Autumn Pangia

I am very consistent in my support of bodily autonomy and in resistance to government interference with individual decisions relating to health. While I empathize deeply with pro-life voters, I bristle at the use of the term “allowed” when talking about such personal choices. We should not pass laws for the purpose of enforcing moral standards on our fellow citizens, even laws that allow for commonly agreed exceptions invite government to meddle in our private lives more than we should permit.

Strongly Agree

Simply considering that some tax-payers are morally opposed to abortion makes it immoral to force them to pay taxes for subsequent distribution to organizations providing abortions.

Agree

If a person is facing certain death at the end of a long and painful illness, they should have the right to choose a death on their own terms without making criminals of their loved ones.

Taxation is theft. We need to scale back involuntary taxation wherever possible.

Government pensions and salaries would be a good start.

Strongly Disagree

Our public education system is broken in ways that can’t be fixed by increased spending. Guaranteed student loans have eroded the value of college educations - many people have college degrees (and student loans) just so they’re eligible for a job that they'd have been qualified for 30 years ago on the simple basis of their innate intelligence and work ethic. Guaranteed tax-payer funded college will render a 4-year degree utterly worthless.

Strongly Disagree

Force has no place in a free market.

None.

D aligns closest to my sensibilities. All of these options insert wasteful intermediaries into the doctor/patient relationship which too often decrease quality and expediency of the care ultimately administered to patients while disincentivizing individuals from entering the challenging fields providing the care.

If the disease is proven sufficiently deadly/harmful, the vaccine is proven sufficiently safe and effective, and those requiring the vaccine are sufficiently trusted by and transparent with the people over whom they yield their authority.

Stop meddling in foreign matters, end all interventions in the politics of foreign countries, stop interfering in disputes to ensure victory for those who curry favor with the US government leaders and prop up our financial interests.

Neutral

I support maximum freedom for all in this world, but this question is really asking if I support a government-organized exertion of power through boycotts, divestments, and sanctions. One could reasonably perceive state-sponsored boycotting, divestment, and sanctions as acts of aggression; therefore I consider them foolish activities for government to engage in. If individuals want to boycott companies that financially entangle themselves with immoral nations, they should do so.

Agree

So long as US citizens are forced to pay taxes in support of public works and welfare programs, then the US government has an obligation to maintain the exclusivity of access to those programs for which we pay.

People who are capable of taking care of themselves and contributing positively to our society who also demonstrate strong moral character and general trustworthiness.

Strongly Agree

I also support relaxing the extreme regulations set on homeschooling parents in Pennsylvania. The hoops that homeschooling families must jump through are among the strictest in the nation and, in my opinion, punitive in nature.

Neutral

We had limited government when this country was founded, we have gotten so far from that description’s applicability that it actually stopped me in my tracks… Judeo-Christian values are just fine, but they don’t justify creation of laws to restrict individuals’ behavior to the extent that victimless activity is outlawed to satisfy popular moral preferences. (I.E. “no victim, no crime”)

Agree

I agree with the understanding that non-discrimination laws have nothing to do with compelling another to take action or behave in some way (I.E. we cannot compel speech and it isn’t illegal to accidentally insulting someone), I also agree only with the understanding that non-discrimination is a separate matter from the issue of allowing trans-gender athletes to compete in the category of their identified gender.

Disagree

People are free to believe what they like about how God perceives marriage, that is a separate matter from government-ordained marriage and the implications of inheritance laws and standards relating to determination of ‘next of kin.’ Libertarians wholeheartedly supported gay marriage since forming the party in 1971, long before any Democrat presidential nominees openly supported it. Basically, what God ordains and what the state ordains are two separate matters.

Strongly Disagree

A country that hates itself will destroy itself. We have some really bad history. Our authority has been wielded in some very unfair, unethical, and vicious ways. Most Americans have fought to fix those problems, to right those wrongs, we are still working to improve, we are not a fundamentally racist country.

I believe we are all spiritual beings having a human experience and, as beings blessed with a piece of the universal energy, we have an obligation to work towards improving our character and expanding our enlightenment. I am not a follower of organized religion, but I recognize the positive impact that many religious communities have on families and individuals.

Disagree

It’s a bit silly to suggest that you need photo ID to rent lawn equipment or buy cigarettes but not to cast a vote that influences the management of our nation. Among the few things that I think are actually racist is the suggestion that minorities don’t have access to photo ID. Voters should take their civic duty seriously, we shouldn’t lower barriers to entry to the extent that the system becomes seriously vulnerable to corruption.

I would propose we transition to a process that utilizes a method called “rank choice voting” which allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference: one, two, three, etc. If your vote cannot help your top choice win, your vote counts for your next choice. If the top candidate receives more than half of the first choices in races where voters elect one winner, that candidate wins, just like in a single-choice election. However, if there is no majority winner after counting first choices, the votes are already cast to facilitate an "instant runoff." The candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and voters who picked that candidate as their ‘number 1’ will have their ‘number 2’ votes added to the overall vote-count. This process can continue to a 3rd or 4th round, as may be necessary in a race with more than 3 candidates. You can learn more about this at fairvote.org.

To any extent that rhetoric leads to “othering” people, subsequently making it easier for some to see them as lesser and treat them badly, there is the risk of strife and instability.

Strongly Disagree

The time for reparations has long passed. Where would we source the funding for reparations and how do we determine which individuals should bear the burden of making up for the sins of their ancestors?

A, the people can still police environmental practices of companies and mount campaigns to shame them into improving their environmental impact. This is just one more division of government with a revolving door of cross-employment between the regulators and the regulated. These regulations don’t provide us with the safety and protection we are meant to believe they do. Furthermore, larger companies can afford to navigate the red tape while smaller companies are unnecessarily burdened.

Neutral

The process of fracking is complex and troubling, there is reason for concern over the potential instability caused when the deep layers of the earth’s crust is fractured. I do, however, think that energy independence is important for our nation and that increased access to energy is what lifts 3rd world countries into developing nations and beyond. Access to energy is how nations increase productivity and decrease poverty.

Government’s responsibility is to ensure that no individual or organization is wielding authority over anyone in a manner that infringes on their natural and constitutional rights.

Choose not to answer

These terms have become meaningless. I don’t fit in any of these categories, and most voters don’t either. I think we should all be free to do as we wish so long as we’re not impeding on anyone else’s freedom or enjoyment of their property; “property” isn’t just their home or land, but also their body, their labor and the fruits of it. This principle brings me to believe things that some would say are very conservative, it also leads me to believe things that some would say are very liberal.

I appeared on the Pennsylvania Project with Ken Krawchuck: https://wwdbam.com/episodes/the-pennsylvania-project-with-ken-krawchuk-episode-173/ Otherwise I’ve been a private person until recent months and, other than my campaign social media and website, I can encourage people to review the many public posts on my facebook page where they’ll find evidence of my defense of bodily autonomy and disdain for government lockdowns and business closures. (https://www.facebook.com/autumn.jacobs.5/)

No.

I am fervently opposed to business shutdowns and vaccine mandates and will loudly stand up in defense of our community. People have a right to calculate their own risks and take the risk if they wish; individuals who prioritize absolute safety have a right to do so and we have the technology and services in place to facilitate that if it’s their preference. Libertarians tend to focus on nullifying laws and decentralizing government. Due to recent events, however, it seems necessary that we pass some legislation restricting hospitals from denying their patients visitors; it’s an absolute abomination that so many people died alone in hospitals due to covid protocols. It’s so important for hospitalized individuals to have an attentive loved one nearby and actively advocating for their care. I also look forward to supporting passage of Defend The Guard legislation which restricts deployment of the Pennsylvania National Guard to active combat without a formal declaration of war by Congress. I look forward to highlighting the actual areas of waste in our government in an effort to move us closer to total abolishment of property taxes in Pennsylvania.

Neutral

Police have a difficult job and are required to make snap decisions while under pressure, they have many opportunities to make mistakes. A mistake could be contrary to departmental policy but still reasonably forgivable; a mistake could be technically consistent with departmental policy but still demonstrable of poor judgment. Qualified immunity potentially contributes to a sense of impunity for bad cops; what’s needed is a secondary review process when internal affairs declines further action.

Disagree

Instead of taking revenue from the police, I propose we nullify laws against victimless crimes which will in turn decrease the number of police interactions with the public and possibly improve the job satisfaction of much of our law enforcement personnel.

None. An armed society is a polite society. I strongly believe that the most important factor that prevented more government tyranny that what we experienced in 2020, is the fact that our nation is a well regulated militia and our citizens are armed in a manner such that they can actually fight back to preserve their rights if they have to.

Strongly Disagree

This is as logical as permitting victims of car accidents to sue auto manufacturers. It also doesn’t do anything to stop gun violence.