[Lnc-business] Age of Consent and Statutory Rape. WTF.

Caryn Ann Harlos caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Sat Jan 13 05:51:13 EST 2018

Ken I absolutely agree. There are so many levels of wrong here, but you are
touching on an important nerve for me.  At this point, I am going HOW DARE
rude.  So inconsiderate of the rest of this Body, that I am agog.  We are
merely pawns in this one-man show to "protect" us from having candidates he
doesn't like.  When a fellow radical is this pissed off and put upon, he
has gone wayyyyy off the path.  I am pretty long-suffering.  My patience is
absolutely at an end.  And judging from some of the comments I have seen
from Region 1 chairs, theirs has to.

I represent Region 1 and its interests not Arvin's particular vision about
how we should all become the worst kind of macho flasher.  What happened to
taking on responsibility and being accountable? What happened to honouring
free association and the wishes of others?  I see no indication that the
majority of delegates who elected him had this in mind.  He is treating the
position as a free pass until next election.

I. Am. Over, It.  Enough is enough.

-Caryn Ann

On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 2:11 AM, Ken Moellman <ken at moellman.com> wrote:

> The discussion about the arbitrary lines in law are one I could go on and
> on about myself. The original draft of my letter had a lot of that, but I
> decided to cut it (and other items), in the interest of keeping the
> conversation on-track.
> I just saw the "official response" from Arvin on Facebook.  Holy crap.  "I
> would encourage those of you in this position to write, publicly, clearly,
> and comprehensibly on any of these topics."  That was not my goal today.  I
> did not want to have to chime in on Age of Consent laws.  I wanted to work
> on the mail server.  (On the upside, this message seems to have reached me,
> so some of the work I did get accomplished seems to be working.)  But I did
> get to write my position over and over today, and defend it over and over,
> as well. (Summary in my original message.)
> The APRC exists to prevent this kind of stuff from being published by the
> party.  The APRC cannot and should not monitor individual actors.  But it's
> important to understand WHY the APRC exists.  Messaging matters.   And when
> you have a title, you also get responsibilities; one of which is
> understanding that messaging matters. You must put aside your feelings for
> those that represent the interests of the party, broadly.  And you most
> certainly shouldn't make it hard on members and volunteers.
> If the 1998 version of me had seen this type of messaging from a party
> leader, I would have never have joined.  It's a very, very far cry from the
> Harry Browne messaging that kept me here (after a personal referral) 2
> decades ago.  In many ways, and for multiple reasons (not just this), I'm
> basically still here just because I'm falling victim to the sunken-cost
> fallacy.  This kind of messaging, and commitment of my time and energy,
> counter-balances that scale.
> There were many others, without the significant investment in the party,
> who I saw say something to the effect of, "if the libertarian party is for
> pedophiles, then it's not for me."
> On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 12:50 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>> Thank you Ken.
>> Arvin has gone way beyond the bounds of any rational good sense and is
>> basically “forcing” the rest of us to be associated with that.
>> Do I want to now go raise money or get members?
>> I disagree that arbitrary age lines are not an important issue I
>> absolutely agree that there are much more principled and moral ways to
>> address that include way more nuance and subjects other than giving cover
>> for potential predation.  Just because Facebook exists doesn’t mean it is
>> the best venue for all discussions, and no leader worth their salt should
>> need to be told that.
>> -Caryn Ann
>> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 9:43 PM Ken Moellman <ken at moellman.com> wrote:
>>> All -
>>> While no longer a member of the body, I am a member of the party and I
>>> cannot remain silent on this matter.  No response is necessary, because
>>> I've had all day to filter through everything. I ask that you simply
>>> consider what's going on.
>>> My facebook feed was dominated by this today. Our competition within the
>>> broader (small-L) movement has seized upon this.  This is far, far worse
>>> than anything else that's happened. At this point, I'm convinced that Gary
>>> Johnson could be dressed as satan on Easter weekend, strip naked, and
>>> defecate on a picture of Ron Paul, and it would probably be less damaging
>>> than what has occurred.
>>> From a purely political perspective, there is literally no reality where
>>> anything resembling a condoning of pedophilia is a good plan.
>>> From a philosophical, moral, and ethical perspective, I see absolutely
>>> no justification for adults taking advantage of children through
>>> information asymmetry to obtain sexual satisfaction. In my view, it is
>>> fraudulent to intentionally use information you have to deceive others who
>>> don't.  Voluntary exchange requires that both parties be informed.  Where
>>> governments exist, the law should be set up to protect people from (and
>>> more appropriately, when possible, compensated for) aggression. Fraud is
>>> aggression.
>>> From a biological perspective, people are generally wired to protect
>>> their children. That's how our species continues to exist.  (Google it.)
>>> So, this entire line of argument goes against politics, philosophy,
>>> morality, ethics, and biology.
>>> The arguments about arbitrary lines are ridiculous. As one who graduated
>>> from high school when I was just barely 16, I was personally affected by
>>> these arbitrary lines. And if we're going to have that discussion, we could
>>> use topics like alcohol, or  cigarettes, or drivers licenses, or pretty
>>> much anything else.  Not to mention the fact that many states already have
>>> added flexibility in the lines for sexual relationships, either through
>>> emancipation or so-called "Romeo and Juliet" laws.
>>> There are real ramifications to this to internal party work, as well. I
>>> was planning to work on the mail server today.  Instead, I was on Facebook
>>> all day doing various forms of damage control.  I wasn't the only one.
>>> Everything that I saw from the entire established party machine was spent
>>> today doing damage control instead of growing the party. On this very
>>> body,  Caryn Ann spent time writing an open letter.  Daniel spent time
>>> trying to get people to ignore it. I think I saw a few others clipped,
>>> quoted, or screen-shot as well.
>>> This has good, longer-term activists looking to disassociate from the
>>> party entirely.  Anyone who has been paying attention to the response today
>>> has probably seen the same thing.
>>> Seriously.  WTF.
>>> As a former state chair and candidate for office, I can definitively say
>>> that there's a responsibility that comes with the title.  You no longer
>>> speak with your own voice. You speak with the voice of those you
>>> represent.  And in multiple groups today, it was voiced by others, both
>>> inside and outside of the party, that a lack of action by this body would
>>> be speaking for the party as a whole as to their position on this issue.
>>> And honestly, I can't disagree with that assertion.
>>> Sincerely,
>>> Ken Moellman
>>> Monthly Donor
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20180113/7999e0ce/attachment.html>

More information about the Lnc-business mailing list