Libertarian Purity Test

[Az]

UR, I know that, and IIRC I've pointed that out in my second . But for those who do believe in 'natural rights',and hold them as sacred, libertarianism is the most consistent train of thought.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Ack! Lookit, Libertarianism is NOT anarchism!

But how can you live with the thoughts of the government stealing money from you?

[David Floyd]

But how can you live with the thoughts of the government stealing money from you?

The non-existence of taxes would not necessarily mean anarchy.

[Mercator]

48 @ Libertarian

3.1 on the F scale

#1 Democratic Socialist
#2 Bookchinite
#3 Anarchist

[St Leo]

Your F Score is: 1
You are a whining rotter.

#1 Progressive
#2 Libertarian Socialist
#3 Bookchinite
#4 Democratic Socialist
#5 Social Democrat
#6 Shachtmanite
#7 Anarchist

I guess it's good to know that I am not a fascist.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by David Floyd
The US is in no way a free market system, nor is it run by corporations.

Once again your opinion. I do not agree (although it is not a pure free market, it is still predominantly) and since America is mostly run by money (you can get almost anyone elected with money and media backing) corporations, having more money than the Government, run much of the USA IMO.

Originally posted by David Floyd
Right, because the corporations are passing anti-gun laws, taxing our income, and telling us what we can do to ourselves in private. Come on.

No, but the media tell the public what to think. Over 90% of US elections are won by the candidate that spent the most money. Therefore, the more businesses that back a candidate, the better chance of getting elected.

Originally posted by David Floyd
If one company provides the best service, and enough people think so, I see nothing wrong with it being a monopoly.

If it becomes a monopoly, it then can charge extortionate prices, and will charge extortionate prices. Monopolies are not good for anyone, except the people holdiong it, and are terribly inefficient.

Originally posted by David Floyd
A country should not be in the business of, as you put it, making money. That would involve some sort of tax.

Yes, but if the leaders want to make money for themselves as their primary objective, that is not a good thing for the country.

Originally posted by David Floyd
Yes, and Hitler was more Republican than communist, but I don't quite see the relevance. Hitler was no more a Republican than you are Libertarian.

Mindless tosh again. I'm sorry if you don't agree, but nevertheless I am considered a Libertarian by most people I meet, on most tests I come out as a Libertarian, and I believe in the singular belief that (according to may sources) defines libertarianism: "That everyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as they don't infringe upon the equal freedom of others". I am me, I have my own beliefs, but most of them agree with Libertarian principles, therefore I am often called a Libertarian, and I guess I believe that.

Originally posted by David Floyd
Then why do you support forced taxation for public schools, public health care, welfare, etc.?

Because I believe in equality of freedom. Everyone should have the same chance, the same opportunities, an should be free to exploit them as they wish.

Originally posted by David Floyd
*shrug* It's your source. I'm only responding to it. If you don't agree with some aspect of your source, you shouldn't cite it.

I don't agree with everything on any source. I agree with most of it, and you asked what I'd read, so I cited it. As a whole I agree with most that is on that website, just not most of the ones you cited, which we obviously ones you believed I wouldn't agree with.

Originally posted by David Floyd
Similar to the concept that if you aren't a Libertarian, you shouldn't call yourself one

That is a matter of opinion. People who are relativly eminant Libertarians (one has his own party) who know me well believe I am. Simply because I do not agree with everything that is Libertarian does not make me not a Libertarian. It just means I have my own mind, and am not bound in my beliefs by what is considered Libertarianism.

Originally posted by David Floyd
The keyword is "most". The proper way to say that is "If you support freedom in all aspects of life (like I do) then you are a Libertarian."

Yes, but I think most works as well. I think if someone supports most of Libertarianism then they are that. I do not think anyone supports everything Libertarianism has to say, simply because Libertarianism is whatever people think Libertarianism is, and as such is almost the collective ideas of people who are Libertarians. As such, over generations Libertarianism may change and either your opinions change with it, and you are bound to that, or you continue believing what you did and become slightly less of a Libertarian. Besides, as you said before, you are a Libertarian not an Anarchist, but what is the difference in some cases? How far does Libertarianism go? when does it go to far and become Anarchism? I believe the boundary moves aswell.

Originally posted by David Floyd
How is a system promoting economic freedom mutually exclusive with a set of beliefs promoting freedom in general?

Because I do not believe capitalism, as it happens in life, promotes economic freedom. I think human nature being what it is, pure capitalism is not a stable state, and an economy could not keep there for any length of time. The nearest we have to pure capitalism that is stable, such as the US (I haven't seen a better example, if you have one I'd be interested) does not create economic freedom.

Originally posted by David Floyd
*shrug* I'm unelectable anyway in the current political environment. The bottom line is, though, if one supports freedom in a consistent way, they likely vote Libertarian, and if they are inconsistent in their support of freedom, they likely do not vote Libertarian.

What freedom? I support Liberal freedom, personal freedom, and I believe the Government has no place in peopels private lives. However, I do not believe total economic freedom is possible, as such I settle for what I believe promotes the most happiness and wellbeing, and is roughly in the centre.

Consistent with what? I am consistent, in that I believe this and have done for most of my life. I do not agree with everything Libertarians say, or everything Conservatives, or Liberals, or Leftists, or almost anyone else say. I have my own beliefs, and I do not feel I have to be consistent in agreement or disagreement with any idea or person. If I think something is wrong, I will not agree with it, if I think something is right, I will agree. I agree more with Libertarianism than with most other ideas, so if you have to catagorise people, it is possible I would be catagorised as that.

[Az]

That everyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as they don't infringe upon the equal freedom of others".

ok, let's build from that. ( damn, I LOVE playing the devil's advocate. )

If it becomes a monopoly, it then can charge extortionate prices, and will charge extortionate prices. Monopolies are not good for anyone, except the people holdiong it, and are terribly inefficient.

so what? Nobody forces you to use the service. As long as a company has won this monopoly fair and square, there is nothing wrong with it being a monopoly. If it would push prices up, that's their full right to do so, because they own their production, and can do whatever the hell they please with it. Just as you can own books, computers, and pink elephant figurines.

and If you guiding principle is that morals are based on "what's good for people" , and not "people can do whatever they please, as long as they don't hurt other people", then you're not a libertarian, but lean towards utilitarianism.

Because I believe in equality of freedom. Everyone should have the same chance, the same opportunities, an should be free to exploit them as they wish.

ok, then. if you have enough cash, you can use it to build schools, hire teachers, etc. why do you try to force someone else into doing it? for argument's sake, I don't want a public school system, why the hell should I pay for it? It's my money, after all.
Let's say that you're in a pub, and everyone wants beer, and you have money, but don't want to buy beer for everyone, esp. because you don't even know many of the people there. But according to your logic, you should pay, 'because everyone deserves beer'.

I do not believe total economic freedom is possible, as such I settle for what I believe promotes the most happiness and wellbeing, and is roughly in the centre.

you seem to be a utilitarian at heart. read some literature about it.

No, but the media tell the public what to think. Over 90% of US elections are won by the candidate that spent the most money. Therefore, the more businesses that back a candidate, the better chance of getting elected.

If I tell you to jump from a bridge, will you do it, even if I tell it thousands of times over and over? Why is it wrong for a person to support the political candidate he favours? Why can't he do whatever he pleases with his own damn money? As long as the candidate doesn't end up infringing on your freedoms, the sponsor has done nothing wrong. If the sponsor paid the candidate to infringe on your freedoms, they're both morally in the wrong, and you can defend yourself against them.

Consistent with what? I am consistent

consistent with your belief that (and I quote once again):
"That everyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as they don't infringe upon the equal freedom of others".

where's your consistency? You support taxation, and a heavy one, so that people that worked hard to gain money, would have to pay whether they like it, or not. You're FORCING people to pay, and THREATEN them with FORCE, in the case that they don't. Why should anyone pay for someone elses education, if he doens't want to? doesn't he own his own damn money, for crying out loud?

If a person would come to you and would say that he needs to you to pay 500 USD from the money you've just brought from work, becuase he needs to send some kid to school, and would also mention that he'd put you in a small confined place, if you wouldn't do what he told you to, would you pay, or would you consider it bullying? and if you would pay, why do you thing that other people should pay as well?

how non-libertarian of you.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Yeah, I can just see it. A monopoly in Gas and Electricity. They will end up ripping you off because you NEED those things to live in a modern day world. They can charge you anything they want to. Everything that depends on electricity and gas will cost too much for people to afford. So everyone starves because the price of keeping food refrigerated is 10000 times more then before. Is there really any freedom, or do you just have a new master?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Azazel
so what? Nobody forces you to use the service. As long as a company has won this monopoly fair and square, there is nothing wrong with it being a monopoly. If it would push prices up, that's their full right to do so, because they own their production, and can do whatever the hell they please with it. Just as you can own books, computers, and pink elephant figurines.

Well, if I have to be treated because I am ill, and one company has a monopoly on hospitals, they can charge what they want, and I have to pay it. I am being forced to use it.

Originally posted by Azazel
and If you guiding principle is that morals are based on "what's good for people" , and not "people can do whatever they please, as long as they don't hurt other people", then you're not a libertarian, but lean towards utilitarianism.

Possibly, I have ofter read and theought about that, but, although I may be moderatly utilitarian, I do not agree with most of what it is. By what's good for people, I meant more what's good for the individual, or rather, for individuals as a whole. I'm not particularly good at explaining it. I would not put the rights of society above the rights of the individual, but I do think if many people gain a lot from something, and one person loses a little, then it is probably a good thing to do.

Originally posted by Azazel
ok, then. if you have enough cash, you can use it to build schools, hire teachers, etc. why do you try to force someone else into doing it? for argument's sake, I don't want a public school system, why the hell should I pay for it? It's my money, after all.
Let's say that you're in a pub, and everyone wants beer, and you have money, but don't want to buy beer for everyone, esp. because you don't even know many of the people there. But according to your logic, you should pay, 'because everyone deserves beer'.

Because I see education as a right for everyone, not a privilage of the rich. Beer however, I see as a privilage.

Originally posted by Azazel
you seem to be a utilitarian at heart. read some literature about it.

I have (a little ) and contrary to much I've said, I do not agree with utilitarianism on many things. However I am probably moderatly towards that way yes, though not at expense of the individual.

Originally posted by Azazel
If I tell you to jump from a bridge, will you do it, even if I tell it thousands of times over and over? Why is it wrong for a person to support the political candidate he favours? Why can't he do whatever he pleases with his own damn money? As long as the candidate doesn't end up infringing on your freedoms, the sponsor has done nothing wrong. If the sponsor paid the candidate to infringe on your freedoms, they're both morally in the wrong, and you can defend yourself against them.

Because it isn't democratic. I know Libertarianism is not necessarily democratic, but I am. Like I said, I am moderatly Libertarian, but I also believe in democracy, and equality. Think of the general principles of the French Revolution (before it went all psycho ) of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity and Egality IIRC and that is what I aim for, predominantly.

Originally posted by Azazel
consistent with your belief that (and I quote once again):
"That everyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as they don't infringe upon the equal freedom of others".

where's your consistency? You support taxation, and a heavy one, so that people that worked hard to gain money, would have to pay whether they like it, or not. You're FORCING people to pay, and THREATEN them with FORCE, in the case that they don't. Why should anyone pay for someone elses education, if he doens't want to? doesn't he own his own damn money, for crying out loud?

I support taxation, because I believe in equality. I believe society is freer because it has basic services to fall back on. I see your point on taxation, and on taxation, I am not a Libertarian. But that is IMO only a small part of Libertarianism. I am for Libertarian beliefs when it comes to actions, which I believe is far more important.

Does he own his money? Possibly, but I think, on an purely philosophical level, ownership is a strange concept. In reality, he does own that money, and if taxation, and use of services were optional, that might be a good system (whereby you can pay taxes and use public services, or not pay and not benefit). However, I believe that the overwhelming good for society of having public services outweighs the slight loss of economic freedom. Yes that is not a Libertarian belief, but as I said, I have my beliefs, and I agree with Libertarians on many things, but not necessarily on tax.

If being 'consistent' means I have to agree with one group on everything, and one principle on everything, then I am proud to be inconsistent. I am Libertarian socially, and to some extent economically, but I am for public services and tax, as I believe it is better for most people.

Originally posted by Azazel
If a person would come to you and would say that he needs to you to pay 500 USD from the money you've just brought from work, becuase he needs to send some kid to school, and would also mention that he'd put you in a small confined place, if you wouldn't do what he told you to, would you pay, or would you consider it bullying? and if you would pay, why do you thing that other people should pay as well?

True, on taxation I would go with the majority, if people want services and tax, then vote for it, if they do not, then do not vote for it. And yes, I do not agree with Libertarians on that. But as I said, tax is a small point to me.

Originally posted by Azazel
how non-libertarian of you.

Shame? I'm proud that I want tax and services, that if all else fails I know I my basic needs will be taken care of, and I feel more free because of it. It may not be Libertarian, but it is much better than that IMO. I am no radical Libertarian, I am firmly moderate.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
Yeah, I can just see it. A monopoly in Gas and Electricity. They will end up ripping you off because you NEED those things to live in a modern day world. They can charge you anything they want to. Everything that depends on electricity and gas will cost too much for people to afford. So everyone starves because the price of keeping food refrigerated is 10000 times more then before. Is there really any freedom, or do you just have a new master?

Exactly, and said much better than I could That is corporate rule, and is not freedom, but will happen with a completely unregulated free market economy. Is that what you propose, an economy with no regulations?

[Az]

Yeah, I can just see it. A monopoly in Gas and Electricity. They will end up ripping you off because you NEED those things to live in a modern day world. They can charge you anything they want to. Everything that depends on electricity and gas will cost too much for people to afford. So everyone starves because the price of keeping food refrigerated is 10000 times more then before. Is there really any freedom, or do you just have a new master?

of course, of course. . Libertrianism is the political position, that everyone should be free to do whatever they want with themselves and with their property, as long as they don't interrupt with anyone else doing the same thing. if you're a libertarian, you believe in this. If you don't belive in these things, you're not a libertarian.

on the specific point ( puts the robes back on ) you can get some people, and organize to get a new oil drilling rig. besides, if all of the oil in the world would belong to a certain someone, and he didn't injure me in anyway, threaten me, etc., why would it be ok for me to take it away from him by force? It's his right to own his own property, and his right to do whatever he pleases with it, and it's none of your bussiness. If you offer him, say, some apples for a gallon of oil, and he agrees, GREAT, if he doesn't, it's his right to do so.

[Az]

Well, if I have to be treated because I am ill, and one company has a monopoly on hospitals, they can charge what they want, and I have to pay it. I am being forced to use it.

no you're not. would someone drag you to the hospital and force you to pay money? no. You want to get better, quicker, so go to the hospital. You make a choice, and have the liberty not to go to the hostpital. ( as many people choose to do, btw, because they don't like hospitals, or what not. ) .

). However, I believe that the overwhelming good for society of having public services outweighs the slight loss of economic freedom.

can you spell it? u-t-i-l-i-t-y.

If being 'consistent' means I have to agree with one group on everything, and one principle on everything

no in being consistent I mean that if you believed in natural rights, as any libertarian does, you would have to believe that taxation is just the same as robbery, people taking your money away without you wanting it, and threatening you with force, if you don't do as they say.

[Drogue]

Hmmm, OK then, I concede. If that really is what Libertarianism is, I am no Libertarian. I take a far more moderate (common sensical ) position.

I do agree mostly with

that everyone should be free to do whatever they want with themselves and with their property, as long as they don't interrupt with anyone else doing the same thing

but I would have conditions when it would not apply. I still think I am more Libertarian than Authoritarian, but under those definitions, I am not a true Libertarian.

if you believed in natural rights

Which I don't. I think we are here, on this planet, by chance and coincidence, and as such have no natural rights. All the rights we have are man given IMHO. However, by that definition, Darwinism, and primitive species are not Libertarian, even though they have no restrictions on what an individual can or cannot do.

[Az]

no, f.e. Frogs are not libertarian, because they don't even know the concept of rights, society, etc. They know NOTHING.


VICTORY!!!

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Azazel
can you spell it? u-t-i-l-i-t-y.

Yes I am slightly towards that way, but only in relatively extreme circumstances. By that I mean I would agree that if something has a huge positive for many people, and a small negative for one, then it is probably a good thing. But I also believe that if something has a equal positive for society and as the negative for an individual then it is probably not a good thing. It would have to be a big positive and small negative for me to agree with it.