It doesn’t prompt you to answer yes. It necessitates that you interpret the question to be whether government is a necessary evil, so as to avoid making the next question redundant.
I do not agree that a state monopoly on the use of force is the only form of social order.
Yeah-- I’m in favor of the Orphan Drug Bill, but I also think the red tape that kept thalidomide out of the US was wonderful. So right there, what do you say?
I alternated on the ambiguous ones. Like, I answered “Yes” to the drug one, and since I’m in favor of changing the status quo, just not terribly radically, it wasn’t too bad, then the next one, which I don’t remember but was ambiguous like that, I answered “No,” so I split them, so to speak.
I have voted Green in local elections, like for mayor or district representative, but never bigger than that. Green party people actually did get elected as district representatives in the smaller town where I used to live.
Basically, I vote like this (subject to change in dire circumstances):
Local: I vote for the person.
State: I vote for the issues.
Federal: I vote Democrat.
Although, in Indianapolis, I have been voting the party in mayoral elections. I generally ended up doing that in NYC too, but it wasn’t as automatic as it is in a state like Indiana.
I read this and posts like Merneith’s as a kind of signaling that you think complicated thoughts that cannot be captured in yes or no answers, which you believe stands in contrast to others who believe their answers to complicated policy questions are neatly captured in such fashion.
If that’s not the subtext of what you’re saying, then I don’t really get it. Do you understand the humor in post #35?
OK.
Just because there might be another way to keep social order doesn’t make that particular way (state monopoly on the use of force) “evil”.
But I have to say, you are sounding quite a bit like a libertarian. 
That’s what got my score as high as 12.
Not sure about “American terms”. We don’t really have a social democratic party over here (that I know of), that’s akin to the British Labour Party, or the German Social Democrats. We do have one prominent politician who I think is a social democrat; but he describes himself as a socialist.
(bolding mine).
Yeah, the fact that it’s called a “purity test” rather suggests its bias.
Looks like I was at the low end of the mean at 16. Silly test, though.
Seeing Ayn’s smiling mug didn’t help any.
You’ve misinterpreted me. That wasn’t my argument for why the state is a necessary evil. I was responding to your suggestion that government cannot be evil because it is merely an example of the social order humans evolved to need/desire (which isn’t much of a counterargument anyway since my point is that it’s both necessary and evil).
A necessary evil, in my view, is something inherently immoral or undesirable that is required to avoid something more immoral or undesirable. Forcing people by threat of force to do things they don’t want to do, often things that harm them to benefit others, is wrong and undesirable. But it is also necessary. Most people intuitively grasp that concept when it comes to war. I don’t think government (or at least any practical government) is different.
Not really, I’m going to vote Democrat this fall for my first time voting for a major party. The Republicans generally want to remove safeguards allowing the buying public to have good information while bloating the military and regulating morality. All of which I’m opposed to.
Generally I find the Democrat solutions the best of the major parties even though I agree with them.for instance given our existing world I think single payer is the best healthcare solution even though in a perfect world the government would abolish the tax break for providing insurance or any involvement in healthcare and people would purchase catastrophic insurance and then be able shop services based on price for their day to day healthcare while the catastrophic would kick in when there wasn’t time to shop.
Not a fan of the quiz. Yes or no questions aren’t really nuanced enough.
Amen Angel, on the lack of nuance.
Still, if you don’t take it seriously, it was sort of interesting and fun.
I scored a 27, maybe because I think vigilante justice is ok against government workers in select circumstances (or however the question was worded).
Well, I guess we’re even because you misinterpreted me.
I wasn’t saying that government cannot be evil-- of course it can (see: Nazi Germany). I was saying it needn’t be evil.
Not really seeing it. If you made it impossible for people to leave the country (see: North Korea), then I can see where your argument would be true. But in a open, democratic society that allows anyone to leave if they want, you aren’t really forcing anyone to do anything. They have the choice to go somewhere else that suits them better. And if you create a federal system that allow states a large a mount of autonomy, you allow people to make that move without even leaving their country.
But bottom line, social animals must have some social rules in order to survive. If something is necessary for the survival of the species, then it can’t be inherently immoral, even if it is possible to construct rules that are immoral.
As for war, I don’t see that as inherently immoral, either. Offensive vs defensive war, for example.
It’s funny how relative these things are. I’ve always seen myself as having mildly libertarian tendencies, and I guess that in my own country, I probably do, but this is an American poll. I got an 8.
True. I wonder what your score would be if you answered in terms of the American military budget, occupational licensing, zoning, etc.
I’m thinking Israeli zoning is a whole other can of worms. 
Gave up after the first 12-16 questions, thereabouts. My answer to nearly all of them would be “it depends on exactly how you intend to implement the alternative”.