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

[pcosmar]

There will always be the one person who will some sort of mental issue that just makes him/her crave killing people, how will I be protected?

How are you protected now? You are not, other than by your own actions.

The police are no protection. In fact they are often a threat. Your own personal security is your own responsibility. As it is for your home and your community.

 

[denison]

madly sane, you really should elaborate on what type of "protection" you think the government is giving you from serial killers.

 

[Captain Shays]

Mine was 106. It said that I just entered the realm of hard core libertarians. I guess I'm an elite libertarian. woo hoo

I don't think we should reduce spending on national defense though I do believe we should stop policing the world. I want a strong defense. with lots of nuclear missiles, lots of tanks, bombs, guns and artillery. I think we should have a extensive civil defense system and a workable missile defense system. I think we should secure our borders, our international airports (which are technically borders with other countries) and inspect the 36,000 shipping containers that come into our country every day that don't get inspected. I also think we should work to arm EVERY able bodied person in the country and train them in the arts of war but I don't want the government to get involved in the militia. We the citizen should be able to have any kind of weapon that the military can have except for maybe nuclear weapons.

 

[Sentient Void]

Libertarians like Ron Paul believe in the rule of law. He has never supported anarchy. They've always been two separate ideologies.

Incorrect. Ron Paul is a closet anarchist - he has agreed in interviews with anarcho-capitalists and voluntaryists that the ultimate goal is a truly voluntary society and that's what he's working towards.

He has also cited Murray Rothbard (*the* anarcho-capitalist) numerous times in the 2007-2008 debates, in speeches, interviews, etc.

I, like he, believe that minarchism and the rule of law of limited government (the US Constitution) is merely preferable to other forms of government and much moreso than what we have now, and is a potential stepping stone to a truly free society.

Though of course there are libertarians who simply support a limited government rule of law, minarchism, etc... a very minimalist government - after all, libertarianism is a very wide spectrum.

But as someone pointed out, when you take the concept and even practicality of liberty to it's logical conclusion - you end up with anarchocapitalism. Which is really nothing other than a truly 100% capitalist society, with private enterprise filling in for the role of government in every aspect and service the government provides. All elements of risk would be handled by insurance agencies, defense / police by private defense agencies, law through private arbitration, and punishment would be focused on making the victim whole (and doling out appropriate eye-for-an-eye retribution, as well as potentially indentured servitude to criminals in some cases, depending on proportionality) as opposed to making the victim endure the crime, then make the victim pay for the courts through lawyers and taxation, then make the victim pay for the potentially lifelong incarceration of the criminal through taxation, and on and on. But I digress...

Read some Rothbard, Hoppe, Block, Ruwart, et al

and +rep for denison for well-thought out and accurate responses to recent 'objections'.

 

[oyarde]

what year was that?

1790 ??

 

[ClayTrainor]

Incorrect. Ron Paul is a closet anarchist - he has agreed in interviews with anarcho-capitalists and voluntaryists that the ultimate goal is a truly voluntary society and that's what he's working towards.

He has also cited Murray Rothbard (*the* anarcho-capitalist) numerous times in the 2007-2008 debates, in speeches, interviews, etc.

I, like he, believe that minarchism and the rule of law of limited government (the US Constitution) is merely preferable to other forms of government and much moreso than what we have now, and is a potential stepping stone to a truly free society.

MHD: I know you stand for the Constitution, but what do you say to people that advocate for self government rather than a return to the Constitution?

Ron Paul: Great, fine, I think that's really what my goal is...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFYRHZpavX4

 

[nayjevin]

Any system of rules to which all members agree is 100% fair. Less agreement is less fair. More people you have, the less agreement. So it comes down to how much disagreement with the law of the land will be tolerated before the rule structure is changed, by hook or by crook. If the rulemakers have a monopoly on forcing behavior, it can get ugly. If those who are to abide by the rules can defend themselves from being treated unfairly (courts, 2nd amendment), justice can last for a time.

 

[Brett85]

Incorrect. Ron Paul is a closet anarchist - he has agreed in interviews with anarcho-capitalists and voluntaryists that the ultimate goal is a truly voluntary society and that's what he's working towards.

Ron Paul has a very conservative voting record when it comes to illegal immigration, supported the FEDERAL ban on partial birth abortion, supports a missile defense system, etc. Ron Paul seems like more of a conservative leaning libertarian to me rather than any kind of anarchist.

http://www.ontheissues.org/ron_paul.htm

 

[denison]

where's madly.........

 

[Brett85]

Since I scored a 73 on this, which is a medium core libertarian, is that proof enough that I'm not a statist?

 

[faithfulfriend]

I scored a 134.

One issue I've noticed that divides the "pure" libertarian from the perhaps "unpure" libertarians is the issue of immigration. I personally don't believe we should encourage illegal immigration like our government does now, and all illegals should be sent home in my view. We need to protect our borders, perhaps by bringing all of our troops home overseas and placing some at the Canadian/Mexican borders.

Jefferson, Hamilton, and Franklin didn't like the idea of mass immigration according to 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed To Ask.

 

[ChaosControl]

Actually I don't think that's possible. The concept of a "government" as an institution, is an entity that has the only "legalized" right to use theft, corercion and violence to meet it's end goals.

Government can never be good in a moral or ethical sense.

I've kind of grown tired of the hyperbole like this. It isn't theft and coercion if it is what the society desires. And there are many things to factor in.
I strongly oppose the kind of corrupt governments we have now and that have existed, but as an ideal it is possible for there to be one that is good and actually is beneficial to society.

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

The only question I responded "no" to was":

"Is it morally permissible to exercise "vigilante justice," even against government leaders?"

I don't think so. Some anarchists like to say that using violence again the state is morally permissible because the state is aggressing upon them daily. However, my objection to that is that the "state" cannot aggress upon anyone, no more than the number 3. The state is an abstraction, it's a collective. Only individuals can aggress upon other individuals. A person would be morally justified in defending themselves from a specific individual who is aggressing upon them and incidently from the state, but to make it a general moral dictum that any representative of the state is subject to violence I think is wrong.

And even if it were, I think non-violent means should be the first line of resistance (and possibly the only means).

I don't think the question was meant to imply that if a Congress critter screws you over, killing a postal worker would be okay. I think it'd be more like, a Congress person wrote a bill to confiscate 100% of your income, to name a wild hypothetical. I'd say that'd pretty hardcore aggression worthy of some sort of retaliation, not necessarily violence.

 

[Wesker1982]

The idea of a strictly limited constitutional State was a noble expiriment that failed, even under the most favorable and propitious circumstances. It failed then, why should a similar expiriment far any better now? No, it is the conservative laissez-fairist, the man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, "Limit yoruself"; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian. -Murray Rothbard

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I've kind of grown tired of the hyperbole like this. It isn't theft and coercion if it is what the society desires. And there are many things to factor in.
I strongly oppose the kind of corrupt governments we have now and that have existed, but as an ideal it is possible for there to be one that is good and actually is beneficial to society.

This (bolded) is patently absurd. You are making an argument for pure democracy-one of the most corrupt and violent systems ever tried. When we say "society can override ANYTHING an individual does for what (the fictional collective called) society wants", that's a very quick road to tyranny of the majority.

 

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

154...............

 

[TruckinMike]

Your Libertarian Purity Score

Your score is...

95

I answered in context to the world I live in today. I am a Constitutionalist first, then a voluntaryist.

 

[MaxPower]

I scored a 110. There were some issues I was more or less on the fence about, mind you, and a lot of them on which I had more nuanced positions than could be expressed through a simple "Yes/No" bubble selection. It's really more of an anarchist than libertarian purity test; one must espouse total anarchism in order to achieve a perfect score. It is an interesting survey nonetheless.

 

[Travlyr]

So according to these polling numbers:

• ~ 2/3 of the people here lean toward limited government.
• ~ 1/3 of the people here lean toward an anarchist society.

Is either society achievable with fiat paper money?

 

[Sentient Void]

I scored a 134.

One issue I've noticed that divides the "pure" libertarian from the perhaps "unpure" libertarians is the issue of immigration. I personally don't believe we should encourage illegal immigration like our government does now, and all illegals should be sent home in my view. We need to protect our borders, perhaps by bringing all of our troops home overseas and placing some at the Canadian/Mexican borders.

Jefferson, Hamilton, and Franklin didn't like the idea of mass immigration according to 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed To Ask.

So what are your reasons for opposing mass immigration? More labor = more productivity = more wealth creation for all. The only quasi-legitimate argument I see in opposition to maximizing the allowance of immigration is the issue of the welfare state which I obviously support winding down first, then opening up the borders. But even then - literally only 4% or so of welfare money goes to illegal immigrants, so it's not as serious a problem as people make out (though I consider that still a problem, but then again welfare is a problem period). The rest goes to american citizens.

Ultimately - prohibition doesn't work. In regards to voluntary exchange between consenting adults, tt doesn't matter whether we're talking about drug prohibition, alcohol prohibition, gambling prohibition, prostitution prohibition, or even immigration prohibition. As we've seen, if there is a demand for something - it will be met, one way or another. If it's completely banned or regulated / taxed enough, it will simply be driven underground into a black market, which surrounds the activity with crime, and reduces quality. The same is the case with illegal immigration as it was with alcohol prohibition, and is with drug prohibition.