How I Became a Libertarian

The title of this post is misleading.  It would probably be more accurate to say how I came to label myself a Libertarian, but then the SEO would suck.  Labels are important; they give you some direction / focus and there is a lot of enjoyment / satisfaction in being part of an identifiable political group.

Prior to becoming a Libertarian, I labelled myself a Fiscal Conservative.  In fact, I was mostly apolitical, with a life-long bias towards the Conservative Party, but I had voted for individuals at times, including both Liberal and NDP candidates that I felt would best represent me in government.

It was the mid-1990's when I thought I should get more serious about politics.  I was comfortable with my life, with a number of successes both personally and in business, and it wasn't all about me anymore.  I was also dissatisfied that none of the political parties seemed to be fiscally conservative in practice.  If I recall correctly I was introduced to the World's Smallest Political Quiz in an inter-office email that was circulating.

Everybody in the office had fun with this quick assessment finding out where they stood politically on the key issues used in the test.  Apparently I was Libertarian.  This was quite a novel concept to me, since Libertarianism didn't get much coverage in Canada during my formative voting years in the 70's and 80's.

Skeptical?  Me too.

A fair bit of skepticism is healthy and important to maintain when you encounter new ideas and especially political ideologies.  You don't want to find yourself in Dilbert's shoes:



In the case of the Smallest Political Quiz apparently I'm not alone in feeling that it must be identifying more Libertarians than there really are. I felt that the test must be rigged in some way to 'create' more interest in Libertarianism.

Fortunately, the creators of the quiz (who are Libertarians, BTW) have gone to great lengths to dispel suspicions in a comprehensive FAQ on the quiz.  In particular, part 5 directly addresses the issue of "Is the Quiz a trick?"

Furthermore, they seem to have made a concerted effort over the years to hone and refine the questions for accuracy, including omitting questions about issues like abortion, gun control and the death penalty which clearly cross political and cultural boundaries, confusing the results.

If there is bias in the test I think it is in the framing of the questions and perhaps the weighting of the 'maybe' score (it is easier to answer yes than no and if you answer maybe you might mean that you don't have enough information and are actually leaning to the 'no' answer).  I believe if you carefully consider what is being asked and whether you truly agree with the statement then the test can be very accurate for you.  Personally, I find that I cannot in good conscience answer the questions in a way that would move me out of the Libertarian box... I can move the dot around but always end up Libertarian, generally a bit left of center.

About the World's Smallest Political Quiz

The Advocates for Self Government have an excellent web page that explains what is the world's smallest political quiz.  It starts out asserting: "The World’s Smallest Political Quiz is a fast, fun, and accurate assessment of a person’s overall political views."  It goes on to explain how the simple left-right line we often associate with political alignment is inadequate and why a two-axis system of where you stand on personal issues and economic issues is more accurate and inclusive of a broad spectrum of political philosophies.  If you believe strongly in personal and economic freedom you will score highly in the libertarian quadrant of the chart.


The quiz is used in many countries and has been translated into several languages including Japanese, Spanish, French, Croatian, and Russian.  There's even a Canadian version of the Quiz, prepared by the Fraser Institute, which seems somewhat dated by the issues they chose to feature at the time.


Comfortable in My Skin


I have grown quite comfortable with the label of Libertarian and my current focus is to find ways to make my vote more effective and practical methods to move our Nation / Government in the direction of a more classically liberal society.


You can try the quiz yourself here.

Or maybe I'm left-libertarian

In deciding to start this blog I did a much more in-depth political quiz by the Political Compass.  This test scored me at -1.12 on the Economic Left/Right scale and -3.69 on the Social Libertarian/Authoritarian scale.  That makes me a slightly left-of-centre libertarian.

Now, I'm only vaguely aware of left-libertarianism, and I admit to being put-off by the tag of 'leftist', but in scratching the surface of this philosophy I admit that I'm attracted by the concept of shared national natural resources that would be taxed for the common good.  It seems to solve some uncomfortable aspects of Locke establishing property rights by mixing labour with natural resources in a free-for-all grabfest.  It also provides monies for putting in place key infrastructure that makes exploiting our natural resources practical and profitable... I'll be looking into this some more.

On the Political Compass website they've recently posted (April 2011) a plot of their estimates of where the Canadian political parties sit in the graph.  I've added my results to their plot (see below) and the most depressing thing is how far apart the Conservatives are (who I tend to vote for) from me... scary!

Wise Advice I Hope to Heed

I stumbled upon this footage of Bertrand Russell giving advice to future generations:

This short segment seems very apropos of what I'd like to accomplish with "apologetic libertarian."

To paraphrase Lord Russell, in examining the libertarian political philosophy, it will be important to consider only the facts and determine what truths the facts bear out. He warns that we should not be diverted by what we wish to believe or what we think would benefit society if it were believed.

Lord Russell goes on to give some simple moral advice to the future, "love is wise, hatred is foolish." He explains that we need to learn tolerance and to put up with people saying things we don't wish to hear. He concludes we need to learn a 'kind of charity' and a 'kind of tolerance' for continued life on the planet.

It seems to me that much of Russell's moral admonishment is explicitly baked into the libertarian philosophy, with perhaps the exception of charity. All forms of libertarianism hold in common the rights of the individual to be able to exercise free speech and be free from aggression (legislated tolerance). I believe (breaking a rule already!) that these basic rights, enforced, provide a fertile planting bed for true tolerance to grow and bloom.

As for charity, this is one of those troubling 'leaps of faith' that we are required to take as libertarians and therefore needs closer examination...