Just How Libertarian are you?

[cska80]

I scored 100.

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

 

[FreeTraveler]

I think you have to separate marijuana from harder drugs like LSD. I think marijuana should be treated like alcohol, but I'd rather see life ruining drugs stay illegal.

How do you solve the following?

It never ceases to amaze me that otherwise sensible people KNOW the history of Prohibition, KNOW it lead to organized crime, and STILL think that ANY drug prohibition can possibly work!

How many gang-bangers with cool wheels and fat pockets would exist if it wasn't for the War on Drugs? Imagine the world if the easiest way out of the ghetto was education and employment, instead of taking part in an illegal drug trade!

 

[FreeTraveler]

Name one real-world regulatory body that's NOT an obstruction to Liberty.

73. That last section was pretty extreme. I think there were only two questions I answered positively.

I think the purpose of government is to provide for the security of its citizens, so while I'm in favor of cutting military spending, I think disbanding the military is a bit much. The same goes for some regulatory bodies, so long as those regulatory bodies don't become so involved that they become an obstruction to liberty (i.e., Patriot Act, Dept. of Education, etc...).

 

[asgardshill]

How many gang-bangers with cool wheels and fat pockets would exist if it wasn't for the War on Drugs?

They'd all move on to tobacco smuggling and supply. That's what criminals do - move onto the most profitable thing they can find. Priced at $7 a pack in some places due to all the taxes and levies slapped onto them by various levels of government, tobacco as a commodity is ripe for a bootlegging boom the likes of which this country hasn't seen since the 20s. Thank you, Nanny Government! And there are still a hell of a lot more tobacco smokers than there are crack addicts.

 

[constituent]

lsd a "hard drug"

"hard drugs"

quit buying the propaganda, please. for your own good as well as everyone else

in the immortal words of (the rip-off artist) Bob Dylan, "everybody must get stoned (he wasn't talking about pot)"

if you don't know.... don't pretend to.

:: i know plenty of folks who've allowed marijuana to "ruin" their lives, macromade as they are to the couch, 'dude, the simpsons rock!' ::

 

[10thAmendmentMan]

"Should the law itself be privatized? " What does this mean?

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty11.asp

If you don't want to read the whole thing, basically it would be private courts arbitrating disputes between people. You hire the firm that gives you the laws you want. Disputes between people with different law systems would be handled by a third court on which the other two can agree. This means that common sense and common/natural law would most likely be the prevalent system. This is similar to how international law has been handled since the beginning of civilization (e.g. no overreaching government or law). Conflict/open battle between firms would be very rare as fighting usually leads to ill will and can severely hurt the bottom line.

 

[Fox McCloud]

36 on that second quiz. To get 100+, you basically have to be an anarchist or a minarchist. Ron Paul wouldn't score above 100. That quiz basically wants you to say the Constitution is evil.

no it doesn't; the Constitution fits very much in line with the minimal form of government thinking.

Government is necessary, and laws are necessary. Its just they need to be more local and more in line with the Constitution than they are currently.

I agree government and laws are necessary, but you can easily get over 100 even if you don't agree with very many of the last section (which I agree is extreme).

as for saying that Ron Paul wouldn't score above 100? I'm not so sure about that; I wouldn't be surprised if he scored really close to it....you'd really be surprised

remember...he ran for the Libertarian party, which holds many of these so-called "extreme" views.

didn't you guys read my article on private police departments? As I said, it's been shown to save money and have higher service quality than local fire departments. that sure doesn't seem very radical to me.

 

[NMCB3]

Two 100s on the first test...

Anyone who scores over 80 on that second one should be locked up in a padded room.

Libertarianism taken to the extreme is whacko, and that's why the LP is about as powerful as Pee Wee Herman Meetup group. "Practical libertarianism" is the key.

Once you start talking about "private fire fighters" and "no public roads" you lose 99.9% of people. Simple stuff like building roads and having police is something hardcore libertarians are going to have to learn to live with, if they ever want their movement to grow. You don't hear Dr Paul talking about any of that stuff.

At the start of our republic roads were built and maintained by privately owned companies, and firefighters were not affiliated with the government either. Just because you have never known anything but total government control over your life doesn't mean it has always been that way or must continue to be so. The government has a vested interest in painting any view other than the status quo as "extreme" and "wacko' as you say. [look at what they are doing to RP] Just as any view on world events other than their official propaganda is painted as a "conspiracy theory." Obviously they are very good at what they do, which is limiting the range of acceptable opinion and therefore keeping people thinking neatly inside the box.