Tea Party politics, LisB's post on Sentrism, and Doc Cleveland's assertion that there is no center, all make me think back to my introduction to the Libertarian movement. In the early 1990s, Dave, a coworker, was telling me about being a Libertarian. The term wasn't entirely new to me, but I had only met self-professed liberals and conservatives before then, and never felt entirely at home in either camp. Dave sketched out a chart with two axes, one of which was strong vs weak government control of business, the other was strong vs weak government control of individuals. As Dave described it, neither liberals nor conservatives were consistent about the influence of government. Conservatives wanted a government that regulated what you could do in bed, but that didn't regulate the company that made the mattress. Liberals wanted the opposite. Dave wanted a government that left him and his business alone as much as possible.

Dave was sketching the Nolan Chart, published in 1971 by David Nolan, a founder of the Libertarian Party (but not my coworker Dave). Libertarianism seems to have gelled in the dissatisfaction with both the Vietnam War draft and Nixon's suspension of the gold standard, and Nolan's chart was similar to other analyses that were being discussed at the time. One striking aspect of the chart is that Nolan sets libertarians away from center, which means that they accept that they are extremists. Another is that centrists are just as balanced with respect to government as libertarians - they simply favor, or accept, more government in their lives than do libertarians.

SciFi author Jerry Pournelle did his own version as well:



In the years since I have seen both print and internet versions of Nolan and similar political spectrum charts with quizzes that place you somewhere in the field. There are even three dimensional charts. On one of my posts one libertarian commenter accused me of being a statist, but I usually end up either a centrist, or slightly left of centrist in the liberal quadrant.

I took this short version last nigh , which puts me to the left of centrism. I found this Enhanced-Precision version this morning, but I guess I'm getting crankier because in most of the categories there was no choice that really expresses my feelings. In many cases I just held my nose and chose something. Nevertheless, that version pegs me as a centrist, or at least the libertarian conception of a centrist.

The Enhanced-Precision Political Quiz

Spending - 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)?

1-NO! Government is too small. There are vital programs that are under-funded.
2-No. Government is about the right size.
3-Yes. Cut by 10-20% (eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse...).
4-Yes! Cut significantly, 30-40%.
5-Yes! Cut spending roughly in half.
6-YES! Cut 70% or more. (The rightful function of government is to protect our borders and enforce laws protecting life, liberty and property.)
7-YES!! Taxation is theft! Government should be run from voluntary contributions and user fees only.

Oh, if only we could eliminate waste, fraud and abuse, I could gladly choose #3 for a smaller, more efficient government. If only the open market, sanitation companies for instance, was as free a market as claimed, we could rely on for profit services.

Censorship - 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?

1-Yes! The government should own the air waves. We need a system like the BBC.
2-Yes. We need less sex, less violence, and/or more "educational" TV.
3-Yes. The current level of FCC power is about right.
4-No. Let broadcasters choose content and format. Only require that they scramble the really rude stuff.
5-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.

I'm not much for censorship, but as Amy Goodman noted, the problem in MSM broadcasting is self-censorship of important stories, not censorship of what Howard Stern spews. I guess that puts me between #4 and #5.

Subsidies - 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?

1-Yes! It is high time that the US implement an Industrial Policy, guiding industries to our national purpose.
2-Yes. The Freedom to Farm act and free trade with Mexico have hurt too many workers. Repeal them.
3-Some. The current amount of support for distressed industries is about right.
4-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.
5-NO! Giving taxpayer money to favored industries is theft, pure and simple! Eliminate all subsidies, quotas and protective tariffs.

While I oppose certain subsidies, no-bid contracts, etc., I do believe that it is up to government to institute and maintain infrastructure, and to fund basic research. I frankly had a hard time finding any nuance among these choices.

Sex - 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?

1-Yes! It is time to actually enforce laws against sex out of wedlock and certain "deviant" acts.
2-Yes. Time to enforce the laws against certain "deviant" acts.
3-Yes. Time to enforce the laws against sex out of wedlock.
4-Well, keep current sodomy and fornication laws on the books to make a statement, but don't enforce them.
5-No. Sodomy and fornication laws are unenforceable and obsolete. Take them off the books.
6-NO! The government has no right to regulate sex between consenting adults. Take all such laws off the books, including laws against prostitution.

#6 makes sense to me, but I think that legal prostitution entails very close regulation.

Guns - 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?

1-NO! Private gun ownership is too dangerous. (The 2nd Amendment is an obsolete relic from frontier days.)
2-No. Ban private handguns. Carefully control hunting weapons.
3-OK, but require registration and background checks.
4-Yes. Legal handguns actually prevent crime, save lives, and give women equality. (And registration requirements are a dangerous slippery slope.)
5-YES! Private MILITARY arms are the last bastion against tyranny. (And gun registration is a dangerous slippery slope)

I'm for #3, registration and background checks, hopefully done better than presently. I'm also for shall-issue and concealed carry, but only for open carry in rural areas.

Drugs - 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?

1-YES! And we need to redouble our efforts! More life sentences! More mandatory drug tests! More no-knock warrants!
2-Yes! Continue on our present course.
3-Well yes, but obey the Constitution. Repeal civil asset forfeiture and/or lessen some of the more outrageous punishments.
4-No. Legalize the safer drugs such as marijuana. Tax and regulate them like liquor.
5-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.)

I am only a few persons removed from stories of abuse of alcohol, meth and heroin, so just legalizing everything makes no sense to me. I have qualms about marijuana, because although it is probably no worse than alcohol, that's not saying much.

Education - 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?

1-NO! We need to extend the public schools to day care and college.
2-No. We need continued government ownership of schools. (Reform is possible.)
3-Yes. Replace government-owned schools with government-provided vouchers for everyone.
4-Yes! Government vouchers for the poor only. (Let the middle and upper classes write their own checks.)
5-YES! Complete separation of education and state. (Let churches and other charities educate the poor.)

Genghis's discussion of the rise of private schools in response to desegregation comes to mind. I'm in favor of public schools, with charters and home schooling for those who can't abide them. But no vouchers.

Immigration - 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?

1-Illegal immigration is a serious problem. Institute a national ID for everyone.
2-Illegal immigration is a serious problem, but the solution is more border patrol and/or use of the military to guard the borders better.
3-Keep the current system more or less.
4-Keep the immigration quotas but keep our Constitutional rights also. Eliminate the proof of legal residency requirement to get a job.
5-Immigrants are a blessing to this country. Open the gates! Just require that they pay their own way.

None of these make much sense to me. Sounds like the real question here is the national ID. I suspect that if employers couldn't exploit illegals, they'd be less anxious to hire them. But everyone wants to focus on the immigrants.

Workplace - 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?

1-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.
2-Yes! Workplace equality has not yet been achieved. Clearly more action is required.
3-Yes. About what it is now. (Sure, some of the lawsuits are ridiculous, but it takes dire threats to bring certain employers into line.)
4-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.
5-NO! Hiring and working should be purely voluntary activities. (The marketplace will punish discriminators.)

Are there no workhouses?

Draft - 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?

1-Everyone should have the experience of two years of "National Service" (can be non-military).
2-No draft now, but keep draft registration.
3-Under extreme circumstances a draft could be acceptable. However, we do not need draft registration now.
4-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.
5-The draft is slavery and therefore morally unacceptable. A country that needs a draft to defend itself deserves to lose.

Young people are joining the service because there are no other jobs, so we have a de facto draft of the unemployed anyway.

Retirement - 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?

1-NO! All we have to do is start investing the Social Security trust fund in the stock market.
2-NO! Raise taxes as necessary when the baby boomers retire.
3-No, but pay down the national debt now, before the baby boomers retire.
4-Some. Ramp up the retirement age so the average number of years for receiving government checks is brought back down to 5.
5-Yes. Replace Social Security with a purely aged-based MINIMUM income (comparable to current minimum Social Security payouts) funded out of general revenues.
6-Yes. Replace Social Security with a forced savings plan for the young.
7-YES! Complete separation of retirement and state. Let people plan their own retirement.

Although a lot of people have been predicting its demise, I'm not convinced that SS is necessarily a "rotten deal." It is hard to select #4 when older people are struggling to stay employed until a slowly increasing retirement age.