From the LNC Business Discussion List here.
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.
Andy again avoids any negative talk against an LP traitor. Yes, Andy, you are more libertarian than I am. Thankfully I escaped the cult before it controlled my every utterance and I regurgitated Harry Browne talking points every time I am questioned.
Ever since I have been posting on here I have made it clear that there are several policies where my position and the LP position overlap. On the Nolan test, I land on the line between libertarian and liberal. I know that’s not good enough for such a perfect libertarian such as yourself. But if that allows me to live in reality rather than your fantasy, I am thankful.
As regards the extent of federal power, the “general welfare” clause was amended out of broad application by the Tenth Amendment.
But even were that not the case, it’s the Libertarian Party, not the Constitutionalist Party.
I’m a big tent, grow the party guy. However, I can’t imagine any circumstance in which anyone who is even slightly libertarian could vote for welfare for billionaires to build sports stadiums. There’s no libertarian, liberal, or conservative rationale for such a thing. That’s a no go there, without even getting into the fund more cops thing.
Tony, I have been hanging around libertarian circles for over 20 years now, and i know that there are a lot more people in those circles that are closer to me than there are to you. I can’t think of anyone in libertarian circles who is quite like you, except for maybe Bill Weld, who I do not even consider to be a libertarian.
No, I take the words in the Constitution as they are actually written. Isn’t that what Libertarians do? I don’t twist any words. Article 1 – Section 8 is pretty clear. Congress can collect taxes and provide for the General Welfare. It’s English, right?
Really the Libertarian Party is not for you. They don’t need conspiracy theorist spouting anger and whining about everything they do. That was great in 1988, but it’s passed you by. You are now outside the NORM of the LP. You are a tiny part of constant complainers. Never happy with anything your own party does. So I ask you – why are YOU here? You aren’t voting for your own party’s candidate. So, why are You here?
Go take Darryl Perry, the traitor to the LP and create your anarchist party. I will keep re-reading the Constitution.
I look forward to your response tomorrow . . . .
So nevermind what the people who were around back in those days, and who actually wrote the Constitition, said, Tony From Long Island can twist the words to mean whatever he wants them to mean, and the rest of us should go along with whatever Tony says.
Tony, you do not even sound like a minarchist to me. I have been hanging around in libertarian circles for over 20 years now, and your behavior is quite strange, as in really outside the norm for people who hang around in libertarian circles, which begs the question of why are you here? I could see if you were interested in some other minor party or independent candidate, but the Libertarian Party is clearly not for you.
You can quote our great founders all you want, but the words are what they are. Madison’s words might hold a bit more weight than Jefferson since Tommy J was in France when the Constitution was written and being debated.
I am perfectly fine on whether certain expenditures are necessary or too excessive. In fact, we might agree on many. But the fact remains that the words “general welfare” are purposely vague in the actual Constitution and that the Constitution gives the government power to TAX citizens.
“With respect to the words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
James Madison
“Our tenet ever was . . . that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action.”
Thomas Jefferson
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
Thomas Jefferson
“To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, ‘to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.’ For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union.”
Thomas Jefferson
““On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
Thomas Jefferson
“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one.”
James Madison
“If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may establish teachers in every State, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public Treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post roads. In short, every thing, from the highest object of State legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.”
James Madison
Jorge Danza: I don’t think it’s “safe to assume,” but hey, don’t ya feel great having all the answers?
Article 1 – Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States . . . ”
So, let’s see the part of the Constitution that YOU cite allows congress to “collect taxes” (oh no!) and “provide . . for the general welfare . . .”
Article 1 – Section 8 continues: ” . . . To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers . . . ”
So congress can make laws that promote the general welfare. You can argue (sometimes with merit) that certain laws do not promote the general welfare, but not that the laws are forbidden by the constitution.
Sorry, my last post should have read:
Since promoting the “general welfare” is one of the reasons the Constitution was ‘ordained’ and ‘established,’ it’s safe to assume that the actual provisions of the Constitution (including limiting the role of the federal government to the powers enumerated in Article I, Section 8) are what the Framers thought did promote the general welfare.
Tony from LI: “Remember that phrase “general welfare” in the Constitution? Deliberately and enjoyably vague.”
Not vague at all, as I read it: Since promoting the “general welfare” is one of the reasons the Constitution was ‘ordained’ and ‘established,’ it’s safe to assume that the actual provisions of the Constitution (including limiting the role of the federal government to the powers enumerated in Article I, Section 8) do promote the general welfare.
George Phillies – “Alas, there is now a report that the AP report is simply wrong.”
As Wikipedia says, “verifiability, not truth”. Since Libertarian Republic reported the story today, citing a tweet from the Simmons campaign, I’ll be running with it tomorrow.
HA to me! While trying to mess with Andy (one of my favorite pasttimes) I read too fast. I praise you on your perfect grammar Andy.
My work day is over now! Don’t sleep with the tin foil hat. it’s fragile.
Also, what does “shit should not be doing” mean? Where was your famous “Should read . . . ” post?
There ya go!. .. back to your fantasy land. Remember that phrase “general welfare” in the Constitution? Deliberately and enjoyably vague.
“My favorite saying: “Shit government should not be doing because it is not authorized by the Constitution costs money.”
There, fixed that for ya, at no charge (to borrow a phrase from Tom Knapp).
Andy: ” . . . . I don’t have the figures on me at the moment, but eliminating them income tax would take government back to what it was in terms of amount of “revenue” to sometime in the 1990’s or early 2000’s. Does anybody here really believe that government was too small back then? . . . ”
I used to read Harry Browne too. For a short time I actually believed it. You have your talking point down almost exactly. It’s just laughable. I think that one was in his A-Z book of short – to the point- statements. You get a bonus point for quoting him, but lose points for actually believing it.
My favorite saying: “Shit costs money.” Maybe you can eliminate some of the shit or find some wasteful shit to tighten up but . . .
“You can’t use that as a starting point for a “compromise” because your starting point is unrealistic – yes – it is.”
Exactly. The Purist set doesn’t get their absolutist starting point is what rules out the possibility of compromise.
I can sit in BMW dealership as long as I want, offering a bid of $1 on a $75,000 BMW M4, thinking this tactic will get me the car at half price, but I can assure everyone I’ll be no closer to the car 50 years later when self-driving cars are only in museums.
Of course, the dealership will have long since concluded that I wasn’t serious about what I wanted anyway.
“Tony From Long Island
October 25, 2016 at 11:09
While it is actually shocking (but strange) to see Andy actually agree that Compromise can happen, he still lives in a world where he thinks that the income tax will be replaced with nothing. ”
The income tax could easily be replaced by nothing. The government already collects lots of “revenue” off of other taxes, fines, fees, and investments. There is also massive amounts of waste in government, and this is something that is even admitted by some people in government. I don’t have the figures on me at the moment, but eliminating them income tax would take government back to what it was in terms of amount of “revenue” to sometime in the 1990’s or early 2000’s. Does anybody here really believe that government was too small back then?
Also, as the late Harry Browne used to point out, if the government followed the Constitution there’d be no need for an income tax.
So ending the income tax and replacing it with nothing (an idea which Ron Paul promoted during each of his presidential runs), is not as “radical” of an idea as some people make it out to be.
While it is actually shocking (but strange) to see Andy actually agree that Compromise can happen, he still lives in a world where he thinks that the income tax will be replaced with nothing. You can’t use that as a starting point for a “compromise” because your starting point is unrealistic – yes – it is.
A compromise is where you agree to support something that you normally wouldn’t while the other side agrees to support something of yours that they normally wouldn’t. Both options are pragmatic positions that could actually pass – otherwise you are just blowing smoke up each others’ ass.
I am not saying that is what happened here in Nevada. I don’t see Mr. Moore’s reply or explanation anywhere.
Any compromises that happen should be in the direction of more liberty.
Example: A Libertarian wants to end the income tax and replace it with nothing.
A proposal is offered to reduce the income tax by 50%.
The Libertarian supports the proposal to reduce the income tax by 50% because it moves in the direction of what his/her goal was.
Another example: A Libertarians wants to legalize marijuana.
A proposal is offered to legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes.
The Libertarian supports the proposal to legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes because it moves the the direction of what his/her goal was.
Compromises that do not move in the direction of more liberty are counterproductive to the cause. This is one of the reasons why I do not support the Fair Tax proposals as has been promoted by Gary Johnson (and others), and it was one of the reasons why I never really jumped on board the Gary Johnson bandwagon.
There were no compromises made in the direction of liberty with these two votes from Assemblyman John Moore. He clearly voted for higher taxes and more government. This has nothing to do with minarchist vs. anarchist either, as I don’t know any self described minarchists who think that it is the proper role of government to increase taxes to subsidize football stadiums so that billionaires and millionaires can profiteer off of them, or who think that taxes should be increased to hire more police officers when there is already a big problem with the police violating people’s rights and arresting people for victimless crimes.
Does anyone here really believe that government in Nevada is too small and that these tax increases were necessary, and does anyone here really believe the funds raised from these tax increases are going to things that are worthwhile?
WAR’S TEETH: ” . . . . Tony From Long Island: in governing, there needs to be a give and take.
So what concession to Libertarians did John Moore get in exchange for his vote? Seems to me he voted for higher taxes and got nothing for liberty in return. . . . ”
Go back and think about what “give and take” means, particularly as applied to governing.
Tony From Long Island: in governing, there needs to be a give and take.
So what concession to Libertarians did John Moore get in exchange for his vote? Seems to me he voted for higher taxes and got nothing for liberty in return.
I don’t see that the GOP are “Christian Nationalists. You mean the Bushes? Schwarzenegger? Rubio? Romney?”
dL: George probably means 95% of the politicians and 90% of the base…
You pull those numbers out of your ass? The GOP’s politicians and base contain nowhere near as many “Chrisitian nationalists.” Not even close.
Some people view Christians with the same paranoia that others view Jews. They imagine they’re everywhere.
Jill Pyeatt wrote:
They are nothing but spam and trolling. I have no interest in ever reading anything by Nathan Norman.
What does being Christian have to do with some made up New World Order?
I say this as a devout Atheist of course. . .
NWO 4 life!!! (RIP WCW)
The majority of Repblicansa are on board with the New World Order agenda, which means that they are neither nationalist or Christian, despite whatever they may claim.
“a profession qualification that would make you the last person anyone should ever consult re: gaining popularity.”
My comment wasn’t about gaining popularity. Re-read it. It was about spotting bullsh*t, especially people bullsh*tting themselves as well as everyone else.
Thomas made the argument that I’ve heard before from the Purist set in various permutations. To wit: we’ll start compromise in the world of politics (where compromise is the name of the game), AFTER we win/become an establishment party/nominate the right candidate…take your pick as to what the Purist requirement is that will then allow us to begin operating like a normal political party.
And my point is that that is just a cock-and-bull story by folks unwilling to compromise.
The LP is a political party. The time to start compromising is immediately, starting with stuff like who was the obvious choice in Orlando, despite his less than Rothbardian policies. Any excuse as to why Johnson was not the best choice was just that:an excuse by someone who’s not prepared to EVER compromise.
I don’t see that the GOP are “Christian Nationalists. You mean the Bushes? Schwarzenegger? Rubio? Romney?”
George probably means 95% of the politicians and 90% of the base…
“you forget that my background is in debt collections…”
a profession qualification that would make you the last person anyone should ever consult re: gaining popularity…if the party wants to specialize in a popularity-repellent, avoidance, brush-offs and “fuck you’s”, your qualification would make you a go-to-guy for that counsel.
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/10/libertarian-national-committee-motion-censure-assemblyman-john-moore-and-ask-for-return-of-campaign-contribution/#comment-1458392
that’s the textbook, kiddies…read and learn…
Andy: ” . . . The Libertarian Party is SUPPOSED to be The Party of Principle. Those who do not adhere to Libertarian principles should be kicked out of the party. . . . ”
This type of thinking is precisely why the LP can not and will not grow. It defies the reality of governing. I am not using this specific example in Nevada, but in governing, there needs to be a give and take. You will never get everything that you want.
So when someone deviates from these mythic principles one single time he or she should be booted? This type rigidity is already causing extreme gridlock in Washington. The gridlock foments discontent, yet gridlock is what the voters chose.
If all political parties booted every member who deviated even slightly from their dogma, we would have a nation of independents.
The question is do you want to stay rigid or actually make some progress. I know what Andy is going to say – he’s a broken record – but that hasn’t been working in the 40 odd years of the LP.
Most modern organizations have some form of escalation for inappropriate behavior.
The Libertarian Party is SUPPOSED to be The Party of Principle. Those who do not adhere to Libertarian principles should be kicked out of the party.
If we allow people to join the party, get elected to office, and then do whatever they want, we will be no better than Democrats and Republicans.
The resolution REALLY reads
” . . . we support people joining the LP but when they do one thing we don’t like we will treat them like a child and then give them a public flogging – that way no one will want to join us . . . ”
This is a really dumb move. There were other ways to get a point across to this person.
Ready… Aim at foot… Fire!
Mr. Simmons is a good man, I met him in Orlando. I hope he does well, no matter what the correct information is.
George… Not to mention the district was re-districted in the middle of the 2010 legislative session, and the incumbent (Richard Neal) won re-election in the new district in both 2012 and 2014.
George… so far from what I can find, there’s ZERO evidence this poll actually exists.
Alas, there is now a report that the AP report is simply wrong.
I agree with wolfefan.
Meanwhile the good campaign that the LNC is not supporting:
Libertarian above 40% in a three-way race (There is no Republican; there is an independent with no campaign.)
From the campaign:
FIRST POLL IS OUT! Associated Press, conducted 9/26, and released to their affiliate stations:
Richard Neal: 45% (Democrat)
Thomas Simmons: 41% (Libertarian)
WE ARE IN STRIKING DISTANCE WITH THREE WEEKS LEFT!
The next 16 days are critical! We have Lawn Signs coming in this week, so PLEASE let me know if you can take one (or more for your neighbors & friends! We also have 200 Radio Ads and 125 TV ads hitting the airwaves! THIS IS POSSIBLE!!!
A Candidate Worth Supporting
Thom Simmons. He spoke twice at the National Convention. http://simmons4congress.com/
Unlike many Libertarian candidates, Thom was at one time a Congressional candidate campaign manager. His candidate, John LeBouttilier, ran in a New York City District that was 3-1 Democratic (the district in which lived the mythical Archie Bunker of All in the Family) against a many-term incumbent who chaired a major House Committee. Thom’s campaign scheme worked. The campaign ran one TV ad, a map of the earth with push pins being stuck into tracking the incumbent’s trips to important world trouble spots like Bora Bora. The pins were inserted, one at a time, lovingly, by a person who I gather could be described as ‘a hot babe’ wearing ‘a minimal bikini’. (Well, it was 1980, in New York City).
Now Thom is running against a many-term incumbent who was just redistricted. Outside polling found that no one in the incumbent’s new areas has a clue who he is; the polling number was in fact zero percent. The incumbent is viewed as living in DC and having little contact with his district.
The incumbent has just been found to be using campaign funds to pay for travel and hotel expenses for trips to Ireland. Readers will recall that Ireland is a foreign country that is not in the Massachusetts First Congressional District. The press is aware of this issue and is about to raise it. The incumbent has no visible campaign.
Needless to say, these issues are being exploited, but Thom needs more money to get his message to the voters. Yes, there are TV ads, but production costs have already been covered.
Disclosure: I am a maximum legal donor to the Simmons campaign. Please join me. http://Simmons4Congress.com
Thanks, Wolfefan. My inclination has been to delete them, but no one seemed to care, and some people here don’t like to have anything deleted.
I agree the knappster site is fraud, and would be happy to delete the comments when I see them, if that’s what the group here thinks is appropriate.
If the editors or owner have decided not to let Nathan Norman, Robert Milnes, etc. comment that’s fine with me. Why then do we allow those same people to just sign in as Truthteller and post a link that is designed to look as if it’s from Thomas Knapp? I believe the Libertarian term for this is fraud.
Andy,
I will make no argument about whether or not kicking people out for not living up to a particular standard is or isn’t libertarian.
But I know what happened in Oregon when people thought they had the right to kick people out for not meeting specific standards.
There was a lot of accusations back and forth, factionalism grew, and multiple groups tried to use the vague standard of “libertarian values” as a way to gain control.
Many who would fit in with the “libertarian wing of the libertarian party” were kicked out by those who align on the conservative edge of the party.
Often the rules were invoked when there were lots of missing people. The judicial committee became a puppet lynch squad that targeted those who opposed the authoritarians amongst us.
It took us years to get rid of that problem. Now that we have an extremely open and accepting membership policy with no may of excluding (if your registered Libertarian in our state you’re in our party with the same authority and rights as everyone else) the party is much more effective AND more “radical libertarians” are involved and run for office.
Andy,
I will make no argument about whether or not kicking people out for not living up to a particular standard is or isn’t libertarian.
But I know what happened in Oregon when people thought they had the right to kick people out for not meeting specific standards.
There was a lot of accusations back and forth, factionalism grew, and multiple groups tried to use the vague standard of “libertarian values” as a way to gain control.
Many who would fit in with the “libertarian wing of the libertarian party” were kicked out by those who align on the conservative edge of the party.
Often the rules were invoked when there were lots of missing people. The judicial committee became a puppet lynch squad that targeted those who opposed the authoritarians amongst us.
It took us years to get rid of that problem. Now that we have an extremely open and accepting membership policy with no may of excluding (if your registered Libertarian in our state you’re in our party with the same authority and rights as everyone else) the party is much more effective AND more “radical libertarians” are involved and run for office.
https://knappsterblog.wordpress.com/2016/10/23/is-this-story-based-on-the-life-of-andy/
The American Solidarity Party & the Constitution Party are true ‘Christian’ parties (of different stripes, of course).
Thomas,
I tried the Buffalo Trace Kentucky straight bourbon yesterday. A fine whiskey indeed; a scotch lovers’ bourbon, dry and woody, with more complexity than the average bourbon. Opened it up with a little distilled water and got even better. Not bad at $26.
Now, onto this issue of compromise; you forget that my background is in debt collections (a form of sales) and B2B sales. Therein, I learned the many permutations of the message “no” people are prepared to giveth. Therefore, the best technique is the direct approach: “Are you prepared to buy/settle your debt today.” Anything less than a “yes” in response is a blowoff, plain and simple.
My point: anyone not willing to compromise now, with our near complete record of failure and the short stack of poker chips, is unwilling to compromise, period. And that’s fine, that’s there choice, but I’m certainly not going to believe them when they allege that they are willing to compromise LATER. They are not. And for the most part, such Purists don’t even realize that themselves.
I had members of the radical faction in Orlando tell me they are okay with Perry compromising in governance…moving the country in a libertarian direction in the process…AFTER he got nominated and became president. I called them out on their cock-and-bull story, telling them that if they think that I’m going to think they ARE willing to compromise or sacrifice principle at some level after telling me we cannot compromise when choosing betwixt Johnson and anyone else, then they are lying to me and themselves. Just be honest and say you are unwilling to compromise ever.
Now, its a crisp fall day in Ohio, time for another nip of Buffalo Trace.
“Matt
October 23, 2016 at 07:52
‘ I don’t think he cast the deciding vote’
He did.”
This could have been a great opportunity to get good publicity for the Libertarian Party, IF Assemblyman John Moore had done the right thing.
The fact that Moore’s only two votes as a “Libertarian” in the Nevada legislature were blatantly anti-libertarian, and were in direct opposition to two positions that the Libertarian Party of Nevada had taken.
“‘I can’t understand Moore’s rationale’
He knows he won’t be re-elected. One of the casinos in favor of the stadium boondoggle offered him a blackjack dealer job in exchange for his vote. Most likely the police union offered a carrot and stick approach as well, perhaps regarding how he will be treated the next time he gets pulled over, regarding the police funding vote.”
How do you know that Moore was offered a job at a casino in exchange for voting yes on the stadium bill? How do you know that the police union offered Moore special treatment if he voted yes on the more funding for the police bill?
I would not be surprised if these things were true, but where is the proof to take these statements up?
Whatever the reasons are for Assemblyman John Moore voting yes on these bills, he proved himself to be unprincipled, untrustworthy, and not a libertarian.
“Robert Rich
October 23, 2016 at 10:06
Jesus. This looks like more lamebrain infighting started by conservative pragmatists out to destroy this legislator while suckering in radicals who don’t know the libertarian direction strategy, or understand the Dallas Accord (see bottom of http://www.lp.org) mission, to do their dirty work–again.”
This has nothing to do with minarchist vs. anarchist. Even if one is a minarchist, these were both terrible bills. Nevada already has more than enough takes to fund a minimal government. Also, in reference to the tax increase for the football stadium, I don’t know any minarchist who thinks that the proper role of government is to take money from some people to provide a luxury item (a stadium) from which billionaires and millionaires can profit.
“Show me specifically where LP or NV State platforms/programs say: Our LP state legislators will always vote no on involuntary taxes.”
The Libertarian Party is for less government, not more government. Do you not think that government in Nevada is already too big?
Also, the LP of Nevada campaigned against both of these bills well in advance of these votes taking place. Did Moore not know this, or did he just not care?
I agree with Root’s Teeth Are Awesome here. Christian and Nationalist does not truly describe most Republicans.
A better description is:
Democrats are big government, or New World Order, party A; and Republicans are big government, or New World Order, party B.
Differences between Democrats and Republicans are often nothing more than hot air.
George Phillies: This would be different from the Christian Nationalists (R) and the Party of Banksters (D),
I don’t see that the GOP are “Christian Nationalists.” You mean the Bushes? Schwarzenegger? Rubio? Romney? (You do realize Evangelical Christians consider Mormons a dangerous cult?)
The GOP occasionally mouths some squishy Christian rhetoric, but what has it done for Christians? The GOP politicians’ actions are mostly pro-choice on abortion and pro-gay marriage, despite the rhetoric and occasional bones tossed to the minority of Christians who politicize their religion.
The only thing the GOP has ever done for Christians is offer zealous support to Israel. But the Democrats do that too.
And both parties support the Banksters, so it makes no sense to single out the Democrats on that score.
Really, George, you obsess over Christians. This isn’t the 1980s. The era of the Moral Majority has passed. Jerry Falwell is long dead, and his replacements are far less influential, even in the GOP.
Jesus. This looks like more lamebrain infighting started by conservative pragmatists out to destroy this legislator while suckering in radicals who don’t know the libertarian direction strategy, or understand the Dallas Accord (see bottom of http://www.lp.org) mission, to do their dirty work–again.
Show me specifically where LP or NV State platforms/programs say: Our LP state legislators will always vote no on involuntary taxes.
If someone wants to found a moderate center left party, they should do so. This would be different from the Christian Nationalists (R) and the Party of Banksters (D), but for most definitions that I can imagine of ‘moderate center-left’ it would not resemble the LP at all.
” I don’t think he cast the deciding vote”
He did.
“I can’t understand Moore’s rationale”
He knows he won’t be re-elected. One of the casinos in favor of the stadium boondoggle offered him a blackjack dealer job in exchange for his vote. Most likely the police union offered a carrot and stick approach as well, perhaps regarding how he will be treated the next time he gets pulled over, regarding the police funding vote.
I’m of mixed sentiments on this vote. On the one hand, I can’t understand Moore’s rationale – I think the optics are terrible (and I think it’s mainly a question of optics; I don’t think he cast the deciding vote) – and so I’m glad to see the LPNV and LNC try to get the normal Libertarian position publicized.
On the other, I think that the optics aren’t, either, when a party that stands for freedom of conscience and action appears to be directing what its candidates say.
What we’ve done up in Canada is to take away the power of the LPC Board and Ontario LP Executive (our equivalent of the LNC) to rule on the “libertarianness” of members, including candidates and elected candidates, and vest that in the parties’ Ethics Committees (equivalent to the U.S. parties’ Judicial Committees) instead.
That gives any member (including Andy, were he Canadian) the right to challenge someone who does something like this (or the types of things Weld and Perry have done); but it allows for a legal rather than political resolution.
Quoth Andy,
“Does the Libertarian Party have a process to kick somebody out of the party?”
Some state parties do.
The LNC’s newsletter subscription program (“national LP membership”) does not. It defines membership as having certified in writing that you oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals. If you have so certified, you are by definition a member (although you would have to notify the LNC that you so certify for them to know that you’re a member and record you as one). Nobody but you can rescind your certification, which means that the only way out of the party is voluntary resignation.
Quoth Anthony,
“politics, where deal cutting and sacrificing some principle for greater gains elsewhere is part of the deal”
Well, it’s part of the deal for the establishment parties, once they are establishment parties.
They become establishment parties by refusing to cut deals and sacrifice principles, in some area where they can convince a plurality of the electorate that the principle at stake is important.
Andrew Jackson won the presidency the first time on the basis of his personal fame and denunciation of the “corrupt bargain” that had resulted in his previous loss to John Quincy Adams. That was the creation of the Democratic Party, but what made it a permanent successful party was the bank veto, not the bank compromise.
The Republicans set themselves as, on principle, opposed to the expansion of slavery, versus Stephen Douglas’s offered “popular sovereignty” compromise or the south’s “slavery must be maintained and expanded” position. And that’s how they became a permanent successful party.
In order to win, Libertarians have to have positions which:
1) Neither major party has substantially adopted; and
2) Are not open to compromise.
That, coupled with good practical campaigning, has one of two ends, both of which are party victories:
1) We replace one of the old parties; or
2) One of the old parties adopts our positions to keep us from replacing them.
Compromise is of precisely zero practical political use to a third party in a two-party system. It gains us nothing and loses us every opportunity to gain anything.
gp: the people the have excommunicated may not quit, but instead found a new libertarian Party, possibly a party with fewer than five syllables in its name.
me: Tell us more, please.
Bondurant… Nobody’s saying that the LP should curry favor to the GOP… In fact, it should be moderate Democrats who favor fiscal constraint; but if you want to be against a big-tent party, even in the slightest regard (at least accepting Minarchists, Anarchists, and Classical Liberals in the same party), and instead favor only permitting anarchists, then you’re bound to forever be a fringe party, that will lose 99% of its funding, as soon as a moderate centrist party starts up.
Notice the only thing missing from American politics is a moderate center-left party…. and notice people refuse to vote for any existing third-party in large numbers. The third-party people want is a moderate center-left party. The LP could easily be this party, and start winning seats, and actually accomplish something meaningful… but apparently, you and nobody else here actually desire that to ever happen.
Fred,
Also, the Libertarian Inquisition may soon learn that the people the have excommunicated may not quit, but instead found a new libertarian Party, possibly a party with fewer than five syllables in its name.
Bravo for you, Anthony. That was absolutely the right position.
Former Republican? You sound like you should still be in the GOP with all of your “shiny badge” worshipping, and wanting the LP to run Republican retreads who are not really that libertarian, if libertarian at all.
You should consider going back to the GOP.
I am a former Republican, but I was there in Orlando making sure the Ron Paul faction didn’t get their anti-choice bullcrap baked into the party platform.
I don’t know anything about this Moore guy. I live in Ohio.
Something tells me that those advocating the LP abandon it’s principles to curry favor to the GOP are more than likely part of the GOP or “former” Republicans.
That is, Governor of Nevada.
I would not be surprised if Anthony Dlugos wants John Moore to seek higher office as a Libertarian Party candidate, since he’s an experienced politician. Dlugos will probably want John Moore to be the Libertarian Party’s candidate for Governor.
There is nothing non-libertarian about kicking anti-liberty backstabbibg scum like John Moore out of the Libertarian Party.
If we have no standards for who can be a Libertarian, then we will end up just as bad as the Democrats and Republicans, and it looks like we have already started heading in that direction.
Fred,
That’s what I’ve been trying to tell them.
Kicking people out of the party based on whether or not they are “libertarian” enough can get really ugly really quickly.
If the party uses that type of an authoritarian action, it will soon find that the authoritarians amongst us will use it to remove those who they don’t agree with.
A very bad precedent
I can agree with ATBAFT there.
Was $10K given without someone from LNC sitting down with this guy and his campaign manager?
Without seeing what bills were pending in Legislature and discussing how he might vote? Sure caveat emptor, but somebody must have done some due diligence, right? Maybe the resulting publicity in the Nevada papers will attract those who admire a Party that sticks to its principles. There will be publicity right???
There are countless ways to move this country in a libertarian direction: think tanks, activism, agorism, creating your own media outlet, etc.
My opinion is that your post demonstrates a mindset conducive to one of those avenues, and definitely not to politics, where deal cutting and sacrificing some principle for greater gains elsewhere is part of the deal.
I value someone who claims the Libertarian label over strict adherence to the philosophy. In the political arena, of course. I wouldn’t want John Moore teaching Libertarianism 101.
No offense intended. No one avenue is better than the others.
I’ll take a debating society over being represented by GOP politicians voting as GOP politicians do. I value the philosophy over someone claiming to be a Libertarian.
Let the Republicans deal with the mess they made. It’s not my problem and it’s not the LP’s problem. Why should we sacrifice our beliefs for them?
The lesson we should learn is do not automatically trust someone because they claim to be libertarian.
Maybe. I know very little about him. I was only referring to the lessons we should learn from his defection.
So far there has been no good from John Moore.
“This is why we shouldn’t be excited about GOP defectors joining the LP.”
Translation: “I want to keep the LP a small debating society, composed only of people I agree with.”
Now, you may not be explicitly saying the translation version, but its the upshot of your statement. The Republican Party, once a third party as I am sure you know, was made up nearly exclusively of defectors of other parties, including most notably the Whigs. It stands to reason that the LP is going to see an influx of GOP defectors as we grow, since that party is taking on water like the Titanic.
“Right now they’re only joining because they don’t like the result of their presidential primary.”
OK. So what? Considering the result of their presidential primary, that probably demonstrates their sanity.
I get the idea that we have a political philosophy and governing principles to protect, and I am not saying this was a bad motion, but some things are just going to be the growing pains of a party on the upswing. Mistakes will be made, candidates less than pure will join the party, and they will make votes you or I don’t like. But you know what they say: don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
This is why we shouldn’t be excited about GOP defectors joining the LP. Right now they’re only joining because they don’t like the result of their presidential primary. Some of them want press so the “quit” the GOP. But they use vote for business as usual.
I hope this motion passes. It won’t do anything but it’s nice to be outspoken. Everyone, including alleged Libertarians, need to be held accountable.
https://knappsterblog.wordpress.com/2016/10/21/jay-wildwood-totally-nails-andy-jacobs/
https://iprx.wordpress.com/2016/10/21/is-this-story-based-on-the-life-of-andy/
I applaud the LNC for putting this motion forward (I wish they would put forward similar motions about Gary Johnson and Bill Weld).
They really ought to ask John Moore to return the donations made by Libertarians Chris and Melodie Rufer, as well as any other donations made by other Libertarians.
Does the Libertarian Party have a process to kick somebody out of the party? I would vote to kick John Moore out of the party.