Darcy, you are correct – there is “socialist capitalism” of a sort in the NFL, and it is this concept of “shared revenue” among the 32 teams that has, above everything else (well, along with holding taxpayers hostage for new stadiums), created the wildly successful NFL business model.

The idea of “competitive balance” was recognized by Pete Rozelle at the outset of his reign as commissioner. There is little chance that a New Orleans franchise in baseball, for example, could hope to maintain a level of competitiveness over an extended period of time against the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, etc. who have much, much more in the way of revenues to sign the top players. Yes, Mr. Geib, the shared revenues help to create a geographical “footprint” that is attractive to television networks (which is why it is so important to them that a new stadium be built in the L.A. area). Actually, however, the “socialist tendencies” and the TV contract go hand in hand; one would not really be as feasible without the other. And indeed, the number of market are always limited so that a disgruntled owner can pick up and have somewhere to go if he can’t extort the best deal out of a municipality. Also, they know enough to leave certain cities wanting – unlike the NHL, which has insinuated itself into cities (for purposes of creating their own TV “footprint,” I might add) that did not have a level of demand, then tried (sometimes in vain) to create it.

The NFL’s strategic position now is that it is a single-entity; in other words, that it is one corporation distributing revenue among 32 licensees, rather than 32 separate corporations who band together to share the money. Single-entity status would allow the NFL to safeguard itself to an extent from the kind of restraint-of-trade actions that have served as the only real ammunition the players’ union has ever had against it in court cases. The effect would almost certainly be to neuter the union. You’ll see that salary cap figure dip in a hurry, and with no collective bargaining agreement in place beyond 2010 (and a lockout looming) this could improve the dynamic for the league greatly.

A case that could have landmark ramifications – American Needle v. NFL – which was just argued before the Supreme Court, should be rather informative in this area. The league essentially backed into their position on this one, as they were going to fight having the case heard at first, but then realized there would be certain benefits to them to be declared a single entity by the court.

As one who doesn’t bet, I can report I’ve heard the term “Las Vegas oddsmaker,” but not “Las Vegas handicapper.” You may be technically correct, but maybe the term “oddsmaker” is the term used generically. Regardless, your comment feels awfully petty and nitpicking. Could be that Root doesn’t know what he does for a living, but I kinda doubt it.

Seems a really odd observation, regardless. One can critique many things Root says and does, but your point is bizarre.

Wayne Root is not a “Las Vegas oddsmaker.” Never has been. Never will be. So perhaps a quick tutorial for Root, and his “followers,” may be entirely appropriate.

In sports betting, an oddsmaker, who may also be referred to as a “linemaker,” sets a betting line that a handicapper (who may also be known as a “prognosticator”) makes bets or selections against. They are not only NOT one in the same, they are, in effect, on opposite sides of any one particular proposition.

I gather from Root’s comments that, although he says he is an oddsmaker, what he really considers himself to be is a handicapper. I suppose that would be a subject that is open for debate among other people at some other time; I will only say that no legitimate person in the sports betting industry would ever make the mistake of confusing those two very distinct functions.

That Root seems to be oblivious to this VERY fundamental difference between the “oddsmaking” role and the “handicapping” role is a pretty strong statement as to the veracity of his “credentials” in this area.. Perhaps he hasn’t “learned many valuable lessons from sports and sports betting” after all, as he professes. Since this is something he claims as his forte, I don’t think it would be out of line at all to question his legitimacy elsewhere as well.

I do think, however, that there are a couple of minor touches that should be applied to it (ditch the ‘new age’-looking cover, possibly drop the cartoons, clean up the in-book graphics, and update some data).

How about she writes a new one? ..and we hope it will sell better than the last one…

Mary Ruwart is not one I think should be out there.

I disagree.

I think Mary would be awesome if she stepped up and ran for Chair. I also wish she would run for president again – but start running a lot sooner this time.

Her book “Healing Our World” is exactly the message millions of Americans need to hear. I think it would resonate very well on college campuses, where my own personal extensive polling has shown THE biggest cluster of responses is in the left-libertarian-centrist range (and bear in mind that 90% of Americans do not change their political party after age 30).

I wish Dr. Ruwart, as a health care expert, was out getting tons of LP interviews about the health care insurance issue now that it is at the forefront of the national debate.

Making those arguments does not keep us from working to reduce and eventually repeal taxes.

me: Excellent exposition of the TAAAList view!

Let’s get it done!

me: what you mean “we,” Susan? Do all Ls advocate NO taxes? Do you mean to disrespect non-abolitionist Ls whom I’m sure you know do NOT advocate that highly theoretical view?

The LP needs more media not less. Anyone get on NPR’s Fresh Air program?

Let’s make the media pie bigger, rather than debate how it is sliced.

Additional hard-working Libertarian voices means we reach the public more often, and in different ways.

But how long do you think Root would be welcome on Fox News, or right-wing radio, if he bashed Palin like he bashes Obama?

If asked about Palin, Root will probably respectfully disagree, careful not to offend Palin’s fans, since many Palinistas are also Root book buyers.

Root flames Obama, yet is ever respectful in his disagreements with conservatives. This creates a public impression that libertarians are part of the right-wing family. That libertarians and conservatives are allies. They may disagree a little here and there, but are essentially on the same side.

This will, naturally, attract rightists into the LP, so that this false impression eventually becomes the new reality.

So let’s get some other faces of libertarianism some publicity.

Ernie Hancock, Tom Knapp, Steve Kubby, Mary Ruwart……we need to get them all over the media, the way Wayne is getting all over the media. I’ve been trying to get the ball rolling on this for a long time and over at the LP Radicals list some people seem to finally be showing interest.

Marc Montoni has a fund set up to help hire a media booking agent to get libertarians on the air. I’m working to get an experienced and talented volunteer involved.

How about a presidential candidate who is willing to make 500 speeches at colleges, as I read Ed Clark did back in ’80?

We have plenty of opportunities, folks….let’s take advantage of them rather than spending our time hating on Wayne for being successful in getting his conservative/libertarian message out to its intended audience.

In other words “don’t get mad, get even”…except in a positive way.

As long as FOX is included, by all means!

The article is a decent read and, thankfully, shorter than most Root pieces. However, I do have a bit of a problem with the “Sports gambling (and all forms of online gaming) needs to be legalized.”

It’s not that I disagree, but why does he choose these two forms of gambling? Sports gambling invariably makes sporting events more likely to be fixed, as there is an incentive, while online gambling is far easier to rig than any other form. Now, legal or not, these forms of gambling will happen, and perhaps if he pointed out that it’s easier to keep an eye on things that happen out in the open, I’d give him a pass. But this just sounds like he enjoys fleecing dumb gamblers and ruining America’s pasttime by bringing back the Black Sox of 1919.

As a sports fan – albeit not of football – I also didn’t really appreciate the comment about the coach taking a risk because the reward was millions of dollars. Dammit, even if it’s true, can’t you just say the reward was winning the super bowl??

At least this TPW Third Party Watch injustice has pretty much shaken out of IPR respondence, but I have had to dodge the slings and arrows of partisans to provide this public service!

If asked about Palin, Root will probably respectfully disagree, careful not to offend Palin’s fans, since many Palinistas are also Root book buyers.

Root flames Obama, yet is ever respectful in his disagreements with conservatives. This creates a public impression that libertarians are part of the right-wing family. That libertarians and conservatives are allies. They may disagree a little here and there, but are essentially on the same side.

This will, naturally, attract rightists into the LP, so that this false impression eventually becomes the new reality.

All the more reason Rootforme loses credibility when he beats up on Obama while giving Rethuglicans a pass. Ironically it’s been democrats more so than Rethuglicans who have been more permissive about legalized gambling and medical marijuana. Here in New Jersey Democrat Jon Corzine signed medical marijuana legislation which was passed by a democrat legislature over the opposition of most Rethuglicans including Governor-elect Chris Christie. And it was a democratic governor, Brendan Byrne, who facilitated casino gambling in Atlantic City. In Pennsylvania Democrat Ed Rendell has actively facilitated casino gambling in the mountain resort areas, and there are even proposals pending for Philadelphia’s waterfront.
At the same time most of the opposition to these proposals has come from Rethuglicans, especially those on the social reactionary side.

If Rootforme was sincere about differentiating himself as a credible Libertarian, not a “Reagan Libertarian”, he would spend less time Obamabashing and put more attention on reactionaries like Pat Robertson and James Dobson.

I think the most tactical position is for Libertarians to argue for freedom of use while not addressing the tax issue at the same time. If it comes up, just say we oppose all taxes, as we do.

We can’t necessarily solve all of the world’s problems all at once. I don’t think the overall burden of taxation would be made much worse if government taxed marijuana. And buying and selling marijuana would be safer and thus less expensive (criminalization is a huge tax in effect, except that the revenues go to non-monopoly criminals).

If arguments for taxing and regulating marijuana are more effective at ending marijuana prohibition sooner than arguments which do not address taxation or renounce taxation, then they should be made.

Making those arguments does not keep us from working to reduce and eventually repeal taxes.

And if and when the day does arrive that enough people no longer consider coercive taxation acceptable, that will also apply to marijuana. I don’t think that will happen any faster if, in the meantime, we reject taxing and regulating marijuana out of general opposition to all taxation and regulation – while allowing people to continue to be unjustly jailed when we could have stopped it.