Brennan Barrington

Disagree

Disagree

Did not answer

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

This statement is unquestionably true based upon the evidence across history and in the modern world.

Disagree

This idea ignores higher-order effects. Higher taxes (especially on those who "can afford" to pay them) disincentivize productivity and take from those who have proven the ability to allocate capital well to fund state organizations with no personal incentives to be effective and no fear of discontinuation for being ineffective.

Strongly Agree

1. Medicare spending which is not cost-effective in terms of QALY/$ (most medical care provided in the final year of life falls into this category) 2. "Defense" spending for the purpose of projecting force rather than directly protecting American citizens on American soil 3. Benefits programs which should be the responsibility of states and local communities, and are rife with fraud and abuse (disability benefits and section 8 housing, for example)

Strongly Disagree

Freedom of association is fundamental to the rights of citizens in a free society. In a free market, those who decline transactions due to bigotry will be out-competed by those who do not. State interference is costly, unnecessary, and oppressive.

Government policies should not be aimed to promote or to repress any religion. Policy should be set on the basis of verifiable empirical facts, not religious doctrines. People should never be forced to adhere to religious principles with which they disagree (unless, as applies generally, this is necessary to prevent aggression against others).

Between C and D: Medicare should be cut to what the Medicare tax funds, and Medicaid kept in place for children. Children are not and cannot be full economic actors and did not choose who their parents were. It is both inefficient and morally abhorrent to deprive them of life-saving medical care or preventive care which reduces the costs of the former. Medicare differs in that seniors had the opportunity to save for retirement, should pay for their own care, and do not have a long life ahead.

Neutral

I would support this in the context of government-funded programs, as it is relevant to determining whether those programs are providing care efficiently and cost-effectively. Records of care provided through private insurance/transactions should be maintained and secured in accordance with agreements between the relevant parties; government has no reason to maintain or scrutinize those, and it has no business doing so.

D. If A were effective, I would agree with it. However, the history of US interventions in the last few decades, particularly unilateral US interventions, has been one of extremely high costs, and results ranging from dubious success to utter failure. I will not support further such interventions unless given reason to believe they have become more likely to succeed.

Disagree

Mainland China's government is not foolish enough to attempt to cause significant destruction in the United States, given our nuclear deterrent. It is not in their interests to disrupt the global economic network and our ties with them through it, because (as with most other countries) these have become vital to China's economy. China has become capitalist in all but name.

No. Israel's main strategic use is as a base of operations in the Middle East, but a large proportion of US operations in the Middle East are made necessary by our relationship with Israel. In any event, there are other countries (those recently targeted by Iran) there which allow their use as bases for such operations (which we should not be doing). As a trade partner, Israel is minor, at the level of Indonesia or Colombia.

Disagree

Anything can possibly be a threat, but Islamic terrorism is negligible as a cause of deaths and economic loss in the United States (including 9/11). Most would-be Islamic terrorists are incompetent and more of a danger to themselves than others. The "War on Terror" and the Transportation Security (Theater) Administration have cost us many orders of magnitude more in both lives and wealth than the gains from reduced risk of terrorist attacks.

Anyone willing and able to support themselves in the United States without taxpayer assistance should be allowed in, except clearly dangerous people (known terrorists/criminals, spies, those previously removed or with contagious diseases). Immigrants would be totally ineligible for benefits of any kind; and be required to post a deposit on entry from which any fines, court costs, or civil liability they incur would be deducted, and to make a contribution to a victim compensation fund.

Agree

Sanctuary cities should not be necessary, but I support them as consistent with the principles of federalism. If a state's or city's people disagree with federal immigration policy, they should not be obligated to use their tax dollars to support it.

Strongly Agree

The Department of Education, in its current form, exists to shovel money to failing, unaccountable jobs programs for teachers called "schools" which hand diplomas to teens who can barely read. The student loan program is a major cause of ballooning higher education costs, bloated university bureaucracies, and the credentials arms race. Special education is not cost-effective.

Strongly Disagree

The answer to propaganda is more information, not censorship.

Disagree

This is a matter for medical professionals. My current belief is that although many such transitions are harmful and the result of bandwagon effects, cases in which this is the least bad option do exist.

Strongly Disagree

Marriages should not be registered by the state. People should be free to form contracts in the ordinary legal manner of a similar form as marriage, and to enter marriages according to their chosen religious doctrines, but the state should not grant any special status or privileges to those who make such choices.

I consider myself a Methodist, if an uncertain one. I attend Methodist services sometimes, and celebrate Christmas and Easter with my family. However, as it is impossible to be certain whether God exists, what supernatural-derived rules to follow, or what if anything happens to us after death, my guiding moral principle is consequentialist: acts are right to the extent they can be expected to produce good results, and vice versa. I used to be a strict act utilitarian (at least in principle; I was never able to adhere to the no-rest condition in practice), but have since moved somewhat away from that position due to issues with the unclear definition of utility.

Neutral

Disagree

The organizations managing such activities or facilities should determine what is best for the safety, comfort, and mental health of their users on a case-by-case basis. Government should neither prohibit nor require allowing this. Prisons should be managed in such a way as to make this a non-issue; the frequent physical and sexual abuse in prisons is a policy choice.

Depending on definition of "reliable": *Nuclear fission for proven effectiveness and strong base load *Solar and wind for cheap sustainability *Nuclear fusion, with effectively infinite fuel and no intermittency, if we can actually get it working.

No

No

Moderate

This is a false dichotomy. My succinct description of my ideological framework would be "consequentialist libertarian" or "classical liberal".

Disagree

This is primarily parents' responsibility, as it is to protect children from many other dangers. As we have already seen, government efforts to "protect children" quickly turn into warrantless snooping, demands for personal information vulnerable to leaking or hacking, and censorship. Sexual exploitation is a violation of a person's rights and can be handled accordingly with pre-Internet laws.

The only people who should be barred from possessing firearms are those who previously used them to commit violent crimes and those clearly physically/mentally incapable of handling them safely. Given the realities of widespread gun possession, law-abiding citizens should be empowered to protect themselves. As registered machine guns have never been used in a mass shooting incident, I would eliminate the ban on selling newly manufactured fully automatic weapons to properly vetted civilians.