Rand Fanshier Reply: The Armstrong Survey for 2006 Colorado Candidates
Please see The Armstrong Survey for 2006 Colorado Candidates for more information about the survey and a complete list of candidates who have replied.
Editor's disclaimer: I am posting the replies of all specified candidates who send them in, "complete and unedited," as stated in the survey. The publication of a candidate's replies here in no way implies support or agreement with that candidate's views by me, Linn Armstrong, the Colorado Freedom Report, or any other party. -- Ari Armstrong
Rand Fanshier, House District 13, Libertarian
In 250 words or less, please summarize why voters should pick you.
Hi, my name is Rand Fanshier, and I'd really like to be your State House Representative. I live and work here in Clear Creek County, and will do my best to represent the independent mountain communities who want less government and more common sense.
The key to good government is that the legislature no longer be populated only with members of two competing parties neither of which serve the interests of the people. A Libertarian like myself in a narrowly divided assembly will provide a rare, constitutionally-limited point of view and can have much greater influence than expected. In short, I will be the watchdog that makes state government protect the rights of the people, rather than taking their money and telling them what to do. A vote for Rand Fanshier is a vote for traditional American values of freedom and personal responsibility.
My website is randfreedom.org, and we are running straw polls and have links to analysis for the ballot issues this November. So get informed, check out my website randfreedom.org, and vote for Rand Fanshier for House District 13.
Do you SUPPORT or OPPOSE the use of eminent domain for purposes of economic development and/or generating tax revenues? OPPOSE
Will you SPONSOR, SUPPORT, or OPPOSE legislation repealing the state- wide smoking ban (except in government buildings)? SPONSOR
Will you SPONSOR, SUPPORT, or OPPOSE legislation prohibiting local governments from imposing smoking bans (except in government buildings)? OPPOSE (First of all, I prefer decentralization. Let the townships implement bad laws, and see which thrive and which grow poor. Second, such legislation I consider redundant, given no constitutional basis for the government to regulate the rules of conduct on private property. "Is smoking invited by the owner of an establishment?" should end the entire anti-smoking legislation argument.)
In Alaska, citizens can carry concealed weapons for noncriminal purposes without a permit, or they can get a permit recognized by other states. Will you SPONSOR, SUPPORT, or OPPOSE legislation creating a concealed weapons system in Colorado like that in Alaska? OPPOSE (We don't need new statutes. We need to remove the existing statutes requiring gun registration of any kind, concealed or not.) Will you SPONSOR, SUPPORT, or OPPOSE legislation to prohibit private citizens from ever carrying a concealed weapon? OPPOSE Will you SPONSOR, SUPPORT, or OPPOSE legislation to allow citizens to carry a concealed weapon only with the permission and at the discretion of a law enforcement agent? OPPOSE
Will you SPONSOR, SUPPORT, or OPPOSE legislation to repeal background registration checks for private sales at gun shows? SUPPORT (Repeal, yes!!!)
Will you SPONSOR, SUPPORT, or OPPOSE legislation forcing gun owners to lock up their defensive firearms? OPPOSE
Will you SPONSOR, SUPPORT, or OPPOSE legislation adding legal liability specifically to gun owners who do not lock up their defensive firearms? OPPOSE
Will you SPONSOR, SUPPORT, or OPPOSE legislation restricting the number of firearms that a citizen may purchase in a given time period? If you would sponsor or support such legislation, please specify the restrictions you favor. OPPOSE
Will you SPONSOR, SUPPORT, or OPPOSE legislation further restricting the types of firearms that a citizen may purchase? If you would sponsor or support such legislation, please list all particular restrictions you would support. OPPOSE
Article XI, Section 2 of Colorado's Constitution states, "Neither the state, nor any county, [etc.]... shall make any donation or grant to, or in aid of... any corporation or company..." However, according to the Economic Development reports available at http://www.state.co.us/ oed/edc/EDC-Reports.cfm, the state has offered corporate welfare to such corporations as Intel, Raytheon, Kodak, and Red Robin Gourmet Burgers.
Will you SPONSOR, SUPPORT, or OPPOSE legislation eliminating all corporate welfare to for-profit corporations? SPONSOR
The state has also offered subsidies to such entities as the Limon Golf Course and the Cumbres & Toltec Scenic Railroad. Will you SPONSOR, SUPPORT, or OPPOSE legislation eliminating all economic subsidies? SPONSOR
**Amendments and Referenda**
Please state whether you SUPPORT or OPPOSE each of the following measures:
[Update: On September 15, Fanshier sent in the following note:
My position has changed on Ref. F., from SUPPORT to OPPOSE.
Referendum F: A referendum that removes recall timelines from the Colorado Constitution.
It seems to me that if the voters need to remove a bad elected official, that there should be no restrictions on when this can be done. Unfortunately, this referendum does not remove recall limitations entirely, and worse--it places them at the whim of statutory law rather than to be governed by the state constitution. So, no to this wolf in sheep's clothing.
NOTE: **The next several questions are open ended. You may also include an internet link to a document that explains your position on the issue.**
Please describe which additional restrictions, if any, should be placed on abortion.
I personally view abortion as a crime. However, it's a crime within a woman's own sovereign state--her womb. As such, our governments federal, state and local have no jurisdiction there. By and large, more good will be done making abortion a private matter between a woman and her doctor, and getting the government out of it. So to this end, I would SPONSOR bills to prohibit the state from funding or sponsoring abortions of any kind.
Do you support more state spending on education? Vouchers? What do you think is the proper role of government in education?
I LOVE vouchers. A young couple desiring to place their children in a better private school should not be at the same time forced to pay for someone else's mediochre education.
Government should get out of the education business. Because that's exactly what it is, a business. To make my point using the example of "Public Hamburger Restaurants," another public need--these have done perfectly well without the government to supply these needed services. Let the free market in education work, and we will have better, cheaper, more ubiquitous and more diverse forms of education than ever in history. Just like hamburger joints, computers, automobiles, etc.
What do you think is the proper role of state government in medicine? Should state policies be different than they are now? If so, how? Do you support a "single payer" health system and/or government-backed "universal" care?
In 1967 the average blue-collar breadwinner could actually pay for a hospital stay and medical services due to a car accident with the wages of a week or two. Today, a similar stay might cost in excess of three years wages! The reason for the increase of costs is due to the intervention of a debt and tax-based government competitor that now consumes over 50% of the supply. Obvious supply/demand economics have forced prices stratospherically high and now the average worker has no hope of affording medical care without government backup. It's a scam! The only solution is to ease the government out of the medical business somehow. It's a complicated problem that will only be exacerbated by continuing to let the government increase its medical welfare budget.
I support neither the "single payer" health system or the government-backed "universal" care.
Feel free to describe your views on other important issues facing citizens in the state.
Referendum C must be overturned. This ballot issue added last year by both Republican and Democrats is a dark mark in history indeed, from the blatantly unconstitutional standpoint that legislation does not and can NEVER trump the constitution. TABOR requires taxpayers money be returned over a certain threshold. Ref. C became the prevarication by which the state is keeping the money UNCONSTITUTIONALLY!
This would be my number one SPONSOR issue if elected. I guess it would have to be another referendum. The courts are no longer acting in the interests of the people, hopefully the next governor will be able to replace some supreme court judges with ones who actually protect the people from the government by ruling to uphold the constitution, which limits government powers.
All my views on the ballot issues may be viewed at http://randfreedom.org.