[Lnc-business] Vice-Chair

Fri May 19 09:50:35 EDT 2017

As libertarians, it can sometimes be difficult to walk the fine line
between polarizing political policies and emotional arguments, some of
which are closely intertwined. Warfare and the US military is a very
sensitive topic, when libertarians discuss foreign policy veterans often
times react in complete adherence or extreme disgust to even mundane
criticisms of the military. During my time in University, protesting and
tabling against military intervention, I have had many active duty and
retired veterans enthusiastically disagree with me, and many agree as well.
I personally respect the warrior ethos and I believe soldiers have a very
crucial role in our society and in the defense of liberty, however, I would
also agree that US foreign policy is not just destructive to US interests
at home, but to the soldiers themselves. Just a few weeks ago at the
Libertarian Party of Florida State convention I had the chance to talk to a
Gulf War veteran in length who would whole-hardheartedly agree with our
Vice Chair's comments regarding the military as it reflected his feelings
towards himself and his role in the Gulf War conflict, there are many such
Libertarians like him. Since then, many veterans have come out in defiance
of our Vice Chair's comments as well, voicing their concerns over the
dismissive language used in his statements. I have even had the Secretary
of my local affiliate re-register NPA because he agreed with our Vice Chair
but disagreed with those voicing dissent regarding his comments. The topic
of foreign policy is a topic very close to many libertarians hearts and
contains many nuances and subtleties while being highly emotional for most
with strong convictions leaning one way or the other. Perhaps, in the grand
scheme of things, this is an important moment of internal discourse for the
Party and a moment to reconcile conflicting views of the military and its
veterans.

The reason in which I would not support this motion is simply because our
Vice Chair's comments can be seen as a legitimate point of expression in a
libertarian context, while Larry's view is also legitimate. Both views
agree that foreign policy must be reformed and both agree that current
foreign policy is destructive to the soldiers and the victims of combat,
therein lies the problem and the difference between the Board of Directors
of a business and the Libertarian Party. I have friends on both sides of
the aisle that have served and would pick sides in this argument, they are
both inherently libertarian arguments. While I completely agree that
sensitive polarizing discussions deserve nuanced explanations and attention
to detail in attempt to avoid alienating large passionate voting blocks,
(during the Ron Paul for President campaign veterans donated more to his
campaign than all other candidates combined, during the Gary Johnson
campaign for President veterans polled more support for Gary Johnson than
any other candidate), I also agree that this kind of discourse is
unavoidable and ought to be addressed in attempt to reach some sort of
working consensus to bring libertarians together and fighting for foreign
policy reform. For years the Libertarian Party has attracted fervent
anti-war protesters and combat veterans, and for years they have been able
to fight under the same banner, we need a reconciliation and public
discourse. I would be in favor of a public statement emphasizing our
diverse membership and our Party's ability to bring together people from
both ends of the spectrum to fight for a common goal, perhaps written by
the Chair or voted on. This would be a much more constructive step in
mending the situation rather than polarizing our members from both sides. I
would also state that I hope our Vice Chair would take note of the facts
above, and as an ambassador of this Party's leadership, attempt to lay out
his arguments carefully when discussing nuanced points without
self-censoring.

In Liberty,

Steven Nekhaila
Region 2 Representative Alt
Steven.Nekhaila at LP.org
305-393-6412

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net> wrote:

>
> Reading these messages, I regret not having taken the time to speak out
> more strongly on this matter sooner. Frankly, I did not think it would come
> to this, and am sorry to see it. I did not believe anyone on this body
> would propose to *remove from office* one of our members over the kind of
> remarks in question, even if they had been made in a more official capacity
> and not as remarks posted on a personal page.
>
> Some of our vice-chair's posts have been undiplomatically written, no
> question. But they were *not* akin to an LNC member making racist or
> misogynist comments! The difference should, I hope, be obvious to everyone
> upon a bit of reflection – racism and sexism are directly contrary to
> libertarian principles, whereas if Arvin is guilty of anything besides
> injudicious wording, it is of being *too* passionately and radically
> libertarian. He has effectively challenged us to uphold, or at least
> consider, a higher standard of libertarian ethics that entails making fewer
> compromises with government, than some of us – perhaps many of us – are
> comfortable with. That to me is the kind of thing a Libertarian leader
> *should* be doing – encouraging us to examine our lives and how we can be
> more libertarian. Could Arvin have chosen some of his words more wisely? I
> certainly think so! But the spirit of his remarks was strongly
> anti-authoritarian, and that matters more than the wording. I also disagree
> that he is lacking remorse or empathy. In his "Open Letter to Military
> Veterans", he wrote, *"*During the last days, I've spoken to dozens of
> you, both privately and publicly. Many of you asked for an apology,
> explanation, or resignation. *To those of you who believed that I
> considered your motivations dishonorable, or believed that I despised or
> hated you as people: I am truly sorry for making you feel that way. Of the
> hundreds of military veterans that I have heard from, the motivations have
> been motivated mostly by heroism, some by opportunity. With either rare or
> nonexistent exceptions, no one joins the military for an actively immoral
> purpose." * How much more "remorseful" or "empathetic" can he get without
> undermining the basic truth that he was (perhaps insensitively) originally
> trying to express!?
>
> In a previous post, I made reference to my own compromises or shortcomings
> as a libertarian, which include having worked as a soldier for the U.S.
> government. Fortunately this didn't end up putting me in circumstances
> where I killed anyone for an unjust cause, but I did voluntarily put myself
> in a position where that *could* have happened, or where I might have had
> to make some very tough choices, perhaps running the risk of ending up like
> Chelsea Manning who is only this month finally seeing the end of seven
> years behind bars as a result of her conscientious choice to be a
> whistleblower. In libertarian terms, my putting on a uniform was a mistake,
> although ironically it may have been for the good of the movement in that I
> think seeing the experience of being a soldier and seeing the U.S.
> government's military from the inside probably hastened my evolution as a
> libertarian! I consciously avoid the term "veteran" with regard to my time
> in the U.S. Army Reserves, by the way. I am a *veteran* of many things,
> as are we all – in my case I am a veteran of attending government schools,
> working in movie theaters, providing erotic services, etc. Applying this
> term to one type of experience only, as if it were uniquely honorable, when
> in fact it is an experience more likely than most to involve contributing
> to the *harm* caused by government is, I believe, an error best
> avoided. I also use the term "worked" rather than "served", because I was
> drawing a paycheck. While getting a paycheck wasn't my sole motivation – I
> was embarrassingly patriotic at the time – I would not have signed up
> without it, and in my experience this was *universally* true of fellow
> soldiers I encountered. I do not recall meeting a single person during my
> military career who gave me the impression that s/he would have volunteered
> to be there, performing the work we did, without any compensation. If I
> had, I would have been either extremely impressed, or harbored doubts about
> his or her sanity. Possibly both! Of far, far greater *service*, I
> believe, has been my largely unpaid work in the freedom movement – service
> that I believe the vast majority of you reading this have also performed –
> and for *that*, not for any uniform you may have worn, you deserve the
> world's profound thanks and gratitude.
>
> Let's keep in mind our objectives here. Many of you have probably heard
> the quote, *"What if they held a war and no one showed up?"* While giving
> offense should not be our aim, discouraging people from going to work for
> government in harmful capacities *should* be our aim, unless they are
> taking those positions with a conscious, dedicated resolve to work for
> freedom from "the inside". It's difficult to further that aim of
> discouraging people from "showing up" for war, while employing language
> that treats government soldiers, and former government soldiers, as somehow
> uniquely deserving of respect or admiration. To be clear, I'm *not*
> saying that I became a bad person when I entered the U.S. government's
> military, or that my fellow soldiers were bad people; but I don't think we
> were exceptionally good or heroic people either, compared to others I've
> encountered in other contexts. Some – not all – of the individuals I met in
> the government's military struck me as, on the whole, admirable human
> beings, something I've found generally true in other communities with which
> I've had experience. Do I think that they, and I, were also *"accessories
> to murder"*, one of the phrases for which Arvin is being pilloried? It's
> probably not a phrase I would deliberately choose, because I think it could
> equally apply to so many of us, in so many other contexts, that it seems
> unfair to apply it just to soldiers who don't happen to be the ones pulling
> the triggers or pushing the buttons that result in the deaths of people who
> did not deserve to be killed. Just as I don't think soldiers should be
> uniquely elevated for honor or praise, neither is it fair to cast undue
> opprobrium in their direction. Lots of people, including probably most of
> you reading this and certainly including myself, both in and out of
> uniform, have undoubtedly contributed indirectly in one way or another to
> murder by government. Taxpayers who've provided funds to buy weaponry and
> munitions (I have). And yes, taxes are involuntary, but have you done all
> that you can to minimize your tax payments by taking only the lowest-paid
> over-the-table work necessary for survival? (I can't say that I've done
> this; probably like most of us, I would snap at a higher-paying job doing
> something I enjoy, even knowing I'd be paying higher taxes that help fund
> government murder. Shame on me.) People who've written letters or posted
> comments encouraging nationalism (I have, though not recently). People
> who've voted for politicians who expand the size/cost/power of government
> (I have, though again not recently – I hope!). Et cetera.
>
> Of course it's easier to make these admissions about oneself than to have
> such truths pointed out to you by someone else, especially if they aren't
> simultaneously acknowledging their own culpability, in which case the usual
> human reaction, which few of us have magnanimous enough spirits to
> suppress, is to take offense. The truth of this has probably been drummed
> home to Arvin in recent days. But *the choice of whether or not to be
> offended is always up to each of us*, because how we feel about what we
> hear is likely related to which identity or concept of ourself we choose to
> see as most important. We all have multiple identities upon which we base
> our self-images – soldiers, teachers, Catholics, Jews, parents, children,
> students, retirees, of Asian or African ancestry, into woodworking,
> volleyball, birdwatching, and so on. But given our purpose of achieving a
> free world in our lifetimes, the Libertarian Party should encourage people
> to identify first and foremost as individuals who have the right to freedom
> and are committed to defending that right, for themselves and others.
> Because freedom is the commonality that goes broadest and deepest. It is
> the one identity out of all those mentioned above and many more that is
> shared by every human being on earth, maybe even by all *life*. I*t can
> and should be what unites us. But we won't be able to realize that unity if
> we put other identities, such as being a former soldier, or a teacher, or
> whatever, ahead of our identity as free beings, so that when we hear a
> pro-freedom message expressed in a manner that threatens one of those other
> identities, we rush to defend that identity instead of remembering, or
> being open to learning, the underlying truth the speaker is addressing.*
>
> Certainly we should all strive to communicate in ways that make it easier,
> not more difficult, for people to embrace libertarianism. But this
> *doesn't* necessarily mean saying only the things least likely to offend!
> Very often, it is plainly speaking truth to power that opens the hearts and
> minds of those who are ready to hear. Passionate advocacy of freedom will
> do more for the cause than not offending anyone, and we need more young,
> passionate advocates of freedom like Arvin in our leadership, not
> fewer. He's right that we should be more straightforward in talking about
> the libertarian agenda as stated in our platform, and that we should speak
> more to the victims of the State, who comprise a multitude of small,
> under-represented groups that together can be a powerful coalition. I
> sincerely hope this bid to remove him is a gambit in which you start by
> asking for the more serious step of removal so as to end up being able to
> pass a motion of censure, but I do not think he deserves censure or
> removal, and will vote for neither.
>
> Love & Liberty,
>                                    ((( starchild )))
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>                         RealReform at earthlink.net
>                                 (415) 625-FREE
>
>
> *"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
> greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace.
> We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that
> feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget
> that ye were our countrymen."* *
>
> *The insulting quote from an August 1776 speech that, in some alternate
> universe in which the American founders were more concerned with image and
> marketing, got Samuel Adams ejected from the Continental Congress by his
> fellow signers of the Declaration of Independence after he failed to
> apologize sufficiently abjectly to the Tories whom he had branded as
> cowards.
>
>
> On May 18, 2017, at 9:36 PM, Patrick McKnight wrote:
>
> I totally agree with Larry. For me the lack of remorse is astounding. I
> personally sent Arvin an email about this and received no response. We
> can't grow by making offensive generalizations and calling people names.
> This is unacceptable behavior.
>
> Therefore I must, with a heavy heart, make a motion to remove Arvin Vohra
> from his position as Vice Chair under Article 6, Section 7 of our Bylaws.
> Who will second this motion?
>
> Thanks,
> Patrick McKnight
> Region 8 Rep
>
>
> On May 18, 2017 10:12 PM, "Larry Sharpe" <lsharpe at neo-sage.com> wrote:
>
> Dear LNC,
>
> The idea that we as the LNC should do nothing as a committee regarding
> Arvin Vohra's comments is alarming to me.
>
> If a Board Member or member of the Executive Team at Pepsi ever said
> anything negative about Pepsi customers publicly he/she would be relieved
> immediately, regardless of whether they were on the clock, off the clock,
> on Facebook, in a crowd or announced that is was only their PERSONAL
> opinion that "X" group of people are bad. This would happen even after an
> apology. If you choose to take on a public role, there WILL be constraints
> on your private life. If you don't like that, you shouldn't take on this
> role. The LNC is NEVER off. Our words will always be used to hurt the cause
> whenever possible. I have been an officer of a public company and I was
> never "off". I could never publicly say disparaging things about our
> customers. That's the price I agreed to pay to take that position. Ours is
> no different.
>
> What if the comments were about divorced women? Or were race related?
> Would we just say, "Oh well, that's his personal opinion? Yeah, I know he's
> a racist, but you know, what are you gonna do, right?" I hope not, because
> no other organization, private, public, profit or nonprofit would stand for
> it, and neither should we.
>
> Arvin blatantly insulted veterans. That is about 20 million voters and
> their supporters (maybe another 25 -50 million?).
>
> After multiple lengthy notes explaining why he was right, he finally
> provided a weak "I'm sorry that you are so sensitive" apology hidden in
> another self-righteous diatribe. There is still no real apology for the
> actual insult. Then he went on to insult teachers, another 3 million
> voters!  Then he went on to call our candidates tricksters and lairs.
> Obviously, he doesn't feel like he's done anything wrong and he has no
> intention of stopping.
>
> He has poor judgement, no remorse and a severe lack of empathy. He is
> making it harder for us to grow, that's one of our primary goals, and he's
> not stopping.
>
> Because of his actions, it is harder for us to get volunteers, donations,
> members and candidates! And the volunteers and candidates that we have must
> spend more time doing damage control instead of being productive with the
> precious time they give us.
>
> Everyday the damage continues and the pain festers. And some of you want
> to wait until 2018!? No waiting until 2018. We must lead and we must handle
> our own. We need to act now.
>
> As soon as we start consistently winning at the State level and become a
> threat, our enemies will comb through our data and use this against us.
> What story will we tell?
>
> "Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we did nothing about."
>
> They will hear that we agree with him:
>
>    - Our veterans are murders
>    - Our teachers are enemies
>    - Our candidates are liars and trickster
>
> It is what voters will think and that is what matters for a political
> party. That will come back to haunt and crush us once we have several
> candidates that are about to win.
>
> Or we can say:
>
> "Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we acted quickly and
> decisively. We do NOT agree with that, and that's why we acted."
>
> He has every right to his voice and opinion, just not publicly while he
> represents the LP.
>
> This is not about disagreeing on an issue or platform point. It is about
> insulting millions of voters and purposely, actively, continually hurting
> our efforts to grow and win which is in direct violation of article 2 of
> our bylaws.
>
> I am a huge proponent of second chances, but he has had many and refuses
> to adjust his behavior.
>
> Any officer in any organization, public or private, profit or non-profit
> who created and continues to create this much damage would be removed. So
> should he.
>
> Those of you who know me know that I rarely stand my ground on an LNC
> issue. I usually say my opinion, respect the answer, do damage control as
> needed and then continue my work. Not this time. For my brothers and
> sisters who were called immoral murders here, I will not fall back.
>
> I initially was going to ask for a motion to officially ask Arvin to
> apologize, or maybe for a censure. But that time has passed. Because I am
> an Alternate, I cannot propose a motion, so I request for any At-Large LNC
> member or my Regional Rep, Patrick McKnight, to propose a motion to remove
> Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice-Chair under Article 6, section 7 of
> our Bylaws.
>
> Let him fight for liberty outside of LP leadership.
>
> --
>
> Larry
>
> *Larry Sharpe*
>
> *The Neo-Sage Group, Inc.*
>
> http://TheNeoSage.com/ <http://theneosage.com/>
>
> <https://www.facebook.com/TheNeoSageGroup>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/user/TheNeoSage
>
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/neosage
>
> *https://www.facebook.com/neosage <https://www.facebook.com/neosage>*
>
> *212-307-3545 <212-307-3545>*
> <image001.png>  *Instructing – Advancing – Inspiring*
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170519/bc638774/attachment-0002.html>