So, Gary Johnson believes he is properly representing libertarianism by saying it is inherently fiscal conservative and social liberal. No, plus no, and NO. That’s not a legit definition of libertarianism.
Austin Petersen has a better short-sentence definition for libertarianism:
- Fiscally Conservative and Socially whatever you want to be for as long as you’re not forcing others to be what you are.
I am going to make a definition that links to Wikipedia for some of the terms I use here:
- Libertarians are fiscally conservative, economically laissez-faire, and socially tolerant of different lifestyles and different philosophies; and generally favor a constitutionally limited republic who has only the power to defend individual freedom and to punish violations of individual freedom.
Libertarians are allowed to make what they will of social issues without legislating their opinions into law. To this end, I will describe what I personally make of social issues and call for my opinions to not be forced into law. I will respond to questions as worded by Polling Report Index.
Abortion and Birth Control
“Do you think abortion should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?”
- I say that it should be legal under certain terms but should also get reduced by every freedom-focused option possible for ending abortion, and there are options: Legalizing comprehensive sex ed and birth controls while abolishing abstinence-only programming can and will reduce abortion, as will ending the War On Drugs, I believe.
“Do you think federal funding for Planned Parenthood should be eliminated: yes or no?”
- Yes, because the government should not be in the business of funding anything that has nothing to do with foreign policy and nothing to do with military self-defense.
“With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?”
- Biologically, I would call myself Pro-life never in a government-growing sense, but rather in a freedom-growing sense; as in get the government out of Planned Parenthood, no more abstinence-only programs, Comprehensive sex ed only, legalize all the birth controls, and keep government out of the abortion issue. Government being stringent in all the above ways and reducing bioethical freedom is what causes abortion to be so much more common in the first place!
“How about when the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest? Do you think abortion should be legal in that situation or illegal?”
- I do make moral and humane exceptions to my pro-life tendencies, as in I do believe that rape survivors should be allowed to get abortions, although I think since reproductive biology makes clear that fertilization takes 14 days to happen, that is plenty of time for survivors to get birth control medicines for that 14 days to not lead to any sort of fertilization.
“How about when an abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother? Do you think abortion should be legal in that situation or illegal?”
- No one with a functioning brain supports letting pregnant mothers die over an unborn child, which is why I favor allowing a mother’s life exception.
“Do you agree or disagree that scientists should be able to use fetal tissue from abortions to find cures for deadly diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s?”
- Agree, because stem cells, preferably non-fetal stem cells, are holistically useful to people with deadly diseases hurting them so dearly.
“As you may know, in 2013, the House of Representatives approved legislation that would ban virtually all abortions nationwide after 20 weeks of pregnancy, except in cases of rape and incest that are reported to authorities. Would you support or oppose such legislation?”
- I would support such legislation if it addressed the root cause for abortion being so much more common than it was some time ago, and that root cause, I have observed, was government use of the war on drugs and of abstinence-only programs to reduce birth control access and reduce family/gender freedom, respectively. Because it does not address this root cause, I therefore oppose such legislation.
“Do you think religious-affiliated organizations should have to cover the cost of prescription birth control for their female employees as part of their health insurance plans, or should religious-affiliated organizations be able to opt out of covering that, based on religious objections?”
- Government should not tell businesses what they should and should not be funding, just like government should not tell this to workers either. That said, I think employers should be able to opt out.
“What about companies and non-religious organizations? Do you think these employers should have to cover the cost of prescription birth control for their female employees as part of their health insurance plans, or should these employers be able to opt out of covering that, based on religious objections?”
- As a Non-religious follower of the Secular Morality of ethical egoism with the Golden Rule as my notion of right and wrong, I say people should be able to pay for their own birth control, and any payment for others’ birth controls should be voluntary. When the employer starts using religious faith to force workers to abstain from birth control in that worker’s personal & off-duty life, that’s when it becomes coercion and therefore that’s when government needs to retaliate.
“Generally speaking, are you in favor of using public funds for abortions when the woman cannot afford it, or are you opposed to that?”
- Absolutely not, the only other people who should fund an abortion for a woman who cannot afford one are her family, her boyfriend if she has one, and/or her best friends, and that’s if the funding is voluntary.
“Do you think public schools should be required to allow transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms that are consistent with the gender they identify with or don’t you think so?”
- Well, that depends on whether the gender of a human or other animal is genetically decided or voluntarily decided. Oh look, it is genetically decided? Then I do NOT think so.
“Do you think people who are transgender — that is, someone who identifies themselves as the sex or gender different from the one they were born as — should be allowed to use the public bathrooms of the gender they identify with or should they have to use the public bathrooms of the gender they were born as?”
- How exactly is this an issue? Simple logic is… people should use the bathroom of the gender they were born as. I do not care if people identify as the opposite gender, so long as they are not forcing their opinions into law.
“Do you think guidelines regarding which bathroom transgendered students can use in public schools should be determined by the federal government, or left to each individual state or local government to decide?”
- No government on any level should set the standards of school bathrooms. As parents are the people who I think should be in charge of education policy, but as for this issue: I want this policy to be decided on by Zoologists and Reproductive biologists, the people who understand the X and Y chromosomes [gender genes] better than anyone else in America.
“Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?“
- I believe marriage should not be for government to set any standards for, but if this idea of mine of privatizing marriage wasn’t an option then I would be on the side of saying Yes to recognition of gay marriage as legit marriage.
“Overall, do you favor or oppose laws that guarantee equal protection for transgender people in jobs, housing and public accommodations?”
- There is one law I favor that would guarantee equal protection for LGBT people in jobs, housing etc: that law was signed up in 1868, it is called the 14th Amendment to the Constitution: Invoke the 14th amendment to extend equal protection to those who are LGBT, I say.
“Overall, do you favor or oppose laws that guarantee equal protection for gays and lesbians in jobs, housing and public accommodations?”
- Once again, use the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, that’s the equal protection law I favor.
“As you may know, the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriages should be legal in all fifty states. Do you think government officials should or should not be required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples?”
- I think that government officials should not be forcing married couples, gay or not, to need licenses for their marriage to be called ‘valid’. All that’s needed is for married couples is for their marriage to be recognized as a private contract of consenting adults.
“What if the government official says homosexuality violates their religious beliefs? In that case do you think the government official should or should not be required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples?”
- Marriage licenses should be abolished, define marriage as between consenting adults, and overall phase the government out of marriage. This answers the question by knowing how there’s barely any difference from the first version of the question I was asked.
“In general, when there’s a conflict between someone’s religious beliefs and the need to treat everyone equally under the law, which do you think is more important?”
- Enforced Equal Due Process for all Individuals. That’s the name of the Reconstruction Amendments game.
“Should couples of the same sex be entitled to the same government benefits as married couples of the opposite sex, or should the government distinguish between them?”
- I think the one government entitlement that all marriages, straight and gay, should be equally eligible for… is the entitlement to government staying really far out of the private contract of the marriage.
“Do you think gay or lesbian relations between consenting adults should or should not be legal?“
- They should not only be legal, but also be devoid of government interference.
“Would you favor or oppose amending the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman?”
- Such an amendment has no compatibility with the First or Fourteenth Amendments, and also making a new Constitutional Amendment is a long and difficult process. I therefore oppose such an idea.
Race and Ethnicity
“Do you, yourself, see the Confederate flag more as a symbol of Southern pride or more as a symbol of racism?”
- Considering that it was White Nationalism that provoked the American Civil War and the Savannah Campaign by tripling down on its endorsement of slavery in the first place, I’ll say its equally a symbol of both elements.
“In general, do you think that the country’s criminal justice system treats whites and blacks equally, or does it favor whites over blacks?”
- Reflecting on what crime rate stats are, and calculating what they mean to the sizes of racial demographics, I’ll say that our criminal justice system holds individuals of all races the the same moral standard.
“In general, do you think blacks have as good a chance as white people in your community to get any kind of job for which they are qualified, or don’t you think they have as good a chance?”
- I think that it is a wonderful thing and a truth that every individual and every race has a legal right to equality of opportunity, and not equality of outcome.
“Do you think that relations between blacks and whites will always be a problem for the United States, or that a solution will eventually be worked out?”
- I think it will take us political labor until roughly 2068 for us to recognize the 14th Amendment to the Constitution as the solution to problems races have with each other.
“In general, how many police officers in the area where you live do you feel are prejudiced against blacks: most of them, some of them, only a few of them, or almost none of them?”
- I believe only a few of them are prejudiced against non-whites, but I think it has to do with the amount of violent crime people of each race commit per 100,000 people.
“How confident are you that the police in this country treat whites and blacks equally: very confident, somewhat confident, not so confident or not confident at all?”
- Somewhat confident, not much else for me to put into my answer.
“Martin Luther King gave his famous ‘I Have a Dream Speech’ at a civil rights march in Washington in 1963. In your view, do you think the United States has fulfilled the vision King outlined in that speech, or don’t you think so?”
- Some of his vision has been fulfilled, the problems we are having with progress lie within all kinds of racism, not just racism against blacks alone.
Crime & Law Enforcement
“Do you favor or oppose the death penalty for persons convicted of murder?”
- I oppose the death penalty for any violent crime, and call for people who commit any violent crime to be sentenced to Life In Prison, but only after an ‘innocent until proven guilty’ trial that puristically obeys the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments of the Constitution.
“Would you support or oppose requiring patrol officers in your area to wear small video cameras whenever they’re on duty?”
- I support this policy for police departments of towns with huge amounts of crime per 100,000 people.
“In general, do you think local police forces should have military weapons and vehicles such as assault rifles and armored vehicles or should these kinds of weapons be reserved only for the military and national guard?”
- Inherently, military weapons and vehicles should only be for the military and the national guard.
“Do you generally think of the police more as friends, more as enemies, or don’t you think of them in either of these ways?”
- Neither, because I only judge police officers on grounds of individual basis. I have encountered eight different police officers in-person from my small town’s police department. Only one of them is one I would refrain from calling friend, but all eight of them I would never class as enemy.
“If you could choose between the following two approaches, which do you think is the better penalty for murder: the death penalty, or life imprisonment with absolutely no possibility of parole?”
- For all the worst violent crimes… Life Imprisonment with absolutely no possibility of parole.
“Some states have a law that says a person is legally entitled to fight back with deadly force if they feel threatened, even if they could retreat instead. Do you support or oppose this law for your state?”
- The Second Amendment guarantees absolutely unrestricted right of self-defense, I therefore do support this law for my state.
Much to my regret, the social issues that matter the most to me, the ones that specifically prioritize moral freedom, are not covered by Polling Report Index. Sorry for the lack of stances, but I will make another similar post named “What I, the Libertarian Defense Atheist, mean by moral freedom”. Thanks all,