Often the Republican Party and its candidates claim to support "small government,” but under former President George W. Bush and a Republican Congress we witnessed the greatest abridgments of freedom in the history of the republic. This expansion of Federal power and spending only appears benign when contrasted with President Barack Obama’s extension of those same policies coupled with the de facto nationalization of health insurance. The Tea Party movement was born out of disgust with statist Republicans and has grown in the face of the current administration's economic debauchery.

I know these may be hostile words to use when referring to a party I have been recently involved with, but liberty is too valuable a treasure to be traded in for polite smiles. Whoever the GOP nominates for United States Senate must be significantly different than Debbie Stabenow, or many Republicans will choose the Libertarian alternative. Senator Debbie Stabenow voted for the Real ID Act and continues to support its funding. Voters deserve a US Senate candidate who will be steadfastly opposed to a national ID card, which is sure to become a one-stop shop for identity thieves. Once Real ID is in effect, it will be possible for the government to track your every move: This is not acceptable in the Land of the Free.

I am also opposed to the warrantless wiretapping rammed through Congress by the Bush administration. I saw the disastrous implications of the so-called "Patriot Act" long before criticism of it became acceptable. In the months ahead I will be asking people if they feel as I do about these draconian measures, and whether I should oppose them by running for office.

Many of my Republican friends describe themselves as “conservative” and refer to the statists as “neo-conservatives.” Interestingly classical Jeffersonian liberalism also calls for small government. In some nations communists are called “conservative” and capitalists are called “liberal.” Because of the lack of clarity in these labels I have, and will continue, to refer to my political philosophy as “libertarian.” While I am a candidate with the Libertarian Party, the phrase doesn’t need to be connected with any party. It is a philosophy of liberty. A Democrat or a Republican can be a “libertarian.” The basic tenant of libertarianism is that individuals should be free to do as they please so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. I oppose giving government the power to track, detain, imprison, or spy on law-abiding American citizens. I oppose government secrecy and champion personal privacy at every opportunity.

The Libertarian Perspective of Health Care

When it comes to healthcare, libertarians consistently advocate the same principles they do for all other issues. The libertarian philosophy can be narrowed down to one simple principle: There is a right to self-ownership.

The right to self ownership asserts the absolute right of each person by virtue of his or her being a human being, to "own" his or her own body; that is, to control the body free of coercive interference.

Every healthcare issue can and must be solved using this principle. When you compare this principle (which nearly everyone would agree with in theory) to our current Government infested healthcare system, you can see just how far off we are from true liberty. When Government controls what health services (or products) you buy, when you get those services, how you get them, how often you get them, where you get them, how you pay for them, and what products/services are even available for purchase to begin with, you know we no longer have liberty in our healthcare system.

Instead of top-down, coercive "solutions", liberty-lovers believe Government should not require or forbid any person's informed healthcare decisions. Government should not have control over any personal decisions--such as who gets treated, when they get treated, what treatments are administered, how people pay for those treatments, etc.

Bureacrats believe that you are simply part of "society"-to be directed and used for their goals and whims, for society's "best interest" (whatever that means). We believe society is simply made up of individuals who each have a right to self-ownership-who are in charge of themselves, and are capable of ruling themselves.

We believe healthcare (like other services or products) should be a mutually consenting, mutually beneficial contract between suppliers and consumers (in this case doctors and patients). This "doctor-patient" relationship should not be intruded upon by bureaucrats who use coercion to implement what they deem to be "in the best interests" of "society" (nevermind that they have no understanding of medicine), while they sit in their offices in Washington with their exorbitant salaries and benefits with no idea of each particular situation. Instead of Government/Bureacratic involvement, we believe that both the consumers and the providers of healthcare services have the right to voluntarily engage third parties in the healthcare transaction, as they see fit.

For example, patients have the right to insure against unforeseen accidental error, to choose what kind of health insurance (if any) is necessary for them, to obtain whatever treatments or pharmaceuticals are necessary. Patients also should not be forced to subsidize someone else's irresponsibility. As Murray Rothbard said, we similarly believe that each individual person must, in order to act, choose his own ends and employ his own means in order to obtain them." It is immoral to do otherwise. This means means that ethical and moral decisions in personal healthcare should be left to the individual. Not to bureaucrats that don't understand the situation, nor to the majority to decide-which then tramples the rights of the minority. It is ultimately up to the individual to decide which ideas to accept and reject-because the patient's body and health are his/her own jurisdiction. Not ours.

Healthcare providers also have the right to set their own standards of healthcare delivery by making and enforcing the rules they determine necessary for their practice; as opposed to the top-down, one size fits all, detached bureaucratic regulations that simply create more problems, which give rise to more Government "solutions", which give rise to more problems in an endless cycle that keeps bureaucracy busy and Big Government control "absolutely necessary" (otherwise we will all die instantly).

Instead of patching and shifting problems, we believe the solution is liberty-personal freedom with responsibility, and free markets. While healthcare is obviously more important than any other commodity, it is not exempt from the same economic principles that all other products and services are subject. And like all the other sectors of the economy, when Government gets involved, costs increase, quality goes down, and choice is limited. That's a fact. So if you want high quality healthcare that's affordable and will give you the liberty to choose the decisions that affect your body, you need to realize that ONLY free markets and liberty with responsibility on your part will give you this. Government won't. It never has. And It never will. Liberty is the only real and permanent health care reform.

That's why we believe in Liberty.

Congressional Authority and Current Issues

The federal government has no legitimate constitutional authority to regulate or limit the health-care choices of Americans. In fact, since the federal government has become involved, health-care prices have greatly outpaced inflation. We can’t afford the so-called “Affordable Health Care Act.” (AKA Obama-care); the best way to make health care affordable is to get the government out of it.

Thanks to the efforts of establishment politicians over the years, we now have a multi-trillion-dollar unfunded Medicare liability. This burden will be borne by our children and grandchildren, though it was our generation and those before us who reaped the benefits. This is morally unconscionable! There is no simple solution to get us out of the Medicare mess, but we mustn't compound it with even more government intervention into the realm of health care.

I am steadfastly opposed to socialized medicine. If I run for Senator, I will fight statists from any party in their efforts to impose health-care rationing on the American people. We need more freedom, not more government.

Burdensome FDA regulations result in hundreds of deaths for every life they save. I support the abolition of the FDA, which could be replaced by private-sector certification authorities that would be fully accountable to the public -- unlike the monopolistic FDA.

I oppose FDA harassment of supplement providers. Individuals should be able to freely choose the types of medicines or herbal remedies they consume without government interference. If supplement makers misrepresent their products, then this is a matter for the courts. I believe Americans are smart enough to make their own health-care decisions.

I strongly oppose the unconstitutional efforts of the federal government to prohibit individual states from legalizing medical marijuana. In addition to being grossly inhumane, such efforts are entirely without constitutional basis.

There is no ambiguity here: The federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate, restrict, license, or otherwise interfere with the right of individuals to own or possess firearms.

Next question.

The Constitution was ratified by the states as the highest law in the land. The federal government has no right to make agreements with international agencies that submit the states and the people to the will of world government.

I oppose any law that provides for indefinite detentions without due process.

I support withdrawing or limiting participation in the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the International Criminal Court, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund.

I am opposed to sovereignty-reducing "free trade" deals that actually put limits on trade and work only to the benefit of special interests: NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA, etc. Real "free trade" requires one sentence, not thousands of pages in legalese.

I am opposed to the construction of the NAFTA Superhighway -- which has begun -- on the grounds that people's land will be taken by eminent domain. This is a private property issue as much as a national sovereignty issue.

I am opposed to the establishment of a North American Union with Canada and Mexico, and to the adoption of a new multinational fiat currency to replace the U.S. dollar.

The federal government has no constitutional authority to define or regulate marriage. Thus, the Defense of Marriage Act is clearly unconstitutional and should be repealed in its entirety.

I am opposed to any attempt to amend the Constitution to give the federal government the power to define or regulate marriage.

If I choose to run for Senator, I will support doing away with all special benefits and privileges that the federal government grants individuals on the basis of their marital status.

I believe, like Ron Paul, that individuals should be able to freely contract with one another to establish all of the private benefits, rights, and privileges that government marriage currently confers.

I believe that the government should treat all individuals equally, regardless of their race, sex, or sexuality.

Read the Constitution: Nowhere is the federal government authorized to have any involvement in education. I support total freedom of choice in education, and I oppose any interference by the federal government into the educational choices made by parents and students.

As an educator for more than 21 years, I have personally witnessed the damage caused by No Child Left Behind. Bureaucrats in Washington do not know what's best for your child's education -- only you and your child can determine that.

It is positively immoral to make a family pay to support the government-school system when they choose to homeschool or pay for costly private education. Whether these families do so for religious reasons or simply because they find government education inadequate, they should not be made to pay twice. Thus, I support federal tax credits for families who pull their children out of the government school system, equal to the amount of federal dollars that would have been spent on each child had they remained in the system.

Personally, I advocate a free market in education. But there is no doubt that under the Constitution, this issue should be left to the individual states. Even the biggest public-school advocate in the world, were he or she a constitutionalist, would have to admit that the federal government has no business being involved. And as a candidate for federal office, that is my position.