Libertarian Purity Test

Good point -- it sure seems like it. For example, my family still treasures the memory of a great-(...)-great-grandfather. He was thrown in jail for a few months during the 1848 revolution, on the grounds that he had published a libertarian (liberal, in the language of the time) newspaper in Offenburg. (No, not Burda -- a small newspaper.) Family members who got too chummy with the authorities were usually first ridiculed, then frowned upon; even in those parts of German history where it was dangerous not to seek at least some level of chumminess.

I've been in Hohenasperg as well - visting it

I got a 6 but that score is about as valid as the test.

6, really? Wow, you broke my record ;-)

13.

Nah, tico is a leftwinger.

From my very vague memory of doing the test a while ago: It bothered me that government support was often seen as "intervention". Things like ensuring there was decent welfare provision were considered a minus, wheras I think it's a indication of good, responsible government.

I agree that a welfare provision is an indication of good responsible government too. I think that the difference between libertarians and others is the difference in their concept of what is considered "decent".

For instance, I believe that the US can certainly take care of the severely disabled, who simply are incapable of pulling their own weight. I also think that there needs to be a "safety net" to TEMPORARILY take care of people who are caught in severe situations, not of their making. I am not in favor of people being carried along by the system.

In the "olden days" it was the religious and charitable sector who took care of the very poor and downtrodden. Like Bush, I believe that charity ought to be in the purview of religion, (and private social service agencies). The difference that I have with Bush, is that I don't think that taxes should pay for "faith based initiatives"!

Faith-based initiatives!? I need a translator!

I disagree with you on welfare provision, Phoenix. I believe it to be the responsibility of governments, not charities. Anyway, all those "government responsibility" related questions in the test were minus scores for me, but high on the personal freedom ones.

I believe in a strong federal presence, since it is obvious government will always be with us, regardless of affiliation and voting patterns. I agree with those who say welfare should not carry just anyone indefinitely. There are plenty of individuals who do need to be carried. I disagree when they say that churches and other private individuals ought to be responsible for most charity work. The government is the only one with enough resources to see to it a proper job gets done. The amount of money required is far less than gets wasted every year by irresponsible acts of the same government I say we ought to rely on more. That is our fault, because we stupidly elect officials who only pretend to represent our interests. Which brings me to a plea for more than two parties in government. Third, fourth and fifth parties would be able to offer true choices instead of the Tweedle Dum/Tweedle Dee major parties now monopolizing everything.

Well sure. If you keep raising taxes, there will always be enough money for federally funded programs. Early in my career, I worked for a federally funded jobs program. What a crock! I saw more waste and corruption in that program than I would even want to think about. The politicos in the area used the program to line their own, and their friends' pockets. The people for whom the program was intended, really got the short end of the stick.

If a private business worked the way that the government does, it would go bankrupt in short order. The government, on the other hand, can always raise taxes from prople who produce, and give it to people who don't.

You know surprised me about the test? I guess I didn't fully understand what "liberal" meant in the US political context before. A lot of the desired values seemed to be based on individual rights & priorities. I'd always thought (wrongly, obviously) that there was a stronger element of communal responsibility in the liberal philosophy, as well as personal freedoms & rights .... So, I wasn't surprised that my score as a liberal wasn't higher. My leanings are much more toward (enlightened) Labour & "the common good". Or Green, or enlightened socialism ...
But it was an interesting & informative experience!

If you stop the elected officials from wasting our money there is no need to raise taxes for what I am espousing. It requires smarter voters, not higher taxes.

Now the idea of "compassionate liberalism" has some appeal!

And responsible spending!

Any time you want you can delve up lists of government waste of monumental proportions.

Phoenix writes


The fiscal conservatism of libertarianism (little 'L') affirms that charity toward those unable to provide for themselves is noble and necessary and is to be encouraged and commended. (". . .promote the common welfare. . .") Charity by definition comes from the heart and is voluntary.

The fiscal liberalism of libertarianism allows for a moral society to care for those who are unable to take care for themselves. It does not allow for government to confiscate property from Citizen A who it or obtained it honorably and give to Citizen B (or illegal immigrant C) who didn't and, in fact, judges that to be immoral. In other words be compassionate and generous with your own money and you're a good guy. Presume to be generous with my money, and you are little more than a thief.

No, there are plenty of people who want to be carried and very few who need it. The problem is that the leeches are always trying to appear as if they actually need it.

That's incorrect. No single private institution would cover the entire coutry, instead many smaller ones would serve local commmunities. This would allow them to better watch over those who receive assistance. That's far above what the government is able to do.

Private institutions are simply more effective than the government. If you needed to get an important across the country overnight, would you choose FedEx, UPS, or the Postal Service?

A large welfare system is always a waste due to fraud. The larger the system, the more fraud will take place and the more money will be going to those who don't deserve it. So why should I be paying to support a drug addict who only exists to get high and pop out kids? And of course I'll also be paying for the care of kids long into the future because welfare due to laziness usually breeds welfare due to laziness.

I'm interested in these ideas about appropriate spending by the US government: Would subsidies, say for wheat farmers, be considered "welfare"?

"A rose by any other name----". Yes, subsidies certainly are welfare. I philosophically agree with most of the libertarian views expressed here, and were it 1945 I could see them easily being put into place, but from where we are now, I have no vision of the transition. I hope there are some visionaries out there who can show me "THE PLAN".