Libertarian purity Test

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yep, Blain, thought about that myself,

and concluded I'd stay indoors during the shakedown period.


Edit: Not to say that I wouldn't stick my rifle out of my bunker if I saw an obvious horrible egregious crime about to be committed against someone.

Edit again: Anybody remember Kitty Genovese? Who called for help while being murdered, and got no help? No doubts there; any of the many who saw that happen could have solved that problem, had they A. Cared. and B. Possessed the slightest, silliest sort of firearm.
 
I would like to hear from some libertarians on this issue:



Should the law itself be privatized?
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll take a stab at this.

There are (for my purposes) 2 aspects of law.
1) The making of the Law
2) The enforcement of the Law

I'll deal with number 2 first.
The enforcement of law should be "privatized" not in the way where a city has to hire some security company to defend it's street, but more in the sense that it should be funded voluntarily, on a local level. The same way the rest of a city's infrastructure is funded. This gives the people of a given location direct control over their local government via the dollars that they give them.

To deal with number 1, expand this notion to the .gov. Don't pay these people to make laws; if you do, they will. Privatize the making of the law by by restricting congress' ability to do so. Being a Congressman or President shouldn't pay a dime. Nor should the .gov get any money for free. They should work like NPR and constantly have to beg for what they get. That way everyone gets on the national level what they pay for. If you think that the Pres should get a little bit to cover living expenses, then give it to him, or her. Again, public policy is voted on for every issue, but without the hassle of casting a vote. President X wants gun control. So does DiFi. DiFi pays a bunch of CongressCritters to push through a gun-control bill. Congress stops getting their living stipend from RKBAer's all over the country. We don't want gun control in Texas, so the local law enforcement groups don't enforce it. Why? Because we put them out of a job.
Bush says we need a standing army, we agree. We shell out. Boom. National defense. Bush says we need a War on Terror. hmmm. 40 Billion dollars? Sorry, not worth it to me, I'll wait until they show up and shoot them myself, because I can carry on a plain, just like anyone else. The .gov should work like a non-profit. Anyway, that's my 2 bits worth.
 
I think there is a misconception about the way people really are.

In the case of gang rapes, violent soccer mobs and riots people are sucked into a group-think consciousness that allows them to do things they would never do under normal circumstances.

I've seen this mentality manifest itself first hand. It turned a normal intelligent person into a crazed psycopath with no visible control over their social mores. Alcohol and drugs were not involved.

Other than these situations where the weak minded lose themselves in orgies of destruction and mayhem 99% of folks behave themselves when there is a good chance of rapid punishment or retribution for a bad deed.

There are others among us who have strong minds and moral fiber that don't murder because of laws and police but instead because murder is wrong and we just don't want to.

If faced with a situation where people are left to their own devices
there could be a couple possible scenarios.

Everyone will get up, go to work and make the best of it.

Rioting, looting, explosion of long pent up rage and frustration probably in the larger cities when the entitlements stop and the black market dries up.


Indeed there will be a transitional period where the good guys will have to smack down the bad guys for a while but things will quickly settle down when those with little or no self control will decide to reform or die.
 
jsalcedo, please, have another look at the words you used!

"Transitional period"? "Good guys will have to smack down the bad guys"?

Are you now going to tell us that we can't have omelets without breaking eggs?

Dunno about you, but I'm kinda squeamish when it comes to killin'!
 
(mulliga) 52. Abolishing ALL immigration laws and ALL government and ALL military defense is just loony to me. We could give it a shot, but I'll stock up on ammo before that happens .
Click to expand...
You don't do that now? ;)

MR
 
I scored 104 and my wife scored 12...

That was an interesting discussion.
 
"Is it morally permissible to exercise "vigilante justice," even against government leaders? "

I take the 5th. I scored high enough and/or I don't want to get yelled at by resident anarchists. :) It also depends on what "vigilante" means. :)

I think the survey's notion of "Libertarian" is flawed. "Libertarian" government means as close to anarchy as possible under the Constitution (or current mode of government), which means observing strict power limitations of the Constitution.

The notion that it is anti-libertarian to restrict immigration if the U.S. converted to anarchy and other nations did not is madness. If government regulation were abolished, the U.S. would have an enormous advantage in free trade, and everyone would want to live here. Immigration controls would become distributed if the U.S. converted to anarchy, but otherwise I think it would be essential to continue regulation of immigration.

The "privatize the law" question was idiotic. How can you call that "law"?
 
That test is way too complicated as a Libertarian Purity Test. It's actually much simpler than that.

If you can say of yourself that you oppose the initiation of force in all circumstances, then you are a pure Libertarian. Every other aspect of Libertarian ideology springs from this core concept. Compulsory taxation? Immoral, because it involves the coercive use of force on a non-aggressing party. Self-defense use of a gun? Moral, because the force employed is retaliatory, as a response to someone else's initiation of force.

Every social and political question needs to be gauged via the Non-Aggression Principle. Those whose actions are consistent with the NAP are Libertarians, no matter what they call themselves. Those whose actions do not pass the muster of the NAP are not Libertarians, even if they claim to be.
 
40 for me.
I agree that a lot of the functions of government and the agencies involved are not doing a good job and could be improved. I agree that they are money pits that don't produce in proportion to their cost, but I think we would be a whole lot worse off without them.
I also agree with those who basically said that if each qestion started off with "In a perfect world.............." I would agree with them. But this isn't a perfect world.
There is no question in my mind that a lot of this stuff wouldn't work at all in our present world and I have had some of it proven to me.

I actually thought before I started taking the test that I would score fairly high, but after reading the questions I can't go along with most of it.
 
31-50 points: Your libertarian credentials are obvious. Doubtlessly you will become more extreme as time goes on.


Scored a 40 But I've always considered myself level headed conservative. Even though the last test I took here called me a centrist
 
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
433
Samurai Penguin
S
L
  • Locked
Question about Libertarians and Republicans
Replies
20
Views
878
Titan6
T
T
  • Locked
So you want to vote Libertarian?
2 3
Replies
69
Views
2K
Augustwest
A
Back
Top