Answer: Chase Oliver would likely argue that while voting rights are fundamental and should be protected, the role of the federal government should not be expanded. He might suggest that states should have more autonomy in managing their voting systems, and any federal intervention should be limited and carefully evaluated to ensure it does not infringe upon states' rights or individual liberties. However, he could also acknowledge the necessity of some federal oversight to ensure that voting rights are not being systematically violated.

Percentage of Importance: Considering the Libertarian emphasis on limited federal government, Oliver would likely assign a moderate level of importance to this issue, possibly in the range of 50-60%. This reflects his belief that while voting rights are crucial, the solution may not lie in expanding federal government intervention.

Answer: Chase Oliver would probably support more comprehensive anti-discrimination laws at the federal level. As a libertarian, he may emphasize the importance of individual freedom and the principle of non-aggression, arguing that everyone should be free to live their lives as they see fit without facing discrimination or prejudice. He might also stress the need for equality before the law, asserting that the government has a role to play in ensuring that all individuals are treated fairly and equally. However, he would likely caution against overreach by the government and advocate for policies that strike a balance between promoting equality and protecting individual liberties.

Percentage of Importance: Given his commitment to individual liberty and non-aggression, Oliver would likely assign a high importance to this issue, possibly in the range of 70-80%. This reflects his belief that anti-discrimination laws are crucial for ensuring equality and freedom for all individuals.