Ross Sylvester

Abortion is a very complex issue because two lives are involved while only one party has the ability to consent. Does the state protect the mother’s ability consent or the unborn baby because it lacks the ability to consent? I can make valid and logical argument for both cases. This is an area I need to debate more so I can arrive at a more principled conclusion. I have NO intention on voting to modify Pennsylvania law in either direction.

Strongly Agree

I do not support the government coercing money from the individual to fund what some consider murder.

Strongly Agree

Yes, two consenting adults have the right to engage in the voluntary action of assisted suicide and/or euthanasia.

Eliminate the tax code all together. Every dollar removed from the individual and given to the government is a dollar mismanaged. Individuals are much more efficient in assessing their needs and wants. They also have an incentive to calculate risk and reward when allocating resources. Politicians have no incentive to spend effectively, it is not their money they are spending. If a politician’s “investment” fails or doesn’t meet the stated goal of the program, they will blame it on funding or write it off as loss and propose a new program to solve the initial problem. Government waste hurts the individual not the politician.

Any and all spending. Government has no idea what the individual needs or wants. Allowing the government to allocate taxpayer resources leads to malinvestment and lost economic opportunity for the taxpayer. I suggest allowing the individual to keep their money and allocated their resources to best fit their needs and wants.

Strongly Disagree

No, these institution should not receive a penny from the taxpayer, the free market should decide the funding, not a politician.

Strongly Disagree

Individuals and businesses have the right to deny services for any reason. The government does not have the authority to force a business or an individual to provide a service against their will, unless the business receives taxpayer funding.

Absolutely none, freedom of speech and religion is a guaranteed right, both the US and Pennsylvania Constitutions. As an atheist and will defend the ability of all religions to peacefully practice as they see fit.

D. Government should not fund nor regulate the healthcare industry. Government funding and regulation in any industry including healthcare results in higher overall consumer prices and lost economic opportunity both for the consumer and the provider. Government healthcare cannot be abolished over night, but it should be abolished overtime. As of now, Medicare is a $34 trillion liability to the taxpayer, and it is only increasing. Like all government programs politicians over promise, underfund, and underdeliver while pushing the burden onto the next generation.

Government has no authority to require vaccinations. Private employers, who do not receive a penny from government have the right to discriminate as they please.

US foreign policy created the threat to begin with. The US government should stop bombing Islamic majority countries. Since start of the “War on Terror” the US has dropped well over 326,000 bombs in the Middle East and Northern Africa which has killed and destroyed the lives of 10s of millions of poor and innocent people. The US government also needs to stop buying influence and promoting US ideals though “foreign aid” and military action in those regions. If the US government halts it's assault on these people and engages in trade and cooperation the threat of terrorism will be greatly diminished while saving the American taxpayer trillions as well as the lives of our service members. I will introduce or support legislation blocking the Pennsylvania Nation Guard from being deployed without a Congressional Declaration of War.

Neutral

I do not support state sanctions or boycotts of any kind. “When goods do not cross boarders, soldiers will”. I support complete US divestment in all countries.

Agree

This is a very complex issue and 500 words will not cut it. Unfortunately I have to say yes, because the US is a welfare state, going bankrupt, and government owns land. I would much rather have open boarders but socialism makes it financial impossible.

Anyone who will not be a ward of the state, does not have a history of violence, and willing to accept US citizenship should be invited with open arms.

Strongly Agree

School choice is a compromise, I want to remove government from education all together.

Neutral

Yes, Judeo-Christian values did establish a moral framework but it is not necessary to for a limited system of government, I am a perfect example.

Strongly Disagree

I do not support any special protection based on any identity, this leads to division in society.

Choose not to answer

Government should not be involved in marriage at all. I support the removal of all laws and regulations that grant or remove privileges based on the government recognizing a union or marriage between two people.

Choose not to answer

I have not studied critical theory in enough detail to make an accurate critique of the theory. I can make a some very factual but not truthful arguments about why many government laws are racist. I can also make a very truthful argument why government schooling is racist.

I am an atheist and follow the non-aggression principle.

Neutral

Whatever restrictions are needed to purchase a firearm are suitable restrictions for voting. Both voting and owning a firearm are life and death responsibilities.

I would like to see the end of the taxpayer funded primary "elections". Primary elections are not election but are a taxpayer funded selection process for the Republican and Democratic parties. Other parties have conventions to select their candidates at the expense of the body and party. I would like to end political party welfare.

No, the majority of violence is intra-racial violence in the US, if that changes so will my answer.

Strongly Disagree

If you are not the direct victim, you can not claim damages.

I do not support regulations on the individual or businesses. I will support the strictest environmental regulation I can on the government, in hopes that they will have zero gross environmental impact.

Strongly Agree

I oppose all government regulations and "investment" in the energy industry. If an energy extractor pollutes the individual has the right to sue the any polluter for damages.

The purpose of government is to protect the individual's rights and property.

Choose not to answer

I am a Libertarian, I believe in personal and economic freedom.

Here are two books, one on economic philosophy (text:https://fee.org/media/14946/economicsinonelesson.pdf Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5MGRxD-HSc&t=71s) and one on political philosophy (text and audio: https://mises.org/library/anatomy-state). This is a basic introduction into my philosophy.

No

If elected I will only create and/or support legislation which increases personal and economic freedom and will oppose all legislation that gives politicians power over the individual.

Strongly Disagree

Consequence for actions do not not vary based on your career, title, or your employer.

Strongly Disagree

Funds are rarely redirected and once a new program is formed they are rarely dissolved. I do not support expanding the size and scope of government.

None. Firearm laws just make self-defense more difficult for people that comply with laws.

Strongly Disagree

Neither the gun dealer nor the gun manufacture was involved in the criminal activity, they were involved in economic activity. They are a 3rd party and should never be held liable for the criminal actions of another party.