MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Libertarian Assemblyman John Moore of Nevada Censured by the Libertarian National Committee

Party angry over Moore's vote on Raiders stadium subsidy; Moore thinks the L.P. needs to grow and "stop trying to advance the more radical agenda, pick and choose your fights and get more mainstream."

Gary Johnson, Libertarian candidate for president, told me the other week that he thinks an important part of his legacy for the Libertarian Party will be a wave of seasoned politicians from the two majors who lean libertarian choosing to run or govern as loud and proud Libertarians.

John Moore FacebookJohn Moore Facebook

A handful of seated state legislators have already done so, switching their Party affiliation to Libertarian while already in statewide elected office.

The first currently seated legislator to do so was Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a first-term Republican who switched to the Libertarians mid-term this January. Moore is facing his first election as a Libertarian on Tuesday, and he tells me he feels very good about his chances.

He's running against the Democrat who he beat last time, Jason Frierson, and a Republican (whose prime issue is immigration restriction) who jumped in the race at the last possible minute, Moore tells me, Norm Ross.

Moore predicts he'll end up getting 40-50 percent of non-partisan voters, 30-50 percent of Republicans, and even 10-12 percent of the Democratic vote. Moore says he's raised about $70,000 this cycle, compared to less than a thousand bucks with which he won his seat in the first place.

Still, one political party is very, very unhappy with the renegade assemblyman. This party has officially censured Moore for his perfidy on both its state and federal level.

That party is not the Republican Party Moore turned coat on; it's the Libertarian Party he joined.

This week the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) issued an official censure notice against Moore. Their reasons?

To quote from the censure notice (which passed the LNC on a 9-6 vote, done electronically), the LNC says Moore:

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;

Moore was not only a vote for the stadium subsidy; having passed with the bare minimum required 2/3 of the Assembly, he (along with every other vote, natch) could be said to be the vote that passed it.

Even before then, as Moore complained in a phone interview yesterday, the state Party had already promptly censured him right after the stadium vote, without giving him a chance to discuss the matter with them. He also says in the aftermath he was driven for the first time in his life to block dozens of hostile attackers on his social network sites because of the abuse he was receiving.

Moore is the first to admit he's not as libertarian as some Libertarians. While he says defiantly that the censure "doesn't matter to me one bit, it's not going to alter my process or thinking at all" he grants that "I understand somewhat where some of the members are coming from. I'm not saying this in a derogatory way, but some folks I run into in the L.P. are a bit more extreme than others and unless they have been in the political process where I'm at, it's hard for them to understand the fine details and I can respect that.

"But at the same time, they didn't take my statement seriously as to my reasons."

As Moore told me, and as he told the LNC in a memo in my possession, he thinks the complaint about the "'more cops' tax" is offbase since the Assembly bill was merely enabling legislation that would let Clark County pass such a tax, not directly passing the tax itself.

The stadium vote meanwhile was, to many Libertarians, an inexcusable example of giveaways to the wealthy to help the few. Reason's Anthony Fisher called it a "crony capitalist boondoggle" in reporting on the vote last month.

But Moore sees the vote, which he stands by "100 percent," as a reflection of his job as a representative: he says he polled his constituents and found 62 percent support for the vote. "I represent first and foremost the people of my district and not a political party," Moore wrote in his memo to the LNC. In his view of his role, "I have never and will never put party objectives above the will of the people that I represent."

Moore turns libertarian purism around on the LNC, writing that "By choosing to censure me you are in FACT forcing your will upon me and everyone that does not agree with you. How is that true freedom or Liberty? NAP?"

Moore believes that the stadium subsidy will "put thousands of out of work Nevadans back to work" and that Las Vegas' status as a major convention destination will be lost without the convention center expansion that's also part of the bill.

As a practical matter, Moore also believes that procedurally if that vote failed, the Assembly would be pressed by the governor into a second vote for an enabling version of the bill that would leave the matter up to Clark County. That second vote could pass by simple majority and make any vote against by Moore irrelevant. He suggests those who found his vote "reprehensible" would be hypocrites if they ever use the stadium or expanded convention center or take any job connected to them.

Moore is not, despite his frustration, considering leaving his new Party. "I'm fine with my decision to switch parties" still, he says. "I learned a long time ago to get a thick skin. This doesn't affect my choice."

He continues to hope that more politicians follow his lead, and he's hopeful that he'll have a Libertarian partner in the Nevada Assembly soon. He thinks it quite likely that Dennis Hof, famous for running the Moonlite Bunny Ranch house of prostitution, will win his race for the Assembly as a Libertarian against just a Republican opponent.

"I think I'll stand with the Libertarian banner," Moore says. If the Hof victory happens, Moore thinks the Assembly could end up with a 20-20 major party split, with he and Hof the wildcards which "would put us in the driver's seat." Even if he ends up the only Libertarian, a 20-21-1 split "still gives me the juice" in the Assembly's balance.

Moore has his own legislative agenda he wants to move forward in Nevada if he wins re-election. It includes, he says, "criminal justice reform, I want to end mandatory sentencing for non-violent offenders" and restructure the traffic ticket system so fewer people end up in the criminal justice system because of them. He also wants to "deregulate energy" to "bring more energy providers into the state and give people a choice."

He also wants to fix the funding mechanism for a education voucher program that already passed but which is being held up by the courts because of its specific funding mechanism.

Still, Moore feels personally aggrieved by the L.P's Nevada state party chair Brett Pojunis (who had not replied to an emailed interview request as of posting time), who he considered—and still considers—a personal friend, one for whom "he could call me at night and ask me for any favor, and I hope I could do the same."

But he thinks Pojunis runs a less than tight ship, alluding to party offices not open during normal office hours, and a general party (in the non-political sense) atmosphere around the operation that Moore thinks isn't dignified or effective for a political party. As far as the state Party apparatus goes, now he feels that "they are dead to me." Moore also is disappointed with the level of support for his re-election he's gotten from the L.P.

To a more philosophically stringent Libertarian, Moore can sound a bit all over the place, at the same time saying his job as representative is to "exercise the will of the people" while still saying he's motivated by an overall vision of smaller government. He admits, though, that he's not down with some of the more outre edges of the Libertarian Party's platform. "I'm not an open borders guy, and not a legalize all drugs guy" though he does want legalized marijuana.

At times during our interview, his reasons for leaving the GOP can sound more based in disillusionment with the down-and-dirty way party politics is run that he encountered as a Republican than a steadfast dedication to the full range of Libertarian Party principle, but he still intends to stick with his choice, and still "cares about advancing the party." Moore praised his relationship with LNC chair Nicholas Sarwark. "He and I agree on a lot of things, though we clearly don't agree on [the stadium vote], and that's fine."

But "as far as the Party goes, I'm ground zero, if I can get re-elected it's proof of concept for a lot of folks and even within the Republican side there will be folks ready to switch," he thinks. But the L.P., Moore believes, will need to learn to "not stifle dissent" as they widen out to a new wave of candidates and members. He thinks the Republicans are imploding and "this is a good time for the Libertarian Party to step up and say, we're legit" and "stop trying to advance the more radical agenda, pick and choose your fights and get more mainstream."

For its part, the LNC says it issues this censure against Moore because:

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....

The differing attitudes represented by Moore's sense of a need to "not stifle dissent" and the LNC's need to make sure its partisan candidates uphold Libertarian principles will likely be a continuing battleground for the L.P. as it moves into an uncertain, but likely more lively, future after next Tuesday.

Photo Credit: John Moore Facebook

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yes, I'm always thinking that I wish libertarians were more like democrats and republicans.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Agreed. That's why I am in favor of more humorless whining in the Reason comments.

  • Brochettaward||

    Hey retard, shut you're retarded mouth.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    This guy gets it.

  • T.F.G.||

    milk just shot out of my nose

  • Charles Easterly||

    This place is fantastic.

  • You ARE a Prog (MJG)||

    Humorless whining brings out the best of this place.

  • Citizen X||

    These euphemisms are fantastic.

  • geo1113||

    Shouldn't that be, "hey retard, retard your retarded mouth."

  • IWasADemocrat||

    It is very naive of the LP to censure Moore.

    (I posted this below and I'm posting it up here again)

    Rather than looking at his voting record, a different question to ask would be: What has Moore been doing to convince his constituents of a different direction in government: a direction where the government has no such power?

    It is important to understand that the government/society is the way it is because of HOW the People think. Until the public opinion changes, having the 'right' representative will get you only very limited outcome.

    Just one more point: If your constituents want 'A', and you decide to vote 'B' just because you are in a position of power. 2 things will probably happen: 1st, a lot of hatred. 2nd, you probably won't get elected again, then you will still end up with 'A' at the end.

    Having the 'right' representative could help the L movement, but only a shift in public opinion will make the difference.

  • DarrenM||

    If your constituents vote "A" and you decide to vote "B", any backlash will strongly depend on how much the constituents really wanted "A". It could very well be they want "C" much more and if you voted "C", there would be no issue.

  • IWasADemocrat||

    Bloody hell. It was just a ultra-simplified example!

    And yes, you are right; the world is not so two-dimensional as in my simplified case.

  • Brochettaward||

    The guy doesn't know what the NAP means, or he's disingenuous. No, the LP did not violate it by censuring you.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    He is trying to say he is Libertarian to try and get the Republican/conservative vote and Libertarian vote.

    We do not need more LINOs in the fold. You are either Libertarian or you are not. This guys makes a bunch of excuses for his voting for tax increase possibilities and using taxpayer money to fund private stadiums.

  • JFree||

    Yes clearly the LP tent is too big and too crowded already. If things don't change soon, it is headed down the slippery slope towards pragmatism and actually winning elections. Theory never requires impurity. Eject the LINO's.

    So of course the solution is censure by the central-planning department of the national party. Because nothing screams libertarian like national central-planning. Anyone who believes that the solution is for a local challenger to step up and challenge has already made the fatal compromises with pragmatism.

  • ||

    No. Fuck off.

  • ThomasD||

    My approach is that the less local the issue the more we need to stick to hard principles. As issues devolve to a more local level the room for deviation can grow.

    Our sort of republic will function best when the people who will bear the burden of any decision can exert the greatest control over the the deciders. Only then can the sort of liberty actually prized by those people be most surely realized.

  • DOOMco||

    Well said. Nationally, a more pure libertarian is required. Communities can do what they want, and its much easier to move just outside town than across state lines or to another country

  • Microaggressor||

    And what's the point of winning elections if they can't be bothered to advance liberty?

    Statist shitheels like him and Weld need to be kicked out. Plenty of politicians have done more to advance liberty under the R banner (Ron Paul, etc). If the L banner can't beat that, what purpose does it serve?

  • JFree||

    And what's the point of winning elections if they can't be bothered to advance liberty?

    And what's the point of liberty if liberty can only be defined by a national group of central planners following (presumably) policy ideas of a national group of thinktanks (not necessarily LP) that receive funding from national donors who want to make sure that every major issue re liberty is nationally consistent?

  • ThomasD||

    This. A thousand times this.

    If there is one attitude that binds seemingly all libertarians it is a notion that liberty is something that stands out clear as crystal always and everywhere.

    Unfortunately this is not the case. There are difficult problems that will always prove vexing - e.g. how to handle those not legally competent (children, the grossly infirm, etc.) and the question of abortion/when life and/or personhood begins. Things that reasonable libertarians truly do disagree over.

    Until the day when broad consensus appears it is best that these be handled as far down the organizational chart as possible.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Republicans and Democrats are mostly the same. Big spenders with justification for government force based on their particular agendas.

  • You ARE a Prog (MJG)||

    Weld doesn't need to be kicked out. He'll change his party affiliation on November 9th.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Team of Rivals II.

  • DarrenM||

  • DarrenM||

    Well said. You obviously understand the nuances of party politics.

  • ||

    He is trying to say says he is Libertarian to try and get the Republican/conservative vote and Libertarian vote.

    Yes. And the good news is that libertarianism is, at least in some places, a valuable brand with which people want to be associated. The bad news is that the value of the brand will attract LINOs such as this guy. If the LP doesn't move quickly and decisively they'll end up just like a certain major party who is always promising to lower taxes and shrink government and failing to deliver on that.

  • JFree||

    The 'value of the brand' is precisely the problem. I don't know the minutiae of why/how this particular incumbent opted to switch parties. But it seems pretty obvious to me that the state party - not the local party (which probably doesn't exist) - is the one that made the decision to OK the change and give this guy the 'L' slot on the ballot. And now the state party is looking to have the national party 'enforce' the 'value of the brand'. So they are both looking to assume the responsibility for what SHOULD be a local responsibility - selecting - then electing - candidates they want.

    The only reason a state/national party should even say boo re a local candidate is if the state laws re ballot access are so onerous that ballot access and the 'value of the brand' (ie ballot slot) goes beyond any local party's ability/scope. IDK whether Nevada has onerous ballot access laws - but it is that restrictiveness -and solely that restrictiveness - that creates 'value of the L brand'.

    And unfortunately this is precisely where a conflict can occur between 'purists' and 'pragmatists'. Purists can easily control national/state - as long as they refuse to organize locally. Once they organize locally; then the party inevitably starts having messy pragmatic conflicts - but they also have the ability to win elections then.

  • ||

    Again, no. The various LPs can say whatever they want to whoever they want because 1A. The various LPs can endorse whoever they want, or withold endorsement, or censure, because freedom of association, and (again) 1A.

  • JFree||

    Where on Earth am I saying they can't be allowed to speak? I'm talking about whether it is wise policy for them to speak if their goal is to build an effective political party.

    If their goal is something other than effective political party; then why does LP even exist as a political party?

  • ENDelt260||

    62 percent support for the vote. "I represent first and foremost the people of my district

    What about protecting the 38% from getting robbed? The majority doesn't need your help.

    "I have never and will never put party objectives above the will of the people that I represent."

    In particular, the will of the people to re-elect me.

  • ||

    What about protecting the 38% from getting robbed? The majority doesn't need your help.

    IMO, a big-$ sports stadium seems like something even the People's/Populist Party would've censured him for too.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Yeah man!

    If 55% of the voters (old geezers with worn-out bodies) voted to carve up the 45% of youngsters-voters for replacement organs, would he bless that as well?

  • IWasADemocrat||

    Yes, because that is the job description.

    However, a different question to ask would be: What has he been doing to convince his constituents of a different direction in government: a direction where the government has no such power?

    It is important to understand that the government/society is the way it is because of HOW the People think. Until the public opinion changes, having the 'right' representative will get you only very limited outcome.

    Just one more point: If your constituents want 'A', and you decide to vote 'B' just because you are in a position of power. 2 things will probably happen: 1st, a lot of hatred. 2nd, you probably won't get elected again, then you will still end up with 'A' at the end.

    Having the 'right' representative could help the L movement, but only a shift in public opinion will make the difference.

  • ENDelt260||

    "Yes, because that is the job description."

    No. It's not. Direct democracy could accomplish that. We have representatives to stand between mob rule and the rights violations it brings.

  • Joao||

    U mean the 38% who REALIZE they are getting robbed. The other 62% can't think past their pom-poms.

    Tough situation this guy is in. Should have dug up the dozen or so article in the last 4 years on this site that show how Crony the stadium ares, forcefully educated his constituency to round those numbers down. At least try.

    Whatever

  • SparktheRevolt||

    Dennis Hof is running as a Libertarian? How come this hasn't received more attention? Does he actually have a good shot of winning a state senate seat?

  • Joe M||

    With no Democrat in the race, and Hof taking a conservative (economically, at least ;) ) position, maybe. It would be pretty awesome if he won.

  • Jerryskids||

    some folks I run into in the L.P. are a bit more extreme than others and unless they have been in the political process where I'm at, it's hard for them to understand the fine details

    And he's a dirty plagiarist to boot - the sonofabitch took that statement straight from a William Weld interview.

  • Slumbrew||

    ...unless they have been in the political process where I'm at...

    We should respect his deep wisdom, which he has built up over his... uh, 23 month political career.

    Fun fact not otherwise mentioned - he ran (and lost) as a Democrat in 2012, switched to Republican in 2014 and won by 40 votes (he then switched to L in January of this year).

  • DOOMco||

    Sounds like he knows where he is on the nolan chart!

  • Florida Hipster||

    But Moore sees the vote, which he stands by "100 percent," as a reflection of his job as a representative: he says he polled his constituents and found 62 percent support for the vote. "I represent first and foremost the people of my district and not a political party,"

    Then run as NPA.

  • toolkien||

    Where did he learn that "majority rule" and libertarianism are the same thing?

  • The Grinch||

    We should be more careful about picking our battles but funding a stadium for a rich guy who knows how to work the system with public money seems like a good battle to fight.

  • Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper||

    Right. Pick battles, yes, but not at random.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I am kind of curious at how many Libertarians want zero compromise with today's giant government spending and taxation or are okay with "picking our battles" wiggle-room politics.

    I personally think that all government funding/taxation should be pushed heavily downward. Once we get to ~50% of what our current fed, state and local governments are in size and funding, then we can revisit tweaking of funding to get whatever focused jobs the government does.

    In other words, I say zero tax increases on anything. Cut spending to balance budgets. The more politicians squeal about not having enough money, the better.

  • Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper||

    Totally agree. When I hear someone say libertarians need to pick their battles, I take that to mean they shouldn't try to turn the country into a nightwatchman state in one piece of legislation. That should never mean that you increase taxes. Rappel down the cliff rather than jump, yeah, but don't climb back up!

  • Microaggressor||

    Indeed. If you want to fund your crony boondoggle, do so by cutting something else. Not hiking taxes. I know, the cupboards are bare. Disassemble the cupboards.

  • JFree||

    Politicians aren't the ones who squeal - except on 'behalf' of others. Just looking at the federal level, the spending pie is currently 28% Medicare/Medicaid/health; 25% Social Security; 16% defense/DHS - nothing else more than 4% each.

    If you don't think those big three involve some very serious and difficult 'wiggle room' politics even to change the spending trajectory; then you're not paying attention. At minimum, the only 'new' party that will have credibility on those three is one that pays more policy attention to those three issues than anything else - and that can actually get elected by promising HOW they will spend less.

  • PurityDiluting||

    "nothing else more than 4% each"
    Most of the national debt matures within 4 years. Once the Fed ends the 0% interest game, there will quickly be one more category to add to that list. Then let squealing begin.

  • JFree||

    Honestly - the solution for debt/interest costs and maturity curve is a post office bank as competition to the Federal Reserve. Set up a GIRO/clearing/settlements system and let people open checking-type no-interest accounts. Deposits to be solely backed by short-term T-bills (not any other loans). No FDIC risk (T-bills obviously have inherent federal guarantee of payment). No bank run risk (cuz no balance sheet mismatch). Therefore no money supply risk. The 'coercion' problem is partially solved because these deposits ARE voluntary. Less money for banks to keep inflating housing bubbles via mortgage lending - and they now have to compete for deposits. Treasury dept has two distribution channels for its own debt rather than the NY Fed primary dealer monopoly. And in the next financial/banking crisis, all extortion/bailout power is eliminated so 'just let the market work' can become a viable option.

    Japan Post Bank has $1.7 trillion in deposits. Most other countries postal banks are their biggest single-entity banks (by customers if not deposits). We had a similar system (though some flaws) in the US from 1910-1965. I really don't see why libertarians are leaving this idea for socialists like Sanders to pick up.

  • ||

    It's a dilemma, LC. Given the current reality the movement can either stay completely ideologically pure and remain marginalized, OR compromise a bit to be able to effect some type of change. The question is where one compromises.

    Raising taxes is not an option until all non-essential services have been reduced or eliminated. This should remain a core, non-negotiable principle.

    I can see a distasteful situation where a libertarian candidate might reasonably support a taxpayer-funded stadium if that project was extremely popular with the voters and in a race where support for that stadium was a litmus test for the electorate; but I do note than in such circumstances the electorate would probably not be on board with the rest of the libertarian agenda so that candidate would be unlikely to win in any case without compromising past the point of reason. In that case the candidate would state that he is personally opposed to any type of subsidies, but that he will support that if it's what the electorate really wants, and then put it to a referendum.

    Here are things which I see as non-negotiable: raising taxes (except as noted above), 2A, 4A.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I don't think any Libertarian is against some kind of compromise. In a Democracy you have competing interests, so sometimes compromise is the only way to, for example pass a budget.

    I think Libertarians need to stay on course and hold fast on main points- max liberty, lower taxes, shrink government. We need to continue to point out why Democrats and Republicans are bad for America. Educating people to classic liberalism is making an impact. Even forming a party to fight slavery (GOP) took years to garner huge support.

    Most Americans do not care enough to cut government by 50%+. Too many government workers would lose their jobs. More freedom and forcing ex-bureaucrats to find their way in the free market would be the result but that is too abstract to most.

    I use the criminal justice system as a great example. Most people have zero idea how messed up the criminal justice system is in the USA until something happens where they experience it. People just don't want to deal with big government and the Nanny-State until something forces their hand to deal with it.

  • Foo_dd||

    so, if i understand correctly.... you can see where a libertarian might try to compromise... but you think that compromise might mean the electorate does not really want a libertarian, so he might as well commit political suicide?

    that is pretty much what we have been doing for years. rejecting any chance to make any changes, by nature of the fact that not every action might pass the purity test. seriously, the party is censoring this guy for a vote that would have ruined his chances of reelection, had he gone the other way. we keep acting like it is better to feel morally superior, than to change the general direction of government growth.

  • DarrenM||

    The problem, as has been demonstrated time and time again, is that a decrease in taxes does not translate to a decrease in spending. I'd rather have high taxes and high spending where we spend only what we take in instead of low taxes and high spending leaving the burden of paying on our profligacy to future generations. Lower taxes and lower spending by government would be better than either of the above, of course.

  • CE||

    When taxes go up, vote no.
    When spending goes up, vote no.
    When in doubt, vote no.

    It's not that hard.

  • CE||

    Another tip:

    If you want to cut taxes 100% and they agree to cut taxes by 5%, vote yes.
    If they want to raise taxes by 0.1% or more, vote no.

  • DOOMco||

    "Sure! You all know that tomorrow, ill ask you to reduce it by another 10, right?"

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Great Rule of Thumb!

  • DarrenM||

    Simpler. Vote NO on everything.

  • Zunalter||

    pick and choose your fights and get more mainstream progressive

    FTFY

  • ||

    Yeah, this is the part that exceptionally irks me. He didn't leave the GOP because he wanted smaller government and the GOP wasn't hard line enough on the issue for him, he left the GOP because the GOP didn't have wide enough appeal for him to get away with raising taxes and passing more laws.

  • Robert||

    Is that how his voting record's been overall?

  • ||

    It was his first term and he's an assemblyman in CA. I'm sure his campaign/vote was a mixed bag of bullshit that loosely conferred Republican status on him. Lower taxes without cutting spending sort of thing. I'd almost bet $$$ his bona fides include or hinge on a hard pro-2A stance with very little ability to do anything with regard to gun control one way or the other.

  • ||

    Sorry, I meant NV not CA.

  • Robert||

    I was hoping for some actual data, not a priori projections.

  • Reverend Lovejoy||

    Just check out his website: he's gnob-gobbling gun owners and cops.

  • Tyler.C||

    Screw this guy and his whiny misunderstanding of the NAP. I think we'll see a lot of this because of refugees from the GOP and Dems

  • ||

    Refugees is, or might be, the wrong term. As with the Tea Party, once the brand gets enough recognition, there will be fucktards like Bill Weld coming out of the woodwork saying, "That's a nice party you got there, sure would be a shame if something happened to it."

  • JFree||

    The only reason politicians can have that sort of influence over a party is if the party itself doesn't have much to offer beyond ballot access. If OTOH the party is well-organized locally (that means active people in most precincts and focus on issues of local importance); then the party will be able to choose the candidates it wants - not the reverse. Even if the local LP looks different and IS different from one location to another.

    That the LNC is taking it on itself to censure policy conformity is evidence that the LP has no local organization of any importance/effectiveness.

  • ||

    Opportunists, carpet baggers, saboteurs...

    Seriously. Look what happened to the tea party. They had a nice thing going for like five minutes then got co-opted by the socons. This is really about the socons knowing their days are numbered and trying to co-opt or discredit anyone who might knock them off their position as THE core consituency of conservatism.

  • JFree||

    Socons days aren't numbered within the GOP. Socons are easily the main ones who are active at the precinct level so they are the only ones who can actually GOTV for the GOP. Every other group within the GOP is trying to wrestle around to control the top-down apparatus. But the reality is that the top-down apparatus is ALWAYS going to be controlled in the end by the big money donors. Because the top-down apparatus depends entirely on money - not activists.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "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.

    The first bolded portion is probably factually incorrect.

    The second bolded portion is technically correct but misleading.

    Let me explain.

    The tax raise to subsidize the sports stadium may be owned by a billionaire, but it's also going to be used by UNLV football.

    The tax raise for the subsidy was put on hotel rooms--specifically so that tourists in Las Vegas would pay the tax rather than "his constituents". What a libertarian solution! The taxpayers get a new stadium for UNLV, and they don't have to pay for it! In that sense, he did not raise a tax on his constituents--this tax specifically avoids taxing his constituents as much as a tax probably can.

    It is true that taxing hotel rooms would make homeless people in Las Vegas pay that tax when they periodically rent themselves a hotel room to take a shower. But he did not vote for a tax that specifically targets the indigent.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Think of it this way: If a sales tax that's 99% paid by tourists is unlibertarian because less than 1% of it is paid by his constituents, then how does the Nevada Libertarian Party justify voting to legalize and tax recreational marijuana?

    Think about that for a second, and it becomes clear that the problem isn't that the Nevada Libertarian Party is being dogmatic. The problem is that they're being retarded.

  • Robert||

    Were hotels illegal w/o this measure?

  • Ken Shultz||

    The question is whether the Libertarian Party of Nevada would support a referendum to legalize and tax marijuana--even if the sales tax on marijuana were to be paid by Nevada constituents.

    The correct answer is "yes".

    http://www.lpnevada.org/nevada_initiatives

    If the benefit of legalizing marijuana is greater than the downside of taxing Nevadans, then no doubt the Nevada Libertarian Party should support it.

    If they oppose this guy because he supported a tax for the same reason--less than 1% of which will be paid by his constituents--then the Nevada Libertarian Party is out of their minds.

  • Robert||

    They're out of their minds if they oppose this guy for that reason, but they're not out of their minds for opposing it. What's the difference who the victim is, unless they're friends of yours? Unless it's personal, why would I have any less reason to oppose a tax on people in one place than in another? But a single vote like that is probably not sufficient reason to oppose an electable or elected official.

    Not only that, but the mj matter wasn't one of legalizing it while imposing a tax on something else, it was one of reducing the imposition from a crime or civil violation to a tax. Unless the tax was more than the fines, that's an unambiguous increase in freedom.

  • Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper||

    Seen and unseen. Higher taxes and fees on hotel rooms depress tourism, which is, and correct me if I'm wrong, the engine that drives the Las Vegas economy. Additionally, not all--I daresay not many--of the taxpayers benefit from the stadium. It feels trite to say this, but it's true: if a thing is worth building it doesn't need to be subsidized.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "...if a thing is worth building it doesn't need to be subsidized."
    This is crux of many arguments. If something is really worth it for constituents, then you should not have much opposition. People are complaining about this stadium's use of taxpayer dollars to subsidize billion dollar sport franchises. 62% support is not enough support if you ask me. 38% of the people do not want to pay for it.

    If something is really worth having as law then politicians should have 75%+ support for passing those laws.

    Which is why I support changing state constitutions and the US Constitution to require 75%+ minimum vote to pass tax increases and laws.

  • Ken Shultz||

    That would be especially true if the tax or market rate on Las Vegas hotel rooms were higher than it is in competing cities.

    Even after the tax, Las Vegas' hotel rooms will be cheaper than most competing cities. Lower than Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Houston, San Francisco, and other convention cities--and on par with San Diego.

    Let's face it. Nevada is run primarily by casino interests and secondarily by mining interests. The casinos have managed to keep the tax on hotel rooms lower than it would be otherwise. I suspect what was different about this tax was that it was backed by a major casino interest that wanted the stadium.

    Regardless, even after the room tax hike, Las Vegas' room tax will still be competitively low.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "It feels trite to say this, but it's true: if a thing is worth building it doesn't need to be subsidized."

    This is factually incorrect. As a commercial real estate developer, it's factually incorrect.

    That's like saying the cost of financing doesn't make any difference to various partners or that the incentive for the city to approve your plans doesn't make any difference.

    You're going to tell me that UNLV getting a new football stadium at no cost to the school and less than 1% of the cost to local taxpayers doesn't and shouldn't make any difference--from the perspective of legislators and voters from Las Vegas?

    Compared to what?

    Costs need to be compared to their benefits. In this case, the costs to local taxpayers are ridiculously low. Successful football programs bring tens of millions of dollars into universities--and you need a decent stadium in a good location to get that revenue stream. You have to look at the benefits before you can make rational judgements about the costs--and in this case, the costs to local taxpayers are ridiculously low.

    I think people have just become zeroed in on past stadium deals in other places where the local taxpayers were funding stadiums for billionaires. This isn't one of those situations.

    1) The stadium is for UNLV.
    2) 99% of the costs will be not be paid by local taxpayers.

    Other stadium deals that didn't have those features really aren't relevant.

  • Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper||

    You keep bringing up that 99% number, and I'm really very skeptical. Is this coming from a specific source, or are you using 99% as shorthand for "nearly all of it"?

    Also, UNLV has a stadium. The new stadium is for the Raiders. It's specifically to convince the owner to move the team there. There's nothing holy or sacrosanct about this particular NFL stadium subsidy, it's just like every other.

    And besides, UNLV is a division I school. They've got a basketball team that regularly goes to the National Championships. Their football team is lackluster, but so what?

    But regardless of those points, who really benefits from UNLV getting whatever revenue they might eventually generate from sharing an NFL stadium? Schools that generate a lot of revenue from sports tend to roll that back into the program making the money. Shit, Auburn loses money on its football program. So the notion that that sports revenue somehow improves the quality of the university as a whole and through some trickle-down process enriches the tax-paying citizens of Las Vegas is unlikely at best. It's certainly not a prediction you can make based on existing examples.

  • Bubba Jones||

    If you tax my sales by 10%, I think that impacts me, even if my customers aren't locals.

    And if my visitors have less money to spend, or come less often, then that seems relevant.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    That's the new Progressive crony capitalism scheme to hide tax after tax, so they can get more Democrat votes and hit the interested parties they really don't care about- everybody.

    Every tax has an impact. Low taxes and regulation are best. The evidence is that high tax and heavy regulation states are still stagnate or getting worse in this Great recession. The states that adopt low taxes and minimal regulation are recovering.

  • PurityDiluting||

    "the costs to local taxpayers are ridiculously low"
    This seems to be the same logic being used to say that Obamacare is a success.
    Premiums went up through the roof, but there's a subsidy in place for most therefore it doesn't matter. I'm all for user fees, but give me something because someone else is paying doesn't sit well.

  • Microaggressor||

    Yeah. The 99% argument is a non sequitur because it ignores the second order effects of the tax. Namely, depressed tourism.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "If you tax my sales by 10%, I think that impacts me, even if my customers aren't locals"

    That would make more sense if the casinos had opposed the tax.

    They enthusiastically supported the tax.

    "CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) — Heavy hitters in Nevada's casino industry are going to bat for a project backed by one of their competitors, saying a proposed NFL stadium and a convention center expansion in Las Vegas are game-changing opportunities that Nevada lawmakers shouldn't pass up.

    Steve Wynn of Wynn Resorts, MGM Resorts International CEO Jim Murren and Caesars Entertainment Executive Vice President Jan Jones Blackhurst gave speeches Monday to Nevada lawmakers who are meeting in a special session to vet public financing for a stadium that's backed by Las Vegas Sands casino mogul Sheldon Adelson."

    http://tinyurl.com/gn6ka88

    If you read down, you'll see who opposed it.

    The unions.

    The unions wanted the money to go to an expansion of the convention center instead--because they have a contract with the city that guarantees their members jobs in an expansion and they have no union contract with the Raiders that will guarantee them employment at the new stadium. . . . so they oppose the stadium.

    Most of the local opposition has been driven by the unions.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "You keep bringing up that 99% number, and I'm really very skeptical. Is this coming from a specific source, or are you using 99% as shorthand for "nearly all of it"?

    The tax is on hotel rooms in Clark County.

    This guy's critics were reduced to claiming it would adversely impact homeless people who rent a room so they can take a shower.

    Very few locals would pay the tax, and of those who do, they'll pay it more or less voluntarily. Just like with any other sales tax, it's subjected to market constraints--and if you don't want to pay it, you don't have to.

    But we're talking about a tiny fraction of the people of Nevada paying that tax. It'll disproportionately be paid by people from Southern California.

  • Microaggressor||

    But we're talking about a tiny fraction of the people of Nevada paying that tax.
    Except, you know, all those people who benefit from the tourism industry that will be impacted. Which turns out to be a lot of them.

  • Bubba Jones||

    UNLV has zero need for a professional football stadium. Therefore it's a red herring.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Well, UNLV doesn't think so.

    "UNLV President Len Jessup said building a stadium would be a "game-changer" for UNLV and could help further the university's goal of becoming an elite institution."

    "Where we want to go as a top-tier university involves not only improvements on the academic side of the house...but it also requires us to make improvements on the athletic side of the house," Jessup said.

    "New stadium would help UNLV become a top-tier school, president says"
    Las Vegas Sun

    http://tinyurl.com/gv7t8a8

    Meanwhile, successful college football programs are wildly profitable, and that isn't all. They generate halo giving by alumni, attract more out of state and higher quality students, etc. etc.

    And Sam Boyd stadium is out in the middle of nowhere.

  • DarrenM||

    Well, UNLV doesn't think so.

    Why is this not a surprise?

  • Robert||

    What if the Las Vegas Quicksilvers come back?

  • ||

    This is factually incorrect. As a commercial real estate developer, it's factually incorrect.

    IOW, because Ken says so. Also, expertism and credentialism. LOL.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Actually, I gave a list of reasons and several arguments to support it, you idiot.

  • Holger da Dane||

    You're going to tell me that UNLV getting a new football stadium at no cost to the school and less than 1% of the cost to local taxpayers doesn't and shouldn't make any difference--from the perspective of legislators and voters from Las Vegas?

    Even if this was true, it's still subsidized by tax payers. Why does it matter if they are local or not?

    And why should something like a sports stadium be subsidized? It's certainly not a vital function of society, rather it's a business venture. Something best left to the free market.

    I think people may have a general problem with a "Libertarian" supporting legislation designed to pick winners and losers in the market place.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Why does it matter if they are local or not?"

    You understand this article is about the Libertarian Party throwing one of their own under the bus because they say he's taxing his own constituents, right?

    "[Moore] 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 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".

    That's what he said.

    We're talking whether taxpayers in Nevada should vote against a Libertarian politician because he voted for a sales tax on his own constituents tourists.

    That's why it matters whether they're local.

  • Holger da Dane||

    So because the NVLP gave an un-libertarian excuse for why this politician's actions are un-libertarian, everything is fine?

    You don't have to be an ancap to think that taxing people, regardless of where they're from or how the tax is levied, to think that taking people's money to throw at a private business venture is not particularly libertarian.

  • Mencken Sense||

    UNLV sports don't bring in millions of dollars. They just last year made their budget for the first time in years - and that's when you include the millions they siphon off from students, and indirect support from the state. College sports is a loser for all but a few big programs.

    You sound like every other Republican who wants to "slash Big Government!" ...Oh, except for this program which subsidizes my big donor, and this useless alphabet agency that has an office in my district, and...

  • Reverend Lovejoy||

    ''Successful football programs bring tens of millions of dollars into universities--and you need a decent stadium in a good location to get that revenue stream. You have to look at the benefits before you can make rational judgements about the costs--and in this case, the costs to local taxpayers are ridiculously low.''

    For a shit football program like UNLV, this will never pay off. Get your head out of your ass.

  • Jerryskids||

    If a sales tax that's 99% paid by tourists is unlibertarian because less than 1% of it is paid by his constituents, then how does the Nevada Libertarian Party justify voting to legalize and tax recreational marijuana?

    Think about that for a second

    Agile, give Ken his account back.

  • Jerryskids||

    If a sales tax that's 99% paid by tourists is unlibertarian because less than 1% of it is paid by his constituents, then how does the Nevada Libertarian Party justify voting to legalize and tax recreational marijuana?

    How is taxing marijuana, a tax only paid by purchasers of marijuana, the same thing as taxing tourists to pay for a football stadium for the use of the locals? Taxing Party A to provide a benefit for Party B is otherwise known as "robbing Peter to pay Paul", isn't it?

  • Jerryskids||

    And just for the dead-horse beating, I heard a discussion of the ballot initiative to bigly raise the cigarette tax in Missoura - the big tobacco companies support it and the health nazis oppose it. Why? The big tobacco companies are getting under-cut by the little companies that don't have to pay the tobacco settlement fees and they figure a whopping tax increase will level the playing field. The health nazis oppose it because they're holding out for a staggeringly ginormous tax increase rather than a mere whopping one.

    But my question is: why does the differential tax treatment of cigarettes and booze and gas (and, presumably, marijuana) compared to shoes and chairs and dog collars not implicate the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution? How do you defend taxing this stuff differently than that stuff without getting into some "fairness" or "but it imposes costs on society!" bullshit that sends us careening right down the slippery slope into a special tax on the green M+M's, button-fly jeans, and goat porn that doesn't include at least one sheep?

  • PurityDiluting||

    Tobacco settlement lawsuit was based upon the notion that states were bearing the burden of future medical bills from smoking related illnesses. There's some logic to that argument. Except that almost every single state then securitized the revenue stream from that settlement and squandered the money to patch holes in their current budget. Money for future medical bills? Poof, gone in a legislative puff of smoke

  • Ken Shultz||

    They were opposing this guy because he supposedly voted to tax his constituents.

    If that's hard to follow, isn't it because you've already accepted that the upside of legalizing marijuana outweigh the downside of taxation so thoroughly--that you don't even consider it anymore?

    Why wouldn't we subject his vote for this sales tax on the same basis?

    He thinks the upside of this deal far outweighs the downside--and the downside of the tax is minuscule since 99% of the tax is being paid by tourists.

    That doesn't make him unlibertarian anymore than it makes the Nevada Libertarian Party unlibertarian for supporting marijuana legalization despite a sales tax.

    I'll have you know that supporting a sales tax on marijuana as an acceptable trade off for legalization isn't a slam dunk for lots of real libertarians. And if you have any further questions about that, I suggest you email Jacob Sullum.

  • Microaggressor||

    I don't think the marijuana comparison fits. That situation has a clear libertarian upside, namely, people stop being thrown in rape cages for it.

    There is no libertarian upside for the stadium boondoggle. The tax is a downside. The corporate welfare is another downside. Both sides of the equation are decidedly unlibertarian. Not the same with the marijuana deal.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "There is no libertarian upside for the stadium boondoggle."

    I think you should look at it from the perspective of a legislator.

    If you plan on killing off UNLV as an organ of the state, then I suppose that's a purely anarchist and legitimate position.

    If he sees UNLV getting a free stadium out of the deal at almost no cost to his constituents and he's not an anarchist, then . . .

    Can't it be libertarian to think that doing your constituents some good at little or no expense to them is a good thing?

    Ron Paul was there to serve the interests of the people he represented. That's what legislators are for. By all accounts, Ron Paul did a good job of representing his constituents. When Ron Paul saw opportunities that benefited his constituents at minuscule cost to the taxpayers he represented, he did what was in the best interests of his constituents.

    I don't think that made him a phony libertarian.

    I think that made him a good legislator.

    Libertarianism isn't necessarily about screwing your own constituents out of a free stadium on some unrelated principle. I don't even see that there's much of any principle being compromised here.

  • Microaggressor||

    The mistake you're making here is assuming there is little to no expense to the constituents.

    The tourism industry will be impacted. It doesn't matter even if Nevada has the cheapest hotels around. Vacationing is a luxury expenditure that can easily be substituted with nothing. If the tourism industry retracts, the impact will trickle down to other industries that serve the tourism industry, and so on. Harming the economic prospects and standard of living for the actual constituents. You're not getting something for nothing.

  • DarrenM||

    Would it be impacted that much? It's necessary to weigh the benefits with the costs. It seems with any large government project, the costs are often born disproportionately by those who do not share quite so much in the benefits. So, who benefits and who pays? If they are the same people, OK. If not, people need to question this.

  • Juice||

    If the only way to stop prosecuting people for marijuana is to legalize and tax it, then you vote for that. It sucks that assholes can't stand that something is happening without the government being in the middle, but the difference is it being legal versus illegal.

    The stadium thing is completely different.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I think your strategy for weed is a reasonable strategy for Libertarians. The biggest hurdle is getting to de-criminalize marijuana. Go after the tax for weed after legalizing it. I think once you starve the police state of things they can attack people for, Americans can shift gears and starve the government of funds overall.

  • Mickey Rat||

    It is a tax on the hotels, the owners and people who run the hotel are not his constituents? There is a word for the concept that the tax is something that only effects noncostituents: lie.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Are you questioning the democratic basis of taxation.

    I've always been a fan of "No taxation without representation".

    Are you saying that there shouldn't be any taxation--even with representation? That you oppose all taxation because it's taxation?

    I'm not an anarchist.

    I think sales taxes are the most voluntary, coercive free form of taxation possible. If I could get rid of the income tax, the corporate tax, and the capital gains tax and replace them all with sales taxes, I would do so--both for utilitarian reasons and because it's the moral thing to do in terms of respecting people's volition.

    If you don't want to pay a sales tax, you don't have to.

    I certainly don't see a Libertarian politician as being unlibertarian specifically because he wants to impose a sales tax on hotel rooms in a tourist mecca. If there's such a thing as a libertarian tax that can be supported by a libertarian politician, a sales tax on hotel rooms in a tourist mecca is probably it.

  • Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper||

    Not trying to pile on to you, I swear.

    I don't know why some libertarians think taxing income is immoral or unjust but taxing commercial transactions is fine. It's still a situation where the state is injecting itself as a third-party with no contribution to the exchange in order to take money that wasn't offered for services it never rendered.

    If you really want a Libertarian-friendly revenue stream for the state, look at usage fees. Tolls, regular fees for emergency services, etc. These are monies collected for services rendered, most of which can be avoided by simply not using them.

    Granted, this is all pretty theoretical, and most libertarians are going to find some room for ideological compromise with regard to things like taxation.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I think there is a great deal of wiggle-room with taxation for Libertarians. I want taxation as voluntary as possible but everyone needs to have skin in the game. In a Democratic Republic, you cannot make everyone happy but you can make it hard to screw the no-tax ever person. Make all tax increase require 100% of the Legislature or Congress. I think 90% is okay too. Anything about 75% is reasonable to me and would make it harder for politicians to raise taxes. Combines with balanced budget requirements and 100% vote to borrow money, we could put some serious financial restrictions on politicians.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I don't know why some libertarians think taxing income is immoral or unjust but taxing commercial transactions is fine."

    It's probably my number one issue. If I could only do one thing, I'd abolish income, corporate, and capital gains taxes and replace them with a sales tax.

    There are two broad categories of reasons.

    1) Moral

    You can willfully decline to buy any particular thing and live your life in freedom. To that extent paying the tax is voluntary.

    Generally speaking, willfully declining to generate income, profits, or capital gains means social suicide. Yeah, there are a few hearty individuals who can do that, but not as a society of 350 million+.

  • Ken Shultz||

    2) Utilitarian

    Taxing income, profits, and capital gains and redistributing it through government spending is the very essence of socialism, and I oppose that stupidity for all the same reasons I oppose, nationalization, central planning and other forms of socialist stupidity.

    Taxing 20% of income, 20% of profits, and 20% of capital gains is simply nationalizing 20% of the economy. Company ownership means I get my share of the dividends (income) and capital gains. Income taxes are simply redistributing wealth through central planning as well. Corporate taxes aren't just double-taxation, they're embezzlement through government ownership.

    There are specific ways taxing these things hurts us, too. Income taxes, for instance, artificially inflate the cost of hiring unemployed people and paying them their take how pay. "How cruel is that?" is one question--"How stupid is that?" is another.

    Sales taxes, on the other hand, subject taxation to market discipline; i.e., revenue levels are determined directly by market forces.

  • Robert||

    Why make $ except to spend it? Whether you get taxed on it on the way in or on the way out, what's the difference?

  • Ken Shultz||

    For one, what about people who don't spend their income but invest it? You don't they'd do better in a world where their income wasn't taxed? Fred and Ethel didn't need Social Security. They saved and bought a small apartment building and rented it out to people like Ricky and Lucy for income in their old age. Now you're taking Fred and Ethel's income away from them their whole lives, and leaving them with a ponzi scam in Social Security?

    How is that better than a sales tax?

    What about the unskilled and unemployed? They can only compete on cost, and the income tax artificially inflates the cost of paying them their take home pay.

    If payroll and income taxes mean a workers takes home $20,000 a year on a $30,000 salary, he'd be happy to make $20,000 a year. The income tax is pricing unskilled labor out of the job market.

    In terms of capital gains taxes and corporate taxes, we pay an enormous price in terms of missed investment and opportunity because of those taxes. If the corporate tax is 20% on profits, what we know about entrepreneurship vs. central planning is that the entrepreneurs will use that money to make the economy grow much better than government bureaucrats. The corporate tax takes that money out of the hands of the people who make the economy grow and gives it to central planners who never make a return on their money!

    How can that be better than a sales tax to consumers?

  • Holger da Dane||

    It's not just about "tax/no tax", or who is being taxed. It's also about the purpose they're being taxed for.

    Why is it necessary to tax anyone to subsidize a business venture such as a sports stadium?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Why is it necessary to tax anyone to subsidize a business venture such as a sports stadium?"

    They're trying to help a public university.

    Maybe government shouldn't be in public universities.

    Maybe public universities shouldn't involve themselves in sports.

    But it isn't just to subsidize a private business venture.

    They're trying to help their public university.

  • Holger da Dane||

    They're trying to help a public university.

    Maybe I'm ignorant of the importance of sports-related infrastructure in academia, but in what way does this "help" the university?

    Will students receive a better education as a result, or somehow increase the university's revenue beyond the cost of this facility?

    And the public side is just half of the equation, there also seems to be some kind of tie-in with the NFL.

    I think even most squishy libertarians would oppose this simply because there is no guaranteed public good and a baked-in crony deal.

    Just because the money is obtained in libertarian-approved ways, doesn't mean the spending is justified. How would you feel about spending only sales-tax derived revenue on bailing out banks?

  • Reverend Lovejoy||

    For a guy who generally has it right, Ken is full of shit re the UNLV angle.
    Most of the 130+/- top-tier football programs in America are money pits.
    A new stadium for 4-5 homes games a year for a shitty program isn't going to vault UNLV into the realm of Alabama or Ohio State or Michigan, et al.
    It might, however, result in UNLV hiring a head coach for $6-7M.

  • Ken Shultz||

    While it's true that a lot of better programs spend more money on their football teams and don't make as much of a profit, it's also true that they have more money to spend because they're successful--and because they're successful they get more money from alumni donations, being able to charge out of state tuition to out of state students, licensing, etc., etc.

    While just doing well doesn't have the same effects--to the same extent--as winning the BCS championship title, doing well does have the same effects--to a lesser extent.

    http://www.fool.com/investing/.....worth.aspx

    That's why universities do it.

    Regardless, the President of UNLV (up yonder) says that getting a new stadium is a necessary step for UNLV to become a tier 1 school, and UNLV not having to pay to build a new stadium can only be good news for them and the taxpayers that support them.

    On some of those teams you're talking about that operate at a loss or break even, one of their biggest expenses is sometimes the financing costs of their stadium. Cal Berkeley has that problem:

    "Stadium debt already absorbs 20 percent of intercollegiate athletics' annual income, or roughly $18 million of its $89 million budget. And that pays only the interest."

    http://tinyurl.com/meotye2

    UNLV won't have that problem if they get a stadium for free.

    P.S. You're full of shit.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Successful football teams generate tens of millions of dollars a year in revenue for their schools, just through ticket sales, concessions, merchandise, TV rights, etc.

    There's also a huge halo effect with donors, being able to attract students from other states, being able to attract higher quality students, etc.

    If they get a stadium and are able to recruit the kind of players they need to be successful, they'll be able to build themselves a medical school, blow up into a research institution, etc.

    I've linked to quotes and statistics above.

    Having a new stadium will be a tremendous benefit. Usually the problem is the cost. In this case, UNLV doesn't have any costs. I think that's why everybody keeps forgetting about them when they do these stories on Hit & Run and elsewhere. Because they don't have to pay for any of it, people forget that UNLV is even involved.

  • Microaggressor||

    If you don't want to pay a sales tax, you don't have to.

    So, just don't buy those particular unapproved products.

    I feel so liberated already.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Do not put words in my mouth. All I meant was that saying this tax is not nonconstituents only is dishonest.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Some people believe that taxation is theft and that's the end of it.

    There are libertarians in this thread who believe that, I'm sure.

    For all I knew, maybe you were one of them!

    I'm more of a "No taxation without representation" guy. A miniarchist.

    Legitimately elected legislators making calls on taxes isn't necessarily unlibertarian in my book.

    That's all I was saying.

  • Robert||

    If you're against tax'n w/o represent'n, & if you believe the hotel tax is a tax on outsiders, isn't that a paradigmatic case of tax/n w/o represent'n?

  • Ken Shultz||

    The tax is implemented by the elected politicians through a legislature.

    The sales tax is paid more or less voluntarily.

    The Nevada state legislature can't and shouldn't pass taxes collected within California's jurisdiction.

    The Nevada state legislature also shouldn't force California's citizens to come here and stay in hotels against their will.

  • Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper||

    Moore turns libertarian purism around on the LNC, writing that "By choosing to censure me you are in FACT forcing your will upon me and everyone that does not agree with you. How is that true freedom or Liberty? NAP?"

    ...but you're voting for a bill that would raise taxes on 100% of your constituents because 62% wanted the other 38% to shut up and fork it over. You're...new to this "libertarian" thing, aren't you?

  • Microaggressor||

    "You're applying force upon me by severing your association with me, which you have every right to do! Help! NAP!"

  • Robert||

    The proper response by this legislator would be, "If I don't vote anti-liberty in these cases, I'd be likely to lose the votes that'd then keep me from being re-elected & voting pro-liberty most of the time."

  • Microaggressor||

    He could try to make the argument that his compromise was to advance liberty in the long run. But he didn't. He's just an opportunist shitheel.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I'm surprised the party doesn't do more to publicize that the first ventriloquist dummy to come to life and win elected office is a Libertarian.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    If he were a ventriloquist dummy, you'd think the LP would be able to have a little more say in his voting pattern.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Apparently you've never seen a movie, Paul. You never fuck with a ventriloquist dummy come to life.

  • ||

    I kinda wonder if Paul might be overestimating the effectiveness of the LP at manipulating puppets, political or otherwise, as well.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    That's not the only thing I overestimate...

  • Private Chipperbot||

    Measuring from the base again...

  • Patrick Boegel||

    While I can hear Moore's point on listening to his constituents, the bigger part of his job is to educate them. Paying for stadiums is the utmost in absurd crony capitalism.

  • T.F.G.||

    But wildly popular absurd crony capitalism. The kind that -- on your resume -- will allow you to be in office and sometimes not support absurd crony capitalism.

    Or something.

  • Microaggressor||

    You see, we have to destroy liberty first in order to save it.

  • ||

    Hello, new guy.

    the bigger part of his job is to educate them.

    Nope. We well resent that smug lecturing from prog politicians; libertarianism would be ill-served to adopt that type of smug condescension. It is the job of pundits and writers to educate the public to the extent which the public feels it needs to be educated.

    Paying for stadiums is the utmost in absurd crony capitalism.

    I'm sure there are worse examples, but this is an egregious one. Unfortunately, it's something that much of the public doesn't see as crony capitalism, and even if they do these remain very popular with the electorate. I really wish that Reason, and other libertarian think tanks would take on this issue in a more agressive way.

  • AggroFemme||

    I feel it is absolutely crony capitalism. I'm not happy with his actions in the slightest. I'm also not, and have never been a Republican or Democrat, just to get that out of the way. There are else examples but honestly, hating football and being a hockey buff myself it pisses me of even more. Would I approve if he'd done the same and approved a new NHL stadium? Absolutely not. This is a party based on principles and he is not upholding them.

  • Nolo Pretendere||

    By that standard, the LNC should be censuring William Weld for sure, and possibly Gary Johnson as well.

  • ||

    Perhaps so, but the LNC mouthpieces on here keep telling us how very much money Weld is raising. They may well need that money to regain ballot access if Johnson/Weld do poorly which seems increasingly likely.

  • Jerryskids||

    You know, we might have to get used to more of this shit. If Donald Trump can take over the GOP as a big-government liberal blatantly posing as a leftist caricature of a Republican, you're probably going to see Republicans attempting to take over the LP by posing as Republican caricatures of libertarians. You guys all support corporate cronyism, right? I know we all hate the coloreds and the womens. Don't we all want free drugs from the government? And what about all them damn free-loading orphans, amirite?

  • Free Society||

    And what about all them damn free-loading orphans, amirite?

    Make Monocles Clean Again

  • ||

    you're probably going to see Republicans attempting to take over the LP by posing as Republican caricatures of libertarians

    Assuming they haven't already started doing so. See my comment above about socons not wanting to be dethoned as the core constituency of conservatism.

  • PurityDiluting||

    I missed the transition of the Tea Party from being the voice for small govt to being a despicable evil. I assumed the tarring came from the left, then I saw Ted Cruz waving the bible around and claiming to be Mr. Tea Party.
    The Freedom caucus is getting smeared from the left now, so I'll hold out hopes for the Liberty caucus to stick to the small govt stuff without bossing people around on the social stuff.

  • Robert||

    It's happened before. In the 1980s the mayor of Bakersfield CA (non-partisan elected) changed her party enrollment to Libertarian. LP at 1st made a big deal of that, but when it became apparent she was just a "conservative" who wasn't for legal drugs, prostitution, or gambling, she & the party repudiated each other, & she changed enrollment to Republican.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Yeah Moore, the Libertarian Party defending the integrity of its brand by disassociating itself from your votes that it opposes is force.

    If a party cannot impose party discipline, then a Party's name is just noises signifying nothing.

  • ||

    he's not as libertarian as some Libertarians

    And I'm not as gay as some gays. Hmm, maybe that's because I'm not gay.

    I don't want libertarians to become mainstream, I want the mainstream to become libertarian. How's that gonna happen if a "libertarian" politician votes for stadium subsidies because a majority of the constituents want to wear a new NFL jersey?

  • ||

    And I'm not as gay as some gays. Hmm, maybe that's because I'm not gay.

    I don't want libertarians to become mainstream, I want the mainstream to become libertarian. How's that gonna happen if a "libertarian" politician votes for stadium subsidies because a majority of the constituents want to wear a new NFL jersey?

    Yeah, I've decided rather than voting, as a libertarian, it would be far more consistent and all-around better to donate $$ to 'libertarian lobby' organization like Americans For Limited Government or Advocates For Self-Government. Specifically because of bullshit like the current presidential election, John Moore, and things unseen.

  • PurityDiluting||

    I know nothing about Americans For Limited Government or Advocates For Self-Government, but many many such groups do nothing more than hoover up money to spend on themselves. Take care to vet what % of your donation actually goes towards advocacy and not just administration.

  • ||

    I know nothing about Americans For Limited Government or Advocates For Self-Government, but many many such groups do nothing more than hoover up money to spend on themselves.

    Right, because the Clinton Foundation has the best interests of the donors at heart. But, you're right, I should probably look for the one with the best "I Donated!" sticker and contribute money to them so I can still get the smug sense of moral superiority.

    /sarc (as in, I agree with what you say)

  • Juice||

    That could have been Johnson's line right before "Come be libertarian with me."

    I don't want libertarians to become mainstream, I want the mainstream to become libertarian. Come be libertarian with me.

    Pithy.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Party angry over Moore's vote on Raiders stadium subsidy; Moore thinks the L.P. needs to grow and "stop trying to advance the more radical agenda, pick and choose your fights and get more mainstream."

    Like Weld?

  • T.F.G.||

    I wish people here would stop disparaging America's new vice president.

  • Butler T. Reynolds||

    Opposing stadium deals is what passes for extreme these days?

  • Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper||

    I guess if you subscribe to the motte-and-bailey style of budgeting.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Another voice from the Bill Weld wing of the LP? Now we're getting somewhere.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I'm puzzled as to why the LP would be considered extreme for opposition to taxes. Jesus, even the Republicans can for the most part be counted on to do that. This is the problem with a top-down approach whereby the LP becomes more dominant by converting current office holders, rather than a bottom-up approach: the party simply becomes a vehicle for these candidates, and not an expression of classical liberalism.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I'm puzzled as to why the LP would be considered extreme for opposition to taxes."

    Because the tax isn't on the legislator's constituents.

    It's beyond dogmatic to insist that Las Vegas' and Nevada's taxpayers would be better off if UNLV built a stadium for itself at taxpayer expense--when they could get one without taxpayer expense?

    You're right.

    That isn't extremism. That's absurdity.

  • Mickey Rat||

    The tax is on the businesses many constituents work for. The con here is that taxes foisted on your customers have no effect on your economy even if the locals are not directly paying for them.

  • Ken Shultz||

    And yet the casinos are on board with the tax.

    They lobbied for it because they want the stadium.

    MGM, Wynn, Caesars Entertainment, and Las Vegas Sands all lobbied for the tax on their hotel rooms.

    http://www.usnews.com/news/bus.....m-proposal

  • DarrenM||

    If the stadium is near the casinos, they would of course be all for it. If the stadium was on the other side of the state, they'd be against it. The people who would benefit most from a stadium are those who would use it. The farther away you are from the stadium, the less benefit you get out of it in general.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Well let's not run around with the goalposts too far.

    The argument was that the room tax was going to hurt the hotels.

    The fact is that the hotels support the tax.

  • Reverend Lovejoy||

    No. The argument is that taxes are wrong. Or, at least they're wrong when redistributed to a private citizen (owner of an NFL team).
    You're the one that gave the robbery cover by suggesting it was a free stadium for UNLV.
    For a bright guy you sure are a mendacious cunt on this one.

  • Mencken Sense||

    Sounds like the casinos should be paying for the stadium then.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Who do you think pays for everything the city does in Las Vegas?

    Do you imagine the city itself is profitable in some way?

  • ||

    Dear Ken,

    Moore is the first to admit he's not as libertarian as some Libertarians. While he says defiantly that the censure "doesn't matter to me one bit, it's not going to alter my process or thinking at all"
    the Assembly bill was merely enabling legislation that would let Clark County pass such a tax, not directly passing the tax itself
    Moore turns libertarian purism around on the LNC, writing that "By choosing to censure me you are in FACT forcing your will upon me and everyone that does not agree with you. How is that true freedom or Liberty? NAP?"

    Moore believes that the stadium subsidy will "put thousands of out of work Nevadans back to work" and that Las Vegas' status as a major convention destination will be lost without the convention center expansion that's also part of the bill.

    and...

    Moore says he's raised about $70,000 this cycle, compared to less than a thousand bucks with which he won his seat in the first place.

    Work as a Republican in NV didn't guarantee him the future in government that he had hoped for, I see little evidence to dispel the notion that he went from a weak-R RINO to an *admittedly* weaker-L LINO strictly for fundraising and voter purposes.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, that's how they come around.

    The libertarian politicians of the future are all in office today.

    Once we change the minds of their constituents, the minds of the politicians will all change.

    That's how democracy works.

    Thank God for it.

    If the Libertarian Party is discouraging such behavior, then they've lost sight of their purpose.

    The purpose of the Libertarian Party is not to discourage people visiting our church from becoming members. It's to baptize sinners and turn them into members. If they're kicking visitors out for being sinners, then they've lost their fucking minds.

    P.S. George Wallace went from "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!" to being a champion of integration within a few short years. Change the constituents' minds, and their politicians will start falling all over themselves to become as libertarian as possible.

  • Reverend Lovejoy||

    And you fell for it?
    Good gawd you're a fool.
    I bet your think there's a different between Duff, Duff Lite and Duff Extra Lite.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Hi Tulpa!

  • ||

    Dear Ken,

    Moore is the first to admit he's not as libertarian as some Libertarians. While he says defiantly that the censure "doesn't matter to me one bit, it's not going to alter my process or thinking at all"
    the Assembly bill was merely enabling legislation that would let Clark County pass such a tax, not directly passing the tax itself
    Moore turns libertarian purism around on the LNC, writing that "By choosing to censure me you are in FACT forcing your will upon me and everyone that does not agree with you. How is that true freedom or Liberty? NAP?"

    Moore believes that the stadium subsidy will "put thousands of out of work Nevadans back to work" and that Las Vegas' status as a major convention destination will be lost without the convention center expansion that's also part of the bill.

    and...

    Moore says he's raised about $70,000 this cycle, compared to less than a thousand bucks with which he won his seat in the first place.

    Work as a Republican in NV didn't guarantee him the future in government that he had hoped for, I see little evidence to dispel the notion that he went from a weak-R RINO to an *admittedly* weaker-L LINO strictly for fundraising and voter purposes.

  • DarrenM||

    He's a politician. I see so many people making the mistake that what matters is how politicians think. They are always looking for a champion among the political class and of course are always disappointed. This is true for just about every ideology.

  • DOOMco||

    Or they could not build one. Or use donations. Or have high priced tickets for a while.
    If the University wants it they can submit it in the budget, plan for it, ask a bank or alumni.
    If the Raiders want it, build it yourself.

  • Free Society||

    Moore thinks the L.P. needs to grow and "stop trying to advance the more radical agenda, pick and choose your fights and get more mainstream."

    The LP is so hellbent on a radical fringe agenda that they nominated Gary Johnson and Bill Weld.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think a lot of you are just on autopilot.

    Somehow the idea that taxpayers paying for a billionaire's stadium is bad turned into the idea that building stadiums is bad--even when they aren't paid for by taxpayers and the benefit is to the taxpayers.

    Somehow that all morphed into "Building stadiums is bad".

    Drugs are bad.

    m-kay?

    Because drugs are bad.

  • Mencken Sense||

    The benefit to Nevada taxpayers of a publicly-funded football stadium is...?

  • Ken Shultz||

    The stadium is for UNLV's football team.

    UNLV is a public university.

  • Reverend Lovejoy||

    4-5 home games a year.
    How will that benefit the student body?
    I need date, not assertions of a self-proclaimed ''real estate developer.''

  • Reverend Lovejoy||

    Giant Turd is taking flak on his Facederp page for being a Faux Libertarian.

  • Horatio||

    It's really quite simple despite the barrel of digital ink you've spilled defending Moore: politics is showbiz for the ugly. Taxpayer funded NFL stadiums is one of the few high profile issues that libertarians have found common ground with the mainstream on, so a LP legislator voting for it is bad showbiz. Moore might be doing the pol dance with his constituents but the LP is simply doing the same with theirs.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Moore might be doing the pol dance with his constituents but the LP is simply doing the same with theirs."

    I agree with that sentiment about the LP. Here's what's wrong with that:

    The purpose of the LP is to bring mainstream legislators into the fold.

    Not to vanquish them into darkness for things that aren't un-libertarian.

    I've seen the same thing happen with environmentalist groups who promise to oppose opening new natural gas plants to replace old coal fired plants--despite the fact that burning natural gas to produce the same amount of electricity release 40% less CO2 into the atmosphere.

    Why do they oppose that?

    Mostly because opposing fracking is fashionable among their donors right now. So they end up opposing the solutions they should be fighting for--because their donors are on autopilot.

    Most of the people here, likewise, had no idea that the tax increase was on tourists and that the stadium is to be used by UNLV. They're just on autopilot.

    Stadiums are bad.

    Fracking is bad.

    Drugs are bad.

    m-kay?

  • Reverend Lovejoy||

    You've actually gone full retard, Ken.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Kiss my ass, Tulpa.

  • The Fusionist||

    The future of the Libertarian Party is...Moore-Johnson.

  • The Fusionist||

    Once again, LP, how's that pragmatism working out for you? Aren't you glad you rejected "purity tests"?

  • Juice||

    When you pick your battles, it should be shit like, ok I voted to keep this government program that feeds the homeless and is quite efficient with money. It may go against my principles, but it's low on the priority list and it's actually doing good and isn't so objectionable. You don't vote for subsidizing a fucking sports stadium. That's a battle you fight every time.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    This

  • ||

    You do have a good point, Juice, despite what I said above. Unfortunately, publicly-funded stadiums remain extremely popular with the voters.

  • DOOMco||

    If you are the deciding vote, i can see how youd be in a pickle on a stadium. The people want it. Maybe try to make it voted on by the public, requiring 80%of the people?

    There are things we can and even should compromise on. Things that are cheap and not terribly corrupt. Homelessness, poverty, food, roads. You know, the things that are listed as things we will lose if a republican or libertarian wins.

  • The Fusionist||

    Have the stadium reserve 1/3 of its seats for the homeless.

    There!

  • The Fusionist||

    Of course, the homeless would have to sign some forms that their organs can be harvested for the sake of injured players.

  • DarrenM||

    Have the stadium reserve 1/3 of its seats for the homeless.

    That's what the overfill parking lots are for.

  • Robert||

    In fact gov't-funded stadiums are more popular than feeding the homeless, at least to the locals (only not too local to the stadium). So in terms of votes, the stupid may be the smart. Sometimes you have to lead a lynch mob to get into position to free the serfs.

  • Hank Phillips||

    That, guillotines, death camps, causality, Prohibition, and economic collapse...
    Oh... not economic collapse? Scratch that and causality then...

  • eyeroller||

    By choosing to censure me you are in FACT forcing your will upon me and everyone that does not agree with you.

    Huh?

  • ||

    Raise taxes, subsidize sports team. Libertarian moment.

  • BE4LP||

    Brian, did John tell you he didn't even show up to his own press conference to announce his party switch? Or did he mention that he flew to Oregon with his republican friends to defend the Bundy family rather than attend the state convention to get approval for campaign funding? Or that National donated $10k to his campaign on the promises that Brett Pojunis made that John would vote like a Libertarian? Or that John himself squandered campaign funds to spend time at the local Transgender escort nightclub Las Vegas Lounge, all while accusing the LP of maintaining a "party atmosphere"? Or that on October 14th, when offered a chance to explain himself during the censure vote, his response was "do whatever you want"?

  • SIV||

    I say we cede the term "libertarian" to centrist moderates.

  • Uncle Jay||

    RE: This week the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) issued an official censure notice against Moore. Their reasons?

    To quote from the censure notice (which passed the LNC on a 9-6 vote, done electronically), the LNC says Moore:

    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;

    Mr. Moore is really a democrat/republican.
    Hence the request for more (dangerous) police tax.
    You can't have a police state without more police (and taxes).

  • Bob Meyer||

    Another Bill Maher "libertarian". We've lost "liberal" and now we're losing "libertarian". We need a name so offensive that no one will want it.

  • Hank Phillips||

    The commie anarchists already have dibs on that one. In fact, it was their surrogates that slipped a child-molester plank on us back at the height of religious republican feeding frenzies. I believe one of them got the idea from an East German photo book, Zieg Mal! But the move struck me as the height of idiocy in CIA-Bush Amerikkka.

  • IceTrey||

    So if 62% of his constituents wanted to reinstitute black slavery he would vote for it?

  • AggroFemme||

    Oh please, libertarians don't care about race, sexual identity, where you're from, etc. You could have at least picked a more appropriate analogy for your hypothetical question, instead of using something currently controversial that I'm sure you are well aware we don't support.

  • IMissLiberty||

    If you're here, the odds are good you might be an INTJ and familiar with Meyers-Briggs personality types. Even though they're only 2% of the population, they likely dominate the LP and reason readers. 2% is about what they get of the vote, since they vote principle and not the odds of "winning." All the iNtuitive Thinkers and other "iNtuitives" put together represent 25% of the population.
    It's time to understand and respect the less intuitive Sensates (75% of the population). Just because they evaluate the situation based on taste, texture, color, shape, condition, sound, experience, history, weight, and other tangibles, rather than the abstract, doesn't mean they can't be won over. INTJ's hate being candidates, and aren't necessarily good at it when they get elected, anyway.
    Sensates like Moore believe that a stadium makes things better. He doesn't see he's wrong. Educate him with tangible facts (e.g., photos of the slums around other stadia, tales of lives ruined by eminent domain). Yes, taxation is theft, but "it's reality," what Sensates accept as "the way things are."
    This is a perpetual conflict, between iNtutives and Sensates, because they see the world through different eyes. Some libertarians are born, and government creates the rest (converting Sensates to libertarians by government abuse and dysfunction). It's a process that must be repeated, but works pretty well if you use practical real-world examples, instead of insults, to change their minds.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    Power corrupts. Being completely out of power seems to make it harder for you to wield it.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    ...or rather it makes it harder to understand how to wield power if and when you get some. If the LP ever wants to accomplish anything they'd better figure it out PDQ.

  • Hank Phillips||

    With friends like soft machine Republicans, who needs enemies? Or as we say in Spanish: Mas vale sola que mal-acompañada. Didn't we have some antiabortion fanatic named Perry muddying the waters in Pennsylvania in 1992?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online