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

Patrick McKnight patrick.mcknight at lp.org
Sat Jan 13 09:46:05 EST 2018


Thank you for your hard work on behalf of the party and your thoughtful
comments on this latest embarrassment to our organization. As you know, I
made a motion to remove Arvin last year. Unfortunately, not one member of
the LNC felt comfortable supporting my motion at the time. I hope that
changes now.

Patrick McKnight
LNC Region 8 Rep
Chair, New Jersey Libertarian Party

On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 5:51 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>

> 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
> so 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
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20180113/7106a026/attachment.html>

More information about the Lnc-business mailing list