One of the most persistent themes running through Nevada history is summarized in the phrase "live and let live."

This is the long-standing belief that Nevadans generally possess a strong libertarian impulse -- that folks can take care of themselves, thank you, and don't appreciate the government or anyone else telling them what they can and can't do.

Clearly, the few thousand miners, ranchers, gamblers and ne'er-do-wells who populated Nevada in the 19th century embraced this world view. They lived off the land and weren't bossed by anyone. And with little government or law enforcement to speak of, Nevada was a place where people could play fast and loose with the conventional rules of society.

To its credit, this frontier spirit helped fuel the Nevada economy, from the prospectors who created the state's first industry to the politicians who legalized gambling and liberal divorce laws to the enterprising mobsters who made Las Vegas an international tourist attraction.

A lot has changed over the past 100 years or so, but even today you hear people suggest that "live and let live" is the Silver State's defining characteristic.

The philosophy has romantic appeal, no doubt, and it does manifest itself in some positive ways, such as the fact that many stores, restaurants and other establishments stay open past 9 o'clock at night.

But as the state grows, the ill effects of this Old West ethic become ever more apparent. Despite underfunded schools, inadequate public institutions and chronic social problems, resistance to funding the basic responsibilities of society leaves Nevada mired in second- and third-rate status in innumerable measurements of civic and educational achievement.

For these reasons, the Northern Nevada writer William A. Douglass doubts the virtue of Nevada's spirit of rugged individualism. "Might we not question whether this provides a viable charter and blueprint for forging our place in the contemporary and future worlds?" he asks.

Indeed it does. And last week's election provided ample evidence that Nevadans are not only questioning this frontier philosophy, but taking steps to evolve beyond it.

Start with Question 5. Who would have thought that Nevada, where everything goes, would throw its nicotine fiends out in the street?

Yet that's exactly what it did. Question 5's passage means smoking in public areas soon will occur only in casinos and bars that don't serve food. Nevada supermarkets, convenience stores and restaurants finally will be free of the health hazard of secondhand smoke.

Although the impact is significantly lessened by the casino exemption, Question 5's passage signals a profound change. Once considered California's smoking section, Nevada has finally acknowledged that secondhand smoke is dangerous to adults and children alike. The freedom to smoke remains, of course, but the freedom to create a public health hazard does not.

And by the way, support for Question 5 did not come solely from city-dwelling do-gooders. Majority votes in favor of the ballot measure also were recorded in several rural counties.

Then there's Question 6. Nevada voters overwhelmingly approved raising the minimum wage one dollar above the federal level. On the frontier, employers could pay slave wages without anyone raising an eyebrow. But modern-day Nevadans clearly believe people are entitled to a decent wage for their labor.

And incidentally, support for Question 6 was not an urban phenomenon either. Nevada's independent-minded rural voters also strongly supported the wage hike, siding with working people over the greed of a few small-business owners who apparently have built their success on the tired backs of employees making $5.15 per hour.

Let's be clear: Question 6 is flat-out government regulation of the marketplace. Its passage by 69 percent of voters statewide is a direct hit on Nevada's libertarian reputation.

Finally, consider Question 7, the initiative to legalize, tax and regulate marijuana. Under the theory of "live and let live," this question would have passed easily, right? Instead, it was rejected in all but one county. (Just curious: What's going on out there in Storey County?)

Nevadans, who have turned down two straight pot initiatives, clearly are not ready to legalize its use. This is not libertarian philosophy at work.

So, Nevada is changing -- and, to my way of thinking, it's for the better.

It is becoming more sophisticated. It is recognizing that the romantic notion of rugged individualism makes more sense in John Wayne Westerns than it does in Nevada in 2006.

The key to this maturation process is to not let it get out of hand. Nevada is not and never should be California or Utah. It should not, for example, be a place where a guy can't buy a beer on Sunday. It never should pass a law requiring "positive" trick-or-treating. It never should be a place that allows homeowner associations to tell people they can't fly the American flag. Preserving constitutional freedoms always should be a hallmark of this state.

But the more self-centered aspects of Nevada's frontier tradition are being retired in favor of greater emphasis on the public good. Passage of Questions 5 and 6, in particular, show that Nevadans are beginning to recognize the merits of more progressive ideals.

Jim Hulse, a longtime University of Nevada, Reno history professor, wrote a book in 1986 titled "Forty Years in the Wilderness," in which he called Nevada a "state without a conscience."

"If we measure success in terms of dollars or 'improvements' on real estate, Nevada is, of course, one of the leaders of the nation and the world," Hulse wrote. "If, on the other hand, we evaluate the state's performance on the basis of its service to its young people in the classrooms, or the underprivileged, or the disabled, or the nation as a whole, the record can hardly be a source of pride."

Twenty years later, Nevada's record is improving.

Geoff Schumacher (gschumacher@ reviewjournal.com) is Stephens Media's director of community publications. He is the author of "Sun, Sin & Suburbia: An Essential History of Modern Las Vegas." His column appears Sunday.