Gentle readers, you wouldn't be getting what you paid for if I didn't link to Will Wilkinson's post about the moral psychology of libertarians. The upshot: Jonathan Haidt of the University of Virginia has previously studied how liberals and conservatives differ from each others on five standardized dimensions of morality. A bunch of libertarians have since filled out his survey, and it turns out that libertarians score more like liberals than like conservatives. The guys at Econlog also have interesting things to say.
For what it's worth, I took Haidt's test almost three years ago. N=1, but I scored more like a liberal than like a conservative.
I took the test because I followed the link from Reason. I suspect a substantial percentage of the few hundred other libertarians also did because they followed the same link. Reason readers may not be representative of the libertarian movement as a whole. They (we?) are probably more opinionated, more cosmopolitan, and more suspicious of tradition than more right-leaning libertarians.
For the record: I would never kick a dog in the head for any amount of money. Especially if it were a golden retriever.
You'd have to pay me a fairly high amount of money to renounce my citizenship. But that's not because of any gut level moral revulsion at the concept. It would just be administratively annoying not to have a passport or a driver's license or any number of other government documents.
I don't get the blood transfusion question. Is the idea that you're supposed to be squicked out by the concept of having a bad person's blood in your body? I mean, I presumably wouldn't ever want to have to get a blood transfusion in the first place, because the process would probably be uncomfortable. But if I did need one, I wouldn't care whose blood it was. Are there really people who do?