QUIZ: What kind of libertarian are you?

[AuH2O]

I'd say that's pretty close to right on.

Paleo-libertarian 67%
"Small L" libertarian 67%
Minarchist 67%
Anarcho-capitalist 58%
Left-libertarian 50%
Agorist 33%
Neo-libertarian 25%
Geo-libertarian 8%
Libertarian socialist 0%

 

[The Patriot]

I voted Paleo-Libertarian. I am a Minarchist ideologically but a Paleo-Libertarian politically in that I am willing to work with small "L" Libertarians, paleo-cons, and right wing populists to deconstruct the state.

 

[anaconda]

I am apparently a "small L" libertarian.

 

[erowe1]

Yes you wouldn't have to , because government would be so small and stream-lined . All you would need is things like fire department , police , courts , and military.

You could fund it with a simple sales tax and/or charity donations.

...


Anarchy , however , is a joke. People feel unsafe , which inevitably always leads to tyranny. Limited Government is a necessary evil to safeguard our rights and protect the minority.

This is where definitions become crucial. Is anarchy defined as no government? Or is it defined as no state? Many anarchists would favor the latter, and would be all for the items you described above if funded by the second of your suggested funding methods, donations, as well as by other options, such as user fees. Since coercion would not be involved, then those institutions would not be described as a state, though they could still be described as government.

 

[Bucjason]

Why would a small element be running wild? Do you not think the protection agencies hired by average people, along with local militias and the armed populace itself, would be capable of stopping them?

Protection agencies?? Get serious man.

SO, say me and my neighbor are having a property dispute. I believe he is trespassing , and he thinks I am trespassing. I hire a "protection agency" to deal with him. What do you think he is going to do??

Hire his OWN "protection agency" . Our two sides go to war , and whoever is strongest will win , regardless of who is right . Is that true protection of rights? Hell no.

Or would you rather have private sector courts decide the matter?? I hire one court ( which will of course decide in my favor because I am paying them ) and he hires a different that will be more beneficial to HIM. Result: NOTHING GETS RESOLVED , and chaos insues.

Do you really not see the fatal flaw in not having protection that is provided from an impartial source that we all have an equal investment in as a society ??

 

[Anti Federalist]

What kind of libertarian are you?

One of a kind.

Ha!

 

[ChaosControl]

Tie between Paleo and Small L.

Paleo-libertarian 83%
"Small L" libertarian 83%
Minarchist 75%
Agorist 75%
Anarcho-capitalist 67%
Left-libertarian 67%
Geo-libertarian 17%
Neo-libertarian 8%
Libertarian socialist 8%

I read the Paleo and Small L, both seem accurate.
In some ways I'm more Paleo, like cultural conservatism, but other ways I'm more small L in that I support more free flowing immigration.

Paleo-libertarians are influenced by and in alliance with paleoconservatives and are likely to be former paleoconservatives themselves. Paleo-libertarians are strongly associated with the "old right". Some may tend to be social or cultural conservatives. Paleo-libertarians tend to differ with other libertarians particularly in terms of their tendency to support immigration restriction and strong border security. One of their primary targets of criticism, if not the main target of their criticism, is globalism.

I especially agree with being a strong critic of globalism, probably the most destructive thing of modern times.

 

[tremendoustie]

Protection agencies?? Get serious man.

SO, say me and my neighbor are having a property dispute. I believe he is trespassing , and he thinks I am trespassing. I hire a "protection agency" to deal with him. What do you think he is going to do??

You've got it wrong. You subscribe to protection agencies, much in the same way we currently pay for police. You don't hire them spur of the moment.

Hire his OWN "protection agency" . Our two sides go to war

No, they both go to the court designated to handle disputes between them.

, and whoever is strongest will win , regardless of who is right .

Who do you think wins now? Wake up man! Whoever is strongest always wins, by definition . If we are going to achieve a more just society we're going to need to convince a large number of people to support the ideas of liberty. That's true whether we're going to have a minarchy or voluntaryist society.

All I am saying is that a populace wishing to defend liberty will be able to do so more effectively if protection agencies must compete, and must aquire willing support, rather than if there is one central monopolistic protection agency, which obtains money by force.

I'm also saying that the former approach is not inherently immoral, while the second is. You don't protect liberty by creating a giant organization whose fundamental means of operation violates liberty.

Is that true protection of rights? Hell no.

If the people believe in protecting rights, the protection agencies they subscribe to will as well. If the people don't believe in protecting rights, we're up a creek either way.

Or would you rather have private sector courts decide the matter?? I hire one court ( which will of course decide in my favor because I am paying them ) and he hires a different that will be more beneficial to HIM. Result: NOTHING GETS RESOLVED , and chaos insues.

Again, courts will be designated within contracts, beforehand, and courts will be designated to resolve disputes between protection agencies.

Do you really not see the fatal flaw in not having protection that is provided from an impartial source that we all have an equal investment in as a society ??

Suppose we had the minarchy you desire, and the government were impartial (it's certainly not now, I think you'll agree). What would be the reason for its impartiality? The people must hold it accountable. I am saying that the people could even more easily hold protection agencies accountable, because the market is a more immediate and effective way to send signals than elections are. If I don't like what a company does, I can withdraw my money immediately, boycott them, and spread the word. If I don't like what the government does, I have to wait for the next election, vote for one of two bad options, and hope something changes eventually, years later at best.

I agree that the people need to demand impartial protection. I am saying that the people can achieve this more effectively through the market. If a minarchy is more powerful than average gangs, it'd be because it is supported by average people. If it is (relatively) just, it'd be because the people demand justice, and remain vigilant. These are the same reasons the biggest protection agencies would be more powerful than the gangs, and the reason they would be just.

 

[tremendoustie]

This is where definitions become crucial. Is anarchy defined as no government? Or is it defined as no state? Many anarchists would favor the latter, and would be all for the items you described above if funded by the second of your suggested funding methods, donations, as well as by other options, such as user fees. Since coercion would not be involved, then those institutions would not be described as a state, though they could still be described as government.

You're absolutely right. I missed that buc mentioned a donation option. I would absolutely support this. I'd also support user fees, or subscriptions. "Government" is not necessarily wrong (depending on your definition) -- aggressive violence is. If you believe you can have the former without the latter, I'm all for it.

 

[The Patriot]

I got a "small l" libertarian

 

[Vessol]

Left-libertarian

Left-libertarian
92%
"Small L" libertarian
75%
Minarchist
75%
Agorist
58%
Anarcho-capitalist
58%
Paleo-libertarian
42%
Geo-libertarian
25%
Libertarian socialist
17%
Neo-libertarian
0%

 

[SamuraisWisdom]

Left-libertarian
67%
"Small L" libertarian
67%
Minarchist
67%
Paleo-libertarian
58%
Agorist
42%
Geo-libertarian
25%
Anarcho-capitalist
17%
Neo-libertarian
17%
Libertarian socialist
0%

Tiebreaker went to Minarchist. Not a bad quiz!

 

[Bucjason]

You've got it wrong. You subscribe to protection agencies, much in the same way we currently pay for police. You don't hire them spur of the moment.

I agree that the people need to demand impartial protection. I am saying that the people can achieve this more effectively through the market. If a minarchy is more powerful than average gangs, it'd be because it is supported by average people. If it is (relatively) just, it'd be because the people demand justice, and remain vigilant. These are the same reasons the biggest protection agencies would be more powerful than the gangs, and the reason they would be just.

...and what if the two parties subscribe to two different protection agencies , with different determinations of who is right ?? You see how this wouldn't work?? You need Rule of Law.

Also, what criteria would these protection agencies need to use, in order to decide who is right ,with no universal LAW in place ?? I think some smart business person would make thier criteria vague enough so they could always decide in thier clients favor. If a protection agency has a 100% success rate in the cause of it's client, guess which agency I am picking...

There is no government , so how do you have laws ?? How do you force me to accept the principles of this private sector court if I disagree with it's ruling?? I could just say "sorry, I changed my mind and i now I disagree . im unsubsrcribing and joining a new court." Chaos ! ( and don't even say "contract", because under anarchy a contract has no real binding power. I could find someone else in the private sector to nullify it's legitimacy )

But maybe I have it all wrong . Maybe you suggest writing a univeral consistution that consists only of universal laws , but allows for no OFFICIAL way to enforce them ? Problem is, if the law is universal , then there would be need for only ONE protection agency . I think the name of that "agency" might coincidentially start being called GOVERNMENT . At this point , guess what? ... you would have a Minarchy.

Get it ??

 

[RedStripe]

...and what if the two parties subscribe to two different protection agencies , with different determinations of who is right ?? You see how this wouldn't work?? You need Rule of Law.

Also, what criteria would these protection agencies need to use, in order to decide who is right ,with no universal LAW in place ?? I think some smart business person would make thier criteria vague enough so they could always decide in thier clients favor. If a protection agency has a 100% success rate in the cause of it's client, guess which agency I am picking...

There is no government , so how do you have laws ?? How do you force me to accept the principles of this private sector court if I disagree with it's ruling?? I could just say "sorry, I changed my mind and i now I disagree . im unsubsrcribing and joining a new court." Chaos ! ( and don't even say "contract", because under anarchy a contract has no real binding power. I could find someone else in the private sector to nullify it's legitimacy )

But maybe I have it all wrong . Maybe you suggest writing a univeral consistution that consists only of universal laws , but allows for no OFFICIAL way to enforce them ? Problem is, if the law is universal , then there would be need for only ONE protection agency . I think the name of that "agency" might coincidentially start being called GOVERNMENT . At this point , guess what? ... you would have a Minarchy.

Get it ??

This is the exact same argument that international law/governance advocates make, except with respect to disputes between people of different countries.

 

[Bucjason]

This is the exact same argument that international law/governance advocates make, except with respect to disputes between people of different countries.

Nice try , but countries have no natural rights simply because they exist , only people do. There is no issue between two countries that is a natural right. The protection of a countries soveriegnty does not require the submission of my own.

Oh but I forgot - you're a Nihilist who doesn't believe in natural rights... so i guess this is where the conversation ends.

 

[libertyjam]

For what it is worth, ok if I have to have a label, guess this is ok in the context of the quiz.

You Scored as Paleo-libertarian

Paleo-libertarians are influenced by and in alliance with paleoconservatives and are likely to be former paleoconservatives themselves. Paleo-libertarians are strongly associated with the "old right". Some may tend to be social or cultural conservatives. Paleo-libertarians tend to differ with other libertarians particularly in terms of their tendency to support immigration restriction and strong border security. One of their primary targets of criticism, if not the main target of their criticism, is globalism.

Paleo-libertarian
75%
Minarchist
75%
Left-libertarian
67%
Agorist
58%
"Small L" libertarian
58%
Anarcho-capitalist
42%
Geo-libertarian
33%
Neo-libertarian
17%
Libertarian socialist
8%

 

[RedStripe]

Nice try , but countries have no natural rights simply because they exist , only people do. There is no issue between two countries that is a natural right. The protection of a countries soveriegnty does not require the submission of my own.

Oh but I forgot - you're a Nihilist who doesn't believe in natural rights... so i guess this is where the conversation ends.

Haha, the conversation ends here because you don't have an answer to my earlier questions: what the hell is a "right", in your view; what the hell is a "natural right"; and how do you prove what a "natural right" is?

Oh, and you clearly don't understand the fact that people from different countries (living under different legal systems) can get into disputes - how are those to be solved without this "universal law" you speak of?

It literally is a primary argument of a world-wide, integrated legal system. That's what you are offering.

And the silliest thing you said is that countries have no natural rights - well then you must be an anarchist because no country has a "natural right" to do anything.

 

[KAYA]

Paleo-libertarian 1st, with Minarchist being a close 2nd.

 

[someperson]

This is the worst thread ever. It probably set individualism back a decade or 4. Ok, I'm exaggerating... a little... maybe

 

[RyanRSheets]

The description of me is a little inaccurate, because I support direct and indirect action, and I think it's foolish to neglect voting altogether, particularly when a candidate like Ron Paul comes along. I do not see a necessary role of government, though.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You Scored as Anarcho-capitalist
Anarcho-capitalists are libertarians who oppose the state entirely and propose to have a free market in the provision of security and arbitration. The term anarcho-capitalism derives from Murray Rothbard to describe a stateless society based on the principles of laissez-faire or the philosophy in support of such a proposition. Anarcho-capitalists may tend to still associate more with the political right and make use of the political process, unless they are agorists or left-libertarians at the same time.


Anarcho-capitalist
100%
"Small L" libertarian
83%
Agorist
83%
Paleo-libertarian
67%
Left-libertarian
67%
Minarchist
50%
Geo-libertarian
0%
Libertarian socialist
0%
Neo-libertarian
0%