Michael DePaula

To my knowledge, Libertarianism offers the only consistent platform for abortion (even if many who call themselves Libertarians have external influences that color their views): Your body is your property and you are the only one in the best place to make decisions about it, whether elective or out of medical necessity. As a corollary to that, it is not the state's position to fund or subsidize any medical procedure.

Strongly Disagree

The Libertarian position is that the government should not be in the position of regulating any drugs of any kind. The consumer should ultimately get to make that decision based on information that is freely available to all. Private standards organization exist already and the consumer can ultimately decide to follow or disregard the information they publish when determining what meets the criteria for their specific circumstances.

Strongly Agree

If we wish to reduce taxation to the largest extent possible, freeing up citizens to have more of their hard-earned money to make their own decision with, we must make cuts to such public services across the board. Even if you use or rely on a particular government service, the cost of paying the government middleman is substantial. I want you to be free to choose your own provider--one who will ultimately provide better service at the same or a less cost.

Strongly Agree

A person's life forms the foundation of all property rights. If one must petition the state for permission to do anything with their property, then they have no true property rights. Of the handful of powers delegated to the government, protection of its citizens property rights is one at its core.

Strongly Agree

A properly free economy--one where government stays out of the way and lets citizens support businesses that are important to them based on any number of factors--is essential to a functioning society. Today we have a state that collects money by force to support ventures it finds valuable while regulating and denying you your right to use your own property as you see fit for your unique circumstances. A proper state is one that protects you and stays out of the way everywhere else.

The maxim "The true minimum wage is always zero" is true. If a central authority ultimately gets what a "best wage" is, more people that otherwise wanted to work will end up unemployed.

No

The best possible outcome is that public monies are few and far between because the public never has to relinquish them to a centralized authority in the first place. People--you and I--are in the best position to make purchasing decisions for ourselves. The government is not. If you wish to support companies that have particular environmental and social policies, you should be free to, but mandating these leads to corruption.

The only time a government body should intervene in the private affairs of citizens or their businesses/organizations is if those dealings result in damage to another's property or if fraud is committed. Our Bill of Rights rightfully protects freedom of association and freedom of religion (as well as those who choose to be free from religion).

Strongly Disagree

D) Taxpayer funded health care should be abolished in all forms, and Medicaid and Medicare should be defunded. That said, it would be naive to think that this can or should happen overnight. I am a pragmatist and believe in setting short-, mid-, and long-term goals to reach the intended destination. Healthcare in America is arguably one of the most entrenched, corrupt services in the nation, and government involvement has massively driven up costs.

I don't believe they should. They can certainly make recommendations, but the underlying information those recommendations are based on are already available to all. As the saying goes, "good ideas do not require force."

Neutral

While this is objectively true, it belies the point that much of that infrastructure exists because we ourselves have been involved in being perhaps the largest threat to other nations in the aforementioned areas. The idea for our nation was to be one where we led the world by example in leading lives of liberty and free economics. By focusing on foreign intervention, we have become a nation of warmongering and corruption, with Americans and the American economy paying the ultimate price.

Again, we were never meant to become entangled in foreign alliances, including Israel. Imagine if, instead of our governments forcing us to pay for cause X or cause Y, it taxed us proportionally less and let us freely send our money to any foreign causes we felt strongly about. This was and still should be the ideal. The Libertarian Party has always been the anti-war party. We believe that you should get to support any business or charity you wish to which reduces corruption in government.

Neutral

Immigration, like abortion, is a contentious issue even within the Libertarian umbrella. My view is that there should be a short-term goal of getting government out of the business of direct and indirect support for immigration, particularly in this age of economic recession we are currently living through when we can't even support ourselves but are being asked to put non-citizens ahead of ourselves. Mid to long-term, the entire system needs an overhaul.

Strongly Agree

The wording of this statement is odd because the premise of "the state should fund..." is untrue. So long as our state's constitution requires funding of education, yes, the money should follow the student. Our state schools' are in dire need of competition rather than continuing the folly of believing that throwing money at the problem will bring about better results. At the end of the day, all state money is actually citizens' money and they should be free to keep it.

Agree

A child is ultimately the responsibility of their parents and each of the above-mentioned issues present a host of challenges that must strike a balance between parental rights and drawing lines in the sand where actual physical harm can be demonstrated. This is no easy task and rightly evolves as scientific and philosophical breakthroughs occur in society. My position is to take these separately while always erring on the side of parental rights.

Strongly Agree

Always unless concrete physical harm can be demonstrated.

Strongly Disagree

It is not the state's job to make purchasing decisions for any of its constituents. In lieu of being taxed for such a service (which many find morally repugnant), there is no shortage of private businesses and organizations who can rally to support individuals in search of such activity. Ultimately, the government should not and does not have the delegated power to be involved in this space.

Neutral

Marriage means different things to different people. Not only does the government not have the authority to alter this definition, it has no delegated authority in the matter at all. To the extend it does currently, it's only because we have allowed it to impose itself on us. The state should play no part nor pass any law that gives itself the authority to decide what marriage "is". We should all be free to participate in relationships that make sense for us as individuals.

I was a fervent Seventh-Day Adventist Christian until about the age of 24. Around that time, I studied my way out of the church and religion altogether and was a moderator for the early WhyWontGodHealAmputees.com forum and even founded a local Freethought society overseas where I lived. In the last two decades, I have retained much of my scientific naturalism, but have also been exposed to thinkers such as Paul Wallis who have attempted to synthesize our modern understanding of the universe with religious thought going back to antiquity. In short, it's complicated, but I love discussing these matters and still explore on the topic. As it relates to government, I believe the best government is one that is neutral towards all.

Disagree

While I appreciate the efficiency of mail-in voting that our state employs, modern examples of voter fraud combined with internal and external forces seeking to delegitimize our elections require us to rethink our security measures in the state. This should not be political if everyone on all sides wants to be able to trust the results.

Neutral

As a child of the 80s and a minority myself, I find the modern resurgence of "racism" in our society perplexing. There is a lot that could be said on this topic, but if I can make some generalizations, I think that what we think and talk about most eventually turns into a bigger problem than it otherwise would have been had we dealt with it organically. There's also the fact that issues like these make excellent political talking points for candidates, but nothing ultimately comes of it.

Disagree

Agree

I think this would be an excellent opportunity for new leagues catering to transgender individuals to be established.

A) Stricter environmental laws and regulations cost too many jobs and hurt the economy. C) Stricter environmental laws undermine U.S. energy independence and deter development of reliable electricity sources.

For the next decade or more? Easy: nuclear.

No.

No.

To protect the property and rights of its citizens.

Moderate

As Spike Cohen once said, "Libertarians are not 'fiscally conservative and socially liberal'...We aren't some hodgepodge of Republicans and Democrats, we are liberators who seek to dismantle the gravy train they've built on your backs."

Neutral

The ideal would be to reduce funds for police departments while mandating they focus on high-impact areas such as investigative work and violent crime, returning the difference in funding to the taxpayer (and reducing any further taxation) to spend on individual and/or community-led efforts that they feel are best suited to maintain defense and health of themselves and their communities.

I was once quite pro gun-control, but during the Covid-19 period, decided to face what I thought of as a fear and go through the process of purchasing one and training with it. This was an eye-opener and, long story short, I am now a strong 2A supporter just as I am for all other rights. While well-intentioned, we have allowed ourselves to believe that centralized authority and control is good if it means "more safety", but this is an elusive goal and ends with less liberty and less safety.

Yes

What many people gloss over in this discussion is that such recommendations are voluntary. No one is requiring those teachers who don't want to carry/train to do so. We trust our teachers with the lives of our kids and a small % of them already carry firearms in their lives before and after school. They are responsible. Why are we disarming them? We also know criminals target schools precisely because they're soft targets. Let's change that. It's already done in many states with good results.