The Enhanced-Precision Political Quiz

Version 6, updated September, 2004. Now with more objective intros, and appropriate links at the end for wherever you land on the 2D political map.

To find out where you stand on the two-dimensional political playing field, answer all the questions below and then hit the finished button at the bottom.

There are multiple-choice questions for eleven issues, followed by a question on the importance of each issue. The economic freedom questions are in green while the personal freedom issues are in sky blue.


Government at all levels takes in between 1/3 and 1/2 the national income. Much of this money is given right back to the taxpayers as services that could be purchased on the open market.
Should the size of government be significantly reduced (over a period of time)?
NO! Government is too small. There are vital programs that are under-funded.
No. Government is about the right size.
Yes. Cut by 10-20% (eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse...).
Yes! Cut significantly, 30-40%.
Yes! Cut spending roughly in half.
YES! Cut 70% or more. (The rightful function of government is to protect our borders and enforce laws protecting life, liberty and property.)
YES!! Taxation is theft! Government should be run from voluntary contributions and user fees only.


Currently the FCC has the power to grant or withhold broadcast licenses on the basis of content. This constitutes mild censorship.
Should the FCC regulate the content of broadcast television?
Yes! The government should own the air waves. We need a system like the BBC.
Yes. We need less sex, less violence, and/or more "educational" TV.
Yes. The current level of FCC power is about right.
No. Let broadcasters choose content and format. Only require that they scramble the really rude stuff.
No! Any government censorship is intolerable. Give broadcasters the same freedoms of expression enjoyed by publishers of books and magazines -- including how much sex, violence and crude language.


The government has spent billions and consumers billions more to help out certain favored industries such as farms, textile mills, steel companies and so on.
Should the government help certain "important" industries using subsidies, quotas, and/or tariffs?
Yes! It is high time that the US implement an Industrial Policy, guiding industries to our national purpose.
Yes. The Freedom to Farm act and free trade with Mexico have hurt too many workers. Repeal them.
Some. The current amount of support for distressed industries is about right.
No. Subsidies keep inefficient industries in this country keeping us poorer in the long run. Limit subsidies to help out in short term crises only.
NO! Giving taxpayer money to favored industries is theft, pure and simple! Eliminate all subsidies, quotas and protective tariffs.


A few years ago President Clinton got caught doing "deviant" sex with a woman not his wife. He claimed this was a private matter -- to much applause. Yet many states do consider it a public matter. Sex outside of marriage is illegal. In many states, the "deviant" acts the President and Ms. Lewinsky performed are illegal even within marriage.
Should the government have laws regulating sex between consenting adults? Should they be enforced?
Yes! It is time to actually enforce laws against sex out of wedlock and certain "deviant" acts.
Yes. Time to enforce the laws against certain "deviant" acts.
Yes. Time to enforce the laws against sex out of wedlock.
Well, keep current sodomy and fornication laws on the books to make a statement, but don't enforce them.
No. Sodomy and fornication laws are unenforceable and obsolete. Take them off the books.
NO! The government has no right to regulate sex between consenting adults. Take all such laws off the books, including laws against prostitution.


Once upon a time, gun ownership was a constitutional right, on par with freedom of speech. Today, guns are registered, and you are considered unfit to own a gun until proven fit. In some cities, gun ownership requires a very hard-to-get permit.
Should the Second Amendment stay in force?
NO! Private gun ownership is too dangerous. (The 2nd Amendment is an obsolete relic from frontier days.)
No. Ban private handguns. Carefully control hunting weapons.
OK, but require registration and background checks.
Yes. Legal handguns actually prevent crime, save lives, and give women equality. (And registration requirements are a dangerous slippery slope.)
YES! Private MILITARY arms are the last bastion against tyranny. (And gun registration is a dangerous slippery slope)


The War on Drugs has filled our prisons, led to many violent deaths, and costs the government much potential tax revenue. The Bill of Rights has been partly suspended in the fight. On the other hand drug abuse is a serious problem.
Should the War on Drugs continue?
YES! And we need to redouble our efforts! More life sentences! More mandatory drug tests! More no-knock warrants!
Yes! Continue on our present course.
Well yes, but obey the Constitution. Repeal civil asset forfeiture and/or lessen some of the more outrageous punishments.
No. Legalize the safer drugs such as marijuana. Tax and regulate them like liquor.
No! Legalize all recreational drugs for adult use. (What you take is none of the government's business as long as you handle your "high" responsibly.)


Public education in the U.S. is an example of democratic socialism. As such, it requires broad consensus over what should be taught and how. However, we live in a diverse society, with many different ideals over what should be taught, especially regarding morals and religion.
Should the public schools be privatized?
NO! We need to extend the public schools to day care and college.
No. We need continued government ownership of schools. (Reform is possible.)
Yes. Replace government-owned schools with government-provided vouchers for everyone.
Yes! Government vouchers for the poor only. (Let the middle and upper classes write their own checks.)
YES! Complete separation of education and state. (Let churches and other charities educate the poor.)


Millions of people want to come to the United States for a better job. However, many fear that immigrants lower wages for "natives" and dilute our culture. Currently, the government requires proof of legal residence to get a job, and there are calls for a national ID. What should we do?
Is illegal immigration a serious problem? Does it justify the cost and lost rights necessary to keep people out?
Illegal immigration is a serious problem. Institute a national ID for everyone.
Illegal immigration is a serious problem, but the solution is more border patrol and/or use of the military to guard the borders better.
Keep the current system more or less.
Keep the immigration quotas but keep our Constitutional rights also. Eliminate the proof of legal residency requirement to get a job.
Immigrants are a blessing to this country. Open the gates! Just require that they pay their own way.


The federal government is making more and more demands on employers to favor certain groups. Firing workers puts employers at great risk of very expensive lawsuits. With harassment laws, freedoms of speech and expression in the workplace are being severely curtailed in the name of Civil Rights.
Should the government continue to regulate employment relations in the name of Civil Rights?
YES! A job is a right. The burden of proof lies on the employer to fire anyone. All firings should be subject to judicial review.
Yes! Workplace equality has not yet been achieved. Clearly more action is required.
Yes. About what it is now. (Sure, some of the lawsuits are ridiculous, but it takes dire threats to bring certain employers into line.)
No. The penalties for discrimination and/or offending people have gotten way out of line. The loss of a job is worth a few months' pay in damages at most.
NO! Hiring and working should be purely voluntary activities. (The marketplace will punish discriminators.)


The U.S. is the only remaining superpower. With military spending only 20% of the federal budget, can we not afford to pay military personnel a market wage?
Should military service be voluntary, or should there be a draft?
Everyone should have the experience of two years of "National Service" (can be non-military).
No draft now, but keep draft registration.
Under extreme circumstances a draft could be acceptable. However, we do not need draft registration now.
In times of crisis the problem is not lack of volunteers; the problem is lack of a prepared populace. Add military training to the basic high school curriculum and make training camps available without further obligation.
The draft is slavery and therefore morally unacceptable. A country that needs a draft to defend itself deserves to lose.


Social Security was a great deal for those who got in at the beginning but is a rotten deal for those getting in late (Generation X).
Should Social Security be phased out?
NO! All we have to do is start investing the Social Security trust fund in the stock market.
NO! Raise taxes as necessary when the baby boomers retire.
No, but pay down the national debt now, before the baby boomers retire.
Some. Ramp up the retirement age so the average number of years for receiving government checks is brought back down to 5.
Yes. Replace Social Security with a purely aged-based MINIMUM income (comparable to current minimum Social Security payouts) funded out of general revenues.
Yes. Replace Social Security with a forced savings plan for the young.
YES! Complete separation of retirement and state. Let people plan their own retirement.


How important is each issue? Which issues most affect your votes?
Who cares? Somewhat Important Very Important
Spending 1 2 3 4 5
Censorship 1 2 3 4 5
Subsidies 1 2 3 4 5
Sex 1 2 3 4 5
Guns 1 2 3 4 5
Drugs 1 2 3 4 5
Education 1 2 3 4 5
Immigration 1 2 3 4 5
Workplace 1 2 3 4 5
Draft 1 2 3 4 5
Retirement 1 2 3 4 5