Getting fitted for my wookie-suit

I apparently score 80% on the libertarian purity test.

64 Responses to “Getting fitted for my wookie-suit”

  1. Joel says:

    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.”

  2. Cliff Smith says:

    Only 46 I am surprised its that high.

  3. I score 63, or 39%.

  4. Mu says:

    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.

  5. Joe says:

    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.

  6. Tennessee Budd says:

    111. That suit’s gonna get warm, what with temps in the 90s lately.

  7. Kristopher says:


    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 …

  8. Joel says:

    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.

  9. JWilliams says:

    Wookiee is spelled with 2 E’s – I scored a 105 – 66% – you people are crazy.

  10. Canthros says:

    {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.

  11. Geodkyt says:

    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.

  12. Billy Beck says:

    “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.