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

[fisharmor]

I think they should be privatized. To me, privatization only implies letting people freely choose if they want it, in what quantity, at what quality, and at what price. I think most free thinkers would not voluntarily fund the gestapo... but they may exchange services in return for domestic defense.

I'm with Pete.
In addition, you are not describing police. Well, you were with the gestappo.
The role of the police would not exist in a free society.
Police are not guards. They aren't even sheriffs.
What they are is predators. They're hyenas.
They circle around society, looking for an easy kill. 'Cause they sure as fuck ain't going for the hard ones.
They fight with the other predators over who gets the kill.
After they've filled their bellies, they leave, without an ounce of give-a-shit for how they've affected the herd.
They've done what they do, and that's all that matters.

If someone can explain how a free society would create mobile enforcers who have carte blanche to harrass, beat, and kill individuals while ignoring real problems, then I'm listening.

 

[Agorism]

150.

I voted against all the vouchers stuff as I think vouchers are a big government scam. I also voted no against the question about the vigilante justice because it wasn't clear what they were talking about and wasn't specific esp since I prefer non-violent protest as a first step.

 

[BuddyRey]

Another 160-pointer here.

 

[Pete Kay]

58

Ha, that seems much lower than many on here posted. I'm only moderately libertarian. I'm more of a constitutionalist and many of those questions were vague and poorly worded(like abolishing all medicare with no option for phasing it out). I suspect many on here have inflated scores, because you answered the questions with the intent to prove your libertarian bona fides, instead of looking at the questions in a practical manner.

I think that anyone with a score of 150-160 is lying to yourself, because if you truly held those beliefs you would have already gone off the grid by now.

 

[VivaLaRevolucion92]

Rothbard is amazing.... He just says what needs to be said, with passion.

 

[BuddyRey]

RedStripe, I'm trying to understand your philosophy better, but I'm having kind of a tough time. Could you explain to me what the phrase "right-wing libertarian" means, because to me, it sounds contradictory, almost like "promiscuous virginity" or "atheistic Catholicism."

 

[bruce leeroy]

83

 

[Mike4Freedom]

I scored 123

 

[farrar]

This is only the defacto case and not the one by definition. Properly defined and implemented, governance can be benign and just. The justifiable application of force comes only IN RESPONSE TO some person or group initiating force illegitimately. That sort of governance I have no problem with, all else equal.

A great problem I see in so many of the otherwise sound and sometimes brilliant minds here is that they focus on QUANTITY rather than CHARACTER. The amount of government is irrelevant in a sense because if it is well defined and righteously acted upon, it will necessarily remain small under normal circumstances. If, however, a great murder jag were to break out, governance would increase until such time as the problems abated.

As I have written many times and shall repeat once again, the core problem with governance is not governance per sé, but within the hearts and minds of men. Corrupt men ruin it, as do those whose intentions are well meaning, but whose faculties of intellect are either insufficient to their offices or simply working on an invalid set of assumptions.

Any form of governance, including self-governance, is only as good as those practicing it. This truth cannot be escaped.

I suppose the more CAPS in a post the more LOGICAL and INTELLIGENT it becomes? lol jk.

But in all seriousness I understand what you are saying, but I would also argue that whether or not government is just with its monopoly on force isn't much of an issue either. Its the fact that government is a monopoly you cannot advert. You must pay taxes or go to jail, you must contribute to the system or face consequences. Even if Government is just, maybe I like dictatorships? Perhaps I want a Democracy, or a republic, or a communist like entity to obey and contribute too. Government doesn't allow this, you must subscribe to it as is. In an ancap society, I can voluntarily form, subscribe to, or reject any of these systems and a variety of others including self-government. The key is that one does not force any individual to contribute to anything, you can associate yourself with whatever group or laws you wish.

I agree that quantity probably isn't as important as character but I understand why it is used. The more government the less decisions the individual gets to make, and the more force that is used. Its an rough and indirect measure of coercion but a measure none the less.

 

[ian_co]

I got 109 but i dont think getting a perfect score is something to be proud of.

I love capitalism but privatizing law itself? This doesn't seem to be relevant to libertarianism even though many things need to be privatized. I view this as merging economical aspects and social aspects of a society that have no connection with each other. I don't see how we can put a price tag on fairness, equality and justice, let alone profit off of it.

Also same goes for national defense, I don't see how we can trust corporations for our safety, especially Blackwater. This only reduces the government's accountability and steps toward corporatism which leads to dictatorship of the corporation.

 

[oyarde]

Your score is...

113

Oh boy, please do not tell my republican buddies....! lol

I cracked up when reading those descriptions , one said something about your friends wishing you would quit talking about your views .

 

[Brett85]

Purity? Test
Ok, I took it.
Score 108

I agree with many that the questions are vague and misleading, and I skipped a few.


No, they should not be privatized.
They should be abolished, and the very concept wiped from memory.

Purity??? my pink pimply butt.

Live in a cage for awhile and see if you love liberty.

Wow. So no laws against murder, rape, stealing? Murderers and rapists out on the street? That isn't libertarianism. That's anarchy.

 

[farrar]

Wow. So no laws against murder, rape, stealing? Murderers and rapists out on the street? That isn't libertarianism. That's anarchy.

That's not anarchy thats chaos. There are so many deterents against murder and rape in an anarchist society. For instance the family, friends, and neighbors of the victim. Groups who have formed to protect the individuals who have joined. Security companies that have entered contracts with individuals. Judicial systems that have been created such as in a kritarchy which I rather like. All of these will put murders and rapists and thieves up for open season.

Interesting enough, did you know in somalia which is in a virtual state of anarchy, theft has declined in comparison to the neighboring regions like Ethiopia? We know this because the economy there, which is mostly based on livestock, has created a market for insurance agencies which insure that livestock has not been stolen before it is sold, all for a fee of course. If they are wrong and the livestock has been stolen then they must pay out to who ever purchased the stock who now has to return the stock he just bought. The rates that these agencies charge are much lower in somalia and decling while neighbhoring areas are experiencing rising rates. This indicates that theft is rising in the government run societies as the insurers must charge higher rates to maintain a profit due to the increasing payouts. The kritarchy of Somalia is not experiencing this problem. Strange isn't it?

 

[Sentient Void]

... blah, blah, blah...

I would take your diatribe(s) more seriously if we didn't already go over the vast majority of every point you just made and why you're patently wrong. You claim to have previously been an anarcho-capitalist, but it's clear you either weren't one *period* - or you were just a horrible one with only a superficial understanding at best.

Look, I'm sick of repeating myself with you, RedStripe. Not to mention that the majority of your post was full of personal attacks and vast *arbitrary* claims of truth - as if it becomes reality by your very word. ::

Yeah, yeah - we get it. You hate the concept of sticky property and advocate property theft as just. You deem even *voluntary* interactions and exchanges as unjust, and advocate coercion and theft accordingly. To you, the labor-employee relationship is unjust and illegitimate, the landlord-renter is unjust and illegitimate, and the property owner is unjust and illegitimate. Good luck with the 'coordination problem' and 'information problem', as well as the simple contradictions regarding forcing people through violence to not interact voluntarily with eachother. Good luck accumulating, distributing and effectively using limited scarce resources. You'll need it.

Thickism is the real joke. All you left-anarchists' heads are exploding in anger because the ancap philosophy is growing at rates that absolutely blow yours out of the water - and you don't know wtf to do about it.

Libertarian Thickism FAIL.

PS - And now for my shameless Appeal to Authority:

'The Death Wish of the Anarcho-Communists' by Murray Rothbard
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard122.html

 

[pcosmar]

Wow. So no laws against murder, rape, stealing? Murderers and rapists out on the street? That isn't libertarianism. That's anarchy.

Who said No Law. I didn't.
The police ARE NOT the law. The police are enforcers. They are a Standing Army.

We could certainly do away with 99% of the laws, But Murder, Assault, Fraud and Theft could be handled quite well without Police.
An Elected Sheriff backed up by an armed population would almost eliminate crime. Legalizing what is now prohibited would eliminate the Black Market and Organized crime.

All I said was that the Police (mercenaries) are unnecessary.

 

[Brett85]

Who said No Law. I didn't.
The police ARE NOT the law. The police are enforcers. They are a Standing Army.

We could certainly do away with 99% of the laws, But Murder, Assault, Fraud and Theft could be handled quite well without Police.
An Elected Sheriff backed up by an armed population would almost eliminate crime. Legalizing what is now prohibited would eliminate the Black Market and Organized crime.

All I said was that the Police (mercenaries) are unnecessary.

I thought that Sheriffs were considered part of the police. I assumed that since you are opposed to the police that you're also opposed to prisons. Without prisons we would not be able to hold people for murder, assault, etc.

 

[pcosmar]

I thought that Sheriffs were considered part of the police. I assumed that since you are opposed to the police that you're also opposed to prisons. Without prisons we would not be able to hold people for murder, assault, etc.

You are just full of false assumptions and flaunting your ignorance at the same time.
When did I ever say this?

No the Sheriff is not the police. It is an Elected Local Office.
Police came about from irresponsible people that looked for someone else to defend them and to enforce laws they were unwilling to enforce themselves. They are hired mercenaries.

 

[mport1]

160, perfect score Wish more tests were that easy.

 

[mport1]

Wow. So no laws against murder, rape, stealing? Murderers and rapists out on the street? That isn't libertarianism. That's anarchy.

Anarchy is libertarianism. It is the consistent application of the non aggression principle.

 

[ClayTrainor]

RedStripe, I'm trying to understand your philosophy better, but I'm having kind of a tough time. Could you explain to me what the phrase "right-wing libertarian" means, because to me, it sounds contradictory, almost like "promiscuous virginity" or "atheistic Catholicism."

My guess would be, he's using that term to refer to those of us who aren't socialists.