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

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

The policy manual is under minutes

On Monday, October 31, 2016, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org> wrote:

> 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 <http://www.lpne.org/>
>
> http://www.LP.org <http://www.lp.org/>
>
> 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
> <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
>
> 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/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/
> <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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20161031/61b1442f/attachment-0002.html>