More Personal Freedom
No government should interfere in our private relationships or in how we choose to pursue happiness as we define it, provided that we are doing no harm to others.
The interference in our personal and civil liberties is a feature of governments that have grown far too large and obtrusive, and who no longer respect the people as their master. Both major parties have been guilty of this recently in different ways.
If elected, the goal of expanded personal freedom will guide my voting decisions at all times.
Specifically,
- The Bill of Rights is sacrosanct and its personal and civil liberties cannot be compromised. Period.
- Government cannnot partner with social media platforms to define acceptable and unacceptable speech, nor can it shut down houses of worship due to perceived "emergencies";
- The Second Amendment guarantees our personal right to arm ourselves to protect our safety and our liberties;
- Government has no business conducting warrantless surveillance on its citizens. The Fourth Amendment is there for a reason and it cannot be ignored.
- State-sanctioned discrimination against any law-abiding person is wrong no matter in which group he or she might be categorized. People are individuals and should not be assumed members of identity groups for government to manipulate.
- Government has no business regulating private behavior among consenting adults, and should never dictate reproductive decisions (except for States acting to protect the lives of unborn children medically capable of living independently outside the womb).
- Government should not dictate educational decisions, and must yield to the primacy of law-abiding parents in making all such decisions for their families. Public schools must be transparent as to the curriculum they are teaching students so that parents can make informed judgments about them versus other educational options.
- Government has no authority to supersede our bodily autonomy. It has no right to tell us how we must live, provided our actions do not directly harm our neighbors; and it has no right to dictate health care decisions or end-of-life decisions.
- Qualified immunity against civil legal actions is a debatable proposition when and only when it is used to give patrolmen the benefit of the doubt in high stress policing situations; it should never be applicable to higher ups in law enforcement and bureaucrats who have the time to consult policy manuals and attorneys when making their decisions.
