So... how libertarian are you... really? Libertarian Purity Test! ***

[Sentient Void]

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]

91.

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

[Sentient Void]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

70

[hazek]

111

[ibaghdadi]

114

[farrar]

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]

102

[Arion45]

Your Libertarian Purity Score

Your score is...

160

[Son of Detroit]

Rolled in with a 60.

INB4STATIST.

[jmhudak17]

94

[Zatch]

92

[Sentient Void]

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]

150

[osan]

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]

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]

Your score is...

150

[RonPaulCult]

Those of you who are 160 - I am not yet ready for your hardcoreness. I was 91.

[amy31416]

lol @ Josh.

[tangent4ronpaul]

94

-t

[pcosmar]

lol @ Josh.

That got me a lol too.

no I haven't taken it yet,

[silentshout]

92

[tangent4ronpaul]

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

[Philhelm]

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.

[mczerone]

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.

[Legend1104]

86. I did not answer some of them.