I'm just not a huge fan of the theoretical nature of these. For example, the questions: "the very existence of the state is a threat to liberty" and "government surveillance is necessary to protect liberty" (paraphrased) aren't contradictory, in my eyes. Maybe the notion of a state is antithetical to some abstract notion of liberty, but in the parameters of libery as defined by a state's laws and constitution, government intervention in markets or surveillance of its people, or military activity in foreign conflicts may contribute to the security and liberty of the state's citizenry. Sometimes they may not. I understand that these are supposed
to be theoretical, but it's hard answering these questions when, for almost every single one, I recognize multiple hypothetical and real examples for which I'd agree or disagree.
Oh for fuck's sake.