Joe Dehn

Strongly Agree

Government should not be funding any health care providers.

Agree

Suicide should be an option for the individual, and individuals should have the right to ask for assistance, and others should be able to provide such assistance, as long as it is clear that this is really the individual's choice.

I do not consider this a question to be decided by politicians. It is a decision that must be made by each family, according to their own beliefs. I understand the viewpoint that it is equivalent to murder, but this is not the consensus of society and government action must be limited to things on which there is general agreement, otherwise we create even worse problems. It is not the job of government to fix every problem. People who oppose abortion should work against it by persuasion and other peaceful means. But at the same time they should certainly not be forced to participate, even indirectly. In particular, government should not be paying for abortions using tax money, or forcing anybody to pay for them through insurance.

Strongly Disagree

Assuming the question refers to forced redistribution by government, via taxation and subsidies, then I strongly disagree. Private individuals and voluntary charities should of course be able to "redistribute" their own income or that of their donors as they choose, if they think doing that would be beneficial either to certain people or to society as a whole.

Strongly Agree

Government should cut spending both to reduce the national debt and to be able to reduce taxes.

Ideally, the entire tax code should be eliminated. Failing that, the overall level of taxation should be reduced as much as possible. I will support any proposal to reduce income tax rates across the board, or to "flatten" them by reducing the higher rates, as long as it doesn't increase taxes for any other group. I do not support any new types of taxes or surcharges on existing taxes.

Agree

Religious liberty deserves a high level of protection along with, and for the same reason as, other matters of individual choice such as freedom of speech.

Strongly Disagree

Nobody should be required to provide services that they don't want to provide, whatever the reason they don't want to provide them.

Church and state are distinct institutions that need not interfere with each other as long as each sticks to its own proper role. They should be "separate" by their very nature, without any need for ever more complicated and ridiculous laws and court decisions to define their relationship. The proper role of "church" is to organize a community of people who share religious beliefs. As part of that, they may choose to regulate their own behavior in ways that make sense to them, and they should be free to preach their beliefs to anybody else, but "church" should have no power to use force to control the lives of other people. "State", on the other hand, is all about using force to control people, and the only way we can have freedom is to put severe limits on how that force can be applied. A state that goes beyond that, and tries to dictate beliefs or morality, is in effect becoming a kind of church. A church that goes beyond guiding its own members and preaching to outsiders and that tries to control everybody is in effect trying to become a state. If neither acts that way - no problem.

Government should not be allowed to require vaccinations. Private employers and private schools should be allowed to require vaccinations as they see fit, as a condition of employment or attendance. Some people would prefer to work or send their children to school where everybody is vaccinated. Others don't consider that important or consider it an unreasonable imposition on their own choices. Allowing different employers and schools to have different policies about vaccination is a way to satisfy workers and families with different preferences in this regard.

The choice that most closely matches my view is "D", but I would put it more generally: Government should not be involved at all with providing, funding, or regulating health care or health insurance.

The United States should stay out of conflicts between foreign countries or within foreign countries (civil wars). The purpose of the US military should be to protect the people living in the United States from attack by foreign powers.

Strongly Disagree

Agree

It is not useful in a case like the PRC to distinguish between the "party" and the "state". Because they are so intertwined, either could be equally considered to be posing any particular type of "threat". However, not all of the types of "threats" mentioned call for the same kind of response. For example, military threats are appropriately met by defensive military forces, while "economic threats" that do not involve the use of force are best dealt with by market processes.

It is impossible to entirely eliminate the possibility of "terrorism". With respect to Islamic terrorism in particular, the United States can reduce the risk in several ways. (1) Stop trying to be "policeman of the world" -- Muslims have been fighting each other for centuries and there is no practical way for us to impose peace among them. (2) Stop supporting Islamic dictatorships -- these countries cannot be true "allies" of the United States because their governments do not share our basic values. (3) Decentralize our own government and economy so that there are fewer attractive targets against which Islamic terrorists can take effective action.

Disagree

Choose not to answer

State and federal funds should only be used for legitimate functions of the state or federal government, so they shouldn't be going to other public or private entities at all. On the other hand, current immigration policies are counterproductive and unjust, so they are not in themselves a reason to deny funding to anybody. A proper immigration policy would not require "compliance" by either local governments or private entities.

Anyone who is willing and able to live a peaceful life, earning their own way, to make a better future for themselves or their families, should be welcome in the United States.

Strongly Disagree

There should not be "protected classes". Government should only be defending the rights of people as individuals, and these rights should be the same for all individuals regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Strongly Disagree

The personal religious views of candidates for public office only matter if they intend to impose them on other people. I do not want government to be imposing any beliefs or rules on anybody, other than that they respect the life, liberty, and property of their neighbors.

Choose not to answer

It is reasonable to have mechanisms that ensure that only those qualified to vote in a particular election do so, and that the same person does not vote more than once. But what particular form of identification is appropriate or necessary is an implementation detail, and is not a matter that should be decided by the federal government.

In our federal system, voting is a matter handled by the states and controlled by state law, so I would not be inclined to propose changes related to most aspects of voting practices in my role as a member of Congress. I would however propose elimination of federal laws governing campaign finance.

Strongly Disagree

Racism can certainly be a cause for interpersonal conflict, but it does not have to be a "threat to domestic security" in general. Most Americans are accepting of differences, and have no desire to actually cause harm to people of other races. By most measures relations among the races have been getting better with time without government intervention, and some attempts by government to "fix" this problem have, regardless of good intentions, as a practical matter, backfired. Racism is still a problem in some ways, but it is not the job of government to fix every problem! Other institutions can do a better job than government in addressing this issue. Government should stick with enforcing laws that apply equally to every individual regardless of race.

Agree

Government should not prohibit this or other methods of resource extraction. Whether it is appropriate in a particular case is something that should be decided by the owners of the land involved. However, as with anything else that could have an effect on the property of others, those who engage in resource extraction should be held responsible for damage they cause to the owners of other property.

The concept of "the environment" is too broad to be able to answer this question for laws and regulations generally. There are cases of environmental regulation that have economic costs significantly in excess of their benefit, and it is too easy for such laws to be enacted without taking into account those costs, because those drafting the laws and imposing the regulations do not have to bear those costs directly. On the other hand, there are practices which, via "the environment", impose costs on others which are not adequately addressed by current legal mechanisms. As much as possible, what is done with natural resources, such as land and water, should be regulated by a system of property rights, which would allow the owners of such property to determine the appropriate balance of cost and benefit in each case.

Choose not to answer

I do not consider myself to be either a "liberal" or a "conservative" as those terms are used today in mainstream political media, which appears to be the sense in which you are using them in asking this question. I share positions on some specific issues with many who label themselves "liberal" and on others with many who call themselves "conservative", but my positions are based on a distinct political philosophy that cannot be properly labeled with either term.

I am a member of the Libertarian Party, which has a consistent Statement of Principles that has remained unchanged for almost 50 years, and which is the basis for our Platform, both of which can be found at: "https://www.lp.org/platform/". For additional information easily available to the public see the presentations of the libertarian political philosophy at "https://www.libertarianism.org/what-is-a-libertarian" and "https://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/".

No.

I am a square dancer, and I believe square dancing is a great activity. Therefore, my legislative priorities will be (1) a bill to require all adults to learn square dancing by the year 2024, (2) a bill to direct the Department of Education to make square dancing part of "Common Core" so that everybody in the country is forced to learn it in school, and (3) a bill requiring everybody over the age of 10 to attend a square dance at least once a week. YES, THAT'S A JOKE. Except for the part about being a square dancer -- I really am a square dancer, and I do recommend that people try it. But that should be THEIR choice. Government should NOT be running schools, should NOT be dictating what is taught in schools, and should NOT be deciding what people do with their time, money, and lives. If you consider the idea of government requiring YOU to be a square dancer to be crazy and absurd -- well, that's exactly how libertarians see most of what government has become today!

Strongly Disagree

Every individual should be held responsible for his or her own actions. Departmental policies are at best general guidelines, the violation of which may be a reason in itself for discipline or prosecution, but which do not absolve the individual officer from responsibility for violating the fundamental rights of others, including criminal suspects, crime victims, and innocent bystanders.

Disagree

Tax support for police departments is only justified to the extent that it is actually being used to protect the rights of citizens against the actions of criminals. Any funds not needed for that purpose should be returned to the taxpayers, not transferred to other government programs.

Restrictions on gun ownership do not necessarily protect public safety -- they can prevent people from having guns they could use to protect themselves, their families, and others.

Strongly Disagree