6/24 Libertarian purity test.
http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi/purity.cgi
Feel free to post scores/interpretation. -- ilyas
\_ Alarm bells should go off in your head any time some ideology starts
trying to measure and compare the "purity" of its adherents.
Reasonable people do not measure their politics or philosophy on
a linear scale.
\_ Dear GOD, man. Is being a geek an ideology too? They have a
purity test. How about being gay? How about you get that
stick out of your ass? -- ilyas
stick out of your ass? The 'purity test' tradition is
an ancient part of Internet culture. -- ilyas
\_ 16. It called me a "soft-core libertarian", which I guess
is true in the same way The Princess Bride is soft-core porn.
If you score zero (meaning you approve of the current U.S.
system of government), it calls you a Nazi nut.
\_ Ditto here, with 30 points. The test is bunkum, as it makes, as
as with most such silliness, no allowance for shades of gray.
Plus, "anarcho-capitalist?" Nobody who calls him/herself a
libertarian that I know of would describe themselves as even
close to that. Bzzt, sorry, try again. -John
\_ It may be bunkum to you, but I find it useful as an estimate
(it's unbelievably fashionable among some people to proclaim
social liberalism and economic conservativism). For
\_ Does that make the stance any less valid? I don't see the
problem with "mind your own busineess and be responsible
when spending other peoples' money". -John
\_ Sure, but that quote you have in quotes is uninformative.
I have found when talking politics with my friends that
almost everybody sounds the same (reasonable). This is
because people have a tendency to not start with the
more controversial components of their beliefs when
discussing politics. This is why tests like this are
useful. John and I might sound superficially the same
when we start talking, but there's a huge difference
between a 30 and a 76. -- ilyas
\_ Why is it uninformative? I find that, no matter
how many shades of gray you have between extremes,
there's always a tipping point at which the majority
of educated individuals making up the center bit of
any bell curve will no longer see a certain bit of
politics as matching a given quality--this being
something like "responsible", "frugal", whatever. I
refuse to be drawn into a discussion of "one should
always do xyz", where "xyz" is some predefined
action like "cutting taxes by 50%". I believe that
it's the duty of said educated individuals to make
decisions and choices based on a well thought-out
moral and ethical foundation, and in careful
consideration of a particular situation. Otherwise
we could replace the constitution with some all-
encompassing decision matrix, couldn't we? I just
happen to have come to the conclusion that what I
put in quotes above works for me in most
situations. -John
\_ It's no more uninformative than that test is
an accurate measures of your political beliefs.
What I put in quotes above works for me most of the
time as a common-sense litmus test for most
political issues, while still letting me take into
account the particular situation. And frankly I
haven't found a "determine your political color"
test yet that I didn't find in any way valid or not
full of horseshit. -John
\_ That's because a real political test would
be extremely long and read like a philosophy
paper. At any rate, the 'purity test' might not
be a serious political test, but you can't compare
the information you get from it to your vague
platitute of:
"mind your own business and be responsible
when spending other peoples' money". Don't forget
to mention something about not eating kittens.
-- ilyas
paper. -- ilyas
\_ Why not? It's a basic "gut test" for looking
at politics, as opposed to an attempt to
simplistically quantify a wide range of topics
in a binary manner, which simply doesn't work.
I have a few fundamental ideals that I believe
in, which I consider when analyzing various
political situations. I find that gives me far
more satisfying answers than "should we sell
the federal government? Yes/No (if you answer
No, you need to work on your answers.)" -John
\_ Why not? Because that line has a wide WIDE
set of interpretations, many in conflict
with each other. At least with yes no
answers you get a rough idea of where you
are willing to bite the bullet. With what
you said, I get _no information_. -- ilyas
\_ Ilya, we're arguing on two different
levels here. Of course my tenet is no
more than a "wide" political ideal. You
will not be able to divine how I will
vote on Prop X. from it. However, I
think it's entirely fair to state it as a
basis for making political decisions, as
opposed to a bunch of absolute answers
to nonsensical questions with no context
given whatsoever. To be honest, I think
that people who claim to have absolutely
sure and immovable convictions about such
topics without even bothering to consider
surrounding "real world" factors, border
on fanaticism. -John
calibration, my score was 76. Point about libertarians
vs A-C people, the test ought to be more properly called
the 'anti-government purity test.' If it wasn't obvious,
this wasn't a serious test, much like other purity tests.
A real test would be a moral philosophy test. -- ilyas
\_ A 76? Did you say we should abolish everything? I only
managed a 17 and I consider myself a conservative with
libertarian tendencies. -emarkp
\_ The only things I am _sure_ the government ought to
be responsible for is the army and the justice system.
I am also thinking about dbushong's idea of 'commons
rent,' which the government collects and uses to maintain
the commons. For instance, charging individuals
proportionally to the pollution they cause. -- ilyas
\_ What about government funded basic research? We
are still benefiting today from basic research done
at the Royal Society two hundred years ago, or for
that matter from Archimedes' research that Syracuse
paid for two thousand years go. Were they all
Looters as well? Are you a Looter?
\_ We're also benefitting from having wiped out the
Indians and seized their land.
\_ 7 -moderate
\_ 38 -nivra
\_ another 16. I hadn't remembered what a bunch of nutcases
the libertarians were. I *like* having regulators inspect
elevator safety, and don't trust the "marketplace" to take
care of that in the long run.
\_ 17. agreed.
\_ 12. Which system of philosophy advocates chemical castration and
utterly transparent financial records for all elected officials?
'Cos I'd vote for that. --erikred
\_ I find it ironic that the anti-government party uses a government
owned statue as its symbol. I got a 22, btw. -ausman
\_ 20. I am intrigued at how these guys expect some of the schemes to
work. I have heard of some of them but I'm not clear on for example
abolishing the state altogether and having private law and money.
Seems like this would involve joining private security groups, which
would probably end up being bullied by larger conglomerates. Anyway
libertarians seem to ignore certain realities such as environmental
concerns. Air and water pollution, and open space preservation for
example. Private entities might conceivably run a place like
Yosemite, but to maximize their profit they might do undesirable
things. I wonder what the monetary value of such places is. If
enough people interested in outdoors pooled resources they might
conceivably claim ownership I guess. But in general the wealthy
would be able to wield more power such as blocking the public from
various lakes etc.
As far as international involvement goes, sure it sounds good to
withdraw from everywhere but kind of ignores the possibility of
foreign states bent on empire. -- a moderate
\_ Did you read my post about 'commons rent?' Commons are an
acknowledged problem for _me_, I am sure it is for other
libertarians. -- ilyas
\_ No offense intended, but from the discussion above, it's apparent
that this is more aptly called the ilyas Purity Test.
(the closer you are to 76, the more you agree with ilyas) |
http://csua.com/feed/