We’ve all likely had a chance to participate in a political survey at some point in our lives. They are typically loaded questions that are weighted to be favorable to the party and/or candidate sponsoring the survey. This is a multi-part series on various topics surrounding political topics that should foster discussion to help determine where you stand compared to others. If you answer honestly and openly, the discussions on these questions will hopefully be constructive. Let’s be respectful to those that have a differing opinion and have open minds to potential areas of confirmation bias that ultimately forms from algorithm bubbles. There are no wrong answers, only closed minds unable to question their own biases.
Feel free to answer the questions in each series post in the comments section, however, the discussions would take on a life of their own if you re-blog each post and answer on your own site. This way those that follow you, can connect with me and the series, and also extend the reach by answering on their own respective sites. I’m interested to see how far this can go in a climate where divisiveness is common and constructive discussions are few and far between.
I will be providing my own answers in-line with each series of questions.
The questions being asked for the entire series were generated by AI using the following prompt:
“Can you generate a list of open ended questions that help determine where someone stands on popular political topics in the form of a Q&A?”
Part 2: Governance, Civil Liberties, and Law
Role and Scope of Government
In your view, what are the few non-negotiable functions the state must perform, and where does government action become an overreach?
There are two functions that I believe the state must perform. The first being to support everyone’s right to free speech. This one right is fundamental to all of our other rights as U.S. citizens. Without out right to free speech, no one would ever have an opportunity to make their own voices heard and actually listened to. The second non-negotiable function of a state should be the unimpeded running of elections within that state. The founders designed the U.S. Constitution in such a way where right or duties not explicitly defined below with the states. It is quite clear and blunt that elections are state run, no interference from the federal government.
Free Speech and Public Discourse
Where do you draw the line between protecting free expression and preventing the spread of dangerous misinformation or hate speech, particularly on modern digital platforms?
The underlying problem with misinformation is that anyone can publish anything pretty much anywhere and claim it to be real. Flat earthers anyone? Our diminishing ability to critically think is causing a lot of us to fall down the confirmation bias rabbit hole where any claim can be “proven” provided someone posted something. Digital platforms should have some stake in how its users are consuming their offerings. Facebook, Nextdoor, X, etc. all share some responsibility in both the protection of free expression that is not misinformation or considered hate speech. The laws around this need to be very specific as what is hate speech in one religion could be open discussions in another group or religion. Just an example, my thoughts on religion require a bit more runway. Digital platforms have enabled near real-time communications around the world, now they need to step up and stop claiming they are only a service provider and not responsible for what their customers are publishing.
Criminal Justice and Public Safety
What balance should the justice system strike between retributive punishment/deterrence and rehabilitation/root-cause intervention?
Our system in the U.S. is broken, in multiple ways. Our “lock them up and sort em later” approach isn’t working very well and has caused additional problems. The justice system should impose appropriate punishments as deterrence and rehabilitation that actually works instead of just checks a box. I don’t agree that a possession of marijuana should carry the same punishment as possession of cocaine or heroin. They are drastically different drugs and marijuana is partially or mostly legal in several states. Punishments should fit the crime someone is convicted of doing, it should have no bearing on race, religion, or fundamental beliefs, rather it should be a punishment for committing and being convicted of a crime. The way the system is setup now, there is no rehabilitation or root-cause intervention. Just creates revolving doors of incarceration and release.
Reproductive and Personal Autonomy
Where do individual bodily autonomy and parental rights begin and end relative to community standards and state intervention?
There have been too many instances where someone has exerted their own beliefs on someone else to block or stop them from doing something. If we are the age of consent in your respective country, there should be no one to step in and intervene regardless of community standards or state intervention. The only situations where it is necessary and likely required is when there is first person potential for physical harm or secondary harm caused by something, such as hoarding putting neighbors at risk. Parents have a right to make choices for their children, but if those children are able to demonstrate they are capable of making a decision on their own, they should have the right to do so. My daughter went through a lengthy phase of finding herself and ran the spectrum from lesbian, to trans, back to lesbian, etc. We never stopped her from exploring, but we did put a stop to anything that required our approval in the eyes of the law, for example, gender modification surgery. She could choose to do that, but not with any coverage we provided, it would need to be something she paid for. Now that she’s almost 20, the phases of exploration have pretty much stopped. If the community or state had intervened, she likely would have made an irreversible choice that she couldn’t easily correct.
Leave a Reply