QUIZ: What kind of libertarian are you?

[RedStripe]

It is naturally evident, because you choose not to accept it does not make it so. The natural rights of Africans forced into slavery were naturally evident, the fact that people refused to acknowledge them and indeed worked directly against them does not negate the fact that they were naturally evident to begin with.



Yes, it does. Property is a naturally occurring phenomenon that requires recognition from no one. If I go out into the woods, clear an area and use the wood to build myself a domicile, it is my property.

Haha this has to be the silliest thing I've read all day.

It's not "naturally evident." Simply repeating that over and over doesn't make it true, sorry.

Clearly you don't even understand what rights actually are. They are social constructs.

For example - how do you know that the African slaves had 'naturally evident' rights?

 

[__27__]

Haha this has to be the silliest thing I've read all day.

It's not "naturally evident." Simply repeating that over and over doesn't make it true, sorry.

Clearly you don't even understand what rights actually are. They are social constructs.

For example - how do you know that the African slaves had 'naturally evident' rights?

It's apparently silly to you, because YOU do not believe rights are naturally evident. I must question then, why you would believe in freedom in any aspect. If rights are nothing but social constructs, then you have no rights. You have no right to your own life, and whoever could by means of force take your life away from you, would be perfectly justified.

Are you an anarchist or a nihilist?

 

[paulitics]

This is a biased quiz to make you think you are an ancap more than a libertarian. I am nothing like an ancap, yet a scored high in that area. This tactic is not going to sell me on this idealistic philosophy, but pull me further away from it.

 

[erowe1]

What's with the last option? Isn't every kind of libertarian on the list a small-l libertarian?

 

[Bucjason]

The picture represents minarchists as well, specifically many on this board. If you believe in a government monopoly on force to impose the will of the majority on the minority

What are you talking about ?? A minarchist believes that the only necessary role of government is to protect the natural rights of people. Life , Liberty , and property.

That type of government protects the rights of minorites AGAINST the majority. In a Minarchist society you couldn't put Free speech up for a vote and then outlaw it by a 51% majority.

 

[__27__]

What are you talking about ?? A minarchist believes that the only necessary role of government is to protect the natural rights of people. Life , Liberty , and property.

That type of government protects the rights of minorites AGAINST the majority. In a Minarchist society you couldn't put Free speech up for a vote and then outlaw it by a 51% majority.

Do your citizens have the right to secede? Or are they forced to belong to your 'government' against their consent.

 

[RedStripe]

It's apparently silly to you, because YOU do not believe rights are naturally evident.

Before we get into a big tangent about my personal beliefs, why don't you explain what "naturally evident" rights are.

I mean, if you have the right to life, then a falling coconut is violating your rights when it cracks your skull and kills you.

If you walk out into the wilderness and clear a parcel of land and claim you have "property rights" is a deer or a gorilla violating your property rights when it trespasses or when it destroys something you have made?

Of course not, because rights are social constructs all social species develop to regulate the behavior of individuals within a social setting. It's not some sort of divine law and it does not exist in any sense beyond the sphere of bone surrounding our brains.

I must question then, why you would believe in freedom in any aspect.

What does it mean to "believe in" something? Believe what about freedom exactly?

If rights are nothing but social constructs, then you have no rights.

What? That doesn't follow at all. You're still thinking of rights in terms of ownership. Like you own your "rights" like invisible bubbles that surround you. No - in reality rights are just a social construct, and they have very real effects. I do, in fact, have rights, such as the right to cross-examine witnesses against me in a criminal trial.

You have no right to your own life, and whoever could by means of force take your life away from you, would be perfectly justified.

Justified by whom? There is no cosmic, eternal standard of justice.

And by the way, wouldn't the fact that someone COULD by means of force, take my life, tend to make it "naturally evident" that magical rights don't actually exist?

Are you an anarchist or a nihilist?

Maybe a little bit of both. Who knows.

 

[emazur]

Minarchist
83%
Left-libertarian
67%
Anarcho-capitalist
67%
Agorist
58%
Paleo-libertarian
50%
"Small L" libertarian
25%
Geo-libertarian
17%
Neo-libertarian
0%
Libertarian socialist
0%

 

[Bucjason]

Haha this has to be the silliest thing I've read all day.

It's not "naturally evident." Simply repeating that over and over doesn't make it true, sorry.

Clearly you don't even understand what rights actually are. They are social constructs.

For example - how do you know that the African slaves had 'naturally evident' rights?

Because as rational beings , with the ability to think and use free will ,we are all able to universally understand certain things that are most beneficial to our survival and hapiness as a species.

Generally all people think that murder is wrong. Generally the same thing with stealing , etc.

This free thinking intelligence also gives us a natural wanting to be free and indepenedent from total dominance of one another.

This is what natural rights originate from . They ARE self-evident , and they are not imaginery. WHoever has taught you this "historical rights" perspective that says rights are subjective to culture has mislead you. Some things don't change no matter what culture you come from.

 

[erowe1]

Just took the quiz.

There are so many mistakes, misspellings, non sequiturs, and poorly worded questions, I had to take the middle option on probably half of them just to avoid saying something that was either ambiguous or meaningless.

What's KAFTA?

Also, Noam Chomsky is not any kind of a libertarian at all.

What does the word "meantime" mean in the sentence, "At least in the meantime, immigration must be restricted."

I could go on. There were dozens of things like those. No offense if the person who made the quiz is here.

 

[Bucjason]

Do your citizens have the right to secede? Or are they forced to belong to your 'government' against their consent.

Ummm, I think it's physically impossible for a single citizen to secede.

If you are asking can they leave and go somewhere else?? Of course they can.

 

[hugolp]

Also, Noam Chomsky is not any kind of a libertarian at all.

Noam Chomsky is a self-defined libertarian socialist. To be fair, the world libertarian has a socialist origin, but it was abandoned and has been used here in the states with a completely different meaning.

Btw, Chomsky is a complete moron.

 

[__27__]

Ummm, I think it's physically impossible for a single citizen to secede.

If you are asking can they leave and go somewhere else?? Of course they can.

And we are back to the standby statist response, not abandoning my property and my livelihood to flee your aggression is as good as 'consent' to you. If you use violent aggression to FORCE people to belong to YOUR government against their will and without consent, you are imposing your will on a minority. It doesn't matter if the minority is .000001% of the population, you are still using aggressive violence to oppress them.

If I stick a gun in your face and tell you to give me your money, then you consent to the robbery by giving me your money, according to your logic.

 

[Bucjason]

Libertarian socialist is an oxymoron

 

[RichieLibertarian]

ANARCHO-CAPITALIST lol

 

[__27__]

Libertarian socialist is an oxymoron

Constitutional libertarian is an oxymoron.

 

[erowe1]

Noam Chomsky is a self-defined libertarian socialist. To be fair, the world libertarian has a socialist origin, but it was abandoned and has been used here in the states with a completely different meaning.

Btw, Chomsky is a complete moron.

He might use that designation for himself. But there is nothing libertarian about him at all. I don't have a problem with the idea of there being such a thing as libertarian socialism. But Chomsky isn't one no matter what he says. He's a statist-socialist, not a libertarian-socialist.

 

[Bucjason]

And we are back to the standby statist response, not abandoning my property and my livelihood to flee your aggression is as good as 'consent' to you. If you use violent aggression to FORCE people to belong to YOUR government against their will and without consent, you are imposing your will on a minority. It doesn't matter if the minority is .000001% of the population, you are still using aggressive violence to oppress them.

If I stick a gun in your face and tell you to give me your money, then you consent to the robbery by giving me your money, according to your logic.

What are you talking about ?? No form of agression would be brought to you in a Minarchist society unless you were engaging in the violation od SOMEONE ELSE'S natural rights ...and natural rights are something we already established that you believe in.

However , if you insisted on your need to violate the rights of others , you would be free to go do so in Canada.

 

[Old Ducker]

Interesting test. It's occured to me over the past year or so that I've moved to the left, the quiz appears to support that.


"You Scored as Left-libertarian"

Left-libertarians are libertarians that are more associated with the anti-authoritarian left than other libertarians. Left-libertarians can be minarchists, but many are anarchists who are in alliance with the anarchist left. Left-libertarians are more critical of conservatism and corporatism than most libertarians. They view libertarians in a hsitorical context that is interconnected with the history of the left.



Left-libertarian
92%
Agorist
83%
Anarcho-capitalist
75%
"Small L" libertarian
67%
Minarchist
58%
Paleo-libertarian
33%
Geo-libertarian
8%
Neo-libertarian
8%
Libertarian socialist
8%

 

[RedStripe]

Because as rational beings , with the ability to think and use free will ,we all able to universally understand certain things that are most beneficial to our survival and hapiness as a species.

Gee, I guess the evidence of history would thus suggest that one the things we are "all able to universally understand" that is "most beneficial to our survival and happiness as a species" would be government because it is by far the most ubiquitous "rule" or "law" that humans have developed.

Generally all people think that murder is wrong. Generally the same thing with stealing , etc.

Duh, because murder is literally defined as a wrongful killing - ask them if killing in various different situations is justified and you will get a million different responses.

The concept of theft presupposes that the person committing the act has a worse claim to the property than the person from whom the property was taken.

And considering the fact that most people think that taxation, in moderation, is perfectly fine, does that mean that government has a "natural right" to tax?

This free thinking intelligence also gives us a natural wanting to be free and indepenedent from total dominance of one another.

I'd argue that arises from instinct rather than intellect.

This is what natural rights originate from . They ARE self-evident , and they are not imaginery.

No. They are not self-evident. You can't even describe one to me in detail. They are not eternal truths or whatever quasi-religious BS you're spinning them in. They are social constructs - they can and do only exist as social rules.

WHoever has taught you this "historical rights" perspective that says rights are subjective to culture has mislead you.

I didn't have to be taught this - it's SELF EVIDENT. Ahahaha

Some things don't change no matter what culture you come from.

Yea - the fact that we are a social species and have rules and other social constructs.