Libertarian Purity Test

[Sematary]

69
Unfortunately, as much as I hate to admit it - government does have a role in society. Ours is simply out of control

 

[Knut Schreiber]

Why are so many people mentioning that it's not a libertarian but an anarchist test? Libertarians oppose government force. The purest form (and it's called "purity test") is, of course, anarchism. Many important libertarians were/are anarchists. "Mr. Libertarian" Murray Rothbard was an anarchist. David F. Friedman is an anarchist. Hans-Hermann Hoppe is an anarchist. Walter Block is an anarchist. In my opinion you can be a Libertarian without being an Anarchist, but the purest form of Libertariansm is indeed a form of anarchy.

We should not get divided about this topic. We can discuss things like this when we have achieved limited government. Ron Paul is no anarchist, but I guess some people with 70 points overhere might be a bit shocked when they look a bit deeper at his background and read Rothbard, for example.

 

[Peregrin]

97 here

 

[Number19]

Test is flawed. It is not a Libertarian purity test. Its an Anarchist purity test.

I agree. Look at question #61 : Should the State be abolished. The test wants a "yes" answer and this is anarchic, not libertarian. Libertarians support minimum government, but not total abolition. Part 3 of the test mostly slants toward anarchism.

 

[forsmant]

Libertarians stole that word

 

[forsmant]

Agreed. I thought that was annoying as well. There is definitely a role for government, just at the local level, instead of the federal level.

How local? Governments preform the same function at all levels.

 

[nate895]

How local? Governments preform the same function at all levels.

No, the Federal government has enumerated powers. The State Government has all powers it didn't delegate to the Feds, this is called "police" power. The laws it makes still cannot violate the natural law. The local government is given mostly the power to protect the public from criminals and provide emergency services for the most part. Also, public necessities in the case of the local government.

 

[Number19]

One solution to prevent this again would be to eliminate government entirely. Otherwise, we'll wind up right back where we are now. Dr. P gets elected, makes every single governmental change he has proposed, and then 20 years later politicians have slowly and insidiously usurped all that power back and more. Thomas Jefferson was right, "The natural progression of things is for government to grow and liberty to shrink" or something like that. Constitutional limits have failed. Its a pretty radical idea, and totally unlikely in my lifetime, but I think it will happen eventually where we have a totally free society centered around property rights. I'll plug it again, "The Machinery of Freedom" is a great book on this issue.

Anarchy is inherently impossible. You will always have "gangs" preying upon the weak. Gangs are "ruled" by a leader, who will have his seconds, and this represents a rudimentary form of government. Any social organization which arises to protect individuals against these gangs will also be "government". The earliest form of social organization, above the family level, was semi-nomadic tribalism. "Government" existed within this framework.

 

[FindLiberty]

120 - but I thought that I would score higher (closer to a big "L" Libertarian).

 

[MJfromCT]

90 some of those questions left no option but to take the statist side. I refused to answer "correctly" on a number of questions as I perceived the particular answers as too absolute. I am proud to consider myself a constitutionalist, where is the test for that?

 

[Kludge]

Hate some of these questions...

*"Should the U.S. refuse to pay for the defense of allies that are rich enough to defend themselves?"

For better or for worse, we should honor our alliances so long as we're achieving a common goal. I'd defend Mexico if the uhhh.... countries below it in North America declared war on us, not the US.

*"Should all of the public lands be privatized?"

Why would we sell off our military bases?

*"Should the FDA and medical licensing be abolished?"

Maybe I think medical licensing should be maintained (but less restricted) while the FDA should be abolished.

*"Should the Supreme Court strike down economic regulation as unconstitutional?"

No, because it's not. That doesn't mean it's right...

*" Is bombing civilians in an enemy country morally equivalent to murder?"

Of course not, ultimately the civilians allowed their leaders to maintain power, which is why I'm close to shitting myself with McCain as the front runner.

*"Should all taxes be abolished?"

Only if you seek the decay of our infastructure...

*" Should highways and roads be privatized?"

I'm done taking this "test". >.>

 

[IDefendThePlatform]

Anarchy is inherently impossible... Any social organization which arises to protect individuals against these gangs will also be "government".

I agree that people will join together for mutual protection in the absence of government. But I think the difference would be that these social organizations would not initiate force. That is, they wouldn't tax members or force each other to do anything (i.e, register hand guns.) Group membership and society at large would be based on voluntary action. Then, if someone violates your person or property, others (your group, tribe, whatever) would voluntarily defend you and seek restitution. That's what I think of when I say "anarchy." And I think it is consistent with the basic libertarian message. I'm not sure if they still do this, but it used to be that to sign up to be a Libertarian you had to click "Yes" on a pledge that said "I do not support the initiation of force against other human beings" or something like that. Which, to me, means zero taxes, including no excise or sales tax.

 

[forsmant]

Anarchy is inherently impossible. You will always have "gangs" preying upon the weak. Gangs are "ruled" by a leader, who will have his seconds, and this represents a rudimentary form of government. Any social organization which arises to protect individuals against these gangs will also be "government". The earliest form of social organization, above the family level, was semi-nomadic tribalism. "Government" existed within this framework.

The prevailing mindset to think of people as groups is what allows governments to be formed.

What your describing is what many people actually associate with anarchy, mob rule. Once you realize that you are a sovereign individual with different thoughts than anybody else, you can truly be free. No one can ever rule you. They can present you with negative choices, but there will be a choice.

Disbanding the military would actually make America less susceptible to foreign invasion. Instead of conquering the government an invader would have to conquer everyone individually and create their own coercive institutions.

 

[ChickenHawk]

The prevailing mindset to think of people as groups is what allows governments to be formed.

What your describing is what many people actually associate with anarchy, mob rule. Once you realize that you are a sovereign individual with different thoughts than anybody else, you can truly be free. No one can ever rule you. They can present you with negative choices, but there will be a choice.

Disbanding the military would actually make America less susceptible to foreign invasion. Instead of conquering the government an invader would have to conquer everyone individually and create their own coercive institutions.

If we could just fundamentally alter human nature anarchy would work great. Come to think of it the same could be said of socialism.

 

[LibertiORDeth]

What is "national service?"

 

[LibertiORDeth]

106. Not bad, for the original poster to get over 150 he must be a complete anarchist.

 

[Joseph Hart]

124

 

[forsmant]

If we could just fundamentally alter human nature anarchy would work great. Come to think of it the same could be said of socialism.

It is human nature to think. You can continue to think of people as being a group and I will see them as individuals. Groups do not think, people do. Peoples can agree and often do. That does not unite them.

 

[Number19]

I agree that people will join together for mutual protection in the absence of government. But I think the difference would be that these social organizations would not initiate force. That is, they wouldn't tax members or force each other to do anything (i.e, register hand guns.) Group membership and society at large would be based on voluntary action. Then, if someone violates your person or property, others (your group, tribe, whatever) would voluntarily defend you and seek restitution. That's what I think of when I say "anarchy." And I think it is consistent with the basic libertarian message. I'm not sure if they still do this, but it used to be that to sign up to be a Libertarian you had to click "Yes" on a pledge that said "I do not support the initiation of force against other human beings" or something like that. Which, to me, means zero taxes, including no excise or sales tax.

I can't disagree with this. But the classic description of anarchy is the absence of government. You qualify and change this by saying anarchy is the absence of coercive government. I call this a libertarian government. It's just a case of defining the terminology.

 

[Number19]

What is "national service?"

Serving your government/society in ways other than military. ie peace corps or working in a free clinic, etc