Alex Peak

Whig vs. Federalist Quiz

Click Here to Take the Quiz

My Answers

What is your interpretation of the Second Amendment?

The right to bear arms gives every citizen the right to possess firearms and the government has no right to infringe upon that right either by banning certain guns or regulating the sale of arms.
The right to bear arms and "well-regulated militia" means that the government reserves the right to prohibit sales to certain people (such as felons) and keep certain guns off the market. That said, the government must make reasonable accomodations to allow private ownership and handling of guns.
We must understand that it was a different nation when the Second Amendment was written. While reasonable accomodations must be made for gun ownership for neutral purposes such as hunting, we are free to regulate them as we wish. For instance, we can require registration or that the guns be kept as a secure location where their owners can sign them out.
The Second Amendment said "well-regulated militia" purely in reference to the right of individual states to have militias. They do and nothing more is constitutionally required.

Do you believe that we should every man, woman, and child should be given health insurance, by the government if necessary?

Absolutely not. The free market has made our health care system the best in the world. The market's incentives to serve better and cheaper means better healthcare for everyone.
So long as we are assured that immediate crucial medical services are provided to those without insurance, I don't see a need for the federal government to make costly guarantees for all services. That will only raise the bar for what the federal government is supposed to provide, which will inevitably include unnecessary medications that people will try out because they're free.
No child should be left without health insurance so that their parents can afford such necessities as medication and corrective lenses and so forth. Health insurance should be made available at a reasonable cost to adults.
Lack of health insurance for anyone is unforgivable in an industrialized society.

Do you believe that "supply-side" economics, the reduction of taxes to the wealthy so that the money falls downward to the less fortunate in the purchase of goods and services, is effective?

Yes. A healthy upper-class spurs invention because new products are only available to the wealthy. As more people are able to buy it, the costs go down and eventually nearly everyone can afford it (think color TVs). In addition to that, when left with more of their own money, they can afford to hire more people, thus creating lower employment and higher productivity.
I understand the principles of supply-side economics and, for the most part, believe them to be good for the economy. However, we also must keep in mind that lower taxes in the middle and lower classes can also prove beneficial.
I'm not sold. It seems to me if the object is to pump money into the economy, giving to the poor is probably more effective since they are more likely to spend the money.
The entire notion is built on the belief that the rich are more deserving of their money than the poor are. Most of the wealthy are the products of wealthy homes and if we allow them to keep their wealth, the unfortunate cycle continues.

What is your opinion on smokers' rights?

It is a free country and that freedom means the right to make decisions not everyone approves of. Laws banning smoking are an attempt to marginalize a portion of society that makes unpopular decisions.
Property rights, property rights, property rights. If an establishment wishes to ban smoking on its property, that's within their rights. It is also within the right of the government to ban smoking on government land, though I don't necessarily support that in spirit. Passing laws telling them what they can and cannot do on their own property, however, is clearly wrong.
Smoking is an ugly habit and while people have the right to make poor decisions, there is no right for their poor decisions to pollute the air of people who just want to grab a bite to eat. I believe that the government should ban smoking in all public places (bars, restaurants, etc.) and should look in to banning it in public entirely. If people want to smoke in their own house, however, that's their right.
Smoking kills umpteen bazillion people a year. It should be considered an illegal drug and banned.

Do you believe that large corporations are beneficial or harmful to society?

Beneficial. They make things better, faster, cheaper, and more widely available.
As long as their is healthy competition, I believe they are a net good to society. Beware monopolies, but allow successful companies to flourish.
Large corporations can contribute to our daily lives, but more often they lower wages, harm the environment, and prevent innovation.
Large corporations are indicative of capitalism's tendency to alienate the working class from their product. When people work on an assembly line, they are demoralized by a lack of sense of accomplishment. Frankly, we've lost touch with ourselves in the perpetual desire to make more money for the next guy.

The President has recently proposed that the government-collected list of so-called "hypersapiens" (those with non-traditional physical and mental abilities to fly, change shape, and so on) that were compiled in the 1970's on first and second-hand reports, be unsealed to identify those who use their abilities to commit criminal activity. Do you agree with The President?

Strongly disagree. The list was unconstitutional to begin with and President Holt did not go far enough. He should have had the records destroyed.
Whether the President chooses to unseal the records or not, it's unlikely to make much of a difference. The list was compiled nearly thirty years ago and it was largely self-selecting and based on second-hand reports, analogous to charges of witchcraft in the 17th century. The only result unsealing the records would have is to persecute those on the list, whether they deserved to be or not.
Those that came forward did so on good faith and other reports are somewhat unreliable, so the records should be treated with care. However, if crimes can be prevented by using the records, we should use them.
Sealing the records was insane. Hypers are inherently a threat to society and while I don't approve of persecuting them for no good reason, their powers constitute enough of a threat that we must be able to identify them.

A leading genetics firm has asked for a grant by the federal government to run experiments on hypersapiens in order to determine where their abilities come from and whether or not it's possible to prevent them from occuring in the future. They plan to only run tests on subjects that voluntarily submit to them and have made assurances that the tests will be safe. Should the government give the company this grant?

Absolutely not. This is nothing more than a dressed up attempt by fundamentalists and anti-hypers in order to find a "cure" for the powers so that they can persecute what they do not understand. Such "research" should be banned.
I don't believe it is the governments business to afford research for private experimentation. Further, with federal funding the experiments will only make the discoveries that the government wants it to.
How much is this going to cost? My answer to the question lies almost solely on that figure.
This is necessary if we are ever going to be able to get a handle on the hyper situation. It will actually be good for the hypers because if we can "turn off" the powers of the miscreants, we can let the rest live in peace.
Hypers continued existence presents endless problems from athletics to business. As long as the rest of us are born normal, we cannot live equally with people that have significant physical and mental enhancements.

Do you believe that hypersapiens ought to be afforded the same protections presently granted to ethnic minorities under the fourteenth amendment?

While the Constitution did not specifically grant hypersapiens the same protections, the "equal protection" portion can be assumed to apply to those of any genetically different Americans so, of course, it would apply to them as well.
The Constitution does not take a position on hypersapiens and a Constitutional Amendment granting them such protections is called for. Absent that, laws need to be passed to assure their full protection as American citizens.
Since the Constitution did not address the issue specifically, they are not Constitutionally protected. While we should strive to treat them equally, we must also take into account the increased danger they pose to society. If a superpowered being with the ability to shape change or make himself invisible were to be granted bail, for instance, they could be impossible to track down.
Are you crazy? While I don't advocate rounding them all up, we must err on the side of caution and treat criminal actions by these threats considerably more harshly than those by their powerless contemporaries.

Which of the following do you consider yourself (check more than one as they apply)?

Socially conservative.
Socially liberal.
Economic libertarian (low or no taxes).
Economic egalitarian (higher taxes, active government).
European socialist.
Libertine or Post-Modern.
Extremely traditional.

My Results

Radical Whig