[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore

Starchild sfdreamer at earthlink.net
Sat Oct 22 20:41:32 EDT 2016


	Perhaps it does not apply in your case Alicia, but I can understand why someone might assume that anyone on the LNC who is prepared to excuse an elected Libertarian's votes for tax increases on the grounds that they were supported by a majority of his constituents, could themselves be swayed by hearing from their own constituents. 

	While it's true that email campaigns are not scientific polls, they are manifestations of public opinion. The percentage of the public that supports or opposes a particular course of action is the most obvious way of measuring public opinion, but the relative strength with which supporters and opponents hold their views, as measured by their willingness to take the time to speak out and lobby, is another valid metric.

	Of course the opinions held by members of the public are not all equally valid. Clearly there is a moral distinction to be drawn between the kind of constituent views which can be used to justify an unlibertarian vote, and constituent views that support taking a position one believes to be in the interests of the Libertarian Party and the cause of liberty. John Moore isn't facing censure because he voted the way his constituents wanted him to; he is facing censure for voting in an unlibertarian manner. If the majority of his constituents had wanted him to vote against the tax hikes, and he had done so, his actions would have been commendable, and if most of his constituents had opposed the tax hikes but he had still voted for them, he would still be facing censure and possibly even more outrage from Libertarians than he faces now.

	Under other circumstances I would agree that whether or not John Moore is a member of the national LP would be a relevant consideration, but in this case the LNC donated money to his campaign and the state affiliate to which he belongs has already censured him, so I see his national membership status as a moot point.

	"All and sundry", by the way, is just a shorter and more elegant way of saying "collectively and individually", i.e. that our resolution is not addressed solely to Assemblyman Moore, but is more broadly intended as a cautionary message to other current and future Libertarian officeholders, a reminder that our support is not unconditional, but rather contingent upon their acting to uphold freedom, not infringe on it.

	I do appreciate the point raised by Ken about waiting to hear from Assemblyman Moore directly before voting. While I am hard-pressed to think of any likely explanation that would make me see the votes in question as acceptable or undeserving of censure (perhaps if members of his family were being held hostage by statist goons?), I will join David in delaying my vote for the present in order to hear from Moore himself first if possible (I just left a phone message with his office). Since we can as Caryn pointed out change our votes after casting them until voting has concluded, this is mainly for form's sake, and I can understand those who have gone ahead and voted since I do not believe it has been a consistent practice for LNC members to delay their votes in such cases and there is no guarantee we will hear from him. Nevertheless, waiting a slight additional length of time feels to me like the proper choice.

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
                              (415) 625-FREE
                                @StarchildSF


On Oct 22, 2016, at 1:03 PM, Alicia Mattson wrote:

> Caryn Ann,
> 
> If I am not persuaded by a particular argument, I do not find it suddenly more persuasive if it is repeated at a louder volume by having 10 other people email me to repeat the exact same argument.
> 
> It is even less persuasive when the message I receive says "The Radical Caucus told me I was supposed to email you and say X.  So here ya go!"
> 
> To change my mind, I need a more persuasive argument, not louder volume.
> 
> If I disagree with an idea, to have someone twist that into an accusation that I disdain the membership...well, that's the sort of campaign rhetoric misrepresentation that makes most of the public hate politics.
> 
> Rounding up lots of people to email the LNC and repeat the same idea we've already heard is essentially asking the LNC to do exactly what that this motion would censure John Moore for doing, voting how he thinks his constituents want him to vote as opposed to what he thinks he should do.  
> 
> I don't know if the 60% figure for the opinion of John Moore's constituents is from a scientific poll or not, but on LNC issues, organized email campaigns are also not the same thing as a poll that reasonably accurately represents the collective opinion of the membership.
> 
> -Alicia
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 4:00 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
> In addition to objecting to the comment about "organized email campaigns of friends" I also object - or perhaps caution - against pulling the pin on the old grenade of "purity policing."  Objecting to a classic crony boondoggle, betraying the Nevada affiliate, and undermining consistent LP efforts in NV - from a candidate we voted to fund - is pretty specific and certainly is not in any universe some highly rarified case of Libertarian "purity."- the slippery slope is a red herring here. Further, the term itself is objectionable as it seems to simply refer to an adherence to what our Bylaws state - that the Statement of Principles is our foundational philosophy through which liberty shall be achieved.  More practically speaking for sake of facilitating productive conversation - there are many such libertarian grenades.  Once we decide that this chestnut is acceptable here, then the slippery slop of selling out and "carpet baggers" becomes fair game - and I do not wish that.  It may not happen here - but it may in discussions of membership and we are to set an example.  I am not ashamed nor worried that the Statement of Principles is our guidepost.
> 
> For those who have a less direct "from here to there" view than I have - there is no universe in which voting for these outrageous members moves public policy in a libertarian direction and in fact is a massive holding the needle in the exact awful trajectory we are on now (in additional to the fact that these were specific issues near and dear to the heart of the Nevada affiliate).
> 
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 4:24 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
> I vote yes.  
> 
> *I encourage anyone inclined to vote yes to do so* - if you change your mind after hearing from Moore- you can change your vote. Yes David, that is partially to you but also to members who have not yet voted.
> 
> As it stands right now, I support.  Being a Libertarian lawmaker should mean something.  And there may be areas that we disagree but it doesn't arise to censure.  One things people from alll points of view have agreed on: it doesn't involve sweet heart deals to crony interests that is nothing more than further robbing people to give to others.  It is coercion and a massive initiation of force against property - and of course something that is not proper role, if any, of government.
> 
> Party. Of. Principle.  That principle isn't just wearing a shiny L next to your name rather than an R or a D.  It is much, much more.  It isn't welcome to the new boss;  Same as the old boss. 
> 
> Libertarians do not say that massive government works that violate rights is okay if 60% of the people want it.  We are sounding more and more like the justifications of the aggressionist policies of business as usual.
> 
> 
> I have some real issues with a couple of things said in Alicia's post that I may address later but one requires a response now.  As for me, I categorically DO NOT get "my friends" to email on issues.  I maintain a regional mailing list take contain all comers - friendly to my positions or not- and lay issues before them and encourage them to maintain contact.  I maintain a website and several FB groups for the same purpose.  It distresses me greatly that contact from members is often referred to in a way that connotes lack of value.  It should not be that way in a voluntary membership organization that values bottom up dynamics.  So I hope it is settled - that at least for me - I categorically do not do that.  ALL region 1 members and elsewhere are encouraged to write.  And we are then to take what they say in mind and to them I always make clear - the party principles - which our Bylaws dictate as our purpose - is the ultimate guide.  If we wish to argue the value of member communications or if the ones that write are because "friends" are asked- let's start a separate discussion.
> 
> On Saturday, October 22, 2016, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:
> DD>> In the introduction to my testimony, I mentioned my positions with the LNC and the LPNE and I said that while I was there to testify as a private citizen, Libertarians are overwhelmingly against the death penalty and that I was personally aware of no Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation that support the death penalty. <<DD
> 
> Not to change the subject or start a debate on the death penalty...just addressing a factual detail that came up in the example situation.  At the national convention there was a counted vote on the adoption of our death penalty plank, and there were 364 in favor and 105 opposed.
> 
> -Alicia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 12:44 AM, David Demarest <dpdemarest at centurylink.net> wrote:
> I will delay my vote until we hear from John Moore. It may be that merely offering the motion to censure will achieve our intended purpose to express our outrage. In the meantime, however, we need to consider Ken’s salient point about taking into account an elected official’s duty to represent the views of his constituents and the articulate responses by Caryn and Alicia.
> 
>  
> 
> I must say I am bothered by the reference to the 60% of constituents favoring the position that Assemblyman Moore voted for as justification for his misguided votes. As Caryn has correctly pointed out, we have a duty to reflect the principles of our party. More importantly, we have a duty to reflect our personal principles of conscience that hopefully are reasonably consistent with our party’s principles. Even allowing for the fact that no two Libertarians are going to agree on all details of all principles, Assemblyman Moore’s votes go beyond the pale. Here is a recent example from my personal experience on the cronyism evils of basing political positions and votes on the consensus of constituents regardless of any considerations of principles and morals.
> 
>  
> 
> Last week I testified against the Nebraska referendum to reinstate the death penalty at a legally mandated District 2 hearing. The Unicameral, with the support of Libertarian Senator Laura Ebke, narrowly overrode Governor Ricketts’ veto of the bill that repealed the death penalty. Governor Ricketts then used a “substantial” contribution from his personal fortune to sponsor the ballot referendum to reinstate the death penalty that was the subject of the hearing. In the introduction to my testimony, I mentioned my positions with the LNC and the LPNE and I said that while I was there to testify as a private citizen, Libertarians are overwhelmingly against the death penalty and that I was personally aware of no Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation that support the death penalty.
> 
>  
> 
> Republican State Senator Merv Riepe, a Ralston High School classmate of mine, testified that his opinion poll showed that his constituents favored the reinstatement of the death penalty three to one with the clear inference that he intended to reflect his constituents’ views [regardless of any moral considerations]. I looked Senator Riepe squarely in the eye and responded with the following passionate testimony:
> 
>  
> 
> “… the possibility of the death penalty being used as a political football to obtain reelection votes raises a host of ethical questions. To those who might be tempted to advocate the death penalty for political purposes, you need to reexamine your conscience and your political, personal and moral priorities.”
> 
>  
> 
> The point is that reflecting the “consensus of the constituents” for obvious reelection purposes is not an acceptable or moral justification for Assemblyman Moore’s two egregious votes. Let’s see what Moore has to say but keep in mind that our duty is not only to our party’s principles but also to our personal principles.
> 
>  
> 
> ~David Pratt Demarest
> 
>  
> 
> From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Alicia Mattson
> Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2016 1:19 AM
> To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore
> 
>  
> 
> I am as upset as the rest of you about the two votes in question, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to vote yes on this motion.
> 
> Particularly on the stadium vote, Assemblyman Moore held the power of the deciding vote.  Had he voted no, it would have failed instead of passing.  We had a Libertarian in a position to make a big real-world difference, and it didn't happen.  Facepalm.
> 
> IF it's true that his motivation was to play to his constituency in hopes of getting re-elected, I wonder how he will feel about the votes in hindsight in the event that he is not re-elected.  What's the point of being there if you can't vote your conscience?  That's why on the LNC I also vote the way I think I ought to vote even if other LNC members stage organized email campaigns from their friends.  Should we be offended at a public official playing to his constituents if we do the same thing as party officials?
> 
>  
> 
> I have several issues with this motion.  I particularly appreciate Mr. Moellman's questions, and I think we probably should have had a conversation with Mr. Moore before we flung a motion into the wind.  I don't think it's sufficient to just hear how other people represent his position to us.  We should get it straight from him.
> 
> I am not thrilled about the wording in this resolution.  "...convey a strong message to all and sundry..." ?  Who talks like that?  We're discouraging others from switching to the LP until they completely agree with us?  With which of us?  Because we don't all agree, either.  I probably would have added that his vote was effectively the deciding vote.  Etc.
> 
> Censure is an action taken by a group against a member of that same group.  Mr. Moore is not a member of the LNC.  Have we even confirmed that he's a member of the national party?  As of the national convention in May, our records did not yet indicate he had signed our membership certification.  We know he switched his party registration in NV, but that doesn't make him a member of the national party.  We wouldn't censure Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton because they're not members of the LNC or even the LP.
> 
> The state affiliate that nominated him has already censured him, so what does this accomplish for the LNC to pile on?  We can't make him return the money.  Is it just to make ourselves feel better?  Is the LNC going to become the purity police that monitors every local/state/federal elected official and passes resolutions about them?  I am concerned about starting such a trend.
> 
> If we hadn't already donated the funds, I'd vote to rescind that decision.  That ship has sailed.  I wouldn't vote to donate to him again.  I'm not certain that this motion accomplishes anything productive.
> 
> -Alicia
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> We have an electronic mail ballot.
> 
> 
> Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
>  
> Co-Sponsors:  Harlos, Demarest, Hayes, Vohra, Starchild, Goldstein, Redpath
> 
> Motion: 
> 
> Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and
> 
> Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and
> 
> Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats;
> 
> Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian.
> 
> 
> -Alicia
> 
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20161022/89aa9ec9/attachment.html>


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list