Jump to content

Joe Parrish: Response to North Carolina Campaign for Liberty


Joe the Stoic

Recommended Posts

Joe the Stoic

Hey, all. I am going to assume that you have seen the thread/article about my candidacy in the 2016 elections. Some pointed out that being asexual is not a good enough reason to support me and that my ideas are what should be judged, and I would agree. Here is a letter that I wrote back to the North Carolina Campaign for Liberty, which was in response to a Yes-or-No survey that they sent me not too long ago. It contains many ideas that inform my candidacy and should give you more of an idea of what my values and principles are.

To the People of the North Carolina Campaign for Liberty,
I was skeptical when I first received this survey from the North Carolina Campaign for Liberty. I definitely raise an eyebrow at anything associated with Mr. Ron Paul, who I believe exaggerates a reputation of libertarianism beyond what he really practices. That said, I have resolved to being an open candidate, so I filled out the survey. This I did with disappointment, as I felt the answers were lacking did and not allow for a great deal of nuance, so it is through this letter that I have attached with the survey that I shall take you up on your offer (from your letter attached to the survey) to clarify my answers and intentions, since the space allotted on the survey sheet is unfortunately too small for that purpose.
The first question asks whether or not I "will oppose all tax and fee increases." It asks this, after lamenting, "Yet, time and again, government officials keep finding new ways to tax citizens." I answered "No," because any sensible government would find new ways to tax citizens. As society grows and evolves, methods of taxation need to adapt accordingly. I will bring up the federal telephone excise tax, a tax introduced in 1898 by the federal government in order to fund the Spanish-American War, as an example. It was introduced because it was a "new way" to collect taxes, as telephones were still a novelty at the time. It was also a way to raise taxes without burdening the poor too much, as mainly wealthy Americans owned telephones back then. After the war ended and as telephones expanded into households nationwide, the excise tax did not disappear because no one seemed to think of removing it, and so poorer and middle-class Americans have perhaps been unfairly burdened with this extra cost for something as basic a telephone. Only in recent years has there been a partial repeal of this.
So it makes sense to "find new ways to tax citizens," because sticking to old ways to tax citizens might actually be worse for the populace overall. A truly responsible government will be aware of obsolescence in its tax codes and will replace these bad taxes with better, more thought-out ones. This is why I cannot oppose or support all tax increases in a blanket statement. It is really going to depend on the tax itself as well as the public spending needs of society in that specific period of time.
The second question asks if I "oppose taking federal money to expand Medicaid," to which I answered "No." Specifically, it references the optional state expansion of Medicaid under ObamaCare and complains that the "optional program [is] unaffordable" and that its implementation "obligates the state to cede control over their Medicaid programs to the federal government." Now, I have my share of complaints about ObamaCare, but this Medicaid expansion is not one of them. As a general rule, I think that if the federal government is going to give your state free money for something basic, like health care, you would be be a fool to turn your nose at it, especially if citizens are going to die of otherwise treatable conditions as a result.
I also disagree that it is unaffordable. In truth, public funding for health care is cheaper than private funding, as private insurers divert a significant amount of the money acquired from their clients toward profits for investors, enormous compensation for their administration (Stephen Hemsley of UnitedHealth Group in 2011 received $48.8 million for his duty as CEO, compared to the President of the entire United States receiving $400,000 per year), and vast amounts on marketing to compete with other private insurers. With public funding, all these extra dollars can go into funding health care or go back to the consumer/taxpayer. Saying that a Medicaid expansion is not affordable or less affordable than a private system seems like an errand in fiction.
The third question frets over laws regarding campaign finance, stating they "represent a direct violation of the First Amendment" and that they "remove a donor's right to privacy and facilitate harassment and intimidation of citizens for their political views." It goes on to ask, "Will you oppose any bill that impedes free speech, including any so-called ethics reform bill that would require a citizen organization to divulge its donor or member information?" I answered "No," for multiple reasons.
First, let me say that this is essentially a loaded question. In order to state that I will not oppose laws requiring donor disclosure, I am forced to say that I will not oppose any bill impeding free speech. I fully intend to protect free speech as either a lawmaker in North Carolina or as citizen therein. That you could not simply ask if I would oppose legislation to require donor disclosure, without dressing it up as a complete and total attack on the First Amendment, is frankly suspicious on your part, though it may just be an honest mistake.
Moving on, we need to understand that free speech, like any freedom, is not limitless. We have all heard that shouting "Fire!" in a crowded area is not protected as free speech, nor is any threat or alert that could provoke undue harm or mayhem by one or more persons. Slander, libel, and fraud are not protected as free speech, as lying can be very damaging and lead people to make dangerous decisions that they might not otherwise make. Similarly, campaign donations, which can have the effect of politicians being bought out by the wealthy (which we all know actually happens) should be disclosed so that people can know their candidate through their affiliations. If constituents want a local river cleaned up, they have every right to know if the company that pollutes that river has made a donation to a candidate's campaign, in order to make an informed vote.
Let's also be clear that it is called free speech, not free whispers or free mumblings. The purpose of it is to be heard and known. Only people who start rumors are anonymous, and we all know how productive gossip is (it isn't). When you express your views, you can do so freely, but you must also choose to take on the risk of embarrassing yourself. It is not the government's job to protect anyone's tender feelings or sense of stagefright. If you truly lack the confidence to be known for your free speech, you are probably better off not saying it at all then.
Let's also be clear about another thing. The ones who benefit the most from political spending (the wealthy) are the least likely to suffer from "harassment and intimidation." They live in gated communities. They can pay for personal security guards. If there are several picketers around their house, they can go to one of their other homes on the beach or take a vacation in the Bahamas. They also do not usually have to worry about being fired for unpopular speech, whereas poorer Americans cannot risk losing their weekly paycheck. The wealthy truly have everything to gain and nothing to lose in the trend of political spending.
My last point is this. Any speech stops being free when it undermines our democracy. When politicians feel accountable to their donors who help them win elections, rather than to their citizens, that is completely undoing the purpose of free speech. Free speech is protected so that elected officials are forced to hear and respond to everyone. It is to allow the dissemination of ideas. This relationship is sabotaged when big money under the principle of free speech becomes a tool to corrupt the leaders of our republic. We once had segregated schools in this country, which operated under the notion and principle of "separate but equal." In Brown v. Board of Education, however, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled:
"We conclude that in the field of public education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."
Likewise, I conclude that in the field of excessive political funding, the doctrine of 'free speech' has no place. Monied speech that corrupts our elected officials is inherently unfree. That is exactly what I would write, were I a Supreme Court justice deciding on this. That all said, next question.
The fourth question asks if I would support legislation to "require charges be filed before any assets are seized by law enforcement, and ensure that property is returned if charges are dropped or the suspect is acquitted." I answered "No." I only wish to clarify that as a group that claims to want a "constitutional government," there should be no call on your part to require charges be filed before a seizure of property, as the Fourth Amendment specifies that only a warrant must be issued. There is no constitutional issue here. That said, in spite of my "No," I would support the latter idea of returning seized property. Why these items could not have been presented separately, being separate issues, is odd.
The fifth question asked, "Will you support legislation to end the use of "no knock" warrants for non-violent crimes?" I answered "Yes." The reasons you gave were enough. Citizens should not have to pay because the police went to the wrong house and did not knock. It is an inexcusable mistake that can result in injury and death. Just knock, officers.
The sixth question asked if I will "oppose efforts to implement Common Core in North Carolina." I answered "No." The reasons given against it were that it undermines state and local autonomy and that it could be a dangerous data gathering scheme by the federal government. Again, I would remind everyone that if we just sat aside and let states and local governments have their way with education, some schools today might well be segregated still. We cannot always assume that leaving education up to just states and local governments is going to turn out a good result. Furthermore, I think Americans should have the freedom to move and live where they like, and this freedom is significantly hampered when there are fewer standards uniting our education systems across the country. Families have fewer options of where to settle down when this is the case because some school systems might fall drastically behind due to lack of standards. In short, I do not wish to put families through this.
I would also point out that state and local governments can engage in dangerous data gathering schemes just as easily, so mentioning that the federal government could do it seems like a false boogeyman to me. Again, states might still segregate their schools if not for the federal government. State government is not automatically more trustworthy just because it is smaller. I challenge you with a question. Look at President Barack Obama, and then look at Governor Rick Snyder of Michigan. Now ask yourself: Who is more likely to poison my water?
The final question asked if I would oppose funding and cooperation with any National ID system, and I said "Yes." We should not need an ID card in order to exercise our rights as citizens, and we should not suddenly lose those rights because that card fell out of our pocket. We have made it over two hundred years without ID cards and stayed free. I am willing to bet that we can maintain that success.
With that all cleared up, I hope my letter gives you a better idea of where I stand on issues and on the values that inform my campaign, which I think a blind answering of the survey would have failed to do even somewhat accurately. I recommend greater care in the phrasing of your questions and in the diversity of your answers for them. As a centrist, I am not likely to fit into any extreme particularly well, and you should account for candidates such as myself. That is all.
Respectfully,
Joe Parrish
Candidate for North Carolina House of Representatives, District 002
Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe the Stoic

No, it's not, but some members correctly pointed out that supporting me based on asexuality alone isn't adequate, so I gave them this post that lists some of my values as a candidate in order to respect that concern. Take that as you will.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...