Question bank

No one should fall below a dignified standard of living

Even if this requires substantial redistribution from those who have more to those who have less.

→ Collective Provision(−1.0)

People should keep what they earn and exchange freely

Even if this means some people will have far more than others and some will struggle.

→ Market Allocation (+1.0)

The state should provide essential services as universal public goods

Healthcare, housing, and education funded through taxation — because markets will always leave some people behind.

→ Collective Provision(−1.0)

Essential services work better through competing private providers

The state's role should be limited to helping those who truly cannot help themselves.

→ Market Allocation (+1.0)

When an industry fails, the state should intervene to protect workers

Nationalizing the industry if necessary to protect workers and communities from devastation.

→ Collective Provision(−1.0)

When an industry fails, the state should let it fail

Propping up unviable enterprises delays necessary adaptation and wastes resources.

→ Market Allocation (+1.0)

There are hard limits to how much humanity can produce and consume

A responsible society must learn to thrive within ecological boundaries, even if this means less material wealth.

→ Ecological Limits(−1.0)

Human ingenuity always finds ways to do more with less

The path to sustainability runs through innovation and growth, not through accepting scarcity.

→ Growth Imperative (+1.0)

GDP growth is a misleading measure of genuine progress

Economic policy should be evaluated primarily by whether it maintains or restores ecological health.

→ Ecological Limits(−1.0)

Economic growth is the most reliable way to fund environmental protection

Shrinking the economy would make every problem — including environmental ones — harder to solve.

→ Growth Imperative (+1.0)

Phase out a profitable but destructive industry, even without a replacement

Continued environmental damage will ultimately cost more than the economic disruption of transition.

→ Ecological Limits(−1.0)

Invest in making a destructive industry cleaner rather than shutting it down

Abrupt economic disruption harms the very people environmentalism claims to protect.

→ Growth Imperative (+1.0)

The people closest to a problem are best positioned to solve it

Governance should be as local as possible, with power flowing upward only when absolutely necessary.

→ Distributed Governance(−1.0)

A strong central authority ensures uniform standards and fairness

Local governance produces inconsistency, duplication, and inequality between regions.

→ Centralized Governance (+1.0)

Different regions should be free to set their own laws on most matters

Even if this means neighboring regions have very different rules on the same issues.

→ Distributed Governance(−1.0)

A nation's laws should be uniform across all its territory

Allowing regions to diverge creates confusion, inequality, and undermines national identity.

→ Centralized Governance (+1.0)

When a community and the national government disagree, the community should prevail

For example, blocking infrastructure that benefits the nation but disrupts the local community.

→ Distributed Governance(−1.0)

When a community and the national government disagree, the nation should prevail

Individual communities cannot be allowed to block projects that benefit the broader population.

→ Centralized Governance (+1.0)

The collective wisdom of ordinary people is the most trustworthy guide

Lived experience and common sense outweigh the theories of credentialed experts who are often disconnected from reality.

→ Popular Sovereignty(−1.0)

Modern governance is too complex for popular intuition alone

Societies are better served when policy is shaped by people with deep specialized knowledge, even when their conclusions are unpopular.

→ Institutional Authority (+1.0)

Major decisions should be put directly to the population through referenda

Elected officials and bureaucrats should implement the people's will, not substitute their own judgment.

→ Popular Sovereignty(−1.0)

Major decisions should be made by representatives advised by experts

Direct popular votes on complex technical issues produce worse outcomes than informed deliberation.

→ Institutional Authority (+1.0)

When science and public opinion conflict, follow the public

In a society that serves its people, the people's values must take precedence over any expert recommendation.

→ Popular Sovereignty(−1.0)

When science and public opinion conflict, follow the science

Governing well sometimes means making decisions that are unpopular because they are correct.

→ Institutional Authority (+1.0)

Better that some threats go undetected

Protecting ordinary people's privacy is more important than giving the state the power to catch every dangerous individual.

→ Liberty(−1.0)

Better that people sacrifice some privacy

Preventing catastrophic harm is more important than preserving the absolute privacy of every individual's communications.

→ Security (+1.0)

Constitutional rights should be nearly absolute, even during emergencies

A state that suspends rights under pressure will always find new reasons to keep them suspended.

→ Liberty(−1.0)

Constitutional rights must be balanced against the duty to protect

A state that cannot act decisively when threatened will not survive to protect anyone's rights.

→ Security (+1.0)

Refuse broad surveillance even if it could prevent rare catastrophic attacks

The certainty of mass privacy violation outweighs the possibility of preventing harm.

→ Liberty(−1.0)

Authorize broad surveillance if it could prevent rare catastrophic attacks

The duty to prevent catastrophic loss of life outweighs the cost to individual privacy.

→ Security (+1.0)

The freedom to elect your leaders is sacred, even when the people choose poorly

A government that was not chosen through fair, competitive elections is never fully legitimate, no matter how well it performs.

→ Electoral Process(−1.0)

Results are what matter, regardless of how leaders were selected

A government that delivers prosperity, safety, and effective services is legitimate regardless of how its leaders were selected.

→ Performance Outcomes (+1.0)

Always maintain elections and free press, even when they slow things down

The process of choosing is more important than the quality of who is chosen.

→ Electoral Process(−1.0)

Structure society to identify and empower the most capable leaders

The quality of governance matters more than the method of selecting governors.

→ Performance Outcomes (+1.0)

An elected government that fails is still more legitimate than an unelected one that succeeds

Legitimacy is about consent, not outcomes.

→ Electoral Process(−1.0)

An unelected government that delivers is more legitimate than an elected one that fails

People need good governance more than they need to have chosen their governors.

→ Performance Outcomes (+1.0)

Inherited institutions should be continuously re-examined and reformed

What was once accepted is not automatically worth preserving — new knowledge demands new norms.

→ Progressive Change(−1.0)

Inherited institutions represent accumulated wisdom tested by time

They should not be discarded simply because they conflict with contemporary fashions in thought.

→ Continuity and Tradition (+1.0)

When evidence shows a practice causes harm, the state should change it

Laws and norms should evolve as society's understanding evolves.

→ Progressive Change(−1.0)

Rapid reform risks destroying structures before their value is understood

Slow, cautious change prevents unintended consequences that cause more harm than the original problem.

→ Continuity and Tradition (+1.0)

No tradition justifies restricting a person's fundamental rights

When cultural practices conflict with individual equality and autonomy, the practice should give way.

→ Progressive Change(−1.0)

A longstanding practice may serve functions that aren't immediately visible

Imposing abstract principles on living communities often backfires — proceed with great caution.

→ Continuity and Tradition (+1.0)

Many distinct traditions make a society stronger

The state should actively protect and accommodate cultural diversity rather than pressing everyone toward a single mold.

→ Pluralism(−1.0)

Shared identity makes a society stronger

The state should cultivate common values and reference points rather than institutionalizing permanent division along group lines.

→ Cohesion (+1.0)

Provide public services in multiple languages and recognize diverse practices

Ensure all cultural communities can maintain their distinct identities while participating fully in civic life.

→ Pluralism(−1.0)

Establish a common civic culture and shared civic norms for all residents

Public institutions should unite people around what they have in common, not formalize their differences.

→ Cohesion (+1.0)

The receiving society should adapt to include newcomers

Making space for immigrants' languages, traditions, and cultural practices in schools, workplaces, and public life.

→ Pluralism(−1.0)

Newcomers should make the primary effort to adapt

Learning the common language, adopting local civic norms, and integrating into the existing cultural fabric.

→ Cohesion (+1.0)

Most of "human nature" is shaped by culture and is changeable

Differences in behavior between groups are shaped by culture, upbringing, and social structures. Change the structures, change the outcomes.

→ Constructivism(−1.0)

Human nature is durable and policy must work within it

Social structures that ignore biological and historical realities — however well-intentioned — will fail.

→ Essentialism (+1.0)

Persistent underrepresentation points to structural barriers to dismantle

The goal of governance should be to equalize outcomes by removing barriers.

→ Constructivism(−1.0)

Different outcomes may reflect genuine differences in preferences and priorities

The goal of governance should be to equalize access and opportunity, then accept the outcomes that emerge.

→ Essentialism (+1.0)

The right education system can reshape society within a generation

If children are raised in the right environment with the right values, most social problems can be solved.

→ Constructivism(−1.0)

Education improves lives but can't fundamentally reshape human nature

Expecting schools to engineer a new kind of person places an impossible burden on them.

→ Essentialism (+1.0)

The biggest challenges require pooling sovereignty across nations

States must accept binding international agreements even when they impose costs — climate change, pandemics, and instability don't respect borders.

→ Internationalism(−1.0)

A nation's first duty is to its own citizens, not international bodies

Binding agreements inevitably transfer power to distant institutions that aren't accountable to the people they affect.

→ Sovereignty (+1.0)

International bodies should have real authority to enforce agreements

Without enforcement mechanisms, international cooperation is meaningless.

→ Internationalism(−1.0)

International bodies should advise but never bind sovereign nations

Enforcement power that supersedes national law is a threat to self-determination.

→ Sovereignty (+1.0)

Accept disproportionate costs in a climate agreement if your nation caused more harm

Global responsibility means accepting unequal burdens when you contributed more to the problem.

→ Internationalism(−1.0)

Reject disproportionate costs and negotiate for equal treatment

Accepting unequal burdens sets a precedent that undermines national interests.

→ Sovereignty (+1.0)

Military force almost always causes more suffering than it prevents

The history of foreign intervention is overwhelmingly one of unintended consequences and prolonged instability.

→ Non-Interventionism(−1.0)

Military strength is essential to maintaining peace and deterring aggression

A world where aggressive states face no consequences is more dangerous than one where capable nations enforce order.

→ Interventionism (+1.0)

A nation should maintain only enough military for self-defense

Foreign conflicts are not your nation's responsibility — never deploy forces beyond your own borders.

→ Non-Interventionism(−1.0)

A capable nation should project military force to defend allies and uphold norms

Defending allies, protecting trade routes, and deterring aggression are legitimate uses of military power.

→ Interventionism (+1.0)

Even to stop atrocities abroad, respond with diplomacy — not military force

Military intervention violates sovereignty and historically creates more problems than it solves.

→ Non-Interventionism(−1.0)

When diplomacy fails to stop atrocities, capable nations must intervene militarily

Sovereignty does not include the right to massacre your own people.

→ Interventionism (+1.0)

Don't deploy powerful technology until the risks are well understood

Some harms, once done, cannot be undone — caution is the only responsible default.

→ Precautionary(−1.0)

Move forward and correct problems as they emerge

Excessive caution has costs too — delay itself causes suffering by withholding solutions to known problems.

→ Innovation-First (+1.0)

Innovators must prove their technology is safe before deployment

The burden of proof falls on developers, just as it does for pharmaceutical companies.

→ Precautionary(−1.0)

Those who want to restrict technology must prove it's dangerous

Innovation should proceed by default — regulation should respond to demonstrated harms.

→ Innovation-First (+1.0)

Don't deploy AI in government if its reasoning can't be explained

Decisions affecting people's lives must be made through processes that can be understood and challenged.

→ Precautionary(−1.0)

Deploy AI in government even if its reasoning isn't fully transparent

The quality of outcomes matters more than whether the process is transparent, especially if the alternative is worse human decision-making.

→ Innovation-First (+1.0)