[Lnc-business] FYI

Caryn Ann Harlos caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Thu Jan 18 15:04:13 EST 2018


Correct.

There is an utter refusal to realize this isn’t about a perfect
philosophical point.

It is about basic judgment.  A shred of empathy and consideration.

Your continued behavior is convincing people.

Enough already.

And Daniel is right.  You will just ratchet up.

I don’t consent.

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:28 AM <erin.adams at lp.org> wrote:

>
> I agree with Mr. Hayes on this. I have been relatively silent throughout
> this "ordeal" all the while sitting in consideration of all "sides". At
> this point,enough is enough.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2018-01-18 11:20, Daniel Hayes wrote:
> > Arvin,
> >
> >    I have been a staunch “NO” on your removal.  It was not because I
> > think
> >    there should be no government involvement in age of consent because
> > I
> >    do think there needs to be some line in the sand on that issue.  My
> >    strong reluctance has been because it potentially chills the speech
> > of
> >    this board’s members which should be somewhat bold advocating for
> >    Liberty.  It’s never a good outcome when members of a board vote to
> >    remove their peers.  We don’t want our governance of the
> > organization
> >    between conventions to be a circular firing squad. We also don’t
> > want
> >    to encourage overall members to know that if they exaggerate and
> >    mischaracterize what someone they don’t agree with says and then
> > jump
> >    up and down enough, they can have them removed. Then there is the
> > fact
> >    that I personally like you.
> >
> >    All of that said, you just don’t recognize that we are a POLITICAL
> >    PARTY.  This is not about finding the exact right philosophical
> >    argument.  We are also dealing with people’s emotions here.   You
> > are
> >    still arguing the academic point. This is not about that.  It’s
> >    ultimately about your lack of empathy to others on this board,
> > others
> >    running for office, and others in the Party and others that have
> > been
> >    victims of child sexual abuse.   You say families and culture should
> >    stop it.   The sad reality is it is usually a family member that is
> > the
> >    abuser or a trusted friend of the family or a trusted cultural
> > member
> >    of their community like a church leader.  That is why we need SOME
> > law
> >    that makes a line in the sand.  Then we need to be more diligent as
> > a
> >    society and make greater use of jury nullification when the law is
> >    abused as well as hold legislators to task.  That said this is a
> >    sensitive issue and you just don’t show any sensitivity.
> >
> >    It is your latest attempt to sway minds on the LNC that has swayed
> > mine
> >    with this sentence.
> >
> >     “But as I consider the actions of the aforementioned great minds, I
> >    believe that I have been, perhaps, too timid.”
> >
> >    This says to me that over the next 5 month you are only going to
> >    ratchet up your rhetoric.  It is with great sadness that I must
> >    consider myself as a “YES” on any vote for your removal.
> >
> >    Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
> >
> >    Sent from my iPhone
> >    On Jan 18, 2018, at 10:26 AM, Arvin Vohra <[1]votevohra at gmail.com>
> >    wrote:
> >
> >      A bit more information for consideration before the upcoming
> >    electronic
> >      meeting. This is taken from my facebook page:
> >      Over the last few days, I've heard from many people about
> > different
> >      Libertarian theories of age of consent, both online and offline. I
> >    have
> >      become convinced that a law that I previously considered sort of
> >    silly
> >      is far more deeply flawed than I realized.
> >      The issue with current laws is that it tries to set the age of
> >    consent
> >      as "the age past which sexual manipulation is impossible, or
> >    extremely
> >      unlikely." This is a fools errand. There is no such age.
> >      Biologically, the prefrontal cortex continues developing until
> > around
> >      age 25. However, the prefrontal cortex of some 25 year olds will
> >      obviously be inferior to that of other 16 year olds.
> >      But the physical development of the prefrontal cortex doesn't tell
> >    the
> >      whole story. 40 year olds, because of their life experience, may
> > have
> >      more impulse control than 25 year olds, as well as more ability to
> >      manipulate. Some people are, through genetics or practice, easily
> >    able
> >      to manipulate people their own age or older.
> >      And some people don't. Even the hardcore statists haven't gone so
> > far
> >      as to argue that 100% of sex between teenagers and adults is
> >      problematic, that at no point in history was that beneficial. Some
> >    have
> >      even discussed the lasting marriages of their own grandparents
> > (and
> >      occasionally parents).
> >      Many supposed anarchists have gone running to statism, like the
> >    "brave"
> >      kids who run and hide behind mommy at the first sign of, well,
> >      anything.
> >      There are other models worth considering. The first is the German
> >      model. Yes, I know it's still statism, but it can inform anarchist
> >    and
> >      minarchist thought. In Germany, the age of consent is set low, at
> > 14.
> >      However, if there is an age gap, and the younger person feels as
> > if
> >    he
> >      or she has been exploited, manipulated, etc., that person can
> > press
> >      charges. This enables positive romance, and puts a bar on
> >    manipulation.
> >      It puts the burden of responsibility on the older person, which is
> >      where it should be. American law, on the other hand, basically say
> > to
> >    a
> >      younger person who feels exploited, but was of age, "Well you said
> >    yes,
> >      sucks to be you LOL!!!"
> >      Murray Rothbard discussed "homesteading", which has some
> > application.
> >      Once a person at any age has set himself up independent of his
> >    parents,
> >      has a job/business, residence, etc., he or she is free to make his
> >    own
> >      decisions about everything.
> >      Some objectivists have similarly argued that when a person can
> > take
> >    on
> >      the responsibilities of adulthood, they have the right to make
> > their
> >      own decisions. I like that idea. I would extend it by saying that
> >    those
> >      who cannot take on those responsibilities don't have those rights.
> >      Those who have kids they cannot afford, and then have 15 more they
> >      cannot afford, are violating that. I don't think the state should
> > be
> >      involved. I also don't think the state should subsidize that
> > behavior
> >      through welfare, as it has been doing for decades (and yes,
> > welfare
> >      does include government schools).
> >      I've also learned about the history of those who have spoke out
> >    against
> >      these laws, particularly in Europe. I was surprised to see people
> >    like
> >      legendary feminist Simone de Beauvoir and philosopher Jean Paul
> >    Sartre
> >      sign a petition demanding the release of three men who had been
> >    jailed
> >      for violating age of consent laws...way back in the ancient times
> > of
> >      1977. These were intellectual giants with big ideas, people of
> >    incisive
> >      thought and massive reach. Some may have been statists too, but I
> >      frankly am more in awe of statists with big minds and bid ideas
> > than
> >      with small minded libertarians with minor-league ideas. Were those
> >      giants loved and hated? Sure. Were they influential? I'd say so.
> >      Let's not let the fact that we are a smaller movement make us
> > small
> >      minded. Let's not be afraid to challenge the big, sacred ideas.
> > Not
> >      just point out areas where they give absurd results, but challenge
> >      their very fundamental underpinnings.
> >      In a few days, there will be a meeting to consider removing me
> > from
> >    the
> >      LNC for bringing this issue up not nicely enough. But as I
> > consider
> >    the
> >      actions of the aforementioned great minds, I believe that I have
> >    been,
> >      perhaps, too timid.
> >      Respectfully,
> >      [1]Arvin Vohra
> >      --
> >      Arvin Vohra
> >      [2][2]www.VoteVohra.com
> >      [3][3]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> >      (301) 320-3634
> >    References
> >      1. [4]https://www.facebook.com/VohraEducation/?fref=mentions
> >      2. [5]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> >      3. [6]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
> >
> >    _______________________________________________
> >    Lnc-business mailing list
> >    [7]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> >    [8]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> >
> > References
> >
> >    1. mailto:votevohra at gmail.com
> >    2. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> >    3. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
> >    4. https://www.facebook.com/VohraEducation/?fref=mentions
> >    5. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> >    6. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
> >    7. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> >    8. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lnc-business mailing list
> > Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> > http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
-------------- next part --------------
   Correct.
   There is an utter refusal to realize this isn’t about a perfect
   philosophical point.
   It is about basic judgment.  A shred of empathy and consideration.
   Your continued behavior is convincing people.
   Enough already.
   And Daniel is right.  You will just ratchet up.
   I don’t consent.
   On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:28 AM <[1]erin.adams at lp.org> wrote:

     I agree with Mr. Hayes on this. I have been relatively silent
     throughout
     this "ordeal" all the while sitting in consideration of all "sides".
     At
     this point,enough is enough.
     On 2018-01-18 11:20, Daniel Hayes wrote:
     > Arvin,
     >
     >    I have been a staunch “NO” on your removal.  It was not because
     I
     > think
     >    there should be no government involvement in age of consent
     because
     > I
     >    do think there needs to be some line in the sand on that
     issue.  My
     >    strong reluctance has been because it potentially chills the
     speech
     > of
     >    this board’s members which should be somewhat bold advocating
     for
     >    Liberty.  It’s never a good outcome when members of a board
     vote to
     >    remove their peers.  We don’t want our governance of the
     > organization
     >    between conventions to be a circular firing squad. We also
     don’t
     > want
     >    to encourage overall members to know that if they exaggerate
     and
     >    mischaracterize what someone they don’t agree with says and
     then
     > jump
     >    up and down enough, they can have them removed. Then there is
     the
     > fact
     >    that I personally like you.
     >
     >    All of that said, you just don’t recognize that we are a
     POLITICAL
     >    PARTY.  This is not about finding the exact right philosophical
     >    argument.  We are also dealing with people’s emotions here.
     You
     > are
     >    still arguing the academic point. This is not about that.  It’s
     >    ultimately about your lack of empathy to others on this board,
     > others
     >    running for office, and others in the Party and others that
     have
     > been
     >    victims of child sexual abuse.   You say families and culture
     should
     >    stop it.   The sad reality is it is usually a family member
     that is
     > the
     >    abuser or a trusted friend of the family or a trusted cultural
     > member
     >    of their community like a church leader.  That is why we need
     SOME
     > law
     >    that makes a line in the sand.  Then we need to be more
     diligent as
     > a
     >    society and make greater use of jury nullification when the law
     is
     >    abused as well as hold legislators to task.  That said this is
     a
     >    sensitive issue and you just don’t show any sensitivity.
     >
     >    It is your latest attempt to sway minds on the LNC that has
     swayed
     > mine
     >    with this sentence.
     >
     >     “But as I consider the actions of the aforementioned great
     minds, I
     >    believe that I have been, perhaps, too timid.”
     >
     >    This says to me that over the next 5 month you are only going
     to
     >    ratchet up your rhetoric.  It is with great sadness that I must
     >    consider myself as a “YES” on any vote for your removal.
     >
     >    Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
     >
     >    Sent from my iPhone
     >    On Jan 18, 2018, at 10:26 AM, Arvin Vohra
     <[1][2]votevohra at gmail.com>
     >    wrote:
     >
     >      A bit more information for consideration before the upcoming
     >    electronic
     >      meeting. This is taken from my facebook page:
     >      Over the last few days, I've heard from many people about
     > different
     >      Libertarian theories of age of consent, both online and
     offline. I
     >    have
     >      become convinced that a law that I previously considered sort
     of
     >    silly
     >      is far more deeply flawed than I realized.
     >      The issue with current laws is that it tries to set the age
     of
     >    consent
     >      as "the age past which sexual manipulation is impossible, or
     >    extremely
     >      unlikely." This is a fools errand. There is no such age.
     >      Biologically, the prefrontal cortex continues developing
     until
     > around
     >      age 25. However, the prefrontal cortex of some 25 year olds
     will
     >      obviously be inferior to that of other 16 year olds.
     >      But the physical development of the prefrontal cortex doesn't
     tell
     >    the
     >      whole story. 40 year olds, because of their life experience,
     may
     > have
     >      more impulse control than 25 year olds, as well as more
     ability to
     >      manipulate. Some people are, through genetics or practice,
     easily
     >    able
     >      to manipulate people their own age or older.
     >      And some people don't. Even the hardcore statists haven't
     gone so
     > far
     >      as to argue that 100% of sex between teenagers and adults is
     >      problematic, that at no point in history was that beneficial.
     Some
     >    have
     >      even discussed the lasting marriages of their own
     grandparents
     > (and
     >      occasionally parents).
     >      Many supposed anarchists have gone running to statism, like
     the
     >    "brave"
     >      kids who run and hide behind mommy at the first sign of,
     well,
     >      anything.
     >      There are other models worth considering. The first is the
     German
     >      model. Yes, I know it's still statism, but it can inform
     anarchist
     >    and
     >      minarchist thought. In Germany, the age of consent is set
     low, at
     > 14.
     >      However, if there is an age gap, and the younger person feels
     as
     > if
     >    he
     >      or she has been exploited, manipulated, etc., that person can
     > press
     >      charges. This enables positive romance, and puts a bar on
     >    manipulation.
     >      It puts the burden of responsibility on the older person,
     which is
     >      where it should be. American law, on the other hand,
     basically say
     > to
     >    a
     >      younger person who feels exploited, but was of age, "Well you
     said
     >    yes,
     >      sucks to be you LOL!!!"
     >      Murray Rothbard discussed "homesteading", which has some
     > application.
     >      Once a person at any age has set himself up independent of
     his
     >    parents,
     >      has a job/business, residence, etc., he or she is free to
     make his
     >    own
     >      decisions about everything.
     >      Some objectivists have similarly argued that when a person
     can
     > take
     >    on
     >      the responsibilities of adulthood, they have the right to
     make
     > their
     >      own decisions. I like that idea. I would extend it by saying
     that
     >    those
     >      who cannot take on those responsibilities don't have those
     rights.
     >      Those who have kids they cannot afford, and then have 15 more
     they
     >      cannot afford, are violating that. I don't think the state
     should
     > be
     >      involved. I also don't think the state should subsidize that
     > behavior
     >      through welfare, as it has been doing for decades (and yes,
     > welfare
     >      does include government schools).
     >      I've also learned about the history of those who have spoke
     out
     >    against
     >      these laws, particularly in Europe. I was surprised to see
     people
     >    like
     >      legendary feminist Simone de Beauvoir and philosopher Jean
     Paul
     >    Sartre
     >      sign a petition demanding the release of three men who had
     been
     >    jailed
     >      for violating age of consent laws...way back in the ancient
     times
     > of
     >      1977. These were intellectual giants with big ideas, people
     of
     >    incisive
     >      thought and massive reach. Some may have been statists too,
     but I
     >      frankly am more in awe of statists with big minds and bid
     ideas
     > than
     >      with small minded libertarians with minor-league ideas. Were
     those
     >      giants loved and hated? Sure. Were they influential? I'd say
     so.
     >      Let's not let the fact that we are a smaller movement make us
     > small
     >      minded. Let's not be afraid to challenge the big, sacred
     ideas.
     > Not
     >      just point out areas where they give absurd results, but
     challenge
     >      their very fundamental underpinnings.
     >      In a few days, there will be a meeting to consider removing
     me
     > from
     >    the
     >      LNC for bringing this issue up not nicely enough. But as I
     > consider
     >    the
     >      actions of the aforementioned great minds, I believe that I
     have
     >    been,
     >      perhaps, too timid.
     >      Respectfully,
     >      [1]Arvin Vohra
     >      --
     >      Arvin Vohra
     >      [2][2][3]www.VoteVohra.com
     >      [3][3][4]VoteVohra at gmail.com
     >      (301) 320-3634
     >    References
     >      1.
     [4][5]https://www.facebook.com/VohraEducation/?fref=mentions
     >      2. [5][6]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
     >      3. [6]mailto:[7]VoteVohra at gmail.com
     >
     >    _______________________________________________
     >    Lnc-business mailing list
     >    [7][8]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
     >    [8][9]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
     >
     > References
     >
     >    1. mailto:[10]votevohra at gmail.com
     >    2. [11]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
     >    3. mailto:[12]VoteVohra at gmail.com
     >    4. [13]https://www.facebook.com/VohraEducation/?fref=mentions
     >    5. [14]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
     >    6. mailto:[15]VoteVohra at gmail.com
     >    7. mailto:[16]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
     >    8. [17]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
     >
     > _______________________________________________
     > Lnc-business mailing list
     > [18]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
     > [19]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
     _______________________________________________
     Lnc-business mailing list
     [20]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
     [21]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

References

   1. mailto:erin.adams at lp.org
   2. mailto:votevohra at gmail.com
   3. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
   4. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
   5. https://www.facebook.com/VohraEducation/?fref=mentions
   6. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
   7. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
   8. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
   9. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
  10. mailto:votevohra at gmail.com
  11. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  12. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  13. https://www.facebook.com/VohraEducation/?fref=mentions
  14. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  15. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  16. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  17. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
  18. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  19. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
  20. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  21. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list