Libertarian Purity Test

[Dekasa]

Yeah.... I got 14, and everything in the last part was no.

 

[Craig234]

So, only when they conflict with your views is the vigilante justice okay. If you can condone it in one circumstance, where do you go from there?

Oh, and Godwin's Law!

You never tire of posting lies about my positions and idiocy. No wonder I don't read your posts. Check one after a long time, nothing has been fixed.

 

[bamacre]

This looks like more Libertarian recruitment propaganda to try to get people to pay attention to the party that is better ignored.

They include some questions for everyone almost guaranteed to get yes answers - for fiscal conservatives, do we spend too much, do we tax too much; for liberals, does the US use military force intervening too much; for social liberals, should we legalize pot and marijuana, and so on - and then if you say yes to a handful out of 160, it says 'you have Libertarian leaning!'

Seems clearly designed to try to use 'identity politics' to try to get people to consider themselves more Libertarian and stop thinking of Libertarians as the crazies they are.

LMAO, you, and only you, could come to such a conclusion.

 

[ahenkel]

I got a 19, questions are too vague and the last section reminded me of when I was 15 and ran with the anarchist kids in high school. Lol at Anarchy.

 

[Steeplerot]

23 out of a glut of terrible questions framed for elementary school mindsets of civics.

 

[Steeplerot]

Pretty fun. Scored 88.

How apropriate!


Eighty-eight is used as code among Neo-Nazis to identify each other. H is the 8th letter of the alphabet, so 88 is taken to stand for HH which in turn means Heil Hitler.[3] For example, the number is used in the song "88 rock'n'roll band" by the neo-Nazi group Landser. The late convicted Order terrorist David Lane wrote "Fourteen Words" and 88 Precepts, and the numbers are often found in combination (1488, 14/88, etc.). This form of the number has inspired the naming of the groups Column 88, Unit 88, White Legion 88 and Barselc88.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/88_(number)


Just sayin..

 

[Zebo]

WTF questions with no expository??

Is government spending too high? What do you mean? local, state. fed? What for? I think cancellling f22 was a mistake and we spend too much on prisoners and so on. Every question is crap like this - I can't take the test. So F I guess.

Basically I'm a social libertarian, not so much economic.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Looking at the fact that wanting a total anarchy seems to gain you points and the maker wants more people who get the max scores the site seems to be in favor of the Afghan warlord system. Basically a few crime bosses who hold all power, and who kill/torture/steal at will.

 

[Praxis1452]

Libertarians don't seem to understand that private organizations are not more efficient. I've had to deal with the government and I know how fucking retarded they are when trying to get anything done. I've also dealt with private insurance companies. They fuck around just as bad.

Another thing is that right now I'm trying to apply for a job at a local utility company, and it's basically impossible. Their website's application system absolutely does not work in any web browser. On the website it says "we only consider applications sent through our website". This is the kind of bullshit you would expect from a government agency, but this isn't the goverment. This is a private company. Privatizing shit like the post office won't help because it will be just as retarded as it is now.

The truth has always been that private organizations are not necessarily more efficient, but neither is government. Generally though, corporations fail when they are bad, government really doesn't. This is the primary reason why I consider corporations to be better. In reality, corporations often don't fail due to government intervention. When something fails people complain about unemployment and hate on their representatives etc. Incentives are a key component of capitalism itself, and if they are skewed, so will be the results. Government does not automatically fixed skewed incentives either. It's always specific to the plan or the bill.

A libertarian can be anyone who feels that their country's public sector and government have grown beyond what is necessary or is inefficient, as well as one that is socially liberal overall.

By the way, capitalism fares well when private property is easy to distinguish. It does poorly when there are commons. When everyone "owns" the ocean, then no one really takes care of it. It's called the tragedy of the commons. The solution generally is to reduce these commons and conflicts, by say privatizing the ocean. That is indeed a radical step, but it is merely an example.

 

[Craig234]

The truth has always been that private organizations are not necessarily more efficient, but neither is government. Generally though, corporations fail when they are bad, government really doesn't. This is the primary reason why I consider corporations to be better. In reality, corporations often don't fail due to government intervention. When something fails people complain about unemployment and hate on their representatives etc. Incentives are a key component of capitalism itself, and if they are skewed, so will be the results. Government does not automatically fixed skewed incentives either. It's always specific to the plan or the bill.

A libertarian can be anyone who feels that their country's public sector and government have grown beyond what is necessary or is inefficient, as well as one that is socially liberal overall.

By the way, capitalism fares well when private property is easy to distinguish. It does poorly when there are commons. When everyone "owns" the ocean, then no one really takes care of it. It's called the tragedy of the commons. The solution generally is to reduce these commons and conflicts, by say privatizing the ocean. That is indeed a radical step, but it is merely an example.

Nonsense.

Yosemite was a commons, then the private sector wanted to dynamite El Capitan to try to get some minerals out for profit.

Abraham Lincoln was informed, and realizing the value of the natural beauty as commons, made it permanent commons, and it's doing just fine as public-owned property.

You *create* conflict as you over-privatize in the never-ending pursuit for fewer people to own more and more, impoverishing the masses along the way.

This is why for so long in human history pretty much every person had two choices, support the rich by farming and giving food, or serve the rich in the military.

That's all your 'privatized' crap gets.

An elite and most poorer.

 

[ShawnD1]

The truth has always been that private organizations are not necessarily more efficient, but neither is government. Generally though, corporations fail when they are bad, government really doesn't.

Fair enough.

I just don't understand why so much hate is directed toward government simply because it's government. In a good 99% of cases the problem is caused by government imposed monopolies. For example, lots of TV shows depict the DMV (car registration place) as being a slow piece of shit that takes hours to get anything done. That's not a problem where I live because those government tasks are also being done by lots of private companies, usually insurance companies. The building that I go to for stuff like car registration is a government office, but there's never any line or fucking around because so many other places also offer this service. There is no monopoly on this, and that's why it works so well.

When private companies have a monopoly, they pull the exact same shit one would expect from a government monopoly. For decades, the US had notoriously bad phone service because the people who owned the grid (AT&T) were the people who controlled the rules of the grid. Eventually that changed when the government stepped in to say that AT&T couldn't restrict people from connecting other devices to the grid as long as it didn't have a negative effect on any of the hardware (read). When that happened, a bunch of companies popped up to offer phone service and the price of long distance calls dropped like a rock. The government did a good job of forcing competition, and private companies did a good job of meeting market demand.


Simply put, libertarianism is horribly misguided. It labels the government as bad then expects monopolies to just magically go away with no government intervention. As seen with AT&T, that simply doesn't happen in real life. They had a total monopoly for decades until the government forced them to let other providers use the network. Libertarians seem to have an overly optimistic view of what happens when there are no rules. Libertarians expect workplaces to be safe without government regulation. Why would anyone think that? The whole reason OSHA was created was because workplaces were not safe! GRRR libertarians!!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Your score is...

55
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.

 

[MotF Bane]

You never tire of posting lies about my positions and idiocy. No wonder I don't read your posts. Check one after a long time, nothing has been fixed.

Yet you happily ignore any of my posts that you can't answer, Craig. Don't you have some floors to mop?

 

[Colt45]

33.

supporting legal prostitution, drugs, the US army pulling out of the rest of the world, and thinking that violent revolution can be morally acceptable doesn't make me a libertarian though.

Cold day in hell before I support privatizing police, legal system, army, et al. fucking lunacy.

 

[MotF Bane]

33.

supporting legal prostitution, drugs, the US army pulling out of the rest of the world, and thinking that violent revolution can be morally acceptable doesn't make me a libertarian though.

Cold day in hell before I support privatizing police, legal system, army, et al. fucking lunacy.

That one really shocked me.

 

[bamacre]

33.

Cold day in hell before I support privatizing police, legal system, army, et al. fucking lunacy.

Damn, that's just pure anarchism.

 

[SP33Demon]

41

 

[Turin39789]

I scored a 13.

And then someone showed me this so I thought I would post it here and get flamed!!!

[edit]despacing[/edit]

 

[Steeplerot]

Poor lefty libertarian. No <3 as usual.

 

[Vic]

Half the points were given for anarchist views which isn't libertarian.

This is the correct answer.

 

[brencat]

Scored a 30. That sounds correct -- I am center to center/right overall in my political leanings.

 

[Deeko]

49

 

[bfdd]

This is the correct answer.

I noticed that too.

 

[Babbles]

. . .

By the way, capitalism fares well when private property is easy to distinguish. It does poorly when there are commons. When everyone "owns" the ocean, then no one really takes care of it. It's called the tragedy of the commons. The solution generally is to reduce these commons and conflicts, by say privatizing the ocean. That is indeed a radical step, but it is merely an example.

Nonsense.

Yosemite was a commons, then the private sector wanted to dynamite El Capitan to try to get some minerals out for profit.

Abraham Lincoln was informed, and realizing the value of the natural beauty as commons, made it permanent commons, and it's doing just fine as public-owned property.

You *create* conflict as you over-privatize in the never-ending pursuit for fewer people to own more and more, impoverishing the masses along the way.

This is why for so long in human history pretty much every person had two choices, support the rich by farming and giving food, or serve the rich in the military.

That's all your 'privatized' crap gets.

An elite and most poorer.

No, sorry, actually Praxis1452 is onto something with the tragedy of the commons. It's a pretty well understood economics thing, hell it is probably in every Econ 101 textbook. There is tons of research and books that talk about the idea.

You may want to personally consider it as nonsense, but economists will find sense with it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

81 but I took it with only the Federal gov't and the Constitution in mind. Clearly it was slanted towards an anarchist style of libertarianism which would be as bad as the socialist/statist gov't the left embraces.