[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore
Ken Moellman
ken.moellman at lpky.org
Mon Oct 31 21:37:25 EDT 2016
The Policy Manual seems to be missing from the new website, so I'm not
sure if a plurality or a majority is required on an email ballot, but
right now the vote appears to be:
8 Yes (Vohra, Redpath, Goldstein, Starchild, Hayes, Harlos,
Demerest/O'Toole, McKnight)
4 No (Katz, Marsh, /Moellman, Hewitt)
1 Abstain (Bilyeu)
3 Haven't voted (Sarwark, Mattson, Hagan)
---
Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
LPKY Judicial Committee
On 2016-10-31 21:22, David Demarest wrote:
> A couple of comments:
>
> First: Economic, social, political and ballot-box ostracism are all perfectly compatible with the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). Our motion to censure, while perhaps not a good long-term plan, is an unpleasant but necessary measure to apprise John Moore of the inappropriateness of his "will of the people" votes in violation of Libertarian principles. In the long run, ostracism is a far more powerful tool to modify behavior that the NAP-violations of physical force employed by our compulsory authoritarian majority rule to get the public to serve the needs of the political elite at the point of a gun.
>
> Second: The Libertarian foundation of personal responsibility affirms that we are all responsible for our actions. Legislators are personally responsible for their votes. Public officials are personally responsible for both their public and private actions. Private individuals that constitute the "Public" are also responsible for their personal actions. Just because our ostracism actions do not violate the NAP, that does not relieve us of the responsibility for the morality of our ostracism actions. For example, if force is not used, private racial discrimination does not violate the NAP. However, we are personally responsible for the immorality of any such personal racial discrimination actions.
>
> The bottom line is that John Moore is responsible for his votes and we as LNC members are responsible for our votes on the motion to censure John Moore. I accept my responsibility for my YES vote on the motion to censure. It is my hope that John Moore will also accept his responsibility for the egregious nature of his votes that prompted our motion to censure and will move on to represent Libertarianism in Nevada in a more thoughtful manner consistent with Libertarian principles. The motion to censure aside, my well wishes go out to John for his future success as a Libertarian.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> _THE WAR ON COMPULSORY AUTHORITARIAN MAJORITY RULE CRONYISM BEGINS NOW_
>
> _ _
>
> ~David Pratt Demarest
>
> Secretary, Nebraska Libertarian State Central Committee
>
> Region 6 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
>
> Nebraska State Coordinator, LP Radical Caucus
>
> Secretary at LPNE.org
>
> David.Demarest at LP.org
>
> DPDemarest at centurylink.net
>
> David.Demarest at firstdata.com
>
> DPrattDemarest at gmail.com
>
> http://www.LPNE.org [1]
>
> http://www.LP.org [2]
>
> Cell: 402-981-6469
>
> Home: 402-493-0873
>
> Office: 402-222-7207
>
> FROM: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] ON BEHALF OF Joshua Katz
> SENT: Monday, October 31, 2016 1:19 PM
> TO: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> SUBJECT: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore
>
> I don't find much in what Starchild writes here with which to disagree, but on this:
>
> _Joshua says that to be a public official is to have the right and obligation to make the final decision. Well, yes and no. Yes when it comes to how one votes in the legislature, of course. But the public may have something further to say about that vote, either at the ballot box or elsewhere, and we are part of the public. Contrary to what part of John's letter seems to suggest, censure, public pressure, and so on are entirely compatible with the Non-Aggression Principle._
>
> I do have a comment. Of course I don't mean that no one can say anything about the way a public official votes. By "final decision" I meant casting the vote in the legislature, or taking actions as an executive. Naturally, the public can criticize, can recall, can lobby, etc. All I meant was that the public, while doing those things, is not ultimately responsible. If constituents pressure their representative to vote for the draft, it is the representative who has taken action to send people to kill and be killed against their will. The actions of the constituents can be criticized, but doesn't bear the same weight of responsibility.
>
> Joshua A. Katz
>
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> This email is likewise not my vote. I was going to include my vote here, but discovering I have more to say here than I expected, in response to Joshua as well as on the motion and the larger context surrounding it, I'll spare the secretary trying to keep track of a vote buried in a long post, and email my vote separately.
>
> I'm with Joshua in rejecting the "libertarian binary" that someone either is a libertarian, or they aren't. Life is more complicated and nuanced than that. John Moore making a couple of bad decisions doesn't make him "the enemy". People can and do change, and censure is not the death penalty or banishment for life. Nevertheless, Joshua is also right that Moore's vote to subsidize the billionaire stadium owner to the tune of $750 million in taxpayer money has "grown government, and in one of the most offensive ways to boot," and I agree he should be criticized for it. Beyond that, I feel it is both right and appropriate that he pay a political price that outweighs any political benefit he reaped by casting the anti-freedom votes in question.
>
> Yes, the Nevada LP has censured him. And if they hadn't, I'm sure we'd be hearing in his defense that since his state affailiate didn't see fit to censure him, why should we? Obviously one answer to that question, which still applies in present circumstances, is that we gave him $10,000 and he didn't live up to our expectations for candidates toward whom we are generous with LP members' money.
>
> Joshua said we need a system that "incentivizes Libertarian officeholders in such a way that there natural, systemic reasons to vote as we'd like," and David made much the same point previously in referring to this resolution as a less than ideal instrument of "blunt force" (not _force_ in the libertarian sense obviously, but I understand what he meant). I too would love to see us come up with a better approach to incentivizing Libertarian candidates, officeholders, and other party leaders to support freedom. But unless/until we do, I think we must apply the imperfect incentives we have available to us. It is vital to our sustainability as a _libertarian_ party that those who represent us understand Libertarians will not take serious ideological betrayals sitting down, so that this enters into their political calculations and makes such betrayals politically unattractive.
>
> If the political advantage that an officeholder can gain by voting against liberty outweighs any political penalty that we impose for such votes, and we lack the resources to out-bribe the statists in getting the officeholder to vote _for_ liberty, the problem is obvious. In this case, bribing Moore to vote the right way is not even an option, because the votes have already been cast and he can't go back and change them now even if he wanted to.
>
> Notably though, his letter does _not_ express shame or regret for his votes, but on the contrary defiantly asserts that he stands by them 100%. I read his explanation for why he voted the way he did, and did not find the various rationales expressed therein convincing. Frankly I see little moral distinction between casting a vote to allow other politicians to raise taxes, and voting to raise them directly. The idea of siding with a majority of one's constituents sounds good in the abstract, and might be appropriate in some cases, such as if the legislature were simply deciding what color to paint the stadium and decided to go with the color(s) favored by the community. But what if you're in office and a majority of your constituents support reinstating the military draft, or deporting 11 million people, or even sending undesirables to the gas chamber? I certainly hope no Libertarian would vote for any of those things, but once you place the opinions of constituents above doing the
right thing, there's no theoretical limit on how far one could go in acting contrary to libertarian principles. Moore's admonition to people who find his stadium vote reprehensible to never go see a game there, never patronize any business that may be built in the area as the result of the stadium being built, etc., is a weak argument. Getting some restitution for the money that's been stolen from you by getting some use out of the facilities built with the stolen money is in no way comparable to actually stealing the money.
>
> Joshua says that to be a public official is to have the right and obligation to make the final decision. Well, yes and no. Yes when it comes to how one votes in the legislature, of course. But the public may have something further to say about that vote, either at the ballot box or elsewhere, and we are part of the public. Contrary to what part of John's letter seems to suggest, censure, public pressure, and so on are entirely compatible with the Non-Aggression Principle.
>
> Ultimately, I think it's possible to get to the heart of the issue and reach the right conclusion with a couple simple questions:
>
> * Would you hesitate to forcefully condemn a vote like this if it had been made by a Republican or Democrat?
>
> * Do you think we should hold Libertarian candidates and officeholders to a higher standard than duopoly candidates, or a lower standard?
>
> I firmly believe we must hold our candidates (including ourselves when we run for office) to a higher standard. If we do not, then there is no reason for the public to see us as any different from the cartel parties.
>
> Love & Liberty,
>
> ((( starchild )))
>
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>
> (415) 625-FREE
>
> @StarchildSF
>
> On Oct 31, 2016, at 8:36 AM, Joshua Katz wrote:
>
> 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 [3]
>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus [4]
>
> 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 [3]
>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus [4]
>
> 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 [3]
>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus [4]
>
> 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 [3]
>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus [4]
>
> 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 [5]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [5]
--
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 [3]
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus [4]
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [5]
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [5]
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [5]
--
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 [3]
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus [4]
--
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 [3]
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus [4]
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [5]
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [5]
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [5]
--
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 [3]
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus [4]
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [5]
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [5]
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [5]
Links:
------
[1] http://www.lpne.org/
[2] http://www.lp.org/
[3] http://www.lpcolorado.org/
[4] http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/
[5] 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/fe07b338/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list