Libertarian Purity Test

[Drogue]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I'm sorry, but if you do not believe in Libertarian values of freedom, across the board, you are not a Libertarian. You see, Libertarianism is not primarily concerned with "economic policy" or "social policy" or "foreign policy". It is concerned primarily with freedom. Policies that encourage and promote freedom are good, while those that do not, are bad. That's a bit of a rough definition, but it'll do. In that sense, it is impossible to call yourself a Libertarian if you only believe in SOME freedom.

That is not true. Firstly, I doubt there are 10 people on the planet who believe in freedom in every sense, and who believe that there should be no government of any kind, no public services etc. I'm not even sure how a private police or private law works, without using insurance to pay for it, and thus self imposing a tax upon yourself. The best, and most often given, definition and defining belief of the Libertarian I have seen is:

Everyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as they don't infringe upon the equal freedom of others.

Indeed, I would argue that with private education, no everyone will get an education, drastically limiting their freedom. Without public services, you have to spend your own money on all the things that would be paid with tax. Personally, I prefer www.politicalcompass.org as a better measure of left/right and libertarian/authoritarian than that test, which IMHO does not measure libertarianism. Although saying that, it may be different in America, and they may use different definitions.

Look at the American Libertarian Party website, in the far right of the page, there is a little diagram. It highlights that you can be left or right and Libertarian. It does show that being an 'economic self-governor' is more liberal, but there are many other factors. Sorry I didn't post the image, I have no webspace to do so Therefore I would be just above moderate, and slightly to the left, and in the Libertarian sector (90%, 60%). On European tests, I generally come out slightly to the right. It just shows different attitudes.

Why does having a Free Market make the individual more free?

Originally posted by David Floyd
Your liberty to use your money as you please has certainly been diminished.

Has it? Yes you spend less in taxes, but need to spend money on healthcare, on education and on all the other things you've privatised. And while you may say you have choice in what you spend, you wouldn't when it comes to healthcare (you don't choose which ambulence comes to collect you) or to law enforcement (would you really want competing police forces). And is the freedom to choose those few thongs, that would otherwise be public, a big freedom? I think freedom is more about what you can do, what you can think etc. And I believe in a state where "Everyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as they don't infringe upon the equal freedom of others". That is what I want, the fact that I believe in having a welfare state, in having free education, and in having an national health service, so that everyone has a similar chance in life, does not make me an authoritarian. You may believe otherwise, but that is not (at least in anywhere I've read) a particularly popular definition of libertarianism.

Sorry for the long post, but I felt I this needed to be answered.

[Urban Ranger]

My F-score is 3.066666666666667

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Wahahahahahahaha Oh my side hurts

[TheStinger]

Fscore of 1.9333333, Looks like they think i'm too whinny to be an american, oh well.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
24, soft-core libertarian. Liberal Airhead on the F-Scale test.

You are a Liberal Airhead?

[Drogue]

1.9, I'm too whinny to be an American I really haven't sunk as low as I thought...

[Ramo]

Wutang, 1.5 on the F-test.

[David Floyd]

That is not true. Firstly, I doubt there are 10 people on the planet who believe in freedom in every sense, and who believe that there should be no government of any kind, no public services etc. I'm not even sure how a private police or private law works, without using insurance to pay for it, and thus self imposing a tax upon yourself. The best, and most often given, definition and defining belief of the Libertarian I have seen is:

Look, "private law", and that kind of thing, is not a Libertarian belief, because it seems to me that it would lead to mob rule. Mob rule is more democratic than anything else, and true democracy has nothing to do with Libertarian beliefs.

Indeed, I would argue that with private education, no everyone will get an education, drastically limiting their freedom.

You're correct in that not everyone will get an education. Some people won't be able to afford it, and that's fine. But just because someone can't afford a certain good or service doesn't entitle them to use my money in order to obtain it. That is one of the primary points of Libertarianism, and is a large part of the reason (real) Libertarians are against things such as public education, welfare, Social Security, socialized health care, etc.

Without public services, you have to spend your own money on all the things that would be paid with tax.

Of course. This is the proper way to do these things. It ensures that you pay for yourself, and yourself alone, and are not forced to pay for anyone else, or for services you don't need.

Why does having a Free Market make the individual more free?

Simply because a free market provides absolute economic freedom. It isn't a great stretch of the intellect to decide that a system which promotes freedom makes one more free.

Has it? Yes you spend less in taxes, but need to spend money on healthcare, on education and on all the other things you've privatised.

Precisely. You pay for the services you need, and not for anyone else's.

And while you may say you have choice in what you spend, you wouldn't when it comes to healthcare (you don't choose which ambulence comes to collect you)

You generally have a choice about which hospital you go to. But in any case, this isn't the point. The point is that you don't actually pay for the ambulance/hospital care unless you need it, and you aren't forced at gunpoint to pay for anyone else's.

And is the freedom to choose those few thongs, that would otherwise be public, a big freedom?

One of the biggest, in fact. Economic freedom is incredibly important, just as important as the freedom to be gay, or Christian, or an *******.

I think freedom is more about what you can do, what you can think etc.

Of course that is what freedom is about. And because of that, a system in which the government heavily taxes your money in order to pay for other people's health care, or whatnot, is not a free system.

And I believe in a state where "Everyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as they don't infringe upon the equal freedom of others".

OK, but it's not an infringement on my freedom is I can't afford a particular service. It's an infringement on my freedom if I'm forced to pay for someone who can't afford it.

That is what I want, the fact that I believe in having a welfare state, in having free education, and in having an national health service, so that everyone has a similar chance in life, does not make me an authoritarian.

It absolutely makes you an authoritarian, and it is NO sense of the word makes you a Libertarian.

You may believe otherwise, but that is not (at least in anywhere I've read) a particularly popular definition of libertarianism.

I'd be interested in knowing what you are reading that would make you think Libertarianism supports the welfare state, nationalized health care, public education, etc.

Personally, if you want to be a Libertarian, I'd direct you to http://www.lp.org - that's the official Libertarian Party website, and their political platform pretty much reflects true Libertarian beliefs.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

It absolutely makes you an authoritarian, and it is NO sense of the word makes you a Libertarian.

So its either/ or, huh DF. Black and white. You're either with us or you arn't. There is no middle ground.

[Az]

erm, no. Most of your policies oppose the policies of the Libertarians, Lawrence. You support taxes. which infringe of the individuals right of ownership. and taxes are on the general scheme, not different than theft. A bunch of people takes something from someone that doesn't nessesseraly wants to give it. What's the difference between govt. taxes, and burglary, in the freedoms infringed realm? zip. Both will physically harm you if you refuse (prison, injury) so it's all the same, supposedly.

Don't feel so bad about it btw. I am proud of it. Libertarian politics do not serve the purpose of promoting the human race but upholding some supposed 'rights' that do not exist outside the human connotation anyway, so are under no way 'holy' 'sacred' 'unchangable' or whatever.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Sikander
51 on the Lib test.

I got a 48. Same as Dissident.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Look, "private law", and that kind of thing, is not a Libertarian belief, because it seems to me that it would lead to mob rule. Mob rule is more democratic than anything else, and true democracy has nothing to do with Libertarian beliefs.

Well, it was on the Libertarian quiz that was quoted in the first post, and as such I presumed was a hard line Libertarian belief.

Originally posted by David Floyd
You're correct in that not everyone will get an education. Some people won't be able to afford it, and that's fine. But just because someone can't afford a certain good or service doesn't entitle them to use my money in order to obtain it. That is one of the primary points of Libertarianism, and is a large part of the reason (real) Libertarians are against things such as public education, welfare, Social Security, socialized health care, etc.

I see that, and I agree it is what a 'pure' Libertarian would think. However I always find the notion of the absolute, of being one thing or another at the extreme, absurd. I have never met anyone who is completely Libertarian (ie. wants no law, no state, nothing that prohibits anyone from doing anything) nore completely authoritarian (ie. someone who wants complete state control, with no personal freedom).

Originally posted by David Floyd
Simply because a free market provides absolute economic freedom. It isn't a great stretch of the intellect to decide that a system which promotes freedom makes one more free.

I don't believe a completely Free Market promotes freedom. I think you end up with corporations ruling, and as such a government of unelected, ultra powerful companies that have their own agenda (of making more money). If that is freedom, if that is being Liberal, then what is so sacred about it. To keep a free market, and free in the sense of choice and economic Libertarianism, you would need anti-trust laws.

Originally posted by David Floyd
One of the biggest, in fact. Economic freedom is incredibly important, just as important as the freedom to be gay, or Christian, or an *******.

In your opinion. WHile you are entitled to it, it is not one I share. In my eyes, I am no less a lIbertarian because I believe you can get more liberal freedoms (freedom of action) by having slightly less economic freedom.

Originally posted by David Floyd
It absolutely makes you an authoritarian, and it is NO sense of the word makes you a Libertarian.

How am I an authoritarian. I do not believe in the power of one person to tell another what to do. I do not have some holy notion of authority.

Originally posted by David Floyd
I'd be interested in knowing what you are reading that would make you think Libertarianism supports the welfare state, nationalized health care, public education, etc.

Non-American sources. Since your position seems to be from American sources, hence your strong belief in economic freedom as "One of the biggest" and mine that it is not. My normal definition, given above, is from www.libertarian.org, which is more of the world-wide think tank than a party. Also from the British Libertarian Party and the extremist Libertarian Party in the UK (the latter of which I could not agree with, I would not want a system without laws).

Originally posted by David Floyd
Personally, if you want to be a Libertarian, I'd direct you to http://www.lp.org - that's the official Libertarian Party website, and their political platform pretty much reflects true Libertarian beliefs.

Actually, http://www.lp.org was one I quoted in my post, and on their test, I came out as a Libertarian (albeit slightly to the left). That is the American Libertarian Party, and reflects the views of a group of American Libertarians. It does not reflect what is commonly thought among non-political Libertarians (ie. Academics and thinkers), and does not reflect many views held by Libertarians outside America. I am not getting at American beliefs at all, but they are different from in other places, and I will not accept that I am not a lIbertarian because I do not agree with all of them. 'True' Libertarian beliefs? You believe there is on 'true' and correct way of thinking that we should all agree with? That hardly sounds Libertarian to me. It sounds like you are imposing your beliefs upon me. That you belief you are correct, and others opinions do not matter. That strikes me as stronly authoritarian. I accept you are a Libertarian, and your views reflect that, but I do not agree that you know what 'true' Libertarianism is. I do not think such a concept exists. That every Libertarian believes exactly the same is laughable.

I do not 'want' to be a Libertarian. I have my own beliefs, that according to all the European (where I live, and therefore what is relevant to me) sources I have read I agree with most Libertarian views, and almost no authoritarian.

[SpencerH]

I love this question

"Is all government essentially exploitation of the productive members of society for the benefit of a parasitic ruling elite? "

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Azazel
erm, no. Most of your policies oppose the policies of the Libertarians, Lawrence. You support taxes. which infringe of the individuals right of ownership. and taxes are on the general scheme, not different than theft. A bunch of people takes something from someone that doesn't nessesseraly wants to give it. What's the difference between govt. taxes, and burglary, in the freedoms infringed realm? zip. Both will physically harm you if you refuse (prison, injury) so it's all the same, supposedly.

And all property is not theft? The act of you having more means somebody else is having less? You may believe in a form of Libertarianism whereby everything is privatly owned, others may believe in a system whereby nobody owns anything, everything is communal but everybody is free. The difference with tax and theft is that taxes give you something. You recieve services in exchange for them.

Dissagreement with the American Libertarian Party, or any other Party, does not make someone not a Libertarian. I view many parties as not standing for what they believe, and the nature of politics is one where everyone is an ulterior motive. And the fact that someone disagrees with Libertarianism does not make their point less valid, I thought a Libertarian of all people would believe that.

Everyone is on the middle ground, it's just some are very close to the edge. I happen to be more towards the Libertarian side, a little outside of what is notmally considered Moderate. I am not a hard core Libertarian, but that does not make me an authoritarian. To mock somebody because they believe in something less strongly than you seems foolish. If you ever want a Libertarian world, alienating all the moderate libertarians can only hurt you, and 'hard line' Libertarians like David Floyd are few and far between.

Libertarian politics, as I have seen championed by Azazel and David Floyd, will not accoumplish anything, for the greater or for individual good, IMHO.

[MORON]

38.....

[Sirotnikov]

7...

[Sirotnikov]

2.966666666666667 on the fascist test

[Maniac]

Way to go, Drogue!

16 on the purity test btw...

[Frankychan]

25? WTH is that? I wanted lower than 10!

Bah!

[Tuberski]

26 soft-core.

ACK!

[David Floyd]

Well, it was on the Libertarian quiz that was quoted in the first post, and as such I presumed was a hard line Libertarian belief.

More of an anarchist belief, actually.

I see that, and I agree it is what a 'pure' Libertarian would think. However I always find the notion of the absolute, of being one thing or another at the extreme, absurd. I have never met anyone who is completely Libertarian (ie. wants no law, no state, nothing that prohibits anyone from doing anything) nore completely authoritarian (ie. someone who wants complete state control, with no personal freedom).

The major Libertarians on 'Poly (myself, Wraith, Berzerker, Rex Little, etc.) are "completely" Libertarian. Further, Libertarians do NOT take the position of wanting no law and no state - the state and the law are good things, if they are used for the sole purpose of preventing the violation of individual rights and coercion of the individual. Libertarians are NOT anarchists, if you want to discuss anarchy, talk to Ramo. If you want to talk about Libertarianism, talk to me.

I don't believe a completely Free Market promotes freedom. I think you end up with corporations ruling, and as such a government of unelected, ultra powerful companies that have their own agenda (of making more money).

First of all, that's not at all true, unless you can point out an example of a completely free market system, without government interference on behalf of either workers or corporations, in which ultrapowerful corporations ended up running things.

Second of all, what's wrong with making more money?

In your opinion. WHile you are entitled to it, it is not one I share. In my eyes, I am no less a lIbertarian because I believe you can get more liberal freedoms (freedom of action) by having slightly less economic freedom.

Well, you would be wrong. You are certainly entitled to your beliefs, and I am not belittling them in any way, but those beliefs do not make you a Libertarian.

How am I an authoritarian. I do not believe in the power of one person to tell another what to do.

Perhaps not, but you clearly believe in the power of the majority to tell the minority what to do. That's no less authoritarian than rule by one man.

Non-American sources. Since your position seems to be from American sources, hence your strong belief in economic freedom as "One of the biggest" and mine that it is not. My normal definition, given above, is from www.libertarian.org, which is more of the world-wide think tank than a party.

Well let's see. Selected quotes from www.libertarian.org:

"Because of their emphasis on free markets, many libertarians are called conservative. But libertarians also think people should be free to pursue "sex, drugs, and rock & roll," if that's what they want to do."

That implies that Libertarians believe in the free market system.

"So it's probably not much of a surprise to discover that libertarians believe that state-run welfare and health care are inappropriate in principle and hugely inefficient in practice."

This shows that Libertarians oppose welfare and nationalized health care programs.

"Many libertarians favor complete separation of school and state, while others favor school vouchers and charter schools, at least as intermediate steps. Both groups argue that education is better and more flexible when it is taken out of the hands of the state."

Opposition to state run education.

"In fact, many maintain that any and all taxation is stealing, and that if it were done by anyone besides the organized group of people calling themselves the government it would be recognized as theft. "

Opposition to taxation.

So, in light of those positions quoted from YOUR source, how are you a Libertarian, again?

I have my own beliefs, that according to all the European (where I live, and therefore what is relevant to me) sources I have read I agree with most Libertarian views, and almost no authoritarian.

Irrelevant. The definition of freedom does not change depending on where you live. If you do not support freedom for some aspect of life, then you are not a Libertarian.

You may believe in a form of Libertarianism whereby everything is privatly owned, others may believe in a system whereby nobody owns anything, everything is communal but everybody is free.

That's silly. One of those systems is basically Libertarian. The other is basically communist. The two are mutually exclusive.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

32

31-50 points: Your libertarian credentials are obvious. Doubtlessly you will become more extreme as time goes on

[Drogue]

Originally posted by David Floyd
First of all, that's not at all true, unless you can point out an example of a completely free market system, without government interference on behalf of either workers or corporations, in which ultrapowerful corporations ended up running things.

Not completely, but the USA comes close. IMO the corporations in the US are more of a threat to liberty and freedom than the federal government. Besides, it follows basic economic principle. Companies will try to become monopolies, as it is in their best interest (highest profit margins), and thus legislation must be used to stop market failure. Perfect competition is a great idea, but sadly, will not happen with human nature as it is. The closest we can get involves legislating against monopolies.

Originally posted by David Floyd
Second of all, what's wrong with making more money?

Nothing, but if the leaders of the country's primary objective is to make money, not to promote the welfare of citizens, then that is not a good thing.

Originally posted by David Floyd
Well, you would be wrong. You are certainly entitled to your beliefs, and I am not belittling them in any way, but those beliefs do not make you a Libertarian.

Well, that is again in your opinion. I still disagree. I may not be completely Libertarian, but I am more that than authoritarian.

Originally posted by David Floyd
Perhaps not, but you clearly believe in the power of the majority to tell the minority what to do. That's no less authoritarian than rule by one man.

No I don't. I believe in majority rule when it comes to electing a government, but I don't believe in the rights of society over the rights of the individual.

Originally posted by David Floyd
Well let's see. Selected quotes from www.libertarian.org:

So, in light of those positions quoted from YOUR source, how are you a Libertarian, again?

Selected quotes yes. I agree, I am not a hard line Libertarian, and I do not agree with most of those quotes. I am not against Free Market, I just don't think it should be completely free. For instance, the Friedman quote:

A Corporations only duty is to provide a profit for it's shareholders

is an opinion I do not share. I still believe in a predominantly free market though. Just like I do not agree with hard core Liberatarian beliefs, and I am not a pure Libertarian, but I am still a moderate Libertarian. Indeed, you are the first person who has ever thought of me as an authoritarian that I'm aware of.

Originally posted by David Floyd
Irrelevant. The definition of freedom does not change depending on where you live. If you do not support freedom for some aspect of life, then you are not a Libertarian.

I disagree, if you support freedom in most aspects of life (like I do) then you are a Libertarian, with the stength of your desire for freedom dictating the strength of your Libertarianism.

What is the definition of freedom then? I think it probably does differ from country to country actually. Certainly in the way it is used, if not its actual dictionary definition.

Originally posted by David Floyd
That's silly. One of those systems is basically Libertarian. The other is basically communist. The two are mutually exclusive.

I disagree, as have many thinkers. Utopia being the first I can think of, but there have been many written about since. I think capitalism is as mutually exclusive with Libertarianism as Communism (or at least Marxism).

I suggest we stop this debate, as I'm sure we are boring people by now, and it's begining to look like a threadjack. I thinkwe are now both aware of each others views. I don't think you will ever convince me that I am an authoritarian (I'm way to much of a radical for that ), or anything less (or more) than a moderate Libertarian, and I don't think I will ever convince you that you can be Libertarian and economically Left. I do have to say though, if you want to gain politically, it does not seem sensible to mock your more moderate supporters. It would be much easier to get through some of your policies if you didn't. But hey, that's just my opinion.

[Sava]

Floyd, your idea of Libertarianism sound very anti-Democratic.

[MichaeltheGreat]

18 on the Lib Purity test, 2 (You're a liberal airhead) on the Fascist test, and Lib Socialist (as far right as they get) on the Godless Commie test.

[Tuberski]

Progressive and 3.26666.

ACK!

[David Floyd]

Not completely, but the USA comes close.

The US is in no way a free market system, nor is it run by corporations.

IMO the corporations in the US are more of a threat to liberty and freedom than the federal government.

Right, because the corporations are passing anti-gun laws, taxing our income, and telling us what we can do to ourselves in private. Come on.

Besides, it follows basic economic principle. Companies will try to become monopolies, as it is in their best interest (highest profit margins), and thus legislation must be used to stop market failure.

If one company provides the best service, and enough people think so, I see nothing wrong with it being a monopoly.

Nothing, but if the leaders of the country's primary objective is to make money, not to promote the welfare of citizens, then that is not a good thing.

A country should not be in the business of, as you put it, making money. That would involve some sort of tax.

I may not be completely Libertarian, but I am more that than authoritarian.

Yes, and Hitler was more Republican than communist, but I don't quite see the relevance. Hitler was no more a Republican than you are Libertarian.

I believe in majority rule when it comes to electing a government, but I don't believe in the rights of society over the rights of the individual.

Then why do you support forced taxation for public schools, public health care, welfare, etc.?

Selected quotes yes. I agree, I am not a hard line Libertarian, and I do not agree with most of those quotes.

*shrug* It's your source. I'm only responding to it. If you don't agree with some aspect of your source, you shouldn't cite it.

Similar to the concept that if you aren't a Libertarian, you shouldn't call yourself one

I disagree, if you support freedom in most aspects of life (like I do) then you are a Libertarian,

The keyword is "most". The proper way to say that is "If you support freedom in all aspects of life (like I do) then you are a Libertarian."

I think capitalism is as mutually exclusive with Libertarianism as Communism

How is a system promoting economic freedom mutually exclusive with a set of beliefs promoting freedom in general?

I suggest we stop this debate, as I'm sure we are boring people by now

We probably are, but it's so fun

I do have to say though, if you want to gain politically, it does not seem sensible to mock your more moderate supporters. It would be much easier to get through some of your policies if you didn't.

*shrug* I'm unelectable anyway in the current political environment. The bottom line is, though, if one supports freedom in a consistent way, they likely vote Libertarian, and if they are inconsistent in their support of freedom, they likely do not vote Libertarian.

Sava,

Floyd, your idea of Libertarianism sound very anti-Democratic.

That's the point. Democracy is only a good idea if you agree with the majority.

[TCO]

3.4666666

An appropriate male American.

[Jaguar]

30

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Azazel
erm, no. Most of your policies oppose the policies of the Libertarians, Lawrence. You support taxes. which infringe of the individuals right of ownership. and taxes are on the general scheme, not different than theft. A bunch of people takes something from someone that doesn't nessesseraly wants to give it. What's the difference between govt. taxes, and burglary, in the freedoms infringed realm? zip. Both will physically harm you if you refuse (prison, injury) so it's all the same, supposedly.

Personally, Libertarianism is silly, particularly hard core ones such as DF's set. Without a government, there's nobody around to protect a person's "rights," and a group of people living together must give up the "rights" to do certain things.

[David Floyd]

Ack! Lookit, Libertarianism is NOT anarchism!