# News & Current Events > U.S. Political News >  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?
> ...


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.

----------


## Christian Liberty

102.

I answered yes on  every single question in Part I, and only answered no to a single question in Part II (That was abolishing ALL immigration restrictions, while I'm pretty much OK with people who want to come here being allowed to do so, I wouldn't just let someone who is a likely security threat come in,  or someone who is wanted for murder  or some other similar crime.  So I can't quite agree with that.)

Part III gets more tricky.  I believe any government that goes beyond police, courts, and defense to be some level of evil, and not a necessary one.  However, I believe a government that limits itself to those three functions (And does them in a moral manner, arresting drug dealers, or at least those that deal to adults, is not "Policing", convicting them is not  "Judging" and bombing Iran is not "Defense") is in  fact a moral good.  It doesn't exist though, so every REAL government is an evil, if perhaps a necessary one.  So I still answered no  on the "Is ALL government evil" question.  I was able to make the logical leap that by "Government", its talking about the State, and not something like my church's government or some such, but a State that provides police, courts, and defense certainly qualifies as  "Government", just not an evil one, IMO.  Same with the "Parasitic elite" part.  I think defense, police, and courts, properly provided by government, helps virtually if not absolutely everyone.  Its when they go beyond that that they start to be for the benefit of the parasitic elite, which  they generally do, but there's nothing INHERENT about that.

So.. 102.  "Hard-core libertarian."  That sounds about right to me.

I like this test much more than the "World's Smallest Political  Quiz", and much, MUCH better than political compas.  I like that there's not a single abortion question on this test, because abortion is an issue that libertarians do not agree on.  I also like that, unlike the World's Smallest Political Compass, it gets progressively more extreme, rather than being set up so  that even a moderate libertarian  can basically get a perfect score.  I'm not quite a libertarian as Murray Rothbard, but I'm much more so than Gary Johnson, and its approrpriate that the different degrees on the continuum show that.

I'm not a huge fan of the immigration question, since that's one that libertarians don't agree on either, IIRC Rothbard wasn't for 100% unrestricted immigration either (I could be wrong about this) and I know Hans Herman Hoppe wasn't.  That question doesn't bother me as much though because I can at least mentally construct why not having government regulate that sort of thing (And for the most part I don't want them to) is more libertarian.  Its easy to see why abortion is not a victimless crime, you may not agree,but its easy to understand the logic.

All in all, a very interesting test.   I like it.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

160

----------


## Christian Liberty

Why the crap would anyone who scored less than 15 even come here?

Unless they only answered the last question,as I  saw an ancap do once...

----------


## Anti Federalist

I miss SV

----------


## Carlybee

113...not a perfect libertarian but I don't care. If you don't have some flexibility you'll break.

----------


## I<3Liberty

103...

I'm not an anarcho capitalist and I feel like some of the more anarchy-minded questions messed up the results. There's some significant differences between anarchists and libertarians, so some of the last questions should be on a separate test.

----------


## Carson

58 for me at this time.

A lot of the questions seemed a little heavy.

Like this one;

_"Should all of the Federal Reserve's discretionary powers be eliminated and the monetary base frozen?"_ 

I like Ron Paul's idea of allowing competing currencies. That should in fact allow currencies that would stabilize and freeze at a some monetary level on there own somewhat. If not there should be somewhere to jump ship and some way to save free of taxation.

Lots just seem none of the business.

I think I liked this trap better.

http://www.slightlyright.com/polittest.htm

----------


## Carson

If our Mothers knew; none of us would be allowed to play together.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

87
I had to restart.  I quit at question 16 the first time, because like all yes/no questions, there are times that it is impossible to state that.  Also, I wasn't sure whether to answer the questions from an ideological point of view or from a realist point of view, so I went more from a realist point of view.  I know that I answered several questions that contradicted each other in the answer, on purpose to make up for the lack of "if".

----------


## Christian Liberty

That one looks kind of like that World's Smallest Test, but a little different.  That one "End Taxes" question is out of place, there's not a single similarly radical question on the personal liberty sided.  That as a minarchist I only score 80 on economics where its perfectly possible for basically any constitutional conservative can get the same economics score is just... weird...  I answered every question "Yes" except the end taxes question.  I want them like 90% lower than right now, but not abolished entirely.  I just don't think that's practical.

----------


## Professor8000

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

----------


## ClydeCoulter

To be honest, a few questions I answered differently than honest, because I don't want my real answer to be "public" as far as the NSA or other associated forces are concerned

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> That one looks kind of like that World's Smallest Test, but a little different.  That one "End Taxes" question is out of place, there's not a single similarly radical question on the personal liberty sided.  That as a minarchist I only score 80 on economics where its perfectly possible for basically any constitutional conservative can get the same economics score is just... weird...  I answered every question "Yes" except the end taxes question.  I want them like 90% lower than right now, but not abolished entirely.*  I just don't think that's practical.*


Why not?  Taxes are just enough to pay the interest on the national debt.  It's throwing good money after bad.  Starving DC can only be good.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Yet you admitted to this here.  So does it matter?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Why not?  Taxes are just enough to pay the interest on the national debt.  It's throwing good money after bad.  Starving DC can only be good.


I support a debt default.  It might surprise you that a minarchist would take that position.  My position is a little unusual in that I think government for the core three functions are justified, both Biblically and to a lesser extent, logically and pragmatically.  But I consider any government action beyond that to be a lesser or greater degree of "Evil."  So I'm that rare "radical" minarchist.

I also don't necessarily think we should have a Federal government.   Government =/= Federal government.  I support radically decentralizing, but not totally eliminating, government.

As for why not?  Well, defense is the biggest reason.  Honestly, if the USA stops being an empire, someone will take our place, and we need to be able to defend ourselves against them.  I'm very pro-gun, but I don't think a bunch of people with machine guns alone will be able to effectively defend the country.  I don't really support a standing army per say, but I support a government who can quickly organize one when needed.  (Not with the draft, for the record.)  Courts and police is another reason.  I don't think a free market in justice is a great idea.  There are some cases where I'm fine with free market justice competing with the government.  In a discussion in school today about some states fighting against Sharia Law, I suggested that if two Muslims or whoever want  to solve their disputes through Sharia Law, its illegitimate to stop them from doing so.  However, in the vast majority of cases, where the two people are not going to agree on some such thing, I think we need a court that respects the non-aggression principle, not one that simply sides with the wealthy and powerful.  Which may be a pipe dream, but what isn't in politics?   Anarcho-capitalism is just as unlikely.

That said, the theoretical stuff isn't really what gives me a passion for politics.  I'm passionate about politics because American wars kill hundreds of thousands of innocents.  I'm passionate about politics because the drug war has given us the largest prison population in the world.  I'm passionate about politcs because they think they can watch me whenever they want.  I'm passionate about politics because government bureacrats are trying to destroy our second amendment rights.  I'm passionate about politcs because the unborn are being slaughtered and nine men on a Supreme Court are preventing our state governments from doing anything about it.  I'm passionate about politics because we have more laws than any other country.  I'm passionate about politcs because the entitlements programs are destroying the wealth of our country and robbing my generation to support a ponzi scheme that we can never benefit from.  I'm passionate about politics because government takes half of what we own, and claims they have a right to do it.  I'm passionate about politics because they think they can control what I can say and where I can say it. I'm passionate about politcs because they can take our property, any amount they like, and the burden is on us to prove our own innocence.  Exc.

The philosophical debate between minarchists and anarchists is not what makes me passionate about politcs.  Heck, little issues like roads and the like don't make me passionate about politics.  I do care, a lot, about privatizing the schools, but that's more because of the indoctrination aspect than the money.  If we decided everyone should have a primary education, I honestly wouldn't have a huge issue with it.  I wouldn't agree, but that would be a minor issue that isn't really that big a concern for me.  

Walter Block breaks libertarians down into anarchists, minarchists, and classical liberals.  I'm technically in the minarchist camp, but its not really the slight differences between the different grades of medium-core to ultra-hardcore libertarianism that really get me passionate about politics, its the real, concrete issues that I described above.  I think anarchism is a little too idealistic and classical libertalism is a little too pragmatic, but I'd vote for either of them into political office.  

Even people like Rand Paul and Gary Johnson, who clearly fall outside the category of "libertarian" as Block draws them, are still mostly our allies against a Leviathan state, and they give a LOT more concessions than any real libertarian would.  You've got to realize the big fight here is between limited government advocates (The "No government" advocates are a very small force, but I would consider them to fit under this group) and unlimited government advocates.  If we make it about anarchists vs minarchists, or even libertarians vs constitutionalists, I think we're screwed.

TLDR: Because I think its a necessary evil, but more importantly, because total abolition of government is not what makes me passionate about political issues.

I will note that the issues I listed above are not deliberately in any particular order, and may be incomplete.  Do not necessarily take silence on a particular issue to be equivalent to being OK with it.  If its not clear, please ask first.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yet you admitted to this here.  So does it matter?


I was X-posted, but this question was intended for ClydeCoulter, just so we're clear.

----------


## JCDenton0451

That's a fun test. I scored 79. There is one glaring omission though: just a single question dedicated to social issues, and that refers to sex between consenting adults. I would imagine that if the questionnaire included questions on abortion and other divisive social issues, most people on this board would see thier scores tumble.

----------


## I<3Liberty

I side with is a better quiz. Maybe someone should start a thread for that? I'm assuming there's already been threads for I side with since it's pretty popular.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That's a fun test. I scored 79. There is one glaring omission though: just a single question dedicated to social issues, and that refers to sex between consenting adults. I would imagine that if the questionnaire included questions on abortion and other divisive social issues, most people on this board would see thier scores tumble.


Abortion isn't really an issue that has a "libertarian" position though.  Ron Paul, Laurence Vance, and Tom Woods would surely be able to tell you that.




> I side with is a better quiz. Maybe someone should start a thread for that? I'm assuming there's already been threads for I side with since it's pretty popular.


ISideWith doesn't really record anyone who goes further than GJ though.  Ron Paul doesn't even appear on the candidates list anymore.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> Abortion isn't really an issue that has a "libertarian" position though.  Ron Paul, Laurence Vance, and Tom Woods would surely be able to tell you that.


Whoever published this test included pictures of Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard, both strong proponents of abortion as far as I know. Not sure about Milton Friedman.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

98.

Test is a little flawed though.

Mainly the simply 'yes or no' answers.

And a peculiar question.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I don't actually consider Rand or certainly Friedman to be libertarians, but nothing to do with that particular issue.  Rothbard was of course one of the most prominent libertarians ever but that hardly means he got every single issue right.  Personally, I think Ron Paul should be in the minarchist slot instead of Rand but that's just me

----------


## gwax23

> I don't actually consider Rand or certainly Friedman to be libertarians, but nothing to do with that particular issue.  Rothbard was of course one of the most prominent libertarians ever but that hardly means he got every single issue right.  Personally, I think Ron Paul should be in the minarchist slot instead of Rand but that's just me


Friedman and Rand are libertarians. Perfect? No but certainly libertarians.

----------


## gwax23

Im a 109 according to this test. i answered yes till the anarcho capitalist questions. Guess you have to be an anarchist to be a true libertarian.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> Friedman and Rand are libertarians. Perfect? No but certainly libertarians.


Friedman and especially Ayn Rand were Zionists. That's the big problem with them. You can be a Zionist or a libertarian, but you can't be both.

----------


## IDefendThePlatform

157 this time. The bombing of civilians being morally equivalent to murder was my only no. But I think it would depend on the circumstances.

----------


## Nobexliberty

83 i think, i am not supportive of abolising public roads and some otehrs thing that results in my low score

----------


## Weston White

I scored medium-core libertarian (58), which sounds about right I supposeespecially considering that test seems to greatly confuse anarchism for libertarianism.

----------


## ifthenwouldi

^^^What we need to keep in mind about this test is that even a medium-core result means the test-taker is in a very small minority of people worldwide. Having spent the past six months in Australia has been eye-opening for me in regard to the prevalence of pro-state euphoria...

----------


## DamianTV

108

I still believe that a Govt is a Necessary Evil, not an Unnecessary Evil.  There will always exist those who willfully do others harm, and said actions can only be brought to true Justice by a Court of Law.  Murderers, Thieves, and Scoundrels.

For everyone else, leave us the $#@! alone.

----------


## Barrex

Ok. Now I am officially worried.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Yet you admitted to this here.  So does it matter?


Ah, but which ones did I defer about?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Ok. Now I am officially worried.


Why, Barrex, what was your score?

----------


## Luciconsort

150

----------


## Christian Liberty

The more I think about it, the more I wonder whether the vigilante question should even be a five point question.  IIRC that and the private roads question were the only five pointers I said yes to.

Frankly, there are precious few people who would say that a hypothetical assassin of Adolf Hitler would be morally wrong (And those few are Holocaust deniers, for those in our midst, please pretend that you agree that it happened for a second for the sake of argument).  So the idea that government should be ENTIRELY unaccountable for its own crimes is, I think, a rare one.

Its where to draw the line that is the question.  That's a question I don't really know the answer to.  I think sometimes its better to suck it up and obey the law, sometimes passive resistance is best ie Martin Luther King, and sometimes fighting is justified.  I think we're at a point where they probably couldn't put me on a jury for an assassination of government leader case but that doesn't mean I actually condone that as a tactic.  




> Friedman and Rand are libertarians. Perfect? No but certainly libertarians.


Ayn Rand followed the Objectivist cult.  And frankly, I would argue that claiming that life does not begin at conception is a fundamentally unlibertarian position.  I get the Rothbardian position that because its in  a woman's body it can be ejected, or whatever, even though I reject it, but to outright declare a segment of humanity to be non-human I would argue is fundemantally opposed to libertarianism, just as much as someone who said "The NAP doesn't really apply to Jews" or something, would not be a libertarian.

As for Friedman, the Fed is kind of a deal breaker.




> Friedman and especially Ayn Rand were Zionists. That's the big problem with them. You can be a Zionist or a libertarian, but you can't be both.


Yeah, pretty much.




> 157 this time. The bombing of civilians being morally equivalent to murder was my only no. But I think it would depend on the circumstances.


That's surprising.  I would have thought every ancap would agree with that.  I wouldn't really count bombing a military target in order to stop it from being used to attack you (Assuming you've already been attacked, otherwise we aren't talking about anything resembling libertarian foreign policy) as "Bombing Civilians" like I would dresden, hiroshima, or nagasaki, however.




> I scored medium-core libertarian (58), which sounds about right I supposeespecially considering that test seems to greatly confuse anarchism for libertarianism.

----------


## Roxi

96

----------


## gwax23

> Friedman and especially Ayn Rand were Zionists. That's the big problem with them. You can be a Zionist or a libertarian, but you can't be both.


Your probably the most annoying and single issued person on these forums. Go away.

And FreedomFanatic Ayn Rand and Rothbard shared similar views on Abortion. Almost identical really. So why do you support one and not the other? Im pro Life myself and disagree with them both on the issue but I still consider them Libertarians none the less.

Friedman was a libertarian. His positions on the fed changed drastically to the point he called for its abolition. He recognized it was here to stay though and proposed methods to run it better.

Further just because people support Jewish Self Determination does not disqualify them as being libertarians. Thats ridiculous. Ayn Rand and Friedman have done so much for our movement its immeasurable. Claiming they arent libertarians because you disagree with them on minor issues is simply stupid.

----------


## Occam's Banana

I didn't take this test. I don't need no stinkin' polls or quizzes to tell me "how libertarian" I am. I already know that.

Q: How libertarian are you?
A: Pretty goddam libertarian! Thanks for asking! Now let me tell you all about it, ... 

_post script:_
gwax23 is right. The notion that Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand were not libertarian is just asinine (and this despite the fact that Rand professed to revile "libertarianism"). It stinks of special pleading - especially when things like the "Zionist" card are trotted out.

I have serious problems with both of them. Especially Friedman - who, in my own personal taxonomy of libertarianism, I would classify as a "soft" libertarian (as I classify any libertarian who does not adopt, profess and consistently apply some form of the non-aggression principle). I am no fan of Friedman. You can argue (as I would) that he was "squishy" and wrongheaded in both his approach to and application of liberty ideas & ideals. His rampant positivism was an entirely inadequate foundation upon which to build a philosophy (let alone a society) based on human freedom. But he did advocate for a significantly large[r] degree of freedom in human society and affairs. IOW: He was a libertarian. Period. Get over it.

----------


## Sentient Void

Funny to see this thread pop up again! haha



But on to the discussion... Actually, Ayn Rand *hated* libertarians. Thought we were a 'disgusting, monstrous group of people.'

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServ...ertarianism_qa




> Q: Why don’t you approve of libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works?
> 
> AR: Because libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication when that fits their purpose. They’re lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They want an amoral political program. [FHF 81]
> 
> 
> Q: Libertarians provide intermediate steps toward your goals. Why don’t you support them?
> 
> AR: Please don’t tell me they’re pursuing my goals. I have not asked for, nor do I accept, the help of intellectual cranks. I want philosophically educated people: those who understand ideas, care about ideas, and spread the right ideas. That’s how my philosophy will spread, just as philosophy has throughout history: by means of people who understand ideas and teach them to others.


Ayn Rand was not a libertarian, though she held a lot of libertarian ideas. She was an Objectivist / Randian - which are not necessarily libertarians. Same could be said of a a lot of people you mgiht not onsider 'actually' 'libertarian'.

I don't think one either 'is' or 'is not' a 'libertarian'. I don't think it's such a black and white issue. I think one either is more or less libertarian, along a gradient. Some might hold some pretty libertarian positions in one sense, while non-libertarian in another sense. There are also issues that are murky and difficult to address as to what constitutes the 'more libertarian' position, which has solid arguments on both sides - abortion and children's rights, for example.

BTW - I may not post on the forum as much anymore but I do every once in a while post new blogs over here. Some entries have gotten about 5000 views. I am also mroe active on facebook wrt libertarian issues/government/politics/etc, and a couple private groups, one of which ('State Abolitionism' on facebook) I admin where I am trying to bring 'redblack' anarchist-types and 'goldblack' libertarians/anarchists together on common interests. Then there's work, newborn girl, et cetera.

I might take the test again though to see if my 'number' has changed...

----------


## gwax23

She hated libertarianism not for what it was but because she claimed it was ideas stolen from her. (Childish I know) She also claimed Libertarianism was only a political philosophy while Objectivism was a fully fledged philosophy that covered many different areas. Regardless her followers today and many others consider her within the Libertarian camp, making Objectivism a sub branch of Libertarianism. Whether this is right or wrong I wont say but for simplicity Ill consider her a libertarian.

----------


## Sentient Void

I disagree. It goes deeper than that.

I'll link to this article on zerohedge:

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed...ot-libertarian




> Many people assume that Ayn Rand was a champion of libertarian thought. But Rand herself pilloried libertarians, condemning libertarianism as being a greater threat to freedom and capitalism than both modern liberalism and conservativism.  For example, Rand said: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology.


And also note the fact that she had quite a view of those in the middle east - that of them being 'savages', and she very strongly supported our interventions and invasions there. I believe there is a Phil Donahue interview with her expressing this.

That's pretty far from libertarian, even on the gradient approach.

That being said, she was very, *very* good on some things. She was also pretty damned horrible on others. Same could be said of many people who wouldn't be considered very far on the libertarian spectrum.

To be fair, I'll revise my statement of 'she's not libertarian' to 'she's nowhere near as libertarian as people probably think she is'.

Apart from all that, as a person, she was horrible. A raging bitch, egomaniacal, shunned anyone who disagreed with her - even in her own movement. She wanted disciples, a cult, not a real intellectual movement that was willing to criticize itself, accept criticism and address it, and deal with criticism to its 'dear leader'.

And for someone who (understandably) held up logical / intellectual / philosophical consistency so strongly, she was pretty inconsistent herself. Hell, Galt's Gulch was a voluntaryist / anarchist (capitalist) society, for chrissakes - yet she advocates some kind of weird 'voluntary taxation' 'minarchist' state and pilloried ancaps.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Ayn Rand was not a libertarian, [...] I don't think one either 'is' or 'is not' a 'libertarian'.




I must respectfully but firmly disagree.

A is A. A thing is what it is. And Ayn Rand was a libertarian - regardless of whether she (or anyone else) likes it or not.

I think the central problem here is that many (including Ayn Rand) fail to understand that the term "libertarian[ism]" denotes a _genus_ - not a _species_. As such, it embodies a _generalization_ - not a _particularization_. Like so:

Any person who believes in & advocates for a significantly large[r] role for liberty in human society & affairs is a member of the "libertarian[ism]" genus. Within that genus, however, there are many particular species: Objectivist, Rothbardian, Friedmanite, Constitutionalist, paleo-conservative, minarchist, anarcho-capitalist, etc., etc., etc. Furthermore, some of these species may be in some way(s) dichotomous & mutually incompatible (such as Objectivism & anarcho-capitalism) - but only with respect to one another, not with respect to the over-arching genus. Forgetting this (or not realizing it in the first place) is what leads so many to incorrectly declare that "so-and-so" (or "so-and-so-ism") is not "really" libertarian[ism].

The same thing goes for numerous specific "fault-line" issues such as abortion; "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are both "trees" in the "forest" of libertarianism - even though they are utterly irreconcilable with one another. Hence, a "pro-life" paleo-conservative and a "pro-choice" minarchist are both libertarians.

----------


## JCDenton0451

Ayn Rand invented her own brach of philosophy: objectivism. I suggest we call her that. Someone who says we have a moral duty to support the Israeli government, someone who calls the Arabs savages sould never be associated with the libertarian movement. Ayn Rand is a huge embarrasment for all of us. She may have been good on economic issues, but on foreign policy Ayn Rand was a total neocon.

----------


## Sentient Void

> I must respectfully but firmly disagree.
> 
> A is A. A thing is what it is.


Of course. I would not deny this. But the undeniable fact that A=A (even though ultimately it is kinda a meaningless and useless tautology apart from pointing out that objective truth *does* exist, 'somewhere'), or that there are *some* things that are objectively true in the world does not mean that everything has an objective truth. Or that morality is objective. You don't need 'objective (concepts of) morality', btw, for morality to be useful, necessary, and *real*.

To pull so many claims of objectivity from tautologies and A=A seems a non sequitur.

The heart of the question of whether one 'is' or 'is not' a libertarian falls on the question of right and wrong and on justice. But there is no objective right and wrong. There is what society, for whatever reason, at whatever point in time, deems as right and wrong. The NAP, for example, is extremely useful - but it is not objective truth that 'should be' applied to all situations, all the time, and be followed rigidly - there are many conceivable situations, lifeboat scenarios, black swans, where the NAP breaks down, or would be insane, I would even say *immoral* to apply rigidly.

Ayn Rand rightfully took teachings from Stirner et al to talk about *rational* *self-interest*. This is something I absolutely agree with her on. But her philosophy breaks down in the face of this fact as well. For someone who talked so strongly about logical / philosophical / intellectual consistency - she was horribly bad at it, and would personally attack and ostracize, and get others in her circle to ostracize, anyone who pointed these things out or criticized her.




> And Ayn Rand was a libertarian - regardless of whether she (or anyone else) likes it or not.


I will respectfully disagree with you. She was very libertarian on some issues, very unlibertarian on others. It's not so simply to call her, nor many people, straight-up 'libertarian'.




> I think the central problem here is that many (including Ayn Rand) fail to understand that the term "libertarian[ism]" denotes a _genus_ - not a _species_. As such, it embodies a _generalization_ - not a _particularization_. Like so:
> 
> Any person who believes in & advocates for a significantly large[r] role for liberty in human society & affairs is a member of the "libertarian[ism]" genus. Within that genus, however, there are many particular species: Objectivist, Rothbardian, Friedmanite, Constitutionalist, paleo-conservative, minarchist, anarcho-capitalist, etc., etc., etc. Furthermore, some of these species may be in some way(s) dichotomous & mutually incompatible (such as Objectivism & anarcho-capitalism) - but only with respect to one another, not with respect to the over-arching genus. Forgetting this (or not realizing it in the first place) is what leads so many to incorrectly declare that "so-and-so" (or "so-and-so-ism") is not "really" libertarian[ism].


I can't disagree with much of this - but the fact is that some people do define and view 'liberty' and 'freedom' differently. Particularly, and especially when it comes down on issues of what constitutes 'just' (as in, justice) property claims. Through many, many discussions, I have come to acknowledge this. This does not necessarily mean then that we must have a State, or that other folks who see property differently than us are necessarily Statists - it just means that *subjective* views of morality, of right and wrong (particularly when talking about 'just' property claims) do indeed exist. Maybe not everywhere, but at the very least in some, if not many, or even most places. And it means that we should simply freely associate with those who are closest to us in our views in how / when we structure our society (hence my group, State Abolitionism).




> The same thing goes for numerous specific "fault-line" issues such as abortion; "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are both "trees" in the "forest" of libertarianism - even though they are utterly irreconcilable with one another. Hence, a "pro-life" paleo-conservative and a "pro-choice" minarchist are both libertarians.


Well, I actually fall on the pro-life position myself, and take the more consequentialist approach *against* banning abortion. Abortion I view *personally* as morally wrong, deplorable, disgusting... but that banning it is a cure worse than the disease. You can't ban that. It is an issue of social and cultural degradation and the law cannot fix that - only ostracism and values. But I digress...

Which brings me to another part of my point. I can view abortion as morally wrong, and don't need claims of 'objective morality' to have this view. Some may disagree - say that it is 'morally right' and should be embraced. I think these people are disgusting and foolish and those who engage in it or think about doing it should be encouraged not to, I think a properly evolved market in process and technology can minimize the moral and human fallout in such a culture, and that those who engage in it should be shunned and ostracized throughout society.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> Your probably the most annoying and single issued person on these forums. Go away.
> 
> Further just because people support Jewish Self Determination does not disqualify them as being libertarians. Thats ridiculous. Ayn Rand and Friedman have done so much for our movement its immeasurable. Claiming they arent libertarians because you disagree with them on minor issues is simply stupid.


Ha ha! So says the guy, whose 600+ posts on this forum are devoted almost entirely to Zionism apologetics. 

I don't understand what "Jewish Self Determination" means. But so long as it involves war, agression, colonisation of other countries, and the subjugation of their people, the destruction of property and rampant government-sponsored theft of other people's land ("settler movement")...well, this is something that every libertarian should oppose on moral and ideological grounds. There is no moral dilemma here like in abortion. This is absolutely clear-cut violation of NAP.

Personally, I believe Zionism was the main reason Ayn Rand split from the mainstream libertarian movement. Her emotional attachment to the Jewish state pushed her toward inerventionist foreign policy.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I'll link to this article on zerohedge: http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed...ot-libertarian


But what Rand had to say about "libertarians" has got absolutely nothing to do with whether she was in fact a libertarian herself. Suppose Barack Obama emitted a vicous, nasty & mean-spirited screed denouncing "statists & statism" - would you accept this as evidence that Obama is not a statist?




> And also note the fact that she had quite a view of those in the middle east - that of them being 'savages', and she very strongly supported our interventions and invasions there. I believe there is a Phil Donahue interview with her expressing this.


Her disgusting & despicable attempt to foist "collective guilt" upon Arabs, et al. (perpetuated today by the jackholes at the Ayn Rand Institute) does not signify that she is not a libertarian. It merely demonstrates the truism that libertarians are every bit as capable of vicious nonsense, cognitive dissonance, rank hypocrisy and/or simply being flat-out wrong as anyone else.




> That being said, she was very, *very* good on some things. She was also pretty damned horrible on others. Same could be said of many people who wouldn't be considered very far on the libertarian spectrum.
> 
> To be fair, I'll revise my statement of 'she's not libertarian' to  'she's nowhere near as libertarian as people probably think she is'.


I'm sure it could also be said of some who would. That's the problem with one-dimensional spectra (be it "left-right" or "more-less libertarian" or what-have-you). They can at best measure only one particular parameter. And libertarianism is just far too general a concept to be "measured" by a single variable.




> Apart from all that, as a person, she was horrible. A raging bitch, egomaniacal, shunned anyone who disagreed with her - even in her own movement. She wanted disciples, a cult, not a real intellectual movement that was willing to criticize itself, accept criticism and address it, and deal with criticism to its 'dear leader'.
> 
> And for someone who (understandably) held up logical / intellectual / philosophical consistency so strongly, she was pretty inconsistent herself. Hell, Galt's Gulch was a voluntaryist / anarchist (capitalist) society, for chrissakes - yet she advocates some kind of weird 'voluntary taxation' 'minarchist' state and pilloried ancaps.


I am in full agreement with all of this. But these things have nothing to do with whether she was a libertarian or not.

----------


## Sentient Void

> But what Rand had to say about "libertarians" has got absolutely nothing to do with whether she was in fact a libertarian herself. Suppose Barack Obama emitted a vicous, nasty & mean-spirited screed denouncing "statists & statism" - would you accept this as evidence that Obama is not a statist?


I'm not saying *this* necessarily did. As I said previously, she held some *very* unlibertarian views at least with respect to the wars in the middle east, that if not disqualifying her as being 'necessarily libertarian' (if you're looking at libertarianism as black vs white), then at least putting her far, far lower on libertarian spectrum (if one were to take this view instead).

But taking this into account, then even taking *her own word* on top of it as separating herself from libertarians, and insulting libertarians, saying they're worse than marxists, and a greater threat than socialism, surely adds to the weight that she either is not libertarian or is not anywhere near as libertarian as some people think (which is what I said when I corrected myself).

Mayyyybe Objectivism falls under the 'tree' of libertarianism - in which there is definitely a tree, and which seems to support the argument that defining libertarianism isn't so cut and try since different libertarian groups disagree with eachother on quite a few issues. But I don't know. I think it is more likely that Objectivism simply overlaps with libertarianism on a good amount of views. But this is separate from Ayn Rand herself... I think some of the things she says and advocates are not only unlibertarian (in ways that all if not virtually all libertarians would agree as unlibertarian, especially the middle eastern wars issue), but even inconsistent with Objectivism (again, noting the middle eastern wars issue). So while I think Objectivism probably just overlaps with libertarianism, I think Ayn Rand and her views herself really are not even *completely* consistent with Objectivism.




> Her disgusting & despicable attempt to foist "collective guilt" upon Arabs, et al. (perpetuated today by the jackholes at the Ayn Rand Institute) does not signify that she is not a libertarian. It merely demonstrates the truism that libertarians are every bit as capable of vicious nonsense, cognitive dissonance, rank hypocrisy and/or simply being flat-out wrong as anyone else.


Absolutely agreed. It is perfectly libertarian, though deplorable, to be personally racist and bigoted as long as it involves the subject of free association, and not utilization of the State.





> I'm sure it could also be said of some who would. That's the problem with one-dimensional spectra (be it "left-right" or "more-less libertarian" or what-have-you). They can at best measure only one particular parameter. And libertarianism is just far too general a concept to be "measured" by a single variable.


Well, my view is that it is at least a 2-dimensional spectrum. One dimensional is yes/no. More or less libertarian is 2-dimensional. Hell, it might even be 3-dimensional. But my point is that it is just not as simple as some would claim - that one either simply 'is' or 'is not' libertarian. I agree it's too nebulous/abstract a concept to define so simply. Subjective morality, especially around just property claims, just adds to this reality, I think. So I don't detect any real disagreement here, correct me if I'm wrong.




> I am in full agreement with all of this. But these things have nothing to do with whether she was a libertarian or not.


Yes, hence the 'apart from all that' part.

----------


## gwax23

Ayn Rand hated the Anarcho Capitalist version of Libertarian, espoused by her former disciple Rothbard. I think her views on a Minarchist form of libertarianism, something Ron paul supports, would have been much more favorable. (As it was what she supported anyhow, though she claimed she came up with it first)





> Ha ha! So says the guy, whose 600+ posts on this forum are devoted almost entirely to Zionism apologetics. 
> 
> I don't understand what "Jewish Self Determination" means. But so long as it involves war, agression, colonisation of other countries, and the subjugation of their people, the destruction of property and rampant government-sponsored theft of other people's land ("settler movement")...well, this is something that every libertarian should oppose on moral and ideological grounds. There is no moral dilemma here like in abortion. This is absolutely clear-cut violation of NAP.
> 
> Personally, I believe Zionism was the main reason Ayn Rand split from the mainstream libertarian movement. Her emotional attachment to the Jewish state pushed her toward inerventionist foreign policy.


Every single thread and post Ive seen you write has been about Israel. Every thread, from ones talking about abortion, to taxes, to libertarian subdivisions you find some way to connect the dots and tie Israel and zionists into it. Its pretty impressive really. 

Most of my posts arent about Israel. Ive never started a thread about Israel, I only respond to the ignorance that makes the rounds on these forums by people like you. That combined with the fact that I agree with most of the stuff that I read on these forums which tends to = less posts due to less need to discuss and argue. 

Jewish Self Determination = Zionism. Its the aspiration for Jewish statehood. As well as cultural unity through common language and identity which hardly could be called bad even by the likes of you. All your accusations from subjugation to colonization are unfounded as Ive repeatedly asserted in other Israel based threads which I would be happy to discuss with you there as to not take this thread further of course. (Though even in the threads on Israel you tend to disappear when you fail to provide counter arguments or substantive facts to back up your absurd assertions.)

But thats all besides the point. Your a troll plain and simple. Anyone you disagree with you label a zionist and a neocon and call them fake libertarians. I urge you to become less single issued and to cease your annoying demeanor at once.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> _post script:_
> gwax23 is right. The notion that Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand were not libertarian is just asinine (and this despite the fact that Rand professed to revile "libertarianism"). It stinks of special pleading - especially when things like the "Zionist" card are trotted out.


Zionism is not a "card", it's the name of Jewish nationalist movement. How do you reconcile individualism in libertarinism and tribalism in Zionism? The Zionists don't see people as individuals, they see people as groups, and in their view the Jewish group is superior and collectively entitled to a State and a piece of land in the Middle East, because the Jewish Bible says so or whatever. 

Do you think the State should promote specific religion, discriminate based on ethnicity because this is what the concept of the "Jewish State" is all about? Do you think that property rights of the non-Jews should be disrespected, because this is what the Israeli government does in Palestine.

Frankly, I don't see a way to reconcile Zionism and libertarianism. Just like Communism and Nazism, it is an entirely different philosophy and worldview, on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

----------


## Sentient Void

BTW, I just retook the test ... and whereas after first taking the test those years back I got a 160, after retaking it right now I ended up with a '155'.

I don't know how I answered differently compared to the last one - but the only one I said 'no' on was the vigilante justice one.

For example, while it *may* be morally permissable... I feel like  it would be stupid/foolish, counterproductive to do so. I also think it would need to be defined the type of vigilante justice on those in different public offices. Some may deserve serious retribution, whereas other simply restitution...

----------


## JCDenton0451

> But thats all besides the point. Your a troll plain and simple. Anyone you disagree with you label a zionist and a neocon and call them fake libertarians. I urge you to become less single issued and to cease your annoying demeanor at once.


Dude, you're the only actual Zionist on this forum that I know of. *compromise* is frendly to Israel somewhat, but that's mostly due to ignorance I assume. Still, even he admits Israel has been guilty of atrocities.

----------


## Sentient Void

> Zionism is not a "card", it's the name of Jewish nationalist movement. How do you reconcile individualism in libertarinism and tribalism in Zionism? The Zionists don't see people as individuals, they see people as groups, and in their view the Jewish group is superior and collectively entitled to a State and a piece of land in the Middle East, because the Jewish Bible says so or whatever. 
> 
> Do you think the State has should promote specific religion, discriminate based on ethnicity because this is what the concept of the "Jewish State" is all about? Do you think that property rights of the non-Jews should be disrespected, because this is what the Israeli government does in Palestine.
> 
> Frankly, I don't see a way to reconcile Zionism and libertarianism. Just like Communism and Nazism, it is an entirely complety different philosophy and worldview, on the opposite side of the political spectrum.


I don't know enough about 'Zionism' to have a serious opinion on it, but *basing my opinion on the information you've provided*, assuming it is entirely correct and true, then I would say 'Zionism' would not be compatible with libertarianism.

That being said, Palestine was a Nation State as well, correct? So a lot would also depend on the history of who was there first, the violence / wars / conquering that occurred over the history there, and other factors. It might very well be that 'Zionism' as you described it, while it may still be unlibertarian in a vacuum, may be more libertarian than the alternative of a Palestinian state. I have not really considered this point, and again do not know enough to solidly say this is the case, because I don't know enough about 'Zionism' nor the history of that area and its people over the last however many thousands of years.

What I'm thinking about is a situation where if a thief steals something from someone, then another thief comes around and takes that something from the thief that was stolen from its rightful owner, it is better and 'more just' (rather than completely just) to be in the hands of the new thief than the original thief (Rothbard talked about this iirc in Ethics of Liberty, a very interesting and useful point), since the thief's property claim is completely unjust.

The most just situation would of course be to get the stolen thing back in the hands of the original owner, of course.

----------


## JCDenton0451

I'm not interested in dabbling in alternative history: who knows what would have happened if Palestine was not subjected to a Zionist colonisation. I prefer to deal with reality.

The reality is that local Arabs have lived in Palestine for a thousand years and they had private property. As late as 1947 The Arabs owned most of the land in what later became the State of Israel. Then in the yearly 20th century European settlers came along. They set up their own separate political institutions that excluded the locals, and armed forces. The Zionists used these armed force to drive the local non-Jewish people off their land. Hundreds of Arab villages were left empty after the war of 1947-1948, because Arab civilians fled from fighting and violence caused by Zionist terrorist groups like Irgun. The Israeli government did NOT allow them to return to their homes. Instead it demolished their houses and re-distributed the land among the ethnic Jews. 

State of Israel was founded on massive theft and gross injustice. Those continue to this day. You should read about the "Settler movement" in Israel, it will make you sick.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Ayn Rand invented her own brach of philosophy: objectivism. I suggest we call her that. Someone who says we have a moral duty to support the Israeli government, someone who calls the Arabs savages sould never be associated with the libertarian movement. Ayn Rand is a huge embarrasment for all of us. She may have been good on economic issues, but on foreign policy Ayn Rand was a total neocon.


Wait, are libertarians now not allowed to exercise freedom of speech?  Calling Arabs savages is morally absurd but not necessarily unlibertarian unless you advocate violence against them.

Regarding Israel, I really don't care about them beyond separating them from US support

----------


## Sentient Void

The issue is though, apart from her racism and bigotry (which I agree is not necessarily unlibertarian as it is a free association issue), she did advocate for and support the wars against them, because they are 'savages', 'not unlike animals'. She wanted us to be there.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I agree that she's not a libertarian.

----------


## NationalAnarchist

148. Figured I would be damn close to perfect.

----------


## gwax23

> Dude, you're the only actual Zionist on this forum that I know of. *compromise* is frendly to Israel somewhat, but that's mostly due to ignorance I assume. Still, even he admits Israel has been guilty of atrocities.


A lot of people silently agree with me it seems. Compromise is indeed the most vocal about it. 

I just signed back online and of all the reps I got from my last post the only negative one was from you..... 

Anyway Zionism isnt an all encompassing ideology like Communism or Fascism or even Libertarianism. All it means it the jewish people should have a state of there own, just like theres a state for Italians, French, Spaniards, Russians etc. Saying thats incompatible with libertarianism (and not being an anarchist, thats a separate issue against all states) is like saying any nation state professing libertarian ideologies is contradictory. 

Do I consider myself a Zionists? In the sense that I support Jewish nationhood and jewish cultural unity (Hebrew language, literature, music etc) yes....I dont support aid to israel of any form but I support its right to exist. I dont think this is an unlibertarian at all. This is Ron pauls position and the position of many libertarians. Many on this forum have this view. They dont care about Israel they just dont want money to go to them (Like any other country) but only a few (such are yourself) go out of your way on a regular basis to demonize and attack Israel. Or try to claim its the center of all the worlds misery and frustrations. 

But Anyway I dont want to further feed the troll and get this thread off topic even more especially considering Ive already debunked point by point all the lies and untruths you constantly spew. I do invite you to continue this argument in a more appropriate thread, where I will again debunk your lies point by point until you end up disappearing like usual only to reappear in a random thread in order to bring up israel once more. 

Back on topic, Ayn Rand it could be strongly argued to not be Libertarian. But milton friedman sure is and considered himself as such, as did others. You have to differentiate his middle ground, pragmatic and politically viable solutions from his ultimate ideals. He wanted to end the fed for instant but knew at the time it wasnt politically viable so he suggested alternative ways of running it. This is an important distinction to make when determining someones political standings.

----------


## revned

I got a 155.

I think I only said no to two of them. Immigration law being abolished and I can't remember what else, maybe the courts being abolished or something along those lines. Would have voted for it to be abolished had I known it was going to ask me about the state being abolished. Without the state, we do not have such a need for laws. Everything would work itself out better through voluntary agreement, and the people who would actually still want a state to help manage their lives would still have the right to do so voluntarily; the same can not be said about anarchists in a state-controlled system. Statism should be voluntary.  

I personally believe that it is human nature to want to succeed and survive, and the best way to do so would be through voluntary cooperation and absolute freedom in economics, education, and property. I have come to the conclusion that ONLY through an absolute, natural, and totally free environment will we humans ever evolve, intellectually, into the great beings we could truly be. It all boils down to the fact that we can only truly learn morals through absolute freedom to learn, and that only comes through a free education that could only come about through a free market. It is a survivalists strategy to properly learn basic morals, and you can not properly learn something when someone else is hovering over you telling you what is right and what is wrong; it doesn't teach you anything but the fact that there will be someone above you to punish you if you do something wrong. You learn that the punishment is the bad result, not the possible consequence. A prime example of this is the speed limits on our roads. Your first thought about why you should not go faster than the speed limit is solely because of the fact that there could be an officer that will give you a ticket for speeding. This doesn't properly teach you the moral of not speeding because you could potentially hurt or kill someone. Only when you learn and live by the Golden Rule will you understand that your actions are your responsibility just as the actions of others are their responsibility. When you start applying how others actions could effect you and you begin to understand that your actions could just as easily effect others, this is where learning of morals takes place; and with government in the way telling us what is right and wrong we are distracted by how it only applies to us. "*I*  don't drive fast because *I*  could get a speeding ticket."

----------


## NationalAnarchist

Had my friends on FB do this only 1 got over 100! LMAO...weird my mother who got 28 actually voted libertarian party past 2 elections.

----------


## Rocco

He really is the worst poster on this forum and it isn't even close. I submit that a solid percentage of the increased animosity on this forum is a direct result of this one troll. The fact that he hasn't been banned is absolutely mind boggling to me. 




> But thats all besides the point. Your a troll plain and simple. Anyone you disagree with you label a zionist and a neocon and call them fake libertarians. I urge you to become less single issued and to cease your annoying demeanor at once.

----------


## gwax23

> He really is the worst poster on this forum and it isn't even close. I submit that a solid percentage of the increased animosity on this forum is a direct result of this one troll. The fact that he hasn't been banned is absolutely mind boggling to me.


well said

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> He really is the worst poster on this forum and it isn't even close. I submit that a solid percentage of the increased animosity on this forum is a direct result of this one troll. The fact that he hasn't been banned is absolutely mind boggling to me.


Gwax shows up to virtually every thread about Israel to defend their 'honor.' Many people see him for what he is, a nationalist. Someone calling out somebody for supposedly every one of their posts being about Israel, probably shouldn't have every one of their posts be about Israel.

In his defense though, Gwax has gotten better lately.

----------


## Barrex

> Had my friends on FB do this only 1 got over 100! LMAO...weird my mother who got 28 actually voted libertarian party past 2 elections.


You are obviously bad influence.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> I got a 155.
> 
> I think I only said no to two of them. Immigration law being abolished and I can't remember what else, maybe the courts being abolished or something along those lines. Would have voted for it to be abolished had I known it was going to ask me about the state being abolished. Without the state, we do not have such a need for laws. Everything would work itself out better through voluntary agreement, and the people who would actually still want a state to help manage their lives would still have the right to do so voluntarily; the same can not be said about anarchists in a state-controlled system. Statism should be voluntary.


Statism cannot be (organized into a) voluntary (institution), it's a logical contradiction.

It's like advocating for 'voluntary murder'. If the killing were consensual it wouldn't be murder it would be 'assisted suicide'.

You can advocate for a voluntary governmental institutions that resemble the way states are currently organized, essentially supporting a voluntary monopolization of governmental services, but it's still not a state.

----------


## bolil

True libertarians don't take tests.

That makes me 100% pure, sieg heil, mein fuhrer.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

Also, yeah that was a silly test with several really bad questions, though it seemed pretty tongue-in-cheek.

----------


## TaftFan

I got an 81%.

I voted no pretty much in the last section. I don't support some privatization to the extent it might become fascist. Like how private prisons have become.

----------


## Murray N Rothbard

I hate the lesser of two evils questions. School vouchers aren't much better at all.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> True libertarians don't take tests.
> 
> That makes me 100% pure, sieg heil, mein fuhrer.

----------


## Barrex

> True libertarians don't take tests.
> 
> That makes me 100% pure, sieg heil, mein fuhrer.








I am little "sacred" of my results.... In theory I am libertarian....and I choose libertarian answers...that doesnt means that I dont have reservations how it would all go...but since I live in interesting time where state is so screwed my libertarian leap into the great unknown is a lot easier.

----------


## Mike4Freedom

Your Libertarian Purity Score

Your score is...

160

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I hate the lesser of two evils questions. School vouchers aren't much better at all.


Many of the questions weren't clear cut. The problem with simple yes/no opinionated tests.

----------


## gwax23

> Gwax shows up to virtually every thread about Israel to defend their 'honor.' Many people see him for what he is, a nationalist. Someone calling out somebody for supposedly every one of their posts being about Israel, probably shouldn't have every one of their posts be about Israel.
> 
> In his defense though, Gwax has gotten better lately.


I never bring up Israel. Never start threads and never even post about it unless someone else has. Especially not in threads like this. Jcdenton or whatever his name is brings it up in every thread he posts in. It could be about Abortion, Gay Marriage, Gun Rights, or saving the polar bears. It doesnt matter. He then calls everyone a Zionist or a Neocon who doesnt agree with him. (You use nationalist) Then he disappears as always. Thats troll behavior and as a semi professional troll hunter (I havent got my government license yet) I call them when I see them.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I never bring up Israel. Never start threads and never even post about it unless someone else has. Especially not in threads like this. Jcdenton or whatever his name is brings it up in every thread he posts in. It could be about Abortion, Gay Marriage, Gun Rights, or saving the polar bears. It doesnt matter. He then calls everyone a Zionist or a Neocon who doesnt agree with him. (You use nationalist) Then he disappears as always. Thats troll behavior and as a semi professional troll hunter (I havent got my government license yet) I call them when I see them.


Fair enough. I hardly see him post so I really wouldn't know. I found it amusing at the time (I was rather drunk) that you said something.

We've have discussions on all this before. I do not use the term 'nationalist' liberally or without warrant. You'd be the only person I've ever labelled as.

To discuss something pertinent to OP, or at least to the libertarian philosophy, I see everyone as individuals. Whether you are black, white, Jewish, whatever. I judge character on an individual basis. Some do not. Jews are superior, yes? The chosen? It is hard for me to picture a libertarian Zionist. The philosophies are at odds.

I suppose that with the broad scope of libertarianism, it is possible? Someone more knowledgeable on political philosophies could give you a better answer. I wouldn't consider them 'pure' (a played out word but the best I can come up with at the moment) in that they see people as groups and discriminate accordingly. As long as they aren't using aggression, that's all well and good. (I really couldn't care less though I personally disagree) Could a Zionist be a libertarian? Well, some people at Stormfront consider themselves to be one so I guess anything is possible.

I don't much feel like derailing this thread further. Just my two cents on the matter.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> He really is the worst poster on this forum and it isn't even close. I submit that a solid percentage of the increased animosity on this forum is a direct result of this one troll. The fact that he hasn't been banned is absolutely mind boggling to me.


Is Falcon gone forever then?




> A lot of people silently agree with me it seems. Compromise is indeed the most vocal about it. 
> 
> I just signed back online and of all the reps I got from my last post the only negative one was from you..... 
> 
> Anyway Zionism isnt an all encompassing ideology like Communism or Fascism or even Libertarianism. All it means it the jewish people should have a state of there own, just like theres a state for Italians, French, Spaniards, Russians etc. Saying thats incompatible with libertarianism (and not being an anarchist, thats a separate issue against all states) is like saying any nation state professing libertarian ideologies is contradictory. 
> 
> Do I consider myself a Zionists? In the sense that I support Jewish nationhood and jewish cultural unity (Hebrew language, literature, music etc) yes....I dont support aid to israel of any form but I support its right to exist. I dont think this is an unlibertarian at all. This is Ron pauls position and the position of many libertarians. Many on this forum have this view. They dont care about Israel they just dont want money to go to them (Like any other country) but only a few (such are yourself) go out of your way on a regular basis to demonize and attack Israel. Or try to claim its the center of all the worlds misery and frustrations. 
> 
> But Anyway I dont want to further feed the troll and get this thread off topic even more especially considering Ive already debunked point by point all the lies and untruths you constantly spew. I do invite you to continue this argument in a more appropriate thread, where I will again debunk your lies point by point until you end up disappearing like usual only to reappear in a random thread in order to bring up israel once more. 
> ...


Well, I think supporting a "Jewish State" solely because they're Jews is kind of racist, or at least segregationalist, isn't it?

For the record, my ONLY opinion on the issue is that we should cut foreign aid, and all of it.  And that if Israel gets attacked, or even worse, attacks someone else, we shouldn't get involved.  That's really as far as it goes.



> Had my friends on FB do this only 1 got over 100! LMAO...weird my mother who got 28 actually voted libertarian party past 2 elections.


Because its a test designed to distinguish libertarians from other libertarians.  Its not designed to show the difference between a Nazi and a run of the mill Republican, even though there are clearly differences between the two.

If you support the status quo, period, you should probably either get a 0 or a 5, depending on how you answer the vigilante justice question (Most people, even "Status quo" type people would probably agree that its OK to kill Hitler).  Most people have at least SOME problem with the status quo, so flat out 0 scores are probably pretty rare, but the test is designed so that basically any liberal would probably score single digits or maybe lower double digits if they were more hardcore on the military, drug, prostitutioin, and immigration questions.

IIRC 28 was considered "Soft-core libertarian."  Which is probably close to accurate because of the way the test is worded.  Personally I'd think you'd probably need to be at least "Medium-core" on that test before I'd consider you a libertarian, but my standards are a bit strict.  Not perfectionist, but strict.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> To discuss something pertinent to OP, or at least to the libertarian philosophy, I see everyone as individuals. Whether you are black, white, Jewish, whatever. I judge character on an individual basis. Some do not. Jews are superior, yes? The chosen? It is hard for me to picture a libertarian Zionist. The philosophies are at odds.


The reason the Jews were considered God's Chosen people was because Jesus Christ was supposed to come through them, and because in the Old Testament the Nation of Israel (Which I will note initially had no King and no centralized State) was initially blessed by God.  I see no reason that the current, 1948 state is divinely ordained just because the OT Israel was..

Regarding racism, there's no reason a racist can't be a libertarian so long as they accept the non-aggression principle and private property rights.  You might consider me prejudiced in that I believe those who accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior are going to Heaven while others will go to Hell.  Granted, I have no similar views regarding the issue of race, but some would have an issue with me because of my  views on religion.  However you may feel about that, I support everyone's right to follow whatever religion they want, or none at all as they please, so that particular religious view of mine, whatever else you may think about it, does not make me unlibertarian.

----------

