I received this inquiry on 10/22/26
I’m reaching out on behalf of TIMIO News, a nonpartisan news app for Gen-Z. We’re publishing a Texas voter guide and inviting every candidate to answer the same questions. Answers will run side by side, in your own words, without endorsements or ratings. Candidates who don’t respond will be listed as “Did not respond.”
Our audience is young, Gen-Z, politically engaged Texans, many of them first-time voters who tune out traditional campaign outreach. This is a direct way to reach them.
Here is my response
Q1: Affordability is the #1 voter concern in Texas. How do you plan to address it if elected?
A1: https://patdixon.org/free-market-sustainability/
Affordability is a concern because the burden of growth is on taxpayers instead of those that impact the cost of growth.
Some politicians think jobs come from taxes. They give your taxes to large corporations to entice them to grow their businesses in Texas, assuming this is the only source of jobs. In doing so, the impact of growth is your burden, instead of the responsibility of those consuming more water and energy, putting more cars on the road, putting kids in schools, and increasing demand on public safety and emergency response.
This is not sustainable.
Free market sustainability means growth pays for itself. It requires those who impact demand for resources to pay for them. It welcomes growth and rewards those that cover all of their costs and succeed. It recognizes that growth can originate from anyone with an idea that organically and locally grows their business
Texas leads the world in data centers, and more are popping up like Hill Country bluebonnets. Texas will not be sustainable if the burden of growth falls solely on you. Free market sustainability is the right policy for Texas.
Q2: If you could magically make any law or amendment pass tomorrow, what would it be?
A2: https://patdixon.org/texas-cannabis-policy-questionnaire/.
I am not running for federal office, but the war on drugs is a failure. We regulate the most harmful drug in human history differently, and it works much better. That drug is alcohol. I would like to end the war on drugs.
Q3: What are your opinions on Texas immigration policy?
A3: https://patdixon.org/the-border/
Michael Badnarik was the Libertarian Party candidate for President of the United States in 2004. I worked on that campaign, and our statement on border policy was “it is easier to swim the Rio Grande than climb the mountain of paperwork”. People who try to follow the law find it nearly impossible, frustrating, and stupid. That is why they ignore the law.
I am not running for a federal office, but if I was my policy would be “if you are peaceful and productive, welcome”.
The governor of Texas does not make federal border policy. Texas does not have immigration enforcement for Oklahoma, Louisiana, New Mexico, or Mexico. The federal government has enforcement responsibility, and Texas can be cooperative in that enforcement. Being the state with the largest border, it is an issue that has high impact and the governor’s office needs to be involved.
Clearly, the Biden administration failed on this issue. I do give them credit for trying to fix it the right way through congressional action, which looked like it would pass until Trump killed it. Trump has dramatically reduced border crossings, but the ends don’t justify the means. Praising Trump for these results while killing and harassing people is like being happy if crime was eliminated by putting everyone in prison.
As governor, it would be my duty to be part of an effective immigration policy. I would refuse to do so if that meant harming the life, liberty, and property of Texans.
Q4: What are your opinions on data centers?
A4: https://patdixon.org/ai-data-centers/
We should not be paying to bring AI Data Centers to Texas. This is happening. These data centers have been given substantial tax incentives to build in Texas. Texas is projected to forgo roughly $3.2 billion in sales-tax revenue over the next two years because of tax exemptions for qualifying data centers, many of which are being built to support the rapidly growing demand for AI.
That revenue will have to be paid by the taxpayers of Texas, instead of the data centers. The Texas biennium budget has ballooned from $187.5 billion in 2010 to $338.2 billion today. We, the taxpayers, bear the burden of government spending. The data centers that place greater demands on our resources are not paying like the rest of us. The question isn’t whether data centers generate economic activity. The question is whether the taxes and other revenues they generate adequately compensate Texas taxpayers for the public costs they impose.
Some would call this crony capitalism; others call this corporate welfare. Frankly, it could be called socialism.
While Greg Abbott attacks others as socialists, his annual report reeks of it. I have details in my policy statement post “The Abbott Report”. There are numerous taxpayer funded programs that allow the state of Texas to handout incentives to grow Texas.
The problem gets worse when you consider the mismanagement of these tax exemption programs. The Texas Tribune reported in July that 138 data centers had qualified for the exemption, but only 20 had been audited. Of those 20, six were found to be out of compliance with the requirements.
AI data centers are not alone. Texas socialism applies to many other industries to grow Texas while increasing demands on resources and placing the burden on taxpayers.
This is why my policy statement “Free Market Sustainability” is a cornerstone of my campaign. Growth needs to pay for itself. It should be those that come to Texas that pay for their impact.
I do not oppose an AI data center that pays for their impact or provides their own resources. We cannot bulldoze existing facilities. If we try to stop a project that already went through the regulatory process, got the green light, and broke ground there will be lawsuits that will defend the data centers. While I do have some concerns about AI technology, my policy statement “AI” shows that addressing risks through the rule of law is the best approach.
I am the only candidate for governor that is offering a sustainable economic policy. There will be AI data centers in Texas, but Free Market Sustainability offers the best way to ensure growth pays for itself while relieving the burden of growth from taxpayers and being responsible with our use of resources.
Q5: Where do you stand on concerns about mass surveillance from companies like Palantir and Flock Safety?
A5: https://patdixon.org/flock-cameras/
There is an episode of the series “Black Mirror” entitled “Shut Up and Dance”. In it, a teenager named Kenny is secretly recorded by his laptop webcam while doing something embarrassing. The person behind the recording threatens to release the video unless Kenny follows a series of increasingly serious instructions—including participating in a crime. This is a nightmare scenario that might be turning into reality institutionally through government proliferation.
Libertarians are committed to privacy. We adamantly oppose a surveillance state in which our private information and attributes are for sale everywhere. I am a Libertarian. I also support the ability of law enforcement to get evidence which can exonerate the innocent and catch the criminal.
Cameras can be an effective way to get conclusive evidence. An alternative is to have a Soviet style KGB with an army of police and highway patrol spying on everyone. This would be a Big Brother privacy concern, but also a heavy burden on taxpayers compared to the use of cameras. What makes camera systems different is that automated logging systems indiscriminately record essentially everything they see into a searchable database, without any individualized suspicion.
The job of law enforcement can be inconvenient and frustrating. It has to be. I don’t want police to have stupid impediments to catch the bad guys, but a warrant is the cost of doing business. It may be inconvenient, but it is a requirement.
The case of Chrisanna Elser in September 2025 provides an interesting case. Using Ring and Flock cameras, police charged her with theft of a package of a homeowner’s front porch. However, she used additional Flock footage, Google Location Timeline, and other digital data to prove she was not there. Cameras can mislead us and exonerate us. The more government relies upon automated surveillance as evidence, the more important it becomes that citizens have meaningful access to contradictory evidence.
There is also the case of the Ring camera “Search Party” feature that was advertised during the Super Bowl in February 2026. It was sold as a way to find lost dogs. Concerns grew that this feature could become a neighborhood-wide surveillance system, with a planned integration with Flock. While Ring maintains that the system cannot search people, a leaked internal email revealed Ring founder Jamie Siminoff envisioned Search Party expanding beyond finding lost pets, including using the technology to address neighborhood crime. The public backlash terminated the Flock partnership.
How can cameras be used properly?
On your private property (business, house) you have the right to protect your property. Many people have cameras installed to protect their property. However, we must remember that when Ring introduced “Search Party” to help find lost dogs, it could also be used for law enforcement to find people. A camera does not become government property just because it points at the street. Private citizens should be free to operate security cameras on their property, including cameras that incidentally capture public areas. Government access to those recordings should require the same constitutional justification that would apply to other privately held evidence. You can look at the data your collected, but if government wants the data they can get a warrant. Texans should be able to use security cameras on their property without unknowingly turning their streets into government-searchable surveillance zones.
We also have cameras on roads. Some cameras can show who ran the red light and caused an accident, or who stole your car. I do not support creating a permanent history of innocent Texans. Data should be available for a serious crime when police have a murder suspect’s license plate number and want to know where the vehicle was last night, but if police want to search a statewide network to find anywhere the vehicle has been in the last 6 months a warrant should be required based on probable cause for searches designed to reconstruct a person’s movement over time. Government should not be able to conduct a retrospective search capable of reconstructing an individual’s movements over an extended period without a warrant based on probable cause. Any query of camera data should specify the cause for the inquiry. In no case should this data be for sale.
If government is putting camera on every street corner to see who spits on the sidewalk, this amplifies the privacy concerns. Any city should that considers installing such cameras should adhere to the requirement above as well as publicly declare their purpose, not allow facial recognition, not persistently track innocent people, disable audio by default, exclude protected activities, inform the public of their locations, and not allow secret connections to private camera networks.
I want to specifically call out the sale of data. Without consent, it should be illegal for your private data to be purchased. Also, government should not circumvent warrant requirements by purchasing from private companies’ data that it could not constitutionally obtain through direct surveillance.
Ultimately, I support a bill of rights that will protect the rights of every Texan while enabling law enforcement to do its job effectively and lawfully. I don’t care if a bill of rights breaks the Flock business model that relies on Big Data mining and selling your data. I defend privacy over profits. Such a bill of rights might contain the following:
1. No government sale of surveillance data: Government agencies may not sell, monetize, or commercially exploit surveillance data concerning members of the public.
2. No warrantless retrospective tracking: A warrant based on probable cause should be required for a search designed to reconstruct an individual’s movements over a significant period.
3. Purpose limitation: Surveillance systems must have a publicly declared purpose. Data collected for one purpose cannot automatically be repurposed for unrelated investigations.
4. Data minimization: Don’t collect or retain information that isn’t reasonably necessary for the stated purpose.
5. Short retention periods: Non-evidentiary surveillance data should be automatically deleted after a defined period.
6. No facial recognition of innocent people: At minimum, prohibit generalized facial-recognition searches absent particularized legal authorization.
7. No secret camera networks: Government agencies should disclose government-operated cameras and government relationships with private camera networks, subject to narrowly defined exceptions for genuinely sensitive investigations.
8. Private-camera protection: Private citizens retain ownership and control of their recordings. Government requests for access should be governed by clearly defined legal standards.
9. Auditability: Every government search should generate an auditable record identifying who conducted it, when, what database was searched, and the legal/policy basis.
10. Notice and remedy: People who are materially affected by erroneous surveillance-based government action should have a meaningful way to challenge it and obtain correction.
11. No circumvention through private vendors: Government cannot evade statutory or constitutional restrictions by buying substantially equivalent surveillance information from private companies.
12. Independent oversight: Someone outside the police department should periodically audit compliance and publish aggregate statistics.
A comprehensive policy should address, data collection, access and use, aggregation, data sharing policy, retention of data, and auditing.
This is not an exhaustive list of recommendations. I am open to more suggestions. If I am Governor of Texas, I will be committed to protect your life, liberty, and property and oppose Big Brother.
(My technology policy advisor Dan Jacobellis authored this study on AI Video Surveillance Systems: https://danjacobellis.net/_static/policy_surveillance.pdf)
Q6: Have you ever gone against your party? Why or why not? If so, would you do it again?
A6: Yes. I have not voted for Libertarian candidates that do not represent the principles and ethics that are required to hold an office. I believe a candidate without a standard of ethics and a moral backbone does not deserve my vote.
Q7: Do you think we need more regulation for tech and AI? If so, what reforms would you like to see?
In a free market, there are 3 forms of regulation:
The market itself. With choice and competition, there is a regulatory effect. Products that cause harm can die out. Milton Friedman said that in a free market the failures are just as important as the successes.
The rule of law. When someone commits fraud, there should be legal recourse. The job of a legislative body is to determine which harms warrant government intervention, and how laws should be enforced when those harms occur.
This is what most people consider regulation, as if the first 2 don’t exist. This form of regulation predicts something might be harmful or undesirable, so we will demand government licenses, permits, inspections, and other requirements intended to prevent harm. The downside is the chilling effect it can have on progress.
When we apply this to artificial intelligence, we must start with a definition. “Artificial” means not human. “Intelligence” is harder to define. If a child wins a spelling bee, are they intelligent or just good at retrieving data from memory? As you are reading this there is probably a device on the wall keeping you comfortable. You don’t have someone running into the room every 5 minutes with a thermometer. If a thermostat isn’t Artificial Intelligence, it can only be because we think it is not intelligent enough.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is not a universal monopolistic entity. There is a fear that AI applications will control us and take our jobs, but depending on the definition we have lived with many types of AI for a very long time without those harms. Even if we restrict ourselves to current day “intelligent” technology, there are thousands of firms offering many more thousands of AI applications. There is a market.
The rule of law as it applies to AI is less mature. It is unclear whether new harms caused by AI have existing legal recourse. If existing law does not apply, legislative bodies have work to do in identifying harms not covered by existing law and prescribing appropriate enforcement mechanisms.
Calls for expansive regulation are often driven by expectations about AI’s future impact. Yet those expectations may themselves be overstated. While AI holds great promise for making life better, there may be an AI bubble that will burst. The book “AI Snake Oil” shows how overinflated expectations bring us back to the reality of what is achievable. In the industries I work in, there are no dark factories that replace all humans with automation. As I tell students every year, if you want to make the world better have a baby.
Any time you hear the term “regulation”, understand there are 3 forms of it. Do not jump to the last one as the only solution without considering the first 2.
Q8: Could you say something nice about your opponent?
A8: https://patdixon.org/about-greg-abbott/
PatDixon.org says “A political campaign should not be war. It should be a job interview. My opponents are not my enemies”
I met Greg Abbott many years ago at an event in Austin. I shook his hand and had a brief and cordial chat. I have never considered Greg Abbott evil, stupid, or incompetent. In several ways I admire him. To have persevered through a broken back to become a Supreme Court judge, Attorney General, and Governor is impressive.
I have never met Gina Hinojosa, but she has served in local office as I have. Having experience in local office is helpful when a governor is in the position of impacting local government.
Q9: Most Americans don’t vote. Especially young people. They’ve lost faith in politicians and their ability to make change happen.
What would you like to say to them?
A9: I think Matthew McConaughey has a good message. Many feel they do not have a choice. If voters want to declare their political independence, Libertarians are on the ballot. Libertarians continually fight to remain on the ballot. Voters need to demand that their elected representatives do not remove choices from the ballot. If people hear McConaughey and declare their political independence, choice will be preserved and there should be more participation.
Q10: Government isn’t the answer to everything. Tech companies have a dramatic influence on culture and our understanding of the world.
Do you think if there was a tech company that was for the people, it could heal America in ways that politicians can’t?
A10: I don’t know what “tech company that was for the people” means. If technology companies are dependent upon people buying their products and services, they have to be for the people. In a free market the people rule and companies survive or die based on the service they offer to the people. I recognize there are some powerful companies that can commit fraud or harm people, and that is criminal. If companies follow the law, they are for the people.
Q11: Is there anything else you’d like to tell voters that we didn’t cover?
A11: Before you vote, visit PatDixon.org