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

[ivflight]

Those of you saying that anarchism is the next step past libertarianism, or that anarchism is the most pure philosophy, that's fine, whatever. The test professes to measure how LIBERTARIAN one is, and it doesn't do that very well. A pure libertarian would not score 160 on this test. This test ignores the definition of the word "libertarian", and makes useless the word "anarchist". Don't confuse a semantics problem with a philosophical one.

 

[Sentient Void]

/null

 

[farrar]

It's called the social contract, where government is set up to protect our rights. Look up John Locke.

I realize government sucks, but I'm going to wager that anarchy would be worse in a lot of ways. At least we can try to set up a government that isn't that bad, like America was for years.

Look into somalia before anarchy. You may not agree that anarchy is better than all government, but it has certainly been an improvement there. 28% who had access to hostpitals before anarchy, are now over 50%. GDPpc was $1 a day, now it is $2 and rising. A country that once had a plane now has 16 airports. They now have a university. they have the best telecommunications industry in africa and in much of the world.

Remember that anarchy doesn't mean no law, it means no government. Locke's theory still has some grounds for an anarchist, if you choose to believe that individuals can come together with a common intrest of security from offenders agreeing on what laws to follow. Some anarco-capitalists would argue that this will happen in the market place. It is not exactly Locke's theory but it does have a similar ring to it.

what year was that?

LMAO...

 

[farrar]

Those of you saying that anarchism is the next step past libertarianism, or that anarchism is the most pure philosophy, that's fine, whatever. The test professes to measure how LIBERTARIAN one is, and it doesn't do that very well. A pure libertarian would not score 160 on this test. This test ignores the definition of the word "libertarian", and makes useless the word "anarchist". Don't confuse a semantics problem with a philosophical one.

You bring up an interesting point, how do you define a libertarian. And who has the "right" to determine which of the hundereds of diffrent answers we might get is right? As I mentioned earlier I am a bit weary of this test because it asserts that a pure libertarian is an anarco-capitalist. While I consider myself an anarco-capitalist, I also understand that it is an issue of semantics and there are valid issues to be taken with it. I would argue that there are two answers to what a pure libertarian is: 1)anarco-capitalist and 2) anarco-socialist. However, the test only accomidated the anarco-capitalist, and it assumed that with a definition not all would agree too (whether it be my definition or yours). I think the test needs a Disclaimer or a Notice.

 

[Athena]

I scored a 54. I'm one of those depressed civil libertarian leftists who opposes the international banking cartel and the permanent war economy and sees Ron Paul and the libertarian thing as the most realistic end to this current tyranny. I don't think the traditional left/right paradigm applies any more. This is new territory, IMO, that was not predicted by any of the futurists, and all thinking Americans need to wake up and fight our new banking aristocrats.
I'm willing to put aside my beliefs about the moral good of progressive taxation if doing so will kill the bankers' hold over the economy and the military industrial complex.

 

[Sentient Void]

I scored a 54. I'm one of those depressed civil libertarian leftists who opposes the international banking cartel and the permanent war economy and sees Ron Paul and the libertarian thing as the most realistic end to this current tyranny. I don't think the traditional left/right paradigm applies any more. This is new territory, IMO, that was not predicted by any of the futurists, and all thinking Americans need to wake up and fight our new banking aristocrats.
I'm willing to put aside my beliefs about the moral good of progressive taxation if doing so will kill the bankers' hold over the economy and the military industrial complex.

I love it. +rep

May I recommend a wonderful book to help give you a great start on understanding the economics side of things? I started with it myself - 'Economics in One Lesson' by Henry Hazlitt

 

[ivflight]

You bring up an interesting point, how do you define a libertarian. And who has the "right" to determine which of the hundereds of diffrent answers we might get is right? As I mentioned earlier I am a bit weary of this test because it asserts that a pure libertarian is an anarco-capitalist. While I consider myself an anarco-capitalist, I also understand that it is an issue of semantics and there are valid issues to be taken with it. I would argue that there are two answers to what a pure libertarian is: 1)anarco-capitalist and 2) anarco-socialist. However, the test only accomidated the anarco-capitalist, and it assumed that with a definition not all would agree too (whether it be my definition or yours). I think the test needs a Disclaimer or a Notice.

I don't even think we're within the realm of realistic disagreement on these words. I'm not aware of any person or group that uses the word "libertarian" to mean absolutely zero govt. If someone does use it that way, I'm sure they'll also readily admit that most other libertarians do not (check the test results).

 

[Sentient Void]

I don't even think we're within the realm of realistic disagreement on these words. I'm not aware of any person or group that uses the word "libertarian" to mean absolutely zero govt. If someone does use it that way, I'm sure they'll also readily admit that most other libertarians do not (check the test results).

From wikipedia:

Also identified is a large faction advocating minarchism, though libertarianism has also long been associated with anarchism (and sometimes is used as a synonym for such), especially outside of the United States.[6] Anarchism remains one of the significant branches of libertarianism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

 

[farrar]

I don't even think we're within the realm of realistic disagreement on these words.

Oh, is that why there has been mutiple descusions about it on these forums? There is realistic disagreement on these words. Politics has to many demensions for us to assume that a word that defines a segment of it is the same for everyone. Not to mention that the nature of language is to communicate ideas and feelings not absolutes. This isn't a computer program, People use words the way they think or feel they need to be used. An example of this is how many libertarians call themselves concervatives. To most mainstream "conservatives" that is a farce.

Also there is a huge diffrence between libertarian and Libertarian. The big L signifies more Ron Paul esque thinking. the little "l" siginifes really anything that is compatible with believing in liberty.

I'm not aware of any person or group that uses the word "libertarian" to mean absolutely zero govt. If someone does use it that way, I'm sure they'll also readily admit that most other libertarians do not (check the test results).

That is what I am recognising, and certainly didn't need the test results for that.

Some may say a libertarian is someone who simply believes in liberty. In such a definition it doesn't matter why or to what extent, but only that liberty is a concern. This would qualify most everyone who isn't in government.

Some may say a libertarian is someone who wants less government. In such a definition it doesn't matter much of what kind of government as it does that it is out of the way of their lives.

Some may say a libertarian is someone who believes in the rule of law. Like a republic with a constitution.

Some may say a libertarian is someone who believes every individual is free to make decisions for themselves without the interference of others.

some may say.............

------

Even though, as I stated earlier, I am weary of defining pure libertariansim I do know why many believe anarco-capitalism is. The idea is that many libertarians when comfronted with "well, if taxes are so bad why have any at all? *snears* Anarchist...?" many shy off and say things like "Well its a necessary evil". They often say the same with government. Anarco-capitalists say that there is no necessary evil. There should be No taxes and no government. Now, if you want to play semantics, there is a pretty good argument here. Pure can also mean no evil. If libertarians are willing to accept some evil, and anarco-capitalists who also dislike government and taxes are not willing to accept any at all then they are arguably "pure". In this sense the less government and taxes and tryanny you accept the more refined a libertarian you are. That is in part, why I am an anarco-capitalist. I am not willing to accept anything I don't have to, especially evil or immorality. I think such a society would function very well, but even if it didn't I would still believe in it because of my refusal to accept efficientcy over morality. I am an Anarco-capitalist because Morality is my major concern, and I can also see how many anarchists who agree with me, may want to use that as an example as to why they are pure. Many libertarians who do not like anarchy are libertarians because they think it is more efficient to have some government over alot or none, and would change there minds to whatever tune seemed most efficient at the time.

 

[economics102]

105.

Definitely not on-board with the whole privatizing police/courts/law, etc. If that's what a "pure libertarian" is then I'm not ready to be one

 

[NYgs23]

I got 158. I disagreed that government-funded vouchers are better than government-managed services.

The state is inherently coercive and coercion is always wrong. That's all anyone should have to know before concluding that the state should be abolished.

 

[osan]

This is how police were created. Abandoning your own personal responsibility to others.
This Fails.

This is hiring a mercenary to do your killing for you.

+ fukkin' 1 + d00d. This is SO on the money.

 

[Bryan]

I took the test and would say that some of the questions are not inline with what I would consider libertarianism, but I guess it depends upon ones arbitrary definition.

For example, the questions about "Should the state be abolished?" - I would consider the most libertarian response to be "No", because saying "Yes" would mean that you are imposing your will for there not to be a "state" onto others, exactly how is that libertarian? It's much more libertarian to let other people self-organize as they wish.

That applies equally for some of the other questions as well, such as others can create a military if they wish. How is it libertarian to tell others they can't self-organize a military? There are a number of other similar problems with the test as well.

BTW, I got a 94, all due to flawed questions. IMO, this definition of libertarianism, where one imposes their will to prevent others from self-organizing, is very destructive to our goals. I wouldn't recommend this test for anyone.

 

[Bryan]

The state is inherently coercive and coercion is always wrong. That's all anyone should have to know before concluding that the state should be abolished.

So if someone killed your loved ones, than any form of coercion against the killer is wrong? What difference does it make if the coercion comes from you, your neighbors, your home owners association or some other arbitrary "state"?

 

[pcosmar]

I took the test and would say that some of the questions are not inline with what I would consider libertarianism,

^^
That was my view.
It is more an Anarchist Purity Test.

I repeat, I am not an anarchist.
This test proved only that.

 

[osan]

Note that I didn't say that coercion itself could be good, I said that a coercive government could do good things.

Ah, I did not read it that way. I'm sure it is my failure. Sorry.

Let me ask you this in response: what of it? All the good one does can be undone with but a single act. I guess I am unsure of your point in mentioning it.

This doesn't at all preclude that same good thing coming about through market forces, but only that sometimes the mandatory association of the state does some things that are beneficial.

I view proper governance as a strictly reactive event. Proper officials remain quiescent until something "wrong" happens and then they begin with investigation. If their queries reveal cause for action, then they move substantively to the purpose.

Proactive governance is, IMO and by definition, evil. What I do believe would serve a proper governing purpose is for officials, through precedent, to develop and publish lists of actions that are likely to expose individuals and groups thereof to governance (prosecution mainly or perhaps exclusively(?)). In such ways people engaging in activities that, if they go wrong, are likely to lead to governing actions such as prosecution. IMO this applies to individual and group behavior vis-a-vis formal corporate activity, which would be more closely circumscribed in some respects.

This difference in levels of governance seems reasonable to me. People can do more and be less observed than corporations. If they cause harm, they are immediately and personally accountable. In the corporate world there would be some advantage in that certain personal actions by employees would be protected in terms of personal accountability, which would be transferred to the corporation. The downside would be stricter monitoring and control. This is the trade-off people would have to make when making a decision to act as an individual or as the instrument of a corporate entity.

As the prime example, the state adopting common law property and tort rules to resolve disputes was a "good" thing - the rules were developed in a market manner, and work to defend individuals from aggression.

I can accept this, all else equal.

Even though everyone has been coerced into giving allegiance and tax money to the system, which is bad, the enforcement of these rules amongst the ruled gives incentives and results that approximate the complete protection of the individual from aggression (thus preserving as amongst each other the expression of each individual's values).

Coercion in this case be badness, IMO, particularly at the prevailing extortionate rates.

Basically anything that the state does that would have occurred in its absence I can see as a "good" thing. But of course these instances are very few, and doesn't excuse the forced obedience the state demands.

MAy I once again admonish against such references to "the state"? It is but an abstraction in our minds. "The state" demands nothing because there is no state to begin with. Some group of individual human beings is doing the demanding and has men with guns who will enforce their arbitrary and criminal demands.

I agree that violence isn't the solution

Violence has its place, do not fool yourself. It is, however, the last resort of all last resorts, to be taken up only when one's back is against a wall. I have no problem with people taking up arms to free themselves from tyranny. None whatsoever. I have no problem with them killing those who violate them. The problem I have, however, is the propensity (almost universal) of people so acting to sail across the boundaries of propriety well into the territory of their own tyranny and injustice. Once loosed, the monster is difficult to stuff back into his cage.

Consider the ultimate of Ceauscescu in Romania. People found him and killed him fair-gruesome. I have ZERO problem with what they did. I even applaud it to be frank. Had they continued on to do the same with people who had committed no such crimes, that is where the trouble begins. Just look at how the French Revolution devolved into the Terror. THAT is the problem with vigilantism - the other side of the coin. I believe this is inherent to the nature of the human being and all we can do is our best.

What about "self-help" evictions? What if your tenant in a strip mall was a local branch of the Secretary of State and they hadn't paid rent for two years, but the local courts wouldn't issue an eviction notice either because of some "immunity" clause or by personal favor to the local magistrate that wasn't receiving the funds from the state to pay his bills?

There are many problems with what you describe, obviously, not the least of which is simple corruption. Killing the people there.... I can see it in some circumstances, but it would be highly risky business. Opening their doors and tossing all their shit on the street, while not as risky, will still likely net you prison. Corruption can be a bugger.

Knowing what might happen, you might consider not leasing to government as a matter of policy, or adding stipulations to the rental agreement that you are entitled to physically enter and remove all their materials in the event rent is more than 30 days past due. If they don't like those stipulations, let them go elsewhere. This raises the issue of responsibility being a two-way street in that, given the rank corruption of our system of governance, one is obliged to take all circumspect and prudent precautions when engaging in business transactions with governing agencies.

Further, why is the socialized decider trusted to make the right decisions about when justice is proper?

Because on the whole we are sloth-ridden and stupid, preferring our flavor of slavery to freedom because it is easier to do so.

Especially since the only recourse available to someone who believes the court's decision was wrong was to appeal to a court that is part of the very same institution?

Great point. I am well convinced that a far better system of governance can be contrived. My new Constitution, such as it currently finds itself, corrects these sorts of problems. There is less than zero percent chanceof anything like it ever becoming the framework by which people live, but I have enjoyed the challenge of the intellectual exercise.

The "anarchic" solution doesn't give free reign to any vigilante group to seek justice however they wish - it simply says that all groups seeking justice must be accountable to all other groups offering the service of justice.

I would say there is a better than even chance that such a system would inevitably lead to feudalism as people formed factions to defend against what they consider the trespass of other groups. What is needed is governance not by law so much as by principle. All law must kneel to the principles of liberty IMO if a nation's people are to be free. Anarchism is a clusterfuck waiting to happening because there appears to be no unifying principles underlying it to which all people would adhere. Imagine Johnny kills Jimmy. He claims self defense. Fair enough, except that there is a group claiming otherwise and want him prosecuted. Who investigates? Who decides whether to prosecute? The free market? To whom is "the market" accountable?

Now consider the situation where the Go Johnny faction says "no way" to prosecution and cloisters him from the No Johnny faction who want him in prison or his head on a platter. How does that get resolved? The "market"? I don't think so. Go Johnny and No Johnny hold equal authority in an anarchy and so in this case the answer is perdicated on circumstance such as who has custody of Johnny, as well as material means - who has the better weaponry, and who is most determined.

What happens then if the No Johnny gang decide to take him by force and try him? Now you have two groups holing up in their respective castles and guess what: FEUDALISM in the flesh.

HOw would anarchy avoid this? I don't see how it can be done in a truly anarchic nation.

Formal means of governance are necessary to the sorts of results I believe even we here want. The problem lies not with governance per se, but with mens' hearts and minds. Minarchy seems to me to be the far more practically ivable alternative. We do NOT have to have much governance. Living freely entails a LOT of maintenance work and pretty well demands it from everyone. Therein lies the trouble because people are lazy and want all this done for them by someone else to they will have more time to jerk off to their net.porn. This is why we are now living in a quasi-fascist security state. This is our fault and the bitter truth is that we will most likely have to resort to killing people and risk being killed in order to become free. That is way fucked up, IMO.

However if a large and powerful group wishes to take your property for what they deem "the public good" in an anarchic vigilante system, they would have to be prepared to defend their claim of justness to a truly independent third party, and the court making their decision would have to make sure that the principles that they used were unassailable by any other court that may hear the case and wouldn't give the trial court any deference as being a part of the same institutional structure.

Could you please explain this in painful detail? I don't see how this is possible. Of what courts do you speak? In an anarchic culture? That defies the very definition of the term, does it not? Please illuminate because I am not getting it.

One of my biggest fears about an anarchic system of laws is this precarious balance of ensuring due process so that violence isn't resorted to unnecessarily. But it always helps to ask what the government alternative is, and how open to abuse is that system. In the end I would much rather rely on private justice agencies that must respond to voluntary financing than an entrenched political system that at most faces the possibility that the appellate court will overturn their holding - with no threat of lost revenue or reputation.

Your thinking cap is indeed on. I suggest the answer is NOT anarchy, but minarchy. But again, to work properly, a huge proportion of the people must satisfy two conditions: understanding and agreeing upon the set of fundamental principles by which all action is judged, and actively working to ensure that those principles are adhered to by all. This is asking a LOT of people, considering the prevailng attitudes these days.

Edited to add: here's a hypothetical: Assume tax collection is made physically by agents and that the booty is transported by truck to D.C.. Further assume that a truck has a flat tire in front of your house, and the driver and assistant have left the hatch unlocked to get the spare tire out. During the changing of the tire both agents take their union mandated lunch and leave the money unattended. Do you take the money and redistribute it to the taxpayers if you know that the government won't come back to take the money again? However far-fetched, I think this was the point of the purity-test question.

I am afraid your point is completely lost on me. Please forgive my rather high density.

 

[osan]

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.listening.

Kudos D00d. Well stated. Perfect encapsulation.

 

[ivflight]

From wikipedia:

Also identified is a large faction advocating minarchism, though libertarianism has also long been associated with anarchism (and sometimes is used as a synonym for such), especially outside of the United States.[6] Anarchism remains one of the significant branches of libertarianism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

The test was specifically about United States politics, so let's assume a United States definition of words. I think the test results and other responses to this thread are proving my point. Ron Paul, Milton Friedman, and others who call themselves libertarians would not score anywhere near a 160.

 

[osan]

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

Glad you're straight on that point.

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.

No monopolies in my world - certainly not on force. In the world in which I am king, those discharging duties of governance had best watch themselves in that capacity because they would in no way be immune to the requirements of propriety. Let that be clearly understood.

No matter what system one chooses, things can in principle become problems. Once again the broken record repeats itself: systems of governance are only as good as the people living under them. When sloth and corruption take over, doom soon follows. Welcome to the USA, 2010.

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.

We agree but I have lost the point.

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.

THen have one - privately. Keep yer mitts off those who do not consent. It is actually easy to do once once releases their kamikaze death grip on ideas such as one-size-fits-all, the greatest good for the greatest number, and other such utterly false notions.

Government doesn't allow this, you must subscribe to it as is.

To some degree this is an absolute requirement even for we who love liberty. If we set into place a truly free system of living, it will succeed only if defended with the threat of force against those who would violate the rights of others. In this respect, force and the threat thereof is unavoidable. If I do not defend liberty with force and the threat of it, the parasites will take it from me.

Yes, it is a paradox. We need to get over that bit.

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.

Yet you still need a mechanism for defending yourself against the predations of others or your freedom will die very young. This is one of the baseline issues I have yet to see addressed adequately by the anarchists. If there is a satisfactory model for maintaining the baseline freedom to choose and be unmolested by others, as well as to deal with those who do trespass, I am all all eyes. Seriously, I would be very interested in learning about it because I don't see it. Perhaps there is some subtle twist I have not been able to riddle free.

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.

I agree that quantity is not a completely invalid criterion for evaluating governance. It is, however, misapplied in analytical arguments and often results in some serious failures. Just pointing it out as something of which people should be aware when considering such questions.

 

[osan]

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

Fuk me... this was one funny post. When you are on, you are REALLY on. "Libertarian Thickism FAIL." I think you need rep for that. Had tea been in my mouth, you'd being owing me a new monitor. In fact, think I shit in my pants just a little.