The following questions have been submitted by folks with little or no knowledge of the Libertarian Party or its candidates, and I cannot thank them enough for helping out with this part of the site and for helping me to understand what non-Libertarians want to know.

As in any group of individuals, there will be differences of opinion between Libertarians, but they all agree with certain principles. We are all strong advocates of the rights of the individual. We may describe these rights as natural, or God-given. We do not see rights as privileges doled out by government. Rights to life, liberty, and property are possessed by everyone equally. No one's rights are superior to those of another. We see government as tolerable only so far as it protects these rights. We see any government that infringes on these rights as intolerable. In practical terms, most Libertarians concede a necessity for government only to provide for a nation's defense, and to provide a system to resolve disputes when rights collide or someone attempts to limit the rights of others. Libertarian principles are consistent with those of the Founding Fathers of our nation, and most Libertarians consider the Declaration of Independence to be an excellent expression of these principles. In economic matters, Libertarians believe the free market is the only system consistent with the principles of individual liberty.

Libertarians do not fit nicely on the usual right/left, conservative/liberal scale frequently used to measure political beliefs. We are consistently pro-liberty in both social and economic matters. We also believe that a moral government has no authority to do anything that an individual could not. Individuals have no claim to the life or property of another, nor does government.

To be libertarian, is to respect the equal rights of all others. A libertarian society is one where everyone is free to do as they choose, as long as they do not infringe on someone else's equal right to do as they choose. Liberty requires responsibility. The individual is free to do as they wish, but they are also solely responsible for the consequences of their actions. This can be contrasted to a pure democracy, where the majority rules. A democracy does not protect the rights of the minority. As long as a majority approve, no one is held accountable for the consequences of their actions. Libertarians equate a pure democracy with mob rule. The founders of this nation attempted to strike a balance by guaranteeing individual liberties in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and creating a democratically elected representative government - a Republic.

The only reasonable explanation I have for this is that our government has been allowed to exercise more power than the Founding Fathers intended. Only through the accumulation of power could government positions have become worth spending the amounts of money we see put into modern campaigns. Special interest groups are willing to raise and give large amounts of money to those who will use their power to benefit the groups. Worse yet, the parties in power - Republican and Democrat, have passed laws that entitle them to the use of public money. In Indiana, property tax money is used to fund primary elections. Primary elections serve only to conduct the business of the Republican and Democrat parties. By Indiana law, if you vote for a majority of Libertarian candidates, you are prohibited from voting in the primary. The Republican and Democrat parties also split money received from the state's sales of vanity license plates - about ,000 each per year.

As mentioned in the previous answer, Republicans and Democrats avail themselves of a lot of public money. Aside from that, they get large amounts of special interest organization donations, in the expectation that they will promote, support, or defend those interests.

Again, as mentioned above, the Democrats and Republicans split that money. The Libertarian, or any other, party would become eligible for a percentage of that money if their candidate for Governor of Indiana received at least 5% of the vote. Though some Libertarians see that as a voluntary donation, I do not. That's like adding a 10 cent fee to the price of a loaf of wheat bread that would go to political parties. Buying wheat bread does not mean that the buyer wants to donate to a political party, they just want wheat bread more than white. Some people just want a personalized vanity license plate. And few people who contribute to a political party then make a similar donation to an opposing party. To be a little more fair, purchasers of vanity plates should be allowed to at least designate what political party they want the fee to go to. But, rest assured, the Democrats and Republicans wouldn't allow "None of the above" to be an option. It is my fervent hope that, when the Libertarian Party becomes eligible for a percentage of that money, they will not use it for political purposes. Better yet, I would like to see voters demand that the state not be a collection agency or a service provider to any political parties. 

That's my point in the previous answer - they should not. Your money should not benefit a political party or candidate unless you, personally, decide to write the check to them. Property tax money should not fund primaries. The parties should be responsible for paying for their own primaries, if that is how they choose to select their candidates. Otherwise, like the Libertarian Party, they should fund their own candidate selection conventions. They should be free to select their candidates in any manner they choose, but only at their own expense. And it is time for the State of Indiana to end the practice of collecting money for political parties through license plate fees.

In part, the primary process is again to blame. No other political parties or independent candidates take part in the primaries. The Republican and Democrat candidates get, not one, but two opportunities each election year to flood us with yard signs, radio ads, television ads, radio ads, flyers, and phone calls. I've already mentioned the funding advantages the major parties have provided for themselves.

Of course, it is also quite true that their candidates win the vast majority of the elections. But there are hundreds of Libertarians holding office throughout the country, including several here in Indiana. It is interesting to note that when the Libertarian Party first achieved ballot access status (meaning that each of its candidates did not have to get hundreds or thousands of signatures on petitions just to be on the November ballot), the Democrats and Republicans raised the ballot access requirements. Fortunately, the Libertarians were able to regain ballot access in 1994 and have had it since.

They do. But as with all rights, there are responsibilities. In this case, it is to make sure that the media knows that you want to know about all of the candidates. A television station is not going to devote any air time to a candidate they don't believe their viewers care to hear from. It is the same with radio stations and newspapers. If you belong to a community or organization that is hosting a candidate forum or debate, make sure that they invite all of the candidates for the office. Your responsibility as a voter is to be aware of your choices. Make sure that the media knows that you take that responsibility seriously.

No. As a candidate for federal office, I do not see that the Constitution provides any authority for the federal government to exercise any control in these areas. Government regulations interfere with doctor-patient relations, have raised the price of healthcare by increasing demand and restricting the supply of healthcare opportunities. Government regulations increase the costs of research and delay or deny the availability of drugs and services. It is my belief that these delays and denials have cost more in death and suffering than they have prevented. It is important to note that seniors pay more in out-of-pocket expenses now than they did before Medicare.

No one in the federal government teaches our children a thing, but they want to control what and how your children are taught, and they cost us precious tax dollars in doing so. Let's make sure that money spent on education goes to those who actually teach our children. And let's give the parents the power to decide what and how their children are taught.

Excellent question, with no good answer. Our tax money should not be used in that manner. The best way we can aid other nations, as well as our own, is to conduct trade as freely as possible. If individuals or organizations want to send money to other countries, they are welcome to. But it is wrong to take money from everyone here to benefit some in other countries. It is ludicrous that we still send money and personnel to places such as Germany and Japan for their defense. They are more than capable of providing their own defense if that is what they choose to spend their money on. If not, that is their choice, not our responsibility.

We have never done a really good job of choosing who to give aid to, anyway. Remember, in the 80's, we were giving aid to Iraq and Afghanistan. Foreign aid money rarely gets to the people we claim to want to help, either. It has been said that foreign aid amounts to taxing the poor in rich countries to aid the rich in poor countries, and I think that is entirely accurate.

Ironically, today's seniors are struggling due to government attempts to assist them and others over the last century. Today's seniors have never been able to hold on to what they have earned because of excessive taxes. The government programs they have relied on are failing to provide what was promised. The social security taxes that have been withheld throughout our lives have not been set aside for our use after retirement, nor has that money been invested in order to provide earnings to be used for our retirement age. Social security cannot pay for the benefits it has promised today's seniors without using the money paid into the system by today's workers. If you or I were to try to run such a scheme, we would be rightly charged and convicted of fraud. Current suggestions to raise taxes and the retirement age, or to cut benefits will only prolong the existence of a fraudulent scheme. Allowing a portion of current social security payments to be invested in order to actually provide future earnings is a better idea, but it is far too late to save the system.

Is it possible to keep our promises to today's seniors? Yes. Will it be possible to provide the benefits promised to those nearing retirement age? Yes. Is it possible to continue offering the same government benefits to younger workers or those just starting to work? No, not without substantial tax increases and increasing the retirement age. Keep in mind, when social security was created, the average life span was less than the retirement age. Only to the social security system is increasing longevity a bad thing. And any investment counselor could tell you that if you'd put the same amount of money into a private retirement fund as you have put into social security, the private fund would provide the better retirement benefits.

What do we need to do? Immediately make social security optional to those currently working. Social security would not be offered to new workers. Those who opt to stay with social security would continue to pay into it (probably at a higher rate). Then the federal government should begin to sell the land and properties it owns, but doesn't use. It has been estimated that the government owns assets worth enough, not only to pay off its social security liabilities, but also to pay off the national debt. Receipts from those sales should be used to purchase private retirement accounts that will pay off an amount equal to the social security benefits each person would be eligible for at that time, beginning with those receiving social security and working down to those who opted to stay with the social security program.

Yes, unfortunately they are taken away by taxes and the costs of government regulations. Government intervention also increases the costs of those medications. The FDA does nothing better than delay the availability of new medications. Just as the Underwriters Laboratories will attest to the safety of electrical equipment, private organizations can certify medications. It used to be that you could go to the pharmacist and get the medicines you needed without being required to get a doctor's prescription. While that may be the wisest course of action, there is no reason to federally mandate it. Let us once again be free to make our own health care decisions, without interference from politically motivated bureaucrats in Washington D.C.

No. Again, federal interference with health insurance has made things worse, not better. You should be able to get the insurance coverage that best matches your needs at a price you are willing to pay without politicians mandating coverages you may not need or want, costing you more. The increased costs of insurance have caused many young people to opt not to get insurance. Insurance companies are also often forced to insure others with high claims costs, again raising the costs for those who do opt to get insurance. Those pushing for further government involvement in health insurance often call for coverage for all healthcare costs and prescriptions, not just catastrophic illnesses and injuries. The costs for any such universal coverage would be monumental, and the program will be about as successful as social security.

The best way to make insurance available to those who want it at a price they can afford is to keep the politicians and bureaucrats out of it.

I believe there are good faith arguments on both sides of the abortion issue. However, my personal belief is that life begins with conception, and is therefore entitled to the respect and rights of any other living person. Even those who believe in abortion rights don't normally wait until the third trimester (or whatever benchmark they use to determine the viability of a fetus) to announce a pregnancy, buy baby clothes, prepare a nursery, or perhaps even name the baby when they have chosen to have the baby, rather than abort it. On the other hand, even if I believed abortion to be a crime, the Constitution provides no authority for the federal government to involve itself in criminal matters (even murder) except for treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. I would oppose any efforts to change that. Criminal matters belong, rightly, to the states.

Because the federal government has become involved with health care and health insurance, the answer is yes. I do not support federal involvement in either of those areas, and certainly oppose the use of federal tax dollars being used to pay for abortions when many who supply those tax dollars are morally opposed to abortion. But this is just another example of the problems created when the federal government becomes involved in areas where it has no Constitutional authority to do so.

They, of course, shouldn't. The worst part is that federal welfare and health care programs and even our tax code actually encourage and reward irresponsible activity. The answer again lies in less government regulation, not more.