The Libertarian Purity Test.

I am linking to this because I am half-morbidly curious to see how many of my readers will score several quantum levels more libertarian than my officially Softcore Libertarian 30. I suspect most. Sorry, guys: I like a non-privatized legal system and the heady decadence of state-sponsored Batmanning.

…Is that even a word?



  • Finrod says:

    78 points here.

  • Tom In Korea says:

    86 points, I get a little squishy on the use of market-based law and the complete abolishment of all regulations.

  • DemosthenesVW says:

    53. I appreciate having a strong military, I don’t believe that government is inherently evil or unnecessary, and there were many questions where I was forced to answer “No” because while I would like certain things to be weakened, or forced to compete with private solutions, I don’t want them destroyed. (The FDA, for example.)

  • acat says:

    38. Far too aware of history and human nature to go full metal utopianist… but there’s way more government than we need around…

  • Aruges says:

    48. I likes me the military and classical liberalism. What does private law even mean? Contracts for everything? Wouldn’t that just evolve into public law out of sheer tedium?

  • antisocial says:

    I managed 40… I found that funny really.. Most questions were so weird… There is no abolish or support in some cases… I guess that makes me a republican 🙂

    • Doc Holliday says:

      that is what makes the test a good one. So many tough questions, without the answer we want to provide. I had to split the difference on many of the late ones and go libertarian on some and statist on the others.

      I still am not sure about the “national service” question. He didn’t say “mandated national service”, so I said pro.

  • antisocial says:

    31-50 points: Your libertarian credentials are obvious. Doubtlessly you will become more extreme as time goes on.
    Don’t agree with that definition either… I don’t think I am going any more libertarian than what I am now 🙂

  • Herp McDerp says:

    I scored 64. But these yes/no, all-or-nothing questions really suck. For example: “Should all drugs be legalized for adults?” For most drugs I’d say yes, including the ones that are illegal because they make people too happy. Antibiotics? Hell no, because if antibiotics are used indiscriminately bacteria will quickly evolve resistance to them, making them worthless.

  • Jeff Weimer says:

    28. I guess my answer to many government sponsored things is “I don’t think so, but….”

  • Christine says:

    37 here, and I have always considered myself to have a decent libertarian streak. Those statements were pretty broad…difficult to answer yes after the first section unless your opinions were pretty strong.

    And that, I suspect, was the point.

  • Cameron says:

    60 but I found a few of the questions to be too “absolutist” for my tastes.

  • LiberExMachina says:

    I hit a 61, but I readily admit to being a Libertarian so long as I have my rose-colored glasses on. When I remember the inherent evil of human nature, some of those Libertarian social policy positions go away.
    Also a Likert opinion scale would have made it more clear/representative. For example I answered “No” for all of the drug questions, partly due to the evil of man, partly due to that question was separated from the fact that the government would be paying for the consequences of the drug abuse (social welfare programs, increased crime rate due to abusers robbing for the next hit, et cetera). I would be at least open to the concept of some drug legalization if they dismantled the government supplementing some poor life decisions FIRST, but the simple Y/N lumps me in with the Never Legalize crowd.
    Then again, that test was arguing a perfect Libertarian is a Capitalistic Anarchist, which seems more than a little wrong.

  • Freddie Sykes says:

    I stopped at “Should we relax immigration laws?”

    There is no room for nuance in the test.

    I believe in open immigration after health and background checks as long as immigrants are not eligible for any means tested government benefits. However, you cannot have both open immigration and a welfare state.

    • acat says:

      You cannot have a State – a country, a nation – without some kind of borders.
      It is arguably possible to have a State with ideological rigid borders for citizenship, but much more flexible physical borders for purposes of employment, i.e. some version of Sparta without slaves, I suppose …
      Seems overly complex, and also does not allow for human nature .. assumes that the 3rd and 4th-gen children will hold to similar rigid ideology and the 2nd and 3rd-gen parents won’t try to fudge the rules for the little darlings.

      • Freddie Sykes says:

        The back that the State is in a position to administer health and background checks presupposes that it controls its borders. The people who can come here and make it in their own are exactly the type of people who will contribute to the vitality of our country.

  • Luke says:

    Of course, I would have preferred the “Yes, but…” or “No, but…” option on many of the questions.

  • Darin_H says:


    Like most above – the issue becomes I want things “more” libertarian than they are today, but I don’t want a libertarian “utopia” state.

  • Spegen says:

    46, don’t trust others much more than I trust the government

  • Kyle Haight says:

    94. You’re all pikers.

    There were a few questions I didn’t really want to answer with either ‘yes’ or ‘no’, such as the immigration question. I believe in open borders, in the sense that I don’t think immigration per se violates anyone’s rights. But that isn’t the same thing as ‘no immigration laws’, in that we should still have customs to look for criminals, terrorists and people bearing disease, and we should still have a border patrol to catch people trying to bypass customs. My foreign policy views didn’t fit well into the framework either.

    • qixlqatl says:

      91, tyvm. I don’t think that makes me a ‘piker’ by comparison :p. I agree with the “not enough nuance” assessment.

  • Catseyes says:

    67 and yes people encourage me not to talk.

  • RangerSG says:

    70 and I’ve been a history geek since I was in 3rd grade, so I’m fairly aware of it. That said, I do appreciate a strong military for defending OUR vital interests. And I’m not for privatizing law. I do think government is evil and inherently theft. But I can’t avoid it’s a necessary one.

    Also, a lot of my decisions were on the basis of the federal government. What individual states choose to regulate can vary. The idea of a Federal Government command/controlling the entire economy goes well beyond the intent of the commerce clause.

  • Doc Holliday says:


    I guess I am a poseur. Or as I always say, a libertarian-CONSERVATIVE.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com