While I wouldn’t bother even trying to answer those questions, I AM impressed:
Privatize ALL public lands?
Abolish Medicare, Social Security, public schools, welfare?
Privatize public services (except, perhaps Police - we want cheap protection for our wealth)
Eliminate at least 50% of Federal regulatory agencies.
Kill FDA - who needs food purity laws? Salmonella only kills the weak ones!
That is scary
Screw 99% of wealth - we want it ALL!
You think highways and roads should be privatized? You think ALL government is evil?
Yep. We do far too much to subsidize automobiles. And I believe coercion is a necessary evil like war or pain.
I’m not liking the inability to at least say “I don’t know/would be happy either way.” For example, I have no care either way about “public lands.” I decided to choose what I assume is the non-libertarian choice for all such questions, so that it would not increase my score.
I wound up with a score of 20. The answers where I expect I aligned with libertarian principles are as follows:
[ul]
[li]Are you for free trade? Yes, as a general rule.[/li][li]Are zoning laws too strict? Sometimes, which I rounded to “yes.”[/li][li]Should we relax immigration laws? Yes, the actual laws are too harsh, even though they are spottily enforced.[/li][li]Does drug approval take too long? Yes, I would prefer the somewhat faster European version.[/li][li]Should marijuana be legalized? Yes.[/li][li]Should all sex between consenting adults be legal – even for money? Yes, as long as consent really means consent. Any valid anti-arguments are based on stopping sex slavery, which is not consent.[/li][li]Are you against national service? Yes, as a requirement.[/li][li]Are you against the draft? Same thing.[/li][li]Should the military budget be cut? Yes, we could be more efficient.[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]Should all drugs be legalized for adults? Yes, basically, though with doctor supervision in some cases. And I’m not counting antibiotics[/li][li]Is bombing civilians in an enemy country morally equivalent to murder? If done intentionally, yes. If a target may affect civilians, efforts should be made to evacuate them. Said murder may be second or third degree, however.[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]Is it morally permissible to exercise “vigilante justice,” even against government leaders? Not in general, but sometimes.[/li][/ul]
And that gives me all 20 points.
Ooh. Didn’t think of that one. I just took those as asking whether we should decrease the funding we currently give.
I’d argue that redefines evil in such a way that it lacks any meaning. And redefines government to be the same thing as coercion–when I would argue it only includes such.
That said, I think it’s clear by the responses here that this test is not very good. There should be a high level of distinction between those of us who would consider ourselves libertarians and those who would not.
Instead, you seem to have the largest different by far, and I do not consider you in any way the most libertarian person on this board.
20 points, which is way too high.
Were you a philosophy major Richard :)? Valid interpretation of the question I guess, but seems a bit hmmm…literal, perhaps? Can something be usefully utilitarian and still be considered evil? Spinoza certainly didn’t think so.
I mean that’s a bit like me believing needles are evil, but tolerating them to get a flu shot.
The test–actually a short online quiz somewhat whimsically created by one dude–is not designed to distinguish between libertarians and non-libertarians, or at least not in the way you’re imagining. One could answer with Republican or Democratic dogma and achieve a score of 20 or so, depending on how one interprets the question. Instead, it was designed (if that’s not overstating the level of planning) to “measure how libertarian you are” and provide a “breakdown between hard and soft-core libertarians.”
Based on the questions, one of the goals seems to be to inform right-wing and left-wing “libertarians” that they are sort of cafeteria libertarians missing approximately half of what pure libertarianism would theoretically commit them to.
For my purposes, I just thought it would be interesting to see people’s scores, and that the quiz was a step above similar online quizzes. Which it is. Nothing more, nothing less.
I don’t know what you mean “you seem to have the largest different by far.” I don’t have the highest score in this thread.
The very next question in the test is “Is government an unnecessary evil?”
So I think my interpretation is not only reasonable, but in fact required, in order to be consistent with the next question.
Sincerely,
Richard Parker (lawyer)
Fair enough.
But, more seriously, yeah I think there’s room for interpretation on a lot of these.
I agree with jsgoddess about Medicare, for example. And as I said earlier, I think some of these answers make sense if a bunch of other things were changed to be consistent with my views, but aren’t something I would fight for from a pragmatic perspective in the world as it is.
Well, nobody has admitted to scoring as high as I did (122), so I guess I’m winning. I’ve long self-identified as an anarcho-capitalist.
Interesting.
Do you live in the US? Do you vote Libertarian party?
What did you think of the quiz?
Yes, I live in the US, in Chicago. Not exactly a hotbed of libertarianism. I rarely vote Libertarian, because it feels like a wasted vote, but if the winner is a foregone conclusion I sometimes will. I thought the quiz was interesting, and seemed designed to push the limits of one’s beliefs.
Are you an engineer or an academic?
Both! How did you guess?
Just a guess. I think probably 90% of anarcho-capitalists are in philosophy, science, or economics in way or another.
I scored a 10. I’ve voted Democrat most of my life. Just can’t bring myself to vote Libertarian or Green or whatever. Just wasting a vote.
Not seeing why the second question prompts one to answer yes to the earlier one.
Humans are a social species. A government is simply an extension of social order rules that all such species need to survive. If we were non-social animals, and were forced to live together, then I could see where such a system would be evil.