Steven Gene Parsons

Prior to viability. Certainly, if the current or likely future conditions do, or will, threaten the life of the mother. Rape, Incest. My reading of the current law in Arkansas is that it is more extreme than the law in most Muslim countries (although stoning does not apply, and women currently do not have the permission of their husband to use birth control as is the case in most Muslim countries). Destroying Live/frozen embryos from in vitro techniques should NOT be counted as an abortion; this would have a chilling effect on providers and couples attempting to take heroic measures to have children.

Agree

I want as little public funding of any programs, to the extent possible. I believe that many publicly funded programs can and should be funded via philanthropic

Agree

On average, at least 30% of U.S. health expenditures are spent on the last 2 months of life, when the quality of life is at its lowest. This is a big reason why U.S. health expenditures (along with the lack of legal reform and a high percentage of procedures done for mitigating law suits).

1) reduce taxes in general; 2) make them more transparent. 3) More simple - such as a flat tax. For a red state, Arkansas ranks poorly in some tax categories. According to the fiscally conservative Tax Foundation, among U.S. states Arkansas has: the second highest cell phone tax rates (20.25%); the third highest combined state and local sales tax rate; and the 14th highest wine tax. Arkansas ranks 44th in the 2022 State Business Tax Climate Index. That is, only 6 states are worse than Arkansas: Minnesota, Maryland, Connecticut, California, New York, and New Jersey. This is the worst rank of any red state; even liberal states such as Hawaii, Vermont, Michigan, Illinois, Colorado, Oregon (and many others) have a better business tax climate index than Arkansas.

1) decriminalize marijuana (and other drugs), in 2019 (the last year with verifiable data) over 10,000 people were arrested for marijuana laws. This will save critical police and justice system resources; 2) reduce social welfare programs; 3) reduce corporate welfare programs (for example stop giving big tax breaks to large corporations that we attempt to entice to come to Arkansas - that compete with small incumbents who don't receive these breaks; 4) Make schools the responsibility of local government.

Strongly Disagree

Even today, students and teachers have little skin in the game. Education is subsidized by taxes even when performance is poor. Private schools manage to provide better education at 10% less than the cost. Moreover, those who home school or pay for private education - pay twice. In Mt. Home those students are not eligible for the free local college program (since they did not attend Mt. Home HS). The great majority of college students either: a) do not finish and obtain a degree; b) ...

Strongly Disagree

As a libertarian, I want decisions on private property to be the purview of the owner of that property, unless an actual crime is committed. I don't think that the justification for choice by employers should be constrained to moral or religious grounds. For example, if an employer wants to require a covid test, a strength test, require prayer, require employees to be Muslim - that should be allowed on private property. Restricting those choices is government overreach: see the 9th Amendment.

See my answer to the question above. If a crime occurs, or if there is a real and present danger presented by one person to others (or the threat of such action) is the only valid reason to infringe on private property rights. Again - this should not be constrained to decisions or property that is for religious purposes - but rather to any private property.

D. Although, I admit, this will be difficult since taxpayers have paid into medicare for years. Equity will require some transition model. The same is true with social security benefits (the program should never have been started, but is far more difficult to make an equitable transition away from social security).

For an employer - it is private property - they should be allowed to make their own decisions. Private schools - the same answer. Public schools and government employment is more tricky. This is part of the reason why private property is generally superior to public ownership. For public entitites economics dictates that a decision is valid when the present value of the benefits (e.g., saving lives, reducing health care costs) outweigh the costs (e.g., loss of personal choice or dangers of vaccines. I have done some research on the dozens of vaccines used in the U.S. prior to Covid-19 (ask anyone in the military before 2019 about the number of vaccines they were given before traveling over seas). I also have published 4 journal articles related to Covid, and hundreds of hours of research on related topics. Something of the evidence I find compelling related to the Covid-19 vaccines: 1) all 50 governors were vaccinated; 2) I searched the websites of the top 15 non-government medical institutions in the U.S. (e.g., Mayo Clinic); 3) I searched the state health department of every Republican controlled state (governor, or legislature). In every instance, the finding was the vaccinations are: A) safe; B) effective. Because SARS-COV2 is a single strand RNA virus with over 19,000 nucleotides, it mutates rapidly (DNA - which is double strand is self correcting to some degree and these viruses, and other organisms are more stable). The more modern evidence finds the vaccines (and natural immunization) do not do a very good job of stopping infection, but they do a good job of preventing serious illness and death. As a Libertarian, and one who taught health economics to scientists, doctors and nurses, I find the partisan claims regarding vaccines to be highly troublesome and anti-science in nature. I was raised a republican, and on this topic, I am often embarrassed by many in the Republican party. I expect to poor performance by democrats.

I suspect many will not agree with my views on this topic. But, I pose a preliminary question: How many have read the open letter by Osama Bin Laden to the U.S. (I think about 2003). He was surprised that most Americans did not have any understanding of the reasons why he coordinated an attack. Much of the rationale was U.S. infidels in holy lands, especially military, especially women who generally flaunt Muslim traditions. Sounds a little whacky and extreme - right? But you can't apply western Cristian logic to Muslim countries. There are 3 different studies (including by the U.S. DOD platinum research program on strategic response to terrorism that all found: U.S MILITARY PRESENSE IN PREDOMINANTLY MUSLIM COUNTRIES IS A NET CREATOR OF TERRORISTS. We may feel that we need a strong military presence in foreign countries - but how would Americans feel if say Saudi Arabia had a dozen bases in the U.S.? - so ELIMINATE U.S. MILITARY PRESENSE IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES (especially Muslim countries). The U.S. already has more military spending than the next 11 countries combined - most of these countries are our allies. - How has this military spending translated into reduced terrorism? I believe the answer is - IT HAS NOT REDUCED TERRORISM. In addition, the 9-11 attacks - as reprehensible as they were - were improperly used to over $7 trillion in spending and passing of the so-called "Patriots Act" Like a similar act passed in Germany in the late 1930s, this act subverts the 4th amendment protection of due process allowing surveillance of U.S. citizens without anything resembling a search warrant.

Neutral

This is none of my business. And, I believe, is not the business of the U.S. government.

Agree

I agree. Immigration should be legal. The details are, however, tricky and difficult. The U.S. should have a far better work visa program. Because of social welfare programs in the U.S. and declining work ethic, there are many jobs in the U.S. (particularly in agriculture) that Americans simply are unwilling to perform. There was program in Arizona many years ago, in which the state clamped down on migrant workers and had a state-funded program to replace them with students - it failed.

See above.

Strongly Agree

This is fair, with greater choice for students and parents. Home schools and private schools statistically outperform public schools and less cost.

Disagree

My two classes as an undergrad on comparative religions and theory of religion (and small amounts of research) suggests this is useful, but certainly not necessary.

Strongly Disagree

I generally disagree with non-discrimination laws of any form. Employers should be able to "discriminate" in any way they choose; non-discrimination laws are fundamentally flawed and doomed to fail. Public schools and government entities are more difficult to deal with.

Neutral

I think government should get out of the marriage business. That said, I also think individuals should be able to contract in any way they want. But churches should also be free to decide that they do not recognize some unions.

Disagree

My primary disagreement is that attempting to assess whether such racism existed - is actually counter productive. My wife and I have helped to pay for private education for children of single-black hard working women. A focus on racism is counter productive.

Did not answer

Disagree

Voter rights is a tricky topic. I would like to see all citizens be able to vote, but I also want accurate voting to be protected.

They vary drastically. However, 62 out of 63 lawsuits on this topic were lost by Trump, many in jurisdictions in 2020/21. While one can contemplate better voting practices - if you still believe that the election was stolen in 2020 - then you are rejecting the rule of law in this country. I get it - as a Libertarian my candidate never wins - it can be frustrating. But rejecting the rule of law is a freeway of Oklahoma city bombings and chaos.

Did not answer

Strongly Disagree

I have testified as an expert witness to economic damage. In every instance, the first requirement is to determine what was the damaging event (being captured by another tribe in Africa? Sold to slave traders? Sold on U.S. soil). Next, requires a determination of what would have happened in the ABSENSE of the damaging event. In this case it would appear that those of race would have remained free in Africa, where per-capita income is 10% of that in the U.S., life expectancy is 25 years less

I taught a class in environmental economics, but it is not an area of recent research. Environmental topics are ones in which one can make at case that one parties actions MAY cause significant harm to others (e.g., an oil refinery releases Sulphur dioxide that leads to lung disease). The problem I see is that exising regulations do a poor job of: calculating costs and benefits and compensating victims. Economics clearly indicates that the most efficient solution is a tax on pollution to reduce it to effient levels (where marginal cost of reducing additional pollution are just about equal to health/environmental benefits of such a clean up)

Neutral

Not an area in which I have done research.

To define and protect property rights; this includes laws against fraud. This includes the right to your person and your body. Government does have a role in national DEFENSE - but not having hundreds of bases around the world.

Choose not to answer

I am a libertarian. I am fiscally conservative. I want liberals out of my wallet, and Republicans out of my bedroom. I want government to be as small and unobtrusive as possible.

See the CATO Institute, the Mises Institute, the Libertarian party and virtually any of the publications they have produced.

NO!

Make government small.

Disagree

Qualified immunity has some value, but there is substantial evidence that it leads to community distrust. I would like government, and government employees to be held accountable for their actions - just like other individuals and businesses must do.

Agree

My preference would be to take some of the savings from legalizing marijuana and using it for mental health and community programs. Often, the police respond to domestic disputes - this is a misuse of government funding.

Loss of 2nd amendment rights began with alcohol prohibition. However, the 2nd amendment does not define "arms". Should it include a nuclear devise? A shoulder mounted anti-aircraft missile? There will always be

Disagree

I see this a bit like a question of whether it is the physician performing the abortion that is legally liable, or can be sued.