[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"sample-reading":3},{"reading":4,"archetype":5},{"type":5,"family":6,"rarity":7,"typicality":8,"certainty":11,"position":16,"map":55,"partyFit":62,"contemporaries":94,"comparisons":121,"breakGroups":137,"breakCount":149,"defining":150,"synthesis":164,"generated":165,"population":374,"typeBands":646,"ballotDemo":656},"Traditional Libertarian","libertarian",5,{"label":9,"blurb":10},"The type, with your own accents","You carry Traditional Libertarian in a direction that’s distinctly yours.",{"label":12,"gap":13,"runnerUp":14,"blurb":15},"A decisive placement",74,"Moderate Conservative","Traditional Libertarian is clear of Moderate Conservative by a wide margin. Your answers cluster tightly around one way of seeing politics.",{"headline":17,"axes":18},"You’re a more progressive Traditional Libertarian — recognizably the type, with your own center of gravity.",[19,28,37,46],{"topic":20,"lean":21,"delta":22,"sentence":23,"you":24,"typeScore":25,"lowPole":26,"highPole":27},"personal liberty and authority","more order-minded",-5,"On personal liberty and authority, you sit more order-minded than the typical Traditional Libertarian.",77,82,"Authority","Liberty",{"topic":29,"lean":30,"delta":31,"sentence":32,"you":33,"typeScore":34,"lowPole":35,"highPole":36},"the economy","more market-friendly",9,"On the economy, you sit more market-friendly than the typical Traditional Libertarian.",88,79,"State","Market",{"topic":38,"lean":39,"delta":40,"sentence":41,"you":42,"typeScore":43,"lowPole":44,"highPole":45},"the nation and the wider world","more nationalist",-7,"On the nation and the wider world, you sit more nationalist than the typical Traditional Libertarian.",4,11,"National","Global",{"topic":47,"lean":48,"delta":49,"sentence":50,"you":51,"typeScore":52,"lowPole":53,"highPole":54},"culture and tradition","more progressive",14,"On culture and tradition, you sit more progressive than the typical Traditional Libertarian.",34,20,"Traditional","Progressive",{"scores":56,"self":57,"neighbors":58},{"liberty":24,"economic":33,"scope":42,"culture":51},"traditional-libertarian",[59,60,61],"anarcho-capitalist","moderate-conservative","independent-thinker",{"parties":63,"torn":92,"homeless":93},[64,72,80,87],{"party":65,"fit":13,"label":66,"x":67,"y":68,"axes":69},"Republican","a strong fit",65,40,{"liberty":68,"economic":67,"scope":70,"culture":71},30,28,{"party":73,"fit":74,"label":75,"x":33,"y":76,"axes":77},"Libertarian",71,"a fair fit",85,{"liberty":76,"economic":33,"scope":78,"culture":79},55,60,{"party":81,"fit":82,"label":83,"x":84,"y":78,"axes":85},"Democratic",54,"a weak fit",35,{"liberty":78,"economic":84,"scope":67,"culture":86},72,{"party":88,"fit":89,"label":83,"x":52,"y":79,"axes":90},"Green",46,{"liberty":79,"economic":52,"scope":86,"culture":91},80,true,false,[95,101,107,112,116],{"name":96,"role":97,"years":98,"basis":99,"align":100},"David Sacks","venture capitalist, All-In podcast","b. 1972","Tech-right realignment: deregulatory, anti-woke, restrictionist turn, sceptical of foreign entanglement.",86,{"name":102,"role":103,"years":104,"basis":105,"align":106},"Rand Paul","U.S. Senator (R-KY)","b. 1963","Libertarian-conservative: small government, civil liberties, non-interventionist, pro-gun.",84,{"name":108,"role":109,"years":110,"basis":111,"align":106},"Thomas Massie","U.S. Representative (R-KY)","b. 1971","Constitutional libertarian: minimal state, near-absolute civil liberties and gun rights, non-interventionist, sovereigntist.",{"name":113,"role":114,"years":110,"basis":115,"align":106},"Elon Musk","CEO, Tesla and SpaceX","Free-speech absolutist framing, anti-regulatory, pro-natalist, sovereigntist turn since 2022.",{"name":117,"role":118,"years":119,"basis":120,"align":25},"Ron Paul","former U.S. Representative (R-TX)","b. 1935","Austrian-school libertarian: end the Fed, non-interventionist foreign policy, federalist on social questions, personally pro-life.",{"neighbors":122,"roadNotTaken":133,"opposite":134},[123,127,130],{"slug":59,"name":124,"axis":38,"theyAre":125,"x":33,"y":126},"Anarcho-Capitalist","more internationalist",100,{"slug":60,"name":14,"axis":38,"theyAre":125,"x":128,"y":129},69,48,{"slug":61,"name":131,"axis":38,"theyAre":125,"x":132,"y":34},"Independent Localist",56,{"slug":59,"name":124},{"slug":135,"name":136,"axis":29},"authoritarian-left","Vanguard Collectivist",[138],{"topic":29,"framing":139,"items":140},"On who should own and steer the economy, you parted from the answer your type usually gives.",[141],{"q":142,"text":143,"you":144,"type":145,"pull":146,"pullGloss":147,"note":148},10,"Workers should have ownership stakes and decision-making power in their companies.","Strongly disagree","Neutral",null,"","A position your type usually resists — and you held it anyway.",1,[151,155,158,161],{"q":152,"text":153,"you":154},2,"Most problems are better solved by individuals and communities than by government programs.","Strongly agree",{"q":156,"text":157,"you":154},31,"Citizens have a fundamental right to own firearms, including semi-automatic rifles.",{"q":159,"text":160,"you":154},3,"Government should never monitor citizens' communications, even to fight crime or terrorism.",{"q":162,"text":163,"you":154},13,"Our country should put its own citizens first, even if it comes at the expense of other nations.","You are Traditional Libertarian — but not the textbook kind. You’re a more progressive Traditional Libertarian — recognizably the type, with your own center of gravity. Your sharpest departure comes on the economy. These are the places your politics is genuinely your own — the difference between wearing a label and actually being a person who happens to fit one.",{"model":166,"inputs":167,"ancestry":189,"chapters":324,"generated_at":373},"claude-fable-5-1",{"axes":168,"partyFit":173,"contemporaries":178},[169,170,171,172],{"you":24,"topic":20,"typeScore":25},{"you":33,"topic":29,"typeScore":34},{"you":42,"topic":38,"typeScore":43},{"you":51,"topic":47,"typeScore":52},[174,175,176,177],{"fit":13,"label":66,"party":65},{"fit":74,"label":75,"party":73},{"fit":82,"label":83,"party":81},{"fit":89,"label":83,"party":88},[179,181,183,185,187],{"name":96,"role":97,"align":100,"basis":99,"slug":180},"david-sacks",{"name":102,"role":103,"align":106,"basis":105,"slug":182},"rand-paul",{"name":108,"role":109,"align":106,"basis":111,"slug":184},"thomas-massie",{"name":113,"role":114,"align":106,"basis":115,"slug":186},"elon-musk",{"name":117,"role":118,"align":25,"basis":120,"slug":188},"ron-paul",{"books":190,"figures":209,"adjacent":244,"thinkers":264,"tradition":295,"nearbyBooks":298,"institutions":311},[191,194,197,200,203,206],{"title":192,"author":193},"Jefferson","Albert Jay Nock",{"title":195,"author":196},"Anarchy, State, and Utopia","Robert Nozick",{"title":198,"author":199},"In Defense of Freedom","Frank Meyer",{"title":201,"author":202},"Capitalism and Freedom","Milton Friedman",{"title":204,"author":205},"The Road to Serfdom","Friedrich Hayek",{"title":207,"author":208},"Human Action: A Treatise on Economics","Ludwig von Mises",[210,215,219,223,227,231,235,240],{"name":211,"align":212,"years":213,"slug":214},"Patrick Henry",81,"1736-1799","patrick-henry",{"name":216,"align":212,"years":217,"slug":218},"Calvin Coolidge","1872-1933","calvin-coolidge",{"name":220,"align":91,"years":221,"slug":222},"Barry Goldwater","1909-1998","barry-goldwater",{"name":224,"align":24,"years":225,"slug":226},"William F. Buckley Jr.","1925-2008","william-f-buckley-jr",{"name":228,"align":24,"years":229,"slug":230},"Charles de Gaulle","1890-1970","charles-de-gaulle",{"name":232,"align":24,"years":233,"slug":234},"Elizabeth I","1533-1603","elizabeth-i",{"name":236,"align":237,"years":238,"slug":239},"George Washington",76,"1732-1799","george-washington",{"name":241,"align":237,"years":242,"slug":243},"Jefferson Davis","1808-1889","jefferson-davis",[245,247,249,251,254,257,260,262],{"from":124,"name":246},"Foundation for Economic Education",{"from":14,"name":248},"American Enterprise Institute",{"from":131,"name":250},"Heterodox Academy",{"from":252,"name":253},"Compassionate Libertarian","Reason Foundation",{"from":255,"name":256},"Civil Libertarian","Drug Policy Alliance",{"from":258,"name":259},"Left Libertarian","Center for a Stateless Society (C4SS)",{"from":14,"name":261},"Hoover Institution",{"from":131,"name":263},"Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression",[265,270,275,280,285,290],{"name":193,"slug":266,"birth":267,"dates":268,"death":269},"albert-jay-nock",1870,"1870–1945",1945,{"name":196,"slug":271,"birth":272,"dates":273,"death":274},"robert-nozick",1938,"1938–2002",2002,{"name":199,"slug":276,"birth":277,"dates":278,"death":279},"frank-meyer",1909,"1909–1972",1972,{"name":202,"slug":281,"birth":282,"dates":283,"death":284},"milton-friedman",1912,"1912–2006",2006,{"name":205,"slug":286,"birth":287,"dates":288,"death":289},"friedrich-hayek",1899,"1899–1992",1992,{"name":208,"slug":291,"birth":292,"dates":293,"death":294},"ludwig-von-mises",1881,"1881–1973",1973,{"era":296,"name":297},"17th-19th century","Classical Liberalism",[299,302,305,308],{"from":124,"title":300,"author":301},"The Unconstitutionality of Slavery","Lysander Spooner",{"from":14,"title":303,"author":304},"Democracy in America","Alexis de Tocqueville",{"from":131,"title":306,"author":307},"Either\u002FOr","Søren Kierkegaard",{"from":124,"title":309,"author":310},"A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism","Hans-Hermann Hoppe",[312,314,316,318,320,322],{"name":313},"Mises Institute",{"name":315},"Libertarian Party Mises Caucus",{"name":317},"Ludwig von Mises Institute Germany",{"name":319},"Property and Freedom Society",{"name":321},"Abbeville Institute",{"name":323},"Young Americans for Liberty",{"today":325,"athome":328,"reason":331,"beliefs":334,"figures":337,"lineage":340,"reading":343,"opposite":346,"partyfit":349,"steelman":352,"tensions":355,"character":358,"neighbors":361,"tradition":364,"blindspots":367,"roadnottaken":370},{"prose":326,"quote":327},"David Sacks lands nearest you, at 86 percent overlap, and the placement may puzzle you until you read the line he was modeled from: deregulatory, anti-woke, restrictionist, sceptical of foreign entanglement. Three of those four are your bedrock. Your 88 on the economy runs past the typical Traditional Libertarian's 79, and your 4 on the nation sits well below the type's 11, toward the national pole. The parting comes at the second word. Anti-woke names a culture warrior. Your 34 on culture is fourteen points more progressive than your type, which means the modeled Sacks is fighting a war you have only half enlisted in.\n\nThomas Massie, at 84 percent, is the cleaner mirror for your civil-liberties spine. Near-absolute gun rights and a refusal to let the state read anyone's mail are two of the four answers you share exactly with your type, and his basis line carries both. Yet your personal-liberty score of 77 falls five points under the type's 82. Small as the gap is, his line reads near-absolute across the board; yours reads absolute on surveillance and firearms, more ordered elsewhere. On questions of personal conduct he would likely push past where you stopped.\n\nElon Musk arrives at the same 84, modeled from free-speech absolutism, hostility to regulation, pro-natalism and a sovereigntist turn since 2022. The overlap runs through markets and borders. Pro-natalism is a position your data gives no warrant to infer, and this report infers nothing about it.\n\nLook at what the whole list shares: a senator, a congressman, a venture capitalist and a chief executive, every one now orbiting the Republican coalition, none a Democrat. Your party fit calls you torn between Republican and Libertarian at 74 and 71. Your mirrors are not torn. Each has chosen a side, or been chosen by one.","Your nearest mirrors have all picked a party. You have not, yet.",{"prose":329,"quote":330},"The Mises Institute is the room built for you. An economy score of 88, nine points beyond the typical Traditional Libertarian, puts you among people who read Human Action as a description of reality rather than a manifesto, and your strong disagreement that workers should hold ownership stakes and decision-making power would raise no eyebrows there. Young Americans for Liberty is the same argument with fewer grey hairs: the Constitution, sound money, no foreign wars, and a bedrock refusal to let government read anyone's mail. Your Strongly agree on never monitoring communications, even against terrorism, is close to their founding creed.\n\nThe Mises Caucus inside the Libertarian Party would take you gladly, and you would take most of it. The fit loosens around the caucus's fondness for the Property and Freedom Society. Hoppe's circle prizes an explicitly anti-egalitarian cultural order, and your 34 on culture sits fourteen points to the progressive side of your type's 20. The hard-money economics would suit you; the evening conversations about who belongs in a covenant community would not. The Abbeville Institute presents the same divided ledger. Its case for decentralization speaks to you, its Southern nostalgia asks for a cultural loyalty you have not signed.\n\nAmong the adjacent institutions, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and Heterodox Academy are places you would defend without reservation, since whatever bars the state from your communications bars a faculty senate from policing speech. Reason magazine is the harder case. Its live-and-let-live line on private life matches your relative cultural ease, yet Reason treats open borders as the natural corollary of free markets, and your 4 on the nation says otherwise. Your Strongly agree that the country should put its own citizens first is the sentence its editors would spend a whole issue trying to talk you out of.\n\nThe American Enterprise Institute would admire your economics and recoil at your foreign policy. The Center for a Stateless Society would admire your anti-state instincts and find your rejection of worker ownership unforgivable. Both are worth visiting. Neither will offer you a chair.","Your economics fills every room on the right; your borders empty half of them.",{"prose":332,"quote":333},"Four of your answers land exactly where the type lands, and they share a form. No monitoring of communications, even against terrorism. Firearms including semi-automatic rifles, as a fundamental right. Problems solved by individuals and communities rather than programs. Citizens first, whatever it costs elsewhere. Each is stated as a rule that survives the hard case, not as a policy that performs well on average. You reason toward bright lines, and you appear to regard the willingness to hold one under pressure as the test of whether you ever believed it.\n\nThis makes you rigorous in a specific way. A bright line cannot be eroded by a sufficiently sympathetic emergency, which is exactly the erosion that surveillance law and emergency economics have historically run on. It also means the empirical question gets settled upstream. Once the rule is fixed, evidence about outcomes has limited room to operate; it can inform implementation, never the principle.\n\nBut your positions do not all have that shape. The nation-first commitment cannot be derived from self-ownership, and your rejection of worker ownership cannot be derived from non-coercion. These come from elsewhere: from a sense of how a working order actually holds together, which institutions bear weight and which are sentimental. That is closer to how Hayek thought about grown rules than to how Nozick thought about rights, and the two do not always issue the same instruction.\n\nSo you run two systems. On liberty against the state you are a deductive absolutist, and your 77 on personal liberty and authority, five points below the typical Traditional Libertarian, shows even there a small willingness to concede something to order. On questions of membership and authority within private life you become a realist working from how things function. The interesting part is that you seem not to experience these as different methods. Ask which one governs when they collide, and the answer will tell you more about your politics than any single position does.","A rule you would abandon in the hard case was never a rule. You seem to know this.",{"prose":335,"quote":336},"Start with what you would not sell at any price. Four answers sit at the strongest setting the Scan allows, and each is the type's own: individuals and communities solve problems better than government programs; citizens have a right to own firearms, semi-automatic rifles included; government must never monitor communications, even against terrorism; the country puts its own people first even when other nations pay for it. Those four are your floor. Everything else in your politics is furniture arranged on top of them.\n\nAbove the floor, the firmest plank is property. Your 88 on the economy runs nine points past the typical Traditional Libertarian's 79, and the one place you broke from the type confirms the direction: where the type shrugs at worker ownership stakes, you strongly disagreed. That is a commitment held harder than the tradition requires. Hayek and Friedman would know the market defense; refusing to entertain even voluntary co-ownership goes further than either wrote. You hold the shape of the firm as a matter of principle, and it is the least negotiable thing about you after the four bedrock answers.\n\nThe nation comes next. At 4 you are seven points more national than the type's 11, and the pull is strong enough to separate you from every neighboring archetype. Yet it is a plank rather than the floor: the bedrock answer on citizens-first concerns priority, and priority admits of degree in a way a right to bear arms does not.\n\nThen the negotiable ground. Personal liberty at 77 sits five points toward authority from the type's 82, which means some questions of personal conduct found you willing to let order win. Culture and tradition at 34, fourteen points more progressive than the type's 20, is the softest plank you have. The traditionalist end that fusionism was built to serve, the inherited moral order that markets were supposed to protect, is the part you would trade first. You defend the means of the Meyer synthesis far more fiercely than its ends.","Property first, border second, and the old moral order last of all.",{"prose":338,"quote":339},"Patrick Henry is the nearest mirror, and the fit is exact on the point that matters most to you. Henry opposed the Constitution because it centralized power and lacked a bill of rights, and his politics rested on the armed, self-governing citizen answerable to his own community. Your strong agreement on firearms and on communities solving problems without programs is that reflex two centuries on. Where you part is scale. Henry's suspicion of Philadelphia was suspicion of any national government at all; your 4 on the nation suggests you want a strong national boundary even as you want a small national state. Henry never had to hold those two together.\n\nCalvin Coolidge shares your economic temperament more than any figure here. His presidency was a sustained exercise in leaving commerce alone, cutting taxes, and treating federal restraint as a moral duty rather than a policy choice. Your 88 on the economy is Coolidge's instinct scored. He also signed the 1924 immigration act, which brings him close to your citizens-first answer. The divergence is on personal liberty: Coolidge presided over Prohibition and a state that was, in social matters, far more willing to intrude than your absolute refusal of surveillance permits.\n\nBarry Goldwater and Charles de Gaulle sit on opposite sides of your central tension. Goldwater is your personal-liberty and gun-rights conviction in a senator's body, and his late-career defense of gay servicemembers foreshadows your 34 on culture, more progressive than his own movement wanted him to be. De Gaulle is your 4 on the nation: the conviction that a country's first obligation is to itself and that sovereignty is a possession to be guarded. But de Gaulle built a dirigiste economy and a presidency of enormous personal authority. You share his sense of the nation and reject nearly everything he did with it.\n\nJefferson Davis is also on this list and there is no honest way around it. The overlap consists of states' rights, hostility to central power, and a nationalism that puts one's own people first. What your answers do not share with him is the thing his politics existed to protect. Your economics and your bedrock on individual rights describe a system of free labor and free contract; slavery is the negation of both. Answer-overlap measures positions on a set of questions. It records nothing about conduct, and the proximity here is a fact about decentralization, not about you.","You share de Gaulle's nation and reject nearly everything he did with it.",{"prose":341,"quote":342},"Of the six names your type descends from, Ludwig von Mises is where your data lives. Economy 88 is your largest departure from the typical Traditional Libertarian, and it runs in his direction. The claim in Human Action that every intervention distorts the prices it touches is the one you press harder than your own tradition does, and your rejection of worker co-management follows from it: whoever bears the losses makes the decisions, and a firm is a calculation before it is a community.\n\nFriedrich Hayek is more complicated. The idea that freedom grows in particular soil among particular people is what the Traditional Libertarian takes from him, and your 4 on the nation pushes it further than the type does at 11. Hayek himself was wary of nationalism and thought in terms of rules that could bind more than one people. You took his seed and planted it in a single field. Your 34 on culture, fourteen points toward the progressive pole, also means you keep less of his respect for inherited moral custom. The grown institutions of law and money you want; the grown institutions of manners you hold more loosely.\n\nFrank Meyer is where the break is sharpest. Fusionism needs a traditionalist end for the libertarian means to serve, and your culture score gives that end little weight. In Defense of Freedom was written to hold liberty and virtue together; you have loosened the second, and what remains is liberty plus the nation, a pairing Meyer did not build.\n\nAlbert Jay Nock fits your civil-liberties bedrock well. A state forbidden to read anyone's communications is a state you regard as suspect by nature, which is Our Enemy, the State in one answer. Yet Nock's State was the enemy without exception, and citizens-first asks that same State to act with vigor at the frontier. Robert Nozick would remind you that his framework permits any firm arrangement its owners freely choose, worker ownership included; your strong disagreement judges an outcome he would have left to the parties. Milton Friedman, who worked inside a party to win arguments, is the ancestor your 74 percent Republican fit most resembles. Follow him into the coalition, or stay with Nock's outnumbered Remnant.","You took Hayek's soil argument and planted it in one field.",{"prose":344,"quote":345},"Start with Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, from the Moderate Conservative shelf next door. Your strongest bedrock answer holds that individuals and communities solve problems better than programs, and Tocqueville is the one writer who documented that claim as observed fact rather than theory: the township, the voluntary association, the habit of Americans forming a committee before petitioning a legislature. He also warned about what replaces those habits when they fade, a soft administrative tutelage that never needs to be cruel. Read it as a field report on the world your first answer assumes.\n\nThen Ludwig von Mises, Human Action. At 88 on the economy you stand further toward the market than your own type, and you should know the whole argument rather than the slogans. Mises builds from individual choice to the impossibility of rational planning without prices. He will also complicate your worker-ownership answer: nothing in his system forbids employees owning the firm they work in, only the state imposing it. You may find your strong disagreement is with the mandate; you may find it is with the arrangement, which is a different position and worth knowing you hold.\n\nFrank Meyer, In Defense of Freedom, is the book your culture score argues with. Meyer's fusionism holds that liberty and inherited moral order need each other. At 34 on culture, fourteen points toward the progressive end of where the type stands, you accept the first half and hedge on the second. Meyer will press you to say what, if anything, the free society is for.\n\nAlbert Jay Nock, Jefferson, speaks to your 4 on the nation. Nock's Jefferson is the agrarian localist who wanted a republic small enough to be governed by its own citizens, suspicious of finance and of foreign entanglement alike. It is the nearest your lineage comes to your own nationalism, and its limits are instructive: Jefferson's localism never became a doctrine of putting one country first against others, and Nock did not make it one.\n\nLast, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, from the Anarcho-Capitalist type that is your road not taken. Hoppe takes property rights to their logical end and abolishes the state entirely. To learn why you stopped short, read the book that kept going.","Read the book that kept going after you stopped.",{"prose":347,"quote":348},"The Vanguard Collectivist stands farthest from you, and the distance is almost entirely economic. Your 88 on the economy is nine points beyond your own type. Their position begins from the conviction that capital in private hands is a standing injury, and that removing it requires an organized, disciplined movement willing to act before a majority arrives, because the owning class will never consent to its own dissolution. Lenin is the name most people reach for, but the position is older and wider than one man, and at its best it is a theory of how power actually changes hands.\n\nThe single answer that marks the fault line is the one where you broke from your type. Asked whether workers should hold ownership stakes and decision-making power in their companies, most Traditional Libertarians go neutral. You went to strong disagreement. Their case, put fairly: a person who must sell labor to eat is not bargaining freely; the workplace is a small government the worker cannot vote out; and a market coordinates admirably while saying nothing about whom the coordination serves. They would turn your surveillance answer against you. You deny the state your communications and grant the employer your waking hours, and they would ask what makes the second authority legitimate when the first is not.\n\nYour reply, in its strongest form, runs through Mises. Ownership matters because someone must bear the loss. A firm governed by the people who work in it cannot easily shed a division, cut a wage, or close a plant, since the voters are the cost. The vanguard's discipline is a substitute for prices, and prices are the only mechanism yet found that carries the knowledge of millions into a single decision without a committee. Consent to a job, revocable any morning, is thinner than they would like, but it is real, and the alternative on offer replaces a boss you can leave with a party you cannot.\n\nSo the serious argument is about the foreman. Coercer or coordinator? Planning versus prices, party versus market: it all follows from that.","Where your type went neutral, you went to strong disagreement, and that square is their flag.",{"prose":350,"quote":351},"Three points separate your two best fits: Republican at 74 percent, Libertarian at 71. That is a coin standing on its edge, and the four dimensions explain why it will not fall.\n\nThe Republican coalition, as it behaves rather than as it drafts platforms, reaches you through the nation. Your 4 on the nation and the wider world lands squarely in the party's post-2016 center of gravity: restriction, sovereignty, citizens first. Firearms seal the alliance. But the same coalition governs by tariff and industrial subsidy, and your 88 on the economy is nine points past even the typical Traditional Libertarian's tolerance for that. It also renews foreign-intelligence surveillance authority whenever the vote comes, with Massie and Paul among the dissenters and the party's majority on the other side. Two of your four bedrock answers are ones the Republican mainstream routinely votes against.\n\nThe Libertarian Party reaches you through everything the Republicans strand. Markets at 88, surveillance never, guns without apology, and a 34 on culture that its live-and-let-live wing would find unremarkable. Then it stops at the border. The party's tradition is free movement and free trade, and although the Mises Caucus has pulled it in a paleo direction since 2022, its public identity remains hostile to the citizens-first answer you gave at full strength. Your nearest neighbors are all more internationalist than you; so is the one party built for people like them.\n\nThe Democrats at 54 percent and the Greens at 46 are weak fits, though the Democratic number is not zero for a reason. Your 34 on culture sits nearer that coalition than the type's 20 does, and the party's civil-liberties wing shares your view of surveillance. Everything on markets and sovereignty pushes you back out.\n\nSo the trade is explicit. The Republicans will ask you to pocket the tariffs and shrug at the wiretaps in exchange for the border. The Libertarians will ask you to drop the border in exchange for everything else. Either way, the ballot asks you to name which bedrock answer is the cheaper one.","The border party wants your wiretaps; the wiretap party wants your border.",{"prose":353,"quote":354},"Start where you actually start: with the recognition that a free order is a physical thing, located in a particular place, defended by particular people, and not a proposition that can be exported by declaration. This is what your 4 on the nation and the wider world encodes, and it is the claim cosmopolitan libertarianism has never answered well. Rights do not enforce themselves. They are enforced by a polity, funded by its citizens, defended by its young men, and sustained by a body of law those citizens can actually hold accountable. Put your own people first and you are simply naming who bears the cost of the arrangement.\n\nFrom there the rest coheres tightly. If the polity is the unit that carries liberty, then the powers you let it acquire are the real danger, and you withhold them without exception. No surveillance of communications, because a state that can read everything cannot be held accountable by anyone. Armed citizens, rifles included, because the relationship between a government and a disarmed population is different in kind from the alternative. Problems handled locally, because competence that migrates upward never migrates back.\n\nOn the economy your 88 reflects more than a preference for growth. You hold that the firm is a coordination device, and that clear ownership with clear command is what lets it respond to prices at all. Diffuse the decision right across everyone affected and you get an institution that cannot act, competing against ones that can. Whether workers should own firms is answered by whether they buy them.\n\nYour 34 on culture and tradition keeps this from collapsing into nostalgia. You are not asking the state to police how people live. The nation you want preserved is a legal and civic inheritance, not a set of manners. That combination is unusual: a hard border, a hard currency, a hard limit on state power, and considerable latitude about what people do inside it. Goldwater would have known the shape on sight.","Rights do not enforce themselves. Someone pays for the enforcement, and that someone has a name.",{"prose":356,"quote":357},"Your economic score of 88 sits nine points above the typical Traditional Libertarian, and the answer that most sharply marks the gap is a rejection rather than an affirmation. Asked whether workers should hold ownership stakes and decision-making power in their firms, you strongly disagreed where your type usually shrugs. That refusal is telling, because the proposition is not a state program. Nothing prevents a firm from being a cooperative under a regime of pure contract. Mises had no objection to voluntary association, and the question as posed says nothing about compulsion. Your objection lands somewhere prior to policy, on the structure of the firm itself.\n\nSo what you are defending is more than the absence of the state. It is a particular distribution of authority inside private institutions: owners decide, workers contract. Defensible, and very old. But it means your account of freedom cannot be a simple story about coercion versus consent. You have views about who should command, and they extend past the boundary where the government stops.\n\nSet that beside your 4 on the nation and the wider world, seven points below the typical Traditional Libertarian, and a pattern surfaces. Citizens first, even at the expense of other countries: your bedrock. The individual whose rights are inviolable turns out to be a particular individual, an American one, with claims on collective resources that a Bangladeshi of identical merit does not have. Nozick's rights theory does not generate borders. Something else in you does.\n\nThen the fourth dimension complicates it again. At 34 on culture and tradition you stand fourteen points more progressive than the type, which means you are not holding the line on inherited moral order in the way Meyer's fusionism assumed. You want the nation preserved and the firm hierarchical, yet you are relaxed about the customs that were supposed to justify both. That is where an opponent will press: what exactly is the boundary drawn around, if not the culture inside it?","Nozick's rights theory does not generate borders. Something else in you does.",{"prose":359,"quote":360},"Two numbers define you, and they pull toward each other rather than apart. An economy score of 88, nine points beyond your type, and a nation score of 4, seven points beyond it in the other direction. Most people who want markets that free also want borders that open, since capital, goods and people cross the same lines. You want the market at full strength inside a perimeter drawn tight, and you gave the strongest agreement the Scan allows to putting your own citizens first even at another country's expense.\n\nThe worker-ownership answer says what kind of market you mean. The typical Traditional Libertarian sits neutral on giving workers stakes and decision-making power; you strongly disagree. Nothing in that statement mentions government compulsion, so the objection cannot rest on coercion alone. It is a judgment about who ought to run a firm. Your libertarianism is written from the owner's side, and you know it.\n\nWhat keeps this from reading as ordinary conservatism is the culture score. At 34 you stand fourteen points more progressive than your type, so the nationalism you hold arrives stripped of most of the inherited-morals argument that usually travels with it. No church or folkway is being protected here. You are a shareholder in a country, reasoning as you did when you denied the workers a vote.\n\nThe ordered edge shows once more in personal liberty, where your 77 sits under the type's 82, even as you take the absolute line on firearms and on surveillance. Where the state might watch you or disarm you, it gets nothing. Where it might keep the streets quiet, it gets a little. That is consistency, and it has a signature: trust private power, distrust public power, hold the national boundary as the one collective line worth defending. What remains open is what you think the citizens inside that line are owed once the market has finished sorting them.","A shareholder's nationalism: the border is the one collective you will defend.",{"prose":362,"quote":363},"Three types crowd around you, and the same wall stands between you and every one of them. On the nation and the wider world you score 4. The typical Traditional Libertarian sits at 11, already near the national end of the scale, and you went past it. The Anarcho-Capitalist, the Moderate Conservative and the Independent Localist all look outward more than you do. Nothing else keeps them at arm's length. That one axis does the whole job.\n\nThe Anarcho-Capitalist is the closest on money and property, and your 88 on the economy puts you within easy conversation. Where you part is the border. To the anarcho-capitalist a frontier is a line the state draws across land it never owned, and \"put its own citizens first\" is a sentence with a suspect subject. You answered that sentence with strong agreement. Closing the gap would require treating the nation as one more coercive fiction, which your answers show you are unwilling to do.\n\nThe Moderate Conservative shares your order-minded temper. Your 77 on personal liberty, five points below your type's 82, would read to them as sense rather than heresy, and your firearms answer would raise no eyebrow. Their nationalism, though, is alliance-shaped: treaties, trade pacts, a standing presence abroad understood as the nation's interest projected outward. You would have to accept that a commitment to another country can serve your own people. Your 4 suggests you read such commitments as leakage.\n\nThe Independent Localist begins where your first bedrock answer begins, with individuals and communities ahead of programs. The difference is scale. The localist's loyalty runs to the town, the parish, the county, and from there straight to a shrug about everything beyond, because every foreign place is simply another locality. The nation, for them, is already too large to love. For you it is the vessel that carries liberty. Which unit would you actually defend when they conflict? Your 34 on culture, fourteen points more progressive than your type, hints the town might sometimes lose.","One axis holds three neighbors at bay: how far outward your loyalty is willing to run.",{"prose":365,"quote":366},"Classical liberalism hands you a compact set of instruments: property as the boundary of the person, contract as the grammar of cooperation, and a state whose job ends at protecting both. Your bedrock answers are the tradition speaking in its own voice. Individuals and communities before programs, the armed citizen, a government forbidden from reading anyone's mail even in the name of safety. Locke, Smith, and Constant would sign all three. Your 88 on the economy, nine points beyond the typical Traditional Libertarian, puts you nearer the tradition's pure form than most people who claim it.\n\nThe strain begins where the tradition was most confident. The classical liberals were, almost to a man, free traders and cosmopolitans. Cobden and Bright fought the Corn Laws on the argument that commerce between nations dissolves the reasons for war, and that a citizen of Manchester and a farmer in Prussia were partners before they were rivals. Your 4 on the nation and the wider world, and your strong agreement that your country comes first even at other nations' expense, cuts against that inheritance directly. The Traditional Libertarian type already bends the tradition toward roots and soil. At 4 you have bent it further than the type itself does, and the founders of your framework would have called this a departure, and said so in print.\n\nThe quieter abandonment is on culture. The argument that liberty needs particular soil rests on inherited moral order doing the work the state must not. Your 34 on culture sits fourteen points toward the progressive end of where the type stands. So you keep the nation and loosen the tradition: a border without a catechism. Coherent, but it is Hayek without Burke, and the worker-ownership answer shows the same shape. Strongly disagreeing with stakes and decision-making for workers goes beyond what classical liberalism requires; a voluntary cooperative is as much a free contract as a joint-stock company, and Mill defended both. Your objection reads as a preference about who should hold power inside the firm, a stronger claim than neutrality about how free people arrange themselves.","A border without a catechism: Hayek, with Burke left behind.",{"prose":368,"quote":369},"The critic who troubles you most does not come from the left. He is a free trader. He reads your 88 on the economy, nine points more market-minded than the typical Traditional Libertarian, then your 4 on the nation and the wider world, and asks which one you mean. A market is border-blind. Prices carry information from wherever buyer and seller happen to stand, and every wall raised to favor citizens is a tariff, a quota, or a permit: an intervention of the kind Mises taught you to distrust. You agreed strongly that the country should come first even at the expense of others. The only instrument capable of doing that is the state, and a state licensed to rank people by passport rarely stops at the frontier.\n\nHe turns next to the answer where you left your own type behind. Asked whether workers should have ownership stakes and a say in company decisions, the typical Traditional Libertarian sits neutral, for a sensible reason: the question says nothing about coercion, and a libertarian has no quarrel with a founder who hands out equity or a firm that seats employees on its board. You strongly disagreed. The critic reads that as a preference for one shape of firm over another, a position about hierarchy rather than about liberty, suggesting your attachment runs to capital as presently arranged rather than to voluntary arrangement as such. Hoppe would not mind. Nozick might.\n\nThe third pressure point is quieter. Your absolute refusal of communications surveillance sits beside a nationalism firm enough that all three of your nearest neighbors are separated from you chiefly by being more internationalist. A serious opponent asks how a country enforces citizens-first without knowing who is inside it, who is wiring money out, who is arriving. Border regimes are data regimes. You may have an answer. Your profile has simply never been made to give one, and that is where a thoughtful adversary would spend the whole evening.","The wall you want built and the wiretap you forbid are run from the same office.",{"prose":371,"quote":372},"The Anarcho-Capitalist is the type you nearly were. Take that position in its strongest form and it is no teenager's slogan. It is the claim, worked out by Murray Rothbard and his heirs, that everything a state does, courts and defense included, can be supplied by contract and competition, and that a monopoly on force is a monopoly like any other: overpriced, unaccountable, sustained by the fear that nothing else could do the work. Your answer on surveillance, strong agreement that the state should never read a citizen's communications even to fight terrorism, is already an anarcho-capitalist answer. So is your 88 on the economy. So, in its way, is your strong disagreement with worker ownership, which treats the firm as the proprietor's and nobody else's.\n\nWhat kept you out was the border. A shift away from strong agreement that your country comes first even at other nations' expense, and toward the view that people and goods move freely across lines the state has no title to, would have carried you across. Your 4 on that axis is the whole distance. Hans-Hermann Hoppe is the one anarcho-capitalist who tried to keep exclusion without keeping the nation, arguing that owners of covenanted communities may admit whom they choose. Your data suggests you would read him closely and still find the arrangement too thin, because exclusion by a thousand proprietors is a different thing from a people deciding who belongs.\n\nHere is what the refusal says. You trust the state with one power you deny it everywhere else. It may not open your letters, run your schools, or plan your economy, yet it may stand at the frontier and decide who enters. The anarcho-capitalist calls that an inconsistency. You call it the precondition of every other freedom on the list, on the grounds that liberty needs a bounded people to carry it. Your next argument with someone from that camp will turn on whether a boundary can be defended without a state to draw it.","You grant the state exactly one power, and it is the one that stands at the border.","2026-09-26T00:16:15.692Z",{"total":375,"identical":376,"questions":377,"closestSame":545,"questionCount":639},7832,0,[378,387,394,401,409,417,426,436,445,452,459,467,476,484,492,501,510,519,528,537,544,553,562,571,580,590,599,607,615,623,631,638],{"q":149,"dist":379,"mine":42,"text":385,"block":386},[380,381,382,383,384],2544,2393,948,1073,891,"Government should be reduced to the absolute minimum, or eliminated entirely.","liberty",{"q":152,"dist":388,"mine":7,"text":153,"block":386},[389,390,391,392,393],607,1591,1639,2413,1599,{"q":159,"dist":395,"mine":7,"text":160,"block":386},[396,397,398,399,400],769,1885,1106,2243,1846,{"q":42,"dist":402,"mine":152,"text":408,"block":386},[403,404,405,406,407],1321,1894,1168,2090,1376,"Strong leadership is more important than individual freedom in times of crisis.",{"q":7,"dist":410,"mine":159,"text":416,"block":386},[411,412,413,414,415],827,1530,1333,2548,1611,"When protests disrupt public order, restoring order should come first.",{"q":418,"dist":419,"mine":42,"text":425,"block":386},6,[420,421,422,423,424],791,912,923,2358,2865,"Concentrating power is dangerous even when leaders share my values.",{"q":427,"dist":428,"mine":7,"text":434,"block":435},7,[429,430,431,432,433],1983,2017,1152,1586,1111,"Free markets, with minimal regulation, create the best outcomes for society.","economic",{"q":437,"dist":438,"mine":42,"text":444,"block":435},8,[439,440,441,442,443],1400,1550,968,2595,1336,"Wealth inequality is acceptable if everyone's standard of living improves.",{"q":31,"dist":446,"mine":149,"text":451,"block":435},[447,448,449,279,450],745,1081,1247,2804,"Major industries like energy and healthcare should be publicly owned.",{"q":142,"dist":453,"mine":149,"text":143,"block":435},[454,455,456,457,458],669,1206,1403,2362,2209,{"q":43,"dist":460,"mine":159,"text":466,"block":435},[461,462,463,464,465],581,1021,993,2218,3036,"Large corporations have too much power and need to be broken up or heavily regulated.",{"q":468,"dist":469,"mine":149,"text":475,"block":435},12,[470,471,472,473,474],740,1524,1219,2013,2353,"The profit motive corrupts essential services and should be removed from them.",{"q":162,"dist":477,"mine":7,"text":163,"block":483},[478,479,480,481,482],649,1185,1224,2309,2482,"nation",{"q":49,"dist":485,"mine":42,"text":491,"block":483},[486,487,488,489,490],1687,1546,826,1666,2124,"Immigration, if not carefully controlled, threatens our national culture and identity.",{"q":493,"dist":494,"mine":7,"text":500,"block":483},15,[495,496,497,498,499],799,1473,1476,2093,2008,"National sovereignty should never be compromised by international agreements or institutions.",{"q":502,"dist":503,"mine":149,"text":509,"block":483},16,[504,505,506,507,508],1058,1332,1300,2523,1636,"We have strong moral obligations to people in other countries, not just our own citizens.",{"q":511,"dist":512,"mine":149,"text":518,"block":483},17,[513,514,515,516,517],1621,1719,1323,1997,1189,"International institutions should be able to overrule national governments when global problems demand it.",{"q":520,"dist":521,"mine":149,"text":527,"block":483},18,[522,523,524,525,526],4274,1237,1262,674,402,"The United States should strongly support Israel, including with military aid.",{"q":529,"dist":530,"mine":42,"text":535,"block":536},19,[531,532,533,499,534],1589,1521,1220,1511,"Traditional values and institutions are the foundation of a stable, healthy society.","culture",{"q":52,"dist":538,"mine":152,"text":543,"block":536},[539,540,541,421,542],3553,1512,992,880,"Religious or spiritual beliefs should play a significant role in shaping our laws and public life.",{"q":545,"dist":546,"mine":7,"text":552,"block":536},21,[547,548,549,550,551],1767,1320,1455,1581,1726,"The traditional nuclear family is the ideal structure for raising children and should be encouraged.",{"q":554,"dist":555,"mine":42,"text":561,"block":536},22,[556,557,558,559,560],1735,1758,1171,1873,1312,"Society has changed too quickly; we've lost important things by abandoning traditional norms.",{"q":563,"dist":564,"mine":159,"text":570,"block":536},23,[565,566,567,568,569],994,1743,1351,2130,1631,"Social progress requires actively challenging and dismantling traditional institutions.",{"q":572,"dist":573,"mine":152,"text":579,"block":536},24,[574,575,576,577,578],1587,1263,1118,1706,2175,"Gender roles are mostly social constructs that we should move beyond.",{"q":581,"dist":582,"mine":42,"text":588,"block":589},25,[583,584,585,586,587],2622,2823,900,822,682,"All taxation is theft—there is no legitimate way for government to take people's money.","discriminator",{"q":591,"dist":592,"mine":42,"text":598,"block":589},26,[593,594,595,596,597],1248,1042,1139,2667,1753,"Capitalism's problems can be fixed through reform; we don't need to replace the whole system.",{"q":600,"dist":601,"mine":152,"text":606,"block":589},27,[602,603,463,604,605],2736,1567,1303,1250,"My religious or spiritual beliefs are the foundation of my political views.",{"q":71,"dist":608,"mine":159,"text":614,"block":589},[609,610,611,612,613],1267,802,855,1519,3406,"Abortion should remain legal and accessible as a woman's right to choose.",{"q":616,"dist":617,"mine":149,"text":622,"block":589},29,[515,618,619,620,621],1357,1210,2104,1855,"Combating climate change is important enough to justify significant sacrifices to our economy and sovereignty.",{"q":70,"dist":624,"mine":42,"text":630,"block":589},[625,626,627,628,629],999,1409,1960,2192,1289,"Globalization has done more good than harm for ordinary people.",{"q":156,"dist":632,"mine":7,"text":157,"block":589},[633,634,635,636,637],1651,1504,1194,1590,1910,{"q":639,"dist":640,"mine":159,"text":645,"block":589},32,[641,642,473,643,644],1096,2037,1802,901,"Restricting imports to protect domestic industries does more good than harm.",{"n":647,"axes":648},433,{"liberty":649,"economic":651,"scope":653,"culture":654},{"p10":650,"p50":74,"p90":33},52,{"p10":132,"p50":652,"p90":126},78,{"p10":376,"p50":437,"p90":581},{"p10":159,"p50":529,"p90":655},44,{"place":657,"ballot":658,"comparisons":745,"statements":780},"Aurora, Colorado",{"state":659,"stateName":660,"current":661,"ballot2026":687,"ballotCaveat":146,"savedAt":744},"CO","Colorado",{"district":418,"atLarge":93,"house":662,"senate":671},[663],{"slug":664,"name":665,"party":666,"office":667,"state":659,"district":418,"atLarge":93,"stateRank":146,"senateClass":146,"portrait":668,"website":669,"phone":670},"jason-crow","Jason Crow","Democrat","us_house","https:\u002F\u002Funitedstates.github.io\u002Fimages\u002Fcongress\u002F450x550\u002FC001121.jpg","https:\u002F\u002Fcrow.house.gov","202-225-7882",[672,680],{"slug":673,"name":674,"party":666,"office":675,"state":659,"district":146,"atLarge":93,"stateRank":676,"senateClass":159,"portrait":677,"website":678,"phone":679},"michael-f-bennet","Michael F. Bennet","us_senate","senior","https:\u002F\u002Funitedstates.github.io\u002Fimages\u002Fcongress\u002F450x550\u002FB001267.jpg","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.bennet.senate.gov","202-224-5852",{"slug":681,"name":682,"party":666,"office":675,"state":659,"district":146,"atLarge":93,"stateRank":683,"senateClass":152,"portrait":684,"website":685,"phone":686},"john-w-hickenlooper","John W. Hickenlooper","junior","https:\u002F\u002Funitedstates.github.io\u002Fimages\u002Fcongress\u002F450x550\u002FH000273.jpg","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.hickenlooper.senate.gov","202-224-5941",{"district":418,"atLarge":93,"districtChanged":93,"house":688,"senate":718},{"kind":689,"pending":93,"note":146,"listStatus":690,"source":691,"candidates":695},"ballot","certified",{"url":692,"publisher":693,"retrievedAt":694},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.sos.state.co.us\u002Fpubs\u002F\u002Felections\u002Fvote\u002FgeneralCandidates.html","Colorado Secretary of State","2026-09-24T00:00:00+00:00",[696,702,705,708,711],{"name":665,"slug":664,"party":697,"partyLines":146,"incumbent":92,"withdrawn":93,"receipts":698,"cashOnHand":699,"asOf":700,"fecUrl":701},"Democratic Party",3177447.42,2707898.98,"2026-06-30","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.fec.gov\u002Fdata\u002Fcandidate\u002FH8CO06229\u002F?cycle=2026",{"name":703,"slug":146,"party":704,"partyLines":146,"incumbent":93,"withdrawn":93,"receipts":146,"cashOnHand":146,"asOf":146,"fecUrl":146},"Jason Clark","Republican Party",{"name":706,"slug":146,"party":707,"partyLines":146,"incumbent":93,"withdrawn":93,"receipts":146,"cashOnHand":146,"asOf":146,"fecUrl":146},"Patty McMahon","Libertarian Party",{"name":709,"slug":146,"party":710,"partyLines":146,"incumbent":93,"withdrawn":93,"receipts":146,"cashOnHand":146,"asOf":146,"fecUrl":146},"Meredith Ryan","Unity Party",{"name":712,"slug":146,"party":713,"partyLines":146,"incumbent":93,"withdrawn":93,"receipts":714,"cashOnHand":715,"asOf":716,"fecUrl":717},"Samir Ezzeldin Witta","Unaffiliated",103438.45,-47148.76,"2026-09-30","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.fec.gov\u002Fdata\u002Fcandidate\u002FH6CO06116\u002F?cycle=2026",{"kind":689,"pending":93,"note":146,"listStatus":690,"source":719,"candidates":720},{"url":692,"publisher":693,"retrievedAt":694},[721,726,731,737,740,742],{"name":722,"slug":146,"party":704,"partyLines":146,"incumbent":93,"withdrawn":93,"receipts":723,"cashOnHand":724,"asOf":716,"fecUrl":725},"Mark Baisley",138210.47,28159.93,"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.fec.gov\u002Fdata\u002Fcandidate\u002FS6CO00507\u002F?cycle=2026",{"name":727,"slug":681,"party":697,"partyLines":146,"incumbent":92,"withdrawn":93,"receipts":728,"cashOnHand":729,"asOf":700,"fecUrl":730},"John Hickenlooper",10285376.31,2083870.46,"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.fec.gov\u002Fdata\u002Fcandidate\u002FS0CO00575\u002F?cycle=2026",{"name":732,"slug":146,"party":733,"partyLines":146,"incumbent":93,"withdrawn":93,"receipts":734,"cashOnHand":735,"asOf":700,"fecUrl":736},"Bob Chew","Forward Party",1270007,1044358.31,"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.fec.gov\u002Fdata\u002Fcandidate\u002FS6CO00549\u002F?cycle=2026",{"name":738,"slug":146,"party":739,"partyLines":146,"incumbent":93,"withdrawn":93,"receipts":146,"cashOnHand":146,"asOf":146,"fecUrl":146},"Christopher Baum","Approval Voting Party",{"name":741,"slug":146,"party":707,"partyLines":146,"incumbent":93,"withdrawn":93,"receipts":146,"cashOnHand":146,"asOf":146,"fecUrl":146},"Blake Huber",{"name":743,"slug":146,"party":710,"partyLines":146,"incumbent":93,"withdrawn":93,"receipts":146,"cashOnHand":146,"asOf":146,"fecUrl":146},"Adam Withrow","2026-10-12",{"jason-crow":746,"john-w-hickenlooper":760,"michael-f-bennet":770},{"issues":747,"same":376,"compared":437},[748,751,752,753,754,755,756,757,758,759],{"q":149,"answer":42,"side":749,"lean":750,"match":93,"sameVotes":376,"votes":31},"agree","disagree",{"q":159,"answer":7,"side":749,"lean":750,"match":93,"sameVotes":149,"votes":418},{"q":427,"answer":7,"side":749,"lean":750,"match":93,"sameVotes":149,"votes":162},{"q":493,"answer":7,"side":749,"lean":750,"match":93,"sameVotes":376,"votes":159},{"q":502,"answer":149,"side":750,"lean":749,"match":93,"sameVotes":376,"votes":427},{"q":520,"answer":149,"side":750,"lean":749,"match":93,"sameVotes":152,"votes":7},{"q":71,"answer":159,"side":146,"lean":749,"match":146,"sameVotes":376,"votes":159},{"q":616,"answer":149,"side":750,"lean":749,"match":93,"sameVotes":376,"votes":43},{"q":156,"answer":7,"side":749,"lean":750,"match":93,"sameVotes":376,"votes":42},{"q":639,"answer":159,"side":146,"lean":750,"match":146,"sameVotes":376,"votes":42},{"issues":761,"same":152,"compared":427},[762,763,764,765,766,767,768,769],{"q":149,"answer":42,"side":749,"lean":750,"match":93,"sameVotes":376,"votes":437},{"q":159,"answer":7,"side":749,"lean":750,"match":93,"sameVotes":376,"votes":42},{"q":418,"answer":42,"side":749,"lean":749,"match":92,"sameVotes":7,"votes":437},{"q":427,"answer":7,"side":749,"lean":749,"match":92,"sameVotes":7,"votes":427},{"q":502,"answer":149,"side":750,"lean":749,"match":93,"sameVotes":376,"votes":159},{"q":520,"answer":149,"side":750,"lean":749,"match":93,"sameVotes":152,"votes":31},{"q":616,"answer":149,"side":750,"lean":749,"match":93,"sameVotes":376,"votes":418},{"q":639,"answer":159,"side":146,"lean":750,"match":146,"sameVotes":376,"votes":418},{"issues":771,"same":149,"compared":427},[772,773,774,775,776,777,778,779],{"q":149,"answer":42,"side":749,"lean":750,"match":93,"sameVotes":376,"votes":437},{"q":159,"answer":7,"side":749,"lean":750,"match":93,"sameVotes":376,"votes":42},{"q":418,"answer":42,"side":749,"lean":749,"match":92,"sameVotes":42,"votes":427},{"q":427,"answer":7,"side":749,"lean":750,"match":93,"sameVotes":376,"votes":427},{"q":502,"answer":149,"side":750,"lean":749,"match":93,"sameVotes":376,"votes":159},{"q":520,"answer":149,"side":750,"lean":749,"match":93,"sameVotes":152,"votes":31},{"q":616,"answer":149,"side":750,"lean":749,"match":93,"sameVotes":376,"votes":418},{"q":639,"answer":159,"side":146,"lean":750,"match":146,"sameVotes":376,"votes":418},[781,782,783,784,785,786,787,788,789,790,791],{"q":149,"statement":385},{"q":159,"statement":160},{"q":418,"statement":425},{"q":427,"statement":434},{"q":493,"statement":500},{"q":502,"statement":509},{"q":520,"statement":527},{"q":71,"statement":614},{"q":616,"statement":622},{"q":156,"statement":157},{"q":639,"statement":645}]