The Ultimate "What type of Libertarian" Quiz.

There are many rooms in the grand house of libertarianism, and each one has its own economic, social, philosophical, and ethical values. I've divided libertarianism into ten categories: Classical Liberals, Anarcho-Capitalists, Paleolibertarians, Austrian Consequentialists, Individualist Libertarians, Bleeding Heart Libertarians, Conservatarians, Nozickian Minarchists, Post-Libertarians/Neoreactionaries, and Libertarian Market Socialist Anarchists/Individualist Anarchists.

This quiz will hopefully give you some insight into what kind of libertarian you really are; read the questions carefully and take care to answer what you really think, not what is the simple ideological auto-response to a question. Please give me feedback, and follow my Instagram, @1689movement.

Created by: 1689Movement of 1689Movement Instagram
(your link here more info)

GoToQuiz Presents...
Our "Big Five" Personality Assessment Quiz!

Capitalism is fundamentally...
- An artificial system created by government to oppress the truly free market of individual free association
- A system of property and free markets that allows selfishness, selflessness, consumption, and savings to promote the good of all.
- A system that is always more efficient than government that rejects all coercion and social contract law.
- A system where an individual acts selfishly, which is a moral good because ruthless competition drives universal benefit.
- A system of freedom and economic prosperity that is best sustained through tradtional values and a repudiation of leftism
- A system that can only function with state control of social structure and the exclusion of leftists and peoples predisposed against liberty, at least for now.
What is your pragmatic view on the role of government? (This is a two-part question. Answer "none of these" if your preferred choice is in the next question.)
- The government should transition to a gold-dollar standard and privatize banking; the size of government is less relevant.
- The government should begin to deregulate markets, but maintain military, education, and border security spending.
- The government "pragmatically" should sell itself off to competing corporations and privatize itself.
- The government should be severely scaled back to only the most basic functions, with more power to the states and a more strictly constitutional Supreme Court
- The government should begin a process of supression of leftists, censor the entertainment industry, and subsidize families, all the while reinstating capitalism.
- None of these.
What is your pragmatic view on the role of government? (This is a two-part question. Answer "none of these" if your preferred choice is in the previous question.)
- Government should scale back regulations, cronyism, and spending in general, but continue to support the poor and other social causes to balance things out.
- It should gradually scale back on spending through negative income tax welfare, voucher systems, deregulation/desubsidization, and eventually return to weak-executive Constitutionalism.
- The government should remove all corporate charters and focus on breaking up Wall Street cronies.
- Deregulate the economy and Bar entry to immigrants of leftist or Islamist origins and repeal discrimination laws, which are a statist creation that prevents individual preference and tradition.
- It should allow horizontal and vertical integration, stay out of the choices of individuals, and abolish corporate and personal income tax to promote an objectively individualist society.
- None of these.
The Federal Reserve currently
- Should be abolished.
- Props up the banking industry and should be made more monetarist, promoting market banking and low inflation of fiat money, for now.
- Should be audited.
- Should return to the gold standard.
- Should return to the gold standard and have its duties return to Congress
- Is fine, for now; Wall Street and crony capitalism are bigger issues.
Libertarians are divided on education, specifically on primary and secondary schooling. Schools...
- Should be under the authority of the states.
- Should be public, with a cirriculum that reflects not Marxist revisionists, but the true values of American liberty.
- Should be funded via federal and state voucher system, where a certain amount of money or tutition is given to parents for the school of their choosing.
- Should be done in the vision of Thomas Jefferson: a great equilizer, public, free, and uniform.
- Be completely private, for-profit corporations.
- Should be left alone, but the teacher's union should be abolished and teachers should have to teach a fully American and tradtional course, identifying and working on those predisposed towards leftism.
The environment is another divisive issue for libertarians. We're talking pollution here, not land preservation. What should government do about pollution?
- Pollution is an externality of the market, and the government should place taxes on specific pollutants, but no bans or industry-specific regulations.
- All pollution can be solved by market forces, and it should be completely unregulated.
- Pollution is a property rights dispute. Government should reasonably tax pollutants, and adjudicate reimbursement of specific disputes. No industry-specific regulation.
- The government can only solve this problem by instituting a cap-and-trade program, where the right to pollute is bought and sold between companies as units of pollutant per year. The energy sector should be subsidized for energy security purposes.
- The founding fathers lived in an era where pollution wasn't a problem much at all. They would agree, if here today, that the government must ban the many ways companies can kill the environment, regulate industry practices, and tax emissions not only to remove externalities, but to prevent global warming.
- Pollution is a short-run issue, and can be dealt with by slowly giving the market the long-run responsibility of self-regulation.
Now for welfare. Though it's been included earlier in this quiz, this question focuses on the reason why or why not. This question deals with the SHORT RUN; it would be very hard for a president to get rid of all welfare at once, and so, this question presupposes some kind of welfare state. What type of welfare, given that there has to be something in the short run, should the government give and why?
- Welfare should remain in the form of food stamps and housing vouchers, and should be expanded to include more Americans; free markets and welfare are not mutually exclusive.
- Welfare should be a subsidy for low wages and a guaranteed minimum income or negative income tax, set below the market wage rate; eliminate all other subsidies and simply give the poor liquid cash.
- Welfare should remain in its current forms, but demand stricter criteria for unemployment and have drug testing for recipients. In addition, monitor and regulate the luxury goods those on the dole can have. Welfare is the public's money, so it should be used as sparingly as possible.
- Welfare should be cut down, but it should be legalized for corporations to directly fund households and educations with the promise of labor-based payback in the future.
- Welfare should be given more generously, but only to those who can accurately understand the values of the constitution, are part of a stable family structure, and who have definite plans to contribute to society.
- Welfare should be federal but with more power to the states, with federal funds allocated by need and population to programs ranging from Scandanavian to Austere.
The last of these big, dividing issues: the macro-economy itself. Let's say there is a recession: Keynesian economics dictates an increase in government spending and an increase in the money supply, to increase consumption. What should the government do? (Answer "none of these" if your preferred choice is in the next question)
- Increase government spending for the military and for the borders-they needed to be secured anyways.
- Increase border security and begin greater deportation of illegal immigrants-I don't like Keynes, but I didn't want to spend too much during good times.
- Deregulate further, allowing financial institutions increased freedom, and ensure the populace that you are confident in the future by decreasing government spending and investing it in stocks.
- Hold true to laissez faire federally, but encourage state governments to spend by having the fed or treasury lend out low-interest loans to them.
- Return to a gold standard to allow economic freedom, and encourage private charity through lower income tax.
- None of these.
The last of these big, dividing issues: the macro-economy itself. Let's say there is a recession: Keynesian economics dictates an increase in government spending and an increase in the money supply, to increase consumption. What should the government do? (Answer "none of these" if your preferred choice is in the previous question)
- The government shouldn't spend on healthcare, bailouts, or the military. It should give a small stimulus lump sum to each citizen, giving them increased buying power, lower minimum wage, and deregulate trade.
- The government should do nothing, allowing the economy to right itself while decreasing regulations, and encouraging savings.
- The government should privatize many of its functions.
- The government should help the poor with increased education spending and welfare.
- The government shoud penalize compainies that acquire profit, break up big banking, and subsidize small-scale socialist communities.
- None of these
What is the most important issue facing the U.S. right now? (This is a two-part question. Answer "none of these" if your preferred choice is in the next question.)
- The economy: regulation, lack of school choice, crony capitalism, Wall Street-government ties, lack of pure market exchange.
- Government power: regulatory agencies, the NSA, breach of the tenth amendment
- Government itself: The use of coercive force, education systems perpetuating social contractarianism, false property rights.
- Government regulations: laws against monopolies, restrictions on mergers, drug restrictions, anti-prostitution laws.
- Economic Planning: government malinvestment, false incentivization, lack of bourgeois capital, effects of Keynesianism.
- None of these.
What is the most important issue facing the U.S. right now? (This is a two-part question. Answer "none of these" if your preferred choice is in the next question.)
- Globalism: Lack of strong borders, refugees waiting to come in, attacks on American liberty.
- The Left: Incessant enroachment on conservative values, political correctness, cultural Marxism, sexualization by way of "ghetto culture" and white genocide.
- The Right: The fascistic popularity of Trump, glorification of profit and greed, anti-community individualism.
- Two Party Politics: The use of policy to bribe the poor for votes, cronyism, corporate influence on pundits, and the lack of a unified libertarian movement.
- Socialism: Leftist subjective education, moral brainwashing to kill greed, parasitic underclasses attempting to gain benefit from the intelligence of others, Milennial laziness.
- None of these.
What is your ideal role of the federal government?
- No institution, ideally, monopolizes force over an area
- A state which solely acts on the behalf of support of contracts, restrictions on immigration only for security,defense against fraud, national sovereignty, disputes of property, cases of individual rights being violated, disputes between uses of fundamental rights, subsidization of education and health, and minimal necessary taxation.
- A government that promotes steady, low inflation, reasonabe foreign policy, subsidy for health, education, retirement, and positive externalities, taxation of negative externalities, some restrictions on immigration, and a GMI/negative income tax to serve the poor while incentivizing work.
- A state that does not act on economic incentive, and purely attempts to allow all uses of property and liberty to exist, with some allowance for disputes, a strong defense of these rights, free trade, and free banking and currency.
- A government which restricts immigration from lefist populations, populations with high time preference, and populations not disposed toward libert and allows for cultural traditionalism, while defending life, liberty, and property sans subsidy or parasitism.
- A government which allows individuals to do anything in their power so long as it is not theft, murder, or a violation of property rights.
How about your ideal state government(s)?
- It doesn't matter to me if Vermont or California are socialist (so long as they do not violate the Constitution); but I want my state to be traditionalist and conservative in law.
- Same as number 1, but I want my state to be very libertarian instead.
- Same as number 1, but I want my state to be moderate, willing to provide economic support during hard times and have laws against discrimination.
- I want state governments to shrink massively, providing only necessary legal functions, some necessary regulations, funding for public goods, and authority over local governments.
- State governments should fall in line with the national agenda, as it is best for American national identity for them to ignore local differences for the sake of cultural uniformity and American values.
- State governments should be made voluntary, private entities that are in competition with each other for membership.
Now, your ideal community. This is the most strongly differentiated amongst ideologies; think of these as sales pitches from communities to live in, and decide which one you like best.
- A community directed by traditional values, maybe with restrictions on immoral behavior, strong moral education, a minimum salary, and beatuiful, well-kept homes only. Perhaps run as a private entitiy which you pay to join, and which can exclude whomever they choose.
- A diverse yet connected community of people who work hard and (in addition to low involuntarily taxes to fund basic government functions) voluntarily help each other with education, finances, and the creation of public spaces. Everyone is their own entrepreneur or capitalist, and everyone is accepted.
- A community with a local government that provides public goods and utilities (with private contributions available), while also promoting private choice and investment through school vouchers, little city planning, few social/property regulations, and private investment/sponsorship opportunities.
- A community of workers, artisans, and laborers who collectively own factories, tools, and public goods which they use to produce. Everyone trades, and it is, for the most part, sustainable.
- A racially, socially, economically, and religiously homogeneous community of people who understand liberty and capitalism as systems that are tempered with tradition, loyalty to greater state values, and the physical removal of those not capable of handling it.
- A community of individuals who pay into a corporation to defend them and provide them services. It can have whatever "identity" consumers want, and everyone is wealthy enough to pay the premiums of it.
What is government justified in doing?
- Nothing; involuntary government is a violation of natural law
- Government is justified because it defends natural rights, and is just when it looks to maximize natural rights and adjudicate disputes of rights.
- The same as choice two, but it should also support economic growth and enforce some normative values.
- The same as choice two, but it also should maintain a minimum standard for its citizens and fight racism and discrimination.
- The same as choice two, but government also must act as a manifestation of tribal national identity.
- Government should do what most improves the condition of its people; it is simply factual that property, markets, and liberty best advance national well-being.
What about markets? When are they good/why are they good?
- Markets are always good because they are always voluntary and thus benefit all parties involved.
- Markets are good because they are a manifestation of inidividual freedom to work, own property, and exchange; they are not good only when exchange is morally reprehensible or have negative effects on a third party.
- Markets are good because they drive progress, channel self interest, and promote a society of inclusion, diversity, and character. They are bad when they have negative externalities, when they involve immoral exchanges, or when they fail to support the poorest of a population.
- Markets are good, but only if their chaotic tendencies are tempered by strong national character and ethnic cultural identity.
- Markets are good only without greed: profit, interest, and rent are wrong.
- Markets are good when they reflect the extended order of local knowledge and individual choice; they are only bad when government allows for malinvestment via manipulation of the economy.
What about banks and the FDIC?
- Banking should be deregulated, but consumers deserve a guarantee of their money: Keep the FDIC, and abolish the notion of "too big to fail"
- Banks should be deregulated, the FDIC abolished, and there should be no reserve requirements: Market forces will deflate fractional reserve and lead to negative interest rate savings accounts.
- Deregulate entirely, with no restrictions on consumer knowledge, insider trades, or interest rates.
- Banking is wrong, as they profit off of a lack of generousness; abolish them.
- The problem isn't big banks; it's international banks. End IMF, World Bank, and BIS influence in the U.S., unless by private bankers.
- Banks should be left as they are, but there should be more regulations on bank donations to political candidates.
Physical Removal? Why or why not?
- Yes, because leftists are biased against freedom and cannot participate in libertarian society.
- Yes, but it should be done by central promotion/enforcement of strong national character and traditional moral values rather than overt force.
- No, because it is unconstitutional to revoke citizenship or force people out due to political beliefs.
- No, because society should be accepting of other beliefs; let the Constitution restrict government and low-regulation markets prove to them what works.
- No, but local communities and society in general should pressure them out of the country.
- No, because libertarians are on the left.
Immigration: Open Borders or Closed Borders? Assume government.
- Open, but with security checks at all points of entry, and keep citizenship restricted, acquired only with knowledge of the Constitution and a devotion to long-term betterment of society.
- Open, but only citizens receive government benefits.
- Open, and all receive govt. benefits/can easily become citizens.
- Closed, accept only those who will assimilate to the culture of the U.S. and who are ethnically inclined towards liberty.
- Closed, accept hardworking individuals who will assimilate, and only after extensive checks and proof that they are not taking an American job.
- Closed, and let local towns restrict who can move in as well.
What about the problem of illegal immigrants?
- Deport them; they're illegals who have no right to be here.
- Deport them; I don't like it but it is the proper repurcussion of the law.
- Let them stay, but tax them extra and don't give them an immediate path to citizenship.
- Let them stay, and give them an easier path to citizenship if they've been here awhile and have good records; they're Americans.
- Let states deport if they want to carry the cost, but otherwise, work towards partial amnesty.
- Deport them, and threaten the governments of their home countries with tariffs, embargoes, and war if they do not pay for the cost of their citizens.
On Muslims/Islam? (Non-political question)
- Islam is a religion inherently biased towards terror and against freedom.
- Islam is a religion of peace that has been used by a minority of extremists as justification for warlording.
- While Islam has some problematic texts, it is wrong to collectivize a group of individuals solely based on that one factor.
- Islam is fine in isolation, but islamist societies tend to breed undesireable things.
Does the government have the right to intervene when there is a humanitarian crisis? (i.e., should intervention occur against genocide or another morally reprehensible event)
- Yes; military intervention isn't libertarian, but this is a necessary situation.
- Yes, but we should intervene instead with foreign aid and embargoes.
- No, even if it's genocide, it's a matter of national sovereignty.
- No, because the strongest ethnicities will rise, naturally, over the weak.
- We shouldn't do anything without NATO or UN support.
Should monopolies and trusts be regulated?
- Yes.
- No.
- Let them atrophy on their own, as they cannot have stable market power.
- Regulate them to prevent the short-run inefficiencies, even if they cannot last.
Fascism...
- Is on the same tier as libertariansim; it properly realizes that a nation must be made up of a people that have a strong national, cultural, and ethnic homogeneity.
- Is good for cultural traditionalism, but doesn't respect freedoms.
- Can only be credited with its prevention of Communism as a popular sentiment across the
Children...
- Are the property of parents and thus can be bought and sold like any other property.
- Are free individuals from birth, and parents have only an emotional and cultural authority over children.
- Are a special case that government has a duty to intervene in because they are not of adult rational age. Children should be cared for by parents with the state having the ability to intervene if abuse or neglect is present.
- Are the future of the nation, and thus should be wards of the state from birth, with parents as the delivery mechanism for national cultural values and tradtion.
- are a special case where government has power, but they should be able to declare adulthood before 18, because federal age of consent is an arbitrary restriction.
- are a special case, and the government should turn to Churches and local authorities to make certain proper care and values for future generations.
Which of these economists is the best?
- Milton Friedman
- Frederic Bastiat
- Friedrich Hayek
- J.S. Mill
- Murray Rothbard
- Lysander Spooner
What are your personal opinions on racism and ethnic issues?
- Racism is alive in the world, and libertarianism is a philosophy of anti-imperialism and anti-racism that values all diversity as a good effect of markets and liberty.
- "All men are created equal" is a sufficient explanation, and ethnic purity/diversity is an issue of individual preferences.
- Racism is an ugly word for a good phenomenon: cultural preservation. Keep immigration restricted and keep the state out of discrimination.
- "Racism" is a term of the left that reflects the quantifiable difference in time preference between people of color and whites/asians.
- Racism is necessary to preserve American white society and liberty itself.
- Racism is an ugly form of collectivism; although individuals from non-white origin are statistically less intelligent, this is due to other factors.
What about Feminism?
- The feminism of John Stuart Mill and his contemporaries makes sense; but the Marxian values of modern intersectional feminism make me wary. However, women should be equal to men and should be able to do what men do.
- While women should have legal rights equal to that of a man, their proper role is in the household, strengthening cultural values. Feminism is a cancer that is destroying this natural order.
- Feminsim seeks to collectivize women, and is nothing but identity politics. Let women compete with and have equality to men, and recognize that there is neither a benefit of working women or traditional women.
- Feminism is enhanced by libertarian values: individual rights, freedom from oppression, equality before the law, and equality of opportunity.
- Feminism is an inherently anti-libertarian and anti-traditionalist philosophy, and must be outlawed. Women should be restricted in their labor opportunities to facilitate national cultural identity.
- Feminism has some very good points, but is too extreme
Which political theorist/philosopher is your favorite, or rather, most greatly influenced your views? (This is a two-part question. Answer "none of these" if your preferred choice is in the next question)
- John Locke
- Robert Nozick
- Ludwig von Mises
- Murray Rothbard
- Hans-Herman Hoppe
- None of these.
Which political theorist/philosopher is your favorite, or rather, most greatly influenced your views? (This is a two-part question. Answer "none of these" if your preferred choice is in the previous question)
- Benjamin Tucker
- Ayn Rand
- Matthew Zwolinski
- Ron Paul
- Adolf Hitler
- None of these.
Who will/would you vote for this election season (2016, U.S.A. Presidential)
- Gary Johnson, wholeheartedly.
- Gary Johnson, though reluctantly.
- Donald Trump, wholeheartedly.
- Donald Trump, reluctantly.
- Hillary Clinton, reluctantly.
- Nobody; exercising the right to vote is a moral wrong.
Which best describes your pattern of political support? (This is a two-part question. Answer "none of these" if your preferred choice is in the next question.)
- libertarian with a lowercase 'l,' Republican with a capital 'R.'
- Republican 70-80% of the time, LP or Democrat 30-20%
- 50% LP, 50% Dems/GOP.
- Democrats 70-80% of the time, LP or Republican 30-20%.
- LP 70-80% of the time, Dems/GOP 30-20%.
- None of these.
Which best describes your pattern of political support? (This is a two-part question. Answer "none of these" if your preferred choice is in the previous question.)
- Libertarian with a Capital 'L': LP 100% of the time.
- I do not vote, even though the LP is close to my views.
- I support the Green Party.
- My 'pattern' is irrelevant; I want Trump.
- Constituition Party.
- None of these.
The U.S. Constitution... (This is a two-part question. Answer "none of these" if your preferred choice is in the next question.)
- Is a nearly flawless document of liberty.
- Is very good, but not clear enough in stating the specific powers of government.
- Is good, but fails to recognize the normative good of traditionalism.
- Is good, but fails to protect the people against government malinvestment.
- Is great, and must be enforced and defended with strength.
- None of these.
The U.S. Constitution... (This is a two-part question. Answer "none of these" if your preferred choice is in the previous question.)
- Is a restriction on liberties as much as any other government document.
- The Constitution allows for too much left political subversion and restricts government cultural power.
- The Constituiton is great, but ignores social justice and the moral directive of government.
- The Constitution is ok, but social contracts inherently restrict individuals.
- The Constitution is fantastic, but allows for redistribution.
- None of these.
Nationalism or Globalism?
- Nationalism, no questions.
- Nationalism is good, but economics must not serve protectionist national causes.
- Both are flawed, but so long as foreign policy and law is focused on national interest and peace, globalism is good for culture, economics, and demographics.
- Neither; globalism can occur in terms of economic, cultural and military zeitgeists, but nationalism is necessary to preserve American values and libertarian ideals.
- Globalism, although a Constitutional nation cannot force its people to bow to supernational organizations that can exercise power over national government.
- Globalism; the sooner borders cease to exist, the sooner liberty can be had.
Which economic school is best?
- Classical.
- Neoclassical.
- New Keynesian.
- Austrian.
- Monetarist.
- Objectivist.
Should government control public goods (goods that are non-rival and non-excludable, like national defense and lighthouses)?
- Yes.
- No.
Should the government intervene to help the poor, ideally?
- No, the poor can find jobs or be eliminated from the workforce.
- No, but government should financially support private charity.
- Yes, but by negative income tax and subsidies over a welfare state.
- Yes, and through a welfare state that is small but deep in scope.
- No, the poor are an active detriment to society.
Should sex work be federally legalized?
- No.
- Yes.
- Yes, but it should be taxed and looked upon as a disgrace.
- If states want to, they can.
Should licensing (i.e., for Medicine, universities, businesses, restaurants, etc.) exist?
- Yes, consumers need to know what they're buying.
- No, as they create artificial titles.
- Yes, but only when necessary to prevent negative externaities (driving, medicine, and parmecuticals) but not for unecessary things.
- Yes, and governments should create special licenses for businesses that are certified American-only and who are owned by traditional families.
The Great Recession of 2007-2009 was caused by...
- Fraudulent Wall Street investors.
- Bush-era pushes for greater home ownership rates.
- Jewish owned Wall Street banks conspiring against the U.S.
- Federal backing of the banking industry through Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and the lack of legal muscle behind paybacks for Mortgage-Backed-Security Insurances.
- Banker expectation of federal "too big to fail" bailouts and the malinvestments that came from reduced risk.
- Government itself.
A Gold Standard...
- Is the only libertarian currency solution.
- Is a good idea, but Monetarism is good for now.
- Is deflationary, and Monetarism is better.
- Can work, but in a world run on fiat currency, is inferior to Monetarism.
- Is as bad as fiat money because it is a function of government.
Libertarianism is on...
- The Right.
- The Left.
- The Center.
Abortion...
- Should be totally legal, although it's against the NAP.
- Should be legal until the federal definition of life (after 1st trimester); I don't like it, but it's right.
- Should be totally legal due to the right to self-ownership.
- Should be illegal due to the defense of the right to life.
- Should be illegal due to its anti-traditionalist post-modernist justifications.
Which educator/institution has been most influential to you/is closest to your views?
- Cato Institute
- Bleeding Heart Libertarians
- Mises Institute
- Hoover Institution
- Center For Stateless Society
- TheRightStuff
Final Question: Which type of libertarian do you most identify with? (Two-part question; you know the drill by now.)
- Classical Liberal.
- Anarcho-Capitalist.
- Paleolibertarian
- Individualist Libertarian
- Austrian Consequentialist.
- None of these.
Final Question: Which type of libertarian do you most identify with? (Two-part question; you know the drill by now.)
- Bleeding Heart Libertarian.
- Conservatarian/Fusionist.
- Post-Libertarian/NRx.
- Nozickian Minarchist.
- Libertarian Anarchist/Individualist Anarchist/Market Anarchist Socialist.
- None of these.

The Ultimate "What type of Libertarian" Quiz.

Related Quizzes:

Trending Quizzes

Special Feature

Give Feedback