• You are using the old High Contrast theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

Libertarian purity Test

Status
Not open for further replies.
I only got 58. Many of those questions weren't libertarian but more anarchist or just plain unconstitutional and absurd.

Do you people really want privatized courts? You want VPC or the New York Times to own the court that you might be tried in for owning a gun?

Privatized police and justice department? What is that? Like posting a bounty on someone whom you think did you wrong?

I guess us strict constitutionalists don't fit well in the LP party either. After a year as a member in the LP I think I'm ending it and going back to the Republicans. They aren't perfect, but they aren't anarchist lunatics either.
 
who get's to write the definition?

By subscribing to any one person or group as having the "power" to define what it is to be a "Libertarian" you go against the very notion of what this test defines as a "hard core Libertarian"

What this test defines as "hard core Libertarian" is nothing but pure anarchy.

You better be careful what you promote....you might just get it. And then someone with just a little more fire power, or money or friends will come along and MAKE YOU THEIR SLAVE.

Anarchy / hard core Libertarianism is nothing more than man declaring himself God and the one who defines all good and evil accoring to his personal whims.

Man declaring himself to be God is a philosophy inspired by Satan himself (read Genesis Ch. 3 and pay special attention to the dialog between the Serpant and Eve if you have any doubts).

Civil government is a God ordained, man corrupted institution...which can be cleaned up by honest men who fear God.

IMHO, hard core civil libertarians are as much a parasite on the life and well being of the USA as the Leftist/Liberals are.

Go F up someone elses country and leave this one alone.
 
publius said:
We wonder whether this government will protect those who do not voluntarily pay for it? Offer a free ride, people will take it.
Click to expand...
DING-DING-DING!!! Publius wins the gold star. The minimal, ultra-limited, exists-solely-to-protect-individual-liberties government must use coercive means to secure funding. That's the fundamental contradiction of government - government cannot protect peoples rights without infringing upon their rights at the same time. Go figure.

That's why a "pure" libertarian must necessarily be an anarchist. Complete voluntarism and non-aggression is not possible under what I term "traditional" government.

- Chris
 
The minimal, ultra-limited, exists-solely-to-protect-individual-liberties government must use coercive means to secure funding.
Click to expand...
And I'm perfectly OK with that. I'm well aware of the contradiction. I guess I'm just not "pure" enough for you.

There is no anarchy. In the absence of a government based on popular consent, the governing power is the thief.
 
I feel bad I only got a 135. There were some questions that must require government.
 
That's the fundamental contradiction of government - government cannot protect peoples rights without infringing upon their rights at the same time.
Click to expand...

Government exists to provide services that people need, like national defense or local law enforcement. The problem, as I see it, is that there are too many services that no one needs, but small special interests want. Government does not exist to protect rights. Constitutions, like the US Constitution for example, exist to try to protect people's rights from governments.

People need to protect their own rights in spite of their government. That's why we have elections, so that we can get rid of any politicians who try to ignore our rights.

If people think the goverments' job is to protect people's rights, then it's no wonder there are so many anarchists. We would be better off without government, if that were what we had it for.
 
I scored a 47. So many of the questions were not easy to because they were all or nothing answers. On many of them I lie somewhere in between the two available answers.
 
And I'm perfectly OK with that. I'm well aware of the contradiction. I guess I'm just not "pure" enough for you.
Click to expand...
Please don't think of this as some kind of litmus test - I don't care how "pure" or "impure" you are. The only people you have to answer to for your beliefs are the people hurt by them.

The entire purpose of my last few posts was to demonstrate how "pure" libertarianism is equal to anarchism - I think that I pretty well succeeded.

There is no anarchy. In the absence of a government based on popular consent, the governing power is the thief.
Click to expand...
This makes no sense at all.

- Chris
 
DocZinn said:
When there is no formal government, any individual is at the mercy of anyone stronger. That's the "governing power" I'm talking about, in the sense that in any instance of interaction between two individuals, the stronger of the two dictates how it's going to be.
Click to expand...
Ah. I understand.

How is this any different from what we have now?

- Chris
 
It makes me tearful to watch our WWII vets die off slower than our national pride for all they fought and died for. I envy them, for they lived through when being an American was a source of pride and integrity. The generations since, mine included, have benifitted from their hard work and ethics, only to reduce worth down to selfishness and instant gratification at any long term cost.
Click to expand...
Not to take anything away from their military service and sacrifice for our country, for that they certainly deserve our respect and are indeed the "greatest generation."

However, this generation of whom you speak (assuming an average age of 20 in 1945, then 30 in 1955 and 40 in 1965) helped get us where we are today. Some could argue that if there ever was a time to turn the tide of excessive government, it would have been during their watch. But they didn't.

And that is not to say we are any better in that regard, but with every passing year the government becomes more excessive and the task becomes less plausible. IMO it is exponentially less plausible today than it was in, say, the '50's.
 
OK, you'd probably not get much argument from me if you said anarchy was better than what we have now. But it wouldn't be better than a properly-limited government.
Click to expand...

Part of the perpetual problem of government is that most people do not properly analyze the nature of government. They want to have something they call 'good' government. I believe the term 'good government' as a concept to be a mirage, a chimera, an oxymoron. The choice in regards to forms of government is not between good and bad, but between bad and worse. I will freely stipulate that the US government is the best that has ever existed-the best of a bad lot.

The most convincing argument for democracy is not that democracy or our constitutional republic form (supposedly) will provide good government. The most convincing argument for our form of government is to survey the alternative forms of government.

My definition of a properly-limited government would probably be indistinguishable from anarchy to most here. It wouldn't need but 10 to 15% of the revenue that our present government devours with a mounting deficit.

I don't want a government that tries to accomplish good. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. A government that was determined never to accomplish bad things, even with good intentions, would be much more comfortable. Yes, it wouldn't be a nanny but I don't want a nanny.

Under my government, we wouldn't have that big of a military. We wouldn't need one. The militia would be so heavily armed that potential aggressor nations would be wishing the "gun crazy" US would come back. A future Admiral Yamamoto would not say,"You could never successfully invade the US, behind every blade of grass would be a rifle." He'd change rifle for heavy artillery.
 
My definition of a properly-limited government would probably be indistinguishable from anarchy to most here. It wouldn't need but 10 to 15% of the revenue that our present government devours with a mounting deficit.

I don't want a government that tries to accomplish good. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. A government that was determined never to accomplish bad things, even with good intentions, would be much more comfortable. Yes, it wouldn't be a nanny but I don't want a nanny.

Under my government, we wouldn't have that big of a military. We wouldn't need one. The militia would be so heavily armed that potential aggressor nations would be wishing the "gun crazy" US would come back. A future Admiral Yamamoto would not say,"You could never successfully invade the US, behind every blade of grass would be a rifle." He'd change rifle for heavy artillery.
Click to expand...
When the revolution is over, let's you and me get together and help set that up before some jackass can get us on the road back to what we have now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
How do you score?
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
jnojr
jnojr
B
  • Locked
Essential Reading For Libertarians
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
Capteddie
C
M
  • Locked
UK Libertarians on new UK law.
Replies
1
Views
438
Samurai Penguin
S
L
  • Locked
Question about Libertarians and Republicans
Replies
20
Views
912
Titan6
T
T
  • Locked
So you want to vote Libertarian?
2 3
Replies
69
Views
2K
Augustwest
A
Back
Top