Strongly Agree

Absolutely, they shouldn't. Look, whether you're pro-life or pro-choice, one thing is clear: no one should be forced to fund something they fundamentally disagree with. The idea that taxpayer dollars are used to fund abortion providers like Planned Parenthood is just another example of the government sticking its hands into your pockets for something that is incredibly divisive.

Neutral

This is where the state's obsession with control creeps in yet again. Do I think drugs should be safe? Of course. But who decides what "safety standards" are, and how much regulation is enough? When you start mandating in-person consultations or pushing for more reporting requirements, you’re really just making it harder for individuals to access what they’ve freely chosen. That’s not freedom; that’s paternalism.

That’s the kind of question that assumes the government should be involved in the first place, and that’s where I part ways. The government has no business telling people what they can or can’t do with their own bodies. Period. Whether it’s abortion or any other medical decision, these are deeply personal choices that shouldn’t be subject to political whim.

No, the federal government has no legitimate role in limiting abortion—or much else, for that matter. If you believe in individual liberty and self-ownership, then you can't also advocate for a federal apparatus to impose moral decisions on millions of people. The moment you give the federal government the power to control something as personal as abortion, you’re opening the door for it to control countless other aspects of your life. The federal government’s role should be to protect individual rights and do as little as humanly possible. That means no federal legislation, no sweeping mandates, and certainly no bureaucratic interference in deeply personal matters like abortion.

"Separation of church and state" means keeping the government out of your beliefs and keeping religion out of government coercion. It’s simple: the state has no business telling people how to worship or not worship, and religious institutions have no right to use the force of government to push their values on others. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion, and that’s something both sides seem to forget.

Strongly Disagree

Absolutely not. Forcing individuals or businesses to provide services that violate their moral or religious beliefs is a direct attack on personal freedom. If you believe in liberty, you have to respect people’s right to say no—even if you don’t agree with their reasons. Freedom of association means you can choose who you do business with and who you don’t.

D) The United States should stay out of foreign conflicts completely. America’s foreign policy has been a disaster for decades. We’ve been meddling in other countries' affairs, propping up dictators one day and overthrowing them the next, all under the guise of spreading democracy or protecting freedom. Meanwhile, it’s American lives and resources that are wasted, and we end up creating more enemies and chaos abroad.

Strongly Agree

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is undoubtedly a bad actor on the global stage. But let’s be clear: the biggest threat it poses is not something that can be solved with more government intervention or military posturing. The real danger lies in how the U.S. government uses the "threat" of the CCP as an excuse to expand its own power, restrict our freedoms, and funnel more taxpayer money into bloated defense budgets.

The U.S. relationship with Israel, like any other foreign alliance, should be evaluated based on American interests—not treated as some sacred, untouchable bond. Israel is a sovereign nation, fully capable of defending itself and managing its own affairs. While Israel may be an important partner in certain areas, that doesn’t justify endless U.S. military aid, entanglements, or blind loyalty.

Fixing military recruitment and retention requires a fundamental shift: ending the pointless foreign wars, rebuilding trust in government institutions (good luck with that), and returning the military to its proper role of defending America—not trying to reshape the world in our image.

None. The idea that any institution should have the authority to mandate what you put into your body is a blatant violation of individual sovereignty. If you own yourself—and you do—then the decision to get vaccinated (or not) is up to you.

D) Taxpayer-funded healthcare should be abolished in all forms, and Medicaid and Medicare should be defunded. Here’s the thing: when the government gets involved in healthcare, costs go up, quality goes down, and individual choice gets sacrificed on the altar of bureaucracy. Government programs like Medicaid and Medicare are unsustainable, bloated, and only serve to create more dependency while inflating healthcare prices. You pay more, get less, and have fewer choices in the process.

The best way to let Americans retain more of their income and wealth is simple: stop the government from taking it in the first place. Taxation, in all its forms, is legalized theft. Every dollar the government takes is a dollar you can’t spend.

Strongly Agree

Exactly. Student loan forgiveness is just a fancy way of saying, "Let’s make other people pay for choices they didn’t make." If you voluntarily took on student debt, it’s your responsibility to pay it back. Forcing taxpayers—many of whom either didn’t go to college or already paid off their loans—to cover that cost is nothing more than legalized theft. No one forced these students to take out loans, and no one should be forced to pay for them.

No

Absolutely not. ESG ratings are just another way for bureaucrats and central planners to impose their ideological preferences on the market. Public money—if you’re going to have it at all—should be invested in a way that maximizes returns for the people who earned it, not to virtue-signal over some political or social agenda.

Strongly Agree

The U.S. should secure its borders, but let’s be clear: a bloated, bureaucratic government isn’t exactly the most efficient or effective tool for solving this problem. The issue at the southern border is a consequence of decades of mismanaged immigration policy, a broken welfare system, and the government’s failure to enforce existing laws.

Anyone who wants to come to the U.S. to work, live peacefully, and contribute to society should be allowed to immigrate—so long as they do it legally and aren’t a threat to anyone’s rights. Immigration shouldn’t be some bureaucratic nightmare where people have to jump through endless hoops or wait years just to start a new life. The process should be straightforward, efficient, and focused on the basics: Are you here to contribute? Are you not a threat? Great—welcome aboard.

Strongly Agree

Absolutely! School choice is about giving parents and students the freedom to choose the education that works best for them, rather than being trapped in a government-run, one-size-fits-all system. When the government has a monopoly on education, what do you get? Inefficiency, poor results, and zero accountability. We can create a more competitive and innovative educational landscape where families have greater control over their children's education.

Strongly Agree

Absolutely. The U.S. Department of Education is a bloated, top-heavy bureaucracy that does little more than siphon off taxpayer money while dictating one-size-fits-all policies to local schools. Education is a deeply personal and local issue, and it makes no sense for bureaucrats in D.C. to dictate how every school in America should operate.

Choose not to answer

Ah, the "defund the police" flavor of the week. Look, I get the instinct to take money away from state agencies that abuse their power. But here’s the problem: you're still playing the same game, just moving the money from one bureaucratic black hole to another. #DEFUNDEVERYTHING

Restrictions? The only thing restrictions on gun ownership protect are the egos of politicians who think they know better than you how to live your life. Here's the truth: criminals, by definition, don’t follow laws. So any gun restriction is just limiting the ability of peaceful, law-abiding people to defend themselves.

Strongly Disagree

Ah, the old "pack the court" routine. Because, you know, when things don’t go your way, just change the rules—classic government move. The Supreme Court, like every other branch of government, is already bloated with power it was never meant to have. Adding more seats would just turn it into an even bigger political circus than it already is. And that’s saying something.

Choose not to answer

I’d say none of your labels really fit me, and that’s the beauty of it. I reject the premise that you need to fit into some pre-approved box or category to have a coherent worldview. Libertarianism is about rejecting the false choice between left and right, big government and bigger government.

The general purpose of government? Well, that's assuming it has a legitimate purpose to begin with. At best, government is like a night watchman—there to protect your rights and nothing more. At worst, it’s a monopolistic gang that uses force to take your money and limit your freedom. Guess which one we have right now?

Nope, never. But the fact that we live in a world where I even have to answer that question shows just how far we’ve strayed from individual responsibility. Instead of assuming guilt and creating witch hunts, how about we focus on holding actual criminals accountable and stop using accusations as political weapons?

I aspire to be convicted of more than 34 felonies, because if the justice system has been weaponized against you. You must be doing something right.

Strongly Disagree

If marriage is truly sacred, then why are we letting the government have any say in it at all? Marriage, like any other personal relationship, should be defined by individuals, their beliefs, and their values—not by government. The moment we let the state get involved in defining or regulating marriage, we open the door for it to meddle in all aspects of our personal lives.

Strongly Agree

Children, without question, deserve protection from harm and exploitation. They are the most vulnerable members of society, and it’s our responsibility to ensure they grow up in environments that safeguard their well-being. Abuse in any form—whether it’s physical, emotional, or psychological—is unacceptable and should be met with severe consequences.

Strongly Disagree

Absolutely not. Taxpayer funds should never be used to finance gender transition services, or any other medical procedures for that matter, unless they involve directly protecting someone’s rights or well-being in an emergency. Forcing people to pay for procedures they might morally, ethically, or personally disagree with is a clear violation of individual liberty.

My spiritual beliefs and values revolve around the core principle of individual liberty. I believe in the inherent right of every person to live freely, without coercion or interference, so long as they aren’t infringing on the rights of others. This extends to spiritual matters—whether you’re religious, agnostic, or atheist, it’s your right to live according to your own beliefs.

Strongly Disagree

Voter ID requirements are often framed as a question of balancing access with integrity. But the idea that requiring photo ID is somehow an undue burden is pretty laughable. People need ID to do just about anything in daily life—open a bank account, buy alcohol, get on a plane—so why should voting be any different?

Strongly Disagree

The Electoral College should absolutely not be abolished. It’s one of the key mechanisms that prevents a handful of densely populated urban areas from completely dominating the political landscape of the entire country. The United States was founded as a republic, not a pure democracy, for a reason—so that the voices of people in every state, large or small, would matter.

Strongly Disagree

Critical Race Theory (CRT) is just another way for collectivists to divide people and view everything through the lens of race and power. It asserts that institutions in the U.S. are fundamentally racist, but this framing is overly simplistic and ignores the complexity of both history and human interaction. More importantly, it assumes that individuals are defined by their group identity—something entirely at odds with the core libertarian principle of individualism.

Agree

The principle of individual liberty means that people should be free to live their lives as they see fit, but that freedom ends where it infringes on the rights and safety of others. When it comes to biological males participating in women’s sports or occupying women-only spaces, the issue is one of fairness, safety, and respect for privacy.

Disagree

Ah, the classic "global threat" narrative. Look, if you're asking me to trust the same people who can’t even balance a budget to now control the planet's thermostat, that’s a hard pass. Man-made climate change? Sure, the climate changes, but using it as an excuse for political intervention is just another way to grab power and restrict individual freedom.

Nuclear energy is a strong contender, but it’s been hamstrung by ridiculous regulations for decades. You want clean, reliable energy? Let private companies develop nuclear without a thousand hoops to jump through. If nuclear’s the best, it’ll thrive.