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

[osan]

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.

WTF?! What would lead you to such an idea? Sheriffs predate the police by centuries. Police are without a doubt worth less than nothing.

 

[osan]

Huzzah! And I was beginning to think I was the only one!

Shoot, I did 160. It was easy, given the nature of the questions and the structure. Too easy to figure out what the author was looking for. Bad test mainly.

 

[HRD53]

I got a 70. Not quite at the level of you hardcore libertarian wack-jobs I kid, I kid...

 

[osan]

It isn't theft and coercion if it is what the society desires.

Society has desires? Please demonstrate this. Last I checked, "society" was but a conceptual abstraction representing a collection of people living in some undefined proximity to one another. Assuming this is true, to assert that a concept has desires is strongly indicative of a profound misunderstanding... that or far too much LSD consumption with the morning coffee. But if you can demonstrate how I am wrong on this point, I eagerly await enlightenment.

That aside, you appear to be advocating mob rule. IN a population of 1 million, if 999,999 want X but 1 does not, does it follow that it is justified for that majority to force it upon the corresponding minority of one? If yes, please explain because I don't see it.

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.

I suspect it may be so, but how does governance by force accord with this?

 

[Travlyr]

Police protect banking interests... that's their job. They were invented shortly after the banks took control in the National Banking Act of 1863. The Massachusetts State Police was founded in September 1865, making it the oldest state-wide police agency in the United States.

The job of the elected sheriff is to capture violators of the law to present them before a judge and jury for justice and restitution.

 

[Captain Shays]

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

Yeah that's where I jumped off the boat too.

 

[osan]

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.

This is pretty friggin' well stated.

I scored 160 based on satisfying what I believed the author was looking for.

When I pulled out my other self, 134. But because the test is pretty poor in so many places, I consider these scores to be largely meaningless.

 

[Wesker1982]

If you have faith that the majority of people are wise and virtuous enough to run the courts and police now, I don't see why that would change without a state.

 

[osan]

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.

Very good.

 

[Sentient Void]

Hey Osan, I'm curious about the reworked constitution you put together. Anywhere I can check it out? I've thought about playing with the intellectual exercise of putting one together myself.

Although I am an Ancap and see a 100% pure capitalist market-based society as the *ideal* to always work towards, I would of course not be against a 'rule of law' that was much more specific and protective of property rights and individual liberty than the US Constitution and it's failure / shortcomings, while restraining 'the mob'.

I'm concerned though because a clear, strict and simple constitution protecting full-on property and individual rights without an amendment ability, I fear would be simply eventually scrapped in favor of a really bad one (at the will of an emotional and/or ignorant mob), but *with* an amendment ability - it's clear that we end up with where we're at now. This is one of the many reasons I feel that 'limited government' is a unicorn that will always over time result in big government.

Such a Constitution would somehow have to be weak enough (that being, extremely weak in regards to government authority over the economy) to allow private property and capitalism to create and provide for solid services like private defense, insurance, etc to protect against a growth of government, but strong enough to not be scrapped in favor of a mob adopting what would be a very over-reaching new constitution/form of government. This would have to be a verrry thin line I imagine to walk. Definitely an intellectual exercise indeed.

Ultimately, I agree that the type of government is largely irrelevant and it comes down to the will and principles of the people under it.

 

[Wayreth]

152 It was a fun test and I had a few minor counterarguments although I can see what Caplan was aiming for.

 

[libertybrewcity]

there are many ways to control private police. for example, take away their weapons.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese370.html

You could also get rid of paid leave for those accused of misusing their guns or many other things they can and often do do wrong.

 

[NYgs23]

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"?

You are confused. "Coercion" refers to initiatory force, not retaliatory force. States are inherently coercive in that they exist as territorial monopolies of violence.

 

[Fox McCloud]

160, of course.

 

[Number19]

96

The one question which surprised me, having never encountered it before, is the rather absurd notion that civilian targets should be avoided during warfare. This is particularly incredulous when the civilian population has a say in the government and has some degree of responsibility in waging the war. The best example of this is the United States.

 

[Madly_Sane]

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

Why? I'm not defending the gov't or saying it does give me protection from serial killers

 

[robert68]

96

The one question which surprised me, having never encountered it before, is the rather absurd notion that civilian targets should be avoided during warfare. This is particularly incredulous when the civilian population has a say in the government and has some degree of responsibility in waging the war. The best example of this is the United States.

Don’t see why that surprises you since it’s always been the libertarian position. Civilian populations aren’t collectively to blame for the actions of the state.

 

[Theocrat]

81: "Medium-Core Libertarian"

51-90 points: You are a medium-core libertarian, probably self-consciously so. Your friends probably encourage you to quit talking about your views so much.

 

[Travlyr]

51-90 points: You are a medium-core libertarian, probably self-consciously so. Your friends probably encourage you to quit talking about your views so much.

lolz ... You can quit talking about your views so much after we defeat the criminal cabal who suppresses our liberty, robs our treasury, and kills our brothers and sisters in wars for profit. Until then, keep up the good work!

 

[osan]

Hey Osan, I'm curious about the reworked constitution you put together. Anywhere I can check it out? I've thought about playing with the intellectual exercise of putting one together myself.

Although I am an Ancap and see a 100% pure capitalist market-based society as the *ideal* to always work towards, I would of course not be against a 'rule of law' that was much more specific and protective of property rights and individual liberty than the US Constitution and it's failure / shortcomings, while restraining 'the mob'.

I'm concerned though because a clear, strict and simple constitution protecting full-on property and individual rights without an amendment ability, I fear would be simply eventually scrapped in favor of a really bad one (at the will of an emotional and/or ignorant mob), but *with* an amendment ability - it's clear that we end up with where we're at now. This is one of the many reasons I feel that 'limited government' is a unicorn that will always over time result in big government.

Such a Constitution would somehow have to be weak enough (that being, extremely weak in regards to government authority over the economy) to allow private property and capitalism to create and provide for solid services like private defense, insurance, etc to protect against a growth of government, but strong enough to not be scrapped in favor of a mob adopting what would be a very over-reaching new constitution/form of government. This would have to be a verrry thin line I imagine to walk. Definitely an intellectual exercise indeed.

Ultimately, I agree that the type of government is largely irrelevant and it comes down to the will and principles of the people under it.

I'll need an email address