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

Joshua Katz planning4liberty at gmail.com
Mon Oct 31 11:36:45 EDT 2016 

I have, also, been thinking about this.  This email is not my vote; it is a
collection of thoughts on topics raised by this question.

The Big Picture

The purpose of the LP is not, in my opinion, "to pursue freedom" or some
variation.  That's too broad, and it's the purpose of the entire freedom
movement.  Neither, though, is the purpose of the LP to elect candidates to
office; that omits the fact that we do so for a reason.  I believe our
purpose is to change public policy in a libertarian direction, and to do so
specifically by electing candidates to office (or otherwise getting them
there).

This is why it is particularly upsetting to us when Libertarians get into
office (or, in this case, come into existence while in office) but then do
not move public policy in that direction.  It is an insult to our very
reason for being.

Mr. Moore should, in my view, be criticized for that.  I reject the
"libertarian binary" and do not ask if he is a real libertarian - I ask
what he's done.  In this instance, he's grown government, and in one of the
most offensive ways to boot.  That doesn't mean that he's now "the enemy" -
life is not actually like a movie where everyone must be a hero or a
villain.  The primary motivator of my libertarianism is the perception that
our system is far too punitive and never gives (some) people another chance
after a mistake.  Let's not be like that.  Mr. Moore is not Anakin crossing
over to Sheldon Adelson's Empire.  He's a legislator who made a vote which
we find outrageous, wrong, and harmful.  If he had vote the other way,
others would have found his vote outrageous, wrong, and harmful.  To be a
public official is to bear responsibility for your actions in a way that
your supporters do not, which grants the right and obligation to make the
final decision.  He made his decision.  We disagree.

We must remember, at the same time, that people are not automatons, and
libertarian policy answers in a libertarian world are not always clear.  In
this case, I agree - it was clear.  It will not always be, and we should be
prepared for that.  A successful party will be unable to keep track of the
multitudes of votes cast by its legislators.  A party simply cannot afford
to be cast into such a state of panic as this over a single vote by one
member of a state legislature.

While the LP itself does not do so, I note that many libertarian
organizations regularly criticize legislators for party line voting, when
it suits them.  When the people of a legislator's district desire something
more libertarian than their party, the legislator will regularly be called
out and criticized for not representing his district.  We tend to attach
meaning to the fact that a large majority desires an end to our endless
wars, opposed the bailouts, and so on.

My bottom line:  we need a system that generates, promotes, and
incentivizes Libertarian officeholders, in such a way that there are
natural, systemic reasons to vote as we'd like.  We need enough faith in
Libertarian officeholders that we can disagree with votes in good faith,
which means we need libertarian-enough officeholders for that to work.

Mr. Moore's Privacy

Within the LP, the same logic applies to us.  We bear responsibility for
our actions.  We chose to give him $10,000, he didn't force us to do so.
Our members, as I've said elsewhere, have the right to such information as
they need to judge our performance, so that they can toss us out as
desired.  Mr. Moore is not a leader of this party, is not an LNC member,
and his letter regarding his reasons for voting does not fall into that
category.  He did not lose his right to communicate privately with those
who choose to communicate with him when he donated money to him.  People
have every right to send communications which they label confidential;
recipients have the right to accept those terms or to not read the
communication.  I see nothing wrong with Mr. Moore's request for
confidentiality; if LNC members do not wish to have their votes influenced
by a confidential message, they have every right not to read it.

Party Governance

Ever since this vote, the LNC communications list has increased in volume.
I am not critical of that, but I do wonder why the vote cast by a Nevada
legislator is so much more capable of bringing us to life than governing
our own party.  Our membership has grown as a result of disgust with our
opponents and enthusiasm over our Presidential ticket:  what is our plan to
retain those members?  What is our plan to bring them into the fray, so to
speak, and turn our new roof into strong walls?

Donations are up, and we've done the accounting for the money we needed to
do as a housekeeping measure.  If we cover the money we should have spent
last year on the mortgage but do not spend down more, we'll have a lot of
extra cash on hand compared to where we expected to be.  As a reminder, one
of the arguments for buying an office rather than renting was improved cash
flow in election years.  So what new programs will we be performing with
the money?  What new services will we be offering, to add value beyond
moving money from state to state?  We can decide that there's nothing we
need to do to strengthen this party that would profit from an improved cash
flow position, and just take all the unexpected cash on hand to pay down
the mortgage; maybe that's the right decision.

Not all categories of donations are up, though.  Recurring gifts are lower
than budgeted.  Do we have a plan for increasing recurring gifts, or for
dealing with the likely results of our current position being more of a
one-time windfall than a sustainable increase?

This all brings me to a recurring point:  boards have important functions.
They provide leadership at the highest strategic levels.  They provide
accountability and oversight.  When the board is more interested in the
more exciting ideological goings-on than in minding the shop, the shop
doesn't get minded.

Let's spend some of this energy on being more accountable with our funds,
improving our governance structures, and developing a long-term strategic
vision that will give us more state legislators than we can possibly keep
track of - along with institutional incentives and other structures that
will increase the chances of those legislators, without our individual
intervention, voting to move public policy in a libertarian direction.

How Should Representatives Vote?

It is my view that representatives, both on the LNC and in public office,
are chosen for their broadly-defined positions, their judgment, and their
vision.  They are not meant to simply be echos for the majority of their
constituents, however defined.  A good representative will sometimes go
against a large majority of their constituents - the constituents retain,
of course, the ultimate power of recall.

It's been mentioned on this list that Mr. Moore's constituents, at a ratio
of about 60-40, favored the stadium.  To me, this is not particularly
helpful; legislators are supposed to vote based on their own judgment in
the ultimate best interest of their constituents.  In Mr. Moore's case,
though, a problem arises.  His voters didn't get what they expected.  If
the voters of a district elect a Libertarian, they know, or ought to know,
what they're getting into.  Even if they favor a particular government
program, they should not be surprised to see their representative vote
otherwise.  When the voters elect a Republican, though, is it fair to say
they should have expected a representative who opposes crony capitalism?

This points to the need for more home-grown elected officials.  That is not
to say we should reject or turn away those who, after being elected because
they wish to serve, realize that the greatest way to serve the public and
improve the world is to be a Libertarian.  It is to say we need more of our
own, and we need to take actions to get there.

We also cannot expect 100% party-line votes.  Politics is a game of
possibilities.  Even home-grown elected Libertarians will face many
incentives on each vote, and philosophy is only one.  Responsible
governance is another - sometimes, the ideal will have to be sacrificed for
the real.  Most of the time, there simply won't be a libertarian option -
most questions that cross a public official's desk are perpendicular to the
freedom question.  The big, exciting, dramatic votes, though, do tend to
have a larger freedom component than the more routine.

Modern-day liberals seem to picture that government officials have a dial
behind their desks.  Turn it one way and inequality increases, turn it the
other and inequality decreases, and nothing else changes.  They cannot
imagine, then, why some officials simply refuse to turn it in the equality
direction.

Modern-day conservatives, on the other hand, picture a dial that determines
the level of virtue in society.  This virtue takes a few forms:  the
martial virtues, honor and respect, family values, but they tend to think
they can all be increased uniformly (as though "family values" would not be
impacted by sending our young people to war, for instance).  Similarly,
they find it astounding that anyone would turn the dial away from virtue.

Libertarians need not pretend there's a dial controlling the level of
freedom - we know, better than the average liberal or conservative, about
the inescapable fact of trade-offs.  We know that all else does not hold
equal.  I've defined my libertarianism as a presumption in favor of
freedom, against regulation, in favor of the individual.

It is our job to encourage the selection, growth, and election of
Libertarians who can navigate those trade-offs effectively, steering the
ship of state in a freedom direction without flipping the boat, keeping an
eye out for icebergs.  We need to do so because asking them to govern will
mean trusting their judgment.  I've heard the term "no brakes" used to
describe the way I see Libertarian government, and while it was not meant
as a compliment, I fully agree.  There are no brakes; judgment is required
at every step of the way, and when judgment is required, people will
disagree.

The Reception of Mr. Moore

Mr. Moore, when he refected, (I believe everyone's first duty is to
liberty, and so joining our party is not defecting, it is returning to
one's roots), was our only state legislator.  I believe our party, so used
to lacking, reacted a bit in the vein of "me?  You want to dance with me?"
 Mr. Moore was plastered on newspapers and media announcements as "hey,
look, we have one now!"  This was not fair to us, and not fair to him.

Nor was this unhealthy, weird relationship unique.  Over the years, as
we've grown, as we've shown we're not going away, and as our competitors
have given up the facade of caring about our values, a steady parade of
high-profile politicians have marched into, and out of, this party.  You
don't need me to recite the names.  Too often, this party is looking for a
magic bullet, a shortcut to respectability, a champion, only to completely
and utterly reject the person we've placed into that role when they,
inevitably, disappoint us.  (I can think of two exceptions, in the sense of
people who were never really welcomed in the first place, simply
immediately treated with "well, you'll never be our champion.")

This is not a rant against refections.  We should welcome those who see the
value of affiliating with us with open arms, but not look to them as ways
around the work of building our party.  We should ask them to join with us
in building the party, understanding that both partners will, at times,
fall short of what was expected.  I am against "get free quick schemes."
 There is no magic bullet, and time spent pursuing one is time spent not
building this party in realistic ways.  Refectors are not magic bullets.
It is true that history shows that high-profile joiners is a major way for
parties to grow, but they need to be incorporated into the fabric of a
strong party.

It is clear why it is not fair to us to treat refectors in this way, but
Mr. Hayes points out ways in which it is also unfair to the refector.  When
it emerges, for whatever reason, that the person will not be our champion,
that we would need to partner with them, support tends to falter.
Moreover, a welcome ought to include some instruction as well as
promotion.  Does a new member, elected to office under other title, know
how best to run for office as a Libertarian?  Do they know how to operate
in office as a Libertarian?  Doing these things is harder than doing so as
a Republican or Democrat.  There is no natural cushion of support within
the legislature, no instant reward for toeing the party line, less of a
natural basis for cooperation, and no existent structure to nurture and
instruct newcomers, slowly moving them into committee positions and so on.
The party apparatus may need to take on these unfamiliar roles to replace
what is usually served by a caucus, until the party's presence grows.  We
need to build nationwide networks of support - a new Libertarian legislator
in state X can get the advice from a political strategist in state Y, a
scholar of legislative action in state Z, and a Libertarian officeholder in
state A that they'd ordinarily receive from their party's legislative
leadership within their body.  Instead, I think there's a tendency to think
refectors come in as a finished product, and then to be shocked when that
is not the case.

The $10,000 Donation

I think I, and others, have said a lot on this topic already, so I'll try
not to add too much.  I regret this vote.  I also think mistakes will
happen.  We all noted that we hadn't been ordinarily doing this sort of
thing.  My own thought was that, while a committee would be preferable for
many reasons, it made sense to try out a few on our own, as we did.  That
experience can solidify the criteria to be used, the strategic value, and
so on.

I absolutely believe that the board needs to be fiscally responsible and
accountable.  I do not believe in wasting money.  That said, I do not
believe in 0-risk budgeting either.  If we adopt a rule that we should
never make mistakes, we will have no growth.  We should not, of course, be
gambling with the member's money, and we should take responsibility when
things do not work out, but we cannot allow ourselves to pursue only the
safest, most secure options.

I used to work for a private school whose Headmaster told the faculty we
needed serious change.  I told him that, if he really believed massive
change was needed, he had to approach it unafraid - he had to be willing to
embrace the sort of change that that would either make the school a massive
success or shut it down within 2 years.  I don't think that strategy makes
sense for the LP, but neither does a strategy of 0 risk.  We cannot be
overly harsh when things do not work out, but we must learn from them.  We
don't want to create incentives to just keep doing what we've been doing
instead of trying new things.

It is true that we likely should have asked more about this donation - but
we chose to give it, let's keep that clear.  I personally don't think a
contract is the way to go, and, as others have pointed out, it comes close
to using money to influence government action.  I think our best bet is to
have a lot of Libertarian in office who have voting records - i.e. who have
held prior offices with less far-reaching impacts and have a demonstrated
record, over time, of moving public policy in a Libertarian direction.  But
this, I expect, will be a topic for discussion in December.

Joshua A. Katz


On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org> wrote:

>
> If there was discussion prior to the motion being made, then I was not
> privy to that nor can I speak to it.
>
> I do know that a bunch of votes were cast before we ever heard from
> Assemblyman Moore.  That is not in dispute.  I'm actually pretty
> amazed that Assemblyman Moore sent information to a jury that seems ready
> to convict regardless of his input.
>
>
> ---
>
> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
> LPKY Judicial Committee
>
>
>
> On 2016-10-31 09:05, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>
> And Ken, if you think what happens on the list is the extent of the
> information-gathering of people, you are sadly mistaken.  You presume a
> great deal.
>
> --
> *In Liberty,*
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
> Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
> Harlos at LP.org
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
>
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 6:57 AM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Daniel,
>>
>> A search of my email shows the discussion began on 10/20 at 8:45PM
>> Eastern Time, with the request for co-sponsors. The number of required
>> cosponsored was reached on 10/21 at 4:01AM Eastern Time. The email ballot
>> was created on 10/22 at 1:20AM Eastern Time.
>>
>> Screenshots attached.
>>
>> Ken
>> ---
>>
>> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
>> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
>> LPKY Judicial Committee
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2016-10-31 06:34, Daniel Hayes wrote:
>>
>> Ken,
>> Your analysis is exceptionally flawed and seems to be reflecting some
>> emotional response on your part to the responses of others that you don't
>> think line up with your perceived method and timeline for reaching this
>> conclusion.  Your timeline entirely ignores the time and discussions
>> surrounding the co sponsoring of the motion.
>>
>>
>>
>> Daniel Hayes
>> LNC At Large Member
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Oct 31, 2016, at 4:28 AM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org> wrote:
>>
>> From my perspective, the timeline of events clearly shows emotion, not
>> information or analysis, as the driver for many votes.
>>
>> Motion made 10/21
>> Ballot created 10/22
>> Multiple votes cast 10/22
>> Important information provided 10/30
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
>> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
>> LPKY Judicial Committee
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2016-10-30 23:57, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>>
>> I have put out my rationale as well and object to your attempted
>> dismissal of my reasoning as emotional.  It is not and that is a simplistic
>> way to dismiss principled objection.
>>
>> Yes horrified.  And I expect members will be too.  And at your attempt to
>> dismiss me with the trite "emotional" canard.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *In Liberty,*
>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
>> Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>> Harlos at LP.org
>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, October 30, 2016, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Horrified?  I'm horrified at the knee-jerk reaction on emotion,
>>> without consideration of the facts or the long-term consequences, by those
>>> charged with the management of a national political party.
>>>
>>> This entire vote has been predicated on emotional reaction. Multiple
>>> members of this committee voted before all the facts were in.  Members
>>> were, in fact, encouraged to do so.  The members "can always change their
>>> vote".  Sure. Of course, the psychology of that sort of switch is well
>>> known as it would have to be the admission of a mistake. It's the same
>>> reason incumbents are re-elected even though they suck. It's hard for the
>>> human mind to admit it was wrong.
>>>
>>> A healthy organization is run by rational leaders who act based on
>>> information and analysis.  At a minimum, a better series of events
>>> might have been to first gather all of the facts as to what happened,
>>> including speaking to the candidate, prior to a motion for an email ballot
>>> with a set 10-day timer.
>>>
>>> I know my decision won't be popular internally within the party. After a
>>> decade in state party leadership, I know that you sometimes have to do what
>>> is immediately unpopular for the long-term good of the party and hope that
>>> the members (eventually) recognize the wisdom of the action over the
>>> long-term.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I've laid out my rationale for my vote, and I'm personally set
>>> in my decision. I spent a week on it, as I outlined in my email. I'm not
>>> going to change my mind, and I doubt you'll change yours.  I only hope that
>>> every member considers the long-term over the immediate.
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
>>> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
>>> LPKY Judicial Committee
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2016-10-30 21:18, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>>>
>>> Sticking to our principles (and heck, not voting for a crony capitalist
>>> theft-funded handout to corporate interests is as basic as it gets) can
>>> ALWAYS seem that way.  It seems like we should just jettison the Statement
>>> of Principles now.  It isn't selling presently in Peoria.  And THAT is how
>>> the Libertarian Party becomes utterly irrelevant to anything that leads to
>>> true liberty.
>>>
>>> So basically where you are at is that we water down even basic stances
>>> because anything else will be suicide.
>>>
>>> That may be where you are at. That is not where I am at. That is not
>>> what the Bylaws for our organization stating we exist to implement and give
>>> voice to the Statement of Principles is at.
>>>
>>> Voting no on stadium subsidies is so basic that if we can't be firm on
>>> that, we stand for nothing.  I am absolutely horrified at the implications
>>> of what you saying.
>>>
>>> --
>>> *In Liberty,*
>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>>> Harlos at LP.org
>>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
>>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If we were all so worried about this stadium, then why the hell we're
>>>> we out doing something about it?  What did this body do?  What did its
>>>> members do?  Jack squat.  Instead, we said "oh, we'll let our elected guy
>>>> go jump on that grenade" and then we got mad when he didn't.  Wow.  How
>>>> courageous and principled of us.
>>>>
>>>> If we demand that elected Libertarians commit political harikiri, then
>>>> we'll never get new Ls elected, and we'll never get incumbents to flip.
>>>>
>>>> If we're never going to get people elected, then this is all a huge
>>>> waste of time.  Education is better done through 501(c) organizations. At
>>>> least then I can get a tax break for my donation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's pretty much where I'm at on it.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
>>>> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
>>>> LPKY Judicial Committee
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2016-10-30 20:17, Daniel Hayes wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We are doomed because Libertarians seem to think we are a true
>>>> democracy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Daniel Hayes
>>>> LNC At Large Member
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 30, 2016, at 7:01 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If we, as an organization, are to demand 100% compliance of our
>>>> L-branded elected officials, even if it goes against the will of their
>>>> constituency, then we are a doomed organization.
>>>>
>>>> If I misunderstood your statement in response to the audacious caucus,
>>>> then I apologize.
>>>>
>>>> Everything else is not relevant to the topic at hand.
>>>>
>>>> Ken
>>>>
>>>> On 10/30/2016 03:27 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ken,
>>>>
>>>> I characterized your response to the original motion as being silly
>>>> because that is how you treated it.  If you didn't wish to be seen that
>>>> way, perhaps you should have not engaged in such rhetorical flourishes as
>>>> asking about "spankings."
>>>>
>>>> You further mischaracterized a statement of mine.  I did not defend the
>>>> LNC decision by saying there was "discussion and analysis" - I countered
>>>> the members' suggestion that there was not an "iota" of consideration by
>>>> stating there was certainly that.  The consideration may have been dead
>>>> wrong, but it was there.  Please do not miscast my statements.
>>>>
>>>> And should an elected Libertarian go against the "will" of his
>>>> constituents?  Yes.  When it is committing state aggression and expanding
>>>> government in the most egregious of ways as stealing from people to fund a
>>>> private interest? *Absolutely and utterly and a million times yes.*
>>>> With all due respect, I find your support for your vote - and you are most
>>>> certainly entitled to it - the basest of justifications that is the death
>>>> of libertarian principle if consistently applied.  I am glad to stand
>>>> against.
>>>>
>>>> The comparison to Oregon is ill placed.  Some members of Oregon asked
>>>> us to interfere with the internal governance of the affiliate. This is
>>>> absolutely apples and oranges as this motion has to do with the fact that
>>>> WE gave money.  This has been made clear many times. And as to your
>>>> ultimate question, if we improperly vetted or were negligent in any way,
>>>> yes the LNC should be censured by members.  The assertion of the "No True
>>>> Scotsman" fallacy is what is truly scary - as if there are not any
>>>> definitional characteristics of Libertarianism.  Wow.  That is a fallacious
>>>> use of that fallacy, since it never was intended to be used with truly
>>>> definitional characteristics but on making extraneous characteristics
>>>> definitional.  A Scotsman IS someone born in Scotland.  According to your
>>>> use, that is a fallacious and that turns the fallacy on its head.  Unless
>>>> funding stadium has now become Libertarian. Who knew?
>>>>
>>>> As far as who the Audacious Caucus is, it is a group of members.  That
>>>> is all we should care about.  I am not part of them (they not my biggest
>>>> fans, trust me), but they are members who's voice deserves to be heard.
>>>> --
>>>> *In Liberty,*
>>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>>>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>>>> Harlos at LP.org
>>>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>>>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
>>>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>>>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Fellow colleagues,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a long message prefacing my vote. If you are only interested in
>>>>> my vote, you may wish to skip to the bottom of my message.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's recently been said that I find the censure issue "silly". That's
>>>>> an incorrect characterization of my thoughts on this matter. To come to a
>>>>> decision on this, I've taken multiple steps.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have thought long and hard about this issue. I've observed the
>>>>> sentiments of you, my colleagues on the LNC. I have spoken with some
>>>>> others, as well, both inside and outside the party, to gauge my feelings
>>>>> against the real world. And I have read the letter from Assemblyman Moore,
>>>>> sent to members of the LNC in confidence. All along, I've taken notes and
>>>>> reviewed those notes repeatedly.
>>>>>
>>>>> With the vote deadline impending, and wanting to give the primary
>>>>> Region 3 Representative appropriate time to counter my vote, if he desires
>>>>> to do so, I give you my thoughts and vote today.
>>>>>
>>>>> Assemblyman Moore's letter clarified what the "Cops Tax" actually was,
>>>>> and I believe some people have a mistaken impression on what it is. Based
>>>>> on Assemblyman Moore's explanation of this tax, one could even consider
>>>>> this vote in-line with libertarianism, if you believe that the local
>>>>> entities should have control of their own local area.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do still personally object to the vote on the "Stadium Tax", though
>>>>> the context provided by Assemblyman Moore does help make the situation a
>>>>> bit more clear.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also realize that Assemblyman Moore was under a lot of pressure.
>>>>> LPNV was clearly against the measure, and Moore had previously
>>>>> voted against taxes in the immediate-past session. However, the stadium is
>>>>> to be built in his very own district. It will likely cause property values
>>>>> to increase in his district. Polling run by Assemblyman Moore himself
>>>>> suggests that over 60% of the people of his district wanted it. I'm also
>>>>> told, through sources, that failure to vote for the stadium would have no
>>>>> effect on the outcome - that others were prepared to flip their vote, in
>>>>> exchange for this or that. Failing to vote for the measure would have made
>>>>> him a political target within his own district, however, as 60% of the
>>>>> people in his district apparently approve of the project.  (Side note: I
>>>>> knew about the "over 60% support in his district" without Assemblyman
>>>>> Moore's confidential email.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Even then, one can claim that Assemblyman Moore should have said "no"
>>>>> anyway. He should have committed political harikiri, for the principle of
>>>>> it. I probably would have, personally, since the Kelo decision was what
>>>>> drove me back into politics in 2005.
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally, I blame us for the failure to change the public's mind on
>>>>> these types of issues. We failed. We didn't give our candidate the way to
>>>>> say "no" without taking a massive political hit only 2 weeks before the
>>>>> election. We failed our candidate. We failed our members.
>>>>>
>>>>> Should we take our failings public in a very visible way?  Are we
>>>>> telling the world, "Hey world, look here at this!"?  What are the optics
>>>>> here?
>>>>>
>>>>>    - Should we censure the candidate? Should we blast the candidate
>>>>>    for not falling on his sword? Do we expect this action to be beneficial
>>>>>    toward a long-term strategy to getting other elected officials to flip to
>>>>>    the LP?
>>>>>    - Should we send a public message that, if elected, the
>>>>>    Libertarian Party expects Libertarians to ignore the will of those we're
>>>>>    supposed to be representing?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In replying to the "censure" from the Audacious Caucus (again, who are
>>>>> these people?), there was a defense of the LNC given as "there was
>>>>> discussion and analysis" on the part of the LNC. Is that really a good
>>>>> defense? You don't think that John Moore had engaged in "discussion and
>>>>> analysis" prior to casting his vote? Of course he did. I've met him, and he
>>>>> wasn't drinking from a juice box and didn't drool on himself. He's a
>>>>> rational and functional human being.
>>>>>
>>>>> We all do math, weighing pros and cons, before making a decision.
>>>>>
>>>>>    - In the LNC's case, the actions we took when we sent financial
>>>>>    support to Assemblyman Moore, based on our math, expressed solidarity with
>>>>>    those existing politicians who come to the LP. That was my math, anyway.
>>>>>    - In Moore's case, his math showed a benefit to voting for these
>>>>>    bills.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We obviously didn't like Assembyman Moore's math. So now, the members
>>>>> of this body are doing math again. But does that math result in the passage
>>>>> of this motion to censure before us, and would its passage be in the best
>>>>> interests of this party, long term? Or is this motion simply an acting out
>>>>> based on anger or revenge? Is to save face, and if so, internally or
>>>>> externally? Is this body acting to protect itself from the criticism of its
>>>>> own members, or to accomplish something positive?
>>>>>
>>>>> Moore's vote can't be changed now. So, what is the good that will be
>>>>> accomplished by the passage of this motion? Does it outweigh the harm?
>>>>>
>>>>> Additionally, I have a very serious fear that the passage of this
>>>>> motion would open Pandora's Box. If we censure Moore today, then why not
>>>>> others? Why not Weld, who as arguably our #2 spokesperson has endorsed at
>>>>> least 2 Rs over Ls in the same race? Why not Perry, who is acting in
>>>>> defiance of the will of the very body we are supposed to represent
>>>>> while holding an active leadership role within the party? Why not the LNC,
>>>>> for improperly vetting prior to donating, as the Audacious caucus (whoever
>>>>> they are) pointed out? And so on, and so on, and so on. Are we not opening
>>>>> ourselves up to more of the "No True Scotsman" garbage that already infects
>>>>> and cripples this party?
>>>>>
>>>>> So, no, I don't find this issue of censure "silly" at all. I find it
>>>>> downright scary.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I find frustrating is our organization's apparent need to
>>>>> publicly focus on what is both wrong and unchangeable within our
>>>>> organization, rather than focusing on what is right. We should be focused
>>>>> on doing more of what's right. What the heck does this motion even
>>>>> accomplish?
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, it is my understanding that LPNV hasn't even made an official
>>>>> request to have the LNC intervene; that some members of the party have made
>>>>> this request.  Once upon a time, some members of the party Oregon asked the
>>>>> LNC to intervene in Oregon. That didn't turn out so well.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, in sum, I find as follows:
>>>>>
>>>>>    - I disagree with Assemblyman Moore's vote.
>>>>>    - I believe we need to do everything we can to politically support
>>>>>    our candidates' ability to make philosophically good votes.
>>>>>    - I believe that the optics of a public censure are good
>>>>>    internally within the party, but are horrible outside the party.
>>>>>    - I believe this motion is more about making ourselves feel good
>>>>>    rather than accomplishing something positive.
>>>>>    - I believe we should we note what's happened, and take corrective
>>>>>    action to try to prevent this from happening in the future.
>>>>>    - I believe the current level of action taken by LPNV does not
>>>>>    warrant LNC action, nor has LPNV asked for our involvement.
>>>>>    - Most importantly, I believe the motion for censure is dangerous
>>>>>    to the long-term health of this organization.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> * Therefore, in my role as Region 3 Alternate, I vote Nay. *If you
>>>>> disagree with my vote, and skipped to the bottom, I encourage you to go
>>>>> back to the beginning.
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
>>>>> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
>>>>> LPKY Judicial Committee
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2016-10-22 01:20, Alicia Mattson 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *In Liberty,*
>>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>>>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>>>> Harlos at LP.org
>>>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>>>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
>>>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>>>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *In Liberty,*
>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>>> Harlos at LP.org
>>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
>>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> *In Liberty,*
>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *In Liberty,*
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
> Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161031/59fedec1/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Lnc-business mailing list