Getting fitted for my wookie-suit
I apparently score 80% on the libertarian purity test.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
blog advertising is good for you
Categories
- ATF (348)
- Death Match (7)
- Eminent Domain (219)
- In the bag (8)
- Notes to Junior (404)
- Poker (70)
- Recipes (128)
- The Airing of Grievances (17)
- uncategorized (32242)
Archives
-
- We say more dumb shit before noon than most people say all day.
- Stuff you want
- Site Stuff
My Facebook Page
My Twitter
Terms of Use and Legalese
Contact Info
Food
Funny
Gun Gear
Gun Industry
Gun Rights
Lawyers
Money
Odds and Ends
Right Wing Conspiracy
Syndication
Uncle Pays the Bills Again
June 30th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
I suspect it’s more of a parody site, because I haven’t heard of any serious libertarian who advocates completely abolishing all types of government.
I got a 39%, BTW: I didn’t answer yes on any of the last questions.
June 30th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
A wookie suit for a score of 80? What do I get for 145?
Besides bunk space in a re-education camp, that is.
June 30th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Only 63% here. I need to retake Anarchy 101.
June 30th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
135. I’ll bring the Hayek, you bring the Rand, and we’ll be bunk mates.
June 30th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
I was surprised I only got 64%.
And Captain Holly I’ve heard many libertarians want to abolish ALL government. The sane ones realize we need at least a small government. VERY small.
June 30th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
Shouldn’t there just be one question, THE question?
“Do you support marijuana legalization?”
June 30th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
I got a 116, I left a small government and public schools (with vouchers) on the table.
June 30th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Oh, Oh 91%. How hot do wookie suits get in the summer? Do they have built in fans?
June 30th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Q#64 – Would you call yourself an “anarcho-capitalist?”
Yes, plenty of libertarian people would abolish the state entirely
June 30th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
Then they’re not libertarians. they’re anarchists.
June 30th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Statist
June 30th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
The people’s front of judea does not approve.
June 30th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
How about the Judean People’s Front?
June 30th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
Wow, a mere 41%. Probably because for a lot of things my ideal answer was “get rid of most of it” but was limited to yes or no for “get rid of all of it.”
June 30th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
I got 100.
June 30th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Welcome! Secret decoder ring on the way…
June 30th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
I scored an 80…
Sure I want as little government as possible, but at the same time I’m very skeptical that going all the way towards no government is really workable in a modern world.
Defense – Militias are great, but when your potential enemy has high tech aircraft and strategic weapons, can a militia provide adequate defense? Sure they could make life miserable for an occupation force, like the Taliban does in Afghanistan, but the Taliban are never going to drive us out through force of arms. (through the erosion of public opinion in the US they may succeed though) Could a militia stop China or Russia from bombing us? We need at least some form of state military if we want to have realistic self defense.
Education – As much as I view myself as a libertarian, I can’t just turn my back to the idea of social justice. Don’t get me wrong, I still have a libertarian take on it, but it needs to be there. What I mean is everyone needs to have a chance. In the modern world, without even a basic education are you going to have a realistic chance at being successful? I’m fine with the idea that a person who has squandered their opportunities should not expect anything from society. But what about a child born into poverty, whose parents are unable to provide even a basic education? I don’t have blind faith that voluntary philanthropy will do the job. Let everyone fend for themselves, but give them an education first.
Roads – I don’t really think there is a realistic way to fully privatize, but I’m open to suggestion.
Police – I don’t think they can be privatized either. Scaled back sure, but some police are necessary to protect our rights from each other. Vigilantism isn’t enough, and I certainly wouldn’t want to give police powers to private corporations. Get rid of all the victimless crimes and we could get rid of a lot of police. Other emergency are fine to privatize.
in the 17th century, most of my compromise positions wouldn’t be necessary, but in the 21st they seem unavoidable. I think if anything we need more people with a libertarian streak who are willing to really think about how libertarianism is going to work in the real world, not just in theory.
June 30th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
76 – Lets leave it at that.
June 30th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
I can’t even get started on that thing.
The very first question is utter bullshit.
June 30th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
I think my main problems with this quiz is that it doesn’t take into account the nature of the social contract or the concept of federalism.
June 30th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Well… maybe I should be nice and just say that it’s completely impossible.
June 30th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Splitter!
June 30th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Billy,
I read it as “One is greater than zero: yes or no?”
June 30th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
“Then they’re not libertarians. they’re anarchists.”
Unc, I’d love it you would read Robert Le Ferve, or about him.
Historically, *rational* anarchism (apart from the commie frauds like Bakunin and Goldberg, et. al.) is a subset of libertarianism. People refer to Spooner as a libertarian, for good reason.
June 30th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
27 for me. And I have a Wookie suit. I was Chewbacca in the Halloween school play two years ago (it’s a thing PTA mommies and daddies do every year at our school).
June 30th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Tam: well… I guess that as soon as everyone stops beating their wives, I could maybe concern myself with that.
You see? It’s about the premises.
June 30th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Billy,
Did you read it through?
They get to the “Abolishment of the State” stuff down in Part III.
(And yes, I scored a 160, you buncha statist goons.
)
June 30th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Yup, I read it through, but my integrity reflex couldn’t stand it.
June 30th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
yah know I loves ya billy. But we’re still talking about 1 and you’re already up to 11. Bypassing 2-9 and only casually mentioning 10. You jump to the end all the time.
June 30th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
I couldn’t get past the first few myself.
* Are you for free trade?
Free trade for everyone? I cam haz Russian Dragonov SVD shipped right to my door? Corn subsidy and ethanol protective tariffs gone? Or just allow corporations to move money and jobs overseas (i.e. open boarders for corporations only)?
* Do we spend too much on Social Security?
Seeing as I’ll likely never get a fraction of what I was forced to pay, maybe I should vote no here. Theoretically, we don’t spend anything out of the general fund on SS, at least until that wad of non-negotiable IOUs are all used up.
* Should the government sell off more of the public lands?
Are we talking parcels like 20 acres and a mule or parcels like 20,000 acres and mining rights?
June 30th, 2010 at 5:06 pm
44? I guess it most of been those questions at the end.
June 30th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
Standard; what’s wrong with 20,000 acres and mining rights? Eventually, the big, eeeevil mining companies, after having provided tons of valuable resources to the people, will be forced to make the lad pay for itself some other way, such as by selling in 20 acre plots to people like you. That also means, by the way, that they’ll have had to keep in reasonabley good shape. It’s an asset, and poeple tend to protect their assets.
June 30th, 2010 at 5:31 pm
Are they going to sell 20 acres parcels too? Nothing wrong with 20,000 acres parcels by themselves. Selling only large chunks would peg my “backroom deals” BS meter though.
Take it in the spirit of the “free trade for everyone, or just large corporate campaign donors?” above.
June 30th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
“You jump to the end all the time.”
That’s because principles are just that important, Unc.
Every implication is always present in the original principle.
June 30th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Hmmmmm, I only got a 55, doe’s that mean I need to shave my back?
June 30th, 2010 at 6:07 pm
billy, i agree. but you’re never going to get to 11 without dealing with 1.
June 30th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
I scored an 80. I’ll wear Wookie pants, at least.
June 30th, 2010 at 6:18 pm
Was it 80%, or 80 points? Big difference…. the test is 160 points total.
June 30th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
When people ask multiple part questions on a yes/no quiz, they aren’t really interesting in what you think.
For example, question 43: “Should all of the Federal Reserve’s discretionary powers be eliminated and the monetary base frozen?” This should be 2 questions, not 1.
But then big “L” libertarians are insane. The big “L” party wants to eliminate all immigration laws. Of course they don’t want to provide any services to anyone, so those immigrants won’t be getting any .gov services. But today, with SocSec, Medicare, et al, this is insane.
They don’t know how to pick battles, and so are tilting at windmills.
June 30th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
I scored 70. I wish some questions had allowed an “it depends” answer. I think what mostly reduced my score was my fondness for strategic bombing. Hey, my Dad used to work for Curtis LeMay on Saipan, loading incendiaries into B-29s. Besides, I think I may be too much of a White Nationalist to be a complete libertarian. See y’all over at vdare.com!
June 30th, 2010 at 7:19 pm
Well jeebus, a nice bunch of questions but most answers are contextual or a matter of degree. It’s a bullshit quiz as far as “score” but does properly map the terrain.
June 30th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
There’s only one question needed for big “L” Libertarians: Do you like a good pot party with hookers?
June 30th, 2010 at 7:44 pm
86, but I was in a hurry to go and size some brass.
June 30th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Oh, also, what Zendo Deb said. Living afloat requires one to pay attention to harsh reality; living in Mom’s basement, not so much.
June 30th, 2010 at 11:06 pm
57 of 160 possible, so 35.625 percent, if calc.exe is correct.
Probably ought to be a little lower. There were a few propositions I marked ‘Yes’ which are really ‘Yes, but with qualifications’.
And I agree with Justthisguy and Zendo Deb. When principle collides with reality, reality _always_ wins.
June 30th, 2010 at 11:23 pm
“When principle collides with reality, reality _always_ wins.”
{sigh} As if there are no principles in reality.
Oh, how I long for people who can fucking think.
June 30th, 2010 at 11:58 pm
104 which puts me somewhere around 65%. I think my wookie suit shrunk.
July 1st, 2010 at 2:09 am
I only got 57.
July 1st, 2010 at 2:20 am
Wheee 72. Which is more “moderate” than I anticipated. Some of the questions were odd, and some were over my head.
July 1st, 2010 at 3:42 am
103 but that’s like 40 points higher than the one I took a couple of years ago, might have been the same one. I guess my fur is growing.
It’s still hard to wrap my mind totally around privatized roads and police, but I chalk that up to the knowledge problem people talk about with top down government. I don’t have all that knowledge and neither does the .gov.
July 1st, 2010 at 8:38 am
I got 155 – since this “test” isn’t very closely linked with reality, I may as well go with principle.
My only apparent break with purity was that I’ve never called myself an “anarcho-capitalist.”
July 1st, 2010 at 9:41 am
93…
MC
July 1st, 2010 at 10:49 am
68
July 1st, 2010 at 10:58 am
Only 46 I am surprised its that high.
July 1st, 2010 at 11:33 am
I score 63, or 39%.
July 1st, 2010 at 11:47 am
Damn, 9; that’s hard core anarchy, not libertarianism. There is a difference between small government and vigilantism.
But then, the notion of pay off what you borrowed before you abolish taxes doesn’t sit well with a lot of people.
July 1st, 2010 at 11:50 am
I find that my answer very with the notion of how soon would this happen? I am very libertarian in my notion of how I think the government should function (or mostly not function). But I don’t think that turning the apple cart over all at once is the way to get a functioning society. To the degree that many of these issues are knowledge problem issues with government not having all the knowledge needed to make decisions for people, does not imply that the citizens have that knowledge at hand right now.
July 1st, 2010 at 12:28 pm
111. That suit’s gonna get warm, what with temps in the 90s lately.
July 1st, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Woot.
I scored a 160 …
And Billy Beck scores a 161 by telling the test-taker to fuck off and die!
Some of us are beyond wookie suits and a Ron Paul sign … we are going straight for the hard-core stuff, like that NH Free Stater girl who was doing open carry while topless …
July 1st, 2010 at 1:29 pm
But then, the notion of pay off what you borrowed before you abolish taxes doesn’t sit well with a lot of people.
I didn’t borrow it. Let Obama and Pelosi pay it off.
July 1st, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Wookiee is spelled with 2 E’s – I scored a 105 – 66% – you people are crazy.
July 1st, 2010 at 3:03 pm
{sigh} As if there are no principles in reality.
Oh, how I long for people who can fucking think.
Well, I’m sure your vast intellect provides some comfort.
July 2nd, 2010 at 4:16 pm
It’s an “anarchy” purity test, not a “libertarian” one. And it’s not even purely a test for anarchy purity at that. . . it’s a fairly ridiculous anarchist pacifist “test”.
Not all libertarians are anarchists.
Not all libertarians or anarchists are pacifists.
In fact, TECHNICALLY, if you are a “libertarian”, you CANNOT be an “anarchist” — the cut off point is that bright line between “government is a necessary evil that should be kept as small as possible,” and “all government is an UNnecessary evil that should be avoided, regardless of the cost.”
That’s not a just difference in “quantity”, that’s a difference in “quality”.
Take Question #50 for the pacifism issue. Bombing civilians in wartime is NOT always lorally equivalent to murder.
Sometimes it’s “justifiable homicide”.
Other times it is “felony murder” (chargeable against their own government, not the bombers, whther they be state paid head thumbers in pretty uniforms, or free market individuals providing a service for fee in support of a wholly self-organized and voluntary association of sovereign individuals).
Sometimes it is just plain manslaughter.
Sometimes it is just an accidental death.
The ONLY way one can construe it as to be invariably “morally equivalent to murder” is if the idea that one would use force against another and where a thrid party MIGHT get injured would ALWAYS be “murder”.
The only way to avoid ALL civilian casualties would be to simply surrender unconditionally and immediately to ANY enemy, no matter how strong or weak they are — becuase if you fight, SOME civilians are going to get killed, and if you huse bombers, some of those casualties will be bombing victims.
July 6th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
“In fact, TECHNICALLY, if you are a ‘libertarian’, you CANNOT be an ‘anarchist’…”
That simply isn’t true. You don’t know what you’re talking about.