This year I am running for Texas State Representative in district 112, which includes parts of Richardson, Plano, and Garland. I am endorsed by the Libertarian Party. I will be on the ballot in November.
My top three priorities are:
If elected, I promise to represent everyone in my district fairly, honestly, and with dignity. I am asking for your vote.
Generally I am for reducing the size and reach of the government on all levels. When that's not feasible, I advocate states' rights at the expense of federal powers. If something can be provided by the private industry instead of by a government agency, it should be.
I am a proponent of free market economics, with the exception of economic externalities. I do believe that it is the government's responsibility to manage externalities, since parties to any individual transaction are very unlikely to arrive at a cost that prices in effects on "big picture" matters such as the environment.
We as a nation pay plenty of taxes already. I am against raising taxes for any reason, though I am perfectly okay with (and encourage) rebalancing them. Though I am well aware that there are plenty of services that the government could offer us in exchange for higher taxes, I assert that if these proposed services were valuable enough, the People would be willing to pay for them voluntarily rather than through law-enforced taxation. For the same reason, I encourage phasing out most of existing government-provided services (for which citizens are forced to pay) and shifting them to the private industry (for which citizens can pay voluntarily).
On a special note, I am against "sin taxes"—additional taxes on products such as alcohol and cigarettes. Such taxes hold water only if there's a demonstrable connection that heavy users of alcohol and cigarettes are a comparatively heavy burden on society. All the research I've seen indicates the opposite: alcohol and cigarettes shorten one's lifespan, thus reducing the burden on taxpayers.
The environment is a great example of an externality in economics. Taking care of the environment is a very important, urgent, and long-term goal. Therefore, I believe that many of the current approaches such as tax credits for owners of a Toyota Prius are insufficient and do not focus on the crux of the matter.
The crux of the matter: currently consumers do not pay the "total cost of ownership" of their items. Recycling in many places is non-existent, and in most places it is insufficient. Many items cannot be recycled. Many items, especially small electronics, are sold in giant, non-biodegradable plastic packaging that gets thrown away as soon as the consumer buys the product.
The best way to go forward is to require companies to price in the total cost of ownership of their products. This is already beginning to happen on a voluntary basis, such as Dell's offer to recycle customers' old computer equipment for $30. However, the tragedy of the commons rears its ugly head and discourages customers from paying their $30 for one-billionth of the benefit. As I mentioned earlier, I am for reducing the size and reach of the government. However, I believe that reducing the tragedy of the commons is a primary reason for the government's existence.
I promote legislation to require—after a suitable warning/acclimation period—companies to conscientiously stand behind their products for the products' entire lifecycle, including their disposal. Such approach would change society's treatment of "garbage." Right now we treat garbage as a city's problem. Companies feel free to manufacture garbage with wild abandon and customers feel free to consume it with wild abandon; the city is stuck with the bill. One garbage management is privatized and every company is responsible for dealing with its own garbage—and this is not a competitive disadvantage since all other companies would be subject to the same laws—the problems of pollution and enormous amounts of garbage that cities must deal with will gradually solve itself.
For more information about my views on legislation related to the environment, please read Walter Block's "Environmentalism and Economic Freedom: The Case for Private Property Rights".
Texas is large, sparse, and has numerous bodies of water, making the state very suitable for a variety of means of generating power.
Power companies should price in the cost of pollution, as per the previous section. I believe that this will make coal expensive compared to the alternatives.
Education is the key to a bright future for our nation and our state. Currently our state is not in a good shape when it comes to educating our youth. I put part of the blame on the No Child Left Behind Act, but a big part of the blame is on the low salaries of schoolteachers.
The state has been busy devising, trying, and throwing away various ways of testing teachers and students to determine what constitutes good performance versus bad performance. All these ways are flawed in one way or another: no matter what we try, our education is not markedly improving.
I believe a new approach is in order:
I promote responsible gun ownership and concealed carry of handguns. I believe that a populace that can take care of itself—be it through firearms, martial arts, or numerous other means—is a strong deterrent to violent crime.
I am against firearm microstamping, as I believe it is one of the most ridiculous ideas that I've heard in a long time. Please see the Controversy section of the Wikipedia article on this issue. Like other issues related to gun control, microstamping places a burden on law-abiding gun owners while doing nothing—or even misleading law officials—regarding crime.
I am against allowing businesses (including employers) to ban firearms from their property with merely a sign, as it places a significant burden on people with only a minor effort from the business. (What burden? Suppose you are going to some event. You take a concealed handgun with you, then take mass transit for an hour to reach your destination. Once you reach the event, you encounter a sign that prohibits firearms inside the building. This restriction was not advertised when you bought your tickets. You are stuck! Where would you keep the firearm while attending the event?) The law is also inconsistent: can businesses also ban customers from carrying pens, magnets, or knives with merely a sign? Right now, no.
A private business or employer is welcome to prohibit patrons or employees from carrying weapons by using metal detectors or by having them sign a contract to that effect. Since a contract requires consideration to be valid, such a business would likely be required to keep its customers safe through other means such as private security, or to be held legally liable if a customer's safety is jeopardized.
For a "free" nation, we have entirely too many statutes on the books. No one person knows all the statutes, yet every person is responsible for not violating any of them.
I promote weighing very carefully the value of any proposed statute against the freedoms that Americans deserve and expect. I also promote reducing the number of statutes we have. Here is a possible set of criteria for determining whether a proposed statute should be accepted by the legislature:
If the answer is "no" to any of these questions, the proposed statute is flawed and must not be accepted by the legislature or the People. In law, like in no other area, I believe in quality over quantity.
More generally, I believe one aspect of a civilized and just society is having respect for its laws. We are far from this ideal: the majority of people I know of have little to no respect for our laws due to their capriciousness. There is rampant disregard for existing laws, and many laws are in fact enforced very poorly because no one honestly thinks they're useful. As Abraham Lincoln said, "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." We need to start enforcing existing laws and repealing bad ones.
Texas spends an enormous amount of money on its criminal justice and penal systems. The number of prisons is increasing, but not fast enough. Prisons are overpopulated. "There are more Texans under criminal justice control than the entire populations of some states, including Vermont, Wyoming and Alaska."
The best solution is to reduce the number of statutes we have on our books. With each statute we remove, see whether anyone is imprisoned because of it. If so—release them. For example, decriminalizing marijuana alone will greatly reduce the number of prisoners.
Some of the money we save from releasing many prisoners should be funneled toward salary increases of prison guards and social workers. Prison guards and social workers do a very difficult and emotionally and mentally draining job for very low compensation. Improving their compensation should bring in a high caliber of people and improve the rehabilitation aspect of the penal system.
If you have any questions or comments about my views, I welcome your contact.