Cobi Clark

Strongly Agree

Money is property, property is an expression of self, and free expression is well established under the first amendment. No individual tax payer's dollars should be spent on anything that they find objectionable, that is a violation of their right to free expression. Repeal the 16th amendment.

I subscribe to the Libertarian (philosophical) ethical and legal framework of Evictionism. That is that a women's womb is her private property and she may remove a being from such property at any time, however such removal must be done in a manner which is as careful to protect the being as possible ("the gentlest method"). No provider may directly harm the being in the process of eviction and rather must work to protect them, this grants the being the chance to claim their right to life.

Agree

I believe in inalienable natural negative rights; that is that no person may be deprived of a life that they can themselves maintain. That does not grant them the right to impose an imperative to protect that life on others. In short the legal protection is that no person may be deprived of life and each person has a right to defend their own life, not that force must be used by a third party in defense of such life. This relates to my previous statement, the being may not impose on the mother.

Agree

Strongly Disagree

The commerce clause of the constitution was developed in response to the failed articles of confederation ("Articles"). Under the Articles, states implemented protectionist and adversarial trade policy between each other; the commerce clause was established to ensure free trade between them, not to create a mechanism by which the federal government could regulate trade between states. The abuse of the commerce clause in this way is a great threat to liberty.

The primary circumstance in which minimum wages can be used to correct for a market failure in a positive way is under monopsony conditions. Washington State does not presently have such conditions.

Strongly Agree

Private property is not only worth protecting on these utilitarian grounds. Rather private property is a material manifestation of one's own labor and ingenuity, it is an extension of self. Therefore, private property must be protected on deontological grounds as well, life, liberty, and property are goods regardless of outcome and each has a natural right to them. This is known as the Lockean Labor Theory of Property, a foundational element of our country.

Repeal the certificate of need, structurally reform zoning, refocus dollars to that which benefits the undivided interest of the community rather than isolated groups or voting blocks (no more pork barrels), distribute carbon tax revenue as carbon rebates rather than sending it to the general fund (like Alaska), increase private competition for energy and healthcare to drive down costs and reduce the expense burden on the state.

It means that the state must remain nonsectarian, it must not pick winners and losers on matters of conscience. I agree with the supreme court that; "Religious belief is the sincere idea that elementary self-interest is insufficient to describe one's relationship with their fellow man". Any effort by the state to compel or encourage any form of ethical system other than consent between parties, or consent of the governed, violates the nonsectarian doctrine.

Strongly Disagree

Free Association under the First Amendment has been relegated to a second class right (as so many constitutional rights have). Another instance in which the commerce clause has been abused.

C), although I need to add that these programs are only necessary because of broader state and federal level policy which has rendered health services unaffordable. We need to work toward a more competitive healthcare system in which any provider may compete (eliminate the certificate of need), and in which the state mandates price transparency. Prices can vary by as much as 300% in the same metro area for the same procedure. Fix the market dysfunction, then you can cut out the middlemen.

Strongly Disagree

This is exactly why we shouldn't have socialized healthcare.

Agree

No. We have separation of church and state for a reason, the founders had an express interest in avoiding the forever wars of the middle east. I agree with George Washington, we need to steer clear of permanent alliances and maintain benevolent neutrality. Also cut military spending.

Neutral

Sanctuary's need to be reformed; it is lazy do nothing policy. On one hand the state becomes complicit in the violation of constitutional rights by federal agencies, on the other it robs taxpayers of their hard earned money by babysitting foreign criminals in the prison system. It's bad for both sides. The state needs to take an active role in defending against federal overreach, and also needs to be willing to deport those who have already been granted due process and been convicted of crimes.

Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) and Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925). The 14th Amendment protects these rights.

Disagree

I published a peer reviewed academic paper on this issue, this is a nuanced issue that cannot be fully addressed in 500 characters. The paper can be viewed here: https://digitalcommons.tacoma.uw.edu/access/vol8/iss1/7.

Strongly Disagree

No religion has the right to impose its views of marriage on the state (separation of church and state). Calling back to consent between parties; the only form of marriage compatible with nonsectarianism is one in which consenting adults are free to negotiate whatever nuptials they wish and have the state enforce whatever they agree to. The state's role is to ensure consent was granted between rational informed actors voluntarily, not to dictate the terms of their agreement.

Agree

I am a deontological contractarian, the foundation of ethics is Rational, Informed, Voluntary, Consent between individuals. There is a categorical imperative to respect consent and uphold individual autonomy. This is deeply rooted in our governing system, "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights" - Section 1 of Washington State's Constitution. I'll add that each person ought to work diligently to improve their own quality of life and the quality of life of those around them. We each have a duty to uphold and protect each other's individual freedom and wellbeing as much as our own, even the freedom and wellbeing of those we dislike or disagree with.

Agree

Neutral

To the extent that reparations can be granted without causing harm to those who had no part in the oppression of other "races", there is room to make amends for past injustice. Reforming HB 1696 would be a good example of this, rather than loan forgiveness granted to "non-whites" at the expense of existing property owners; an equity sharing agreement that lasted a generation could have been developed that would have cost taxpayers nothing before shifting to a colorblind program.

Disagree

I don't believe in separate but equal or DEI in terms of race or gender. The state should be as gender blind as it should be color blind. Pass the equal rights amendment and stop asking about race and gender on the census. The only reason this is an issue is because of how big the state is. Private property owners can choose for themselves what sort of bathrooms to have, and under a system of school choice so could individual schools. The state should have no part in defining gender or race.

Neutral

Man-made climate change is a problem that will likely be solved with new technologies such as nuclear and geothermal energy, and other such future technologies which have not yet been invented. The panic is analogous to the panic over famine that led to the catastrophic one-child policy in China, and has likewise led to economically harmful command and control policies here in Washington State.

Geothermal, followed closely by nuclear.

Moderate

I'm Libertarian in matters of politics and conscience. I hold philosophically Libertarian beliefs in free will, and other ethical realms that do not necessarily intersect with political Libertarianism. Evictionism for example is not a position held by the political party, rather it's philosophically Libertarian, these are distinct, but I am both. I don't think moderate fits, but your options are bidimensional. The views herein are my own and don't necessarily reflect all the views of my party.

No.

No.

To mitigate material harm to third parties, such as violent/property crime.

Neutral

Government should protect children from sexual exploitation regardless and the methods it uses should not interfere with the freedom of online activity.

Strongly Agree

Separation of church and state seems to be a recurring theme.

Zero.