NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi/purity.cgi

Rather than determine where you lie on the political spectrum, this test determines how Libertarian you are. Also contains an analysis of the responses from people who have taken the test. It is longer than the World's Smallest Political Quiz and more objective than the Political Compass.
My score was 110.

Mine was 19:

16-30 points: You are a soft-core libertarian. With effort, you may harden and become pure.

25

You are not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination. You are probably not even a liberal or a conservative. Just some Nazi nut, I guess.

Wow, thats a joke. (I got a 26)

Got a 36 here.

31-50 points: Your libertarian credentials are obvious. Doubtlessly you will become more extreme as time goes on.

This thing goes all the way up to 160, though...

66 Medium-Core libertarian

I got a score of 20.

To see the results without taking the test:

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/result.htm

39. Which doesn't surprise me. While I support libertarianism, and consider myself libertarian, I feel that most hard-core libertarians want too much change too fast. People would suffer needlessly. There's a happy medium. *nod*

Also, I share certain socialist notions that most would expect to be contrary to libertarianism.

You see, I believe that people have certain rights and those rights include a right to an affordable and efficient social structure. Housing, healthcare and ESPECIALLY EDUCATION! I consider that to be the single most important thing a government can do is provide the tools necessary to learn.

However, beyond these social rights is personal liberty which I believe most people take for granted. The government interferes in this far too much.

I'm 41, or sorta liberatarian.

39. Which doesn't surprise me. While I support libertarianism, and consider myself libertarian, I feel that most hard-core libertarians want too much change too fast. People would suffer needlessly. There's a happy medium. *nod*

You see, I believe that people have certain rights and those rights include a right to an affordable and efficient social structure. Housing, healthcare and ESPECIALLY EDUCATION! I consider that to be the single most important thing a government can do is provide the tools necessary to learn.

However, beyond these social rights is personal liberty which I believe most people take for granted. The government interferes in this far too much.

I agree - I got a 28, which doesn't surprise me 'cause I consider myself a moderate libertarian

My score was 9. But I only did the first part of the test and decided that I didn't want to take the time to finish the other two parts.

Objective?

What Your Score Means
0 points: You are not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination. You are probably not even a liberal or a conservative. Just some Nazi nut, I guess.

1-5 points: You have a few libertarian notions, but overall you're a statist.

6-15 points: You are starting to have libertarian leanings. Explore them.

16-30 points: You are a soft-core libertarian. With effort, you may harden and become pure.

31-50 points: Your libertarian credentials are obvious. Doubtlessly you will become more extreme as time goes on.

51-90 points: You are a medium-core libertarian, probably self-consciously so. Your friends probably encourage you to quit talking about your views so much.

91-130 points: You have entered the heady realm of hard-core libertarianism. Now doesn't that make you feel worse that you didn't get a perfect score?

131-159 points: You are nearly a perfect libertarian, with a tiny number of blind spots. Think about them, then take the test over again. On the other hand, if you scored this high, you probably have a good libertarian objection to my suggested libertarian answer. :-)

160 points: Perfect! The world needs more like you.

This is just a little bit biased, not to mention that scores are incredibly easy to fake and that reasons for answering a certain way are not always properly registered in the scores. For instance, I voted that abolishing rent control was good, not because I felt that less government regulation was good, but because rent control creates more housing problems than it resolves and led directly to the slums of New York City. The test is simplistic and severly biased. Not at all worth the time it took to take it.

108...not too bad

My score was 7. Apparently all that Marx, Zinn, Callinicos, and Trotsky I've been reading has been effecting me. Either that, or it was actually reading some of Rand and being appalled. . .

135. You are nearly a perfect libertarian, with a tiny number of blind spots. Think about them, then take the test over again. On the other hand, if you scored this high, you probably have a good libertarian objection to my suggested libertarian answer. :-)
And I do have a good libertarian objection.

i got a 95, which is pretty much what i got the last few times i took it. makes me a 'hard-core libertarian'. and i wouldn't want to score much higher because that would involve holding the cappie positions that lead to unlibertarian outcomes. basically, hooray for libertarian socialism!

85
You are a medium-core libertarian, probably self-consciously so. Your friends probably encourage you to quit talking about your views so much.

20

Is there anybody that doesn't rate a Liberterian.

Some of the stuff they belive in is rather scary.....

17....soft-core libertarian. Like hell!!

My score is 52.

I am a medium-core libertarian, probably self-consciously so. My friends probably encourage me to quit talking about your views so much.

This is the kind of people that should run Government!

I got 29. That means I'm borderline Libertarian. That test was so simplistic, that it skewed me to Libertarian.

I think some of their beliefs are naive and misguided. They want to replace state tyranny with a system which would lead to far worse corporate tyranny.

Your Libertarian Purity Score
Your score is... 21

What Your Score Means
16-30 points: You are a soft-core libertarian. With effort, you may harden and become pure.

I got 57 here. You are a medium-core libertarian, probably self-consciously so. Your friends probably encourage you to quit talking about your views so much. Its true i say in my view too much.

Who would vote for me and the island of rose to be in power? :D

53 points, and that makes me a medium-core Libertarian.

61 and I thought I was very libertarian.

Govt does do some things well.

37. I'm fiscally conservative, but I'm not that socially libertarian. I don't like some of the comments such as 'doubtlessly you will become more extreme as time goes on' or 'Perfect! The world needs more people like you.'

And of course, obviously if you answer 'yes' to all the questions you'll get a 160. They could have been more well written. I don't need a quiz to tell me what I am anyways :P

I got a 24.

I don't like some of the comments such as 'doubtlessly you will become more extreme as time goes on' or 'Perfect! The world needs more people like you.'

And of course, obviously if you answer 'yes' to all the questions you'll get a 160. They could have been more well written.

well it was written by an anarcho-capitalist to see how close to his idea of anarcho-capitalism you are (in 1993 no less). it gets even better when you read his question by question analysis.

I scored a 14 :)
There were a lot of questions that a yes or no answer was not good enough. If there would have been half point answers I might have scored more points.
But, all things considered I am not a libertarian my any stretch of the imagination. I don't like the sevival of the fittest mentallity that I got from the test.

Is this man an AnCap?
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/spoonfaq.jpg
I always thought he was anti-capitalist. :confused:
I got 97

I always thought he was anti-capitalist. :confused:

it's just the old anarcho-cappie equivocation between markets and capitalism. of course, one of caplan's usenet allies sporadically tries to claim emma goldman for the capitalist side.

I always thought he was anti-capitalist.

He was anti-capitalist. Silly ancaps. I especially liked how they considered abolishing worker safety to be a good thing.

We should make a test for anarchists.

He was anti-capitalist. Silly ancaps. I especially liked how they considered abolishing worker safety to be a good thing.

I don't think it is that they want workers to have no safety, but that they think the government should roll back all legitslation concerning it and allow companies to sort it out themselves.

Surely as an Anarchist you are not siding with the government.

We should make a test for anarchists.

Which branch of Anarchism? Anarcho-Communist, individualist....?

Your score is...

42

31-50 points: Your libertarian credentials are obvious. Doubtlessly you will become more extreme as time goes on.



Just because I hate the military and think the government is wasting too much money on things like that...

I don't think it is that they want workers to have no safety, but that they think the government should roll back all legitslation concerning it and allow companies to sort it out themselves.

Surely as an Anarchist you are not siding with the government.

While the government is undeniably evil, I have no faith in the willingness of capitalists to consider the interests of worker safety. In this case, it is a necessary evil and is better than workers dying on the job regularly. Besides, it turns government and capitalism against eachother, which is good.

I got 36.

While the government is undeniably evil, I have no faith in the willingness of capitalists to consider the interests of worker safety. In this case, it is a necessary evil and is better than workers dying on the job regularly. Besides, it turns government and capitalism against eachother, which is good.
It's not a question of willingness, they'll be forced to by market pressure. E.g. the desire not to have employees run off and work somewhere safer and the desire not to have trained workers in hospital all the time. Of course, you'd know this if you understood anything about the system you so violently oppose. Most opposition to free markets comes from lack of understanding. There is no such thing as "capitalism". Please distinguish free markets and mercantilism in the future.

I scored 149.

21

I scored a 14 :)
There were a lot of questions that a yes or no answer was not good enough. If there would have been half point answers I might have scored more points.
But, all things considered I am not a libertarian my any stretch of the imagination. I don't like the sevival of the fittest mentallity that I got from the test.

In case you didn't notice the test was divided into three sections: mild libertarian, moderate libertarian and pure libertarian. There was no need to have a midway point; the test aimed to be objective. How do you have a midway point to a question that has been composed to be answered either yes or no?
I also agree with the objections of others that the test is designed more to test whether you are an Anarcho-Capitalist rather than a libertarian. Their idea that the police and even the courts and the law should be privatised is simply flawed.

25, I'm a liberal, not a Libertarian.

While the government is undeniably evil, I have no faith in the willingness of capitalists to consider the interests of worker safety. In this case, it is a necessary evil and is better than workers dying on the job regularly. Besides, it turns government and capitalism against eachother, which is good.
Why not drop the "anarcho" prefix and just admit you're a communist?

It's not a question of willingness, they'll be forced to by market pressure. E.g. the desire not to have employees run off and work somewhere safer and the desire not to have trained workers in hospital all the time. Of course, you'd know this if you understood anything about the system you so violently oppose. Most opposition to free markets comes from lack of understanding. There is no such thing as "capitalism". Please distinguish free markets and mercantilism in the future.

And what about untrained employees? What if all the corporations are doing it because it saves so much money? Why are there laws for workers' safety if the corporations will consider their safety, anyway? If they will consider the needs of the workers, then what harm to worker safety laws do?

Why not drop the "anarcho" prefix and just admit you're a communist?

Sometimes government force is a necessary evil. Until capitalism falls or workers have some way of defending their freedom, it is the only thing protecting them. Chomsky explained it well once.

16. which is really bizarre because i think that socialism is probably the best system we have now. man, to live in europe. *sigh*

not that canada's too bad at it.

And what about untrained employees?
There are no such thing.

What if all the corporations are doing it because it saves so much money?
It won't, that's my point. Why would it be profitable to have all your workers quit or in hospital and sueing you for negligence?

Why are there laws for workers' safety if the corporations will consider their safety, anyway?
Why indeed.

If they will consider the needs of the workers, then what harm to worker safety laws do?

They, and other similar unnecessary legislation which creats bureaucracy and extra costs, are responsible for making everything, literally all the goods on the market, twice as expensive to consumers as they should be.

There are no such thing.

Surely there are workers who don't have much skill, ones that clean floors or something.

It won't, that's my point. Why would it be profitable to have all your workers quit or in hospital and sueing you for negligence?

They can't quit, pay hospital bills, or sue if they are poor. This is the US, remmeber. Health care, and by extention, life, is a privilege, not a right. If the workers are poor, they will accept bad working conditions to avoid starving.

They, and other similar unnecessary legislation which creats bureaucracy and extra costs, are responsible for making everything, literally all the goods on the market, twice as expensive to consumers as they should be.

If corporations already care about worker safety, then why were laws for it created in the first place? If corporations are already taking workers' safety into account, then how can laws about it have any impact? They shouldn't make any difference.

Surely there are workers who don't have much skill, ones that clean floors or something.

I've cleaned floors before. And yes I got training. It is not as easy as giving someone a bucket and mop. We had to know about cross infection and stuff, the water to bleach ratio etc.

They can't quit, pay hospital bills, or sue if they are poor. This is the US, remmeber. Health care, and by extention, life, is a privilege, not a right. If the workers are poor, they will accept bad working conditions to avoid starving.
Why can they not sue? There seems to be plethora of "No win, No fee" legal agencies. In Britain at any rate.
Are you saying that workers will not bother to get compensation if their arm is mangled (for example)? I think that the proof would be pretty obvious,

If corporations already care about worker safety, then why were laws for it created in the first place? If corporations are already taking workers' safety into account, then how can laws about it have any impact? They shouldn't make any difference.
Good question. One could argue that the law is more fair now (ie money don't corrupt law as easily as it once did. And an AnCap might argue that in Anarcho-Capitalism this would be reduced futher still).

Also, I have ssen the arguement that corporations are more aware that they need to care for the workers more now then during the Industrial REvolution (for example)

I got a nine, which is funny, because on most "Which Party Best Suits Your Viewpoint" quizes, I am almost always ranked as a liberatarian.