So... how libertarian are you... really? Libertarian Purity Test! ***

[Barrex]

Ok. Now I am officially worried.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Yet you admitted to this here. So does it matter?

Ah, but which ones did I defer about?

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Ok. Now I am officially worried.

Why, Barrex, what was your score?

 

[Luciconsort]

150

 

[Christian Liberty]

The more I think about it, the more I wonder whether the vigilante question should even be a five point question. IIRC that and the private roads question were the only five pointers I said yes to.

Frankly, there are precious few people who would say that a hypothetical assassin of Adolf Hitler would be morally wrong (And those few are Holocaust deniers, for those in our midst, please pretend that you agree that it happened for a second for the sake of argument). So the idea that government should be ENTIRELY unaccountable for its own crimes is, I think, a rare one.

Its where to draw the line that is the question. That's a question I don't really know the answer to. I think sometimes its better to suck it up and obey the law, sometimes passive resistance is best ie Martin Luther King, and sometimes fighting is justified. I think we're at a point where they probably couldn't put me on a jury for an assassination of government leader case but that doesn't mean I actually condone that as a tactic.

Friedman and Rand are libertarians. Perfect? No but certainly libertarians.

Ayn Rand followed the Objectivist cult. And frankly, I would argue that claiming that life does not begin at conception is a fundamentally unlibertarian position. I get the Rothbardian position that because its in a woman's body it can be ejected, or whatever, even though I reject it, but to outright declare a segment of humanity to be non-human I would argue is fundemantally opposed to libertarianism, just as much as someone who said "The NAP doesn't really apply to Jews" or something, would not be a libertarian.

As for Friedman, the Fed is kind of a deal breaker.

Friedman and especially Ayn Rand were Zionists. That's the big problem with them. You can be a Zionist or a libertarian, but you can't be both.

Yeah, pretty much.

157 this time. The bombing of civilians being morally equivalent to murder was my only no. But I think it would depend on the circumstances.

That's surprising. I would have thought every ancap would agree with that. I wouldn't really count bombing a military target in order to stop it from being used to attack you (Assuming you've already been attacked, otherwise we aren't talking about anything resembling libertarian foreign policy) as "Bombing Civilians" like I would dresden, hiroshima, or nagasaki, however.

I scored “medium-core libertarian” (58), which sounds about right I suppose—especially considering that test seems to greatly confuse anarchism for libertarianism.

 

[Roxi]

96

 

[gwax23]

Friedman and especially Ayn Rand were Zionists. That's the big problem with them. You can be a Zionist or a libertarian, but you can't be both.

Your probably the most annoying and single issued person on these forums. Go away.

And FreedomFanatic Ayn Rand and Rothbard shared similar views on Abortion. Almost identical really. So why do you support one and not the other? Im pro Life myself and disagree with them both on the issue but I still consider them Libertarians none the less.

Friedman was a libertarian. His positions on the fed changed drastically to the point he called for its abolition. He recognized it was here to stay though and proposed methods to run it better.

Further just because people support Jewish Self Determination does not disqualify them as being libertarians. Thats ridiculous. Ayn Rand and Friedman have done so much for our movement its immeasurable. Claiming they arent libertarians because you disagree with them on minor issues is simply stupid.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I didn't take this test. I don't need no stinkin' polls or quizzes to tell me "how libertarian" I am. I already know that.

Q: How libertarian are you?
A: Pretty goddam libertarian! Thanks for asking! Now let me tell you all about it, ...

post script:
gwax23 is right. The notion that Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand were not libertarian is just asinine (and this despite the fact that Rand professed to revile "libertarianism"). It stinks of special pleading - especially when things like the "Zionist" card are trotted out.

I have serious problems with both of them. Especially Friedman - who, in my own personal taxonomy of libertarianism, I would classify as a "soft" libertarian (as I classify any libertarian who does not adopt, profess and consistently apply some form of the non-aggression principle). I am no fan of Friedman. You can argue (as I would) that he was "squishy" and wrongheaded in both his approach to and application of liberty ideas & ideals. His rampant positivism was an entirely inadequate foundation upon which to build a philosophy (let alone a society) based on human freedom. But he did advocate for a significantly large[r] degree of freedom in human society and affairs. IOW: He was a libertarian. Period. Get over it.

 

[Sentient Void]

Funny to see this thread pop up again! haha

But on to the discussion... Actually, Ayn Rand *hated* libertarians. Thought we were a 'disgusting, monstrous group of people.'

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ar_libertarianism_qa

Q: Why don’t you approve of libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works?

AR: Because libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication when that fits their purpose. They’re lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They want an amoral political program. [FHF 81]


Q: Libertarians provide intermediate steps toward your goals. Why don’t you support them?

AR: Please don’t tell me they’re pursuing my goals. I have not asked for, nor do I accept, the help of intellectual cranks. I want philosophically educated people: those who understand ideas, care about ideas, and spread the right ideas. That’s how my philosophy will spread, just as philosophy has throughout history: by means of people who understand ideas and teach them to others.

Ayn Rand was not a libertarian, though she held a lot of libertarian ideas. She was an Objectivist / Randian - which are not necessarily libertarians. Same could be said of a a lot of people you mgiht not onsider 'actually' 'libertarian'.

I don't think one either 'is' or 'is not' a 'libertarian'. I don't think it's such a black and white issue. I think one either is more or less libertarian, along a gradient. Some might hold some pretty libertarian positions in one sense, while non-libertarian in another sense. There are also issues that are murky and difficult to address as to what constitutes the 'more libertarian' position, which has solid arguments on both sides - abortion and children's rights, for example.

BTW - I may not post on the forum as much anymore but I do every once in a while post new blogs over here. Some entries have gotten about 5000 views. I am also mroe active on facebook wrt libertarian issues/government/politics/etc, and a couple private groups, one of which ('State Abolitionism' on facebook) I admin where I am trying to bring 'redblack' anarchist-types and 'goldblack' libertarians/anarchists together on common interests. Then there's work, newborn girl, et cetera.

I might take the test again though to see if my 'number' has changed...

 

[gwax23]

She hated libertarianism not for what it was but because she claimed it was ideas stolen from her. (Childish I know) She also claimed Libertarianism was only a political philosophy while Objectivism was a fully fledged philosophy that covered many different areas. Regardless her followers today and many others consider her within the Libertarian camp, making Objectivism a sub branch of Libertarianism. Whether this is right or wrong I wont say but for simplicity Ill consider her a libertarian.

 

[Sentient Void]

I disagree. It goes deeper than that.

I'll link to this article on zerohedge:

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-11-29/ayn-rand-was-not-libertarian

Many people assume that Ayn Rand was a champion of libertarian thought. But Rand herself pilloried libertarians, condemning libertarianism as being a greater threat to freedom and capitalism than both modern liberalism and conservativism. For example, Rand said: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology.

And also note the fact that she had quite a view of those in the middle east - that of them being 'savages', and she very strongly supported our interventions and invasions there. I believe there is a Phil Donahue interview with her expressing this.

That's pretty far from libertarian, even on the gradient approach.

That being said, she was very, *very* good on some things. She was also pretty damned horrible on others. Same could be said of many people who wouldn't be considered very far on the libertarian spectrum.

To be fair, I'll revise my statement of 'she's not libertarian' to 'she's nowhere near as libertarian as people probably think she is'.

Apart from all that, as a person, she was horrible. A raging bitch, egomaniacal, shunned anyone who disagreed with her - even in her own movement. She wanted disciples, a cult, not a real intellectual movement that was willing to criticize itself, accept criticism and address it, and deal with criticism to its 'dear leader'.

And for someone who (understandably) held up logical / intellectual / philosophical consistency so strongly, she was pretty inconsistent herself. Hell, Galt's Gulch was a voluntaryist / anarchist (capitalist) society, for chrissakes - yet she advocates some kind of weird 'voluntary taxation' 'minarchist' state and pilloried ancaps.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Ayn Rand was not a libertarian, [...] I don't think one either 'is' or 'is not' a 'libertarian'.

I must respectfully but firmly disagree.

A is A. A thing is what it is. And Ayn Rand was a libertarian - regardless of whether she (or anyone else) likes it or not.

I think the central problem here is that many (including Ayn Rand) fail to understand that the term "libertarian[ism]" denotes a genus - not a species. As such, it embodies a generalization - not a particularization. Like so:

Any person who believes in & advocates for a significantly large[r] role for liberty in human society & affairs is a member of the "libertarian[ism]" genus. Within that genus, however, there are many particular species: Objectivist, Rothbardian, Friedmanite, Constitutionalist, paleo-conservative, minarchist, anarcho-capitalist, etc., etc., etc. Furthermore, some of these species may be in some way(s) dichotomous & mutually incompatible (such as Objectivism & anarcho-capitalism) - but only with respect to one another, not with respect to the over-arching genus. Forgetting this (or not realizing it in the first place) is what leads so many to incorrectly declare that "so-and-so" (or "so-and-so-ism") is not "really" libertarian[ism].

The same thing goes for numerous specific "fault-line" issues such as abortion; "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are both "trees" in the "forest" of libertarianism - even though they are utterly irreconcilable with one another. Hence, a "pro-life" paleo-conservative and a "pro-choice" minarchist are both libertarians.

 

[JCDenton0451]

Ayn Rand invented her own brach of philosophy: objectivism. I suggest we call her that. Someone who says we have a moral duty to support the Israeli government, someone who calls the Arabs savages sould never be associated with the libertarian movement. Ayn Rand is a huge embarrasment for all of us. She may have been good on economic issues, but on foreign policy Ayn Rand was a total neocon.

 

[Sentient Void]

I must respectfully but firmly disagree.

A is A. A thing is what it is.

Of course. I would not deny this. But the undeniable fact that A=A (even though ultimately it is kinda a meaningless and useless tautology apart from pointing out that objective truth *does* exist, 'somewhere'), or that there are *some* things that are objectively true in the world does not mean that everything has an objective truth. Or that morality is objective. You don't need 'objective (concepts of) morality', btw, for morality to be useful, necessary, and *real*.

To pull so many claims of objectivity from tautologies and A=A seems a non sequitur.

The heart of the question of whether one 'is' or 'is not' a libertarian falls on the question of right and wrong and on justice. But there is no objective right and wrong. There is what society, for whatever reason, at whatever point in time, deems as right and wrong. The NAP, for example, is extremely useful - but it is not objective truth that 'should be' applied to all situations, all the time, and be followed rigidly - there are many conceivable situations, lifeboat scenarios, black swans, where the NAP breaks down, or would be insane, I would even say *immoral* to apply rigidly.

Ayn Rand rightfully took teachings from Stirner et al to talk about *rational* *self-interest*. This is something I absolutely agree with her on. But her philosophy breaks down in the face of this fact as well. For someone who talked so strongly about logical / philosophical / intellectual consistency - she was horribly bad at it, and would personally attack and ostracize, and get others in her circle to ostracize, anyone who pointed these things out or criticized her.

And Ayn Rand was a libertarian - regardless of whether she (or anyone else) likes it or not.

I will respectfully disagree with you. She was very libertarian on some issues, very unlibertarian on others. It's not so simply to call her, nor many people, straight-up 'libertarian'.

I think the central problem here is that many (including Ayn Rand) fail to understand that the term "libertarian[ism]" denotes a genus - not a species. As such, it embodies a generalization - not a particularization. Like so:

Any person who believes in & advocates for a significantly large[r] role for liberty in human society & affairs is a member of the "libertarian[ism]" genus. Within that genus, however, there are many particular species: Objectivist, Rothbardian, Friedmanite, Constitutionalist, paleo-conservative, minarchist, anarcho-capitalist, etc., etc., etc. Furthermore, some of these species may be in some way(s) dichotomous & mutually incompatible (such as Objectivism & anarcho-capitalism) - but only with respect to one another, not with respect to the over-arching genus. Forgetting this (or not realizing it in the first place) is what leads so many to incorrectly declare that "so-and-so" (or "so-and-so-ism") is not "really" libertarian[ism].

I can't disagree with much of this - but the fact is that some people do define and view 'liberty' and 'freedom' differently. Particularly, and especially when it comes down on issues of what constitutes 'just' (as in, justice) property claims. Through many, many discussions, I have come to acknowledge this. This does not necessarily mean then that we must have a State, or that other folks who see property differently than us are necessarily Statists - it just means that *subjective* views of morality, of right and wrong (particularly when talking about 'just' property claims) do indeed exist. Maybe not everywhere, but at the very least in some, if not many, or even most places. And it means that we should simply freely associate with those who are closest to us in our views in how / when we structure our society (hence my group, State Abolitionism).

The same thing goes for numerous specific "fault-line" issues such as abortion; "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are both "trees" in the "forest" of libertarianism - even though they are utterly irreconcilable with one another. Hence, a "pro-life" paleo-conservative and a "pro-choice" minarchist are both libertarians.

Well, I actually fall on the pro-life position myself, and take the more consequentialist approach *against* banning abortion. Abortion I view *personally* as morally wrong, deplorable, disgusting... but that banning it is a cure worse than the disease. You can't ban that. It is an issue of social and cultural degradation and the law cannot fix that - only ostracism and values. But I digress...

Which brings me to another part of my point. I can view abortion as morally wrong, and don't need claims of 'objective morality' to have this view. Some may disagree - say that it is 'morally right' and should be embraced. I think these people are disgusting and foolish and those who engage in it or think about doing it should be encouraged not to, I think a properly evolved market in process and technology can minimize the moral and human fallout in such a culture, and that those who engage in it should be shunned and ostracized throughout society.

 

[JCDenton0451]

Your probably the most annoying and single issued person on these forums. Go away.

Further just because people support Jewish Self Determination does not disqualify them as being libertarians. Thats ridiculous. Ayn Rand and Friedman have done so much for our movement its immeasurable. Claiming they arent libertarians because you disagree with them on minor issues is simply stupid.

Ha ha! So says the guy, whose 600+ posts on this forum are devoted almost entirely to Zionism apologetics.

I don't understand what "Jewish Self Determination" means. But so long as it involves war, agression, colonisation of other countries, and the subjugation of their people, the destruction of property and rampant government-sponsored theft of other people's land ("settler movement")...well, this is something that every libertarian should oppose on moral and ideological grounds. There is no moral dilemma here like in abortion. This is absolutely clear-cut violation of NAP.

Personally, I believe Zionism was the main reason Ayn Rand split from the mainstream libertarian movement. Her emotional attachment to the Jewish state pushed her toward inerventionist foreign policy.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I'll link to this article on zerohedge: http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-11-29/ayn-rand-was-not-libertarian

But what Rand had to say about "libertarians" has got absolutely nothing to do with whether she was in fact a libertarian herself. Suppose Barack Obama emitted a vicous, nasty & mean-spirited screed denouncing "statists & statism" - would you accept this as evidence that Obama is not a statist?

And also note the fact that she had quite a view of those in the middle east - that of them being 'savages', and she very strongly supported our interventions and invasions there. I believe there is a Phil Donahue interview with her expressing this.

Her disgusting & despicable attempt to foist "collective guilt" upon Arabs, et al. (perpetuated today by the jackholes at the Ayn Rand Institute) does not signify that she is not a libertarian. It merely demonstrates the truism that libertarians are every bit as capable of vicious nonsense, cognitive dissonance, rank hypocrisy and/or simply being flat-out wrong as anyone else.

That being said, she was very, *very* good on some things. She was also pretty damned horrible on others. Same could be said of many people who wouldn't be considered very far on the libertarian spectrum.

To be fair, I'll revise my statement of 'she's not libertarian' to 'she's nowhere near as libertarian as people probably think she is'.

I'm sure it could also be said of some who would. That's the problem with one-dimensional spectra (be it "left-right" or "more-less libertarian" or what-have-you). They can at best measure only one particular parameter. And libertarianism is just far too general a concept to be "measured" by a single variable.

Apart from all that, as a person, she was horrible. A raging bitch, egomaniacal, shunned anyone who disagreed with her - even in her own movement. She wanted disciples, a cult, not a real intellectual movement that was willing to criticize itself, accept criticism and address it, and deal with criticism to its 'dear leader'.

And for someone who (understandably) held up logical / intellectual / philosophical consistency so strongly, she was pretty inconsistent herself. Hell, Galt's Gulch was a voluntaryist / anarchist (capitalist) society, for chrissakes - yet she advocates some kind of weird 'voluntary taxation' 'minarchist' state and pilloried ancaps.

I am in full agreement with all of this. But these things have nothing to do with whether she was a libertarian or not.

 

[Sentient Void]

But what Rand had to say about "libertarians" has got absolutely nothing to do with whether she was in fact a libertarian herself. Suppose Barack Obama emitted a vicous, nasty & mean-spirited screed denouncing "statists & statism" - would you accept this as evidence that Obama is not a statist?

I'm not saying *this* necessarily did. As I said previously, she held some *very* unlibertarian views at least with respect to the wars in the middle east, that if not disqualifying her as being 'necessarily libertarian' (if you're looking at libertarianism as black vs white), then at least putting her far, far lower on libertarian spectrum (if one were to take this view instead).

But taking this into account, then even taking *her own word* on top of it as separating herself from libertarians, and insulting libertarians, saying they're worse than marxists, and a greater threat than socialism, surely adds to the weight that she either is not libertarian or is not anywhere near as libertarian as some people think (which is what I said when I corrected myself).

Mayyyybe Objectivism falls under the 'tree' of libertarianism - in which there is definitely a tree, and which seems to support the argument that defining libertarianism isn't so cut and try since different libertarian groups disagree with eachother on quite a few issues. But I don't know. I think it is more likely that Objectivism simply overlaps with libertarianism on a good amount of views. But this is separate from Ayn Rand herself... I think some of the things she says and advocates are not only unlibertarian (in ways that all if not virtually all libertarians would agree as unlibertarian, especially the middle eastern wars issue), but even inconsistent with Objectivism (again, noting the middle eastern wars issue). So while I think Objectivism probably just overlaps with libertarianism, I think Ayn Rand and her views herself really are not even *completely* consistent with Objectivism.

Her disgusting & despicable attempt to foist "collective guilt" upon Arabs, et al. (perpetuated today by the jackholes at the Ayn Rand Institute) does not signify that she is not a libertarian. It merely demonstrates the truism that libertarians are every bit as capable of vicious nonsense, cognitive dissonance, rank hypocrisy and/or simply being flat-out wrong as anyone else.

Absolutely agreed. It is perfectly libertarian, though deplorable, to be personally racist and bigoted as long as it involves the subject of free association, and not utilization of the State.

I'm sure it could also be said of some who would. That's the problem with one-dimensional spectra (be it "left-right" or "more-less libertarian" or what-have-you). They can at best measure only one particular parameter. And libertarianism is just far too general a concept to be "measured" by a single variable.

Well, my view is that it is at least a 2-dimensional spectrum. One dimensional is yes/no. More or less libertarian is 2-dimensional. Hell, it might even be 3-dimensional. But my point is that it is just not as simple as some would claim - that one either simply 'is' or 'is not' libertarian. I agree it's too nebulous/abstract a concept to define so simply. Subjective morality, especially around just property claims, just adds to this reality, I think. So I don't detect any real disagreement here, correct me if I'm wrong.

I am in full agreement with all of this. But these things have nothing to do with whether she was a libertarian or not.

Yes, hence the 'apart from all that' part.

 

[gwax23]

Ayn Rand hated the Anarcho Capitalist version of Libertarian, espoused by her former disciple Rothbard. I think her views on a Minarchist form of libertarianism, something Ron paul supports, would have been much more favorable. (As it was what she supported anyhow, though she claimed she came up with it first)

Ha ha! So says the guy, whose 600+ posts on this forum are devoted almost entirely to Zionism apologetics.

I don't understand what "Jewish Self Determination" means. But so long as it involves war, agression, colonisation of other countries, and the subjugation of their people, the destruction of property and rampant government-sponsored theft of other people's land ("settler movement")...well, this is something that every libertarian should oppose on moral and ideological grounds. There is no moral dilemma here like in abortion. This is absolutely clear-cut violation of NAP.

Personally, I believe Zionism was the main reason Ayn Rand split from the mainstream libertarian movement. Her emotional attachment to the Jewish state pushed her toward inerventionist foreign policy.

Every single thread and post Ive seen you write has been about Israel. Every thread, from ones talking about abortion, to taxes, to libertarian subdivisions you find some way to connect the dots and tie Israel and zionists into it. Its pretty impressive really.

Most of my posts arent about Israel. Ive never started a thread about Israel, I only respond to the ignorance that makes the rounds on these forums by people like you. That combined with the fact that I agree with most of the stuff that I read on these forums which tends to = less posts due to less need to discuss and argue.

Jewish Self Determination = Zionism. Its the aspiration for Jewish statehood. As well as cultural unity through common language and identity which hardly could be called bad even by the likes of you. All your accusations from subjugation to colonization are unfounded as Ive repeatedly asserted in other Israel based threads which I would be happy to discuss with you there as to not take this thread further of course. (Though even in the threads on Israel you tend to disappear when you fail to provide counter arguments or substantive facts to back up your absurd assertions.)

But thats all besides the point. Your a troll plain and simple. Anyone you disagree with you label a zionist and a neocon and call them fake libertarians. I urge you to become less single issued and to cease your annoying demeanor at once.

 

[JCDenton0451]

post script:
gwax23 is right. The notion that Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand were not libertarian is just asinine (and this despite the fact that Rand professed to revile "libertarianism"). It stinks of special pleading - especially when things like the "Zionist" card are trotted out.

Zionism is not a "card", it's the name of Jewish nationalist movement. How do you reconcile individualism in libertarinism and tribalism in Zionism? The Zionists don't see people as individuals, they see people as groups, and in their view the Jewish group is superior and collectively entitled to a State and a piece of land in the Middle East, because the Jewish Bible says so or whatever.

Do you think the State should promote specific religion, discriminate based on ethnicity because this is what the concept of the "Jewish State" is all about? Do you think that property rights of the non-Jews should be disrespected, because this is what the Israeli government does in Palestine.

Frankly, I don't see a way to reconcile Zionism and libertarianism. Just like Communism and Nazism, it is an entirely different philosophy and worldview, on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

 

[Sentient Void]

BTW, I just retook the test ... and whereas after first taking the test those years back I got a 160, after retaking it right now I ended up with a '155'.

I don't know how I answered differently compared to the last one - but the only one I said 'no' on was the vigilante justice one.

For example, while it *may* be morally permissable... I feel like it would be stupid/foolish, counterproductive to do so. I also think it would need to be defined the type of vigilante justice on those in different public offices. Some may deserve serious retribution, whereas other simply restitution...