QUIZ: What kind of libertarian are you?

[Agorism]

Anyone have a spectrum from left to right of all these terms? Just curious.

 

[BuddyRey]

Anyone have a spectrum from left to right of all these terms? Just curious.

I think that most of these categories necessitate, at the very least, a double-axis political spectrum. The old left-right model isn't equipped to map out the subtleties there.

 

[tremendoustie]

I think that most of these categories necessitate, at the very least, a double-axis political spectrum. The old left-right model isn't equipped to map out the subtleties there.

Exactly right.

 

[johnrocks]

I finally took the test yesterday; I always thought I was a paleo/small l but it said I was a minarchist.

 

[Brett]

Minarchist 83%
"Small L" libertarian 75%
Paleo-libertarian 67%
Anarcho-capitalist 67%
Left-libertarian 58%
Agorist 58%
Neo-libertarian 33%
Geo-libertarian 17%
Libertarian socialist 0%

I bet the Israel question raised my Neo-libertarian score. Thinking they're the best in the middle east =/= funding their government and fighting wars for them.

 

[clb09]

Me:

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
83%
"Small L" libertarian
75%
Minarchist
75%
Anarcho-capitalist
67%
Agorist
58%
Paleo-libertarian
33%
Geo-libertarian
25%
Neo-libertarian
8%
Libertarian socialist
8%

 

[Semper Vigilans]

Agorist, although I am going to continue to consider myself a minarchist.

 

[muzzled dogg]

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%
Agorist
92%
"Small L" libertarian
83%
Left-libertarian
83%
Minarchist
58%
Paleo-libertarian
42%
Geo-libertarian
8%
Neo-libertarian
8%
Libertarian socialist
0%

 

[FreeTraveler]

You CAN live on your land and no one will bother you, thanks to the rule of law....good luck with that same goal in an Anarchist society.. Ha !

Kelo? Hello?

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

where is the test? tones

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

Here is how I scored...I'm not surprised...I love Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan, Goldwater etc...TOnes


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
100%
Anarcho-capitalist
75%
Minarchist
67%
Agorist
58%
"Small L" libertarian
58%
Left-libertarian
50%
Libertarian socialist
17%
Neo-libertarian
8%
Geo-libertarian
8%

You Scored as a : Paleo-libertarian Paleo-libertarian 100% Anarcho-capitalist 75% Minarchist 67% Agorist 58% "Small L" libertarian 58% Left-libertarian 50% Libertarian socialist 17% Neo-libertarian 8% Geo-libertarian 8%
Rate this quiz

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

You CAN live on your land and no one will bother you, thanks to the rule of law....good luck with that same goal in an Anarchist society.. Ha !

What? So anarchy means that people are just running wild, not having any respect for each other? People don't need other more powerful men to tell them how to live their lives. Besides, just because there are laws that enable people to own private property, doesn't mean they are respected (or should be laws in the first place).

 

[Bucjason]

Really? So in minarchy anybody who doesn't want to pay taxes doesn't have to?

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. People would have so much more of thier own money , and most would willingly donate to a police department that provides them protection. If we can raise billions in Haiti relief , we can raise billions for own societal cause.

There would be no need for property taxes. No need for payroll taxes.


If you didn't want to pay the sales tax either ,simply don't buy retail. If you really wanted to be extreme, you'd even be free to live out in the woods , grow your own food , and barter for supplies like a stubborn idiot.


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.

 

[Bucjason]

What? So anarchy means that people are just running wild, not having any respect for each other?

Not , but a small element would be running wild , which is enough to make the rest of us feel unsafe , and look for means of protection. This usually means making an alliance with whoever your local Warlord is. This leads to majority domination of the minorites who are still trying to live independently without protection , which in turn eventually leads back to the OPPOSITE of what the anarchists strived for - TYRANNY.

A simple understanding of human nature is all it takes to know that absolute anarchy won't work in large societies.

 

[nandnor]

Not , but a small element would be running wild , which is enough to make the rest of us feel unsafe , and look for means of protection. This usually means making an alliance with whoever your local Warlord is. This leads to majority domination of the minorites who are still trying to live independently without protection , which in turn eventually leads back to the OPPOSITE of what the anarchists strived for - TYRANNY.

A simple understanding of human nature is all it takes to know that absolute anarchy won't work in large societies.

And how do Warlords make money? Looting and robbing I assume? Of an armed populus? What would be the price of their mercenaries to do such a dangerous work, versus the possible profits? All is not as simple as you think

 

[tremendoustie]

Not , but a small element would be running wild , which is enough to make the rest of us feel unsafe , and look for means of protection.

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?

This usually means making an alliance with whoever your local Warlord is.

This leads to majority domination of the minorites who are still trying to live independently without protection , which in turn eventually leads back to the OPPOSITE of what the anarchists strived for - TYRANNY.

For your minarchy to work, you require a populace, the overwhelming majority of which understand the principles of liberty, and are willing to remain vigilant to keep the government in check. Do you think a population like this would be unable to stop a local gang?

You suppose they can hold a central, national government in check, which has a monopoly on agressive violence, no competiton, etc, yet they can't stop the local gangster. It's beyond absurd.

You're not comparing apples to apples. Your conception of minarchy exists among a nearly angelic populace, and your conception of "anarchy" exists among a bunch of devils.

A simple understanding of human nature is all it takes to know that absolute anarchy won't work in large societies.

If human nature is as you describe, your minarchy won't work either. If the people are not vigilant, the minarchy will grow out of control. If the "majority" is quite willing to tyranize the "minority", as you suppose, then they will use your minarchy to do so -- and it will be even harder for the minority to escape. Perhaps you should think a bit more carefully, and not let your imagination run wild.

A government is just a protection agency which forces its customers to pay, and refuses to allow them to choose any alternative, or competitor. Why do you think this type of protection agency is necessary? Why do you believe it is preferable? Would not the necessity of aquiring subscriptions voluntarily, rather than by force, hold the agency more accountable to the people?

 

[Elwar]

"Small L" libertarian 83%
Left-libertarian 75%
Anarcho-capitalist 75%
Minarchist 67%
Agorist 42%
Paleo-libertarian 25%
Geo-libertarian 17%
Neo-libertarian 8%
Libertarian socialist 8%

It says small l libertarians do not particularly identify with the Libertarian Party. I was a member of the Libertarian Party until it changed to become an institution that would elect Bob Barr as their candidate.

I didn't leave the Libertarian Party, the Libertarian Party left me.

 

[Brian Defferding]

Minarchist, which I find is accurate.

 

[libertygrl]

I don't even understand half those descriptions! If you had listed Constitutional Libertarian I would have chosen that one.

 

[tremendoustie]

I don't even understand half those descriptions! If you had listed Constitutional Libertarian I would have chosen that one.

Did you take the test? That might help