Rich Hand: Colorado 2010 Candidate Survey

Rich Hand is an independent candidate for governor of Colorado.

SUMMARY

In a Twitter-length reply (140 characters maximum), please state why you are running for political office.

I am running to re-affirm our tenth amendment rights and keep Colorado money in Colorado supporting Colorado’s citizens. We must stop the federal spending and borrowing and the Governors are the last resort.

[This is 207 characters!]

ECONOMIC ISSUES

* Should the federal or state government spend money in an attempt to "stimulate" the economy? If so, on what sorts of projects?

No. We need to limit the flow of money by challenging the sixteenth amendment through a constitutional amendment of the Colorado Constitution to limit federal taxation to a maximum of 15% of income. The federal "stimulus" kills jobs by undermining free market principles.

* Should tax dollars be directed toward energy projects, tourism, or any other form of business subsidies?

Tax incentives should be used at the state level to drive behavior. In Colorado we need to diversify energy development to use all sources of energy. We should not pursue energy policy based on a political “green” agenda. We need a practical approach that focuses on energy development that works in Colorado based on our resources and 300 plus days of sunshine.

We need to minimize the cost of doing business and reduce regulatory burdens to attract business. We need to stop imposing more and more barriers to business. We need to make healthcare costs deductable for individuals so small business is not burdened with the cost of healthcare. I will review and reduce mandates on health insurance policies so that these companies compete with flexible plans that fit the consumer not some state bureaucrats vision of health insurance.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights be kept completely intact? If not, how should it be altered?

Absolutely! We need to hold government accountable and make the state communicate the value of programs and fight for funding if necessary. If the voters don’t want to pay for a service then we don't provide it. I will look to separate funding so that Citizens understand what they are paying for in their taxes and determine if they believe it is worth supporting. We work for the taxpayer not special interests.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should Amendment 23 be repealed, maintained, or modified?

Education is a key to success. We need to continue to encourage alternate education programs outside of public education. Amendment 23 represents the voters understanding of the importance of education and we need to continue to find the best ways to educate our kids. My plan to limit the amount of income taxes sent to Washington (challenging the sixteenth amendment) would help support additional funding for alternate education funding. We need to revisit the way we are currently funding education overall. We need to look at a stable funding mechanism that limits the fluctuation of the current tax program.

So I agree with the Amendment in principle but I have a problem with public education formulas for distribution, the amount of money leaving our state that could be used for education, and the inconsistency of the funding sources. We need to look at better ways and not be blinded by the current interests surrounding public education. It’s about educating our kids, not supporting union demands.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should any particular state taxes or fees (such as the state corporate income tax or the subjects of the tax-cutting initiatives) be repealed or reduced? Should any be added or increased?

I would eliminate the state corporate income tax for employers that have their operations based in Colorado. We need to create jobs and stop punishing business for being successful. The more money business can make, the more they will put back into their business and the economy.

* Should state or federal spending (depending on which office you seek) be higher or lower than it is currently?

Federal spending needs to be tied directly to the constitutional limits of the federal government. Colorado citizens and businesses should pay no more than 15% of their income maximum to the federal government. We need to reaffirm the tenth amendment and challenge the sixteenth and while we’re at it repeal the seventeenth amendment.

When people feel they have control of the process they are more likely to support the services needed. Government should not be growing at this point. We have too much already. We need to reduce or transfer funds to programs that have the people’s support. The reason ballot initiatives keep failing is that people are tired of the waste and fraud in government, especially at the federal level. We should not be sending our money to bail out GM, Chrysler, Financial institutions, while we lay off our police and firefighters. People are ticked off and are making that known where they have control; at the local level. We need to bring government closer to the people and start building trust again.

* Should the state or federal minimum wage (depending on which office you seek) be repealed, maintained, or increased?

Repealed. I am a small business man and let me tell you, you get what you pay for. Good business people know this and pay accordingly. Minimum wage kills jobs for our kids and entry level workers.

* Should college education be subsidized by tax dollars?

No. A college education should be earned and not an entitlement. We need to support students that are willing to invest in themselves with tax incentives to their parents and make loans available at fair interest rates. The current system encourages higher institutions to be less efficient because they know that government is under writing college educations. A college education is critical but that means every student needs to make the commitment of their own resources. We need to drive the prices down for college by introducing some market principles into the process. They operate in a bubble and have very inefficient business practices that is supported by the knowledge that government will keep subsidizing their institutions.
Colleges need to start looking at their courses and deciding if they keep a department of foolish studies. Too many college courses today would be better suited for some other venue and we need to increase true disciplines like mathematics, sciences, engineering, history, political science etc...

Education is a business with some unique drivers. I think we need to look at tax breaks and incentives for Colorado citizens to save for a college education. I would support helping individual students that deserve college rather than throwing tax dollars at the institutions themselves.

I expect a lot of push back here because there is an industry around colleges and they believe they should not have to "compete". I would love to see every Colorado student graduate college, but every kid will want to go to college.

* Should antitrust law or its enforcement be changed?

No

* (Federal-level candidates:) Should Sarbanes-Oxley be repealed?

NA

SOCIAL AND CHURCH/STATE ISSUES

What do you believe is meant by the "separation of church and state," and do you endorse it?

It is used improperly all the time. We are a Christian nation and I am proud to believe we are endowed by our creator with inalienable rights. As Governor or any politician for that matter can't force people into any religion. The separation is simple; the state cannot infringe on people that want to worship God. The state can’t mandate a God. People need to read the founding documents and our history to reset their understanding of the first amendment. I am a man of God but I don’t endorse any particular church or religion.

You can't have a free society without a moral foundation. God should be accepted and celebrated. If that offends people they need to get over it.

* Should religious institutions receive tax dollars for providing welfare or other faith-based services?

Definitely. Government has a horrible track record of helping people get off welfare. They actually have a self interest in perpetuating it. I trust private foundations to provide social services and I would want to insure auditing of the programs is in place but if we are looking for results to help people become productive we have to trust private organizations and churches to do the job government has shown it can't.

* Should the teaching of creationism or Intelligent Design be subsidized by tax dollars?

I think all subjects that get kids thinking is good for students. I also believe there is no reason religion should not be discussed in the classroom. Are we afraid that knowing about God is going to ruin our kids? Insanity. No special tax dollars are needed we just need teachers that are willing to teach and get kids passionate about learning.

* Should tax-funded schools establish a period of permitted or required prayer?

Permitted prayer is fine. I believe with tax dollars tied to the student, parents can choose where to send their kids. That will eliminate the need for state bureaucrats to get involved. If the school prays everyday and parents don't like it they move their kids. It is a local issue to be decided in school districts.

* Should government officials promote religiously oriented displays and comments on government property and at government events?

"Government official" is a loaded term. Is a teacher a "government official" just because they work for a public school? As Governor I would promote the Christian faith and Jewish religious symbols at Christmas and Passover. I would recognize the importance of these religions on our culture and history.

* Do you support gay marriage?

No but I do support individual rights. If two people want to enter into a contract with each other and share their resources that's great. Marriage is an institution that creates the best environment to raise our kids. We need to respect that and also respect people's individual rights to enter into contracts and call it what they wish. But not marriage.

* If you answered no to the question above, do you support domestic partnerships, civil unions, or comparable legal recognition of gay couples?

I will do nothing as Governor to promote the gay agenda. I will promote the rights of individuals protected under our constitution. The gay agenda is an agenda to promote acceptance of a lifestyle most people don't agree or take part in. I do not have to accept their agenda but I will respect their right as individual citizens.

* Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children by the same standards as heterosexual couples?

This issue is more complicated for me. I believe and will support adoption of children by people with the right intentions for adopting children. First we want kids in traditional families, man and woman. But when any family is abusive and the choice is violence or no adoption I would support couples adopting these kids with the same vigorous background checks as heterosexual couples.

* Should government never, always, or sometimes mandate parental notification and consent before a minor may legally obtain an abortion, and, if sometimes, under what conditions?

Always notify parents.

* Should government mandate waiting periods or ultrasounds before a woman may legally obtain an abortion?

No

* Do you endorse the "personhood" measure that may appear on the 2010 ballot?

No

* Should abortion be legal in cases of fetal deformity?

See the one question on abortion for my stand on the issue

* Should abortion be legal in cases of rape or incest?

See the one question on abortion for my stand on the issue

* Should abortion be legal in cases of risk to the woman's life, as determined by the health professional selected by that woman?

See the one question on abortion for my stand on the issue

* Should elective abortion be legal?

As Governor this is my position on abortion. I will produce and support an education program that factually describes the procedure of aborting a child. A fetus is a life with a beating heart and with today's technology we understand more clearly than ever what happens when an abortion is conducted. We see that life struggle to get away; we see the baby's features and formation. Education will reduce abortion more than any government policy ever could. I will support laws that limit abortion at the point of the baby's ability to survive without the support of the mother. Before that point we are in very dangerous territory to hand over authority to government. I am consistently suspicious of government in our lives and when it comes to the monitoring of our woman for the purpose of applying law, I can never hand over that decision to a government bureaucrat.

Conservatives are always talking about getting government out of our lives except in the arena of abortion. I am consistent. We will all be judged by our maker and we can only do what we can to convince people of the ramifications of abortion. I will never support the tax funding of abortion under any circumstance.

This is a divisive issue and this is what I can live with as Governor. I will not apologize or pander to either side on this. This is what I believe my maker will accept at judgment time for me. Others will have a different opinion. That is their right.

* If you believe that abortion should be legally restricted, what criminal penalties do you advocate for a woman and her doctor for obtaining or facilitating an illegal abortion?

See the one question on abortion for my stand on the issue

* Would execution ever be an appropriate penalty for obtaining or facilitating illegal abortions?

No

* Should types of birth control be legal that may prevent a fertilized egg or zygote from implanting in the uterus?

yes

* Should fertility treatments be legal that may result in the freezing or destruction of a fertilized egg or zygote?

Yes not government funded

* Should research involving the use of embryonic stem cells be legal?

Yes not government funded

* Should abortions or embryonic stem cell research be subsidized by tax dollars?

No

IMMIGRATION

* (Federal-level candidates:) Should the U.S. expand a legal guest-worker program or legal immigration, and, if so, by how much?

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should Colorado government force employers to verify with the federal government the legal status of potential employees, and, if so, what penalties should apply for failure to do so?

Yes and I would impose severe penalties for businesses that hire illegal workers.

* Should federal or state tax-funded benefits (depending on which office you seek), including K-12 education, be extended only to U.S. citizens, to legal immigrants and guest workers, or to everyone in the U.S. including illegal immigrants?

We need to get the federal government to do their job of enforcing and closing our borders and as Governor we will not be supporting any illegal immigrant with any services. By creating a severe penalty for business to hire illegal workers we will see a exodus from our state. I support legal immigration and work visas. I have no tolerance for law breaking.

PROPERTY RIGHTS

* What restrictions, if any, should be placed on the use of eminent domain?

Eminent domain must pass the test outlined in the constitution. As Governor I will never use it unless the circumstances are so clear that everyone is supporting the land taking and I am the last one standing.

* Do you endorse the use of eminent domain in the case of the Pinon Canyon military expansion? Do you support the military expansion if it does not involve eminent domain?

I support the tenth amendment and state's rights. I stand by the ranchers and land owners of Pinon Canyon. I could only support expansion if 100% of the land owners agree and there is a contract in place that protects Colorado from a future pullout of Army operations. That land is too precious from a state perspective regarding the economy and if the Army ever closes up and leaves the base, where are we? Overall I think the military has many options besides taking additional land.

* Should the Endangered Species Act be altered or differently enforced?

We need to have common sense here or we will end up like California, ruining human lives for a guppy. Unacceptable to me. As Governor our people will come first and we will be good stewards of our land. They can work together.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should the smoking ban be maintained, expanded, or repealed? Should it apply to on-stage performances?

This is a freedom issue for me. I don't smoke but I don't think government should decide how business is run. If the business wants to ban or allow smoking I am good with allowing the market to dictate. In open air we just need to respect each other.

BILL OF RIGHTS

* Should McCain-Feingold and state campaign finance restrictions be repealed, maintained, or expanded?

Repealed. I support free speech and that includes organizations and individuals.

* Should the federal government control what radio or television stations may broadcast?

If I am Governor they will control very little here in Colorado. They should only control what is important for emergency response and military frequencies to keep us safe.

* Should the FTC's rules regarding blogger endorsements be rescinded?

I don't like the FTC but I support people knowing where any information comes from and where the funding source is so they can make good judgments about the information.

* Should students with licenses be legally permitted to carry concealed handguns on the property of tax-subsidized colleges?

I support concealed, exposed, and the ability to carry a hand gun. Good citizens should be able to carry. At 18 I believe we all have adult rights and why limit that at college. I support the constitution of the United States and the second amendment is no exception.

* Should additional restrictions be added (or repealed) on gun ownership? Please specify.

No additional restrictions. I believe the more people that have guns in their homes the greater security we have.

* Do you believe that desecration of the U.S. flag should be outlawed by Constitutional amendment?

I hate the idea of our flag being desecrated because it represents the greatness of our country and veterans that have died for it. I believe the people that have died for our flag would be disgusted but would support the freedom to do so. So no I would not support an amendment although it would feel good to do so.

* Do you believe that pornography or obscene materials involving consenting adults should be legally restricted?

I think pornography is a cancer and needs to be eliminated. It undermines our woman and children and I would support throwing the bums in jail that produce it. The problem is that there are people that have come to accept this degradation of society and is not high on the minds of voters.

OTHER

* Should state or federal laws (depending on which office you seek) pertaining to marijuana be altered, and, if so, how?

I believe marijuana leads to more addictive drugs and undermines people's motivation in life. I am not convinced it has medical purposes but if it does it should be in pharmacy outlets and not in separate places where we see criminals targeting them to steal the drug.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should rules pertaining to petitioners be altered, and, if so, how?

I love that citizens can petition their government. I believe in our representative republic but I think people generally get the issues right when the information is clear.

* If there is any important issue that you believe we have missed, please state what it is and state your position on it.

I just want to emphasize that I will ask the voters of Colorado to amend our state constitution to limit the amount of money our federal government can take from our income. It starts there. When we reduce the scope of the federal government we can focus on the things that are most important here in Colorado like a job creation environment, individual healthcare reform, and a focus on education.

We must reaffirm our tenth amendment rights, challenge the sixteenth amendment, and repeal the seventeenth amendment. It's that simple...

Rich Hand
Unaffiliated Candidate Governor Colorado

Keynes Versus Hayek, In Rap

This video is brilliant. I'm blown away. "I want to steer markets." "I want them set free."

Dan Maes: Colorado 2010 Candidate Survey

Following are the unedited answers of Curtis Harris to the Colorado 2010 Candidate Survey. Questions are in bold.

SUMMARY

In a Twitter-length reply (140 characters maximum), please state why you are running for political office.

Colorado is heading down the same path as Washington and it must be stopped and turned around. I have the skills and conservative values to do it.

ECONOMIC ISSUES

* Should the federal or state government spend money in an attempt to "stimulate" the economy? If so, on what sorts of projects?

No. It should cut spending, increase energy income, and taxes

[January 25 Update: Maes sent in the following clarification: "Please correct/modify delete 'and taxes' as it looks like I want to increase taxes. The message was to increase energy income and energy severance taxes to the state."]

* Should tax dollars be directed toward energy projects, tourism, or any other form of business subsidies?

Only if the voters approve doing it.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights be kept completely intact? If not, how should it be altered?

Yes.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should Amendment 23 be repealed, maintained, or modified?

Repealed as first choice. Suspended in Ref. C fashion as a second.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should any particular state taxes or fees (such as the state corporate income tax or the subjects of the tax-cutting initiatives) be repealed or reduced? Should any be added or increased?

FASTER should be repealed.

* Should state or federal spending (depending on which office you seek) be higher or lower than it is currently?

State should be lower.

* Should the state or federal minimum wage (depending on which office you seek) be repealed, maintained, or increased?

Maintained and re-examined based on economic realities.

* Should college education be subsidized by tax dollars?

Yes.

* Should antitrust law or its enforcement be changed?

Need more clarification.

SOCIAL AND CHURCH/STATE ISSUES

* What do you believe is meant by the "separation of church and state," and do you endorse it?

The federal government is not to create or endorse a national religion/church. I would enforce that.

* Should religious institutions receive tax dollars for providing welfare or other faith-based services?

NO

* Should the teaching of creationism or Intelligent Design be subsidized by tax dollars?

All public education is paid for by tax dollars. Thus, if the above were part of a school's curriculum it would be.

* Should tax-funded schools establish a period of permitted or required prayer?

I support prayer in schools but no specific period of time should be required or encouraged. There is enough spare time in public school schedules already w/o crating more.

* Should government officials promote religiously oriented displays and comments on government property and at government events?

It already does as part of our historic architecture which reflects the reality that our country was founded not on the principles of men, but on those God given principles captured in our founding documents by men.

* Do you support gay marriage?

No.

* If you answered no to the question above, do you support domestic partnerships, civil unions, or comparable legal recognition of gay couples?

I would be willing to discuss civil remedies in areas that gays feel they are not equally protected.

* Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children by the same standards as heterosexual couples?

NO

* Should government never, always, or sometimes mandate parental notification and consent before a minor may legally obtain an abortion, and, if sometimes, under what conditions?

Always.

* Should government mandate waiting periods or ultrasounds before a woman may legally obtain an abortion?

Yes/no.

* Do you endorse the "personhood" measure that may appear on the 2010 ballot?

Yes.

* Should abortion be legal in cases of fetal deformity?

It already is.

* Should abortion be legal in cases of rape or incest?

It already is.

* Should abortion be legal in cases of risk to the woman's life, as determined by the health professional selected by that woman?

It already is.

* Should elective abortion be legal?

It already is.

* If you believe that abortion should be legally restricted, what criminal penalties do you advocate for a woman and her doctor for obtaining or facilitating an illegal abortion?

No comment.

* Would execution ever be an appropriate penalty for obtaining or facilitating illegal abortions?

No.

* Should types of birth control be legal that may prevent a fertilized egg or zygote from implanting in the uterus?

I support the laws as they stand.

* Should fertility treatments be legal that may result in the freezing or destruction of a fertilized egg or zygote?

You ask way to many questions about an issue that is just not a priority at this time.

* Should research involving the use of embryonic stem cells be legal?

Not if there are other viable solutions.

* Should abortions or embryonic stem cell research be subsidized by tax dollars?

No and no.

IMMIGRATION

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should Colorado government force employers to verify with the federal government the legal status of potential employees, and, if so, what penalties should apply for failure to do so?

Yes and 10,000.00 per incident.

* Should federal or state tax-funded benefits (depending on which office you seek), including K-12 education, be extended only to U.S. citizens, to legal immigrants and guest workers, or to everyone in the U.S. including illegal immigrants?

They already are per federal law. It should stop at all levels.

PROPERTY RIGHTS

* What restrictions, if any, should be placed on the use of eminent domain?

It should be limited to cases where exercising it is indisputably for public use only. I use the word "use" versus interest or benefit.

* Do you endorse the use of eminent domain in the case of the Pinon Canyon military expansion? Do you support the military expansion if it does not involve eminent domain?

I do not "endorse" the use of it anywhere. I would support it reluctantly only if the Army can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they have no other options but to do so. I support a mutual agreement between willing sellers and leasers, and the Army as a first option.

* Should the Endangered Species Act be altered or differently enforced?

No opinion.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should the smoking ban be maintained, expanded, or repealed? Should it apply to on-stage performances?

No opinion.

BILL OF RIGHTS

* Should McCain-Feingold and state campaign finance restrictions be repealed, maintained, or expanded?

Maintained. Moot now, isn't it?

* Should the federal government control what radio or television stations may broadcast?

They already do via the FTC.

* Should the FTC's rules regarding blogger endorsements be rescinded?

?

* Should students with licenses be legally permitted to carry concealed handguns on the property of tax-subsidized colleges?

Yes

* Should additional restrictions be added (or repealed) on gun ownership? Please specify.

No

* Do you believe that desecration of the U.S. flag should be outlawed by Constitutional amendment?

Yes

* Do you believe that pornography or obscene materials involving consenting adults should be legally restricted?

It already is.

OTHER

* Should state or federal laws (depending on which office you seek) pertaining to marijuana be altered, and, if so, how?

Yes. Med. mar. is a disaster and must be regulated like a pharmaceutical.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should rules pertaining to petitioners be altered, and, if so, how?

No.

* If there is any important issue that you believe we have missed, please state what it is and state your position on it.

Candidates Should Giddy Up and Answer Survey

Grand Junction's Free Press published the following article on January 18, 2010.

Candidates should giddy up and answer our survey

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Shucks, mayor; you done warmed our Western hearts with your down-home talkin' and dusty cowboy hat.

While announcing his candidacy for governor, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, a.k.a. "Hickenritter" (if you listen to GOP Chair Dick Wadhams), a.k.a. "Hick," said it's "Giddy up time in Colorado." Yippie ki-yay. Now all he needs is a running mate named Tonto.

What we want to know is whether Hickenlooper's campaign is more Lone Ranger or more Woody from Toy Story. To help us out, the mayor can answer the survey we sent to him the day he announced. We'd be much obliged.

We sent the survey to all the major-party candidates for governor and U.S. Senate. All Colorado candidates are welcome to respond, and answers will be published unedited at FreeColorado.com. We hope voters and other journalists encourage candidates to answer the survey. Voters have a right to know where the candidates stand on the issues. You can find the survey at http://tinyurl.com/cosurvey10.

Before we describe the survey, we offer an important elections announcement [that is now dated]. Tomorrow, January 19, is the final day to affiliate with a party if you wish to be involved in the caucus process. While Hickenlooper scared away his competition, many candidates face preliminary party votes.

To affiliate with a party, first you need to get a Colorado voter registration form, available at http://tinyurl.com/mesavote. You can scan in the form and email it to voter.info@mesacounty.us; deliver it in person to 544 Rood Avenue, Suite 301A; or mail it to P.O. Box 20,000, Grand Junction, 81502, postmarked by January 19. We thank the Mesa County Elections office for helping us with this information.

Now back to the survey. We have this crazy idea that elections should be about more than hair color, fancy slogans, and name-calling. We believe that elections should mostly be about the issues. Ideas matter. Where do the candidates stand? What do they believe?

Obviously any survey will reveal only so much about a candidate. For example, our survey doesn't include questions about the Democratic health bill. Most candidates are already talking about this issue, and we hope they clearly articulate their views on their web pages and elsewhere.

Our survey was more intended to reveal positions that candidates aren't talking about as much. We want to know whether candidates endorse corporate welfare. We want to know where they stand on key business controls, such as antitrust and Sarbanes-Oxley.

We also want candidates to quit obscuring their views. For example, while Scott McInnis used to be "pro-choice," he now calls himself "100 percent pro-life." But what does that mean? Does he want to ban absolutely all abortions? If not, what exceptions would he allow? The matter of abortion (and related issues such as birth control) will be particularly important this election, given a measure may again be on the ballot to define a fertilized egg as a person.

We want to know where candidates stand on immigration issues. Should a guest worker program be expanded? Should the Colorado legislature force businesses to verify with the federal government the legal status of potential employees? Should businesses be fined for failure to do so? Should tax-funded benefits ever be extended to non-citizen immigrants?

What about property rights? Do candidates endorse eminent domain, the forcible taking of private property? Under what circumstances? Do candidates endorse the smoking ban, even for on-stage performances?

Regarding the Bill of Rights, where do candidates stand with respect to free expression and the right to bear arms? For example, should adults with a concealed-carry permit be able to carry a handgun on tax-funded campuses?

Medical marijuana will be a huge issue this legislative session; where do candidates stand on that matter and on marijuana laws generally? What about rules governing petitioners? What about the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights?

Whether you're Republican, Democrat, unaffiliated, or other, you should care about candidates' positions. We hope that, in 2010, voters make a stand and demand that candidates state their views clearly, openly, and for the record.

Here's what you can do to help. Please contact your federal, state, and local candidates and encourage them to answer our survey and explain their views elsewhere. If you're a Republican, you can find a list of federal and state-wide candidates at http://tinyurl.com/2010gop. We called the Colorado Democrats, and a representative said that hopefully a list of candidates will be made available at ColoradoDems.org. Otherwise you may need to poke around on the internet or call a party office.

Candidates have a responsibility to reveal their views, and voters have a responsibility to critically and fairly evaluate candidates' positions. It won't do to take comments out of context or otherwise misrepresent what a candidate is about.

We will get the government we deserve. It's time for candidates to cowboy up. And it's time for us voters to earn our spurs.

Update: As of January 24, we've received a reply from one candidate running for governor or U.S. Senate: Dan Maes.

Theater Smoking Ban Violates Free Expression

The January 10 Denver Post published my letter under the title, "Why smoking ban shouldn’t apply on stage." The letter replied to a January 4 editorial.

The Post argues that, because actors can use fake cigarettes on stage, the state smoking ban should apply. But just because The Post is capable of publishing fake news and commentary doesn't mean it should be forbidden from publishing the real thing. The owners should decide policy, and patrons should decide which plays to see. It is a matter of property rights as well as free expression. By inviting politicians to set policy in the playhouse, The Post invites them to do the same in the newsroom.

Free association is also a critical right under assault by the smoking ban, in the theater as well as other private establishments. Actors too have a right to reach mutually agreeable terms for working. A play properly involves the mutual consent of theater owners, actors, and patrons. Politicians violate the rights of all those parties by interfering.

The Post is schizophrenic regarding the First Amendment (which is odd given that free expression is what enables newspapers to do business). Thankfully on January 22 the Post stood with free speech by declaring that individuals retain their rights when they join an association to promote ideas with their financial resources.

Dan Maes Gets Real; He and Acree Talk Health

"Some guy named Dan Maes also remains in the race, and he has about the same chance of becoming the next governor of Colorado as I do."

"Anybody who thinks Dan Maes has any chance of winning the Republican primary and beating Bill Ritter is simply delusional."

"Dan Maes doesn't have a chance in hell of becoming the next governor of Colorado."

Who wrote these nasty things about hard-working gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes? And what did Maes ever do to that vindictive SOB?

The lines are mine. And, while Maes has offered a pointed response, he's taken my needling well. And I respect that. An underdog who can't deal with people throwing scraps will never be anything more than an underdog.

Moreover, it seems like every political event I go to, Maes is there. I heard him give his stump speech last night at Liberty On the Rocks. I saw him Tuesday at the rally against Obama Care. I saw him last month at an Independence Institute holiday party, where Maes listened to my complaints for another twenty minutes or so. Maes takes questions -- and answers them.

Meanwhile, this is the only sign I saw of Scott McInnis (the other Republican in the race) at Tuesday's rally:



(In fairness, McInnis has given public addresses and uploaded some of these to YouTube.)

If memory serves, I first saw Maes June 27 of last year at an Aurora Republican Forum. What I recall from his speech that day is that there was nothing important to recall. LIghtweight, I thought. But last night I saw a candidate for governor. He talked energy. He can effectively challenge Governor Ritter's "New Energy Economy" with the Real Energy Economy. He talked Constitutional restraints of federal power. He talked low taxes. He spoke with passion. He spoke from the heart.

What's more, Maes is a genuine guy. He's fun to talk to. He's fun to listen to. He's even fun to make fun of. McInnis, on the other hand, is well known for his testy personality and media meltdowns.

True, Maes has suffered from lackluster fundraising (though it seems to be picking up a bit). However, Maes also beat McInnis in the unscientific, skewed poll put out by the People's Press Collective.

Delusional? No chance in hell? I was stunned that Ritter dropped out of the race. I thought Scott Brown didn't have a chance in hell of winning his U.S. Senate race. Well, it looks like hell is freezing over and political probabilities must be tossed aside.

I would like to see a Maes/Hickenlooper showdown because I'd like to see two real guys, two businessmen, have a serious discussion about the important issues facing Colorado. (I'm sure Hickenlooper would also love to face that showdown.) With McInnis, I get the feeling that his main purpose is to package his message and play it safe. (McInnis could easily change my mind on this point simply by providing straightforward answers to the Armstrongs' Colorado 2010 Candidate Survey). Moreover, last night I had a chance to chat briefly with Maes's delightful wife and elder daughter, each of whom could be a major asset to his campaign if willing to play that role.

However, Maes has some serious problems. His lack of political experience translates to difficulty raising funds. His ideological problems are more serious.

While Maes is friendly toward free markets for a Republican, generally Republicans suck on economic liberty. I worry about three things from Maes.

First, Maes is fairly strong on property rights but not as strong as I'd like. He said that eminent domain "is a constitutionally acceptable process and should be applied on a case by case basis. Application of the practice should only be exercised when there is a clear and convincing case for a purely public use and benefit." That's better than most politicians on the subject. But, for me, the right answer is that eminent domain is always and everywhere a violation of property rights.

Second, while Maes has admirably taken a stand against corporate welfare, he is amenable to discriminatory taxation. My view is that, while existing tax breaks should not be removed, otherwise we should seek to establish tax parity, rather than punish some businesses more severely than others with higher taxes. Maes said, "Our state constitution clearly states we are not to make investments in private entities. I want to honor the spirit of our federal and state constitutions. I do see tax breaks as viable incentives to spur our economy."

Third, while Maes opposed the federal health bills, he inconsistently advocates free markets in health. Here's what he said on Tuesday:



Here is the worrisome line: "We need to keep health care within the free market system. But we'd have to encourage private industry to get serious about pre-existing conditions. If they don't take on pre-existing conditions, then government has every right to do so. So I want to make sure private industry accommodates that need."

Maes's position is unclear to me. Either he is saying that insurance companies must be politically forced to ignore pre-existing conditions when accepting customers, or he is saying that tax dollars should fund government-run insurance that ignores pre-existing conditions (as Cover Colorado basically does now). The former position leads inexorably to an insurance mandate, as my dad and I have argued. (See also my earlier article.) I welcome Maes's clarification of the matter.

Again, Maes is mostly good on fiscal matters, and I have no doubt he would outperform any Democrat (and most Republicans) on economics. But Maes has a much more serious problem: social issues.

Maes has endorsed the so-called "personhood" measure likely to appear on this fall's ballot. This would ban all or almost all abortions if fully enforced. It would also outlaw forms of birth control (including the pill) and fertility care that may result in the destruction of a fertilized egg. Colorado voters overwhelmingly trounced the "personhood" measure in 2008, and Maes will make few political friends by supporting it.

Maes also said that marriage "is a privilege that is ordained in the Scripture." However, last night he granted that "civil remedies" can solve the problems of homosexual romantic unions. He said churches should not be forced to conduct gay marriages, and with that point I fully agree.

Maes strikes me as a common-sense kind of guy, so I will be interested to hear how he responds to concerns about the horrific and far-reaching implications of the "personhood" measure.

Meanwhile, all I've heard from McInnis is an ambiguous claim that he's "100 percent pro-life." Does McInnis want to outlaw absolutely all abortions? Voters deserve to know this.

As Paul Hsieh has written, independent voters, especially in Colorado, "want the Democrats out of their pockets and the Republicans out of their bedrooms."

For the first time I am very interested in following the Republican primary.

* * *

Also at Tuesday's rally, State Representative Cindy Acree offered her take on health reform:



Acree wants "tax equity at the federal level" to allow people to buy insurance with pre-tax money. That's fantastic. However, she also wants a "new delivery system for primary care all over the state with public-private partnerships." That sound to me like more tax subsidies and government controls.

So, while Republicans rallied against the federal Democratic health bills, they hardly advocate consistently free markets in health care. Hopefully advocates of liberty will continue to persuade them.

Coloradans Speak Out Against Obama Care

As Massachusetts voters filled Ted Kennedy's former Senate seat with a Republican, Coloradans rallied against the Democratic health bill, vowing to pass a state initiative blunting the force of the federal bill -- should it pass and be signed into law by President Obama.

Neurosurgeon Sanat Dixit spoke out against the Democratic health bills:



Jon Caldara introduced the rest of the speakers and offered his own thoughts (presented here in a selection of clips).



I captured the views of some of the ralliers.





State Senator Shawn Mitchell adds his concerns:



Here Justin Longo offers the perspective of a young buyer of a high-deductible health insurance plan:



See the People's Press Collective for more.

The Haitian Catastrophe

Right now, the most important thing we can do as average Americans is to donate to charitable relief organizations, budgets permitting. (Jennifer and I chose the Red Cross.) And we can offer our gratitude and support for Americans going to Haiti to help. The magnitude of destruction is overwhelming.

We must also denounce the lunacy of people like Pat Robertson, who said the earthquake was a result of a Haitian "pact to the devil." (Mercifully, Rick Warren said on his Twitter feed, "Labeling any natural disaster as God's judgment is nonsense.")

Then, as the dust settles, the majority of us not directly involved in relief efforts should contemplate how to mitigate the harm of such disasters in the future.

The first obvious thing to note about Haiti is that its government is corrupt and its people oppressed. The Heritage Foundation ranks Haiti as "mostly unfree," ranking 147 out of 179, behind Russia.

A second point to note is that the Haitian government knew the earthquake was coming and did little to prepare for it. As Cassie Rodenberg reports for Popular Mechanics:

Back in 2008, Eric Calais and Paul Mann, geophysicists who study fault lines in the Caribbean, predicted that Haiti would soon face such a devastating quake. ...

Calais says that because Haiti poses safety concerns and a difficult work environment with a poor road access system, it's been neglected by seismologists. ...

But his research didn't translate well enough to elicit safety precautions before the quake. Though Calais notes that earthquakes can't be prevented, he says there was enough advance warning for the Haitian government to make preparations, and, in fact, his team alerted the government four to five years beforehand.

"We've told the Haitian government that the Enriquillo fault is a major player," Calais says. "We've told them exactly where the fault is. We've told them how fast it was building up elastic energy, and we've told them that right now, if it was to go, it could produce a 7.2 in magnitude or larger event."

The government has worked with the team and listened to its foreboding reports, Calais says, but for the most part, Haiti has failed to implement emergency plans and restructure crucial buildings.

Economic liberty and a government constrained by the rule of just law is necessary for human life. Statism kills. Corrupt governments kill. Stifling economic development kills.

Michelle Malkin points to a post by Jim Roberts: "Long-term reforms for Haitian democracy and its economy are also badly overdue." (I profoundly disagree with Roberts's calls to violate economic liberty at home through forced wealth transfers in order to promote economic reform in Haiti.)

John Stossel refers to the excellent summary of the matter by economist Don Boudreaux:

The ultimate tragedy in Haiti isn't the earthquake; it's that country's lack of economic freedom. The earthquake simply but catastrophically revealed the inhuman consequences of this fact.

Registering 7.0 on the Richter scale, the Haitian earthquake killed tens of thousands of people. But the quake that hit California's Bay Area in 1989 was also of magnitude 7.0. It, though, killed only 63 people.

This difference is due chiefly to Americans' greater wealth. With one of the freest economies in the world, Americans build stronger homes and buildings, and have better health-care and better search and rescue equipment. In contrast, burdened by one of the world's least-free economies, Haitians cannot afford to build sturdy structures. Nor can they afford the health-care and emergency equipment that we take for granted here in the U.S.

These stark facts should be a lesson for those who insist that human habitats are made more dangerous, and human lives put in greater peril, by freedom of commerce and industry.

If you want to live, if you want to promote human life, you must advocate capitalism.

American Lung Association Earns "F" in Liberty

Dear American Lung Association,

I am sorry to learn that your organization deserves an "F" in its understanding of liberty.

I was shocked to read in today's Denver Post that the ALA has endorsed the violation of property rights (via the smoking ban), higher taxes, and more state spending in Colorado.

While I approve of your organization's work to persuade people to quit smoking, in this case you are substituting the force of the state for rational argument. The ends do not justify the means, and you are promoting unjust policies that violate people's rights.

As harmful as smoking is, it is not nearly as harmful as a government that systematically violates property rights and economic liberty. By seeking to forcibly limit people's choices, you are preventing them from acting on their own judgment. The freedom to act on one's judgment, consistent with rights of property and person, is the bedrock of liberty and prosperity. If you take away people's ability to make mistakes, you necessarily undercut their ability to take responsibility for their lives and reach the heights of human potential.

The ALA should mind its proper business of persuading people to improve their health, not promote state policies that violate rights. It should go without saying that I do not donate to organizations that promote the violation of property rights and economic liberty.

Sincerely,
Ari Armstrong

Giddy Up Time in Colorado

(See 8 minutes into John Hickenlooper's announcement for the governor's race.)

Curtis Harris: Colorado 2010 Candidate Survey

Following are the unedited answers of Curtis Harris to the Colorado 2010 Candidate Survey.

If nothing else, Harris, a third-party candidate for the the Second Congressional, gets points for speed. He was the first candidate to reply to the survey.

SUMMARY

In a Twitter-length reply (140 characters maximum), please state why you are running for political office.

The present US Government is driving America to socialism and economic disaster. Both major political parties and the Congress are at the heart of the problem. I want to return the Federal government to its Constitutional limits and restore individual liberty in this country.

ECONOMIC ISSUES

* Should the federal or state government spend money in an attempt to "stimulate" the economy? If so, on what sorts of projects?

No. Economies are stimulated by economic freedom.

* Should tax dollars be directed toward energy projects, tourism, or any other form of business subsidies?

No. Corporate welfare is the result of or leads to government corruption. There is no place for it in a free economy.

* Should state or federal spending (depending on which office you
seek) be higher or lower than it is currently?

Much lower.

* Should the state or federal minimum wage (depending on which office you seek) be repealed, maintained, or increased?

Repeal the Federal minimum wage. The States are free to chose their policy. Minimum wages are a proven killer of entry-level jobs.

* Should college education be subsidized by tax dollars?

Certainly not Federal dollars. I would not support state funding, either.

* Should antitrust law or its enforcement be changed?

Yes. Federal enforcement is often politically motivated and/or based on flawed economics.

* (Federal-level candidates:) Should Sarbanes-Oxley be repealed?

Yes.


SOCIAL AND CHURCH/STATE ISSUES

* What do you believe is meant by the "separation of church and state," and do you endorse it?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
I endorse the First Amendment. That being said, this country is founded on the primacy of the rights of people as endowed by their Creator. The exclusion of general religious principles (morality) from government is a mistake.

* Should religious institutions receive tax dollars for providing welfare or other faith-based services?

Not from the Federal level.

* Should the teaching of creationism or Intelligent Design be subsidized by tax dollars?

Not from the Federal level.

* Should tax-funded schools establish a period of permitted or required prayer?

This should be up to local school districts and parents. A daily period of meditation would have done me a lot of good when I was in school.

* Should government officials promote religiously oriented displays and comments on government property and at government events?

Promote? No. Allow? Yes.

* Do you support gay marriage?

The Federal government has no role at all in marriage, gay or otherwise. I support loving, committed relationships. How the people of the States and local governments chose to define these is up to their people.

* If you answered no to the question above, do you support domestic partnerships, civil unions, or comparable legal recognition of gay couples?

These are different labels for marriage. The love and commitment in the relationship is all that matters.

* Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children by the same standards as heterosexual couples?

This is not a Federal matter. I do not have the knowledge or experience that would qualify me to have an opinion.

* Should government never, always, or sometimes mandate parental notification and consent before a minor may legally obtain an abortion, and, if sometimes, under what conditions?

Again, no Federal role. However, I support parental notification unless there is evidence of abuse within the family.

* Should government mandate waiting periods or ultrasounds before a woman may legally obtain an abortion?

Abortion is a State, not Federal matter. There are two questions here. Should abortion be legal? Should there be waiting periods?

As a practical matter, government should not interfere in family matters during the first trimester.

* Do you endorse the "personhood" measure that may appear on the 2010 ballot?

I am not familiar with this measure.

* Should abortion be legal in cases of fetal deformity?

Again, no Federal role. It is the family’s decision.

* Should abortion be legal in cases of rape or incest?

Again, no Federal role. Otherwise, yes.

* Should abortion be legal in cases of risk to the woman's life, as determined by the health professional selected by that woman?

Again, no Federal role. There can be a big argument over what constitutes “risk of life”.

* Should elective abortion be legal?

Again, no Federal role. As a practical matter, government should not interfere in family matters during the first trimester.

* If you believe that abortion should be legally restricted, what criminal penalties do you advocate for a woman and her doctor for obtaining or facilitating an illegal abortion?

I believe the States can decide on abortion restrictions after the first trimester. I have no opinion on penalties, except the one below.

* Would execution ever be an appropriate penalty for obtaining or facilitating illegal abortions?

No.

* Should types of birth control be legal that may prevent a fertilized egg or zygote from implanting in the uterus?

States choice. My personal opinion - Yes.

* Should fertility treatments be legal that may result in the freezing or destruction of a fertilized egg or zygote?

States choice. My personal opinion - Yes.

* Should research involving the use of embryonic stem cells be legal?

States choice. My personal opinion - Yes. The research should not be Federally funded.

* Should abortions or embryonic stem cell research be subsidized by tax dollars?

Certainly not Federal dollars.


IMMIGRATION

* (Federal-level candidates:) Should the U.S. expand a legal guest- worker program or legal immigration, and, if so, by how much?

Yes. I don’t know how much, but there is unmet demand for skilled people in this country, so the additional visas or immigration would add value to our economy. People that love freedom and have the ability to add value to America should be welcomed.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should Colorado government force employers to verify with the federal government the legal status of potential employees, and, if so, what penalties should apply for failure to do so?

The Federal government has a Constitutionally authorized role in immigration control.

* Should federal or state tax-funded benefits (depending on which office you seek), including K-12 education, be extended only to U.S. citizens, to legal immigrants and guest workers, or to everyone in the U.S. including illegal immigrants?

Not to illegal immigrants. In any case, most Federal benefits are not authorized by the Constitution.


PROPERTY RIGHTS

* What restrictions, if any, should be placed on the use of eminent domain?

Eminent domain is for legitimate public use only and the property owner must be fairly compensated.

* Do you endorse the use of eminent domain in the case of the Pinon Canyon military expansion? Do you support the military expansion if it does not involve eminent domain?

I am not familiar enough with the situation to have an opinion at this time.

* Should the Endangered Species Act be altered or differently enforced?

Yes. It has become a weapon against healthy growth in our economy and often violates private property rights.


BILL OF RIGHTS

* Should McCain-Feingold and state campaign finance restrictions be repealed, maintained, or expanded?

McCain-Feingold should be repealed. It is unconstitutional. In general, campaign finance is a free speech issue and should not be restricted. Voters should have complete access to information on candidates' campaign funding.

* Should the federal government control what radio or television stations may broadcast?

Since these signals cross State lines and can have an effect on the welfare of the United States, there is a legitimate Federal role. Beyond protections against slander, libel, and content unsuitable for minors (violations of the rights of others), there should be no content control.

* Should the FTC's rules regarding blogger endorsements be rescinded?

Yes.

* Should students with licenses be legally permitted to carry concealed handguns on the property of tax-subsidized colleges?

Yes.

* Should additional restrictions be added (or repealed) on gun ownership? Please specify.

No additional restrictions. I think Colorado's laws in this area are a good model for the nation.

* Do you believe that desecration of the U.S. flag should be outlawed by Constitutional amendment?

No.

* Do you believe that pornography or obscene materials involving consenting adults should be legally restricted?

No.


OTHER

* Should state or federal laws (depending on which office you seek) pertaining to marijuana be altered, and, if so, how?

Again, no Federal role here. Repeal the federal laws and leave it to the States.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should rules pertaining to petitioners be altered, and, if so, how?

* If there is any important issue that you believe we have missed, please state what it is and state your position on it.

Nothing is more important than getting the Federal government’s fiscal and monetary policies under control. Many functions of the Federal government are not authorized by our Constitution and must be phased out. Corresponding cuts in spending, taxes and regulation will allow our economy to grow and produce the tax revenue necessary to eliminate the deficit and reduce government debt.

Thank you.


Curtis Harris
www.HarrisAgainstCongress.com
http://itsthecongressstupid.blogspot.com

Colorado 2010 Candidate Survey

Created by Ari and Linn Armstrong

[January 24 Update: Links to candidates' replies and related material are posted following the survey.]

The following survey is open to all Colorado candidates running for the 2010 elections. Candidates should fill out the survey and return it via e-mail to ari(at)freecolorado(dotcom). The survey should be sent as text only within the body of an e-mail, not as an attachment. Answers will be published in full and without editing at FreeColorado.com. Candidates should include contact information for verification purposes.

We will personally send the survey to all major-party candidates running for governor and U.S. Senate. We may send the survey to other candidates as well. We do not have the resources to send the survey to -- and track answers from -- every single candidate in the state. However, all Colorado candidates are welcome to respond to the survey, and FreeColorado.com will publish every reply received.

Obviously we may choose to quote from a candidate's answers in our own articles, as may other journalists.

Voters interested in the answers of a particular candidate are encouraged to ask that candidate to send us a reply. Moreover, we encourage other journalists to press candidates for their answers to these important questions.

We have heard from various candidates who decline to answer at least some surveys. We strongly encourage candidates to answer ours. We believe that Colorado voters deserve to know where candidates stand on the issues.

Our goal is to fairly elicit a candidate's substantive views on a variety of critical issues. While many of the questions may be answered yes or no, we encourage candidates to offer whatever nuances they deem appropriate. If you think a question is loaded, tell us why. If you want to explain how your thinking has evolved or how your answer squares with your record, please do so. If you have not developed a position on some issue, say as much. We will reproduce your answers as given. We do ask that candidates not confuse nuance with evasiveness.

Note: Some questions are marked for state-level or federal-level candidates. While all candidates are welcome to answer all the questions, candidates for one level of government need not answer questions specific to another level.

We believe that candidates can be fair to voters only by revealing their views on the important issues of the day. We look forward to reading and publishing the replies.


SUMMARY

In a Twitter-length reply (140 characters maximum), please state why you are running for political office.


ECONOMIC ISSUES

* Should the federal or state government spend money in an attempt to "stimulate" the economy? If so, on what sorts of projects?

* Should tax dollars be directed toward energy projects, tourism, or any other form of business subsidies?

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights be kept completely intact? If not, how should it be altered?

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should Amendment 23 be repealed, maintained, or modified?

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should any particular state taxes or fees (such as the state corporate income tax or the subjects of the tax-cutting initiatives) be repealed or reduced? Should any be added or increased?

* Should state or federal spending (depending on which office you seek) be higher or lower than it is currently?

* Should the state or federal minimum wage (depending on which office you seek) be repealed, maintained, or increased?

* Should college education be subsidized by tax dollars?

* Should antitrust law or its enforcement be changed?

* (Federal-level candidates:) Should Sarbanes-Oxley be repealed?


SOCIAL AND CHURCH/STATE ISSUES

* What do you believe is meant by the "separation of church and state," and do you endorse it?

* Should religious institutions receive tax dollars for providing welfare or other faith-based services?

* Should the teaching of creationism or Intelligent Design be subsidized by tax dollars?

* Should tax-funded schools establish a period of permitted or required prayer?

* Should government officials promote religiously oriented displays and comments on government property and at government events?

* Do you support gay marriage?

* If you answered no to the question above, do you support domestic partnerships, civil unions, or comparable legal recognition of gay couples?

* Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children by the same standards as heterosexual couples?

* Should government never, always, or sometimes mandate parental notification and consent before a minor may legally obtain an abortion, and, if sometimes, under what conditions?

* Should government mandate waiting periods or ultrasounds before a woman may legally obtain an abortion?

* Do you endorse the "personhood" measure that may appear on the 2010 ballot?

* Should abortion be legal in cases of fetal deformity?

* Should abortion be legal in cases of rape or incest?

* Should abortion be legal in cases of risk to the woman's life, as determined by the health professional selected by that woman?

* Should elective abortion be legal?

* If you believe that abortion should be legally restricted, what criminal penalties do you advocate for a woman and her doctor for obtaining or facilitating an illegal abortion?

* Would execution ever be an appropriate penalty for obtaining or facilitating illegal abortions?

* Should types of birth control be legal that may prevent a fertilized egg or zygote from implanting in the uterus?

* Should fertility treatments be legal that may result in the freezing or destruction of a fertilized egg or zygote?

* Should research involving the use of embryonic stem cells be legal?

* Should abortions or embryonic stem cell research be subsidized by tax dollars?


IMMIGRATION

* (Federal-level candidates:) Should the U.S. expand a legal guest-worker program or legal immigration, and, if so, by how much?

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should Colorado government force employers to verify with the federal government the legal status of potential employees, and, if so, what penalties should apply for failure to do so?

* Should federal or state tax-funded benefits (depending on which office you seek), including K-12 education, be extended only to U.S. citizens, to legal immigrants and guest workers, or to everyone in the U.S. including illegal immigrants?


PROPERTY RIGHTS

* What restrictions, if any, should be placed on the use of eminent domain?

* Do you endorse the use of eminent domain in the case of the Pinon Canyon military expansion? Do you support the military expansion if it does not involve eminent domain?

* Should the Endangered Species Act be altered or differently enforced?

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should the smoking ban be maintained, expanded, or repealed? Should it apply to on-stage performances?


BILL OF RIGHTS

* Should McCain-Feingold and state campaign finance restrictions be repealed, maintained, or expanded?

* Should the federal government control what radio or television stations may broadcast?

* Should the FTC's rules regarding blogger endorsements be rescinded?

* Should students with licenses be legally permitted to carry concealed handguns on the property of tax-subsidized colleges?

* Should additional restrictions be added (or repealed) on gun ownership? Please specify.

* Do you believe that desecration of the U.S. flag should be outlawed by Constitutional amendment?

* Do you believe that pornography or obscene materials involving consenting adults should be legally restricted?


OTHER

* Should state or federal laws (depending on which office you seek) pertaining to marijuana be altered, and, if so, how?

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should rules pertaining to petitioners be altered, and, if so, how?

* If there is any important issue that you believe we have missed, please state what it is and state your position on it.

Thank you.

Candidates Should Giddy Up and Answer Survey (Free Press column)

At Least Dan Maes Answered the Questions (Free Press column)

Curtis Harris Libertarian for Congress

Dan Maes Republican for Governor

Rich Hand Independent for Governor

John Finger Libertarian for U.S. Senate

Cleve Tidwell Republican for U.S. Senate

John Hargis Independent for Third Congressional

What Are Conservatives Trying to Conserve?

The following article originally was published on January 4 by Grand Junction's Free Press.

What are conservatives trying to conserve?

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Conservatives are a strange bunch. They support free trade, except when they want to outlaw or restrict select medicinal plants or forcibly stop employers from hiring willing workers of their choice.

Conservatives support freedom of conscience, except when they want to censor what they declare to be obscene works, punish the mishandling of the flag, or force people to fund religious programs with which they disagree.

Conservatives advocate strong national defense, except when they support a war the president declares unwinnable, along with years of "nation building" at the expense of American lives.

Conservatives endorse federalism, except when they want the national government to tell states how to handle marriage.

Conservatives uphold independence, except when they call on politicians to imprison women for getting an abortion.

Conservatives tout the dignity of the individual, unless that individual happens to be gay or a brown-skinned laborer from Mexico.

Conservatives declare to stand for time-honored principles, except when they "compromise" to raise taxes, pass smoking bans in violation of property rights, expand health welfare, endorse corporate welfare, and use the invasive tax code to crack down on the "crime" of productive work.

We have to wonder just what it is that conservatives are trying to conserve. How can we make sense out of the hash of modern conservatism?

A common explanation is that conservatism is a "fusion" of faith-based tradition and libertarian free-market leanings. There's something to that. The problem is that faith often clashes with tradition, while libertarian government-bashing often clashes with individual rights.

The libertarian anti-government strain is a minor part of the conservative movement. Many libertarians join their own party, avoid politics, or loudly distance themselves from conservatives. Down-with-government conservatism, illustrated by Grover Norquist's infamous and unfortunate line about drowning government in a bathtub, alienates the general public and tends toward the reactionary, in the sense of reacting against anything to do with government rather than championing some positive value.

That leaves three major conservative traditions: tradition, faith, and liberty.

Tradition explains why so many conservatives oppose gay marriage and immigration. They want things to stay just the way they are. The problem is knowing which traditions to conserve and which to change. Slavery was a tradition for many centuries, overturned by liberal-minded abolitionists who wanted to fundamentally change society. Rule by king was a tradition.

For too many conservatives, tradition is just a rationalization for advocating policies and cultural trends without the bother of having to justify them on moral grounds. Tradition is the fall-back of the thoughtless.

Sensing the weakness of a strictly traditional approach, many conservatives turn to religious faith. Christians may lay aside Old Testament calls to murder people for homosexuality, witchcraft, adultery, and parent-cursing.

Christians cannot avoid the fact that the New Testament "contains scores of commandments demanding the redistribution of wealth and property from those who created it to those who did not," as Craig Biddle points out in The Objective Standard. The Marxist injunction, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs," finds its "origin in the Bible," Biddle notes.

Many Christians openly apply Biblical principles to the welfare state; for example, the Colorado Catholic Conference advocated tax-funded "health care coverage for all people from conception until natural death."

Conservative Christians do a lot of comical dancing trying to pass through the eye of a needle with their riches intact. Yet, in terms of Biblical principles, the best such conservatives can do is say that, yes, people have a moral duty to redistribute their wealth, only they should be free to do it or not. The fact remains that the Bible says precious little in defense of political and economic liberty, individual rights, or the value of economic prosperity.

As Sarah Palin writes in her biography, her brand of conservatism rests on the alleged truth "that man is fallen." The presumption is that people just aren't good enough to live in a socialist order. Instead, such conservatives argue, politics must cope with vicious humanity. Then faith-based conservatives who appeal to our "fallen" nature wonder why they can't capture the moral high ground.

We are conservatives only in the final sense of the term: we want to conserve liberty and indeed radically expand it. We hold that liberty is not a gift from men or the gods, but a necessity for thriving human life. To live successfully, we need the freedom to act on our own judgment regarding ourselves and our property. Government must protect our rights, but it must be restrained by a written constitution that limits political power. Unlike the libertarians, we are not against government; we are for a government that robustly protects individual rights.

The interesting thing about this brand of conservatism is that it sounds a lot like what liberalism was always supposed to be, until its purported defenders twisted that movement to the opposite purpose. The best conservatives, it turns out, are also the only true liberals.

Review Questions for Daniels's Essays on Antitrust

This set of review questions is part of the Liberty In the Books program, a monthly discussion group. These questions cover two works by Eric Daniels on antitrust that go well together for a single meeting. These essays are part of a cycle on antitrust. Previously I published questions for Alex Epstein's essay, "Vindicating Capitalism: The Real History of the Standard Oil Company." In the future Liberty In the Books will cover Dominick Armentano's book, Antitrust: The Case for Repeal.

The first work covered here is Daniels's essay, "Reversing Course: American Attitudes about Monopolies, 1607-1890." It is contained in the book The Abolition of Antitrust, edited by Gary Hull.

Daniels's second essay is "Antitrust with a Vengeance: The Obama Administration's Anti-Business Cudgel," published by The Objective Standard.

As noted previously, these review questions are intended to inspire discussion of the material, not establish a tight outline for discussion.

Reversing Course

1. What was the general change in federal economic policy from the mid 1800s to the early 1900s? (Pages 63, 65-66)

2. What was the most common understanding of "monopoly," before and after 1890? (Page 64)

3. What were the English origins of monopolies? (Page 67)

4. What was the nature of the English revolt against monopolies? (Pages 67-68)

5. What was the significance of the English Case of Monopolies and subsequent Parliamentary action? (Pages 68-69)

6. What was the colonists' view of monopolies? (Pages 69-70)

7. What was the fundamental ideological conflict that divided the English Parliament and the colonists? (Pages 70-71)

8. What was the position of state constitutions on monopolies? (Page 71)

9. According to Daniels, what is the difference between American patent law and the establishment of coercive monopolies? (Pages 71-72)

10. In what ways was the Constitutional Convention friendly toward monopolies? What were the concerns about monopolies raised in that debate? (Page 73)

11. In what ways, and on what grounds, did Congress empower monopolies? (Page 74)

12. How did Alexander Hamilton, Daniel Webster, and Joseph Story defend monopolies? How did their arguments lead from protecting coercive monopolies to breaking up large free-market businesses? (Pages 75-76)

13. How did free enterprise challenge coercive monopolies? (Page 76)

14. How did the fight over the steamship monopoly play out? What was the impact of the 1824 Supreme Court ruling in Gibbons v. Ogden? (Pages 77-78)

15. What were the arguments that continued to be made in favor of monopolies in the 1800s? (Pages 78-79)

16. What was the Charles River Bridge case, and what was the significance of the arguments made in that case? (Pages 79-83)

17. In what ways did Andrew Jackson restrict coercive monopolies? (Page 83)

18. How did judicial definitions of monopoly change after the Civil War? (Page 84)

19. What were the Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873, how were they decided, and what was the impact of the ruling? (Pages 84-85)

20. What were the circumstances of the case of Munn v. Illinois, and what was the impact of the case's legal resolution on property rights? (Pages 86-87)

21. What was the nature and impact of Henry Demarest Lloyd's works on monopoly in the 1880s? (Pages 88-89)

22. What arguments were presented in favor of the Sherman Antitrust Act? (Page 89)

23. What is Daniels's critique of the "public good" as a standard of law? (Page 90)

Antitrust with a Vengeance

24. Why did C. T. Dodd and John D. Rockefeller create a trust in the late 1800s? (Page 22)

25. What were the cultural and political conditions that led to the Sherman Antitrust Act? (Page 22)

26. In what ways are the antitrust laws nonobjective? (Page 23)

27. Why do producers need a stable legal environment, and how does antitrust legislation undercut this? (Pages 23-24)

28. How has antitrust legislation brought business under federal control? (Page 24)

29. How did antitrust enforcement change (and how did it remain the same) from the Bush to the Obama administrations? (Pages 21, 24-25)

30. How have other federal economic controls undermined free-market competition? (Page 25)

31. What is Daniels's critique of Steve Forbes and L. Gordon Crovitz, who also oppose stepped-up antitrust enforcement? (Pages 26-27)

32. What does Daniels see as the proper role of government with respect to business organization and operation? Is he right? (Page 27)