As a Libertarian, and especially a radical Libertarian, there probably will be no money following honest disclosures. Special interests are by definition only interested in themselves, and the degree of overall social health of the nation is irrelevant and outside their zones of appreciation and concern. However, letting people and voters outside their parochial concerns know what they want and my answers to those wants is an educational process of benefit to both the general voter and myself. Hence this WWW sub-page.
Libertarian Candidate for Governor of Missouri, 1996
Libertarian Candidate for U.S. Senate, 1998
Buffalo Area Professional Women
The Missouri Chamber of Commerce
Citizens for Educational Freedom
The Congressional Quarterly
The Constitutional Coalition
Eagle Forum of Missouri
Freedom of the Road Riders
The Kansas City Star
Missouri NARAL PAC
Missouri Now PAC
Missourians for Tax Justice
Planned Parenthood Advocates
Privacy Rights Education Project
Missouri Right to Life
Newton County News, Granby Police State, Misery
National Rifle Association Rating
St. Louis Metrovoice -- Christian News & Events Publication
St. Louis Post-Despatch
Sun Chronicle Newspapers of Kansas City
Check only ONE answer to each of the following questions:
1) Should Missouri mandate an annually increasing minimum wage, beginning at $6.25/hr. on January 1,
1997, and increasing every year thereafter? Yes or No?
No. It is bad enough when the Federal government gets into pulling such foolishness under guise of concern for the working poor.
Such a policy raises prices everywhere and camouflages government-caused inflation of the money supply. Far better to reduce taxes upon life’s necessities imposed upon the working poor.
2) Missouri's business community has drafted a measure for managing worker's compensation costs by
clarifying definitions, and by placing limits on medical costs, litigation costs, and administrative costs. Do you
generally support or oppose such changes? Support or Oppose?
I don’t know. I would have to see what has been drafted.
I remember that in 1992 none other than the Republican candidate for governor got involved in workman’s compensation fund looting and that the successful Democrat winner wanted to impose Hillary-Clinton-style health care upon Missouri businesses. So this area demands greater scrutiny and an answer based upon consideration and deliberate thought.
3.) Health care affordability and accessibility have become major concerns for many Americans. Are you
inclined to support or oppose Missouri's adopting a Universal Health Care system modeled after the current
Canadian system, which offers the same coverage to all citizens? Support or Oppose?
Oppose. Modeled after Canada? Anything but that! Those who want such a thing should go to Canada and live it up there!
When I ran for office as a state representative for the 132nd district in 1994, I proposed increasing the supply of medical care by training at state medical schools at state expense up to 200 medical students a year provided they signed a pledge to work in county health departments in Missouri for an annual salary of $25,000 for 6 years. This would increase medical-system supply as opposed to driving up system demand through such foolish proposals as outlined above.
I was told by a successful state rep (he got re-elected) that the medical, insurance, and political establishment would not allow any such proposal.
4.) Would you support or oppose mandating that all employers (small and large alike) provide health care
for all employees? Support or Oppose?
Oppose. All employers and employees are not the same. I would prefer to see people employed at small businesses, even if they cannot afford to provide health care to all or any employees than to make a law eliminating small employers and increasing unemployment.
5.) Many companies routinely perform voluntary self-audits of their facilities to ensure compliance with
environmental and safety requirements. Do you support or oppose legislation that would protect reports of
such audits from government and private third-party scrutiny -- so long as the company corrects all
non-compliance items, acts in good faith, and provides all information that is otherwise required by law?
Support or Oppose?
This candidate supports such legislation as it is in accord with the 4th and 5th U.S. Constitutional Amendments regarding the privacy protections of personal papers from governmental scrutiny and the common-law doctrine that if there are no victims to make a complaint, then no crime has been committed and therefore the State has no standing to sue or regulate under law.
Businesses and individuals making good-faith efforts to exercise responsible behavior should not be punished for trying to internally ascertain whether they are doing a good job or not.
6.) Do you support or oppose legislation that would require state environmental agencies to perform an
extensive risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis before issuing any new environmental or safety regulation?
Support or Oppose?
Oppose. It has been candidate’s observation that rich polluters buy a permit to pollute and poor polluters go to jail. Who gets to pay for this extensive risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis? Do these agencies know what they are doing? Why give bureaucrats more make-work paid for at taxpayer expense?
It is far better to allow lawsuits for damages against the assets of polluters and unsafe employers.
* If you answered “support,” to question 6, would you still support this legislation if it necessitated a tax
increase? Yes or No?
Short of foreign invasion, this candidate never considers a tax increase necessary.
7) Under current law, when an employer has replaced a striking worker, the striker is not guaranteed his
previous job upon resolution of the strike, unless that position is vacant. Do you think that the employer
should be required to reinstate the striking employee to his previous position, even if that position has already
been filled during the strike?
No. Historically, in the Western world, unless under condition of slavery, the employee is not held to his work, nor is the employer held to provide a job. A striker risks his job by going on strike. It is not government’s job to ensure that he wins his gamble.
8.) Do you support or oppose collective bargaining for public employees?
Oppose. Definitely. Taxpayers are not able to support their current demands for benefits and public-sector retirements now.
9.) Missouri is currently an employment-at-will state, where employers have the right to terminate an
employee at any time as long as it doesn’t violate a contract or the employee’s civil rights. Periodically,
legislation is introduced to allow an employee to sue an employer when the employee feels that he or she has
been unfairly discharged. Do you support or oppose wrongful discharge legislation?
Oppose, and for the reasons mentioned to in question #7 and alluded to at the start of this question. However, in these days of corporate and employer disloyalty, this question will be re-asked and answered at business’ expense if current trends continue. It is not the employees, but management that runs a business into the ground.
10.) Do you support or oppose public financing of political races?
Oppose. Candidate was invited to Governor Carnahan’s “Fair Elections” Commission last year and watched as the Republicans, flush with PAC money, prefer the post-’94 status quo and the Democrats demand public tax money for political campaigns now that the corporate teat has dried up for them.
Libertarians are against strapping the taxpayer to pay for politicians to run, even if it effectively ensures that we will be unable to buy voter allegiance with public money. We insist that all money given be accounted for so the public can determine who the whores are.
Candidate is used to running without money, therefore he is not beholden to anyone.
11.) Do you support or oppose a limit on punitive damage awards in product liability cases?
Oppose. A jury and/or judge should determine each case on its own merits and decide whether punitive damages are necessary and demanded.
12.) Do you support or oppose legislation that would require cases of civil litigation to be tried in the
locality in which the case occurred to prevent the practice of transferring court cases to a court that would
likely grant a more favorable outcome for the plaintiff?
Oppose. I have been both a Plaintiff and a Defendant many times and arising from the same causes of action. Experience teaches me that whatever outcome favors the government or the richer or the more powerful litigant is what usually happens. Therefore, I am not interested in making more laws for the government or the richer or more powerful litigant to ignore or break.
13.) Do you support or oppose legislation that requires the losing party in a civil tort lawsuit to pay all legal
fees as an effort to curb the number of frivolous lawsuits filed in Missouri?
Oppose. I have filed and will file a number of lawsuits as a poor person against government officials who have done me wrong under color of law.
Who gets to determine what exactly is a “frivolous lawsuit?” The powerful wrongdoer? The weaker party? Usually the weak do not dare transgress against the strong -- presence of law or not.
When it becomes impossible to file suits at law for any party, “frivolous” or not, and the only recourse to justice is through ruthless violence, then that is indeed what will result. Courts of law were instituted to prevent exactly this eventuality from occurring, and their failure bodes ill for peace, if not for justice.
Be very careful of what you wish for. You might well get it.
Thank you for your giving me a chance to answer your questionnaire. I could not answer your first one
because I was imprisoned in the Jasper County Jail between April 2, 1996 and May 1, 1996.
This questionnaire and my answers will be on my WWW page.
-s- Martin Lindstedt
Libertarian Candidate for Governor of Missouri
Rt. 2 Box 2008
Granby, Missouri 64844
Patrick Henry On-Line WWW page, URL:
Martin Lindstedt, Libertarian Candidate for Governor June 11, 1996 Route 2, Box 2008 Granby, Missouri 64844 Citizens for Educational Freedom 9333 Clayton Road St. Louis, Missouri 63124 (314)-997-6361 PARENTS SCHOOL CHOICE PLAN FOR EDUCATIONAL REFORM QUESTIONNAIRE __________Do you support the primary right of parents to choose the kind of education that shall he given to their own children? Yes. It should be the parents who make the primary choices as to where their offspring are educated. __________Do you support legislation, whether federal, state, or local, to allow parents to spend taxes collected for education at the school of their choice, public or private (commonly referred to as the "voucher system")? Yes, although vouchers should be used as an interim step free of government control until full privatization of education is achieved. ___________Do you support legislation to authorize a tax credit or tax deduction for educational expenses at public or private schools? Yes, as an interim step. ___________Do you support legislation to allow parents to choose which public school their children will attend? Yes. If yes, do you support: intradistrict only, interdistrict as well? ________________________ Parents should be able to choose among the public schools in order to find the best choices for their children and thus eliminating the very worst of the current public schools. However, by their very nature and the coercive means by which they are funded, public schools will have to eventually be replaced, root and branch by private alternatives. ___________ Do you support the right of parents to educate their children at home substantially free from state regulation? Yes. This option is by far the best alternative. Please return to the C.E.F. office at the above address. Please sign your name______________________________________________ Add your mailing address___________________________________________ City________________ State & Zip_____________ Congressional District ______ State Senatorial Dist. _____ State Rep. District _____ I am the Libertarian candidate for Governor of Missouri. Thank you for your cooperation
Dear Candidate, Front Line has been conducting candidate surveys since the 1980's. We distribute the responses to our survey to nearly every zip code in Missouri, and are relied upon by many voters for information vital to elections. We are not a one issue advocacy group, but rather we are a publication whose goal is to provide information that is not always covered by other publications. Would you be so kind as to answer the following 10 questions indicating a "yes (Y)," a "no (N)," or an "undecided (U)?" There are also several open-ended questions that are important to answer. Please fold the survey over and mail back ASAP. Our deadline is May 15th. Please do this now, because we cannot follow up on those not returned. "No response" will be noted in the Summer 96 issue of Front Line. Sincerely yours, Donna Hearne, Editor The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution states. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 1) Y N U Do you think the 10th Amendment is outdated? No. In fact, as Missouri Libertarian Party Platform Chairman, I have endeavored to add items to our Platform to strengthen the Missouri 10th Amendment Resolution by enacting statutes enforcing state authority and rights. 2) Y N U Would you vote against laws that give funding to state/local government bodies and that require the state/local body to comply with federal regulations? Yes. Acceptance of money carries conditions, most of them destructive to local sovereignty. 3) Y N U Do you believe that the federal government has a role in mandating compliance for clean air, i.e., auto emissions? In 1994, the Missouri legislature was pressured into voting for expansive emissions control legislation for automobiles in order to be in compliance with the EPA's findings that on one occasion one monitor showed one location in St. Louis to be out of compliance with the federal Clean Air Act. The threat was that without action, highway moneys would be lost. Would you have voted to be in compliance? No. I would have vetoed such a law to ensure "compliance" with bureaucratic decree. The key to getting around such blackmail is to simply refuse to pay into the highway funds, and if the bureaucrats insist upon co-mingling the funds, cut ALL tax flow to Washington. 4) Y N U In the last several years in the legislature, there has been a move towards making the schools a "one-stop-shop." This means schools will be the place where health clinics will treat children, social services will be offered and children will be channeled into jobs deemed needed by society. Will you support legislation what will further this aim? No. Definitely not. Children belong to themselves, they are not chattels to be used for the benefit of the politically powerful. 5) Y N U Do you favor returning all decision making in education to the parents at the local level via school boards? Yes, as an interim solution. I would prefer to eliminate government- controlled schools in favor of privately owned, free-market educational alternatives freely chosen by children and parents. 6) Y N U Do you favor the state removing itself from the federal GOALS 2OOO/School-to-Work/Workforce money and mandates? Yes. This is nothing more than bureaucrats running amok. 7) Y N U Do you favor allowing law abiding citizens the right to carry concealed weapons? Yes, although it should be noted that citizens have always had the inherent right to carry weapons, concealed or openly carried, in order to protect themselves. The government has usurped these rights and should be disciplined for such misconduct. 8) Y N V Would you be willing to transfer to private/local communities, the functions such as, "health. education and welfare" from the federal and state level, and at the same time, via taxes, reduce proportionally the funding collected for these functions? Which areas would you cut? Yes, in fact, I insist upon returning these responsibilities back to the lowest levels of government, preferably to the individual level if possible. With the return of these functions to the general population, high taxes for the benefit of favored individuals collected by government would become politically intolerable. All these areas, and more, should be returned to individual responsibility and taxes reduced. 9)Y N U Do you favor a "Human Life" Amendment to the US Constitution to protect the life of the unborn? No. This matter must be brought back to the soverign states and individuals to decide. Such an amendment is politically impossible to carry through today, and political effort should not be wasted on such a fruitless effort. 10)Y N U As a source of increased revenue, would you favor returning some of the federal lands to private ownership, thus putting them back on the tax roles? Yes. However we must ensure that favored oligarchies are not getting special deals from the government. 11)Y N U What issue do you believe is the most important to consider, and what would you do about it? What sources and resources do you use to help you decide? The biggest issue in this country is how we will reduce the amount and level of government. We must do it by disbanding the government schools and thus conditioning a new generation to loving government and congenial to higher taxation. Otherwise, on every front, we must work on cutting government and taxes upon every occasion. The source and resource I use is the U.S. and Missouri Constitutions, as they are concerned with limiting big government. NAME: Martin Lindstedt PARTY: Libertarian OFFICE SOUGHT: Governor District: Missouri Sent off to "Front Line," PO Box 37054, St. Louis, Missouri 63141, official publication of "The Constitutional Coalition."
Chapter One of the Missouri statutes states: “The life of each human being begins at conception;” and that
“Unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being.” (1.205 RSMo). In recent decisions,
the United States Supreme Court has allowed steps to regulate legalized abortion.
If elected governor, would you sign or would you veto state legislation that would prohibit anyone from performing an abortion except to prevent the death of the mother?
Sign. I would sign legislation to prohibit abortions except those necessary to prevent the death of the mother.
Missouri Right to Life supports the protection of all innocent unborn human life and would allow abortions
only to prevent the death of the mother. The focus of much of the legal debate, however, shows that exceptions
in the cases of incest and reported criminal rape may be necessary to pass legislation to end abortion on
If elected governor, would you sign or would you veto state legislation that would prohibit anyone from performing an abortion except to prevent the dearth of the mother or in cases of incest and reported criminal rape?
Sign. Much like MRL, I am reluctant to invoke a death sentence upon children for the sins of the fathers, however, I will support this measure to reduce the number of abortions in Missouri.
As a result of the statute passed in 1986 and upheld by the Webster decision, Missouri does not
provide public funds for assisting or performing abortions except when necessary to prevent the death of the
mother. Since the Webster decision, abortion advocates have proposed numerous measures to
reinstate public funding of abortion.
If elected governor, would you sign or veto legislation restoring any public funding of abortion?
Veto. It is wrong to compel taxpayers to pay for any measure promoting funding of abortions or pro-abortion propaganda, especially when such matters are against their moral beliefs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Additional comments:
I am a Pro-Life Libertarian. The purpose of the State is to protect the lives, liberties and property of the
human beings which form the State. Since human life begins at conception, even a mother has no inherent right
to take the life of another human being.
As a Libertarian, I know the U.S. Supreme Court improperly usurped powers reserved to the States and People (Bill of Rights, #9 & #10) in their Roe vs. Wade decision. This matter should be brought back to the individual Sovereign States to decide.
As Governor, I will veto any measure passed by the General Assembly to spend taxpayer dollars promoting abortion and I will sign any measure that limits the number of abortions performed in Missouri.
I am sorry that I could not answer your questionnaire sooner as I was imprisoned in the Jasper County
Jail between April 2 - May 1, 1996 over a matter in which I would not compromise.
This survey and my answers will appear in my WWW page, Patrick Henry On-Line at URL: http://www.clandjop.com/~mlindste/
-s-Martin Lindstedt, May 7, 1996
Martin Lindstedt, Libertarian Candidate for Governor
Rt. 2, Box 2008
Granby, Missouri 64844
Patrick Henry On-Line WWW page at URL:
Martin Lindstedt May 29, 1996 Rt. 2 Box 2008 Granby, Missouri 64844 (417) 472-6901 St. Louis Metrovoice P.O. Box 220010, St. Louis, Missouri 63122 (314) 965-5757 Following is my response to your questions: A.1. What is your position on the abortion issue? Libertarians believe that the only purpose for government is to protect the life, liberty and property rights of the individual, not to deprive one group of those rights at the whims of favored groups and individuals. If human life begins at conception, then logic and decency require that human life be protected at all stages of development. Hence I am a pro-life Libertarian. If elected Governor of Missouri, I will sign pro-life legislation to curtail as many abortions as possible; I will veto all pro-abortion tax funding. A.2 Where does the responsibility lie for educating children? With the parents. With the current level of taxation, parents are unable to exercise their responsibilities, and they must first give up their children to be indoctrinated and then their tax dollars to government educators. This must cease, as the fruits of this policy are corrupt. Vouchers independent of government control must be established as an interim policy, with an eventual goal of full privatization. A3. Under what conditions should a public vote be required in establishing new taxes? The people of this country cannot afford to pay any more or new taxes. To lessen the irresponsible effects of people voting in taxes for other people to pay, Constitutional safeguards and return to local political control will have to be re-established so that when people vote for a new benefit, they will know that it will be them who pay taxes for that benefit rather than unknown others. A4. How do you view U.S. involvement with the United Nations? As the nurturing within our bosum the greatest worldwide collection of vipers, who, having stolen everything of value in their looted countries, now seek handouts provided by our own elite thieves. Kick them all out, and make them take some of our rascals with them. A5. In light of today's contemporary culture, how do you view the concept of the "right to keep and bear arms"? In light of today's contemporary culture and where it is headed, not being armed is the equivalent of a self-imposed invitation to be robbed, raped, or killed. You can bet good money that all the government workers and bad guys are armed. If you wish to survive, you had better be armed as well. Sincerely yours, Martin Lindstedt Missouri Libertarian Party Candidate for Governor.