Re: Libertarian ‘Purity Test’

As mentioned earlier, the Web is abuzz with talk of the Libertarian Purity Test. Let’s forget the purity bit for a minute and talk about the ideas. My main gripe is that everyone seems to be posting scores instead of talking about specific areas of assent/dissent, which might make this quiz a useful opening for debate. Upon reading that Julian Sanchez–who has defended consensual cannibalism, for Pete’s sake!– scored a meager 79 (out of 160), Radley Balko hit a tepid 98, and so on, I began to wonder how people were answering specific questions. Of particular relevance to this blog are the following:

(1 point questions–Are you more libertarian than, say, Bill Kristol?)
25. Are you against national service?
26. Are you against the draft?
27. Does the U.S. intervene too much in other countries?
30. If it has to fight a war, should the U.S. try harder to avoid civilian targets?

(3 point questions–More libertarian than Ronald Bailey?)
49. Should the U.S. withdraw completely from Europe, Asia, and other foreign bases?
50. Is bombing civilians in an enemy country morally equivalent to murder?

Most of the 5 point questions are about one’s commitment to the broad goals of full-fledged anarchism, but even squishes should take a second look at #61:

Is it morally permissible to exercise “vigilante justice,” even against government leaders?

I would change the end to “especially against government leaders”–those who are most difficult to hold accountable for their crimes through official mechanisms– and ask this question again. If you say “no,” does that mean that the Iraqis had no right to overthrow Saddam Hussein but the U.S. government did? I guess it would go without saying, then, that, in addition to revolution, secession and all forms of conscientious objection (ie, crimes against the state) are also off the table. That’s some kind of libertarianism.

For some related thoughts of interest, see this by Jesse Walker.