The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: FTL_Mark on October 24, 2007, 10:47:59 AM
-
http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi
-
Your score is...
135
I'm more impure than Val.
-
I scored 153... Not perfect, but damn near close enough!
-
Mark must have got a 17.
-
I haven't finished the test yet. I got to the question about government spending on higher education and went off on a rant in my head about how I couldn't get any grants because my dad had a 401k. Uh, hello, that's not to pay for me, that's for him to retire! And since the societal impact of me going to college is going to be far more beneficial than the societal impact of draining his 401k, it's a fucked up system. That's all.
-
I scored 160.
-
I scored 160.
Fucking idealists.
-
155... vigilante justice got me
-
Fucking idealists.
Fucking bald honkeys.
-
Fucking idealists.
Fucking bald honkeys.
Brock?
-
147 - same as the last time I took it. I'm glad it now carries the clarification about the use of "privatize" but it still has flaws:
ed vouchers, housing vouchers - these are NOT an improvement over government schools and housing; to the contrary, they are much worse as they add to the bureaucracy.
How can "freeze the monetary base" be libertarian? Likewise, how can "vigilante justice" be libertarian?
-
Likewise, how can "vigilante justice" be libertarian?
Why isn't it?
-
122. I'm more impure than all you wackos. :)
-
I'm the most impure of all. I scored a 0 and it called me a communist :(
-
I'm the most impure of all. I scored a 0 and it called me a communist :(
You are! *slap*
-
I'm the most impure of all. I scored a 0 and it called me a communist :(
You are! *slap*
That's it, here comes BORIS!
-
I'm the most impure of all. I scored a 0 and it called me a communist :(
You are! *slap*
That's it, here comes BORIS!
(http://wo.blox.pl/resource/Boris_natasha_fearless.jpg)
-
I'm the most impure of all. I scored a 0 and it called me a communist :(
no, it called you a Nazi :lol:
but on another note, i got a 128, but I've only known I was a libertarian for a week or so, give me time, I promise ill get better... :D
-
I'm the most impure of all. I scored a 0 and it called me a communist :(
no, it called you a Nazi :lol:
I'm not a Nazi, I'm a Communist. I SWEAR! I got Comrade Hillary's back, man!
-
I'm the most impure of all. I scored a 0 and it called me a communist :(
Oh no she didn't!?
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/180/390980086_b5bfd05734.jpg)
-
I haven't finished the test yet. I got to the question about government spending on higher education and went off on a rant in my head about how I couldn't get any grants because my dad had a 401k. Uh, hello, that's not to pay for me, that's for him to retire! And since the societal impact of me going to college is going to be far more beneficial than the societal impact of draining his 401k, it's a fucked up system. That's all.
Just out of curiosity, how much does it cost to go to that school that you want to attend? Lets assume that it costs $2000 per semester.. how hard would it be to put away $20 every day that you worked for school? After 100 work days, you would have your money for a semester... do that for 2 to 3 years, and you have your money for school... No loans, no grants, nada... It may be a little difficult, but it is not the end of the world... That's what i am trying to do... I got 18 classes to go to finish (I have not been in school for almost 15 years, but have spent the past 6 months re-learning my stuff so that I can start next fall.)
Believe me... It took me almost 7 years to pay off the loans I took from the first time around... you don't want to start out after college with that kind of debt....
Anthony
-
152.
Wow.
When you put the questions in black & white, the choice is so much... simpler.
-
148 here..
The problem I have with most of these tests... (umm, and by most I mean this one and the smallest political quiz)... is that they do nothing to counter-act the yeah-saying bias. After the first few questions, it becomes obvious that to get a perfect score you have to answer yes to all of the questions to get a perfect score. Since most of us consider ourselves to be libertarians of one sort or another, we tend tend to go down the line and say "yup...yup...yup...mmmhmm" without really analyzing the question.
This would be slightly more useful if some of the questions were negated and thus required a "no" answer. (Although I guess this is much more about fun than any sort of usefullness..)
-
155.
I had a problem with the last question. :P
-
155.
I had a problem with the last question. :P
THIS
-
155.
I had a problem with the last question. :P
THIS
THISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSss
-
155.
I had a problem with the last question. :P
THIS
THISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSss
Crap! Somebody popped Jay!
-
51 - medium core libertarian.
Yeah, so sue me.
I see some limited government as a necessary evil, but want them to just butt out my, yours, and everybody else's busines while reducing taxes as much as possible, and cutting spending to only the bare necessities. A goverment that doesnt' feel the need to spy on it's citizens or maintain a global military empire far beyond what is strategically necessary to maintain peace.
Legalized drugs, prostitution, gambling, and guns? Have at it! Just don't put anybody else in danger.
Private roads, private courts, private military, private police & fire fighters? Now that's just moonbat crazy.
I don't fully agree with the absolute, dogmatic, anarchic Libertarians. But I still appreciate them as a balance of ideas, because there's a lot of Socialists, Communists, and Facists tugging on the rope at the other side.
-
Private roads, private courts, private military, private police & fire fighters? Now that's just moonbat crazy.
Why? What can government, a group of people, voted for by people, do for people what other people cannot do for people?
-
There already are private firefighters.
-
There already are private firefighters.
...and private roads and private arbitration.
-
There already are private firefighters.
...and private roads and private arbitration.
Yeah, but nobody really cares about that.
-
There already are private firefighters.
...and private roads and private arbitration.
Yeah, but nobody really cares about that.
Because it's just moonbat crazy!
-
There already are private firefighters.
...and private roads and private arbitration.
Yeah, but nobody really cares about that.
Because it's just moonbat crazy!
;)
-
51 - medium core libertarian.
Yeah, so sue me.
I see some limited government as a necessary evil, but want them to just butt out my, yours, and everybody else's busines while reducing taxes as much as possible, and cutting spending to only the bare necessities. A goverment that doesnt' feel the need to spy on it's citizens or maintain a global military empire far beyond what is strategically necessary to maintain peace.
Legalized drugs, prostitution, gambling, and guns? Have at it! Just don't put anybody else in danger.
Private roads, private courts, private military, private police & fire fighters? Now that's just moonbat crazy.
I don't fully agree with the absolute, dogmatic, anarchic Libertarians. But I still appreciate them as a balance of ideas, because there's a lot of Socialists, Communists, and Facists tugging on the rope at the other side.
Join the medium-core libertarian club. 75 here. All you people are crazy :P
-
Private roads, private courts, private military, private police & fire fighters? Now that's just moonbat crazy.
Why? What can government, a group of people, voted for by people, do for people what other people cannot do for people?
Because when you make crime & war a private, for-profit, industry, you tend to see a lot more of it. See Eisenhower's "Military-Industrial-Complex" for details. The military is privatized enough as it is already, with huge money being made by defense contractors who hold a lot of sway over what the military does. We wouldn't have anywhere near the Empire or wars we do now if there wasn't so much money to be made in it.
And when you privatize police, they'll be even more incentivized to find crimes to punish than now, and an erosion of your liberties far beyond what we have now. You want legalized drugs? It'll never happen, ever, with a privatized police force when there's money to be made kicking in your doors to steal your plants and put your ass in prison.
Private courts? How does that work? The guy with the deepest pockets wins? This one seems awfully susceptible to corruption. Like what we see in these third-world nations where there is little, if any, government to speak of, only bribery.
This is one area I don't want to mess with. A jury of your peers should decide the law. Not $$$.
Other than the odd on-ramp or bridge, private roads, by and large, are an impossible dream anyway. I think the best way to deal with that issue is to pay for the roads ONLY with fees collected from car owners when you register a car, or buy gas. Non-car owners shouldn't be expected to pay for the roads, just like I don't want my tax dollars going to fund a public rail system I would
never use.
A lot of hard-core libertarians spout off against One-Size-Fits-All solutions, and Zero-Tolerance policies.
But isn't a complete, anti-government mindset on every issue just another One-Size-Fits-All solution?
-
All that, and you didn't answer the question. A service doesn't suddenly become magic just because it has the force of government behind it. In fact, it tends to turn to shit.
-
I absolutley answered your question.
You just didn't accept the answer.
And yes, I know there's private arbitration, private firefighters, private roads, and private security. And that's fine.
But across all of society, it's a terrible idea.
-
I absolutley answered your question.
You just didn't accept the answer.
And yes, I know there's private arbitration, private firefighters, private roads, and private security. And that's fine.
But across all of society, it's a terrible idea.
No you didn't. You prattled on with the typical collectivist bullshit.
What can government, a group of people, voted for by people, do for people what other people cannot do for people?
-
Goddamn it, Beef Supreme, Free Agent, you've stolen my position as the most unprincipled person here.
-
...and I'll add, that you (Beef Supreme) made a splendid argument against fascism. (FAIL)
-
I absolutley answered your question.
You just didn't accept the answer.
And yes, I know there's private arbitration, private firefighters, private roads, and private security. And that's fine.
But across all of society, it's a terrible idea.
No you didn't. You prattled on with the typical collectivist bullshit.
What can government, a group of people, voted for by people, do for people what other people cannot do for people?
I know! I know!
They can do it really shitty with no repercussions!
-
All that, and you didn't answer the question. A service doesn't suddenly become magic just because it has the force of government behind it. In fact, it tends to turn to shit.
I understand that, and largely agree with you.
I would love to have the government out of business, the economy, and education.
But where things like Law & Order are involved, turning over the keys to a system where the main incentive is profit is a recipe for more violations of your rights than you can ever dream of. You'd be opening up one helluva pandoras box. Unless of course, you have enough money to own the system.
You'll be trading Government Tyranny for Corporate Tyranny, where only money matters.
-
Okay, so you can't answer the question. No shame in that. No one can. The shame is in attempting to justify the government anyway.
This is the question that always exposes the lie:
What can government, a group of people, voted for by people, do for people what other people cannot do for people?
Commit it to memory.
-
Sounds like Dogma to me.
Put down the kool-aid.
-
153
-
105
-
106
91-130 points: You have entered the heady realm of hard-core libertarianism. Now doesn't that make you feel worse that you didn't get a perfect score?
-
96
I think individuals can decide to own property (roads) and provide services (police, fire, water, sewer, etc.) commonly at local levels. I think those cities can also contract with each other to have common roads connecting them for mutual benefit. Thats I why I said no to those questions. I think they could be done privately and publicly to be decided by the individuals of the particular community (neighborhood or city). Wouldn't that still be free market if the services, all though common, were paid for voluntarily, or maybe by some sales or property tax that was voted for by 100% of the residents and property owners.
-
Sounds like Dogma to me.
Put down the kool-aid.
Sounds like someone afraid of a simple question that exposes the truth.
What can government, a group of people, voted for by people, do for people what other people cannot do for people?
-
155, I don't call myself an anarcho-capitalist anymore.
-
155, I don't call myself an anarcho-capitalist anymore.
Yeah, they got me on that and the vouchers.
-
155, I don't call myself an anarcho-capitalist anymore.
Yeah, they got me on that and the vouchers.
Good point about the vouchers. It's hard to claim not accepting them as a solution is a LESS libertarian position...it's really whether or not you believe the voucher situation would improve the situation (or go against principle.) I suspect vouchers shouldn't be on the test--as is the case with at least one other conspicuously absent issue.
-
Most of the problems with school vouchers I'm aware of have to do with the obvious fact that the state will begin licensing and harassing and approving with this new excuse to do so. But that's not part of the definition of school voucher, and if you hold all other things (licensing, approved curriculi, etc) constant, vouchers are superior to public schools.
-
That's the rub, I think. We can imagine vouchers without strings, but will never get them.
-
300!
It was really 142.
-
That's the rub, I think. We can imagine vouchers without strings, but will never get them.
The same can be said of privatization.
Libertarian "Privatize" = Ending state involvement
Statist "Privatize" = Sell it all at once for $1 to the buddy of a bureaucrat making the decision of who to sell it to.
-
That's the rub, I think. We can imagine vouchers without strings, but will never get them.
The same can be said of privatization.
Libertarian "Privatize" = Ending state involvement
Statist "Privatize" = Sell it all at once for $1 to the buddy of a bureaucrat making the decision of who to sell it to.
Privatization is just another word for fascism, not a free market.
-
That's the rub, I think. We can imagine vouchers without strings, but will never get them.
The same can be said of privatization.
Libertarian "Privatize" = Ending state involvement
Statist "Privatize" = Sell it all at once for $1 to the buddy of a bureaucrat making the decision of who to sell it to.
Privatization is just another word for fascism, not a free market.
Do we have to take everything Ian says or thinks as the gospel? Privatization is not fascism, but hiring "private" companies to work under the control of the government is not privatization, it's corporatism.
-
That's the rub, I think. We can imagine vouchers without strings, but will never get them.
The same can be said of privatization.
Libertarian "Privatize" = Ending state involvement
Statist "Privatize" = Sell it all at once for $1 to the buddy of a bureaucrat making the decision of who to sell it to.
Privatization is just another word for fascism, not a free market.
Do we have to take everything Ian says or thinks as the gospel? Privatization is not fascism, but hiring "private" companies to work under the control of the government is not privatization, it's corporatism.
What does Ian have to do with this? :roll: The gubernaphiles on the "right" have long been infatuated with the concept of "enhancing" the effectiveness of government by giving away sweetheart government deals to their friends. If you like it too, I'm sorry you're offended by what it is--fascism. Any assertion that government "controls" them is a fantasy. Both hands are washing each other.
-
i got 123. I don't think some of those questions were that great. Vouchers = bad. Privatize. Vigilante justice = bad (IMO). Judges making laws = bad also, too much power in one place.
Also
Should all of the Federal Reserve's discretionary powers be eliminated and the monetary base frozen?
What does it mean to freeze the monetary base?
plus the question
Are worker safety regulations too strict?
I said no, because most private businesses have stricter standards than the government and so they don't usually feel the effects of the government. Worker regulations I see as something the government does to pick on anyone that might challenge them. I guess their strict in that sense.
Also to be a good libertarian I don't think you need to believe the courts need to be privatized. I am not an anarchist partially that reason. I think we need government courts to protect the minority from the majority. Private courts would follow the demands of the masses.
-
it said i'm medium core whatever the fuck that means
-
That's the rub, I think. We can imagine vouchers without strings, but will never get them.
The same can be said of privatization.
Libertarian "Privatize" = Ending state involvement
Statist "Privatize" = Sell it all at once for $1 to the buddy of a bureaucrat making the decision of who to sell it to.
Privatization is just another word for fascism, not a free market.
Do we have to take everything Ian says or thinks as the gospel? Privatization is not fascism, but hiring "private" companies to work under the control of the government is not privatization, it's corporatism.
What does Ian have to do with this? :roll: The gubernaphiles on the "right" have long been infatuated with the concept of "enhancing" the effectiveness of government by giving away sweetheart government deals to their friends. If you like it too, I'm sorry you're offended by what it is--fascism. Any assertion that government "controls" them is a fantasy. Both hands are washing each other.
I didn't say that it was privatization. I said it was corporatism. There's a difference between that and fascism. I bring up Ian because he was talking about this a night or two ago and said he preferred the term "marketization" because "privatization" has been corrupted. I think it's obvious that the term has been misused, but that doesn't mean we should abandon it (in my opinion). I'd rather attempt to show its correct usage.
-
That's the rub, I think. We can imagine vouchers without strings, but will never get them.
The same can be said of privatization.
Libertarian "Privatize" = Ending state involvement
Statist "Privatize" = Sell it all at once for $1 to the buddy of a bureaucrat making the decision of who to sell it to.
Privatization is just another word for fascism, not a free market.
Do we have to take everything Ian says or thinks as the gospel? Privatization is not fascism, but hiring "private" companies to work under the control of the government is not privatization, it's corporatism.
What does Ian have to do with this? :roll: The gubernaphiles on the "right" have long been infatuated with the concept of "enhancing" the effectiveness of government by giving away sweetheart government deals to their friends. If you like it too, I'm sorry you're offended by what it is--fascism. Any assertion that government "controls" them is a fantasy. Both hands are washing each other.
I didn't say that it was privatization. I said it was corporatism. There's a difference between that and fascism. I bring up Ian because he was talking about this a night or two ago and said he preferred the term "marketization" because "privatization" has been corrupted. I think it's obvious that the term has been misused, but that doesn't mean we should abandon it (in my opinion). I'd rather attempt to show its correct usage.
Correct, my ass. He got it from the same Austrian types I did. I know the Chicago types are in love with it, but that doesn't change anything.
-
That's the rub, I think. We can imagine vouchers without strings, but will never get them.
The same can be said of privatization.
Libertarian "Privatize" = Ending state involvement
Statist "Privatize" = Sell it all at once for $1 to the buddy of a bureaucrat making the decision of who to sell it to.
Privatization is just another word for fascism, not a free market.
Do we have to take everything Ian says or thinks as the gospel? Privatization is not fascism, but hiring "private" companies to work under the control of the government is not privatization, it's corporatism.
What does Ian have to do with this? :roll: The gubernaphiles on the "right" have long been infatuated with the concept of "enhancing" the effectiveness of government by giving away sweetheart government deals to their friends. If you like it too, I'm sorry you're offended by what it is--fascism. Any assertion that government "controls" them is a fantasy. Both hands are washing each other.
I didn't say that it was privatization. I said it was corporatism. There's a difference between that and fascism. I bring up Ian because he was talking about this a night or two ago and said he preferred the term "marketization" because "privatization" has been corrupted. I think it's obvious that the term has been misused, but that doesn't mean we should abandon it (in my opinion). I'd rather attempt to show its correct usage.
Yea I'm sick libertarians having to make up funny sounding words because other words have had their meaning twisted. Lets take those meanings back. First privatization and then capitalism.
-
That's the rub, I think. We can imagine vouchers without strings, but will never get them.
The same can be said of privatization.
Libertarian "Privatize" = Ending state involvement
Statist "Privatize" = Sell it all at once for $1 to the buddy of a bureaucrat making the decision of who to sell it to.
Privatization is just another word for fascism, not a free market.
Do we have to take everything Ian says or thinks as the gospel? Privatization is not fascism, but hiring "private" companies to work under the control of the government is not privatization, it's corporatism.
What does Ian have to do with this? :roll: The gubernaphiles on the "right" have long been infatuated with the concept of "enhancing" the effectiveness of government by giving away sweetheart government deals to their friends. If you like it too, I'm sorry you're offended by what it is--fascism. Any assertion that government "controls" them is a fantasy. Both hands are washing each other.
I didn't say that it was privatization. I said it was corporatism. There's a difference between that and fascism. I bring up Ian because he was talking about this a night or two ago and said he preferred the term "marketization" because "privatization" has been corrupted. I think it's obvious that the term has been misused, but that doesn't mean we should abandon it (in my opinion). I'd rather attempt to show its correct usage.
Yea I'm sick libertarians having to make up funny sounding words because other words have had their meaning twisted. Lets take those meanings back. First privatization and then capitalism.
Good luck with that...
(http://www.singermemories.com/images/pic_windmills.jpg)
-
That's the rub, I think. We can imagine vouchers without strings, but will never get them.
The same can be said of privatization.
Libertarian "Privatize" = Ending state involvement
Statist "Privatize" = Sell it all at once for $1 to the buddy of a bureaucrat making the decision of who to sell it to.
Privatization is just another word for fascism, not a free market.
Do we have to take everything Ian says or thinks as the gospel? Privatization is not fascism, but hiring "private" companies to work under the control of the government is not privatization, it's corporatism.
What does Ian have to do with this? :roll: The gubernaphiles on the "right" have long been infatuated with the concept of "enhancing" the effectiveness of government by giving away sweetheart government deals to their friends. If you like it too, I'm sorry you're offended by what it is--fascism. Any assertion that government "controls" them is a fantasy. Both hands are washing each other.
I didn't say that it was privatization. I said it was corporatism. There's a difference between that and fascism. I bring up Ian because he was talking about this a night or two ago and said he preferred the term "marketization" because "privatization" has been corrupted. I think it's obvious that the term has been misused, but that doesn't mean we should abandon it (in my opinion). I'd rather attempt to show its correct usage.
Correct, my ass. He got it from the same Austrian types I did. I know the Chicago types are in love with it, but that doesn't change anything.
My point is that you're misusing the term "privatization". It does not mean the same thing as fascism. You can certainly make the argument that it's become more and more similar in colloquial usage to corporatism though. However, I don't think you have many serious libertarians using this corporatist meaning of the term. It's mainly just politicians who want to put a positive spin on cronyism/corporatism.
-
That's the rub, I think. We can imagine vouchers without strings, but will never get them.
The same can be said of privatization.
Libertarian "Privatize" = Ending state involvement
Statist "Privatize" = Sell it all at once for $1 to the buddy of a bureaucrat making the decision of who to sell it to.
Privatization is just another word for fascism, not a free market.
Do we have to take everything Ian says or thinks as the gospel? Privatization is not fascism, but hiring "private" companies to work under the control of the government is not privatization, it's corporatism.
What does Ian have to do with this? :roll: The gubernaphiles on the "right" have long been infatuated with the concept of "enhancing" the effectiveness of government by giving away sweetheart government deals to their friends. If you like it too, I'm sorry you're offended by what it is--fascism. Any assertion that government "controls" them is a fantasy. Both hands are washing each other.
I didn't say that it was privatization. I said it was corporatism. There's a difference between that and fascism. I bring up Ian because he was talking about this a night or two ago and said he preferred the term "marketization" because "privatization" has been corrupted. I think it's obvious that the term has been misused, but that doesn't mean we should abandon it (in my opinion). I'd rather attempt to show its correct usage.
Correct, my ass. He got it from the same Austrian types I did. I know the Chicago types are in love with it, but that doesn't change anything.
My point is that you're misusing the term "privatization". It does not mean the same thing as fascism. You can certainly make the argument that it's become more and more similar in colloquial usage to corporatism though. However, I don't think you have many serious libertarians using this corporatist meaning of the term. It's mainly just politicians who want to put a positive spin on cronyism/corporatism.
The word "privatization" is being used to denote fascism as described here. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo85.html) Sure. It is obvious that they want to spin it.
By the way, they usually aren't private companies anyway--they're usually "publicly owned."
-
wtftk, did you notice that they call it "corporatism"?
-
112
-
wtftk, did you notice that they call it "corporatism"?
I believe the terminology was along the lines as "referred to by some as corporatism."
-
No, it's referred to by pretty much everyone as corporatism. They don't use the "some" qualifier. Corporatism describes the economic system behind fascism. Fascism entails more than corporatism.
-
That's the rub, I think. We can imagine vouchers without strings, but will never get them.
The same can be said of privatization.
Libertarian "Privatize" = Ending state involvement
Statist "Privatize" = Sell it all at once for $1 to the buddy of a bureaucrat making the decision of who to sell it to.
Privatization is just another word for fascism, not a free market.
Do we have to take everything Ian says or thinks as the gospel? Privatization is not fascism, but hiring "private" companies to work under the control of the government is not privatization, it's corporatism.
What does Ian have to do with this? :roll: The gubernaphiles on the "right" have long been infatuated with the concept of "enhancing" the effectiveness of government by giving away sweetheart government deals to their friends. If you like it too, I'm sorry you're offended by what it is--fascism. Any assertion that government "controls" them is a fantasy. Both hands are washing each other.
I didn't say that it was privatization. I said it was corporatism. There's a difference between that and fascism. I bring up Ian because he was talking about this a night or two ago and said he preferred the term "marketization" because "privatization" has been corrupted. I think it's obvious that the term has been misused, but that doesn't mean we should abandon it (in my opinion). I'd rather attempt to show its correct usage.
Correct, my ass. He got it from the same Austrian types I did. I know the Chicago types are in love with it, but that doesn't change anything.
My point is that you're misusing the term "privatization". It does not mean the same thing as fascism. You can certainly make the argument that it's become more and more similar in colloquial usage to corporatism though. However, I don't think you have many serious libertarians using this corporatist meaning of the term. It's mainly just politicians who want to put a positive spin on cronyism/corporatism.
This is funny from the man who insists that "inflation" is price inflation not monetary inflation.
My contribution on the "privatization" argument is the same as always - use the bureaucrat definition which can be either "contracting the function out" or "selling the assets of the function to a private concern with a contractual agreement that the function be a going concern".
-
135..
Not sure if they ment the federal government to abolish the state.. some of the questions were unclear.
-
I found the levels of the questions interesting. For example, I answered "yes" to vouchers being better than govt. schools, and then further on that I didn't want ANY government involvement with education. Both are true, and reflect the progression of how many libertarians and minimalists think. Yes we want the lowest amount of government possible, BUT are generally glad to support steps that take us in that direction. Unfortunately, both sides of the aisle have figured out the correct words to use to rope in independents at election time. The good news is that once you've been burned by a pretender politician, it's harder for them to pull you in next time around.
-
160.
-
I got a 121, but I take exception with 12 and 41 as I am against ending immigration laws UNTIL the welfare programs have been abolished. I also have issue with 18 and 42; I think a licensing program is a good thing if administered privately and competatively. I also took exception with 30, but I can't remeber what it was. This would probably boost me up to 135 or so.
FunkD
A redo put me at 130.
-
153.
I could tolerate a minimal state, but would like to see it gone altogether.
-
That's the rub, I think. We can imagine vouchers without strings, but will never get them.
The same can be said of privatization.
Libertarian "Privatize" = Ending state involvement
Statist "Privatize" = Sell it all at once for $1 to the buddy of a bureaucrat making the decision of who to sell it to.
Privatization is just another word for fascism, not a free market.
Do we have to take everything Ian says or thinks as the gospel? Privatization is not fascism, but hiring "private" companies to work under the control of the government is not privatization, it's corporatism.
What does Ian have to do with this? :roll: The gubernaphiles on the "right" have long been infatuated with the concept of "enhancing" the effectiveness of government by giving away sweetheart government deals to their friends. If you like it too, I'm sorry you're offended by what it is--fascism. Any assertion that government "controls" them is a fantasy. Both hands are washing each other.
I didn't say that it was privatization. I said it was corporatism. There's a difference between that and fascism. I bring up Ian because he was talking about this a night or two ago and said he preferred the term "marketization" because "privatization" has been corrupted. I think it's obvious that the term has been misused, but that doesn't mean we should abandon it (in my opinion). I'd rather attempt to show its correct usage.
Correct, my ass. He got it from the same Austrian types I did. I know the Chicago types are in love with it, but that doesn't change anything.
My point is that you're misusing the term "privatization". It does not mean the same thing as fascism. You can certainly make the argument that it's become more and more similar in colloquial usage to corporatism though. However, I don't think you have many serious libertarians using this corporatist meaning of the term. It's mainly just politicians who want to put a positive spin on cronyism/corporatism.
This is funny from the man who insists that "inflation" is price inflation not monetary inflation.
My contribution on the "privatization" argument is the same as always - use the bureaucrat definition which can be either "contracting the function out" or "selling the assets of the function to a private concern with a contractual agreement that the function be a going concern".
You really want to open that can of worms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation) again?
Inflation is measured as the growth of the money supply in an economy, without a commensurate increase in the supply of goods and services.
-
You really want to open that can of worms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation) again?
Inflation is measured as the growth of the money supply in an economy, without a commensurate increase in the supply of goods and services.
Nope, you finally got it right. There's hope for you yet!
-
158. Vouchers.
-
120.
-
Sounds like Dogma to me.
Put down the kool-aid.
Sounds like someone afraid of a simple question that exposes the truth.
What can government, a group of people, voted for by people, do for people what other people cannot do for people?
No. It's just that I don't think that a world view can, or should be, broken down into a bumper sticker slogan.
-
You really want to open that can of worms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation) again?
Inflation is measured as the growth of the money supply in an economy, without a commensurate increase in the supply of goods and services.
Nope, you finally got it right. There's hope for you yet!
Finally? That's been my definition of inflation from the beginning :)
-
You really want to open that can of worms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation) again?
Inflation is measured as the growth of the money supply in an economy, without a commensurate increase in the supply of goods and services.
Nope, you finally got it right. There's hope for you yet!
Finally? That's been my definition of inflation from the beginning :)
Hell. I thought you were studying econ not revisionist history. :)
-
You really want to open that can of worms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation) again?
Inflation is measured as the growth of the money supply in an economy, without a commensurate increase in the supply of goods and services.
Nope, you finally got it right. There's hope for you yet!
Finally? That's been my definition of inflation from the beginning :)
Hell. I thought you were studying econ not revisionist history. :)
What revisionist history? If the money supply increases at the same rate as the supply of goods and services then there is no inflation. That's what I've been arguing all along against many people here who claim than any increase in the money supply is inflation.
-
28. Soft core libertarian. I guess that is about right.
-
Sounds like Dogma to me.
Put down the kool-aid.
Sounds like someone afraid of a simple question that exposes the truth.
What can government, a group of people, voted for by people, do for people what other people cannot do for people?
No. It's just that I don't think that a world view can, or should be, broken down into a bumper sticker slogan.
A question you're too stupid to answer while maintaining your indefensible beliefs is not a "bumper sticker slogan." In fact, I've never seen it on a bumper sticker.
FAIL
-
160 points: Perfect! The world needs more like you.
-
115. I don't agree with school vouchers, but not because I'm against an open (and free) market solution to them. I'm like Ian, all or nothing, gradualism is in the favor of the plutocrats.
-
158 - vouchers got me. Not seeing how supporting vouchers would be libertarian as it would still be the initiation of force. I wrestled with the vigilante justice for awhile, but in the end the word "justice" swayed me in support of it. The question implies force was already initiated against you.
-
152.
Wow.
When you put the questions in black & white, the choice is so much... simpler.
My experience was the opposite. For a lot them, I was unsure and balked at having to give either a "yes or no" answer and wished there'd been an option for "maybe" or "I'm not sure". Whenever I was unsure about a question, I picked the answer that I though would likely result in my overall score being less libertarian than it otherwise might have. Regardles, I scored a 97 -- which could still be an underestimation.
91-130 points: You have entered the heady realm of hard-core libertarianism. Now doesn't that make you feel worse that you didn't get a perfect score?
-
I scored a 107 and my husband scored a 74. Not bad considering we're newbies.
LOL! This post gave me my 50th post! Yay! 2 Stars!!!
-
http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi
Hmmmm!!! 142 :) It is close enough for me. Ian has some work to do.
-
"government should sell public land" what a bunch of bullshit that is :roll:
-
I got 116. I believe I was knocked on the "public" school question. Even if there were government vouchers I would not send my children to be with 30 other children in an artificial environment for twelve years. Not to mention that government vouchers equal government input. I'll educate my children as I see fit, thank you.
-
I got 116. I believe I was knocked on the "public" school question. Even if there were government vouchers I would not send my children to be with 30 other children in an artificial environment for twelve years. Not to mention that government vouchers equal government input. I'll educate my children as I see fit, thank you.
In your own personal artificial environment?
-
"government should sell public land" what a bunch of bullshit that is :roll:
I had a problem w/ that and the vouchers and few other things I think. I answered it on the assumption that the opposite of that is "government should continue to own public land" and all the things that go along w/ it.
-
139 not too bad I guess. I just have a few nagging doubts concerning "human nature". Bloody silly really as there is little difference between the concept of govt police and private. End result will still be the same and one is far more moral than the other. I will keep thinking :-)
-
"government should sell public land" what a bunch of bullshit that is :roll:
What exactly is the problem with that? A good portion of government's abuse is based on their "ownership" of public land.
-
"government should sell public land" what a bunch of bullshit that is :roll:
What exactly is the problem with that? A good portion of government's abuse is based on their "ownership" of public land.
I think he means the "selling" it part.
Yeah? What's the issue with selling it?
-
I think he's suggesting that if they don't really own it they can't sell it. It should just be opened for homesteading. Personally I'll take selling it.
-
Yeah? What's the issue with selling it?
They don't own it in the first place.
Of course they don't. Does someone think they're going to come up with some better idea of what to do with it? At least they can put the proceeds toward "our debt," and then someone who paid for it will put it to good use.
-
Yeah? What's the issue with selling it?
They don't own it in the first place.
Of course they don't. Does someone think they're going to come up with some better idea of what to do with it? At least they can put the proceeds toward "our debt," and then someone who paid for it will put it to good use.
This isn't my argument, I was just clarifying what apple said.
Got it.
-
160 points: Perfect! The world needs more like you.
This. THIS! THIS!!!
I has Libertarian Principles......
Libertarian Principles.... I has them.
-
160 points: Perfect! The world needs more like you.
This. THIS! THIS!!!
I has Libertarian Principles......
Libertarian Principles.... I has them.
All because you went and called yourself an anarcho-capitalist. :wink:
-
160 points: Perfect! The world needs more like you.
This. THIS! THIS!!!
I has Libertarian Principles......
Libertarian Principles.... I has them.
All because you went and called yourself an anarcho-capitalist. :wink:
LOLZ!
(http://lolcats.com/images/u/07/34/lolcatsdotcomapif8cpspt0k87dj.jpg)
-
160 points: Perfect! The world needs more like you.
This. THIS! THIS!!!
I has Libertarian Principles......
Libertarian Principles.... I has them.
All because you went and called yourself an anarcho-capitalist. :wink:
AWWWW YEAAAAHHH!!
(http://lolcats.com/images/u/07/22/lolcatsdotcomthbfefbvdnh3elf7.jpg)
-
Government should sell its land, and use the proceeds to pay off it's debts. Or, just deed the land to its creditors. Sensitive land, such as national parks, should be granted to private conservation groups. Opening such land up for development would be an extremely hard sell to the public.
-
maybe they'll sell "your" land too, since they "own" it also :roll:
-
Um. No. They will not.
-
Considering that I would have probably gotten 6-15 a year ago, I guess I'm coming along. I still have a few blind spots, but I scored 134.
-
Your score is...
146
I agree with most of the analysis of misleading questions about vouchers, Anarcho-cap, and that "vigilante justice" question. Of course, if everyone got 160 I would be concerned about a serious 'collective' situation.
I stand by everyone's right to be different - as long as it does not infringe upon my rights.
-
Inflation is measured as the growth of the money supply in an economy, without a commensurate increase in the supply of goods and services.
Unless "the supply of goods and services" is measured in something other than the same unit as the money supply (i.e., dollars), this is a circular definition.
Edit: cleaned up broken quote.
-
144 I still don't call myself an anarcho-capitalist
-
Inflation is measured as the growth of the money supply in an economy, without a commensurate increase in the supply of goods and services.
Unless "the supply of goods and services" is measured in something other than the same unit as the money supply (i.e., dollars), this is a circular definition.
Edit: cleaned up broken quote.
It would be measured in "inflation adjusted dollars"(meaning: price inflation adjusted dollars).
-
155...I think the voucher question got me.
-
I had to look back, I scored 160.
-
Your score is... 155
I balked on the vigilante justice question.
Libertarian Purity also means that I never get laid, right?
-
Your score is... 155
I balked on the vigilante justice question.
Libertarian Purity also means that I never get laid, right?
Right, especially with that avatar
-
79.
I believe I was at 75 when I took this test about 6 months ago so I went up 4 points. It should be said however that I consider myself a conservative, not a libertarian.
-
The last question seems pretty redundant.
Whether or not you call yourself anarcho capitalist (which i do) has nothing to do with whether you're actually libertarian or not.
Also theres a few other ambiguous questions, like should we legalize marijuana, which some people have a problem with the word legalize and prefer decriminalize.
-
Also theres a few other ambiguous questions, like should we legalize marijuana, which some people have a problem with the word legalize and prefer decriminalize.
Legalizing and decriminalizing marijuana are two different things. Decriminalize means to lower the crime of possession from a misdemeanor, which goes on one's criminal record if convicted, to a violation, where a fine still has to be paid but there is no possibility of jail time and nothing goes on the criminal record upon conviction. Legalize means to completely make it legal, meaning no jail time, no fines, no nothing.
-
113
School vouchers? Increases cost of private school. No thanks.
Housing vouchers? Increases cost of private apartments. No thanks.
-
113
School vouchers? Increases cost of private school. No thanks.
Housing vouchers? Increases cost of private apartments. No thanks.
Yeah, good point. I already said no on the school vouchers, but now I'm saying no on the housing vouchers too. But somehow I'm at 80 now instead of 78 so I must have answered yes to something else.
-
157
Although I consider myself to be an anarcho-capitalist my only objection is to private ownership of land. I don't believe land can be owned, because there's nothing actually there TO own. if you claim to own some plot of land, you are just merely marking the corners making a 2 dimensional surface. There's nothing there, it's abstract and it's no better than the concept of intellectual property. How high and how deep does your plot of land go? who judges that.. how do we decide what's "fair". should an airplane at 30000 feet have to get your permission to fly over your house? What about a company digging tunnels for some communication infrastructure 100 feet down? do they need to get your permission? Even if those are determined, all you are doing is marking out a 3D piece of space, with nothing concrete there and no effort needed to "own" it.
You can own a house or building that goes on land, or you could own a fence that encircles some piece of land, with signs on it to people who cross the fence that they agree not take any resources from within the fenced area. But you can't own a definition of a 2D or 3D segment of space.
-
159. I dont know where that 1 point went but I guess I'll have to do some thinking and research.
-
I got 159. I suspect that vouchers for schools and housing may be an improvement over what we have now. I lost points for saying no to "should we sell off more government land?" Governments should not sell what they do not rightly own. Government land should be turned over to whomever is using and occupying it at that moment.
-
I haven't finished the test yet. I got to the question about government spending on higher education and went off on a rant in my head about how I couldn't get any grants because my dad had a 401k. Uh, hello, that's not to pay for me, that's for him to retire! And since the societal impact of me going to college is going to be far more beneficial than the societal impact of draining his 401k, it's a fucked up system. That's all.
Just out of curiosity, how much does it cost to go to that school that you want to attend? Lets assume that it costs $2000 per semester.. how hard would it be to put away $20 every day that you worked for school? After 100 work days, you would have your money for a semester... do that for 2 to 3 years, and you have your money for school... No loans, no grants, nada... It may be a little difficult, but it is not the end of the world... That's what i am trying to do... I got 18 classes to go to finish (I have not been in school for almost 15 years, but have spent the past 6 months re-learning my stuff so that I can start next fall.)
Believe me... It took me almost 7 years to pay off the loans I took from the first time around... you don't want to start out after college with that kind of debt....
Anthony
Thinkl of it as a business loan: Most businesses start out in debt, but their owners think it is OK because they expect that by being in business they will be able to pay it off. Likewise, you get into debt accumulating human captal, but you expect that it will produce more than enough for you to be able to pay off that debt and earn a higher income for you.
-
51 - medium core libertarian.
Yeah, so sue me.
I see some limited government as a necessary evil, but want them to just butt out my, yours, and everybody else's busines while reducing taxes as much as possible, and cutting spending to only the bare necessities. A goverment that doesnt' feel the need to spy on it's citizens or maintain a global military empire far beyond what is strategically necessary to maintain peace.
Legalized drugs, prostitution, gambling, and guns? Have at it! Just don't put anybody else in danger.
Private roads, private courts, private military, private police & fire fighters? Now that's just moonbat crazy.
I don't fully agree with the absolute, dogmatic, anarchic Libertarians. But I still appreciate them as a balance of ideas, because there's a lot of Socialists, Communists, and Facists tugging on the rope at the other side.
You should check out William Wollridge's Uncle Same, The Monopoly Man. He was writing quite some time ago, during the sixties, as an American having just returned from the studying in the UK. The UK at the time was dominated by a post war consensus that centred around the idea that "The New Britain must be PLANNED," with people proposing a "national plan to make the best use of our resources." So you can imagine what a stunner Wollridge's book was coming out at that time. It was inspired by a conversation he had with people at St Andrew's University, where he was studying. At that time the telephone services were all nationalised, and private telephones were still too expensive for many to have them. Instead people had to accumulate exact change for a call, find a local business that a) had a phone and b) was open beyond the hour of six or seven, attract the attention of an operator, wihich was hard either because manpower was down or operators couldn't be bothered to help, then one had to wait for a while for a connection to be established, and then, once the call had been recieved, because their were no more phones where you were calling too than where you were calling from, you had to wait for whomever answered the call to locate whomever the call was for. In the end Woolridge gave up using the phones. So one day, in the student bar, Woolridge asked why the phones were socialised. Why not denationalise them as a privately owned utility? The response, he says, was "positively condescending... it was inconcievable to operate it for any other than the public interest. Who ever had heard of a private telephone company?"
He found this attitude changed when he told his fellow students about the early history of the Bell telephone company. Sure, they still didn't like the idea of denationalised, private phone services, but they could no longer say the idea was inconcievable or that provision was invariable, because here was a historical example of something else.
Woolridge's book carries on in that vein. He does not provide any speculative work as to how private alternatives to even the most basic functions of government might be provided. Nor does he do much arguing in favour of, or against, private alternatives. His object is to say that somebody other than government doing these things is not inconcievable... because here they are: He provides historical cases of private provision of postal services, of courts and laws, or police protection, of schools for poor people, of roads, of coin minting and money issue. These things can concievably be done privately because they all have been done privately in the past.
-
There already are private firefighters.
...and private roads and private arbitration.
There are twice as many private police in the UK as public ones.
-
51 - medium core libertarian.
Yeah, so sue me.
I see some limited government as a necessary evil, but want them to just butt out my, yours, and everybody else's busines while reducing taxes as much as possible, and cutting spending to only the bare necessities. A goverment that doesnt' feel the need to spy on it's citizens or maintain a global military empire far beyond what is strategically necessary to maintain peace.
Legalized drugs, prostitution, gambling, and guns? Have at it! Just don't put anybody else in danger.
Private roads, private courts, private military, private police & fire fighters? Now that's just moonbat crazy.
I don't fully agree with the absolute, dogmatic, anarchic Libertarians. But I still appreciate them as a balance of ideas, because there's a lot of Socialists, Communists, and Facists tugging on the rope at the other side.
Join the medium-core libertarian club. 75 here. All you people are crazy :P
I'd like to see your answers - I can't see how anybody could score that low and really be a libertarian!
-
Private roads, private courts, private military, private police & fire fighters? Now that's just moonbat crazy.
Why? What can government, a group of people, voted for by people, do for people what other people cannot do for people?
Because when you make crime & war a private, for-profit, industry, you tend to see a lot more of it. See Eisenhower's "Military-Industrial-Complex" for details. The military is privatized enough as it is already, with huge money being made by defense contractors who hold a lot of sway over what the military does. We wouldn't have anywhere near the Empire or wars we do now if there wasn't so much money to be made in it.
This does not involve privatisation, it involves contracting out. It is still the government, raising taxes to pay for tanks and bombs. There is little private about it. What difference does it really make if the government doesn't gave to gather the people together to do this because somebody else has already gathered them together, as a "private firm" and the government just pays them?
And when you privatize police, they'll be even more incentivized to find crimes to punish than now, and an erosion of your liberties far beyond what we have now.
Why would you choose to pay for a police force to punish "crimes" you have no interest in having punished? The police's incentives would be to punish the offesnes people are willing to pay for being punished, not just any offense they want. They have to get customers, after all, don't they?
You want legalized drugs? It'll never happen, ever, with a privatized police force when there's money to be made kicking in your doors to steal your plants and put your ass in prison.
Why? Who is going to pay for that? And are they going to pay enough, considering that I will be paying my own police force to arrest anybody that tries to kick in my doors to steal my plants and put me in jail?
Private courts? How does that work? The guy with the deepest pockets wins? This one seems awfully susceptible to corruption. Like what we see in these third-world nations where there is little,
No, like what you see in the USA, where 75% of all business disputes are handled by private arbitration, where, if you get in a dispute with your employer, the chances are that it will go to arbitration before it goes to court, where, if the person you bought something from on ebay, fails to deliver, they issue will be settled by the arbiter you agreed to when you opened your ebay account, etc. etc. Private courts are already a part of everyday life. I can open my yellow pages and find dozens of arbiters and dispute resolution services right now.
if any, government to speak of, only bribery.
This is one area I don't want to mess with. A jury of your peers should decide the law. Not $$$.
If a private arbiter was suspected of being corrupt or open to bribes he would lose money. Why would anybody agree to take their disputes to an arbiter they knew may have taken bribes from the other party?
Other than the odd on-ramp or bridge, private roads, by and large, are an impossible dream anyway.
The first roads in the US were privately owned and built, and were competitive.
I think the best way to deal with that issue is to pay for the roads ONLY with fees collected from car owners when you register a car, or buy gas.
So I pay the same when I drive on a road that is hardly used at all as opposed to aroad with a high volume of traffic? I pay the same when I drive at non-peak times as when I drive at peak times? I pay for roads I never use at all?[/quote]
Non-car owners shouldn't be expected to pay for the roads, just like I don't want my tax dollars going to fund a public rail system I would
never use.
A lot of hard-core libertarians spout off against One-Size-Fits-All solutions, and Zero-Tolerance policies.
But isn't a complete, anti-government mindset on every issue just another One-Size-Fits-All solution?
[/quote]
No. You want your government provided this and that? Fine. Gather up as many people as you can persuade to help you, and go about it. Just don't force it on anybody else. Don't force people who don't want it to pay for it, and don't attack them for trying alternatives. Think of anarchism as basically a big opt out system: Completely legalise the private provision of whatever it is you think government should provide, and let people opt out of paying for what government services they don't want, and let them contract for whatever alternatives they may want. That is all anarchists want, because in effect your "government" would then cease to be a government and become just another organisation competing amongst others for subscribers. The instant you recognise this it becomes obvious that anarchists have no intention of forcing their scheme on anybody who doesn't want it, just ensuring that no scheme is forced on those that don't want it, whilst opponents of anarchism are all in favour of forcing people to have what they don't want.
-
That's the rub, I think. We can imagine vouchers without strings, but will never get them.
The same can be said of privatization.
Libertarian "Privatize" = Ending state involvement
Statist "Privatize" = Sell it all at once for $1 to the buddy of a bureaucrat making the decision of who to sell it to.
I agree. That's why I put yes to privatising, but no to selling of government lands.
-
i got 123. I don't think some of those questions were that great. Vouchers = bad. Privatize. Vigilante justice = bad (IMO). Judges making laws = bad also, too much power in one place.
You want to abolish the common law and all civil law and replace it entirely with statutary legislation?!
Also
Should all of the Federal Reserve's discretionary powers be eliminated and the monetary base frozen?
What does it mean to freeze the monetary base?
It means that the feceral reserve can issue zero new money.
plus the question
Are worker safety regulations too strict?
I said no, because most private businesses have stricter standards than the government and so they don't usually feel the effects of the government. Worker regulations I see as something the government does to pick on anyone that might challenge them. I guess their strict in that sense.
Interesting point. I have worked in shops that provide better "customer's rights" than retail standards suggest. For instance, under the law only the person who purchased a good can get a refund, even if they had a reciept (because the sale is a contract, so the actual buyer is the person who was the other partyof the contract.) But I don't know any company with a retail policy that would forbid a refund to anybody with a reciept simply because they weren't the buyer (that is why we have to watch for customers who pick up dropped reciepts).
Also to be a good libertarian I don't think you need to believe the courts need to be privatized. I am not an anarchist partially that reason. I think we need government courts to protect the minority from the majority. Private courts would follow the demands of the masses.
Why do you say "would"? Why don't you say "do"? Private dispute resolution is commonplace.
-
My point is that you're misusing the term "privatization". It does not mean the same thing as fascism. You can certainly make the argument that it's become more and more similar in colloquial usage to corporatism though. However, I don't think you have many serious libertarians using this corporatist meaning of the term. It's mainly just politicians who want to put a positive spin on cronyism/corporatism.
You guys should note that at the beginning of the survey Caplan writes,
The word privatized as used throughout the survey means that a given government service is henceforth supplied by the free market and paid for by consumers. It is distinguished from sub-contracting in which the government uses tax money to hire a private firm to provide a government service.
-
Your score is... 155
I balked on the vigilante justice question.
Libertarian Purity also means that I never get laid, right?
I don't get the problem with the vigilante justice thing. Why should it be OK for a police man to enforce the law but not ok for anybody else?
-
51 - medium core libertarian.
Yeah, so sue me.
I see some limited government as a necessary evil, but want them to just butt out my, yours, and everybody else's busines while reducing taxes as much as possible, and cutting spending to only the bare necessities. A goverment that doesnt' feel the need to spy on it's citizens or maintain a global military empire far beyond what is strategically necessary to maintain peace.
Legalized drugs, prostitution, gambling, and guns? Have at it! Just don't put anybody else in danger.
Private roads, private courts, private military, private police & fire fighters? Now that's just moonbat crazy.
I don't fully agree with the absolute, dogmatic, anarchic Libertarians. But I still appreciate them as a balance of ideas, because there's a lot of Socialists, Communists, and Facists tugging on the rope at the other side.
Join the medium-core libertarian club. 75 here. All you people are crazy :P
I'd like to see your answers - I can't see how anybody could score that low and really be a libertarian!
There are a lot of questions where I take a middle ground and didn't want to push just to come off as "more pure" (eg, private roads and vigilante justice, especially against government people...it depends on the circumstance). I'm an incrementalist and wouldn't support jumping into a lot of the more extreme libertarian positions directly from where we are today.
-
51 - medium core libertarian.
Yeah, so sue me.
I see some limited government as a necessary evil, but want them to just butt out my, yours, and everybody else's busines while reducing taxes as much as possible, and cutting spending to only the bare necessities. A goverment that doesnt' feel the need to spy on it's citizens or maintain a global military empire far beyond what is strategically necessary to maintain peace.
Legalized drugs, prostitution, gambling, and guns? Have at it! Just don't put anybody else in danger.
Private roads, private courts, private military, private police & fire fighters? Now that's just moonbat crazy.
I don't fully agree with the absolute, dogmatic, anarchic Libertarians. But I still appreciate them as a balance of ideas, because there's a lot of Socialists, Communists, and Facists tugging on the rope at the other side.
Join the medium-core libertarian club. 75 here. All you people are crazy :P
I'd like to see your answers - I can't see how anybody could score that low and really be a libertarian!
There are a lot of questions where I take a middle ground and didn't want to push just to come off as "more pure" (eg, private roads and vigilante justice, especially against government people...it depends on the circumstance). I'm an incrementalist and wouldn't support jumping into a lot of the more extreme libertarian positions directly from where we are today.
Fair enough, though I think that the quiz allowed one to be incrementalist, and in fact penalises people for not being: It allows for the option of abolishing all taxes, but penalises for not favouring taxes cuts and 50% tax cuts first, for instance.
-
Your score is...
86
-
Your score is...
123
91-130 points: You have entered the heady realm of hard-core libertarianism. Now doesn't that make you feel worse that you didn't get a perfect score?
-
131, not bad for being brain washed into a pawn of the state...
Thank goodness I'm in the most backwards corrupt and cock sucking unit in the world or I may have scored lower :wink:
-
ed vouchers, housing vouchers - these are NOT an improvement over government schools and housing; to the contrary, they are much worse as they add to the bureaucracy.
Answered 'NO' to these, didn't even realize it was the 'wrong' answer till now.
-
My score was 90. Mostly because I hate Rothbard. He was an egotistical unrealistic twat who in the end turned his back on the very things this test requires for purity.
The Libertarian Party may as well simply fold up if absolute purity becomes a requirement.
-
The Libertarian Party may as well simply fold up if absolute purity becomes a requirement.
Who gives a shit about the LP.
-
The Libertarian Party may as well simply fold up if absolute purity becomes a requirement.
Who gives a shit about the LP.
Well obviously not you.
I say if the Dems and Reps make it impossible for Libertarians to be on the ballot. Libertarian candidates should run for office as a Dem or a Rep and do a Ron Paul on the establishment. But you will still get some who will absolutely refuse to run as anything other than Libertarian. If you thought it would be easier to run independent. Forget it the political party bar to entry will effect them just the same.
-
I scored 159, can't remember which one, but in general I'm a cross between a Misean, Randian, and Rothbardian in many issues. As for Rothbard being a twat, look at the bitch who liked him (Rand, and yes she was a bitch. :-P). He's an okay economist, but a better historian, imho.
-
Actually Rand and Rothbard disliked each other rather strongly during the latter half (or so) of their acquaintence. Rand started accusing libertarians of "stealing her ideas" and claimed that libertarianism was "objectivism with its teeth pulled out". She also made some personal attacks against Rothbard, the specific content of which I do not remember. Rothbard, in turn, really went to work against her statist views and some of her economic thought which he believed to be in error, having previously withheld his opinion on those points of disagreement between the two of them.
-
I scored 155. The whole vigilante justice thing got me.
-
What's wrong with vigilante justice? If it's okay for someone with a badge and a uniform to do it, it's okay for you to do it. Inversely, if it's wrong for you to do it, it's also wrong for someone with a badge and a uniform. The idea that there is something wrong with vigilante justice therefore implies that there is something wrong with justice itself.
-
Justice is not a fallacy, unless you believe that no obligation of restitution is incurred by an aggressor.
-
It was before the state perverted it.
-
Justice, referring to the payment of debts incurred by harm caused to another individual, is at least as old as recorded history. As in, Sumer. The concept is much, much older than the English word.
-
It did in Anglo-Saxon common law, which predates statuatory law by centuries.
-
There is only one libertarian purity test: do you want to initiate violence or not?
-
There is only one libertarian purity test: do you want to initiate violence or not?
^ this
I think that as far as political quizzes go, the LPT is one of the more useful ones. But once somebody has become familiar with libertarian ideas in general, the NAP is the only test we need. Whether one is a libertarian is a qualitative question; political quizzes tend to be quantitative.
-
And there were other, older civilizations which had restitutional justice. If we're going by which concept is older, Sumer had restitutional justice, and it's the oldest civilization of which we know. But we were discussing the meaning of the world "justice", which originated from a French word which was used to describe the payment of debts. When it was adopted into Middle English after the Norman Invasion, the word referred to the legal practice of equity in A.S. Common Law, which today we call restitution. It didn't even have anything to do with government officials until three hundred years after that, and then only referred to an adjudicator of equity cases (excluding the practice of magistrates). It wasn't until late in the eighteenth century that a "justice" had any role other than adjudicator and became associated with statuatory law. Yet even today, people understand that there can be such a thing as "unjust law", so the concept of justice as it was originally understood perists, even more than 250 years after its perversion by the state. It is a completely accurate term to describe restitution, and besides, it's only two syllables instead of three.