Should be possible some of the time, then at some point it should not be possible. Essentially about justice, and two sides must be weighed against each other. But do have to weigh the sides, have to put values on them, and the values will change based on circumstances.

At this point in time, feeling is that it should be legal at least as far as the pregnancy can reasonably be detected plus some window of time. Beyond that, skeptical.

Not really convinced by the privacy argument, but admit that it has some value. Place more value on the right of the woman to have autonomy and live a full life of her own choosing.

Should be tied to other issues such as people who are comatose and will not come back, assisted suicide, etc. The answer does not have to be the same, but these kinds of things should inform each other.


Should have something like a Balanced Budget Amendment. It should be possible to both require that the budget be balanced, allow deficits when really necessary, and prevent any such provisions from being abused. Do not really buy the argument that it will be impossible to balance the budget because people could play games with numbers. One could account for that in the law and allow for only so much "free play".

Civil Rights

The Left has been and is pretty much correct on social issues. It is less about whether social changes are going to happen and more about the details and implementation. But, in principle, the Left tends to be correct. Still, that is not a good excuse for simply adopting positions without fully developing the arguments. Many terms and ideas used by the Left are academic ones, and many people do not understand them.

For political correctness, there should be some level of tolerance for people that did not grow up in a [contemporary] cultural environment and did not have opportunity to develop [contemporary] moral sensibilities. Set the line as to what will be tolerated and what is out-of-bounds somewhere, play by those rules, and then move it back over time, as the culture adapts, rather than be too aggressive and have people be silently opposed and unsupportive, and then eventually have an ugly backlash.

Gay marriage is fine. Should be decided at the federal level. Do not see believe it should be on a state-by-state basis any more than other civil rights issues.

Support affirmative action if done right. Believe that it goes beyond the individual outcomes and there are cultural effects. Those effects may outweigh the loss of fairness to the individual. View it as a long-term tool by which the government can improve cultures, and, by extension, fairness on a broad scale. So, ultimately, while an affirmative action policy may be unfair to an individual, it creates a greater amount of justice, overall.

OK with defining crimes separately as hate crimes. Such crimes, if done on a basis of hate, act as a means of terror or intimidation, and they affect more people, they affect the overall climate, and they do more damage to society than other crimes do. Because they do more damage, a different response is necessary for the sake of justice.

More effort should be made to understand the POV of working people who have not had the opportunity to get a liberal education, keep as up-to-date, and do not see themselves as having gotten any benefits from the government. Also, need a notion of what a preconception is, and how various issues affect people (e.g. gay marriage) when they go against their preconceptions. For these issues, the Left is going to win anyways, so it is not as though being understanding means being apologetic or giving ground.


In principle, fail to see why corporations should not be taxed when they use the infrastructure of the country. There is not enough of a sense that powerful corporations get to be powerful because they use the country's infrastructure, human capital, banking system, legal system, defense, etc.

In principle, do not view corporations as free entities, independent of the State.

When it comes to corporate taxes and the argument that corporations are not allowed to be taxed because they will leave, perhaps they may not be allowed to leave. They did not get to where they were in a vaccuum.

On the other hand, should also consider corporations to be a part of the infrastructure / capital of the country as a whole. Corporations are not inherently evil, but rather they are dangerous when power is allowed to accumulate without any conditions placed on it, yet they will be productive if regulated properly.When you consider corporations as part of the infrastructure, then it changes one's POV on bailouts. Whether that ruins market capitalism and incentivizes failure is a separate matter.

Bailouts depend on whether or not they make sense on a case-by-case basis. Do not believe that, in principle, banks must fail or that they cannot fail. Take a pragmatic approach, not an idealistic one. Bailouts are a combination of bank lending and investment. Do not believe that the government necessarily has to be financially unsound and make poor bailout decisions.

Bailouts should come with whatever sensible conditions that would disincentivize reckless behavior. If it is for an industry, then naturally expect to put in place regulations to prevent recurrence.

Too much a sense that the powerful in the business community are so completely on superior merit. The difference between people in income and wealth is disproportionate to their differences as people. This sentiment should not directly affect any laws, since they should be made on a sound basis anyways, and not a jealous or vindictive one. Still, this sentiment should be reflected. Capitalism is a game we play to distribute, and we know it is not a fair game, but let those motivated to play, play and play hard. After it is over, make corrections in the name of equity.


Against the death penalty.

Want to see non-violent (calming / talking person down), non-lethal arrest tactics, so long as do not put lives of officers in danger. Thinking back to how car chases were ended because they were too dangerous. As civilization advances, violence should be expected to decrease in every form (e.g. war), in favor of non-violent solutions.

Favor body cameras for police.

Penal system reflects on the civilization. It should be about rehabilitation and reform. As far as possible, should be an experience which prepares one to re-enter society as a law-abiding, productive member, with law and order maintained, as well as possible, throughout that experience.

Favor surveillance of public spaces. So long as surveillance measures do not intrude into private space and can decrease and/or deter crime, am in favor of them.


Overall sentiment is that it is a problem to be solved.

Do not really support legalization for things that are unsafe to use and are about certain to lead to addiction. But support decriminalization for minor usage, forced treatment for those who are heavily addicted and cannot help themselves (similar to treatment for mentally ill people unable to keep up their health by themselves), and for keeping it illegal to sell hard drugs, and maintaining the War on Drugs.

Any thinking about drugs should include alcohol and nicotine, rather than treat them separately. They may safe or unsafe to use, usage may be acceptable or unacceptable.

Do not believe that drugs are, in and of themselves, bad. They are bad when they cause bad outcomes. Society's understanding of both drugs and the mind itself needs time to evolve. Difficult to convey the sentiment that is both open to the experiential effects, but is also, personally, understanding of extreme aversion to drugs, absolutely, as something that causes harm and ruins lives.

Question on what basis alcohol and tobacco, which cause harm, are legal, but other drugs are not. Most likely, one can get to a basis, because there is such a difference between them and hard drugs, but still, what exactly is it? Most likely, it is level of addiction and damage.

Addiction is a disease and/or an illness. My guess is that if it is treated that way (e.g. you can "catch" or "trigger" an addiction them from prescription painkillers), and if you seek help to recover from your illness, if you get it treated then you can be fine -- that mindset would help to reduce the crisis. Any stigma should be less from the addiction itself and more for not wanting to improve and actively refusing to improve at all. Further, do not really know how much stigma helps after someone has already become addicted. It may just harden them, especially if they cannot do much, or it may make them hide their addiction, which keeps them from getting the support they need to get help.

Wondering about anonymous treatment programs -- when people receive medical services, and it can be detected that they have been using drugs, then make the effort to persuade them to try the program.

Treatment instead of jail.

Highly doubtful that highly addictive / harmful substances can ever be legal to sell, if at all. But in favor of decriminalization, in a sense, though not legalization. Mandatory treatment, but should not then have felony record and then have it be hard to get a job, feel hopelessness, want to abuse substances, etc.

Should, of course, be illegal to sell hard drugs.

Guess is that substance abuse is pretty well tied up with poverty, youth, and culture. People need life skills more than just getting over the addiction their body has. People also need more hope in their lives. Who honestly believes that long-term drug use is good for them, versus what they say and do comes from rationalizing their addiction?

Reform here, in how drug abuse is handled, may help lead the way to prison reforms down the road. Mandatory treatment centers which are not prisons, but do the work of reform.

If they do not already exist, could well imagine special temporary work programs, decent pay, with drug checks as a condition of continued employment. Could also see, perhaps, temporary placement into communities where drugs (likely) are not available. The main thing is to habituate someone to a productive lifestyle, a way of life without drugs that works. This should help to prove that if you can change the circumstances in peoples' lives then you can help change the outcomes.

War on Drugs: Rather than give up, would like to see it as part of a comprehensive solution that takes into account the effects of poverty and the fact that people have addictive personalities. If reduce demand then efforts to reduce supply should be more effective. If it is a war, do not view drug addicts as combatants.

Main reason to allow "drug" use at all, in the face of adverse effects, is social function. Primarily thinking here about alcohol. Compare that to cigarettes, and it makes more sense that because alcohol has a social role, it would allow advertising for alcohol, but not cigarettes. (Really, do not believe that there should be any advertising for cigarettes.) If other drugs were legal, would be inclined against any advertising for them as well. Legalization would not be saying that they are good for you, so much as saying criminalization itself is not good. It is better that they be regulated, warnings appear on packages, etc. Am aware that from this position, it opens the question: should junk foods should be allowed to advertise? After all, they may be bad for your health.

Overall, want to have controls in place that prevent people from making choices they will inevitably regret, no doubt, but also avoid trying to run everyone's lives for them. The more damage it does and the greater the risk of addiction, the more important it is to prevent use and abuse.


Do not believe that stimulus spending targeted at consumption is a very good idea.

Perhaps, it can work, but do not think it is a great answer. People spending money may be tied to economic growth, but it is not a principle reason why. The economy grows because people do things better and make better choices. Extra consumption does not do those things. Consumption is a symptom of the economy doing well, not a cause.

Doubts about the notion of "free market". Government should actively look to make sure the game is fair, and, still, there should be a game.

There should be checks and balances on corporate power, same as any other kind of power.

Predatory businesses should be outlawed.

Government should make more active investments in human capital, particularly financial literacy. The better choices consumers and investors make, the better the economy is. The worse choices they make, the worse it is, even if someone else gets their money.


Not really for massive simplification, especially given that software is growing in its ability to help address problems. If it is a problem, then can do studies on how best to handle the complexity. Tax code is a tool the government can use wisely, especially to incentivize investment over consumption and behaviors that are pro-civilization.

Taxes on the rich should be higher. But moreso than that, government should be looking at why it happens that the rich have such a large proportion of wealth. Look at how fair the game is. Dislike the notion that simply going to do redistribution as the fix. Seems rather to reinforce classism and go against mobility.

Believe that deficit spending is a tax increase in disguise. Should have out budget battles rather than have deficits, except for emergencies.