Fun Test That Gets People To Accept Anarchy

[michaelsuede]

I created a fun test that basically forces people to accept the reality of statism.

http://www.helloquizzy.com/tests/test-your-moral-convictions

It's 20 questions long and structured in such a way as to re-enforce property rights and the non-aggression principle.

Share it with your friends!

[Lloyd Danforth]

Instead of just giving results, at.....near what I assume would be the end as I closed it out, they ask a lot of Bullshit.
I would suggest that no one bother to take the test.

[Free libertarian]

I didn't answer the optional questions.  I thought the questions and the test were okay....
maybe even worth using when talking to a statist.   

I think Lloyd is going through coffee withdrawal or something.   

[Lloyd Danforth]

I didn't see any options not to answer the invasive questions.

[Free libertarian]

Look deeper and the answer will reveal itself to you Grasshopper.

[michaelsuede]

haha the test is anonymous Lloyd

No one is going to come knocking I promise.

[FreelanceFreedomFighter]

100% ...

How can anyone score less? But the average is still 93%. WTF?

[dalebert]

Right off the bat, the first question seemed to vague and I felt compelled to say "Not Sure" without knowing what actions the interviewer means to include in the term "defending".

If I pick up a stick in the wilderness and spend several days carving it into an extremely fine fishing pole, I am justified in defending my fishing pole from thieves.

For this one, I'd say something like "is equally as harmful as" rather than "the same as".  It's clearly not exactly the same thing.  I can see plenty of people saying they strongly disagree.

If a person works 40 hours to earn 500 dollars, robing them at gun point for 500 dollars is the same as enslaving them at gun point for 40 hours to work for you.

I got The Peaceful Protester: 68 Morals!

In places where I think I fell short it seemed based on me not being violent enough.

[John]

not being violent enough.

How dare us: not being violent? 

Alex Libman is giving us lessons on the importance of violence of here:  http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=22733.0

He even goes so far as to say: "attempts to institute justice (aka "war") and "the consequences of injustice (aka "peace"). Very strange!

[MaineShark]

I haven't posted on the FSP forum for a while, but I just couldn't resist...

Joe

[John]

I hadn't posted there since early 2005 ...almost never even went there since then, and went back very recently ...
OK. sorry for the side issues. Now back to: Fun Test That Gets People To Accept Anarchy

I answered one question "not sure" and then bunch of questions sort of thinking I know what they are getting at and ended up at 95. However, just because I have a right to, or I am "justified," in doing something doesn't mean I'd do it.

I like the saying that just because one has a right to do something, it doesn't mean that it is necessarily right to do it.

[dalebert]

I haven't posted on the FSP forum for a while, but I just couldn't resist...

You played right into his game then.  He's the classic troll posting over-the-top things just to get a reaction.  Like most trolls, he's desperate for attention, even if it's negative.

[MaineShark]

I haven't posted on the FSP forum for a while, but I just couldn't resist...

You played right into his game then.  He's the classic troll posting over-the-top things just to get a reaction.  Like most trolls, he's desperate for attention, even if it's negative.

So?  It was funny!

It's like the "free rider problem" (or lack thereof) it doesn't matter to me if he benefits.  I did it because it amused me, so I benefited.

Joe

[MaineShark]

I like the saying that just because one has a right to do something, it doesn't mean that it is necessarily right to do it.

I think that's a very important point to make.  I keep trying to stress this with folks who can't seem to accept the NAP, because, "that's endorsing drug use" (or whatever).

Libertarian morality is totally negative.  The NAP tells you what is wrong, not what is right.  It is not wrong to go on a week-long trip, taking any drug you can lay your hands on.  Doesn't mean it's right to do that.  Maybe it is, or maybe it isn't, but you won't find out by consulting the NAP.

It's not wrong for me to shoot a burglar in the back, but that doesn't mean it's right.

It's sad how many folks have been brainwashed to think that not stopping something is the same as supporting it.  The world would be a much more peaceful place if folks realized that there are choices other than "violently stop him" and "endorse his behavior."

Joe

[michaelsuede]

In places where I think I fell short it seemed based on me not being violent enough.

Yes, but it is not "being violent enough" - it is acknowledging the right of others to use violence in a defensive manner.

If you say that you disagree or are unsure if the use of defensive force is appropriate, then you necessarily must have a weak view of property rights.