Responses to the Movement for a People’s Party’s Endorsement Questionnaire

 

Preface

     The following is my response to the Movement for a People’s Party’s endorsement questionnaire, in regard to my candidacy for Illinois State Assemblyman from the 60^th District in 2022.

     I wish to note a few things about the three biggest potential sticking points between the People’s Party’s platform and views held by libertarians and supporters of the Constitution; namely, basic income, the Green New Deal, and Medicare for All.

     I support basic income, but only as a temporary solution to poverty and the broken social safety net. But basic income should also last long enough for people to be able to rely on it. I support the maintenance of a universal basic income program, without a work requirement, for ten years. But severe taxation and budgetary reform must happen concurrently, for the U.B.I. to be able to end without causing people to become impoverished for lack of alternative solutions regarding how to obtain resources.

     I support a Green New Deal, as long as it is implemented as locally as possible, and in a way that brings about more Land Value Taxation in the localities, and results in the replacement of states with bioregions.

     I support Medicare for All, but only if it is implemented constitutionally; i.e., after a proper constitutional amendment has been passed, which would authorize exclusive federal and public involvement in health insurance, and enable a floor vote on Medicare for All.

     I support an Economic Bill of Rights, and recognizing health and/or health care as a human right. But these rights should be understood as already existing, and flowing from our negative liberty to keep our health information private (and between ourselves and our doctors), rather than from a positive right to government involvement in our health. Amendment IX implies that the absence of the word health in the Constitution does not necessarily mean that it is not among our many rights, so any recognition of health as a human right, in American law, should be predicated upon that notion.

 

 

 

Questions

(aside from questions about basic contact information)

 

     Q1. Would you refuse all corporate PAC dollars and contributions?

     A1. Yes


     Q2. Would you refuse to accept all money and favors from corporate lobbyists?

     A2. Yes


     Q3. Are you already running for office?

     A3. No


     Q4. Would you like to run for federal office?

     A4. Not running for federal office


     Q5. Or would you like to run for a State or Local office?

     A5. State (State House, State Senate, or elected Administrative position)


     Q6. What office would you like to run for?

     A6. Illinois State Assembly, 60^th District


     Q7: Would you support an Economic Bill of Rights?

     A7: Yes


     Q8: Would you fight to get corporate money out of politics?

     A8: Yes


     Q9: Would you work to pass healthcare as a human right?

     A9: Yes


     Q10: Do you support the People’s Party’s racial and social justice policies?

     A10: Yes


     Q11: Do you support a basic income?

     A11: Yes


     Q12: Do you support tuition-free college, quality education and student loan debt forgiveness?

     A12: Yes


     Q13: Please tell us about your work and educational background.

     A13: I graduated from the University of Wisconsin at Madison, with a Bachelor of Arts in political science, in 2009. I have been involved in self-directed study since then, publishing my research on my blog www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com. I have worked as a janitor, and in restaurants and a law office, and am currently a private security guard.


     Q14: What are your connections to your community?

     A14: I have lived in Waukegan for four years. I grew up in Lake Bluff and Lake Forest, and have lived in Lake County for most of my life. I ran for U.S. House of Representatives from Illinois's 10th district in 2016 and 2020.

 

     Q15: Are there any community projects or initiatives that you have been involved in?

     A15:

- Various spontaneous anti- Iraq War protests, 2005-2009, in Madison WI

- One month of campaign work for Ben Manski's Liberty Tree Foundation, 2014

- Volunteer work for Kash Jackson's 2018 Illinois gubernatorial campaign

- Four of my own independent write-in campaigns for U.S. House (2012, 2014, 2016, 2020)

     Q16: Have you ever ran [sic] for office before in a previous election/s?

     A16: Yes


     Q17: What seat/s did you run for?

     A17: U.S. Representative


     Q18: Tell us about your previous run/s. What party did you run under? What were your lessons learned?

     A18: 2012: Ran for U.S. House as an independent write-in, from Wisconsin's 2nd district. Received 6 votes. Learned that campaigning as an independent is an uphill battle to get noticed.

2014: Ran for U.S. House as an independent write-in, from Oregon's 3rd district. Dropped out before election. Learned not to run while I am busy moving to a new state.

2016: Ran for U.S. House as an independent write-in, from Illinois's 10th district. Received 26 votes. Learned that I needed to take time off from campaigning to do more writing and research, to be better prepared for my next run.

2020: Ran for U.S. House as an independent write-in, from Illinois's 10th district. Sought Libertarian and Green nominations but did not receive either. Received 21 votes. Learned to plan campaign calendar better, and that I need to work harder meeting people, finding volunteers, and distributing literature early.


     Q19: Have you ever held office?

     A19: No


     Q19: How long have you lived in the state/district/community?

     A19: 10 or more years


     Q19: Why would you like to run for office?

     A19: I want to help solve the financial struggles and moral decay that are plaguing Americans, which paradoxically never seem to be solved through increasing the central government's power to do something about it. Making taxes more efficient at the local level, will allow local governments to balance their budgets and be more effective at alleviating poverty; this will allow state and federal governments to gradually exercise less and less external authority over people's lives and productivity. Peace, decentralization, and maximizing respect for the consent of the governed in all policy areas, will guide disaffected voters towards the right electoral choices.


     Q20: Why do you wan [sic] to run with the People’s Party[?]

     A20: I want to advance the party's goals, and achieve change rapidly. The Democratic Party is not remotely anti-war, anti-imperialism, or against corporate influence on politics, enough, to be effective in the fight against economic and political domination. Minor parties are needed, to fight for ballot access, to raise new issues, and to galvanize support against the major parties that have had a chokehold on American politics for 180 years.


     Q21: What do you know about the People’s Party and have you been involved in any way with the movement?

     A21: have not been involved with the movement yet, but I became aware of the party, and Nick Brana, from watching the Jimmy Dore show. I know that the People's Party is trying to form an alternative to the two major parties, which is a goal I've shared for at least 13 years.


     Q22: Tell us why you are driven to unseat the incumbent you will be challenging?

     A22: Assemblywoman Rita Mayfield is a dedicated public servant, who indisputably has the district's interests at heart. But Illinois is experiencing severe budgetary problems; it consistently suffers from a lack of sustainable revenue sources. I would like to use my past research, writing, and policy proposals regarding tax revenue sourcing and environmental taxation, to help solve this problem. I firmly believe that legislators whom have not ever heard of Georgism / Land Value Taxation, are insufficiently equipped to address Illinois's biggest problem. Nothing personal against Rep. Mayfield, but I feel that I would be effective in achieving change for the district, and in representing the 60th district in the state legislature, because of my studies on revenue, and because of my attention to detail. I also feel that I am qualified for the position, due to my particular education in political science (which Rep. Mayfield lacks, having studied science, organization, and information systems). It's time that we were governed by someone whom has heard of more than just the two most famous economic systems.


     Q23: Are there any stories that you’ve heard about life in your district that have motivated you to run?

     A23: District 60 is like a lot of places in America; densely populated, poor, and filled with polluted and abandoned construction projects and vacant lots. I spent the early 2010s traveling across the country, and saw that there is very little variation in terms of these problems, and in terms of drug addiction. I have experienced temporary homelessness (despite growing up in a modestly wealthy suburban home), and met others who have struggled with the same problem, and with perpetually losing wallets and phones. Child abuse, child neglect, and parental neglect of children's needs to acquire worthwhile marketable skills while in school, have led to a hollowing-out of the middle class, and increased the financial disparity and social alienation between the employing/lending class, and the working poor and the unemployed. Despite living indoors, I and my neighbors who rent apartments struggle to get consistent heat, due to not fully owning our homes and having little access to attorneys. Sometimes not owning a home still feels like being homeless. Nobody should have to work overtime just to maintain the cheapest apartment they can find. I want to free the economy from monopoly controls, to create a fairer economy that respects everyone's opportunity to participate, and which recognizes that everyone has something to contribute (even if they don't do what's traditionally considered socially valuable work that deserves monetary pay). I would also like to advance an in-depth proposal which would reform the laws governing the behavior of Illinois state police, in order to prevent unjustifiable police shootings like that of Justus Howell, who was shot to death in Zion (which is near the 60th district).


     Q24: What are some of the most critical issues that you can change by being a representative in the seat you are seeking?

     A24:

- Health: As long as the federal government refrains from passing Medicare for All -type legislation, advocate for the creation of a truly optional public option to insure Illinoisans. Support reforms to enable access to low-cost health services, such as by 1) reforming medical workers' contracts, 2) urging non-profits and charities and health cooperatives to work with clinics offering direct primary care, and 3) relieving taxes on medical goods and services.

- Environment and taxation: Advocate for differential property taxation, split-rate taxation, or Land Value Taxation, in order to reform property taxes, and replace self-depleting and unsustainable taxes on production, with taxes on waste and destruction of public resources. This will help fully fund government at the local level, allowing many other budgetary problems to be solved, including the public pensions funding problem.

- Immigration: Support any and all attempts by Illinois and Waukegan to be a sanctuary state and a sanctuary city. Urge the governor to interpose I.C.E. agents attempting to act within Illinois, and to nullify the federal law which unconstitutionally authorized I.C.E..

- Policing: Support reforms which will bring about increased surveillance of, and transparency into the actions of, the police, while on duty (including more body cameras, and increased penalties for turning off or interfering with cameras). I plan to use my experience as a security guard, to help establish a set of principles by which to delineate the different responsibilities which should be either split-up among, or shared by, private security guards and police officers. Replace beat cops with peace officers. Establish a strict use-of-force continuum, which includes a protocol requiring police to identify the person who called police, before arriving at the scene, and then finding that person and ensuring that they're safe, as soon as police arrive on the scene.

- Education: Support bringing auto and wood shops (and modernizing shop through other trades courses, such as CAD and 3-D printing) back to high schools. Avoid the risk of lawsuits against schools arising due to shop injuries, by implementing lawsuit waiver systems for students wishing to participate, and by splitting-up high school campuses so that only juniors and seniors attend school at campuses that have shop (and parking).


     Q25: Facebook link

     A25: http://www.facebook.com/groups/2908918519377509

     Q26: Twitter link

     A26: http://twitter.com/JoeKopsick


     Q27: Website link/s (personal, campaign, or other websites that you are associated with)

     A27: www.joekopsick.com

 

     Q28: Are you involved in any People’s Party hubs or in any volunteer capacity? If so please describe.

     A28: Not yet

 

 

 

Responses written on May 13^th, 2021

Preface written on May 13^th, 2021, and edited on May 14^th, 2021

Published on May 15^th, 2021

 

Response to the Green Party Youth Caucus's Candidate Survey

Q1: Name?

A1: Joseph W. Kopsick.







Q2: Email?

A2: jwkopsick@gmail.com





Q3: Phone?

A3: 608-417-9395

Q4: Position Sought?

A4: U.S. Representative (10^th District).

Q5: State?

A5: Illinois.






Q6: Are you running as a Green? If not, why not?

A6: No, I'm running as a write-in candidate, and trying to form a Mutualist Party in Illinois. The Green Party declined to nominate me by one vote.






Q7: Have you sought and have you been endorsed by your local party and your state party? If not, why not?

A7: I tried to get nominated by the Green Party but approval failed by one vote. I tried to get nominated by the Libertarian Party before that, and David Rych was nominated instead. I was the only person whom the state Libertarian Party ran somebody against, although I was told that it was in error and I would have been nominated if I had contacted the right person in time. But the way I lost the nomination at the state convention makes me doubt that; electronic voting failed, and then in the paper ballot round I was handed a ballot filled out with the name of my opponent instead of a blank ballot. Ideologically I am right between the Libertarian and Green parties, so I probably failed both parties' tests because I am not strongly aligned enough with one party or the other. But I believe that candidates in the middle will get more votes, while still promoting a large number of Green Party interests, because I believe that the radical middle is closer to where the average undecided and independent voter is. I want radical, swift change, but I also want lasting, constitutional reform, so I tend to mention the Constitution and the need for balanced budgets more than the average Green seems to appreciate. But the need to protect the environment, anti-war issues, and small parties' need for election reform, are progressive values that will always be important to me.





Q8: What other groups have endorsed your campaign?

A8: None so far, although I am in contact with Black Lives Matter, Stepping Stones (a sexual abuse recovery organization), and the local Green and Libertarian party chapters, concerning legislative matters related to issues they care about. My campaign manager and I are working on reaching out to more groups, including on social media.





Q9: How does your campaign help build the Green Party?

A9: Growing the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and the number of independents in elected office are major goals of mine. I like to remind Libertarians that the party's co-founder David Nolan was a "Geo-Libertarian". This means that in terms of economics and tax policy, Nolan believed that Land Value Taxation is the most efficient, and least harmful, form of taxation. Milton Friedman praised L.V.T. as well. This means that Greens and Libertarians are much more compatible on environmental and tax issues than they think they are. I will promote things Greens and Libertarians agree on: decentralization, anti-war issues, civil liberties and police brutality reforms, and re-orienting tax policies across the nation in a manner which focuses on preserving the environment and the quality of land. I will advocate replacing all or most current forms of taxation - except for mineral resource exploration fees - with a tax on the unimproved value of land, and on the disuse and abuse of land in a way which makes it unusable by other potential human owners and by native species.





Q10: How does your campaign help empower youth?

A10: One of my top three issues is protecting children, together with reforming education. My proposed constitutional amendment, SKA (the Safe Kids Amendment), would reform education and child trafficking laws in a manner which protects children from kidnapping while also providing them with the skills and education they need to have middle class careers. I support bringing wood and auto shops, and other trade skills courses, back to high schools, but only for upperclassmen, and only with waiver systems, and on campuses separate from freshmen and sophomores. Additionally, as part of SKA, all states should be prohibited from allowing people under 17 to get married. I will also push for a full congressional investigation into the crimes of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein.









Q11: How do you foresee your campaign advancing liberation for frontline communities?

[Author's Note: “Frontline communities” refers to communities on the front line of potential ocean level rise due to sea ice melting which results from less and less ice melting each year due to harsher summers between those melting seasons.]


A11: Tax policy should be re-oriented so as to focus on using punitive taxation to disincentivize the degradation of land, water, and air. Sourcing all of government's taxes from the misuse and abuse of land, will help prevent environmental degradation, while improving our economy. It will help production occur with the minimum amount of pollution necessary, and for each community to set up Community Land Trusts would help ensure that no pollution and mineral extraction occur without fully compensating the community (through paying taxes and compensating the community's health costs). Refocusing a huge portion of our political economy on environmental issues and land use, will help ensure that the land is responsibly developed, without either sacrificing the environment, or sacrificing too many jobs too quickly. I additionally support a tax on land hoarding, and I support ending all subsidies to all forms of energy, to end the rigging of the energy markets.





Q12: How do your foresee you campaign advancing anticapitalism and ecosocialism?

A12: If the question is "How do you foresee your campaign advancing ecosocialism?", then my answer is that I hope to promote Georgist (land-oriented), Mutualist, and socialist values and policy proposals, by discouraging the collection of rent, interest, and profit, but without prohibiting them. I will make it clear that these things are symptoms of the problems of monopoly; government grants the monopoly right to collect rent, interest, and/or profit to a given bank or business or certified lender. This rigs the economy; therefore rent, interest, and profit should decrease. They will only go away completely, when monopolies are broken up and defunded. I support removing all taxpayer supports of monopolies and oligopolies, to give socialists (and people wishing to build voluntary communes) the opportunity to participate in the economy with everybody else.





Q13: How many doors do you think your campaign can knock on? How many calls can it make?

A13: My campaign currently has only a small number of volunteers, but we are in the process of finding more volunteers. We will be spreading awareness about mail-in voting, as well as the push to make mail-in voting more difficult.



Q14: What kind of events and community involvement will your campaign have?

A14: My campaign will attempt to hold meet-and-greets, including candidate question-and-answer sessions, at local libraries, and possibly private events. We have held one meet-and-greet so far; in March in Lake Bluff.





Q15: How much money does your campaign anticipate fundraising? And how?

A15: We are not actively fundraising. My campaign manager has donated some gifts to the campaign, in the form of paying for campaign literature and signs and advertisements to be printed. But I want to set a good example for other congressional campaigns, by not accepting corporate contributions, and having my campaign be funded (thus far) by myself and my campaign manager. I hope that other candidates follow my example, and I hope that this helps get money out of politics.



Q16: What other groups will you seek support from?

A16: I will seek support from any and all parties, clubs, interest groups, and organizations that support civil liberties, peace, environmental justice, racial justice, equal protection of minorities, individual rights, increased ballot access for third parties and independents, decentralization of powers not specifically delegated to the federal government, and serious fiscal reform.






Q17: What parts of the district do you think you are strongest in and why?

A17: I'm not sure. Due to my message of promoting economic reforms that would make the markets more free and more fair, I suspect that I will do the best in areas with large numbers of young people, low-income voters, and people who do not identify strongly with either the Democratic Party or Republican Party. I also believe that making environmental issues a top priority will help appeal to people across my district, because many people in Lake County live near places where industrial pollution has recently taken place.





Q18: What forms of support would you ideally like from the Youth Caucus?

A18: I would like your endorsement, but what really matters to me are the individual write-in votes on Election Day (as well as your members' trust in me as an independent citizen-legislator). And if your members and supporters could share links about my campaign, I would appreciate it.






Q19: What is your current online and social media presence?

A19: I am active on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, and other sites.





Q20: Website?

A20: www.joekopsick.com (under construction).




Q21: Facebook?

A21:
- Personal: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100012735515034
- Campaign Group: http://www.facebook.com/groups/586988188625917/
- Mutualist Party of IL page: http://www.facebook.com/MutualistPartyIL/?modal=admin_todo_tour





Q22: Twitter?

A22: http://twitter.com/JoeKopsick





Q23: Other?

A23:
- My blog: www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/

- My platform: http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2019/08/expanded-platform-for-us-house-of.html
- YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/JoeKopsick4Congress





Q24: What is your media plan for your campaign?

A24: I believe that it will not be necessary to attempt to garner media coverage during the second half of August, because I suspect that the fact that I have made it into the League of Women Voters' debates throughout the month of September, will gain me some media coverage, without any effort on my own behalf. But I am interested in reaching out to independent media, freelance journalists, and reporters who are used to covering independent and third party runs.

Responses Written and Published on August 17th, 2020

Political Questionnaire: Are You a Joe Kopsick Voter? #2

Click on the above image in order to view in greater detail

Questionnaire created and published on May 12th, 2020

Updated (guns question edited) on August 27th, 2020

Political Questionnaire: Are You a Joe Kopsick Voter? #1

Click on the above image in order to view it in greater detail

Designed and Published on May 11th, 2020
Edited on May 13th, 2020

Based on Notes from a March 7th, 2020 post titled

"Trump vs. Biden vs. Bernie Sanders vs. Joe Kopsick on the Issues"

which can be viewed at the following link:

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2020/03/trump-and-biden-vs-bernie-sanders-vs.html

Responses to the iSideWith Political Survey (Incomplete)

     What follows are my responses to the 157 questions which, as of July 2019, comprise the political questionnaire at www.isidewith.com.
     That survey can be accessed at http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2020-presidential-quiz.
     My responses to this questionnaire should be considered as my platform for my upcoming run in the 2020 race for election to the U.S. House of Representatives from Illinois's 10th district.

National Security Issues

     1. Should the president be able to authorize military force against al-Qaeda without congressional approval?

     No / No, Congress should approve all military conflicts.

     Congress should repeal the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (A.U.M.F.), as well as the 1973 War Powers Act, as soon as possible. This will help Congress to regain and retain its duly delegated right to approve or deny the authorization of all uses of force in which the United States military and/or its contractors participate, which the Congress unduly surrendered to the executive through these acts of legislation.

     2. Should the U.S. assassinate suspected terrorists in foreign countries?

     No / No, they should be captured and given a fair trial

     They should be captured, interrogated (without torture), and held until they can be given a speedy trial. All crimes committed on U.S. soil must be tried in the United States, in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred. The U.S. government must not deny due process rights to anyone accused of breaking a U.S. law, regardless of that person's citizenship status.
     If the U.S. government wishes to assassinate a suspected terrorist in a foreign country, then Congress should either urge that country to charge that person with some crime deserving of the death penalty, or formally declare war and authorize military action if the country refuses to prosecute the suspected terrorist.

Social Issues

     3. What is your stance on abortion?

     Pro-choice / Pro-choice, and providing birth control, sex education, and more social services will help reduce the number of abortions.

     I believe that abortion should be legal, but that it should not be funded by taxpayer money. People who wish to get abortions can pay for it themselves, or access charitable services and mutual aid in order to pay for an abortion, but inviting taxpayer funds into the mix only risks politicizing the issue.

Victims of rape and incest should have access to abortion services, but nobody who is unwilling to pay for it should be required to do so. That, however, does not mean that nothing resembling a public fund for abortion could exist; it could, as long as its members consisted solely of pro-choice people who donated funds willingly to help low-income people access abortion.

     Furthermore, I oppose taxpayer support of abortion in order to save the life of mothers in emergencies. If a mother is in danger of dying during childbirth, then it is likely that the baby, the mother, or both, will die, and it is also likely that an extremely difficult decision will have to be made. It is not the place of government, nor politicians, to intrude in an intimate matter such as this, nor is it any legislator's place to intrude upon the decision of a woman who gets an abortion mostly for the lack of funds and resources which would be necessary to raise a child.

     But a legislator should also not be able to say that a baby must not be allowed to die because public funds may not pay for it. Women should be free to get abortions, using any and all funds which are collected voluntarily, whether they are called public funds or not. But the government ought not collect such funds, unless there are assurances that nobody may ever be made into a donor unwillingly.

     Additionally, doctors take the Hippocratic Oath, which includes a promise to provide treatment to people regardless of their ability to pay. So the idea that a team of doctors and nurses would refuse to save the life of a mother who is in danger of dying while giving birth, because of questions surrounding who will pay for the procedure, is ridiculous.

     Treatment necessary to save lives will always be available because of hard-working doctors who care about saving lives, and there will always be people willing to donate so that others can afford to get abortions.

     Providing birth control and sex education, and keeping contraceptives legal without a prescription, will help reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Additionally, making adoption, surrogacy, and even (some day) fetal transplants, could help reduce the number of abortions even further.

     Abortion should neither be banned outright, nor should abortionists nor mothers be punished, nor should abortion nor sterilization be made mandatory under any circumstances. But infanticide should remain illegal, and doctors should make any and all reasonable attempts possible and necessary to keep alive babies who have been born as the result of failed abortions.

     Finally, the prospect of Roe v. Wade being overturned should not concern us, since the decision never guaranteed abortion as a right in any manner, but allowed states to pass any restriction on abortion they pleased, so long as the states deem that legislation “reasonable”. Planned Parenthood v. Casey re-affirmed Roe v. Wade, and thus affirmed the legality of these state restrictions. While supporters of abortion fear that Roe being struck down will "take away the right to abortion", Roe being struck down could potentially result in state laws restricting abortion being declared unconstitutional.

     The only way forward is to affirm that abortion is a natural human right, which the 9^th Amendment implicitly recognizes and honors. Bodily autonomy, sexual autonomy, the right to marry, the right to reproduce, and the right to make family planning decisions, may not be explicitly named in the Constitution, but the meaning of the Ninth Amendment is that basic rights (like the right to be free and to have a family) don't need to be specifically mentioned in order to exist.
     Abortion is a natural human right, but it is not a positive right (the kind which entails obligations being put on others to provide it or pay for it). Neither should abortion be considered a legal right, nor considered something we can get only if we pay the government and/or ask for its permission. Abortion is a right which cannot naturally - and should not - be infringed, nor taken away, by government.

     4. Do you support the legalization of same sex marriage?

     Yes / Yes, but allow churches the right to refuse same-sex ceremonies.

     Marriage should never be legally defined as solely between a man and a woman, just as it should not be defined as between two people of the same sex.
     I support same-sex marriage being “legalized”, but only in the sense that being “legalized” is the opposite of same-sex marriage being illegal. Same-sex marriage shouldn't be illegal, but it shouldn't be “permitted” either.
     I support same-sex domestic partnerships, civil unions, and marriages being unrestricted. However, preventing the restriction of marriages between consenting adults, requires that we resist the temptation to seek unnecessary actions to make same-sex marriage more widely accepted. These unnecessary actions include legal and political methods, organized violence, and marriage license systems.

     Gay couples' rights to marry – which are very personal rights, much too personal for the government to intrude upon - are implicitly enshrined in the 9^th Amendment, and they are part of gays' rights to pursue happiness. If the government is to stay out of our bedrooms and out of our pocketbooks, then we must not allow government to charge us money for a marriage license.

     For some people, the idea that government should be allowed to confirm or deny the right to marry – and, moreover, that the government ought to require a permit to apply for a license to get married – is ridiculous. Contracts, private arbitration, and recording the event in the family Bible, can accomplish everything a couple needs to say they're married (and, additionally, for all or most of their friends and family to accept their decision and agree that the marriage is valid).

     Additionally, for many people, marriage being a religious decision is important, and it is enough, and no government can affect such a deeply personal decision that two people make. As such, churches should remain free to refuse same-sex ceremonies.

     Except, of course, when it comes to whether that marriage is considered legitimate by the rest of society, and by the government. So, then, why should there exist state marriage licensing systems, which only risk that some set of marriages (say, same-sex ones) could be invalidated at any moment?

     “Take the government out of marriage and instead make it a religious decision” nearly describes my position, but while many people view marriage as a religious decision, many view it as a matter of contract, and thus think it totally appropriate that civil government have something to do with it. So while government must not be made into a solely political institution, neither should it be made into a solely religious institution.

     The best way forward is to insist that the right to marry, whether it's a person of the same sex or not, derives from our inherent natural human rights to pursue happiness, make decisions concerning sex and sexuality and family planning, and to marry and have children if we please. Those rights do not come from the government, and enjoying those rights should not be conditional upon paying the government to do so, nor upon asking for its permission.

     5. Should the government continue to fund Planned Parenthood?

     No / No, and the government should not give funds to any organizations

     The government should not give funds to any organizations, let alone organizations that perform abortions. The government should not fund Planned Parenthood; not for its abortion services, nor for its cancer screening, prenatal services, nor adoption referrals. All funding for Planned Parenthood should be collected voluntarily, rather than extorted from taxpayers.

     6. Should gay couples have the same adoption rights as straight couples?

     Yes / Yes, as long as they pass the same background checks as straight couples

     Same-sex couples, and couples including trans individuals, should not be prohibited, nor unduly restricted nor enjoined, from enjoy the same rights to access family planning services, abortions, and adoptions, as do heterosexual couples seeking adoption.
     As long as same-sex couples pass the same background checks which heterosexual couples are expected to pass, then adoption agencies should not prioritize offering children to straight couples before offering them to gay couples. However, no religious orphanage or adoption agency should be legally required to consider same-sex couples as candidates for placing children.


     7. Should marital rape be classified and punished as severely as non-marital rape?

     Yes

     Marital rape should be classified as sexual battery, not domestic violence.
     Additionally, sex with a spouse under the age of 18 (or 16 or 17; whichever age of marriage the state prescribes) should also be classified as sexual battery, not domestic violence. I would support a constitutional amendment prohibiting all states from licensing marriages involving people below the age of 16.


     8. Should “gender identity” be added to anti-discrimination laws?

     Yes / Yes, and the government should do more to protect minorities from discrimination.

     Gender identity and biological sex, and national origin – in addition to race, ethnicity, and religion – should never be used as bases upon which to discriminate.

     The purpose of the government is to be an inclusive, universal, non-discriminatory institution, and so nobody may be prohibited from accessing public services (unless they have agreed to become an outlaw, receiving no protection from the government whatsoever).

     While private residences and private enterprises should retain the right to discriminate and refuse service for any reason, many enterprises now considered private are not actually private, since they receive some form(s) of taxpayer subsidies, supports, and/or protections. Thus, any “private enterprise” receiving taxpayer support, should not be discriminating, since it is, in effect, a publicly-funded institution.

     No enterprise should be free to discriminate on the basis of gender identity, unless it agrees to give up every single form of subsidy, support, and protection which it derives through the funding and assent of the taxpayers. This should apply to discrimination in hiring, housing and loan applications, and all other functions for which public funds are expended.

     9. Should health insurance providers be required to offer free birth control?

     Yes, except for religious organizations and charities that oppose the use of contraception

     I would answer “No, the government should not decide what services a private business can provide”, but that answer wouldn't describe my position. To say “government shouldn't require insurers to offer free birth control because government shouldn't make decisions about private businesses” implies that we're talking about truly private businesses in the first place.

     While it's true that government should not make decisions about private businesses, most health insurance providers are not private businesses because of all the public taxpayer funds they receive.

     Health insurance providers should be required to offer free birth control, as long as they receive taxpayer funds, and the public wants them to. Health insurance providers which receive taxpayer funds, should not be considered “private”, and because they are not truly private, they should not be allowed to deny people goods and services which the public (which supports them) wishes them to provide.

     Private health insurance providers should continue to exist, however. Insurance providers should be free to deny contraception, as long as they are truly private and receive no taxpayer subsidies whatsoever. Religious organizations and charities that oppose the use of contraception must never receive taxpayer funding.
     Health insurance providers which receive taxpayer funding, should never be free to discriminate against us by denying us contraception, while we are not free to discriminate against them by taking away their privileges and bailouts.


     10. Should a business be able to deny service to a customer if the request conflicts with the owner's religious beliefs?

     Yes.

     A business should be free to deny service for any reason, but only if the business receives no taxpayer funding whatsoever.

     Whether a business receives taxpayer funding or not, it should not be allowed to discriminate, nor to deny service to anyone, if it is a venue offering public accommodations. No enterprise should be free to discriminate while receiving taxpayer funds, regardless of its size or the number of its employees, regardless of how many states in which it has franchises or sources of labor and capital, and regardless of whether they post a sign stating their beliefs and what they refuse. That information can be communicated verbally.

     Customers of private establishments are not “members of the public”, they are private individuals who agree to enter into temporary contracts, whether written or verbal, with the operators of the establishment. What individuals do on other people's private property should be a matter of private contract, but anyone occupying property secured, securitized, or bailed-out with the help of public funds, should be subject to the same anti-discrimination laws which protect people from discrimination by public institutions and protect people while they are on public property.
     Allegations of discrimination by enterprises which directly affect interstate commerce, such that they source any of their labor and/or capital from outside the state, should be handled by the federal government. Allegations of discrimination by enterprises sourcing all their labor and capital from within a single state, and enterprises with franchises in only one state, should be handled by that state's government.

     11. Should the military allow women to serve in combat roles?

     Yes / Yes, as long as they can pass the same physical tests as men / Yes, preventing women from serving in combat roles is discriminatory

     Women should not be prohibited from serving in combat roles in the military. Nor should women be required to register for the Selective Service (draft).

     The military should never discriminate on the basis of biological sex, sexual orientation, nor gender identity; let alone forcibly compel people to join the Armed Forces. The Selective Service, along with registration therefor, should be abolished, such that there is no chance of anyone – men, women, the poor, etc. - being coerced or compelled into rendering public military service in person.

     12. Do you support the death penalty?

     No / No, too many people are innocently convicted

     The government should never have the power of life and death over us. Even if a person is accused of horrific crimes, and the evidence seems undeniable, people on death row have nevertheless been freed after decades of imprisonment.

     Spending life in prison is not necessarily a harsher sentence than death, but as long as a convicted murderer is not only unrepentant, but also a nearly constant danger to others, then the public has a duty to try to rehabilitate the person.

     The moral risk of wrongly condemning one innocent person to death, is not worth any price we could pay for it. Victims' families may call for harsh punishments, but extraordinary punishments call for extraordinary levels of proof and assurance. A traumatized family might find some closure in seeing their son's murderer executed, but that closure will not exist so long as there is any lingering doubt as to whether the convict is really the person who did it. And many murderers have families too; families who love them unconditionally and do not want them to be executed, even if they are guilty. The victim has a right to receive justice, but as long as the family of a murderer did not incite or equip the murderer to kill, then the murderer's family should be considered (at least potentially) every bit as innocent as the murder victim.

     A person who has been condemned to death, should not be executed, unless and until it actually becomes necessary or beneficial to others, to kill him. For example, if he escaped from confinement, and tried to commit some act of violence, or credibly threatened physical harm against others. That scenario is very different from - and arguably more necessary and “legitimate” than - executing someone with the consent of law, after a “proper trial and conviction”. Is it really so “civil” to essentially sit around calmly and decide that you're all going to have someone killed, just because you call it a “proper trial and conviction”?

     Not everyone who has killed before will kill again; they may have even killed in order to save lives, or committed an accidental or negligent act of homicide. We cannot assume that all murderers will kill again; we shouldn't even assume that all murderers are bad people. Killing a murderer when and only if they become violent again, in self-defense or the defense of others, is a much more necessary and “legitimate” way to go about killing a convicted murderer who really needs to be killed.

     13. Should states be allowed to display the Confederate flag on government property?

     No / No, and ban any public display of the flag

     While it's fair to say that some of the collective and private display of Confederate flags is intended to symbolize states' rights and political independence, Confederate political and military flags symbolize rebellion when flown by agencies of the U.S. government.

     While I acknowledge that there are even African-Americans who display the battle flag proudly and believe it to represent Southern pride, Confederate flags nonetheless represent racism and treason to many people.

     Confederate flags should not be displayed on public property, nor on any property which is ostensibly private but which is in fact receiving public taxpayer funds. No public institution should display Confederate flags; and this includes museums, as I believe that no institution should ever receive public funds, even if it cannot thrive on voluntary donations.

     Truly private museums which receive no public funds, and private residences, however, should be free to display Confederate flags.


     14. Should terminally ill patients be allowed to end their lives via assisted suicide?

     Yes

     Terminally ill patients should be free to end their lives via assisted suicide, and also free to refuse artificial life support, as well as free to try medications that could save their lives even if they are untested and could kill them. The government should not intrude into intimate, personal, life-and-death decisions like these. Such decisions are not worth the risk of politicizing, and should stay as close to the patient and the patient's family as possible.
     While it is important to make sure that a patient is in full possession of his faculties when making the decision to end his life, we should not necessarily trust whatever manner of psychological examinations are currently being offered as proof that the patient fully understands his choice. That's because such a choice can only be made with full knowledge of the range of alternatives and opportunities available to the patient. If the patient is only free to choose euthanasia or experimental medication when it is inevitable that their illness will kill them, then it is already too late for alternative treatments, and euthanasia is the “only option”.

     While lack of medical information makes a fully-informed decision to end one's life basically impossible, euthanasia should nevertheless be an option for patients. However, we can and should seek to reduce rates of euthanasia, “medical killings”, and “mercy killings”, by educating patients about the full range of medications and treatments which could be employed to help them stave-off death. That way, a person's illness will be less likely to progress to the point at which euthanasia would be considered the “only option”, or the merciful option.


     15. Should businesses be required to have women on their boards of directors?

     No

     The government should not tell people how to run their businesses, nor does it have an appropriate role in requiring private businesses' boards, nor workplaces, to be diverse enough. For truly private enterprises receiving no public supports, the set of people serving as board members should be the most qualified, regardless of biological sex or gender or any other factor.

     However, any and all public institutions, and ostensibly “private” enterprises which actually receive public taxpayer funding, should be required to have women on their boards, if the public so desires.

     The prospect of requiring companies to have women on their boards of directors only if they are “large international corporations” is interesting, if only for the fact that corporations are financially and legally insulated from competition and legal consequences by the public (and with the use of public funds). While corporate status should preclude a company from discriminating, the size of the business should not be used as a determining factor as to whether a business should be free to discriminate.

     However, whether the business is involved in interstate commerce, should be an important factor. If the business is active in only one state, then it may not be required to be inclusive of women unless that state's laws require it to do so. But if the business is active in more than one state, then the issue of whether it may discriminate is the federal government's decision. In either case, the federal or state government may prohibit businesses from discriminating in any and all manners as the public wishes.

     No business should continue to receive public taxpayer funds, while having discriminatory hiring practices against members of the very same community from which it draws those funds.

     16. Should transgender athletes be allowed to compete in athletic events?

     Yes

     Sports stadiums, teams, and facilities receiving public funds, should not be free to exclude transgender athletes from competing; nor should any ostensibly “private” sports facility exclude transgender athletes if it in fact receives public funds.

     Transgender athletes should be required to prove that their hormone levels are equivalent to those in the gender category in which they compete, if and only if the organizations and facilities on and for which they're competing, are truly private and receive no taxpayer funds, and as long as the transgender athlete is an adult and has duly consented to be subject to hormone testing as a condition of competing.

     Since the purpose of government is to be inclusive, and not to discriminate, any school wishing to discriminate against transgender athletes, should not receive public funds.

     Since some level of separation on the basis of sex is practically inevitable when it comes to regulating the behavior of teenage students at sporting events, a situation in which no school receives public funds (and thus, in which public schools do not exist) would be most useful when it comes to making progress on this issue. That's because – to put it simply – having a boys' locker room and a girls' locker room should not be considered segregation that merits intervention or redress through legal or governmental action.
     The issue of whether and how to integrate or segregate physical education and sporting events on the basis of biological sex or gender identity, should be decided by the individual school. Some schools will choose to require transgender and nonbinary individuals to compete based on the biological sex that is listed on their birth certificate, while other schools will choose to allow trans individuals to compete based on their gender identity. Still other schools will abolish sexually segregated sports competition altogether.

     Regardless of any school's individual choice, the right of the student to move to a more inclusive school, or to speak to the school board to request a change of policy, should never be infringed. And whatever the choices of a school and a transgender athlete, other students should be consulted before they are expected to be present in locker rooms or restrooms with anyone around whom they feel uncomfortable, regardless of the person's sex or gender.

     In addressing this issue, we must also be mindful that if the federal or state government has the power to control the policy of school districts or individual schools, then those governments can just as easily require discrimination against transgender student athletes, as it can prohibit discrimination. The power to do one, is the power to do the other; and thus, the decision-making power should stay as close to the school and surrounding community as possible.

     However, I would oppose any and all attempts by schools to require students' hormone levels to be equivalent to the gender category in which they compete, because this requirement could invite intrusive monitoring which interfere with students' privacy, doctor-patient confidentiality, and bodily autonomy.

[Responses to Questions #17 through #157 will be available on this page at a later date.]

Written on July 9th and 10th, 2019

Originally Published (in part) on July 10th, 2019

Edited and Expanded on July 12th, 2019