" evictions? What if your tenant in a strip mall was a local branch of the Secretary of State and they hadn't paid rent for two years, but the local courts wouldn't issue an eviction notice either because of some "immunity" clause or by personal favor to the local magistrate that wasn't receiving the funds from the state to pay his bills?

There are many problems with what you describe, obviously, not the least of which is simple corruption. Killing the people there.... I can see it in some circumstances, but it would be highly risky business. Opening their doors and tossing all their shit on the street, while not as risky, will still likely net you prison. Corruption can be a bugger.

Knowing what might happen, you might consider not leasing to government as a matter of policy, or adding stipulations to the rental agreement that you are entitled to physically enter and remove all their materials in the event rent is more than 30 days past due. If they don't like those stipulations, let them go elsewhere. This raises the issue of responsibility being a two-way street in that, given the rank corruption of our system of governance, one is obliged to take all circumspect and prudent precautions when engaging in business transactions with governing agencies.


Further, why is the socialized decider trusted to make the right decisions about when justice is proper?

Because on the whole we are sloth-ridden and stupid, preferring our flavor of slavery to freedom because it is easier to do so.


Especially since the only recourse available to someone who believes the court's decision was wrong was to appeal to a court that is part of the very same institution?


Great point. I am well convinced that a far better system of governance can be contrived. My new Constitution, such as it currently finds itself, corrects these sorts of problems. There is less than zero percent chanceof anything like it ever becoming the framework by which people live, but I have enjoyed the challenge of the intellectual exercise.



The "anarchic" solution doesn't give free reign to any vigilante group to seek justice however they wish - it simply says that all groups seeking justice must be accountable to all other groups offering the service of justice.

I would say there is a better than even chance that such a system would inevitably lead to feudalism as people formed factions to defend against what they consider the trespass of other groups. What is needed is governance not by law so much as by principle. All law must kneel to the principles of liberty IMO if a nation's people are to be free. Anarchism is a clusterfuck waiting to happening because there appears to be no unifying principles underlying it to which all people would adhere. Imagine Johnny kills Jimmy. He claims self defense. Fair enough, except that there is a group claiming otherwise and want him prosecuted. Who investigates? Who decides whether to prosecute? The free market? To whom is "the market" accountable?

Now consider the situation where the Go Johnny faction says "no way" to prosecution and cloisters him from the No Johnny faction who want him in prison or his head on a platter. How does that get resolved? The "market"? I don't think so. Go Johnny and No Johnny hold equal authority in an anarchy and so in this case the answer is perdicated on circumstance such as who has custody of Johnny, as well as material means - who has the better weaponry, and who is most determined.

What happens then if the No Johnny gang decide to take him by force and try him? Now you have two groups holing up in their respective castles and guess what: FEUDALISM in the flesh.

HOw would anarchy avoid this? I don't see how it can be done in a truly anarchic nation.

Formal means of governance are necessary to the sorts of results I believe even we here want. The problem lies not with governance per se, but with mens' hearts and minds. Minarchy seems to me to be the far more practically ivable alternative. We do NOT have to have much governance. Living freely entails a LOT of maintenance work and pretty well demands it from everyone. Therein lies the trouble because people are lazy and want all this done for them by someone else to they will have more time to jerk off to their net.porn. This is why we are now living in a quasi-fascist security state. This is our fault and the bitter truth is that we will most likely have to resort to killing people and risk being killed in order to become free. That is way fucked up, IMO.


However if a large and powerful group wishes to take your property for what they deem "the public good" in an anarchic vigilante system, they would have to be prepared to defend their claim of justness to a truly independent third party, and the court making their decision would have to make sure that the principles that they used were unassailable by any other court that may hear the case and wouldn't give the trial court any deference as being a part of the same institutional structure.

Could you please explain this in painful detail? I don't see how this is possible. Of what courts do you speak? In an anarchic culture? That defies the very definition of the term, does it not? Please illuminate because I am not getting it.



One of my biggest fears about an anarchic system of laws is this precarious balance of ensuring due process so that violence isn't resorted to unnecessarily. But it always helps to ask what the government alternative is, and how open to abuse is that system. In the end I would much rather rely on private justice agencies that must respond to voluntary financing than an entrenched political system that at most faces the possibility that the appellate court will overturn their holding - with no threat of lost revenue or reputation.

Your thinking cap is indeed on. I suggest the answer is NOT anarchy, but minarchy. But again, to work properly, a huge proportion of the people must satisfy two conditions: understanding and agreeing upon the set of fundamental principles by which all action is judged, and actively working to ensure that those principles are adhered to by all. This is asking a LOT of people, considering the prevailng attitudes these days.


Edited to add: here's a hypothetical: Assume tax collection is made physically by agents and that the booty is transported by truck to D.C.. Further assume that a truck has a flat tire in front of your house, and the driver and assistant have left the hatch unlocked to get the spare tire out. During the changing of the tire both agents take their union mandated lunch and leave the money unattended. Do you take the money and redistribute it to the taxpayers if you know that the government won't come back to take the money again? However far-fetched, I think this was the point of the purity-test question.

I am afraid your point is completely lost on me. Please forgive my rather high density.

osan
12-23-2010, 01:25 PM
I'm with Pete.
In addition, you are not describing police. Well, you were with the gestappo.
The role of the police would not exist in a free society.
Police are not guards. They aren't even sheriffs.
What they are is predators. They're hyenas.
They circle around society, looking for an easy kill. 'Cause they sure as fuck ain't going for the hard ones.
They fight with the other predators over who gets the kill.
After they've filled their bellies, they leave, without an ounce of give-a-shit for how they've affected the herd.
They've done what they do, and that's all that matters.listening.


Kudos D00d. Well stated. Perfect encapsulation.

ivflight
12-23-2010, 01:33 PM
From wikipedia:

Also identified is a large faction advocating minarchism, though libertarianism has also long been associated with anarchism (and sometimes is used as a synonym for such), especially outside of the United States.[6] Anarchism remains one of the significant branches of libertarianism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

The test was specifically about United States politics, so let's assume a United States definition of words. I think the test results and other responses to this thread are proving my point. Ron Paul, Milton Friedman, and others who call themselves libertarians would not score anywhere near a 160.

osan
12-23-2010, 01:49 PM
I suppose the more CAPS in a post the more LOGICAL and INTELLIGENT it becomes? lol jk.

Glad you're straight on that point. :)


But in all seriousness I understand what you are saying, but I would also argue that whether or not government is just with its monopoly on force isn't much of an issue either.

No monopolies in my world - certainly not on force. In the world in which I am king, those discharging duties of governance had best watch themselves in that capacity because they would in no way be immune to the requirements of propriety. Let that be clearly understood.

No matter what system one chooses, things can in principle become problems. Once again the broken record repeats itself: systems of governance are only as good as the people living under them. When sloth and corruption take over, doom soon follows. Welcome to the USA, 2010. :(


Its the fact that government is a monopoly you cannot advert. You must pay taxes or go to jail, you must contribute to the system or face consequences.

We agree but I have lost the point.


Even if Government is just, maybe I like dictatorships? Perhaps I want a Democracy, or a republic, or a communist like entity to obey and contribute too.

THen have one - privately. Keep yer mitts off those who do not consent. It is actually easy to do once once releases their kamikaze death grip on ideas such as one-size-fits-all, the greatest good for the greatest number, and other such utterly false notions.


Government doesn't allow this, you must subscribe to it as is.

To some degree this is an absolute requirement even for we who love liberty. If we set into place a truly free system of living, it will succeed only if defended with the threat of force against those who would violate the rights of others. In this respect, force and the threat thereof is unavoidable. If I do not defend liberty with force and the threat of it, the parasites will take it from me.

Yes, it is a paradox. We need to get over that bit. :)


In an ancap society, I can voluntarily form, subscribe to, or reject any of these systems and a variety of others including self-government. The key is that one does not force any individual to contribute to anything, you can associate yourself with whatever group or laws you wish.

Yet you still need a mechanism for defending yourself against the predations of others or your freedom will die very young. This is one of the baseline issues I have yet to see addressed adequately by the anarchists. If there is a satisfactory model for maintaining the baseline freedom to choose and be unmolested by others, as well as to deal with those who do trespass, I am all all eyes. Seriously, I would be very interested in learning about it because I don't see it. Perhaps there is some subtle twist I have not been able to riddle free.


I agree that quantity probably isn't as important as character but I understand why it is used. The more government the less decisions the individual gets to make, and the more force that is used. Its an rough and indirect measure of coercion but a measure none the less.

I agree that quantity is not a completely invalid criterion for evaluating governance. It is, however, misapplied in analytical arguments and often results in some serious failures. Just pointing it out as something of which people should be aware when considering such questions.

osan
12-23-2010, 01:55 PM
I would take your diatribe(s) more seriously if we didn't already go over the vast majority of every point you just made and why you're patently wrong. You claim to have previously been an anarcho-capitalist, but it's clear you either weren't one *period* - or you were just a horrible one with only a superficial understanding at best.

Look, I'm sick of repeating myself with you, RedStripe. Not to mention that the majority of your post was full of personal attacks and vast *arbitrary* claims of truth - as if it becomes reality by your very word. ::rolleyes::

Yeah, yeah - we get it. You hate the concept of sticky property and advocate property theft as just. You deem even *voluntary* interactions and exchanges as unjust, and advocate coercion and theft accordingly. To you, the labor-employee relationship is unjust and illegitimate, the landlord-renter is unjust and illegitimate, and the property owner is unjust and illegitimate. Good luck with the 'coordination problem' and 'information problem', as well as the simple contradictions regarding forcing people through violence to not interact voluntarily with eachother. Good luck accumulating, distributing and effectively using limited scarce resources. You'll need it.

Thickism is the real joke. All you left-anarchists' heads are exploding in anger because the ancap philosophy is growing at rates that absolutely blow yours out of the water - and you don't know wtf to do about it.

Libertarian Thickism FAIL.

PS - And now for my shameless Appeal to Authority:

'The Death Wish of the Anarcho-Communists' by Murray Rothbard
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard122.html

Fuk me... this was one funny post. When you are on, you are REALLY on. "Libertarian Thickism FAIL." I think you need rep for that. Had tea been in my mouth, you'd being owing me a new monitor. In fact, think I shit in my pants just a little.

osan
12-23-2010, 01:59 PM
I thought that Sheriffs were considered part of the police. I assumed that since you are opposed to the police that you're also opposed to prisons. Without prisons we would not be able to hold people for murder, assault, etc.

WTF?! What would lead you to such an idea? Sheriffs predate the police by centuries. Police are without a doubt worth less than nothing.

osan
12-23-2010, 02:03 PM
Huzzah! And I was beginning to think I was the only one!

Shoot, I did 160. It was easy, given the nature of the questions and the structure. Too easy to figure out what the author was looking for. Bad test mainly.

HRD53
12-23-2010, 02:03 PM
I got a 70. Not quite at the level of you hardcore libertarian wack-jobs :) I kid, I kid...

osan
12-23-2010, 02:12 PM
It isn't theft and coercion if it is what the society desires.

Society has desires? Please demonstrate this. Last I checked, "society" was but a conceptual abstraction representing a collection of people living in some undefined proximity to one another. Assuming this is true, to assert that a concept has desires is strongly indicative of a profound misunderstanding... that or far too much LSD consumption with the morning coffee. But if you can demonstrate how I am wrong on this point, I eagerly await enlightenment.

That aside, you appear to be advocating mob rule. IN a population of 1 million, if 999,999 want X but 1 does not, does it follow that it is justified for that majority to force it upon the corresponding minority of one? If yes, please explain because I don't see it.


I strongly oppose the kind of corrupt governments we have now and that have existed, but as an ideal it is possible for there to be one that is good and actually is beneficial to society.

I suspect it may be so, but how does governance by force accord with this?

Travlyr
12-23-2010, 02:14 PM
Police protect banking interests... that's their job. They were invented shortly after the banks took control in the National Banking Act of 1863. (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3406400620.html) The Massachusetts State Police was founded in September 1865, making it the oldest state-wide police agency in the United States.

The job of the elected sheriff is to capture violators of the law to present them before a judge and jury for justice and restitution.

Captain Shays
12-23-2010, 02:14 PM
105.

Definitely not on-board with the whole privatizing police/courts/law, etc. If that's what a "pure libertarian" is then I'm not ready to be one :)


Yeah that's where I jumped off the boat too.

osan
12-23-2010, 02:17 PM
Those of you saying that anarchism is the next step past libertarianism, or that anarchism is the most pure philosophy, that's fine, whatever. The test professes to measure how LIBERTARIAN one is, and it doesn't do that very well. A pure libertarian would not score 160 on this test. This test ignores the definition of the word "libertarian", and makes useless the word "anarchist". Don't confuse a semantics problem with a philosophical one.

This is pretty friggin' well stated.

I scored 160 based on satisfying what I believed the author was looking for.

When I pulled out my other self, 134. But because the test is pretty poor in so many places, I consider these scores to be largely meaningless.

Wesker1982
12-23-2010, 02:18 PM
If you have faith that the majority of people are wise and virtuous enough to run the courts and police now, I don't see why that would change without a state.

osan
12-23-2010, 02:20 PM
I scored a 54. I'm one of those depressed civil libertarian leftists who opposes the international banking cartel and the permanent war economy and sees Ron Paul and the libertarian thing as the most realistic end to this current tyranny. I don't think the traditional left/right paradigm applies any more. This is new territory, IMO, that was not predicted by any of the futurists, and all thinking Americans need to wake up and fight our new banking aristocrats.
I'm willing to put aside my beliefs about the moral good of progressive taxation if doing so will kill the bankers' hold over the economy and the military industrial complex.

Very good.

Sentient Void
12-23-2010, 02:44 PM
Hey Osan, I'm curious about the reworked constitution you put together. Anywhere I can check it out? I've thought about playing with the intellectual exercise of putting one together myself.

Although I am an Ancap and see a 100% pure capitalist market-based society as the *ideal* to always work towards, I would of course not be against a 'rule of law' that was much more specific and protective of property rights and individual liberty than the US Constitution and it's failure / shortcomings, while restraining 'the mob'.

I'm concerned though because a clear, strict and simple constitution protecting full-on property and individual rights without an amendment ability, I fear would be simply eventually scrapped in favor of a really bad one (at the will of an emotional and/or ignorant mob), but *with* an amendment ability - it's clear that we end up with where we're at now. This is one of the many reasons I feel that 'limited government' is a unicorn that will always over time result in big government.

Such a Constitution would somehow have to be weak enough (that being, extremely weak in regards to government authority over the economy) to allow private property and capitalism to create and provide for solid services like private defense, insurance, etc to protect against a growth of government, but strong enough to not be scrapped in favor of a mob adopting what would be a very over-reaching new constitution/form of government. This would have to be a verrry thin line I imagine to walk. Definitely an intellectual exercise indeed.

Ultimately, I agree that the type of government is largely irrelevant and it comes down to the will and principles of the people under it.

Wayreth
12-23-2010, 04:00 PM
152 It was a fun test and I had a few minor counterarguments although I can see what Caplan was aiming for.

libertybrewcity
12-23-2010, 06:30 PM
there are many ways to control private police. for example, take away their weapons.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese370.html

You could also get rid of paid leave for those accused of misusing their guns or many other things they can and often do do wrong.

NYgs23
12-24-2010, 10:32 AM
So if someone killed your loved ones, than any form of coercion against the killer is wrong? What difference does it make if the coercion comes from you, your neighbors, your home owners association or some other arbitrary "state"?

You are confused. "Coercion" refers to initiatory force, not retaliatory force. States are inherently coercive in that they exist as territorial monopolies of violence.

Fox McCloud
12-24-2010, 11:14 AM
160, of course.

Number19
12-24-2010, 02:01 PM
96

The one question which surprised me, having never encountered it before, is the rather absurd notion that civilian targets should be avoided during warfare. This is particularly incredulous when the civilian population has a say in the government and has some degree of responsibility in waging the war. The best example of this is the United States.

Madly_Sane
12-26-2010, 12:11 PM
madly sane, you really should elaborate on what type of "protection" you think the government is giving you from serial killers.
Why? I'm not defending the gov't or saying it does give me protection from serial killers

robert68
12-31-2010, 07:33 AM
96

The one question which surprised me, having never encountered it before, is the rather absurd notion that civilian targets should be avoided during warfare. This is particularly incredulous when the civilian population has a say in the government and has some degree of responsibility in waging the war. The best example of this is the United States.

Don’t see why that surprises you since it’s always been the libertarian position. Civilian populations aren’t collectively to blame for the actions of the state.

Theocrat
12-31-2010, 08:07 AM
51-90 points: You are a medium-core libertarian, probably self-consciously so. Your friends probably encourage you to quit talking about your views so much.

Travlyr
12-31-2010, 09:26 AM
51-90 points: You are a medium-core libertarian, probably self-consciously so. Your friends probably encourage you to quit talking about your views so much.
lolz ... You can quit talking about your views so much after we defeat the criminal cabal who suppresses our liberty, robs our treasury, and kills our brothers and sisters in wars for profit. Until then, keep up the good work!

osan
01-14-2011, 09:09 PM
Hey Osan, I'm curious about the reworked constitution you put together. Anywhere I can check it out? I've thought about playing with the intellectual exercise of putting one together myself.

Although I am an Ancap and see a 100% pure capitalist market-based society as the *ideal* to always work towards, I would of course not be against a 'rule of law' that was much more specific and protective of property rights and individual liberty than the US Constitution and it's failure / shortcomings, while restraining 'the mob'.

I'm concerned though because a clear, strict and simple constitution protecting full-on property and individual rights without an amendment ability, I fear would be simply eventually scrapped in favor of a really bad one (at the will of an emotional and/or ignorant mob), but *with* an amendment ability - it's clear that we end up with where we're at now. This is one of the many reasons I feel that 'limited government' is a unicorn that will always over time result in big government.

Such a Constitution would somehow have to be weak enough (that being, extremely weak in regards to government authority over the economy) to allow private property and capitalism to create and provide for solid services like private defense, insurance, etc to protect against a growth of government, but strong enough to not be scrapped in favor of a mob adopting what would be a very over-reaching new constitution/form of government. This would have to be a verrry thin line I imagine to walk. Definitely an intellectual exercise indeed.

Ultimately, I agree that the type of government is largely irrelevant and it comes down to the will and principles of the people under it.

I'll need an email address

nayjevin
02-06-2011, 02:36 AM
96

The one question which surprised me, having never encountered it before, is the rather absurd notion that civilian targets should be avoided during warfare. This is particularly incredulous when the civilian population has a say in the government and has some degree of responsibility in waging the war. The best example of this is the United States.

;0)

juvanya
02-06-2011, 02:50 AM
I think I only answered anti-libertarian on the public lands questions, because I was a bit iffy about privatizing those. However, I probably would support that if it was done properly.

156

osan
02-24-2011, 07:19 PM
But in all seriousness I understand what you are saying, but I would also argue that whether or not government is just with its monopoly on force isn't much of an issue either. Its the fact that government is a monopoly you cannot advert.

But here a salient issue is what is to be adverted. Taxes - OK, I'm on board. But what of murder laws? I am somewhat in favor of them because they seem to me to be eminently reasonable, though I am open to counter arguments as to why they are not.


You must pay taxes or go to jail, you must contribute to the system or face consequences.

We are in full agreement on this point. Not paying a tax is not a crime, all labeling to the contrary notwithstanding. Robbing a bank, however, is and persons engaging in such actions must be held accountable for their actions lest the world fall into even greater chaos.


Even if Government is just, maybe I like dictatorships? Perhaps I want a Democracy, or a republic, or a communist like entity to obey and contribute too. Government doesn't allow this, you must subscribe to it as is.

Once again this is the defacto truth, but things could be different. That they are not is a reflection of humanity and not of the concepts of governance. Governance per sé is not the problem - people are.


In an ancap society, I can voluntarily form, subscribe to, or reject any of these systems and a variety of others including self-government.

And in that society you will still have those who will do their best to master you. When things come down to brass tacks, your ability to wreak untold violence upon such persons is the only reasonable guarantee that you will be able to keep them at bay, and even then you are always at risk. How else would you protect your rights in such a culture, particularly if there was a large and powerful group interfering with you? How would you protect your rights? Help from neighbors? Perhaps, but what if those neighbors were not interested in getting involved? In the end, these matters always boil down to force and the threat thereof - they HAVE to because of the nature of humanity. When push comes to shove, force is the only thing people will respect, and if you do not have enough force you are SOL.

Consider all the lunatic groups in the world. Imagine how long would an ancap society last with kooks like fundamentalist christians, muslims and jews, just to name three? No matter how you pose the arguments and rhetoric, once the cuffs come off there will be virtually instantaneous activity arising by such groups to force the rest to toe their line of beliefs. Communists, socialists, environmentalists, creationists, evolutionists.... you name it, will immediately get to work to attempt to force everyone else into their vision of how life ought to be lived. This is absolutely guaranteed to happen. What then? Force. Force and its threat is all that stands between any given person and tyranny. There is nothing else because people who are hell bent on making you do as they bid will not likely be swayed by your pretty logic or heart rending emotional appeals. The prospect of a bullet between the eyes, however, gets their attention rather instantly.

Even an ancap society would require a broadly agreed upon framework of enforcement to best ensure that one group is unable to interfere with the rightful choices of others. Until the fundamental character of the human animal changes drastically in what I daresay is a better direction, the sword of Damocles in the form of the threat of possibly violent and overwhelming force must be held over the heads of every man, woman, and child, for without this the world would descend into madness in the blink of an eye. It takes but a tiny proportion of people acting along a common line to wreak untold havoc upon the rest. NAZI Germany and the soviet union are two excellent examples of this.


The key is that one does not force any individual to contribute to anything, you can associate yourself with whatever group or laws you wish.

This presents some problems. For example, you join a group that lives in a clearly delineated part of a large city. That group chooses to have no law whatsoever. Murder and mayhem and anything else goes. Fine by me so long as all participants are willing and well-informed. But what happens when a shootout sends bullets into an adjacent neighborhood, killing someone? What now? Are those people not to be held accountable for having involved unwilling parties in their violence? If not, then we would be living in pure chaos and this would become very bad and would absolutely end up in some form of feudalism as each group would inevitably have to seek to protect itself against every other - and you can completely forget about individualism. That would become forgotten history because all who decided to go it alone would be eaten alive by one of the predatory groups.

As we see, there must be a baseline standard to which all must adhere, the threat of force being always present to ensure that the standard line is toed. The real issue for the question of personal liberty is not whether such a baseline exists, but what is its nature and the specifics of its implementation. We simply cannot escape this requirement in order to live freely and justly amongst each other. In other words, we as a group of individuals must agree to, accept, and abide by some set of fundamental precepts and limitations in order to enjoy a broader freedom with the guarantees and protections that those freedoms will not be violated. It is seemingly somewhat paradoxical that this would be so, but this is how it must be. If anyone can demonstrate otherwise, I am more than willing to be convinced to some contrary position.


I agree that quantity probably isn't as important as character but I understand why it is used.

It is used out of laziness, ignorance, and perhaps even malice in some cases. Wrong is wrong, and when wrong resides at this fundamental a level it becomes a very dangerous thing because it distorts everything that has been built upon it.


The more government the less decisions the individual gets to make, and the more force that is used. Its an rough and indirect measure of coercion but a measure none the less.

In a sense, yes, but it behooves us to understand clearly that there are other aspects to "quantity" where this is either not so, or it is justifiably so. Human affairs tend to run toward the diverse and not-so-simple. Keeping all of these sorts of things straight in one's thoughts is not an easy thing, but it is IMO a very important thing, for as the saying goes the devil is in the details. Many vitally important things that seem to be relatively insignificant details get lost in the currents of other, seemingly larger and more important issues. This is a very dangerous phenomenon and people should not only be aware of it, but should endeavor not to fall victim to the lure of easier answers that ignore such important "details".

Batman
02-24-2011, 08:01 PM
I got a 77 on this thing. Some things I don't think were meant to be privatized.

Doug8796
02-24-2011, 09:12 PM
My dad got a 30, not too bad

Doug8796
02-24-2011, 09:19 PM
97

Chester Copperpot
02-24-2011, 09:27 PM
79

ssantoro
02-24-2011, 09:31 PM
90

PBrady
02-24-2011, 09:49 PM
I got a 69.

That got me thinking...not only do I wonder what Ron would get (probably lower than most here), but you could also probably generally find a number, or upper bounds, on what is actually electable. My guess is that it wouldn't be all that much higher than a 70. Whatever that number is, I wish more people would recognize it. Luckily, I think that many more people have started to realize this since 2008...hence the progress we've made in 2010.

Doug8796
02-24-2011, 09:58 PM
Wouldn't true Libertarianism lead to a "Biff 1985" from Back to the Future?

"I'll tell the police what you did to my dad." MARTY
"Kid, I OWN the police." BIFF