My personal stance is that abortion should be allowed when a doctor feels, under the Hippocratic Oath, that it is in the best interest to "do no harm", that it will save the life of the mother, and in cases of rape or incest. It should never be used as a way to avoid the consequences of a regretted choice to engage in consensual sexual activities. However, I think at the end of the day, my personal stance on abortion shouldn't be the main talking point. I think the better talking point is whether or not the government should be involved in such a nuanced and difficult choice. I think all abortions are a tragedy, but the only thing that can make them worse is government involvement, government red tape, and political power-grabbing. I want to live in a world where there are no abortions. And the only route I see toward that world is one where the government gets out of the way and allows the free market and the re-establishment of traditional familial values to do their work in our communities.

Strongly Agree

Taxpayers should not be funding abortions. There are very few things that taxpayers should be funding. Abortions, when provided, should be at a reasonable cost through private practices working in a free market.

Neutral

I am generally opposed to putting any new legislation on the books, but this issue is a tricky one. I believe that we should do no harm to others and infringe upon their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But to what extent can we infringe upon their right to death? I see benefits to considering this further and creating strict controls for such practices, but suspect our current governmental system lacks the efficiency and capability to put such controls into practice.

Strongly Disagree

In a free market system, individuals and businesses should be free to refuse service to anyone for any reason. If they are doing so out of bigotry or bullying, the free market system would result in boycotts and the court of public opinion would shut down such businesses more readily than any governmental influence ever could.

I can think of no circumstances where the government can rightfully close churches. If there is any sort of criminal activity occurring in tangent to a church, then the criminal activity can certainly be pursued and prosecuted, but under no circumstance should the church itself be subject to government interference. Even in the case of health emergencies, it is up to the individual to determine whether they should meet in groups.

Stop meddling in foreign affairs and focus on internal strength and defense. Islamic terrorism is largely a threat of our own creation due to mishandling of foreign affairs. Instead of escalating and continuing down a path leading to our own destruction, we should work to increase our security and our capabilities here at home. I don't think the threat can be truly eradicated, certainly not by behaving as we always have. Rather, we should relinquish our pseudo-colonialism grip on so many foreign nations and do our best to minimize the damages we have already done.

Disagree

I do not support the BDS movement. I do not think that it will have the desired effect, and I generally feel that the best foreign policy is to stay out of foreign policy, especially while we have such a mess to clean up at home. However, I do think that private boycotts and private sanctions are the preferred method to put pressures on any business or other enterprise that one disagrees with. So, while I disagree with the sentiment, I agree with the method.

D. While perhaps well-intentioned, at least by the citizens voting in support of these programs, government-run healthcare programs have proven to be horribly ineffective and inept, as are the majority of government programs. Privately funded, un-subsidized healthcare programs allowed to exist in a free market, along with more transparency and options in the healthcare sector overall, is the best way to drive down healthcare costs and drive up healthcare innovation and capability. Our current health care system is heavily regulated, and this red tape is one of the principle drivers of the massive increase of health care costs over the last several decades. Similar fields, like cosmetic surgeries, that are allowed to take a more free market approach have not seen the spike in prices that traditional health care has over the same time frame. This is why I support getting the government as far out of the health care market as we feasibly can.

There is no circumstance in which a government should be allowed to require vaccinations. Private schools and employers may be permitted to require vaccinations, and should be equally free to not require them. Ideally these decisions would be based on the method and rate of contagion, and the potential of damage caused by the disease, and tempered appropriately. At which point, a free market would allow for citizens to choose their employers, schools, and other places of business. People may choose to patronize restaurants, stores, etc. that require vaccinations in a way that they support.

The only acceptable tax code would be a flat, easily understood tax. If the entirety of the tax code can't be easily explained to someone with a high school education, using only a few hours of their time, then it is unnecessarily complex. Our current tax code, particularly at the federal level, is so bloated with incentives and write-offs and insane complications that many people feel the need to hire a professional to understand it on their behalf and attempt to navigate it in an attempt to relieve the heavy burden. It becomes a game of who can hide their money from the government the best, and the rich, who are in the position to hire the best accountants, come up on top. Because of that, I support more or less abolishing the current tax code. I see income tax as a deterrent to a willingness to work, property tax as an infringement on property rights, and sales tax, particularly on groceries and health essentials like medicine and hygiene products, as taking advantage of citizens' rights to life. Particularly in arenas where the government has done nothing to "earn" a share of a profit, such as in a private sale of goods between private citizens, I see no reason why the government should receive a portion of the profit. I would encourage taxation be limited to tariffs and non-essential opt-in activities, such as the sale of alcohol, cannabis, and a state lottery. Particularly at federal and statewide levels. Smaller communities such as counties and municipalities, where the representatives are more directly accountable to the people they tax, should be expected to determine what type of taxation best fits the needs of their areas, to ensure the well-being of the community. However, even in these small communities, many of the concerns currently attempted to be resolved through government influence and taxpayer funds are likely better resolved through private companies in an unhindered free market.

There's no government spending that I wouldn't consider on the chopping block - I have no sacred cows when it comes to spending. Most governmental spending is done to buy votes and goodwill, and not to actually improve the lives of taxpayers. All current government spending should be highly scrutinized, and the majority of it should be done away with so that more adept private companies can take over the job. I know this sounds extreme and dramatic, and I don't mean to say that it should be done haphazardly and without care to minimize ripple effects. But government spending is so bloated, especially at the federal level, that it's easy to find fat to cut in the infinite numbers of created bureaucratic offices, defense spending, subsidies that interfere with free market economics, and corruption. I find I agree strongly with this article written for the CATO Institute by Chris Edwards, published March 2019. (https://www.cato.org/blog/what-federal-spending-cut-0), and would apply this logic to state spending as well.

Strongly Disagree

I don't much like taxpayer-funded education in general. While it is to the benefit of a community to have an educated populace, "public" education fails to be accountable to the public, and is simply a government-run school. I believe in this day and age of such widely available resources for education, it should be largely a private affair and privately funded. However, localized governments may consider using local taxpayer funds to create a government school option to incentivize relocation.

Neutral

To have a truly physically secured southern border would require insane amounts of spending in taxpayer funds and resources in building and manning a border wall, which would then still allow inevitable lawbreakers to cross through more and more devious means. It would further handicap law-abiding and peaceful persons desiring to immigrate, while never being a perfect solution to keep out threats. And there are many superior uses for taxed funds, such as not taxing in the first place.

All persons who have no history of aggression and harm should be freely permitted to immigrate to the U.S. They should do so freely and easily, without fear or repercussions, so that they can be known players in society, and be more easily integrated. The path to citizenship should also be made easier, so that immigrants can feel more free to integrate with the U.S. culture and society overall, and support and pursue a traditional American dream. The only restrictions should be on anyone who has previously shown a propensity to harm others, or who has antagonistic feelings towards the United States.

Strongly Agree

The government has proven largely ineffective in running an educational system, and the U.S. (and state of Alabama) is woefully under-serving our children. We have brilliant teachers and parents who know how to educate, but have their hands tied up by inane governmental standards and practices, particularly in "public" schools. Education should be treated with a free market approach, allowing parents and educators to be freed up to help our children excel. The more options, the better!

Strongly Disagree

I do not feel that police officers should be held to a different standard of immunity to prosecution from any other citizen.

Neutral

I support redirecting taxpayer funds from police department *and* taxpayer funded mental health and community programs. I think these services are better provided by private companies that taxpayers could pay for as needed with personal funds, which would increase with lessened taxation.

None.

Strongly Disagree

Firearms dealers are not responsible for the choices of firearms carriers. Particularly if firearms dealers are following all requisite laws, they cannot be held liable for the decisions of those who make choices with those firearms.

I think government serves to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens, and to ensure those rights are not infringed upon. I believe that the fundamental rights are limited in scope, and do not include a right to plunder from the hard work of others.

Moderate

I don't feel that I fit well into either a conservative or liberal framework. I hold traditionally socially conservative views, but do not feel that the government should mandate such views to be held by all citizens - I support the right to choose for others, even when they make choices I feel are wrong. At the end of the day, I think my views should matter very little, and that the government should matter even less.

https://www.al.com/news/2022/06/alabama-voters-will-see-slate-of-libertarian-candidates-in-november.html

No.

If I had one particular legislative priority, it would be enacting a system for ranked choice voting. I think that current votes are mishandled and carry less weight than the right to vote demands. Not only must citizens be given the opportunity to exercise their right to vote, but they must also be able to feel empowered to vote according to their conscious, and to feel that their vote will be counted and hold power. It is the most effective way to enfranchise voters, and to see real change in our society moving forward.

Agree

I agree that a framework of morality is necessary for our system of limited government, but I don't think that is limited to only Judeo-Christian values. Many cultures and civilizations share a basic framework of morality (such as being opposed to murder, theft, and harming others). We are born with an innate sense of right and wrong, and a government created by the populace would seek to align to such a framework.

Neutral

I think that the government should not concern itself with this matter, and that legislating it does more harm than good. I think that a free market system is fully equipped to boycott or reward companies or persons that are failing to represent the desires of the popular majority. I believe that gender identity is an unnecessary and unimportant construct - let people be judged by the content of their character, and not the composition of their chromosomes.

Neutral

I am a person of faith, and I believe that marriage is a God-ordained, sacred and legal union of one man and one woman. However, I do not think that the government need be involved in these unions, particularly in this culture of no-fault divorce. I think that marriage is generally taken for granted and mishandled, but also that legislation will do nothing to alter this. We will do more to fortify and strengthen marriages through private citizens demonstrating strong marriages by example.

Strongly Disagree

CRT, and its being taught in schools as irrefutable fact, is a shameful and abhorrent trend in state-sponsored education. Education should seek to teach students how to think, rather than what to think. I suspect that, armed with the tools to think for themselves, many students will come to the conclusion that real racism should be rooted out at all costs, but that seeking to find and create imagined racisms serves no one.

I have a strong and unwavering faith in God, in Jesus Christ, and in their power. I have a strong belief in the sacred nature of choice and of accountability, and balk at any government that infringes upon those sacred rights.

Disagree

I think voting is a citizen's right, and that it's supremely important not to disenfranchise voters. But I also feel that it is a right that should be protected, and that the integrity of the vote is the only thing that makes the vote matter. Protecting the integrity of votes is essential for having meaningful elections. If voter ID is mandated, we must ensure obtaining the needed ID is not difficult or burdensome.

I think there are already plenty of laws on the books regarding voting practices - many of which are being ignored. I don't think there are additional laws that should be proposed. I think current laws should be better enforced.

I think that racism is real and can threaten domestic security. I also think that it is rare, and that at times by giving it attention in the media, we magnify it. I think that the best way see less racism in our society is to work to root out actual racism by ensuring that in all scenarios people are "not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

Strongly Disagree

There is *nothing* that should be done on the basis of race, aside from increasing awareness and treatments for a small number of medical trends that pertain to other races. I can think of few other scenarios where something should be done on the basis of race.

A) I have been accused of being a tree-hugging nut. I teach biology and environmental sciences. I feel that the human race holds an obligation to be good stewards of the planet and to take care of our resources and our environment. And I think that legislation to this effect has done very little to have a positive impact on the environment, aside from providing a false sense of security. Establishing "recycling" programs that ultimately ship our trash to the Pacific Garbage Patch is not taking care of the planet. Ignoring clean and effective nuclear energies and scarring the earth with lithium mining for batteries with a larger carbon footprint than the gasoline powered engines they are meaning to replace is not saving the environment. A free market system, free of subsidies and with transparent unbiased research to back up claims, is the only chance we have at making an impactful change. Making serious environmental changes is too important of a job to let the government get involved and inevitably make the problem worse.

Neutral

I believe these decisions should be made by local entities who are responsible to their local constituents, to best determine the balance of costs and benefits to their localized area.