OCF Candidate Survey 2006

Candidate: Ted Dunlap
Party: Libertarian
Running For: Governor
State: Idaho

1

QDo you think organic agriculture should receive a fair share (at least 2.5%) of government resources spent on agriculture?

A Yes

Comment: If money must be taken from workers to be doled out by politicians to agricultural interests, then 2.5% seems reasonable. Most likely however, the big money in mega-agriculture will always attract the subsidies doled out by politicians. Small agriculture will always be shorted in this process. Removing all subsidies is much more likely to result in fair and equitable results.
2

QDo you support strict standards for processed foods, dairy, and body care products that are labeled or marketed as organic?

A Yes

Comment: I regularly buy organic products. I need to trust those labeled as such are indeed organic. We all deserve that honesty in labeling and I will fight to preserve that.
3

QDo you support more aggressive government action to assess the harms of pesticides, take harmful pesticides off the market, and hold companies responsible for diseases and environmental damage caused by pesticides?

A Yes

Comment: We must face reality and learn from history. We DO NOT have the political muscle to attack agri-business with "aggressive government action". Those of us who care deeply must focus our energy where we can win. Lawsuits by concerned individuals, communities and environmental groups are regularly successful in holding companies responsible for damages they caused. We need to do this regularly. People who have been poisoned regularly win against those who would trade their honor for a few bucks. We need to continue with this tack. If elected governor I will definitely work against those who would harm others more aggressively than any Idaho governor ever has... but that will take a lot of "unusual" votes. (Typically 28% vote Republican while 60% don't vote. I want the 60% to stand up and say "No more big government".)
4

QShould people have the right to pass consumer safety laws at the state or local level that require food labels to include information on dangerous ingredients?

A Yes

Comment: The Constitution of the United States is actually easy to understand and should be read by more people. In a nutshell, the power resides in the people and states are preeminant over federal government. Local safety laws that don't trample Constitutional rights legally take precedence over federal activities. This is unquestionable - and I will uphold the law of the land with the utmost vigor.
5a

QDo you support Country of Origin and labeling that helps consumers choose local products?

A Yes

Comment: I support Country of Origin labels every time I buy food. I support regional origin labels every time I buy food. If the products are not labeled, I ask. I always choose local over distant. If elected Governor, of course I will support intelligent labeling.
5b

QDo you support government action to help US farmers develop local and regional markets and to reduce non-renewable energy use on their farms?

A No

Comment: Big centralized government will always work for big centralized agriculture. That is the harsh reality of politics. "Government action" will always favor those who contribute largely to incumbent politicians. Local and regional markets will always have to be developed and supported locally and regionally. This will always require local effort, energy and cooperation. Small farmers need to cooperate - if they do, the consumers will come.
6a

QDo you support mandatory labeling of foods containing genetically engineered ingredients?

A Yes

Comment: That would be nice, but big government is not on our side. I don't think we will win this as long as big politics and big business don't want us to. We must label non-GE foods and defend the integrity of that label vigorously. Certainly the integrity of the organic label is crucial to my shopping. We must defend that and let Darwin's laws decide whether we are right or they are.
6b

QDo you support mandatory pre-market safety testing for all genetically modified foods and crops?

A Yes

Comment: The free market is a wonderful thing if allowed to work. The stores should require testing for all products they sell. Anyone inadequately testing their products should have great difficulty finding markets and affording insurance or run a tremendous risk of losing their business to the first lawsuit.
7

QDo you support universal testing for Mad Cow disease and a ban on feeding slaughterhouse waste to farm animals?

A Yes

Comment: I want the utmost safety in the food we eat. Any producer doing that will get my business. I always vote with my dollars for safety and quality. If we all do that, then we eat well. Betting our lives on the political process when it is obviously controlled by big money is foolhardy. We need to reduce the power of the "best politicians money can buy" by shrinking government - that is taking control back to the people.
8

QDo you support a restructuring of trade-distorting US farm subsidies?

A Yes

Comment: The only way to remove distortions is to remove subsidies. This has been proven for hundreds of years with complete consistency. It is called "Mercantilism" and is marked by political power wielded to help selected merchants at the expense of all other people. It works (for them) because the merchants INVEST the money to elect their champions. Turn away from the money politicians and you end trade distortions.
9

QDo you support a significant shift in US farm subsidies to help family farmers and ranchers make the transition to organic?

A Yes

Comment: Subsidies, supports and agriculturally related legislation follows the money. The money goes from industrial agriculture to those who write supportive legislation...always has; always will. Shift to NO SUBSIDIES. Eliminate political distortions. Our food supply is too important to allow the manipulation that has been going on.
10

QDo you support a significant shift in subsidies to help US farmers adopt conservation and renewable energy practices on farms?

A Yes

Comment: Once again, a program that massively benefits a handful of political supporters is sold on the basis of some theoretical value and token public good. Get the taxpayer-funded distortions out of it and farmers will husband their resources, of which the soil is most important.
11

QDo you support increases for WIC (Women, Infant and Children), the Farmers Market Nutrition Program, and other programs to help low-income Americans buy organic food?

A No

Comment: This is another case of nice-sounding programs destroying the fabric of our society. Salvation Army, Goodwill, Gleaners and hundreds of organizations used to compliment private charity, family and community support to serve the truly needy. They still exist, but have been significantly weakened by programs "entitling" non-producers to support doled out by big government beaurocrats. This is the "socialist school of charity: giving away other people's money while acting righteous". This destroys any semblence of charity and develops an entitlement mentality rather than helping folks through hard times and encouraging personal responsibility. It also confuses genuine charity and giving with political activity.
12

QDo you support universal health care with a preventive focus and a major emphasis on better nutrition?

A No

Comment: Health care an nutrition are far too important to be given to the political process. The litany of problems listed above attest to the corrupting influence of government intervention. Each and every one of them were non-problems before state-ist interference. We need to reverse this disastrous path, not go further down that road.
13

QDo you support 80%-by-2050 reduction in climate destabilizing greenhouse gas pollution?

A Yes

Comment: I prize clean air. Moreover, organic carbon in our soil is the foundation of our ecosystem and the productivity of our soils. Sending carbon into the air is wasteful and destructive. However, the topic of "Global Warming" is massively distorted. We deserve honest pubic debate. You should seek the truth. Start here: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6622
14

QDo you support ending the Iraq war and redirecting funds from the $500 billion annual military spending in the U.S. toward greening the U.S. economy, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and converting U.S. agriculture to organic practices?

A Yes

Comment: According to the US Constitution, only Congress can declare war. Our Congress has not done so. They totally abdicated their responsibities by allowing the President to do whatever he wanted to do and continue that by sending more and more money to his military activities. As for diverting their current deficit spending into other programs, I am against all excess spending.
15

Q Do you support requiring electronic voting machines to produce voter-verified paper records and election officials to use these records to conduct mandatory audits of election results?

A Yes

Comment: Unauditable electronic voting machines are proven to massively distort election results. Political hackers are winning elections. Nothing could be worse for our representative form of government. Paper ballots may be inconvenient, but they are necessary. Voter-verified paper records are second best, but far better than the nearly unimaginable mystery system some states are allowing.
16

QDo you support eliminating the distorting effect of special interest money on our elections and politicians by requiring full public funding for all federal, state, and local elections?

A Yes

Comment: I wholeheartedly support eliminating the effect of special interest money. Our elections now have a 98% incumbant return rate. That is, nearly every politician that runs for office a second time wins that race. Anyone believing this is because they are the best choice is sadly deluded. The more election laws created by our legislators, the more of a lock they have on their political positions. Eliminate election laws and we would see dramatic improvement in the quality of our political races.
17

QDo you support legislation to prevent internet companies from rigging the system to serve only the highest-paying users and discriminate against users they don’t like?

A Yes

Comment: This debate is currently rigged. The Internet was established by the US military to enable scientists to share information. No thought was given to its potential for the many uses it now has. What we have is like a railroad network where anyone can put anything on the trains at any time. Mega-players like Microsoft and Google (as much as I love them) are loading the trains up with massive amounts of data while our piddly transmissions have to wait behind theirs. Thus the Internet is currently rigged to subsidize mega users. Of course they like it like that and are fanning the debate flames that blow their way. Turning the Internet into a service like Fed Ex or UPS where the shippers of data cover the costs of shipment will be tricky, but I want my ISP to be able to prioritize the data I want to send and receive - over that of some big commercial outfit that is not paying their fair share.

 

Return to Top of Page