2024 VoteSmart Political Courage Test
Started over 30 years ago by Presidents Ford and Carter and other political leaders, Republicans, Democrats and independents alike, each leader knew our democracy depends on Americans having the trusted, factual tools needed to resist deception, manipulation and division based on lies and emotional appeals. Our founding president, Richard Kimball, led this effort from the beginning and united leaders, politicians, educators and others to create this special tool for the American people. From Arizona to Oregon to Massachusetts to Montana to Iowa, Vote Smart has done this work longer than any other unbiased project funded by ordinary citizens. When you are ready, head over to see all our voter tools for you to use.
(You can read my responses and compare them to those of my opponents here.)
Abortion and Reproductive Health
a. Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation? C - Pro Choice.
b. Do you support legalizing abortion when the pregnancy resulted from incest or rape? Y - Yes
c. Do you support the prohibition of public funds (e.g. Medicaid) for organizations that perform abortions? Y - Yes
Other or expanded principles:
Libertarians accept that people on both sides of this issue can hold good faith views, but we also believe that the government should be kept out of the matter leaving the question to each person for their own conscientious consideration. In other words, every person has (and should always have) the right to make decisions for themselves even if we disagree with those decisions, but the government - at any level - should have absolutely no authority or opinion on the matter.
I follow what's called the "non-aggression principle", or NAP. It's subtle and nuanced, but it can basically be summed up as follows: "individuals have the right to make their own choices in life as long as those choices do not involve initiation or threat of force or fraud against others."
For abortion's supporters, that means that the process of fetal abortion violates the NAP by initiating force against a fetus, who has no defense against such aggression.
For abortion's opponents, that means that any rule or law denying the option for an abortion for any reason violates the NAP by requiring the woman to carry a possibly unwanted pregnancy to term, thus possibly affecting her choice of career, her income, and any possible future opportunities. And if the fetus was the result of an act of aggression itself, there is the distinct possibility of her also suffering with emotional trauma and post-traumatic stress.
Both sides lose, regardless of how you twist your perceptions.
Ultimately, once you allow yourself to step back and look at this issue without a predetermined agenda, the "heartbeat law" currently enabled within Texas law can only be seen as a deliberate attempt by one group to force their beliefs on someone else whether the second group agrees with those beliefs or not. This authoritarian mindset should be unwelcome in Texas, but by legislating this specific version of morality as being superior to all others, this law is simply another example of a "prohibition law" that I believe should (very much like the 18th Amendment) be repealed.
If we, as Texans, seek to eliminate abortion in our state, then we must make its alternatives more easily available including over-the-counter contraception options, simplifying and reducing the cost of infant adoption, as well as finding other avenues to assure the physical and mental health of those who choose to undergo any of the available processes.
And if we insist on retaining this "prohibition" law, then we need to add another law that allows the victims of this law the ability to file suit for damages (i.e., loss of career, loss of income, loss of possible future opportunities) and child support against the party (or parties) that forced them into this position. After all, fair is fair.
In the end, you absolutely have a perfect right to believe whatever you want to believe, but what you don't have a right to do is to force your ideas and beliefs on anyone else, period, even through legislation.
Budget, Spending, and Taxes
a. In order to balance the budget, do you support limiting state government spending on social programs (e.g. SNAP, TANF)? N - No
b. Do you support a decrease in income taxes in order to promote economic growth? Y - Yes
c. Do you support a wealth tax in order to pay for public programs in your state? N - No
Other or expanded principles:
As a Libertarian, I would normally support any initiative to limit government spending on inefficient or unnecessary social programs as a way to balance the budget. We believe that a smaller government can lead to a more prosperous society, and initiatives like this reduce government intervention in the economy and promote individual responsibility while also emphasizing fiscal responsibility and minimizing the state's influence in people's lives. Along this line, neither would I support a wealth tax to fund these initiatives. This is rooted in my beliefs that (1) individuals should have the right to keep the fruits of their labor, and (2) that individuals should not be compelled to support through their taxes any activities that they may morally or ethically oppose.
Such funding involves force (through taxation) to support causes that some people may disagree with. Instead, I advocate for a system where individuals can choose to support or not support specific organizations and causes through voluntary contributions or privatization rather than through compulsory taxation.
That said, I believe that some social programs are absolutely necessary including any program that is designed or intended to promote personal responsibility or provide safety nets for the truly needy, like programs addressing homelessness or emergency assistance. While Libertarians generally advocate for minimal government intervention, some of us argue that local governments should (at least) provide certain public spaces or facilities to help manage the issue, while others might contend that such responsibilities should be left to private entities. Many of us support policies that balance the rights of all individuals, including the homeless, while also respecting the interests of those who use or maintain public spaces. We may not agree with the idea of the unsheltered encamped on private property against the owner's wishes, or in public spaces where they may be unsafe. Most of these encampments typically exist in out-of-the-way areas that pose no hazard or threat to anyone else, and we believe that they are undeserving of the antagonism expressed toward them. Admittedly, our largest challenge is finding a balance that respects property rights while addressing social issues effectively.
While being unsheltered in Denton County is not as large an issue as it seems to be in Dallas or Tarrant Counties, it is still an issue that I believe deserves our attention. Many of the unsheltered to whom I have personally spoken, or whose stories I have overheard, describe their situations in terms that relate more directly to post-traumatic stress (PTS) than to any other causal event. Make no mistake in my intentions: despite their existing social standing and (in many cases) lack of authoritative identification, the vast majority of the unsheltered are still United States citizens and deserve to be represented in the state legislature. Even those unsheltered who are not citizens still deserve the respect and consideration that all people deserve, so despite the larger possibility that I will never receive their votes, I still want to help be their voice in the Texas House.
Crime and Public Safety
a. Do you support capital punishment for violent crimes? N - No
b. Should an individual under 18 accused of a violent crime be prosecuted as an adult? Y - Yes
c. Do you support the enforcement of federal immigration laws by state and local police? N - No
d. Do you support the use of private prisons? Y - Yes
e. Do you support mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders? N - No
f. Do you support the legalization of marijuana for recreational use? Y - Yes
Other or expanded principles:
Libertarians prioritize individual freedom and autonomy, arguing that adults should be free to make their own choices regarding personal behavior, as long as those choices do not directly harm others or infringe upon their rights. We generally believe that government should not dictate moral standards or enforce personal lifestyle choices, so we support the decriminalization or legalization of vice-related activities, viewing such prohibitive laws as unnecessary and infringing upon individual liberty. This includes advocating for the legalization of drugs, gambling, adult entertainment, and other consensual activities between adults.
For instance, it is illegal to grow hemp or cannabis in Texas for the single simple reason that people could consume it to alter their mental state. It doesn't matter that the crop itself has multiple "real world" applications to which it historically has been used (e.g., textiles, paper, lumber, medicines, etc.); it's only illegal because someone could get high from it. Growing hemp (and cannabis) is a way of growing our state. It's a way of making people free, growing jobs, and increasing our tax base without increasing tax rates. Growing, processing, and distributing both cannabis and hemp should not be regulated any more than any other agricultural crop.
Legalization of cannabis at the recreational level is preferred, but at the medicinal level is necessary, if for no other reason than we are wasting too much of the taxpayer's money on prosecuting and housing non-violent drug offenders. Nearly half of the drug-related arrests across the U.S. stem from cannabis and, of that portion, almost 90% were due to simple possession - not USE of it, just having it. In my opinion, any law criminalizing cannabis possession is just as ridiculous as would be any law criminalizing the possession of potpourri or mulch. And while states like Colorado are enjoying a green gold rush, states like Texas are still clinging to their strict laws as if a single puff of the herb will somehow unravel the very fabric of society.
Here's my point: we cannot, in good conscience, force other people to think or feel the way that we do about a subject, and we certainly should not be trying to do so through law. Until an actual crime has been committed - one in which someone other than the perpetrator is actually harmed - criminal possession laws and rules only serve to empower authoritarians who think and believe that they know better than you do how to run your life and the lives of your family, and who (like vegans and Crossfit enthusiasts) insist that everybody would be better off if you just did things their way.
As Texans, I believe that we should be setting an example for the rest of the country to follow. As long as they don't harm anyone else, we should allow anyone and everyone the ability to pursue life, liberty and happiness as they see fit without interference from the government. We should state unequivocally that such authoritarianism has no place in Texas.
Economy
a. Do you support state government spending as a means of promoting economic growth (e.g. grants, tax incentives)? N - No
b. Do you support reducing state government regulations on the private sector (e.g. for business or the environment)? Y - Yes
c. Do you support an increase of the minimum wage in Texas? N - No
d. Do you support government spending on affordable housing projects in Texas? Y - Yes
Other or expanded principles:
The Texas economy is a beacon of growth and opportunity, largely attributed to our unique blend of free-market principles and limited government intervention. From a Libertarian perspective, the key to sustaining this economic prosperity lies in continuing to minimize state government spending, reducing burdensome regulations, and maintaining a free market for labor and housing.
Libertarians generally argue that state government spending should not be used as a primary means of promoting economic growth. Instead, we contend that government intervention often leads to inefficiencies and misallocations of resources. In Texas, the approach of keeping government spending relatively low has allowed for a dynamic economy where private enterprise can flourish. For instance, our commitment to low taxes has attracted businesses and entrepreneurs, fostering a competitive environment that drives innovation and job creation. Rather than investing in government programs, a better strategy would involve reducing tax burdens, allowing individuals and businesses to allocate resources where they see fit, thus promoting organic economic growth.
Another Libertarian economic ideal is the reduction of state regulations on the private sector. While our business environment is generally favorable, there are still numerous regulations that can stifle entrepreneurial spirit. Simplifying our regulatory framework would enhance competition and empower small businesses, which are crucial for job creation. By eliminating unnecessary red tape, we can encourage new entrants into the market, leading to more choices for consumers and better products. A regulatory landscape that respects individual liberty and promotes free enterprise is essential for sustaining the state's economic vitality.
Libertarians argue that raising the minimum wage can lead to unintended consequences, such as increased unemployment, particularly among young and unskilled workers. In Texas, our labor market is robust, and many workers earn above the minimum wage due to supply and demand dynamics. By allowing the market to determine wages, workers and employers can negotiate terms that reflect their specific circumstances. Imposing a higher minimum wage disrupts this balance and lead to job losses, particularly in sectors that operate on tight margins. A more effective approach would be to focus on creating a conducive environment for job growth and economic mobility, rather than artificially inflating wage rates.
Libertarians generally advocate for caution in addressing government involvement in affordable housing. While the need for affordable housing is undeniable, state-led initiatives often lead to inefficient outcomes. Rather than funding projects directly, we should incentivize private investment in affordable housing through tax credits or deregulation, thus encouraging a more effective allocation of resources. By allowing the private sector to play a leading role, we could stimulate innovation in housing solutions while keeping taxpayer burdens low.
From a Libertarian perspective, the Texas economy thrives best when government intervention is minimized. By curtailing state spending, reducing regulations, avoiding artificial wage mandates, and empowering the private sector to address housing needs, Texas can continue to be a land of opportunity where individual liberties and economic prosperity coexist. The path forward is clear: prioritize freedom, foster competition, and let the market dictate the course of economic growth.
Education
a. Do you support adopting federal education standards (e.g. Common Core) in Texas? N -No
b. Do you support state funding for charter schools? Y - Yes
c. Do you support increasing teacher salaries AND/OR benefits in Texas? Y - Yes
d. Should immigrants in the United States who graduate from Texas high schools be eligible for in-state tuition at public universities, regardless of immigration status? Y - Yes
e. Do you support removing diversity, equity and inclusion offices on public college and university campuses? N- No
Other or expanded principles:
Texas is huge! No one denies that. But our size also means that we have multiple areas with very dense populations and even more areas with very sparse populations. These two factors present unique and daunting challenges to public education throughout the state. Between the razor-thin education budgets in our school districts and the increasing costs that public education seems to routinely require, our current education funding models have become even more challenging.
It's universally acknowledged that public education is one of the most expensive government services. As taxpayers/investors, we often expect that it should provide the some of the best returns on our investment. Given the amount of government funding spent on education in Texas, the expenditure does not seem to translate into adequately prepared students who are capable of finding a job. Unfortunately, most discussions on improving public education typically involve funneling more money into a system that was designed well before the current information age instead of designing an education system that will propel our students into leaders of the 21st century.
From my perspective, it has been consistently recognized that the quality of education in Texas is a problem, but I believe that ONE answer is not more state control; it is innovation. In my opinion, schools and school districts need the freedom to set their educational curriculum and expectations to meet the needs of the people most directly affected by the institution itself, the students.
One component of this plan is to allow educators to teach and innovate based on what’s best for their students. Just as some things work in California and New York, but not in Texas, the methods used in one school district may not work for another which is why the generic standards and unfunded education mandates imposed on schools statewide do more harm than good. I think that, as more control resides in the hands of local school boards, parents, and students, schools would not require as much oversight or paper-pushing to respond to federal and state level restrictions.
For Libertarians, the purpose of K-12 schools is to provide an education, but one where the students also learn how learn for themselves. It's not just about math, history, and biology, or finding creative ways to get around the dress code. It's about students finding out which learning methods work for them, and trying to get students interested in something more than the latest TikTok trend, in hairstyles and makeup tips, or of finding new ways to achieve higher scores on Fortnite.
Education in Texas is an important issue, and one that I believe deserves to be treated with realistic 21st century solutions and not heart-warming 20th century platitudes. If we want real solutions to the issues that we have with our education systems in Texas, let's get the government out of the classrooms and let the teachers actually teach our students instead of being their babysitters.
Energy and Environment
a. Do you support state funding for the development of renewable energy (e.g. solar, wind, geo-thermal)? N - No
b. Do you support state governments allowing permits for drilling on public lands? Y - Yes
c. Do you support increasing state funding for clean drinking water initiatives? N - No
Other or expanded principles:
Texas, with our vast landscapes and abundant natural resources, stands at the crossroads of energy production and environmental stewardship, and Libertarians have a plan to make sure we, as Texans, take the best path possible. Libertarians generally oppose state funding for renewable energy projects, arguing that such interventions distort market dynamics. Government subsidies for renewables often lead to inefficiencies, encouraging reliance on state support rather than fostering true innovation and cost-effectiveness. Since our state's energy markets are largely deregulated, I think the focus should be on creating a competitive environment where all energy sources can thrive based on consumer demand. The free market can effectively drive the development of renewable energy technologies. By allowing competition among energy sources — be it wind, solar, or even traditional fossil fuels — Texans can choose the most efficient and cost-effective options for themselves without governmental bias. In this framework, renewable energy will naturally gain traction as it becomes economically viable, spurred by consumer preferences rather than mandated by the state.
Libertarians are also skeptical of government ownership and management of land, advocating for privatization as a means to ensure responsible resource use. Public lands, managed by the state, often fall prey to bureaucratic inefficiencies and restrictive permitting processes that stifle economic potential. Allowing private entities to drill on public lands would promote responsible development, as landowners would have a vested interest in the sustainable use of resources. Moreover, the permitting process for drilling should be transparent and streamlined. Excessive regulations often hinder economic growth and discourage investment in the energy sector. A system that respects property rights while ensuring environmental accountability can be achieved without heavy-handed government oversight. This approach encourages innovation and ensures that environmental considerations are woven into the fabric of energy production, driven by the interests of those directly affected.
While access to clean drinking water is a fundamental right, Libertarians argue that the state should not be the primary provider of this essential service. Increased state funding for clean drinking water initiatives can lead to inefficiencies and mismanagement, often diverting resources from more effective private solutions. Instead, Libertarians believe that the focus should be on empowering local communities and private entities to develop and maintain their own independent water infrastructure. Community-based initiatives can often respond more effectively to local needs than centralized state programs. Encouraging private investment and competition in water services can drive down costs and improve quality. Additionally, property rights and accountability play crucial roles in ensuring that water resources are managed sustainably. When individuals and companies bear the responsibility for their environmental impacts, the incentive to maintain clean water sources becomes intrinsic.
The energy and environmental landscape of Texas presents a complex interplay of opportunities and challenges. From a Libertarian perspective, the emphasis should be on reducing state intervention, fostering market competition, and encouraging private solutions to environmental issues. By embracing these principles, Texas can navigate its energy needs while promoting responsible environmental stewardship, ultimately enhancing individual freedoms and economic prosperity.
Government Reform
a. Do you support limiting campaign contributions from corporations, unions, and individuals? Y - Yes
b. Do you support the use of an independent or bipartisan commission for redistricting? Y - Yes
c. Do you support requiring a government-issued photo identification in order to vote at the polls? N - No
d. Do you support automatic voter registration? N - No
e. Do you support the implementation of ranked choice voting in Texas? Y - Yes
Other or expanded principles:
In presidential election years, Texas's electoral votes always go to the Red team. In fact, the concept of Texas voting Red in a presidential election is so fundamentally reliable that the ONLY time that presidential candidates even come to Texas is to suck up to our residents for campaign donations. But it doesn't have to be that way.
At the heart of the dilemma is the "winner-take-all" rule for the Electoral College. The Electoral College is really a very good system, but just as with everything else, when someone in the Old Parties wants something badly enough, they will usually find a way to manipulate the system to get it. The Constitution leaves it entirely up to the individual states as to how they allocate their Electoral College votes and since Old Party politicians love finding ways to convince the trees to vote for the axe because its handle is made of wood, the "winner-take-all" rule was it, and this is where we, as Texans, can make a significant difference.
Eliminating the "winner-take-all" rule in Texas is about making sure every voter’s voice is heard in a more balanced way. It would get more Texas voters to step into the voting booth because they would know that their voices DO count, and while it may not be an overwhelming majority, having SOME voice in the election of the president is better than having NO voice.
I have two reasons to want to do this. The first is that the "winner-take-all" rule turns Texas into "just another fly over" state. The rule itself only benefits one group, and that's why they want to keep it, but that's the same reason I want to eliminate it: because I believe that ALL of Texas's voters deserve a voice in who they want to be the President of our great nation.
The second reason is that, since I am running as a Libertarian, I already know that there's very little chance that I'll will win the election, so I can pretty much promise whatever I want and nobody will give a damn. (If you don't believe me, prove me wrong. I dare you.)
Yes, I know that a bill such as the one I propose would only get voted down by the "steers" in the Texas Legislature; that's not the point. The point is that by voting down the bill, it shows, without equivocation, just exactly how partisan these legislators are. They don't really care about you and letting your voice be heard (despite what they may say during their own campaigns).
If we can eliminate the "winner-take-all" rule and distribute our electoral votes more evenly, maybe we can also get presidential candidates to actually campaign in Texas instead of thinking of it as just another "flyover" state, or only coming here to prostitute themselves to our wealthy for their money, or to think twice about endorsing weak candidates who only want to bolster their lame claims of being "the better candidate".
Guns
a. Do you generally support gun-control legislation (e.g. red flag laws, closing the boyfriend loophole)? N - No
b. Should background checks be required on gun sales between private citizens at gun shows? N - No
c. Do you support the right to concealed carry in Texas? Y - Yes
Other or expanded principles:
Generally speaking, no one questions the right of individuals to defend themselves and their families against an aggressor whether physically, socially, or politically. But (as is so often the case) there is sometimes a subtle distinction between which party is an aggressor and which is a defender. When you get right down to the "flint and powder" of it, the Second Amendment is entirely about self-defense. In American politics, the right to self-defense is like the hero's quest in an epic saga and, like any great quest, it's interpreted differently depending on who’s in charge of the narrative.
Most Libertarians believe that every person as the right to self-defense as long as they initiate no harm to others through force or the threat of force. For many, but especially for those who are physically weaker, that self-defense materializes with guns. Libertarians believe that banning guns doesn't curb violence or death; it only changes the method of violence and death. Violent people will still be violent, but they'll be emboldened if they know that their victims will be unable to defend themselves.
For Libertarians, gun control laws are not a measure of a population's trust in the government to defend their lives; they are a measure of the government's control on the right to defend ourselves and our families against an aggressor - ANY aggressor - and we see it as immoral for government to try to prevent someone from doing so. (There's a reason why the Libertarian Party mascot is a porcupine.)
For Libertarians, self-defense looks more like using a trebuchet to launch water balloons filled with Sriracha sauce when someone is trying to steal your lawn gnomes. You don't really want to hurt them, but your gnomes do not belong to them. The practical advantage here is that there are no background checks or waiting periods for a trebuchet. Plus, there's the added bonus of never having to worry about ammunition shortages. Almost anything can be used: rocks, marbles, pumpkins (depending on the season).
Returning to the idea of the subtle distinction between which party is an aggressor or a defender, the saying goes that "no one likes a bully", but a view of almost any schoolyard altercation contradicts that statement. Much of the distinction between 'aggressor' and 'defender' resides in which group the observer identifies with. If they are part of the bully's cadre, they may see any action against their group as requiring "defense" against an outside aggressor, but if they are outside of the bully's cadre, they may see any action by the bully's group as one of aggression against which they are obligated to defend.
As we wade through the various interpretations of the Second Amendment, it’s clear that each group has its own flair for the dramatic. This is why I prefer the principle of non-aggression in self-defense; "do no harm through force or threat of force but be able to defend yourself and your loved ones against an outside aggressor".
Health Care
a. Should the state government increase funding for treatment facilities to combat opioid abuse? N - No
b. Do you support a government-run (e.g. single-payer) healthcare program such as Medicare-for-All? N - No
c. Should an individual have the right to choose to die (e.g. those with a terminal illness) through euthanasia? Y - Yes
d. Do you support mandating vaccinations (e.g. for school or employment)? N - No
e. Do you support expanding paid family AND/OR medical leave benefits (e.g. maternity leave)? Y - Yes
f. Should the government be able to regulate the cost of prescription drugs? N - No
Other or expanded principles:
I am not a healthcare expert; I am only an analyst. I am not going to try to excite you with a miracle answer to an issue that has been a problem for almost longer than most of us have been alive. But as an autistic, the problem is that, to me, there is a very distinct difference between "healthcare" and "health care". "Healthcare" is one word, and refers to the business, institution, or activity offering medical services. Therefore, it's a business, and unfortunately, businesses cost money. But "health care" is two words and refers to efforts made by trained and licensed professionals to maintain or restore well-being. We absolutely need to exercise personal responsibility to take care of ourselves and our families, ensure that we receive proper nutrition, exercise, and all of that. But if we are injured or unwell, we should be able to receive the necessary medical care (e.g., a doctor's visit, receiving a prescription, or a surgeon's expertise).
Libertarians emphasize personal responsibility for one's health and healthcare choices. We believe that individuals should have the freedom to make their own decisions regarding healthcare, including choosing their healthcare providers and treatments. We oppose government mandates, such as the individual mandate under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which required individuals to have health insurance or pay a penalty, because such mandates infringe on personal freedom. We strongly support the right to privacy in healthcare decisions, opposing government intrusion into personal medical matters unless there is a clear justification (such as protecting others from harm).
Libertarians are often critical of government healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, viewing them as inefficient, prone to bureaucracy, and potentially infringing on individual liberties. We generally favor free-market competition in healthcare, believing that a competitive market leads to innovation, efficiency, and lower costs, and argue that government regulations and interventions often distort markets and drive up costs.
Frankly, Libertarian views on healthcare are a mix of idealism, determination, and a touch of resigned acceptance that progress in politics often moves at the speed of a three-toed sloth on a caffeine crash. We dream big, fight hard, and occasionally look at the Old Parties' healthcare proposals with the same incredulity one reserves for discovering a dog trying to play chess.
But here's where I have my issue, and I've not been able to find a way around it. If health care (the service) is considered something to which everyone should have access regardless of cost, then those who provide these services (as a business) become, in a very real sense, conscripted laborers or indentured servants. Paid, perhaps, but slaves nonetheless.
"Health care" may be a right, but in a free society, no one has the right to demand services from anyone else, with or without compensation.
Social Policy
a. Do you support inclusion of sexual orientation in Texas' anti-discrimination laws? Y - Yes
b. Do you support the inclusion of gender identity in Texas' anti-discrimination laws? Y - Yes
c. Do you support greater efforts by Texas' state government in closing gender, racial, and other wage gaps? N - No
Other or expanded principles:
In the diverse landscape of Texas, social policy often ignites passionate debates, particularly around issues of discrimination and wage equality. From a Libertarian perspective, these discussions should emphasize individual liberties, personal responsibility, and limited government intervention. As such, Libertarians advocate for the protection of individual rights, including those based on sexual orientation. The idea is simple: all individuals should have the freedom to live and work without facing discrimination. However, while supporting the inclusion of sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws, we also caution against broadening governmental authority. Rather than imposing mandates on private businesses, we should encourage voluntary compliance through social and market pressures. Companies that cultivate inclusive workplaces are likely to attract a diverse talent pool, thereby benefiting their bottom line. This market-driven solution respects individual freedoms while promoting a more equitable environment. Ultimately, the goal should be to create a society where discrimination is socially unacceptable, not merely legally prohibited.
Similar to sexual orientation, the inclusion of gender identity in anti-discrimination laws is seen as a matter of individual rights. Libertarians support the idea that everyone should have the freedom to express their identity without fear of discrimination in employment or housing. However, the emphasis remains on personal choice and accountability rather than government intervention. A government-enforced framework for gender identity protections can lead to unintended consequences, such as restricting free speech or imposing burdens on businesses. Instead, a more effective approach would be to foster a culture of acceptance and respect, encouraging private organizations to adopt inclusive policies voluntarily. In this way, the focus shifts from legal mandates to societal change, aligning more closely with Libertarian principles of autonomy and individual liberty.
Libertarians advocate for a market-based approach to closing gender, racial, and other wage gaps, rather than government intervention. While acknowledging that disparities exist, we argue that state efforts to mandate equal pay or enforce quotas often result in unintended negative consequences, such as stifling entrepreneurship or leading to a one-size-fits-all solution that may not address the complexities of individual circumstances. Libertarians believe that the best way to address wage gaps is through transparency and competition. Employers who recognize the value of diverse perspectives are more likely to attract top talent. Additionally, initiatives that promote financial literacy and entrepreneurship in underrepresented communities can empower individuals to navigate the job market more effectively. By focusing on individual agency and market dynamics, Texas can create an environment where all individuals have the opportunity to succeed, free from systemic barriers.
Libertarians believe that Texas social policy should prioritize individual rights and personal responsibility while minimizing government intervention. The inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity in anti-discrimination laws is crucial, but the emphasis should be on voluntary compliance and cultural acceptance rather than legal mandates. When addressing wage gaps, a market-driven approach that promotes transparency and individual agency will be more effective than heavy-handed government interventions. Ultimately, fostering a society that respects individual freedoms will lead to greater equity and opportunity for all Texans.
Legislative Priorities
Please explain in a total of 500 words or less, your top two or three priorities if elected. If they require additional funding for implementation, please explain how you would obtain this funding.
Repeating something I stated earlier, since I am running as a Libertarian, I already know that there's very little chance that I'll will win the election, so I can pretty much promise whatever I want so, as they say, "Go big, or go home."
If elected, my focus will be on three crucial priorities that reflect my commitment to a fairer, more inclusive Texas: eliminating the winner-take-all electoral rule, repealing the Texas abortion ban, and reforming the education system. Each of these issues is interconnected and critical for fostering a society that values representation, personal freedom, and quality education.
The winner-take-all rule significantly undermines democratic representation. Currently, this system effectively silences millions of voices. By eliminating this rule and moving toward a more proportional allocation of electoral votes, we can create a more equitable and representative political landscape. This change would also encourage candidates to campaign in all areas of the state, rather than focusing solely on populous regions. Diverse perspectives would be represented, leading to a more engaged electorate and policies that address the needs of all Texans. In a state as large and diverse as Texas, it’s crucial that every citizen feels their vote counts, ensuring a government that truly reflects the will of the people.
Reproductive rights are fundamental to individual autonomy. The current Texas abortion ban poses significant risks to women’s health and also undermines their ability to make informed decisions about their own bodies. Repealing this ban is not just about access to healthcare; it is about respecting the right of individuals to govern their own lives. It is essential to ensure that women have the resources they need to make choices that are right for them, without the government imposing restrictions based on ideology. Repealing the ban would not only protect women's health but also affirm their right to choose and to control their own reproductive futures.
Texas’ education system is in dire need of reform. Many schools face inadequate funding, overcrowded classrooms, and outdated curricula that fail to prepare students for the challenges of the 21st century. First, we must address funding disparities that disproportionately affect underprivileged areas. Every child in Texas deserves access to quality education, regardless of their zip code. Additionally, we should invest in teacher salaries and training, recognizing that well-supported educators are essential for student success. Finally, embracing technology and alternative teaching methods can help tailor education to meet the diverse needs of our students, fostering critical thinking and creativity.
Each of these initiatives is designed to promote fairness, individual rights, and quality education, all essential components for a thriving society. Together, we can create a Texas that values representation, respects personal freedoms, and invests in the future of our children. Let’s build a state where every voice is heard, every choice is respected, and every child has the opportunity to succeed.
Like I said, I can promise pretty much anything, and nobody will pay attention. If you don't believe me, prove me wrong. I dare you.