[Lnc-business] Veterans in service to the Libertarian Party; see the note at the bottom.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I also appreciated Starchild's analysis - the intellectual side and like to
couple it with Larry's application of emotional empathy.

And yes the explosion of opportunism is disheartening.

-Caryn Ann


On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 7:40 AM David Demarest <dpdemarest at centurylink.net>
wrote:

> Hi Starchild,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your thoughtful analysis and carefully-crafted response that
> represents one of the few fresh voices of sanity in the predominately
> anti-intellectual wilderness and troubling crescendo of mindless
> emotionalism ranging from unethical pile-on venting to crass political
> opportunism reminiscent of the mainstream political tactics and
> intellectually-dishonest status quo of the discredited two-party system.
>
>
>
> Perhaps these recent LP internal intellectual-implosion, knee-jerk
> responses will serve the useful purpose of exposing the work that the
> Libertarian Party must do if we intend to provide a serious and thoughtful
> intellectual alternative to the broken two-party system. I must say I find
> the opening anti-intellectual salvos overwhelmingly disruptive, destructive
> and characterized by disingenuous misinterpretations of the college
> education military bribe moral dilemma as an insult to veterans. The
> logical fallacies of such misinterpretations are patently obvious as are
> the attempts to use these misinterpretations as a venue for acting-out
> emotional venting and opportunistic political gain.
>
>
>
> We humans and Libertarians are capable of using our brains for what they
> were designed for, i.e., thoughtful analysis before emoting as you have
> done superbly. My hope is that the silver lining of this painful incident
> will incentivize *empowered individual Libertarians* to emerge from this
> uninspiring swamp of reactionary groupthink to create a vanguard of leaders
> and followers worthy on the original heroic efforts that created our former
> bastion of freedom and free market prosperity and later the birth of the
> Libertarian party and inspiring Statement of Principles. We Libertarians
> are capable of far better responses to the challenging intellectual
> initiatives that differentiate the Libertarian Party from the duopoly.
>
>
>
> Starchild, I look forward to your forthcoming and equally thoughtful
> analysis of Arvin’s moral intent and attention-getting semantic approach. I
> also hope that you will point us in a direction that leverages this
> incident to create a positive outcome for the Libertarian Party.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> ~David
>
>
>
> *Dec 28-Jan 1 Omaha Roads to Liberty Un-Convention*
>
>
>
> ~David Pratt Demarest
>
> LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
>
> Secretary, LPNE State Central Committee
>
> Cell:      402-981-6469
>
> Home: 402-493-0873
>
>
>
> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Starchild
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 14, 2017 5:03 AM
>
>
> *To:* Michael H. Wilson <evergreenlibertarian at gmail.com>
>
> *Cc:* Libertarian National Committee list <lnc-business at hq.lp.org>; ALLEN
> ACOSTA <islandal72 at yahoo.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Veterans in service to the Libertarian
> Party; see the note at the bottom.
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Michael,
>
>
>
>             Thank you for your message to members of the Libertarian
> National Committee, and for your activism! That's great to hear that
> yourself and other former soldiers in the Seattle area are organizing to
> support the Libertarian Party. I like the Washington Libertarians' "Support
> The Bill of Rights" banner – simple, blunt, and to the point.
>
>
>
>             Regarding the "questionable comments" to which you refer, I'm
> guessing that you mean some of the recent comments posted by LP vice chair
> Arvin Vohra on Facebook, since LNC members were also sent another message
> about the topic criticizing him by name over these remarks, and there has
> been some debate over his statements about the U.S. government's military
> forces and personnel on the LNC list, as well as coverage on IPR (
> http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/05/shane-trejo-libertarian-party-vice-chair-releases-controversial-anti-military-manifesto/
> – the comments section is worth checking out).
>
>
>
>             Without yet getting into my thoughts on what Arvin has
> written – I may say more on that later when I reply to the other message
> mentioned above, from (former?) LP member Michael Sanchez – I would like to
> ask your opinion as a longtime libertarian who opposes U.S. government
> military aggression (and if I'm not mistaken, a member of the Grassroots
> Libertarians Caucus who shares many of my views about the party!), on some
> questions that I think get to the heart of this controversy.
>
>
>
>             I assume you agree that individuals are morally responsible
> for their own actions, and that working as a government soldier doesn't
> change that. But *to what extent should people who voluntarily work for
> an aggression-based government in exchange for a paycheck be called out for
> doing so, or held morally responsible for immoral actions committed by
> other individuals who are part of that institution, if they themselves play
> only a relatively minor supporting role? *
>
>
>
>             As I see it this is by no means an easy question, and not
> only because I am also a former government soldier myself and conscious of
> my own compromises with authoritarian power and others made by generally
> freedom-loving people I respect (e.g. working a "respectable"
> above-the-table job that provides a good income – and entails paying large
> amounts of taxes that go toward funding evil). The challenge libertarians
> face is this: *How do we maintain moral clarity and integrity, speak
> truth to power, and perhaps most crucially, work to de-legitimize the
> structures and choices that support aggression, without alienating people
> who might side with freedom against authoritarianism if push comes to
> shove, or making sacrifices in our lives that – let's be honest – most of
> us are not prepared to make?* (Incidentally, I think we should do more to
> encourage such sacrifices and support and honor those who choose to make
> them, but that is a topic that deserves to be addressed at greater length
> than I want to take space for in this response.)
>
>
>
>             There are definitely some individuals whom I believe we
> should *not* hesitate to call out and alienate, and I hope we can all
> agree on that. Powerful statist politicians who are responsible for
> significant government aggression, whether inside the United States or not,
> and individuals who personally commit heinous actions such as unjustified
> murder and other similarly unconscionable crimes, whether they work for
> government or not, are to me the most obviously deserving of Libertarian
> condemnation. But *where should we draw the line when speaking as
> Libertarian Party leaders? *What level(s) of criticism, if any, of those
> who choose to work for the U.S. government's military do you think yourself
> and your colleagues who are former soldiers would be comfortable hearing
> from the LP, and why?
>
>
>
> Love & Liberty,
>
>                                     ((( starchild )))
>
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>
>                                  (415) 625-FREE
>
>                                    @StarchildSF
>
>
>
> P.S. – The photo you sent could be great for LP News, the LP website, or
> some other party publication or communication. Do staff have your
> permission to use it?
>
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> A couple of LP Vice-Chair Arvin Vohra's Facebook posts (links copied from
> the comments section of the IPR story referenced above):
>
> During the last hours, I've seen many justifications for joining the
> military. To avoid confusion, I'll address them in a single post.
>
> 1. I thought I would be fighting for freedom, or to defend the
> constitution.
>
> If you were a soldier in recent history, you probably weren't. Instead,
> you were a person who got tricked by propaganda. That doesn't make you a
> hero; it makes you someone who got tricked.
>
> That's happened to many people. I personally have been tricked by
> government propaganda. I voted for Obama in 2008. When I learned that I had
> been tricked, and had encouraged others to do the same foolish action, I
> decided to work to make amends. I spent thousands of hours helping people
> see the lie of the duopoly.
>
> If you were tricked by military recruiters, help prevent the same thing
> from happening to others. Share your experiences, and speak out boldly.
>
> 2. Many people don't care about all that, they just want money for college.
>
> That's a morally unacceptable position. That's saying, "I signed up for a
> job where I might have to kill innocents because I wanted the money." It's
> not new to say, "I idd violence because I wanted money." It's not moral
> either.
>
> 3. A soldier is like a gun. You don't blame guns when someone uses a gun
> for mass shootings; blame only the president, not the soldiers who follow
> his orders.
>
> A soldier is not a gun. A soldier has thoughts, morals, and judgment. If a
> gun had human level intelligence and then chose to be part of a school
> shooting, I would blame the gun along with the wielder. When a soldier
> chooses to follow an order to bomb a school or hospital, I similarly blame
> the solider along with the politician ordering him.
>
> I know the military makes a big propaganda show of calling soldiers
> military property, but the fact is slavery was outlawed by the 13th
> amendment. You are not an object. You are not a thing. You are a human
> being, with human abilities, and human responsibilities.
>
> 4. I still think what the military is doing is right. I'm proud of the
> work I did/am doing/will do.
>
> In that case, I disagree. I don't think you are an immoral person, but I
> do think you have been mislead. Sure, the American army in 1776 did great
> things. But today's military is not fighting for our freedom. It's getting
> involved in civil wars, and creating blowback.
>
> There are certain parts of the military that are purely defensive, at
> least in theory. But that theory rarely pans out. My only moral opposition
> to those is the tax funding, which applies to every government worker and
> contractor, not just to military.
>
> 5. Come to my base and say it to me and my platoon, so I can kick your
> [butt]
>
> Fighting ideas you dislike with violence is exactly why the military is
> failing at its current attempt to beat radical Islam with bombs. Ideas are
> defeated with better ideas. Women's rights happened through ideas and
> debates, not bombs. The same hold true of minority rights and even
> democracy. Beating up individuals doesn't change minds any more than
> bombing does.
>
> In the next few days, I will be putting together a working group for
> Counter Recruiting. The goal is to undue the lies and bluster military
> recruiters use to dupe young men and women into misusing themselves in the
> pursuit of immoral wars. All are welcome to join this group.
>
> https://www.facebook.com/arvin.vohra.9/posts/1511726878858800
>
>
>
>
>
> It seems that many members of the military have taken offense to the
> phrase "accessory to murder" used to describe non-combat support staff of
> combat soldiers, and the phrase "murder" to describe military combat used
> in completely counterproductive wars that create enemies. If the issue here
> is word choice, then I'm sure we can find a replacement. Replace murder
> with "tricked into killing" or "counterproductive killing" or "violence in
> the service of counterproductive military policy." Replace accessory with
> "support staff to violence that makes America less safe by creating
> predictable blowback." Replace enlist with "agree to follow orders from
> people who have been giving immoral orders for the last 40 years." Replace
> service with "squandering the desire for honor on the military industrial
> complex." If the issue is word choice, then there are plenty of other
> phrases. I'd be happy to immediately apologize for the word choice - if
> those who claim to care only about the word choice will join on the new
> word choice.
>
> That leaves this question: do those of you who take issue with the word
> choice believe military policy is good or bad? Do you think that the core
> combat missions have been corrupted, by politicians and the military
> industrial compex? Or do you believe that the current actions in the Middle
> East, the hundreds of overseas bases, the word policing are good?
>
> If you believe that those military actions are good, then I simply
> disagree. Ending military overreach, shutting down foreign military bases,
> and using the military for defense only will make us safer, save us blood
> and treasure, and stop psychologically damaging people by forcing them to
> take part in counterproductive violence and killing.
>
> If you believe that those military actions are bad, that the mission has
> been corrupted, then will you say so to the young men and women considering
> enlisting? Will you remind people who got tricked by the manipulation of
> military recruiters that they have the Entry Level Separation option, and
> can still leave within the first few months of joining? When you see
> Hollywood movies jammed with military propaganda, will you say something to
> those who look up to you and trust you?
>
> If you believe that current military actions are wrong, that the military
> industrial complex and politicians have corrupted the mission, then will
> you help starve the beast? Will you help encourage people not to enlist?
>
> If some of the last day's responses were just about word choice, let me
> know and I'll change it. If it's just that you support military overreach,
> then I hope you will reconsider your position.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Arvin Vohra <https://www.facebook.com/VohraEducation/>
>
> https://www.facebook.com/arvin.vohra.9/posts/1513441192020702
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 11, 2017, at 8:58 PM, Michael H. Wilson wrote:
>
>
>
> [image: Image may contain: 3 people, people standing, beard and outdoor]
>
> This is a local group of veterans working to promote the LP. There are six
> of us out on this day, four Army vets from Iraq/Afghanistan, one Marine and
> me, Coast Guard. I'm the old fart in the chair. At least four of these men
> are seriously disabled. They understand the situation. It would help if the
> LP put more emphasis on stopping the war and bringing all of the troops
> home. Maybe a big banner across the top of the web page or some decent
> literature with numbers of troops and dollars of costs written out.
>
> I think we will continue our efforts. I just hope the LP can put a stop to
> some of the questionable comments I and many others have heard recently
>
> Thank you
>
>
>
> Michael H. Wilson; member since 1980
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
-- 
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
<http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
<http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170514/4beac35f/attachment-0002.html>