"Purity tests" are silly in my opinion. "I"m more libertarian than you are!"
Usually I'd agree, because most "purity tests" senselessly bundle a bunch of arbitrary mismatched ideals together. For instance, to be a "pure" neoconservative or progressive, you'd need to have serious cognitive dissonance bordering on multiple personality disorder.
In those contexts, purity tests are solely about partisanship and one-upmanship. In contrast, libertarian views all follow from the same singular principle, so if you value that principle highly, it can be useful to test how consistently you follow it (or how well you understand it). It's not for everyone of course, because some people like the flexibility of piecemeal beliefs, but the appeal is still different (and IMO more valid) than that of most "purity tests."
As far as my results go: I had several "maybe, but it depends" responses and a LOT of "yes, with caveats" responses. (The devil is in the details...and lol about the "vigilante justice" question, which has quite a few caveats.
) I translated most of those to "yes." I also had a few, "no, but only because that's not my preferred alternative to the state" responses, which I translated to "no."
When it comes to the final questions, I think it's normal for even full-blown an-caps or voluntaryists to take issue with some of the specifics or the wording. (I wouldn't put myself firmly in that camp anyway; I think the anarchism/minarchism question has some shades of differentiation, and there are several defensible options that could use practical experimentation). For instance, I answered "no" to the question, "Should all legislation be replaced by judge-made law, arbitration, and other private rule-suppliers?" This is not because I believe in arbitrary legislation, because I sure as hell don't. Instead, I answered "no" because I'm not sold on the emphasis of the stated alternative. (Implementation issues aside, my preference would be for juries to make civil/criminal decisions based on their interpretation of how a well-worded non-aggression principle applies to their specific situation.)
Long story short, I garnered a 145/160, after answering "no" to questions 54, 59, and 64. (My "no" responses were more like "not so to speak" than "absolutely not."). That's a lot higher than I got when I first saw this test in the mid-2000's, and I thought, "Holy crap, these guys are insane!"
