I am Mark Tippetts, Libertarian Candidate for Governor of Texas. Let's stop the war on drugs! AMA!

Have you considered trying to implement ranked voting which will help 3rd party candidates such as yourself?

Yes, I have considered it. If as governor a bill instituting ranked voting came before me, I would sign it without hesitation.

What is your plan to change the minds of those who are vehemently opposed to legalization, whatever their reason may be?

It doesn't appear that "studies" will do the trick, as they can be funded to produce (or ignore) whatever result the backer wants.

The War on Drugs has been an utter failure. Our consumption of drugs has not diminished while our prisons are overflowing with perpetrators of victimless crimes. Countless billions of dollars have been wasted to no effect, not to mention the numerous government agencies and millions of man hours enforcing it. The bottom line - the government should not be in the business of controlling citizens' actions that do no harm to others, regardless of the effect on the individual.

What is your opinion on gun control?

"The rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" - US Constitution

I saw that you were not invited to participate in the debate. Are you going to fight that decision? Do you feel that it is a de facto in-kind corporate contribution of airtime by the media distributor to two of the candidates? Corporate contributions are not allowed directly to candidates, and I assume to pay for that mass media distribution across the state would be very expensive ...

Absolutely. I intend to dispute that decision. I am constitutionally qualified to be Governor, and have fought for and achieved ballot access. The reality is the Democrats and Republicans have no desire to be exposed as being two sides of the same problem. They are unwilling to face the common sense a Libertarian would bring to the table.

Hey Reddit, thanks for the AMA! I had a great time talking with y'all! To continue the conversation with me, head to my Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/mark4gov/ and check out my website, mark4gov.com. You can also follow me on Instagram (mark4gov) and Twitter (@mark4gov). See y'all at the ballots!

Hi Mr. Tippetts. I'm a Libertarian from Ohio and also a mod of r/ExCons, and I have several questions on criminal justice reform, rehabilitation, and reentry.

Texas has a reputation for enthusiastically executing prisoners, even when there's doubt about their guilt. Will you commute the sentences of prisoners on Death Row?

Will you pardon prisoners of victimless crimes, such as marijuana possession?

The two biggest contributors to recidivism are lack of a social support network, and lack of income. It's hard to maintain a support network from prison, when calls home can cost as much as $15 for ten minutes. It's hard to get income when no one will hire you, or when the state denies felons a license to open a business. Do you plan to address these issues as Governor, and if so, how?

Texas gets hot in the summer. You've got inmates dying of heatstroke, denied access to air conditioning or even fans. During the recent hurricane, guards were evacuated while inmates were left behind, some wading knee-deep in raw sewage for days. What will you do to prevent this cruel and unusual punishment?

Thank you, and good luck in November.

Death sentences are a subject that requires attention on a case-by-case basis.

I will absolutely pardon the prisoners of victimless crimes, like marijuana possession.

To reduce recidivism in perpetrators of victimless crimes, I will expunge their criminal records.

To prevent the kind of cruel and unusual punishment you reference, responsible management and appropriate procedures need to be developed and put into place. Reduced prison load from the pardoning of victims of the War on Drugs would go a long way towards alleviating many of the problems our prison system faces.

Death sentences are a subject that requires attention on a case-by-case basis.

So you're okay with the state killing people in SOME instances.

A punishment which is overwhelmingly racially biased, overwhelmingly inflicted on the poor, and has absolutely no evidence of any positive outcomes socially.

I totally agree that the death penalty is "A punishment which is overwhelmingly racially biased, overwhelmingly inflicted on the poor" and this is an issue that MUST be looked at and dealt with in an unbiased manner. However, a death sentence is not meant to create a "positive social outcome" it is meant to give finality to a heinous violent crime.

I totally agree that the death penalty is "A punishment which is overwhelmingly racially biased, overwhelmingly inflicted on the poor" and this is an issue that MUST be looked at and dealt with in an unbiased manner.

There is a way of dealing with that problem. Abolishing the death penalty and joining the rest of the civilized world.

However, a death sentence is not meant to create a "positive social outcome" it is meant to give finality to a heinous violent crime.

The fact that you admit there is no productive outcome to state killings is telling. That's a totally illogical, emotional appeal used to justify killing people, people who are overwhelmingly the poor and vulnerable. It's state-sanctioned killing of an individual who is not posing any immediate threat to anyone at the time of being killed.

If you feel comfortable giving a state the power to kill people, the idea that you care about "individual liberty" is laughable.

You can't even use the excuse "it's justified to protect individuals" since the death penalty completely fails on that account. It's a gratuitous and unnecessary extra step to gratify the emotions of individuals who want to see people killed.

I understand what you are saying!!

What I am saying is that I'm not comfortable living in a society where there are no consequences to your actions, or the maximum consequence is being housed, fed and clothed for the rest of your life at the expense of the people you offended.

The same argument could be made for a thief: why should there be state-sanctioned incarceration of an individual who is not posing any immediate threat to anyone at the time of being incarcerated.

My idea of "individual liberty" which I am passionate about, is: You have the right to do whatever you want, provided you harm nobody. However, if you harm somebody, or violate someone's property, your "individual liberty" is compromised.

What I am saying is that I'm not comfortable living in a society where there are no consequences to your actions, or the maximum consequence is being housed, fed and clothed for the rest of your life at the expense of the people you offended.

If you think being imprisoned for the rest of your life is "no consequences to your actions", then you aren't making any kind of a serious argument whatsoever.

Imprisonment is terrible, and represents a complete loss of individual freedom and autonomy - the fact that you're now arguing that material survival is the only important factor and a total loss of freedom is unimportant, tells me that you don't value freedom and autonomy at all.

And if "being fed and clothed at the expense of people you offended" is so horrible, you're arguing that the state should be killing people as a cost-saving measure. So if you want to save money, there are probably a lot of people the state should be executing.

The same argument could be made for a thief: why should there be state-sanctioned incarceration of an individual who is not posing any immediate threat to anyone at the time of being incarcerated.

No, that isn't remotely the argument I'm making at all, don't lie. The argument is that executing someone is gratuitous and adds nothing to public safety, and doesn't meet any justification for killing based on self-defense. If you want to pretend to be any kind of principled leader, don't lie about the arguments being made.

Yes, a thief or murderer should face consequences for their actions, based on an evidence-based assessment of what improves public safety and what deters behavior in the future. But simply piling on suffering on top of that simply to appease people with a vindictive streak is nothing more than sadism.

My idea of "individual liberty" which I am passionate about, is: You have the right to do whatever you want, provided you harm nobody. However, if you harm somebody, or violate someone's property, your "individual liberty" is compromised.

So death penalty for polluters then? Or are you only killing people when it satisfies an emotional need that you agree with?

With statements like "So death penalty for polluters then? Or are you only killing people when it satisfies an emotional need that you agree with?" Indicates that you only wish to argue for argument sake! If I am wrong I apologize. I believe the best that we can do is agreed to disagree!

With statements like "So death penalty for polluters then? Or are you only killing people when it satisfies an emotional need that you agree with?" Indicates that you only wish to argue for argument sake!

Are you going to actually answer the substance of the argument or not?

You haven't given a single rational, evidence-based reason for saying why the state should have the right to kill people. And you've falsely pretended the alternative is "no consequences to your actions", despite that being a total falsehood. The alternative is a loss of individual freedom for a person in prison - so your argument shows that you put no value on freedom and autonomy whatsoever.

Meanwhile, in support of killing people, you've only offered an emotional appeal about how you feel like that should be accepted. So no, that isn't an answer and you have to do better.

Yes, I'm using a facetious example about "death penalty for polluters", specifically because you're saying that any harm to others should apparently void the individual liberty of whoever is doing the harm. Your argument opens to door to unlimited retaliation for that kind of action, unless you give some less emotion-based principle.

First to the substance of the argument: It is my understanding that the substance of the argument is whether or not the state should have the ability to put someone to death.

In order to have a meaningful discussion I believe it would be helpful for me to understand you're point of view as to the states roll in law enforcement and the penal system. Is the penal system for reform, punishment deterrent, etc... To whom should the burden of the penal system fall on? The victim (taxpayer) or the criminal?

I try not to base my arguments or principles on emotions, and I am not saying that any harm to others should void the individual liberties of whoever is doing the harm. I am simply saying that anyone who does harm to others, their liberties are compromised to the extent that they must repair or pay for that harm. Not that all of their individual liberties are void.

What experience do you have at either local or state government levels to convince me that you understand how to operate the executive and get legislation through the convoluted processes we have?

I am an international legal and business consultant with experience in international developments, working with large groups of individuals in every profession imaginable, including governmental bodies. I have served on the City Council of Lago Vista, TX as well.

Hey Mark! Just looking at your issues page, I had a few questions I couldn't find there.

What is your take on net neutrality? I see you oppose monopolies, what current monopolies do you currently see today?

What is your stance on abortion?

Net Neutrality - The government should stay out of the business of controlling the Internet. Period.

Current Monopolies - Amazon, with 49% of all e-commerce sales, could be considered a monopoly.

As for abortion, I am a father of six and a grandfather of seven, and I love them all and could not imagine my life without a single one of them.

As for abortion, I am a father of six and a grandfather of seven, and I love them all and could not imagine my life without a single one of them.

To be fair, this didn't actually answer the question.

You're right. To be clear -

I am personally and morally against abortion, but as a legal issue I believe in the right of the individual to make their own decisions.

Hello! Thank you for doing this AMA!

Mr. Tippetts, are there any plans to provide more funding toward our education system in Texas? Funds for supplies, building repairs, services, salaries? Any plans to expand pre-kindergarten across the state?

Also, what is your opinion sex education in schools?

I have no plans to increase taxes for our education system in Texas. The Texas Constitution, Article 7, Section 1, calls for an "efficient system of public free schools". Our current system is neither free nor efficient, and while the Texas Constitution mandates the state provide public education, it does not mandate that Texans be educated by the state. I believe we need to have more choices, with parental and student involvement, to properly address our modern educational needs in the face of evolving national and international demand.

As for sex education - with the modern technology and exposure most kids obtain starting from an early age (whether right or wrong), the need to teach the physical aspects of sex is diminished, but the need to educate our children on safe and responsible sex should be a decision made by the parents.

with the modern technology and exposure most kids obtain starting from an early age (whether right or wrong), the need to teach the physical aspects of sex is diminished,

LOL - "internet porn means we don't have to teach kids about sex"

Holy shit man. That's the WORST possible argument... exposure to information on the internet is the biggest reason why kids absolutely need a realistic and impartial source of information that isn't either porn or incel women's anatomy.

You are absolutely correct; "exposure to information on the internet is the biggest reason why kids absolutely need a realistic and impartial source of information". However, having raised six children I believe it is the parents responsibility and right to teach their children about sex at the appropriate time. I have found that the school systems' exposure to the children of sex education, is neither a realistic nor impartial.

What are some top issues for Texas that you think are important and how could use the positions, working with a likely hostile R&D controlled legislature, to accomplish them?

My top issues are marijuana legalization, opposition to Trump's border wall, and commitment to a free market economy.

The hostility of Republicans and Democrats is directed towards each other. A Libertarian Governor would be in an excellent position to build bridges between these two sides and start getting things done again.

1) What are your goals for improving and renovating our infrastructure? 3) What are your ideas about maintaining our natural areas and ecosystem diversity?

1. As any business owner knows, infrastructure is an investment and asset. Any investment or asset must be maintained to retain its value and relevance. As for any future infrastructure, I would look for ways to harness the free market to develop it effectively, provided it is an economically and environmentally sustainable model that does not require the forceful taking of property through imminent domain.
2. Continuing to support our State Parks Program and opposing Trump's ecologically disastrous border wall are excellent first steps in protecting Texas' natural beauty... steps Greg Abbott has proven unwilling to take.

imminent

*eminent

Thanks for the correction!!

How does the two party system keep reinforcing itself, and how could it be stopped?

We, the people, are the ones who keep reinforcing the two party system. The only way it could be stopped is by we, the people. The two party system (aka the duopoly) can be stopped by the voters electing a third party candidate. We need to stop thinking a vote for a third party is a wasted vote and start believing change is possible.

What are your thoughts on how Bush/Perry handled the Texas economy over the years, and what, if any, policies or practices do you see yourself adopting from their runs as governor?

Federal intrusions on Texas sovereignty have exponentially increased with very little push back during Bush and Perry's administrations and have continued to increase with Abbott, to the point that our Texan sovereignty is unrecognizable. The Federal government now has an overly powerful voice in our law enforcement, our banking, our business regulations, and even our school systems. If Texas sovereignty is to survive, or even be recognizable, we must stand up and take it back.

1) What is your stance on LGBT rights? For instance, should a business be permitted to fire someone because of their sexual orientation?

2) What is your stance on abortion and the use of funding for organizations whose services include abortion?

3) What specific, state-level changes would you like to make to the way undocumented immigrants are handled if they cross the border from Mexico into Texas? What kind of support from other political leaders in your state do you believe is necessary to accomplish these changes?

1. I don't care what you are or who you like - individual rights are individual rights and should be respected equally. As for businesses, businesses are simply groups of individuals, and individuals have the right to associate with whoever they like. I do not believe laws should be enacted that would force a business or an individual to associate with those they wish not to associate with.
2. We covered abortion in an earlier reply.
3. Specific changes I would like to enact include ensuring direct control by the Sheriffs of our border counties of all federal agents operating within his or her county. The State Sheriffs direct action will be necessary in regaining this control and restoring Texas' sovereignty.

I do not believe laws should be enacted that would force a business or an individual to associate with those they wish not to associate with.

So you are OK with the pre-Civil Rights Act status quo where black people had entire towns they were not allowed to be in after dark, where they could travel for miles without having access to public accomodations?

Absolutely not. Public accommodations and spaces have no right to discriminate. A city or any other governmental body should not be able to pass any discriminatory legislation.

As a Texas resident my questions are: Do you promise to be transparent with you policy ideals? And do you promise to bring hope to those who have lost it and bring them to vote and how do you plan on doing this?

I absolutely do promise to be transparent with all my policy ideals. Most of my opinions can be found on my website. Any policies that I implement as Governor of Texas will be 100% transparent.

As to hope, to those who have lost it, I would like to believe that by offering common sense ideals without regard to politicking will bring hope to those who have lost it and a desire to vote to those without it.

Do you feel that proper pet care should be a tax deduction?

No! I take care of my pets out of love!

The underlying problem with drugs isn't supply, but demand. If there was no demand, there would be no drug trafficking.

People know that drugs are bad, but take them anyway. Prohibition won't stop demand. Neither will legalization.

What else do you propose about it?

You are correct, "legalization will not stop the demand", however, it places the right and the responsibility on the individual (adult individual) to consume or not and to seek help or not. The government should not be in the business of determining what an individual can or cannot consume and, we the taxpayers, should not have to pay the billions of dollars annually for a war on drugs that is morally and economically bankrupting us.