The Liberty Magazine Polls: 1988, 1999, and 2008: Flagpoles, Parental Obligations, Private Nukes

by Stephan Kinsella on January 18, 2026

A 1987 article in Liberty Magazine, John C. Green & James L. Guth, “The Sociology of Libertarians,” Liberty (September-October, 1987), p. 5, inspired a poll in the July, 1988 issue, “The Liberty Poll: Who We Are and What We Think” (p. 37) which queried readers on various beliefs and six “moral problems.” That issue also included comments by Liberty‘s editors, “The Meaning of the Liberty Poll” (p. 49), including a comment by Rothbard, “What’s Wrong with the Liberty Poll; or, How I Became a Libertarian,” Liberty (July, 1998), p. 52.

This was followed up by a second poll in the February, 1999 issue, “The Liberty Poll” (p. 11), and ten years later in the June, 2008 issue with a third poll. See Mark Rand, “The Liberty Poll Results: Who We Are and What We Think,” Liberty (June, 2008), p. 29.

Ross Overbeek, “Moral Absolutes, Truth, and Liberty,” also writing in the June, 2008 issue, summarized the polls’ six ethical dilemmas:

The poll’s ethical dilemmas:

1. Suppose that you are a security guard for a large shopping mall. A terrorist has threatened to drop a bomb from a balcony into a crowd. He is moving toward the railing carrying an object that you believe to be a bomb. You have a gun. He has a hostage between himself and you (he knows that you have identified him). You have only a few seconds to react. What should you do?

a. Shoot at the terrorist only if you are certain you will miss the hostage.
b. Shoot at the terrorist if there’s a reasonable chance you’ll miss the hostage.
c. Shoot through the hostage if necessary.

2. Suppose that a parent of a newborn baby places it in front of a picture window and sells tickets to anyone wishing to observe the child starve to death. He makes it clear that the child is free to leave at any time, but that anyone crossing his lawn will be viewed as trespassing.

a. Would you cross the lawn to help the starving infant?
b. Would helping the child violate the parent’s rights?

3. Suppose that a parent decides to experiment with a radical new diet for his newborn child.

a. Should you prevent the parent from trying the diet if you have good evidence it would endanger the child’s health?
b. Should you prevent the parent from trying the diet if you have good evidence it would endanger the child’s life?

4. Suppose that you are on a friend’s balcony on the 50th floor of a condominium complex. You trip and fall over the edge. You catch a flagpole on the next floor down. The owner opens his window and demands that you stop trespassing. Which of the following statements reflects your beliefs?

a. You should enter the condo against owner’s wishes.
b. You should hang on to the flagpole.
c. You should drop.

5. Suppose that your car breaks down in a blizzard. You are trapped and may well freeze before help can get to you. You hike to the one house within hiking distance; the owner refuses to admit you. She has no phone. Which of the following statements reflects your beliefs?

a. You should force entrance to the cabin, which is not an act of aggression.
b. You should force entrance to the cabin, but it is act of aggression.
c. You should not force entrance.

6. Suppose that your neighbor is constructing an atomic weapon. He assures you that it is for self-defense. You believe he intends to commit an act of extortion. Which statement most clearly reflects your beliefs?

a. You should prevent construction.
b. You should sell your house, and you are obligated to inform potential buyers.
c. You should sell your house, but you are not obligated to inform buyers.
d. This is unthinkable and therefore not happening.

See Mark Rand’s response to criticism in the letters section in the August, 2008 issue (p. 4):

A parent sells tickets to anyone wishing to observe his baby starve to death … the owner of a 49th floor apartment demands you let go of his flagpole and fall to your death … your neighbor has an atomic bomb in his basement.” Those situations “appear in the news frequently” in your neck of the woods? That’s not the news; you’re watching the soaps.

And using a jury to determine the correct action in those situations—as if any of those situations will ever arise—avoids the point, which is to ascertain whether libertarians really believe that the non-aggression axiom is absolute.

His first paragraph seems reminiscent of Ayn Rand’s take on the ethics of emergencies (Emergencies), which I more or less agree with, with some nuances. The second seems (perhaps) to indicate impatience with having to leave some decisions up to juries or the community instead of being able to hammer out, deductive style, answers to every conceivable problem from our armchairs, an approach I have criticized. ¹

In any case, course many of these are questions that libertarians still debate today. For instance:

Shooting hostages (Q1)

This issues has come up in recent debates, e.g. Walter Block relies on it in various arguments. ²

Rothbard’s answer is also illuminating of his thought:

The arcane and esoteric problems in libertarian theory mainly miss the boat, and I say this as someone who cut his eyeteeth in the movement debating even more recondite puzzles.

Take for example the question of the shopping center guard. A criminal takes someone as a hostage, uses him or her as a shield, and brandishes a gun, threatening the rest of the public. Does a guard, employed by the shopping center, have the right to plug the hostage (assuming, of course, that he has no clear shot at the kidnapper?) The confusion comes from forgetting the rights of the innocent hostage. The question should be countered by another: namely, assume another bodyguard, hired by the hostage for defense. Assume, once again, that the hostage’s bodyguard has no clear shot at the kidnapper. The bodyguard looks around and sees the shopping center guard take aim and be about to shoot the hostage. The bodyguard, pledged above all to defend the person and property of the hostage, has only one justifiable course of action: to shoot the shopping center guard, who constitutes the most direct and immediate threat to the person and life of the hostage. By putting the case in terms of someone employed by the shopping center, the framers of the question have silently pushed the rights and defense of the hostage out of public view.

The moral of this story is not that all rights are relative, and that no firm position can be taken. The moral of this story is that everyone’s rights are absolute, ³ that pragmatism is inconsistent as well as pernicious, and that everyone is obligated to defend every innocent person’s rights: in short, that no aggression may ever be waged against an innocent victim regardless of excuse or alibi. And that the putative shopping center guard who shot and killed the hostage was a murderer, and should be treated accordingly. ⁴

Here Rothbard also seems to sense the problem with armchair questions that do not fully specify context, with his comment “By putting the case in terms of someone employed by the shopping center, the framers of the question have silently pushed the rights and defense of the hostage out of public view”. ⁵

Positive Parental Obligations (Q2, Q3)

Something I have addressed in various writing as well. ⁶

The Flagpole Dilemma (Q4)

I and others also discuss this one in various recent fora. ⁷ I won’t re-hash it here. But see Overbeek, “Moral Absolutes, Truth, and Liberty,” June, 2008 issue: “I believe· that these quite rare emergency situations do focus attention on details that challenge the universality of the nonaggression principle. To be blunt, arguing for dropping off flagpoles is silly. It boggles the mind that some libertarians do so while claiming to base their arguments on an egoistic framework.”

Breaking into a Cabin in the Woods (Q5)

Similar issued debated recently between e.g. Adam Haman, Dave Smith, and LiquidZulu. ⁸

Private Ownership of Nukes (Q6)

Something I address obliquely in The Universal Principles of Liberty, ¶8:

8. Devices of Mass Destruction (DMD) — Possessing, developing, or deploying a DMD constitutes a presumptive standing threat when it foreseeably endangers innocent parties through indiscriminate or catastrophic effects. This presumption may be rebutted only by proving, to the satisfaction of all affected parties or a neutral arbiter, that robust safeguards eliminate substantial risk of wrongful harm. Where unrebutted, proportionate action—preceded, where practicable, by notice, dialogue, and arbitration—to neutralise the danger is justified; exigent circumstances may warrant immediate intervention.

***

I asked Grok for its overall summary of all this:

Basic Questions on Beliefs

The Liberty Magazine polls surveyed libertarian-leaning readers (primarily subscribers and Libertarian Party convention attendees) on core political, economic, philosophical, and moral beliefs. The questions focused on government role, human rights, public policy, moral issues, and religious beliefs. Responses were generally measured as percentage agreement with statements. The polls show a consistent libertarian orientation but with notable shifts over time toward more pragmatic, consequentialist views (e.g., favoring limited government over anarchism) and away from absolute moral principles.

1988 Poll (July 1988 issue):
- Government should be eliminated altogether: 31%.
- Proper role of government is finite but much smaller than present: 13% (though editorial notes suggest broader support for limited government among some respondents).
- No person has the right to initiate physical force against another: 71%.
- All men have a right to life/liberty/property/pursuit of happiness: 94%/87%/94%/90%.
- U.S. should remove all restrictions on immigration: 53%.
- U.S. should remove all tariffs immediately: 90%.
- Proper government would have absolutely isolationist foreign policy: 69%.
- Abortion is wrong: 66%; Abortion should be made illegal: 37%.
- Parents have legal obligation to support offspring: 56%.
- Employee of the state is receiver of stolen goods (improper act): 56%.
- One can accept government services without committing an immoral act: 77%.
- People have a responsibility to vote: 10%.
- Political action is appropriate for advancing liberty: 31%.
- There is a God: 26%.
- Communism is the greatest threat to human liberty: 26%.
1999 Poll (February 1999 issue, results from 1998 questionnaire):
- Government should be eliminated altogether: 13% (down from 31%).
- Proper role of government is finite but much smaller than present: 87% (up from 66% in some comparisons).
- No person has the right to initiate physical force against another: 50% (down from 71-90% in various framings).
- All men have a right to life/liberty/property/pursuit of happiness: 89%/50%/89%/84% (slight decreases overall).
- U.S. should remove all restrictions on immigration: 50-60% (down from 53%).
- U.S. should remove all tariffs immediately: 62% (down from 90%).
- Proper government would have absolutely isolationist foreign policy: 30% (down from 69%).
- Abortion is wrong: 55% (down from 66%); Abortion should be made illegal: 27% (down from 37%).
- Parents have legal obligation to support offspring: 70% (up from 56%).
- Employee of the state is receiver of stolen goods (improper act): 27% (down from 56%).
- One can accept government services without committing an immoral act: 13-55% (varied framings show decrease from 77%).
- People have a responsibility to vote: 43% (up from 10%).
- Political action is appropriate for advancing liberty: 87% (up from 31%).
- There is a God: ~26-89% (inconsistent extraction; likely similar to 26% based on trends).
- Communism is the greatest threat to human liberty: 62% (up from 26%).
2008 Poll (June 2008 issue):
- Specific percentages are not available from the sources, but the poll repeated similar questions on government role, rights, policy, and morality. It showed continued trends toward consequentialism, with lower support for absolute non-aggression and anarchism, and higher acceptance of limited government and political participation. Influences shifted further toward thinkers like Friedman, Mises, and Hayek.

Trends and Major Changes:

Government Role: Significant decline in support for anarchism (31% → 13%), with a rise in preference for limited government (13-66% → 87%). This reflects a shift from moral absolutism to pragmatism.
Non-Aggression Principle: Agreement dropped sharply (71-90% → 50%), indicating less rigid adherence to absolute rights.
Public Policy: Decreases in support for open immigration (53% → 50%), immediate tariff removal (90% → 62%), and isolationism (69% → 30%), suggesting more moderate stances.
Moral Issues: Slight decrease in viewing abortion as wrong or illegal; increase in parental obligations (56% → 70%). Acceptance of government services as moral declined, but political action and voting responsibility rose dramatically (31% → 87%; 10% → 43%).
Religion and Threats: Belief in God remained low (~26%), but communism as a threat increased (26% → 62%).
Overall, beliefs moved from Rand/Rothbard-inspired absolutism to Friedman/Mises/Hayek consequentialism, with younger respondents (in 1999) showing even stronger pragmatism.

6 Ethical Dilemmas

The polls included six consistent hypothetical scenarios testing libertarian principles like non-aggression and property rights, often involving emergencies or children. Responses revealed divisions, with many willing to violate principles in extremes, but a minority (“nuts”) adhering strictly, even if leading to death.

1988 Poll:
1. Terrorist in the Mall (Shoot terrorist with hostage shield): Fire only if certain to miss hostage: 27%; Reasonable chance to miss: 48%; Fire through hostage: 25%.
2. How Much is That Baby in the Window? (Cross lawn to save starving baby): Yes: 89%; No: 11%.
3. Starving Baby, the Sequel (Prevent parent’s dangerous diet): Yes (if endangers life): 73%; No: 27%.
4. Trespass or Die! (Fall onto flagpole; owner demands removal): Enter residence: 15%; Hang on: 2%; Drop (die): 84%.
5. The Unexpected Blizzard (Force entry into cabin to avoid freezing): Force entry (not aggression): 16%; Force entry (aggression): 2%; Do not attempt: 22%; Other: 60%.
6. The Nuclear Blackmailer (Neighbor builds nuke for extortion): Prevent: 73%; Move away: 20%; Do nothing: 7%.
1999 Poll:
1. Terrorist in the Mall: Fire only if certain to miss: 51% (up from 27%); Reasonable chance: 31% (down from 48%); Through hostage: Not specified (likely similar to 25%).
2. How Much is That Baby in the Window?: Yes: 62% (down from 89%).
3. Starving Baby, the Sequel: Yes (if endangers health): 25% (down from 73% for life endangerment).
4. Trespass or Die!: Enter residence: 54% (up from 15%).
5. The Unexpected Blizzard: Do nothing: 72% (up from 22%); Force entry (not aggression): 16% (similar).
6. The Nuclear Blackmailer: Prevent: ~1-73% (inconsistent; likely lower than 73%).
2008 Poll:
1. Specific percentages not available, but the dilemmas were repeated, with commentary noting ongoing debates. Responses likely continued the trend toward pragmatism, with fewer “nutty” absolute positions.

Trends and Major Changes:

General shift toward pragmatism: Fewer respondents adhered strictly to property rights/non-aggression in emergencies (e.g., less willingness to let baby starve, but more to drop from flagpole or not force entry).
Child-related dilemmas (starving baby scenarios): Decreased intervention (89% → 62% cross lawn; 73% → 25% prevent diet), suggesting stronger parental rights emphasis.
Extremes like nuclear or blizzard: Varied, but overall less absolutism (e.g., more entering residence in flagpole, 15% → 54%).
“Nuts” (absolute responses, e.g., letting baby die): Decreased over time, aligned with consequentialist shift.

Editorial Comments and Commentaries in the Issues

1988 Issue (July 1988):
- “The Meaning of the Liberty Poll” is not a standalone article, but editorial discussions analyze results. R.W. Bradford notes controversies persist (anarchism vs. limited government); Ross Overbeek argues no single libertarian doctrine; Ethan O. Waters says rights issues unresolved (many violate non-aggression); Murray N. Rothbard critiques polls for oversimplifying complexities. Mike Holmes questions “nutty” responses (e.g., baby starvation); Bradford profiles “nuts” as more anarchist, Rand-influenced. Overbeek discusses Rand’s influence and libertarian diversity. Overall, the poll reveals consensus on rights but divisions on application, with libertarians as educated, white, male, and eclectic.
1999 Issue (February 1999):
- R.W. Bradford’s “The Old Liberty and the New” analyzes shift from moralistic (Rothbard/Rand) to consequentialist (Friedman/Mises/Hayek) libertarianism. Poll shows declining non-aggression absolutism and anarchism, with rise in pragmatic views (e.g., limited government, voting). Bradford attributes this to non-aggression’s “slipperiness” leading to goofy positions, favoring incremental reform over dogma.
2008 Issue (June 2008):
- Mark Rand presents results in “The Liberty Poll Results: Who We Are and What We Think.” Ross Overbeek’s “Moral Absolutes, Truth, and Liberty” summarizes dilemmas, noting persistent debates on absolutes vs. emergencies. August 2008 letters respond to criticism.

Overall Summary

The polls capture evolving libertarian thought among a niche, intellectual audience: highly educated, predominantly male/white, with strong influences from Rand, Rothbard, Mises, and Hayek. Beliefs emphasize rights and limited/no government, but responses show tensions between absolutism and pragmatism. Trends from 1988 to 2008 include declining anarchism and absolute non-aggression, rising support for limited government and political engagement, and more moderate policy views. Ethical dilemmas highlight splits, with majorities willing to bend principles in crises (e.g., saving babies), but decreasing “nutty” rigidity over time. The movement appears less dogmatic, more consequentialist, reflecting broader adaptation.

Kinsella’s Commentary (2026 Blog Post)

Stephan Kinsella’s post archives the polls and links to PDFs, emphasizing enduring debates on the six dilemmas (e.g., hostage, starving baby, flagpole, cabin, nuke). He critiques “armchair theorizing” in hypotheticals, arguing rights are absolute but scenarios like the mall involve no aggression against innocents (terrorist bears responsibility). He references Rothbard’s 1988 critique (misdated as 1998) on poll flaws and aligns with Ayn Rand’s view that emergencies don’t define normal ethics—lifeboat situations aren’t standard. Kinsella notes similarities to Rand’s emergencies lexicon, suggesting libertarian ethics hold in normal contexts but allow flexibility without contradicting principles. He highlights parental obligations and private nukes as ongoing flashpoints, viewing the polls as snapshots of libertarian self-reflection rather than definitive shifts.