[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-05: Suspension of Arvin Vohra

Justin O'Donnell justin.odonnell at lp.org
Tue Apr 3 12:22:18 EDT 2018


I vote Yes.

Like Mr Katz, I had wanted to hear a response from the Vice Chair before officially casting my vote. And like many I assume, I was less than satisfied with the explanation.  For months I’ve been a stalwart defender of the principles Mr Vohra has been expressing, and defending them simply as lacking tact, or an understanding of the gravity of his position. This most recent post was the first that I could not bring myself to rationalize or defend. On the previous motion, had I been a member of this body at the time, I likely would have voted no, but here I must cast my vote in favor of disciplinary action. 

The explanation was lacking a basic fundamental acknowledgement of wrong, and instead shifted the blame to others for “not understanding the intent” and not being principled enough to understand his reasoning. The point of the matter is that this is not a philosophical debate club, this is not an echo chamber of agreement, this is a professional organization engaged in the business of influencing elections at every level in this Nation. As the Vice Chair of such an organization, Mr Vohra need be aware that he can not choose what hat he wears when he makes statements in a public forum. Anything he says is not simply a reflection of him as an individual or as a candidate, where he would have more leeway, but as a representative of the Party as a whole. He has displayed a persistent and consistent ignorance as to the impact of his statements, and has refused to acknowledge the intent of criticism to improve upon his messaging. 

As an anarchist myself, I do fundamentally and philosophically agree with much of what Mr Vohra says in his posts, but I also understand the need to frame such arguments in a manner that reaches people that are not already members of the party. For those who argue that no one outside the LP cares what our Vice Chair has to say, I would call you wrong. Time and again while working outreach booths, and attending non partisan events and recruiting for the party, I not only get questioned about Mr Vohra’s remarks, but even still about indecency and dancing at our Orlando convention- we simply are not big enough to shrug off these missteps. 

But we are a big tent party, we must understand that Liberty will not happen overnight. While I dream of the day when Anarchists and Minarchists can split ways and argue over who’s vision is a better future, we are no where close to not needing everyone on board to just push the needle in the right direction. And until that needle is pushed, a disrespectful and purist marketing strategy, that remains principled but doesn’t alienate or upset large swaths of the support base we need to grow the party and the movement is detrimental to our collective goals. 

And unfortunately, I feel the need to Vote Yes on this measure as a result. 

Justin O’Donnell
LNC Region 8 (ME, NH, VT, MA, CT, NY, NJ)

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Joshua Katz
Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 11:41 AM
To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-05: Suspension of Arvin Vohra

Now that I've seen an explanation, I vote yes.

Joshua A. Katz


On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 9:33 AM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com> wrote:

>    Since some were unable to see my video response to this, here is
>    something else I posted on mewe on this issue:
>    As you may have heard, some on the LNC are once again working to
>    suspend me from the LNC, based on an inappropriate joke I made on
>    [1]mewe.com. The joke was in poor taste, and I have already apologized
>    for it, and clarified my actual position (specifically, that I don't
>    advocate for shooting school boards. I would have considered that
>    obvious, but sometimes tone gets lost in social media).
>    But it is, I have to say, interesting to see the cognitive dissonance
>    that is growing within the Libertarian Party. Every day, I hear
>    taxation is theft. We even have new LP t-shirts that say taxation is
>    theft (they are a great way to support the LP and spread the message).
>    We agree that taxation is an immoral violation of your sacred rights.
>    We also have routinely argued that guns are not for hunting, they are
>    for opposing government overreach. I've spoken officially on this
>    issue. I've said this to cheering Libertarian and Conservative groups,
>    to furious progressive groups. I know many of you have made the same
>    argument.
>    We talk about how wrong it is for the government to rob us and use the
>    money for immoral actions like the drug war, foreign wars, and
>    government schools. A few minutes later, we talk about how guns are
>    necessary to block government tyranny and overreach.
>    I've routinely argued against any violence against the state, since I
>    consider it unlikely to work. But for all the hardcore gun supporters
>    who wear taxation is theft t-shirts: what is the level of tyranny that
>    would be great enough to morally justify using violence in self
>    defense?
>    Is being locked up in a government rape cage for a victimless crime not
>    enough moral justification? Is having your son or daughter locked up in
>    such a rape cage not enough justification? Is being robbed to have your
>    money used to bomb people in other countries, in your name not enough?
>    What level of tyranny would morally justify using the Second Amendmend
>    for what it was designed for?
>    Just to be clear: I am not, have not ever, and have no plans to ever
>    advocate violence against the state. I consider it unnecessary. I
>    believe that Dr. King and Gandhi have showed that violence is not
>    needed to fight the state. I consider it unlikely to work. As long as
>    the state keeps duping young men and women to join its enforcement arm,
>    I can't imagine any violent revolution lasting more than a few minutes.
>    As someone who trained for many years in the martial arts, I also
>    consider it against my personal principles to use a greater response
>    than what is needed. I believe in the doctrine of minimal force, which
>    is why I work within the LP, not within a citizen militia.
>    But is using a gun to defend yourself against state violence immoral?
>    God no. And violence certainly includes any violation done under threat
>    of violence.
>    Respectfully,
>    Arvin Vohra
>    Vice Chair
>    Libertarian Party
>
>    On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Jeff Hewitt <[2]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org>
>    wrote:
>
>      I vote Yes.  Jeff Hewitt Region 4 Representative
>
>    On 2018-04-03 05:07, Sam Goldstein wrote:
>
>      Yes
>      ---
>      Sam Goldstein
>      Libertarian National Committee
>      [3]317-850-0726 Cell
>      On 2018-04-03 02:16, Alicia Mattson wrote:
>
>      We have an electronic mail ballot.
>         Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by April 12, 2018 at
>      11:59:59pm
>         Pacific time.
>         Co-Sponsors:  Harlos, Van Horn, Katz, Hayes, Goldstein, Redpath,
>         Hewitt, O'Donnell
>         Motion:
>         WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party holds the non-initiation of force
>      as its
>         cardinal principle and requires each of its members certify that
>      they
>         neither advocate or believe in violent means to achieve political
>      or
>         social goals.
>         RESOLVED, that the Libertarian National Committee suspends Arvin
>      Vohra
>         from his position of Vice-Chair for sustained and repeated
>      unacceptable
>         conduct that brings the principles of the Libertarian Party into
>         disrepute, including making and defending a statement advocating
>      lethal
>         violence against state employees who are not directly threatening
>         imminent physical harm. Such action is in violation of our
>      membership
>         pledge. These actions further endanger the survival of our
>      movement and
>         the security of all of our members without their consent.
>         -Alicia
>
>    --
>    Arvin Vohra
>    [4]www.VoteVohra.com
>    [5]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>    (301) 320-3634
>
> References
>
>    1. http://mewe.com/
>    2. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>    3. tel:317-850-0726
>    4. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>    5. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>

-------------- next part --------------
   I vote Yes.


   Like Mr Katz, I had wanted to hear a response from the Vice Chair
   before officially casting my vote. And like many I assume, I was less
   than satisfied with the explanation.  For months I’ve been a stalwart
   defender of the principles Mr Vohra has been expressing, and defending
   them simply as lacking tact, or an understanding of the gravity of his
   position. This most recent post was the first that I could not bring
   myself to rationalize or defend. On the previous motion, had I been a
   member of this body at the time, I likely would have voted no, but here
   I must cast my vote in favor of disciplinary action.


   The explanation was lacking a basic fundamental acknowledgement of
   wrong, and instead shifted the blame to others for “not understanding
   the intent” and not being principled enough to understand his
   reasoning. The point of the matter is that this is not a philosophical
   debate club, this is not an echo chamber of agreement, this is a
   professional organization engaged in the business of influencing
   elections at every level in this Nation. As the Vice Chair of such an
   organization, Mr Vohra need be aware that he can not choose what hat he
   wears when he makes statements in a public forum. Anything he says is
   not simply a reflection of him as an individual or as a candidate,
   where he would have more leeway, but as a representative of the Party
   as a whole. He has displayed a persistent and consistent ignorance as
   to the impact of his statements, and has refused to acknowledge the
   intent of criticism to improve upon his messaging.


   As an anarchist myself, I do fundamentally and philosophically agree
   with much of what Mr Vohra says in his posts, but I also understand the
   need to frame such arguments in a manner that reaches people that are
   not already members of the party. For those who argue that no one
   outside the LP cares what our Vice Chair has to say, I would call you
   wrong. Time and again while working outreach booths, and attending non
   partisan events and recruiting for the party, I not only get questioned
   about Mr Vohra’s remarks, but even still about indecency and dancing at
   our Orlando convention- we simply are not big enough to shrug off these
   missteps.


   But we are a big tent party, we must understand that Liberty will not
   happen overnight. While I dream of the day when Anarchists and
   Minarchists can split ways and argue over who’s vision is a better
   future, we are no where close to not needing everyone on board to just
   push the needle in the right direction. And until that needle is
   pushed, a disrespectful and purist marketing strategy, that remains
   principled but doesn’t alienate or upset large swaths of the support
   base we need to grow the party and the movement is detrimental to our
   collective goals.


   And unfortunately, I feel the need to Vote Yes on this measure as a
   result.


   Justin O’Donnell

   LNC Region 8 (ME, NH, VT, MA, CT, NY, NJ)


   Sent from [1]Mail for Windows 10


   From: [2]Joshua Katz
   Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 11:41 AM
   To: [3]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
   Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-05: Suspension of Arvin
   Vohra


   Now that I've seen an explanation, I vote yes.


   Joshua A. Katz



   On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 9:33 AM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com>
   wrote:


   >    Since some were unable to see my video response to this, here is

   >    something else I posted on mewe on this issue:

   >    As you may have heard, some on the LNC are once again working to

   >    suspend me from the LNC, based on an inappropriate joke I made on

   >    [1]mewe.com. The joke was in poor taste, and I have already
   apologized

   >    for it, and clarified my actual position (specifically, that I
   don't

   >    advocate for shooting school boards. I would have considered that

   >    obvious, but sometimes tone gets lost in social media).

   >    But it is, I have to say, interesting to see the cognitive
   dissonance

   >    that is growing within the Libertarian Party. Every day, I hear

   >    taxation is theft. We even have new LP t-shirts that say taxation
   is

   >    theft (they are a great way to support the LP and spread the
   message).

   >    We agree that taxation is an immoral violation of your sacred
   rights.

   >    We also have routinely argued that guns are not for hunting, they
   are

   >    for opposing government overreach. I've spoken officially on this

   >    issue. I've said this to cheering Libertarian and Conservative
   groups,

   >    to furious progressive groups. I know many of you have made the
   same

   >    argument.

   >    We talk about how wrong it is for the government to rob us and use
   the

   >    money for immoral actions like the drug war, foreign wars, and

   >    government schools. A few minutes later, we talk about how guns
   are

   >    necessary to block government tyranny and overreach.

   >    I've routinely argued against any violence against the state,
   since I

   >    consider it unlikely to work. But for all the hardcore gun
   supporters

   >    who wear taxation is theft t-shirts: what is the level of tyranny
   that

   >    would be great enough to morally justify using violence in self

   >    defense?

   >    Is being locked up in a government rape cage for a victimless
   crime not

   >    enough moral justification? Is having your son or daughter locked
   up in

   >    such a rape cage not enough justification? Is being robbed to have
   your

   >    money used to bomb people in other countries, in your name not
   enough?

   >    What level of tyranny would morally justify using the Second
   Amendmend

   >    for what it was designed for?

   >    Just to be clear: I am not, have not ever, and have no plans to
   ever

   >    advocate violence against the state. I consider it unnecessary. I

   >    believe that Dr. King and Gandhi have showed that violence is not

   >    needed to fight the state. I consider it unlikely to work. As long
   as

   >    the state keeps duping young men and women to join its enforcement
   arm,

   >    I can't imagine any violent revolution lasting more than a few
   minutes.

   >    As someone who trained for many years in the martial arts, I also

   >    consider it against my personal principles to use a greater
   response

   >    than what is needed. I believe in the doctrine of minimal force,
   which

   >    is why I work within the LP, not within a citizen militia.

   >    But is using a gun to defend yourself against state violence
   immoral?

   >    God no. And violence certainly includes any violation done under
   threat

   >    of violence.

   >    Respectfully,

   >    Arvin Vohra

   >    Vice Chair

   >    Libertarian Party

   >

   >    On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Jeff Hewitt
   <[2]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org>

   >    wrote:

   >

   >      I vote Yes.  Jeff Hewitt Region 4 Representative

   >

   >    On 2018-04-03 05:07, Sam Goldstein wrote:

   >

   >      Yes

   >      ---

   >      Sam Goldstein

   >      Libertarian National Committee

   >      [3]317-850-0726 Cell

   >      On 2018-04-03 02:16, Alicia Mattson wrote:

   >

   >      We have an electronic mail ballot.

   >         Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by April 12, 2018 at

   >      11:59:59pm

   >         Pacific time.

   >         Co-Sponsors:  Harlos, Van Horn, Katz, Hayes, Goldstein,
   Redpath,

   >         Hewitt, O'Donnell

   >         Motion:

   >         WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party holds the non-initiation of
   force

   >      as its

   >         cardinal principle and requires each of its members certify
   that

   >      they

   >         neither advocate or believe in violent means to achieve
   political

   >      or

   >         social goals.

   >         RESOLVED, that the Libertarian National Committee suspends
   Arvin

   >      Vohra

   >         from his position of Vice-Chair for sustained and repeated

   >      unacceptable

   >         conduct that brings the principles of the Libertarian Party
   into

   >         disrepute, including making and defending a statement
   advocating

   >      lethal

   >         violence against state employees who are not directly
   threatening

   >         imminent physical harm. Such action is in violation of our

   >      membership

   >         pledge. These actions further endanger the survival of our

   >      movement and

   >         the security of all of our members without their consent.

   >         -Alicia

   >

   >    --

   >    Arvin Vohra

   >    [4]www.VoteVohra.com

   >    [5]VoteVohra at gmail.com

   >    (301) 320-3634

   >

   > References

   >

   >    1. http://mewe.com/

   >    2. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

   >    3. tel:317-850-0726

   >    4. http://www.VoteVohra.com/

   >    5. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com

   >

References

   1. https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986
   2. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
   3. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list